View Profile: Arial Black - Morrus' Unofficial Tabletop RPG News
No Recent Activity
About Arial Black

Basic Information

About Arial Black
Introduction:
Be Pure, Be Vigilant, Behave!
About Me:
The game must go on!
Location:
Leeds, England, United Kingdom (near Europe)
Disable sharing sidebar?:
No
Sex:
Male
Age Group:
Over 40
My Game Details

Details of games currently playing and games being sought.

Town:
Leeds
State:
Leeds
Country:
United Kingdom

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,283
Posts Per Day
0.89
Last Post
The Making and Breaking of Deities & Demigods Thursday, 30th May, 2019 03:04 PM

Currency

Gold Pieces
5
General Information
Last Activity
Sunday, 14th July, 2019 09:48 PM
Join Date
Monday, 10th August, 2015
Product Reviews & Ratings
Reviews Written
0
My Game Details
Town:
Leeds
State:
Leeds
Country:
United Kingdom

Monday, 8th July, 2019


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Friday, 1st March, 2019

  • 12:27 AM - FrogReaver mentioned Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    ...hen your Attack action is still a single block in the timeline. You might think of these blocks as Scrabble tiles or cards or tokens or whatever, and your turn is you basically laying these down one by one in order. The DM or other players can also play their tiles/cards/tokens via reactions, which may alter what can happen on the rest of your turn. Thus, if you intend to take the Attack action but get incapacitated, the Attack tile/card/token/block never gets played and your turn ends. This trivially solves the question of whether you could play a tile/card/token/block that is triggered by the Attack action, specifically you cannot until that tile/card/token/block has actually been played. This is the most logical interpretation of the rules for me, given the fact that 5E is a turn-based game. I'm clearly not going to convince any of you otherwise, so I'll just stop now. I'm curious about what makes you think the attack action is instantaneous while disengage is not. As Arial Black mentioned, you can attack, move around a bunch and then attack again. How the heck do you construe that as instantaneous?

Monday, 18th February, 2019

  • 12:02 AM - Hussar mentioned Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Arial Black - I agree, that the rules delineate what you can do. However, nothing in the rules says that you can divide up an Attack Action with anything other than movement, and then only if you have multiple attacks. If you have a single attack, obviously you cannot divide up the Attack Action at all. The only exception seems to be when you gain multiple attacks and you want to move. If you were correct and you could drop a bonus action into the middle of an Attack Action, why wouldn't they have called this out, the way they called out movement? I mean, the movement rules are pretty clear - it's called out in a completely separate paragraph that if you have multiple attacks, you can move between attacks. If the intent was to allow bonus actions the same latitude, wouldn't it be called out the same way? Since it isn't called out and in fact the only thing about timing that is called out is that you can do it during your turn or at the time specified by the bonus action, why wou...

Sunday, 10th February, 2019

  • 11:58 PM - Hussar mentioned Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Arial Black - your example has a problem. The phrase "If you take a law degree" is wrong. It should be, "If you are taking a law degree, then you can use the library". You are trying to use present simple tense for an ongoing action, which, while colloquially done, is grammatically incorrect. Now, for the "take a walk, lock my door" example, yes, that's true. And, honestly, I did misspeak. However, that doesn't apply in this case because the feat specifically delineates an order of action - take the Attack action THEN take the bonus action. The issue at hand is, does having multiple attacks make the Attack Action divisible? Nothing in the rules says that it does. And, the existence of exceptions like movement during an Attack Action certainly strongly implies that no, it is not divisible. Having a single attack or multiple attacks has no impact on the Attack Action - when you take the Attack Action, you must complete that action before taking a Bonus action. ((Or you could take th...

