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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6675561" data-attributes="member: 6787503">No, I think what they wrote is just fine. It's the intent of the rule we disagree on, not that these other rules prevent its intent from being followed. The way I interpret it the rules all interact just fine.Is this person in combat? If so, then yes. Walking and talking are explicitly called out as things you normally only do on your turn, the exception being any reaction you take that involves talking. Normally, I would expect this would only be the verbal component of a spell cast as a reaction.If not in combat then I don't know what sort of turn you mean.Surprise prohibits movement, so a person who is surprised would not be able to walk down the street while surprised. It does not prohibit speech, since speech is not tied to either movement or action the way an object interaction is, so a person can still talk on their turn even when surprised.As a general rule I would expect it to apply to any situation where communication is not expressly forbidden. Since the ability to communicate is in a separate category from movement and action it is not ruled out when you are surprised.I'm not sure why you think communicating is dependent on being aware of the presence of an attacker.Communication doesn't count as taking an action.Where is it implied that being surprised stops you from communicating on your turn?To the contrary my reading is expansive, drawing on the ruleset as a whole to make my conclusions, whereas your interpretation of Assassinate relies on a narrow reading of the rule based on your own preconceived notions of how it should work without regard to how things as basic as combat are clearly meant to work.</blockquote>

Verification