Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7572623" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;4. I just strongly disagree with your reading of &quot;finishes the trigger&quot;. We would not have the discussion if it was worded as in previous editions &quot;finsihes the triggering action&quot;. In that case the spell would go off no question.&quot;Here is another case where context matters - why trying to isolate and cut out other references leads to misunderstanding.Others may think it &quot;clever &quot; to avoid using the word action in their trigger to duck the after finish rule. Meh. I find it just tedious. It leads to both sides playing words games instead of the game. It also tends to create very different balance divisions - ones not necessarily obvious or intended. Are daggers meant to be less interruptable than slings cuz slings have the property which has you draw ammo as you fire? Nope, cuz that was done in the context of action and what's done in an action are the same. In 5e, things like drawing an action, reaching for your pouch of components, speaking arcane words, etc are done within your action. Just like taking an attack action is making an attack - the gestures and drawing arrow etc are a part of the events they are - not separate. So, in that context, there was no need to put in every reference to stuff done in the course of actions repeated references to the action vs the things done in the action - in the context of 5e the action and the things it entails are one and the same unless specifically noted otherwise. Look at how ammo and loaded works, how interactions work &quot;as part of actions.&quot; Ignore rules that say characters are always in motion so that one can trigger on micro- movements - fine.Ignore rules that let interactions including drawing weapons and things from pouches occur as part of actions not as pre-cursors - fine.But the trying to claim clever or RAW when ignoring those and then concluding the language in other sections was vague or open cuz it did not repeat those - sure have fun - but it's not convincing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7572623, member: 6919838"] "4. I just strongly disagree with your reading of "finishes the trigger". We would not have the discussion if it was worded as in previous editions "finsihes the triggering action". In that case the spell would go off no question." Here is another case where context matters - why trying to isolate and cut out other references leads to misunderstanding. Others may think it "clever " to avoid using the word action in their trigger to duck the after finish rule. Meh. I find it just tedious. It leads to both sides playing words games instead of the game. It also tends to create very different balance divisions - ones not necessarily obvious or intended. Are daggers meant to be less interruptable than slings cuz slings have the property which has you draw ammo as you fire? Nope, cuz that was done in the context of action and what's done in an action are the same. In 5e, things like drawing an action, reaching for your pouch of components, speaking arcane words, etc are done within your action. Just like taking an attack action is making an attack - the gestures and drawing arrow etc are a part of the events they are - not separate. So, in that context, there was no need to put in every reference to stuff done in the course of actions repeated references to the action vs the things done in the action - in the context of 5e the action and the things it entails are one and the same unless specifically noted otherwise. Look at how ammo and loaded works, how interactions work "as part of actions." Ignore rules that say characters are always in motion so that one can trigger on micro- movements - fine. Ignore rules that let interactions including drawing weapons and things from pouches occur as part of actions not as pre-cursors - fine. But the trying to claim clever or RAW when ignoring those and then concluding the language in other sections was vague or open cuz it did not repeat those - sure have fun - but it's not convincing. [/QUOTE]

Verification