Friday, 21st September, 2018

  • 01:54 AM - pemerton mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    ...sulting your DM just so you can get into the Oathbreaker oath, which is DM controlled: "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide." It seems to me the DM needs to be in on that from the very beginning, starting with "I want to try out the Oathbreaker option, what are the ideas that fit into the campaign so we can make this work for everyone." As I said, I find the approach of the GM opening up or closing off options because s/he likes or doesn't like the player's idea unappealing. If the option is mechanically broken - an error in the game design - then the group should be able to agree not to go there regardless of the quality of any backstory. And if the option is not mechanically broken, then a player is entitled to choose it like any other option even if s/he is not very imaginative in relation to PC backstory. As far as Arial Black's idea is concerned, I didn't see any issues with it and I don't understand your complaint. If it would be fine if the GM invented it, why is it suddenly a problem because the player invented it? he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.) He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC. You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?When players play devout characters - in D&D that's mostly clerics and paladins - I assume that they are capable of taking the lead on what the god is about, what it means to be faithful or unfaithful, etc. If I have my own ideas I met inject them with due care, but I've got enough to think about when running a game without also managing a player's implementation of his/her PC's religous conscience. The ...

Wednesday, 19th September, 2018

  • 06:37 PM - Satyrn mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend? It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God. Did you clear that with your DM? Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with? I was wondering for a moment why Arial Black had said the character would believe that all the divine paladin powers came from the fiend, then I noticed that he switched out of paladin after 2nd level, so he never did select an Oath. I thought it was awfully clever that he used the multiclass rules to model getting tricked into making a fiendish pact while thinking he was swearing a sacred oath.

Wednesday, 12th September, 2018

  • 07:09 PM - Satyrn mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    I agree with about 95%+ of what you say here. Like i have said, i have no problem with the civie barbarian or even the wolfy sex tricks as the starting point of a discussion about how things tie together and fit or dont fit the campaign. My general mindset is "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no." Buffy is absolutely a fighter or monk more precisely archetype with supernatural origin - even to the bound spirits angle. a GM should strongly consider allowing it if it fits within the scope of the campaign he and the players have devised. IMO. i would certainly do so. But this should not be brought to the table as a player's right" to add and GM hands off territory. IMO. because the Gm might well have a very compelling reason to say no. So, like, I'm pretty sure Arial Black could chime in and say "that's what I've been saying from the start!"
  • 01:31 PM - TwoSix mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    i thought the same until it was pretty much made clear by explicit statement that wasn't the case - that my assessment that they did not really mean the extreme was strongly corrected to say they did mean it just that strongly etc. you can choose to dismiss what others say and even clarify to their full measure - thats cool. its like the definition of dismissive but hey - to each their own. i don't have a view on what "the setting" in anyone's rpg "should be" beyond "what the group decides they want". With that in mind, i get to avoid making judgements from on high about other people's choices as to how their make-believe-co-op activity works or find clever ways to decide that a theoretical Gm has theoretically gone too far. of course, a key to this part if "they" not "I" and "group wants" instead of "one player mandates". YMMV If that's the interpretation you're getting from Arial Black's posts, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
  • 01:19 AM - Salthorae mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    ... not the process by which the game rules convert narrative into mechanics. The correct and consistent translation would be that they have the equivalent of leather armor. If you claim that the given narrative equates to whatever mechanic you want, then you are cheating the system, by changing the way it converts narrative into mechanics. Thanks for the italics, really helped drive home your point and make me see the light. I am not claiming the given narrative equates to whatever mechanic I want and I'm not cheating anything. I'm saying that an animal/lycanthrope's natural armor (of whatever mechanical bonus) that makes it harder to hit, jives pretty well with the barbarian's Unarmored defense...which is natural... and makes them harder to hit. I'm not going for a 100% alignment, but a "here's some points of commonality and overlay, so sure that works for me." There is no codified way that narrative converts to mechanics in any D&D system. Anywhere. I am simply agreeing with Arial Black's narrative to class overlay. Mechanics are defined and they do allow you to tell a narrative, but there is no official codified way that the reverse is true. Narrative/fluff may inform (see? they really help!) mechanics design and application, but you cannot say that "a" narrative must always equate to "x" mechanic. A game system isn't just a set of pre-defined classes that have pre-defined mechanics tied to their pre-defined narrative existences. A game system is the whole language by which a narrative is converted into mechanics. Err, I think you have that opposite. A game system is a defined language of mechanics by which a narrative is enacted (in whatever medium you choose from PBP to TBT to Streaming). See above. The type of hide which a wolf has is translated into a specific mechanical bonus, and if you alter that translation without altering the underlying narrative, then you aren't even playing that game anymore. Just because those mechanics could be tied to that ne...

