Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6732335" data-attributes="member: 16814">Ywp.  You can't bring tacos after you've come over, either.  The only time you can 'bring tacos' is the exact moment you 'come over.'  I'm glad we've put that to bed as a bad analogy to the bonus attack rule. How does that work better?  There's no restriction on when you can normally brush your teeth, so you're correct that one would assume they can brush their teeth anytime they wanted to provided they had the means to do so and it was appropriate.  However, given that construction, one wouldn't normally read it as the person giving their permission to brush teeth in a blanket sense, as that's clearly nonsensical, but that they're saying you would have opportunity to do so 'when you come over' when you would normally not (due to it being slightly odd to think that you'd have your brush and toothpaste with you 'when you come over' normally).  All you've done is add some odd permission category to a task one does not normally seek permission for, not made a good analogy to the rules reading in question.If the rule was so easy to interpret as 'anytime you want to so long as you promise to make an attack action' why does that action need to be in the same round?  Could it not have come in the round before?  "I took an attack action last round, and when I do that, I get a bonus action attack."  Or, even, "It doesn't say I lose it, ever, just that I get one when I take an attack action.  I gladly make an attack action next Tuesday for a bonus action today!" (Apologies to Popeye.)We don't read it that way because it's clearly nonsensical to assume a lack of such restrictions when the normal, non-strained, reading of the rule is that you must make an attack action in order to get the bonus attack.  Not that you can promise to make it later on in the same round, but that you must do the attack action first.  Spending time wandering through the English language looking for a magically phrased statement that can be ambiguously interpreted to mean that there is no timing involved while staying close enough to the original phrasing as to be relevant seems a colossal waste of time to me.  It reads that way, as does the general rule on bonus actions.  A designer said 'whoops, heh, well that's not exactly what we intended, we intended it to have more flexibility' is both reasonable and rational and that's enough of a reason to accept the ruling without butchering the mother tongue.  English does enough linguistic violence on its own without us needing to help in this particular instance.</blockquote>

Verification