Search results

We tend to treat the rulebook as if it were holy writ, handed down from on high. The RAW is what it is, even if the guy who actually wrote those words wishes it were different. We occasionally doubt what JC has to say via Sage Advice or (especially) Tweet, not merely because we disagree with it...

We tend to treat the rulebook as if it were holy writ, handed down from on high. The RAW is what it is, even if the guy who actually wrote those words wishes it were different. We occasionally doubt what JC has to say via Sage Advice or (especially) Tweet, not merely because we disagree with it...

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...

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...

Well, I'm glad that neither of you is claiming anything so silly! Others have though; it's partly why I keep mentioning it. 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...

Well, I'm glad that neither of you is claiming anything so silly! Others have though; it's partly why I keep mentioning it. 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...

You don't even realise you're doing it, do you? You don't even realise that at the same time as you are insisting that you treat ALL actions the same-by doing what that action says on that tin-you THEN go on to treat the Attack action as if it said that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself...

You don't even realise you're doing it, do you? You don't even realise that at the same time as you are insisting that you treat ALL actions the same-by doing what that action says on that tin-you THEN go on to treat the Attack action as if it said that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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! Wait! I was going to say that to you! I don't mind if a post is long, as long as it is interesting. Yours is...

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! Wait! I was going to say that to you! I don't mind if a post is long, as long as it is interesting. Yours is...