Monday, 10th September, 2018

  • 10:38 PM - Salthorae mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    I've been keeping it crystal clear at our tables by saying Classes and Races need to be picked from official WotC books. That's plenty for a player to work with. If a DM wanted to exclude elves or warlocks or SCAG or whatever for the campaign, that's fine, too. That's how the campaign is going to roll/role. If a player REALLY REALLY wants that cyber-ninja, I'm sure there's another table out there where it would work. Ok, so how would you handle Arial Black's "civilized" barbarian? Using a Soldier and Barbarian class at 1st level from the PHB? But he's saying his Barbarian has rage not because of some uncivilized/untamed ties with nature or spirits or totems, but that because his noble father werewolved mid-conception? Totally core PHB class and background. Not a "cyber-ninja". Just curious!

Saturday, 8th September, 2018

  • 07:48 PM - Sadras mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    @Arial Black, what you described in your post was perfectly cool and reflected upon a collaboration of DM and player which is how we play at our table. The setting may have some hard core limitations (no specific classes or races or specific rules about magic etc) but the background fluff can be worked through. All good. Small tangent, I have noticed that a lot of people reference 'DM' instead of 'table'. At our table we all make decisions collectively about the kind of game we want. If a player makes a character we don't want to play with then we as the table will veto them. It has nothing to do with 'fragility'. We are there to have fun and while we could put up with many disruptive players and/or characters, we don't want to. Life is too short. We have a similar house rule. If a player is forced to create a new character due to death or otherwise, any other player may veto the new character created if they believe it clashes with their own.

Friday, 7th September, 2018

  • 06:03 PM - Salthorae mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    .... Maybe they try to re-create it and make a bunch of children they can raise in their beliefs that aren't tainted by the curse of lycanthropy but who have some bestial traits (rage/alertness). I only see that as making my job as DM easier. Unless you already have a railroad story you want to send the characters down that doesn't fit that. Then ignore any plot hooks this backstory generates. It only effects your game as much as you let it as the DM effect how things in your game work. Maybe it's not ANY different. Rage is an extension of the supernatural in your world, and animal totems are very tied to barbarian classes. Maybe it's the spirit of animals that grant in some small way the rage abilities, and in this case this PC is accessing those spirit animals (wolf) differently, but it's the same spirit and same rage. That is up to you as a DM. But I don't see your reading of Arial's backstory as "trying to work with a player" to integrate their PC/story into the game or world. Arial Black - that is a cool backstory and a great way to think up a "civilized" barbarian. I like that you took Alertness with your variant human feat for the flavor of it. I would absolutely allow that for my games. I would still reserve the right to revoke Divine (read Cleric/Druid/Paladin) abilities if a PC went against their God/Oaths/Nature. Of course I would discuss with player first or drop serious hints, and it wouldn't be for random or light things. But for heavy, continued, willful violation, absolutely.

Monday, 3rd September, 2018

  • 03:52 PM - Sadras mentioned Arial Black in post Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
    What i found odd tho (unclear apparently) was the immediate juxtaposition of disallowing an expressly optional element and disallowing a core element to try and use that juxtaposition to paint the former with the latter. Odd was the ommission of consideration of optional per the rules vs core per the rules. True, but if the DM allows MC but disallows a pallock, then the juxtaposition made by @Arial Black stands. I could be mistaken, but that is what it seemed like in Saelorn's post - he/she was referring to a particular MC being disallowed.

