Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9262228" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Actually, no, you haven't. Your first post on the topic:No mention of the "DM making the decision." You jumped right into a RAW position by citing rules on movement and the timing of bonus actions. Neither of which have any implication on when Action Surge can be used as one is a rule on movement and the other on bonus actions. My arguments have been against you claiming it can't be done RAW because the rules do not say it can be done.No, I couldn't agree with you right away, because your claim was "RAW doesn't allow it." My position was RAW doesn't explicitly allow or prohibit it, so it is up to the DM or group.  You eventually started including "DM houserule", but it isn't a houserule, it is a RULING. I realize the distinction is minor, and perhaps that was what you actually meant?Anyway, my position has always been that it is up to the DM/group. And since anything not explicitly denied by the rules, by RAW is permissible since that call is up to the DM (or group, if included in the decision). Your position has been: because it isn't written you can do it, by default RAW is you can't. The "default" isn't that you can't: the default is it is up to the DM (which you came around to...).Here are my posts:And after you entered the discussion, my responses were about it is not allowed or disallowed by RAW simply because it is or isn't written anywhere.So, in summary ( <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ), you claimed because it wasn't written anywhere in the rules that it is allowed, then RAW it can't be done. But RAW isn't that it can't be done, RAW is that the DM/group decides because it isn't explicity covered in the books either way. If it was explicitly covered, groups that follow that rule would be following RAW, and those which don't would be house-ruling against it.While I can't speak directly for [USER=7030563]@ECMO3[/USER], I can say in a quick review of his (?) posts that they questioned the RAW implication, only really arguing RAW once you jumped in claiming RAW was because it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.IIRC, his position was just that he can do it, not that RAW automatically says he can. He began in the OP that he didn't know what the books might say about it. He argued against your claim that RAW was he can't do it, which (hopefully) you understand now is not the case.RAW doesn't say or imply anything about it either way, the only RAW is that any ruling on this is up to the DM/group to decide, so that it best fits with their style of play. If you can understand and agree with that, then yes, we are in agreement. However, if you continue to insist only that "the rules do not say it can be done, so it can't be done by RAW", then we will continue to disagree.</blockquote>

Verification