Search results

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...

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...

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...

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...

This is a really long way to say that you believe that this situation is, in fact, a straight statement of causality! ;) 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...

This is a really long way to say that you believe that this situation is, in fact, a straight statement of causality! ;) 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...

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. But since they can be simultaneous (because "statements of causality require the...

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. But since they can be simultaneous (because "statements of causality require the...

As the examples of 'time-travel'-like rules show, seeming to time travel at the gaming table is not an issue at all! What matters is that no time travel occurs in the game world. Actions, bonus actions, reactions, the Attack action, the Dash action, 6-second turns....all these are things the...

As the examples of 'time-travel'-like rules show, seeming to time travel at the gaming table is not an issue at all! What matters is that no time travel occurs in the game world. Actions, bonus actions, reactions, the Attack action, the Dash action, 6-second turns....all these are things the...

And I never wrote or thought such a thing. Never thought that either. The Attack action 'causes' the bonus action, but because of the "if...then..." conditional, cause and effect are not fixed to a particular order, only to the condition 'on your turn'. And even if you treat this trigger as...

And I never wrote or thought such a thing. Never thought that either. The Attack action 'causes' the bonus action, but because of the "if...then..." conditional, cause and effect are not fixed to a particular order, only to the condition 'on your turn'. And even if you treat this trigger as...

I'm pleased that you agree that Actions are divisible. I am arguing against the 'Actions are indivisible' phantom rule which is being used to justify denying the shield shove between attacks. I'm also arguing against other related things too. ;)

I'm pleased that you agree that Actions are divisible. I am arguing against the 'Actions are indivisible' phantom rule which is being used to justify denying the shield shove between attacks. I'm also arguing against other related things too. ;)

My point is that although there is no time travel in the game world going on with shield-bashing first, the fact that the game mechanic there seems to be time travel at the gaming table is completely fine, given that 5e has many such game mechanics that seem to work that way, and none of those...

My point is that although there is no time travel in the game world going on with shield-bashing first, the fact that the game mechanic there seems to be time travel at the gaming table is completely fine, given that 5e has many such game mechanics that seem to work that way, and none of those...

I'm not suggesting that the ability to execute those attacks is totally divorced from the Attack action which granted them, I'm suggesting that there is a difference between 'taking an action' and 'executing the stuff granted by that action', countering the claim that 'taking an Action' IS THE...

I'm not suggesting that the ability to execute those attacks is totally divorced from the Attack action which granted them, I'm suggesting that there is a difference between 'taking an action' and 'executing the stuff granted by that action', countering the claim that 'taking an Action' IS THE...

Huzzah! At last! ;) I agree! That's because I only hold one of these positions (the correct one!), that "if...then.." statements are not statements of causality. I mentioned this in a previous post, citing Wikipedia's essay on Causality and contrasting with conditionals. This means that the...

Huzzah! At last! ;) I agree! That's because I only hold one of these positions (the correct one!), that "if...then.." statements are not statements of causality. I mentioned this in a previous post, citing Wikipedia's essay on Causality and contrasting with conditionals. This means that the...