Tuesday, 8th May, 2018

  • 07:32 AM - Coroc mentioned Arial Black in post Xanathar's Elven Accuracy
    Henry Yup, that style of rogue/pally might work rp wise, but not many else. You and Arial Black have thus convinced me so far and i will send Aragorn the dual wield drow ninja turtle Hobbit pirate to the rescue of the unjustly incarcerated Sir Pureheart, so he might earn enough XP to take a dip in light cleric so he can self heal between double backstabs :P

Saturday, 11th November, 2017

  • 07:03 PM - Hriston mentioned Arial Black in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    That's a Strawman. I didn't say adventurers. I said PC adventurers. My mistake. I guess I was thrown off by the metagame distinction of PC/NPC being talked about as if it was something discernable within the game-world. It brings up the question of why an NPC would want to become a PC. I very much doubt that's the sort of world Arial Black is imagining at all! I think the point still stands, however. Just because your current party of PCs used point-buy for their abilities, doesn't mean there can't be another party of PCs in the same campaign that has scores outside the 8-15 range due to using other score generation methods, nor would it strain credulity for that to be the case.

Sunday, 29th October, 2017

  • 11:22 PM - Hussar mentioned Arial Black in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    Never minding that Arial Black is still insisting that a chargen method meant for PC's MUST be applied to NPC's, when that is flat out contradicted by the rules. He's also insisting on the presumption that all NPC's MUST have an 3-18 range, when that isn't true in 5e. They don't have a range at all. If we are insisting that we use PC gen rules for NPC's, then the range is 3-15. THAT is the range for normal humans. Which is no more or less arbitrary than insisting that the top must be 18. OTOH, if you presume that an 18 is only available after intensive training, and a 20 only to those truly spectacular individuals, i.e. those who gain levels, then the range works perfectly well. Now, the kings archer regiments aren't all 18 Dex individuals. After all, it would be pretty easy to conscript entire regiments of super high dex people if we are presuming that a 17 or 18 on a die roll for dex. We're only looking at about 1% of the population. That would be easy to find and recruit. Yet, funnily enough, we ...

Friday, 27th October, 2017

  • 01:05 PM - Hussar mentioned Arial Black in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    ...cs, die rolling better reflects the random chances of birth. And, to be fair, I get the appeal. We all want our games to be somewhat grounded in believability. Fair enough. To me though, I find the argument far too self serving. There's apparently no problems with choosing background, choosing where to place those die rolled stats (arrange to taste is apparently fine), choosing class and pretty much every other element of the character, none of which a person really has control over. But, apparently, while it's perfectly fine to declare that my character is part of the nobility, it's not acceptable to claim that I have a 14 Strength. :uhoh: Again, to me, this is where the self serving element comes in. Because, if it's not true that die rolling is more realistic, then, well, there's nothing really else to recommend it. It's pretty much just power gaming. If die rolling isn't realistic, then, well, what other reason is there to roll other than to try for that 18 stat? As Arial Black has repeatedly pointed out, playing a standard array or point buy character means that you can't be good at everything. If you want to play that charismatic barbarian, you have to give up a bit of combat power. But, if you die roll, and roll well enough, you can turn to everyone, secure in the fact that you are a good player, you did chance the dice after all, and play that character that's just flat out better.

Thursday, 26th October, 2017

  • 03:34 PM - Hriston mentioned Arial Black in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    Page 110 of the DMG gives NPCs the average ROLLED ON 3D6. So it comes from 3e. I stand corrected on my claim that no edition of D&D stated this explicitly. My refutation of Arial Black's claim that D&D had this assumption from the beginning still stands, however. The 1e DMG is the first source for deriving the ability scores for the "average" NPC, and the method given is to roll three averaging dice. I think Pathfinder got this right by giving this type of NPC the array 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, which is the array most likely to result from rolling three averaging dice. The most likely array resulting from 3d6, on the other hand, is 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7.
  • 05:07 AM - Hriston mentioned Arial Black in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    No. Quite the contrary - for the most part you just decide what the ability scores are for an NPC. If you do roll you average it out. It directly contradicts the "roll 3d6 for ability scores for all NPCs". Okay, just making sure. That's the same method I've been talking about for some time now. I don't have my truly old books any more but you can get some in PDF and they don't say anything about rolling 3d6 for all NPCs that I know of. There may be some supplement written in the 70s that talks about it or it could be just another myth. Since the AD&D book was published later, it would in theory take precedence. Irregardless I don't see how it is relevant in any way shape or form. I use the rules for the current edition, not some supplement that was created by volunteers and handed out as a booklet (or whatever source it is that was being referenced). I don't think any source has been cited as supporting Arial Black's claim. He seems to think it's good enough to simply claim it as "truth".

Tuesday, 24th October, 2017

  • 10:57 PM - Satyrn mentioned Arial Black in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    NPCs with classes and levels are not representative of the general population. It also doesn't suggest rolling 3d6 for them, so I have no idea how you think this helps make your or Arial Black's point. I believe his view is wrong, but I understand how he got that impression. I used to think that myself before I looked into it. Now I know better. What is my point? After you said "I don't believe there's any evidence for your position" I responded by saying "I think there's lots of evidence for Arial Black's position." That's my point. I never called it convincing, conclusive evidence. I just said that it was there. I'm confused now why you said there was no evidence for his position if you held the same position at some point. How did you arrive at that view if there was no evidence for it?
  • 10:29 PM - Hriston mentioned Arial Black in post Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats
    I'm sure you've seen much of it if you've read through several editions. Here's a couple pieces of evidence: -Ability scores of 10 and 11 described as the human average, which lines up with the average result of 3d6 It also lines up with the average of Gygax's averaging dice method for determining the scores of general characters, so it isn't really evidence for the use of 3d6. -5e's DMG says you can generate NPC stats by rolling dice. NPCs with classes and levels are not representative of the general population. It also doesn't suggest rolling 3d6 for them, so I have no idea how you think this helps make your or Arial Black's point. Do you really believe that his view is an untenable reading of the rules? I believe his view is wrong, but I understand how he got that impression. I used to think that myself before I looked into it. Now I know better.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
No results to display...
Page 1 of 64 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Thursday, 30th May, 2019

  • 01:47 PM - Yaarel quoted Arial Black in post The Making and Breaking of Deities & Demigods
    You mean, they got Thor's hit points wrong? Heh, Deitities & Demigods actually got that part right. The Norse nature beings are mortals, rather than immortals, and Þórr and other æsir are potentially killable. The æsir can die of old age for example, and keep themselves young by the use of magic.
  • 01:14 PM - Maxperson quoted Arial Black in post The Making and Breaking of Deities & Demigods
    Atheism? Tradition? What are you on about? Atheism is a tradition in the same way as 'Not Collecting Stamps' is a hobby! The word 'atheist' tells you absolutely nothing regarding what an atheist believes, only that there is one thing that they do not believe, which is the literal existence of any gods. What would the 'Atheist Tradition' section of Deities & Demigods look like? Twelve blank pages? The day of the week that is set aside for atheists to not attend any church? What they do with the 10% of their money that they aren't compelled to give away? How many hit points 'No God' has? Pretty sure Atheism was in fact tackled by D&D, though. Planescape included the Athar which did not believe in gods. This is what the Athar believed. "The "gods" are liars, every single one of them - liars and frauds. They aren't deities. They're mortals - extremely powerful mortals, to be sure, but nothing more. They are given to petty emotions, they require sustenance in the form of prayers and the belief of ...

Thursday, 14th March, 2019

  • 11:10 PM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    ... JC is wrong. He made his judgement based on an error, erroneously believing that the antecedent ('taking that Attack action') must precede the consequent (taking the bonus action it 'caused'). He ignore the fact that the two are allowed to coincide. JC is even more wrong. He assumes, wrongly, that conditional statements ARE statements of causality. What does Wikipedia say? "Conditional statements are NOT statements of causality", and, "conditional statements do NOT require this temporal order". The conditional, RAW, was never 'after you finish taking the Attack action', or even 'after you start taking the Attack action'. The condition is, "If you take the Attack action on your turn". There is no required temporal order. The only requirement is to meet the condition, and this condition is satisfied by taking the Attack action on the same turn as you take the bonus action shield shove. Since JC is simply wrong about causality. His rulings on it are fruits of a poisoned tree. That's why ...

Tuesday, 12th March, 2019

  • 01:23 PM - Maxperson quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    There is no rule forbidding simultaneous Actions In Combat, only rules which mean that each separate game element must be resolved sequentially. You keep saying this as if it means something. It really doesn't. A failure to forbid does not equate to approval. The game also fails to forbid my longsword from detonating a nuclear explosion when I strike something. Am I to believe that because the game doesn't forbid it, I can do it? That's not how games and rules work. If it's not forbidden by a rule, you still can't do it unless you can show a rule that does allow you to do it. There is no rule allowing simultaneous actions in combat. The closest you will find is the rule on Attack actions which says through it's use of "with" that the first attack happens simultaneously with the Attack action being taken. The presence of a rule that says you CAN take it when you want during your turn, and the complete absence of a rule forbidding it, means you CAN do that! As I pointed out above, this i...
  • 01:12 PM - Maxperson quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round. That's just wrong, as I've shown you repeatedly. The wording of Attack action is "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." WITH, not after. The action and the first attack are not the same, but they must occur simultaneously. There is no Attack action being taken prior to the first attack occurring. The Attack action is being taken after the first attack occurs. But we know for a fact that is not the case. You can take your attacks whenever you want in your round, as long as you take the Attack action! What rule says that the first attack is tied to any particular time! Er, the Attack action says it. The first attack is tied to when you take the Attack actio...
  • 12:56 PM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    We do agree on that. Where we disagree is on the 'rule' you made up restricting when on my turn I can take my bonus action. On p189 of the PHB, in the section entitled Bonus Actions, it tells you the rules for...bonus actions! There was a clue in the name! It says, "You choose when to take a bonus during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified". It says nothing like, "...except during another action", or, "...except between taking the Attack action and executing your first attack". The only 'timing' regarding Shield Master is that you only get it "If you take the Attack action on your turn". Even if you regard this as a straight statement of causality, that results in you being able to choose to take the bonus action shield bash at the same time as you take the Attack action that 'caused' it. There is no rule forbidding simultaneous Actions In Combat, only rules which mean that each separate game element must be resolved sequentially. Please go back and read the earlier pos...
  • 12:13 PM - Ovinomancer quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Well, I'm glad that neither of you is claiming anything so silly! Others have though; it's partly why I keep mentioning it. Well, I'm glad you've decided to stop beating up that strawman of "you said the Attack action is the attack!" strawman with valiant shouts of "special pleading!!" It was getting old. At this point, you're 0 for 2 on fallacy yelling. Maybe lay off a bit? Try talking? The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round. Well, in order, I do, and I don't, exactly. When I chose an action, I do what that action says. For the Attack action, it says I make an attack. There aren't extra decision steps, here, so if I take the Attack action the only thing that happens is that I make an attack. This is what "...
  • 05:41 AM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Yes we have! We resolve simultaneous elements one-at-a-time, in the order chosen by the acting creature. Of course, the existence of a rule which says that IF you are doing two elements simultaneously you resolve them one-at-a-time would show that:- * the rules recognise that two game elements CAN be simultaneous * we know what to do when they are No problem! You are certainly allowed to take your bonus action well after your attack action if you want, because the rules say you can take your bonus action whenever you want. This is the very same rule that lets me take my bonus action at the same time! Wait, you mean you changed the rule! Fine! But that houserule has no place in a rules debate about what the rule ACTUALLY IS! Please go and re-read the rule from XGTE. It's talking about effects. It is not talking about actions. Actions and effects are two separate concepts. Some actions, such as Dodge and Disengage, provide effects with a duration. Not all actions do this, as each a...
  • 05:35 AM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    The implied general rule, which does not exist BTW, is the idea that Actions In Combat literally ARE the things that the action allows. This is the spurious justification for "the Attack action IS the attack". There is no such rule, for the Attack action or any other action. Yet this is the phantom rule people use to claim that you cannot shield bash before the first attack, because "the Attack action IS the attack". The Disengage Action In Combat is NOT the 'disengaging' itself, and you agree. There is no rule that says so. And yet there is no rule that says that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself, but you are making rules calls as if those words were written in the book! They are not! There is no excuse to treat the Attack action that way, because there are no words saying that. And if you decide that this is how Actions In Combat work, then it must apply to ALL actions because there is nothing in the book which says so for ANY of the Actions, and if you are deciding to pretend that su...
  • 05:22 AM - Maxperson quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously! You can't as it has not been triggered yet. At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must resolve them sequentially. If you house rule your game so that it triggers simultaneously this would be true. Without such a house rule, the bonus action is not triggered until the Attack action has been taken. The Attack action has not been taken until the first attack is done. There is absolutely no rules requirement to complete an action before you are allowed to take a bonus action! Not for Shield Bash, not as a general rule. Gimme a break. I didn't say you had to complete the action. I said you had to complete the attack. Once you begin step 1 of the attack and choose a target, you then determine modifiers and make the roll. It's all part of the same motion. There is no divisibility there. Divisibility comes once you get an extra attack and can do things in-between attacks.
  • 05:18 AM - Maxperson quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    No! The shield spell is not a time-rewinding spell! All the game mechanics at the table do is represent the situation in the game world that the wizard managed to get the shield up just before it would have hit him! If the spell worked as you suggest (absurdly!), then the javelin would go through the wizards head, killing him. THEN the wizard would cast shield and rewind time, raising him from the dead! How did a dead wizard cast a spell!!! Weren't you the one claiming that the 5e rules do not include time travel malarky? I said the Attack action doesn't. Then I pointed out the Shield malarky and the knock out rule malarky. ;) The bonus action shield shove is taken at the same time as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both actions are simultaneous, each discrete game element must be resolved sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements. It can't be taken at the same time. It is triggered/caused by the action being ta...
  • 05:15 AM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously! At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must resolve them sequentially. There is absolutely no rules requirement to complete an action before you are allowed to take a bonus action! Not for Shield Bash, not as a general rule. This is a made-up rule. You cannot take an action and a bonus action simultaneously, there is no wording in the PHB that allows this. You've confused the rule about simultaneous effects (from spells and the like) that specify something happens at a particular point in time, such as the start of your turn (e.g. Spirit Guardians), with the action system as a whole. As I described above, reactions force each element on your turn to be adjudicated and resolved in a discrete sequence. You take your action, then you take your bonus action. If the bonus action has no timing requirement, you can take it first, and then take your action. There is no rule that says you can take them simultaneously a...
  • 05:07 AM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Right. The bonus action shield shove is taken at the same time as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both actions are simultaneous, each discrete game element must be resolved sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements. Simples. ;) This is just not true, though. If the Attack action and Shield Master bonus action were spells that provided effects that lasted for a duration, and both explicitly said they happen at the start or end of your turn for example, then the XGTE rule would apply. They are not spells, they do not provide effects, they are things you do on your turn in combat and thus the XGTE rule does not apply.
  • 04:58 AM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Do us all a favour someone! My search-fu is rubbish, and even though it's been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are over a 1000 posts! Please can someone post/cite/quote the rule regarding simultaneous elements and who gets to choose the order in which they are resolved? It would help us all to see the exact wording. Thanks in advance. ;) I searched the PHB on the D&D Beyond mobile app, and there are zero instances of "simultaneous" or "resolved". There are a couple of instances of "resolve", but they're all in things like Inspiring Leader: "You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight." I keep asking for the specific rules text that you're talking about, and I haven't seen it quoted yet.
  • 04:42 AM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    And yet your case relies on 'rules' that are not rules that you choose to apply to one Action-the Attack action-but not to the others. You don't even realise that you're doing this! What "rules that are not rules" did I quote in my post? My starting assumption was simple: in order for you to be able to do something in combat, there must be a rule that says you can do that thing. If we can't agree on that, then there isn't much point in continuing this debate really. ...and no rule that says you can't do that thing, agreed. Like the rules say you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn, and no rule saying you can't take it during an action. The lack of an explicit rule that says you can take a bonus action with a timing requirement during the action that triggers it means you cannot do that. Otherwise, what's the point of the rules? Please see my foundational assumption: there must be a rule that says you can do something, or else you cannot do it. We do not need rules d...
  • 04:05 AM - Ovinomancer quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Not by the logic of "the Attack action IS the attack(s)"! By that logic, the Disengage action IS disengaging, the Dodge action IS dodging, the Dash action IS dashing. And if Dash/Dodge/Disengage are NOT dashing/dodging/disengaging, there is no justification in claiming otherwise for the Attack action. Who's claiming that the Attack action is the attack? I know Asgorath isn't, and I haven't. That's silly. The Attack action allows an attack. Here, let's read the tin: Attack The most Common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the Fighter, allow you to make more than one Attack with this action. Okay, most common actions, uhuh, oh, here we are, "With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. S...
  • 04:00 AM - Ovinomancer quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Yeah, Maxperson is right on this one; this is silly. It is silly to imagine that you dodge/dash/disengage for an instant but you are not dodging/dashing/disengaging at the moments when your PC is actually doing those things! Meanwhile, you do not apply that same 'logic' to the Action which allows you to execute multiple attacks! Yeah, I know the term 'special pleading'. Just because I know it doesn't automatically invalidate the case. You are treating the Attack action differently than the others with no justification. Nope, my logic is absolutely the same for all actions -- do what it says on the tin. Let's say I take the Dodge action under your thinking, namely that actions last as long as their effects. When does my turn end? I haven't finished taking my action, because it lasts until the start of my next turn, but I have to take my action on my turn -- I cannot take or continue my action into other's turns, right? So, right there you're either saying that I'm still taking my ...
  • 03:53 AM - Ovinomancer quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    This is a really long way to say that you believe that this situation is, in fact, a straight statement of causality! ;) I tried really hard to make it a bit less than half as long as your post it was answering, but, okay. Fair enough. In that case, because "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time", and because you generate the bonus action shield shove at the same time as you "take the Attack action on your turn", and because you can take a bonus action you have anytime you like on your turn, you can take the bonus action at the same time as you take the action which grants it. Then, doing two simultaneous things on your turn, they must be resolved one-at-a-time, and since the acting creature chooses the order in which they are resolved, it can choose to resolve the shield shove first. Nope, sorry, you can't go "simultaneous!" and then not, you know, do it simultaneously. You're admitting the flaw in your argument, here, that s...
  • 03:28 AM - Asgorath quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    Not by the logic of "the Attack action IS the attack(s)"! By that logic, the Disengage action IS disengaging, the Dodge action IS dodging, the Dash action IS dashing. And if Dash/Dodge/Disengage are NOT dashing/dodging/disengaging, there is no justification in claiming otherwise for the Attack action. Please read my long post from earlier today, these are not general rules that apply to all actions. Each action is a self-contained rule, everything you need for each action is in the text of the action itself. Disengage has no bearing on how the Attack action works.
  • 03:10 AM - Maxperson quoted Arial Black in post Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
    IF the Attack action does not begin until you hit step 1 of your first attack, then it would perforce also be true that the bonus action shield shove does not begin until you hit step 1 of the shield bash. What do you mean? What I am saying is that since the Attack action doesn't start until step 1 of the first attack(whether it's a swing, shove or other action that an attack can be), you have already begun the attack by targeting your opponent, which moves you on to step 2, and then step 3. That portion is not divisible. You cannot target your attack, then stop and do something else, then pick the attack back up. But since they can be simultaneous (because "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time") then neither begins until you hit step 1. Fortunately, the rules provide for this possibility: if two things occur simultaneously, the acting creature chooses the order in which those things are resolved. There is nothing h...


Page 1 of 64 123456789101151 ... LastLast

Arial Black's Downloads

  Filename Total Downloads Rating Files Uploaded Last Updated

Most Recent Favorite Generators/Tables

View All Favorites