Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9262277" data-attributes="member: 23751">So first, it's not a rule on movement. It's a rule on extra attack involving movement.&nbsp; The rule on combat movement is that you can move before your attack OR after your attack.&nbsp; Second, by saying it's not allowed or cannot be done by RAW automatically includes RAW is silent on the topic and that the DM has to make a ruling.&nbsp; The DM has to make rulings any time the rules are silent on something the player wants to try.Did I explicitly spell it out?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I didn't have to, because it's part of what I said.And you agree that RAW doesn't allow it.&nbsp; Again, after explaining this to you at LEAST 5 times now,&nbsp; you are still trying(and I have to assume deliberately) to conflate &quot;RAW does not allow&quot; with &quot;RAW disallows.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; The former means that there is no RAW saying that you can do it.&nbsp; The latter means RAW explicitly denies.Why are you deliberately misconstruing my position after being told several times what the words mean?I changed that a long time ago from can't to maybe, because from the very beginning I have been saying that the DM has to decide.If RAW is silent on something, it's permissible by the DM/group only and non-permissible by the DM/group only simultaneously until the DM makes the ruling.&nbsp; In other words, it's a maybe.Not once did I ever say it was disallowed by RAW.&nbsp; Not once.Yet another conflation!&nbsp; By RAW it cannot be done, because you cannot show in the Rules As Written that it can be done.&nbsp; If you cannot show an explicit rule allowing it, then it cannot by the written rules be done.&nbsp; I'll repeat for the 7th time, &quot;RAW does not allow&quot; is not the same as &quot;RAW disallows.&quot;STOP conflating them.And yet another conflation!&nbsp; I've never once argued that RAW says he can't do it.&nbsp; Not once and you can't quote an instance of my saying that.Do you seriously fail to understand the very distinct difference between &quot;Not allowed by RAW&quot; and &quot;Disallowed by RAW?&quot;&nbsp; Or are you just deliberately misconstruing my position?RAW Allows = Written rule allowing it to be done.RAW Does Not Allow = No written rule allowing or disallowing it to be done.RAW Disallows = Written rule denying the ability to do it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 9262277, member: 23751"] So first, it's not a rule on movement. It's a rule on extra attack involving movement. The rule on combat movement is that you can move before your attack OR after your attack. Second, by saying it's not allowed or cannot be done by RAW automatically includes RAW is silent on the topic and that the DM has to make a ruling. The DM has to make rulings any time the rules are silent on something the player wants to try. Did I explicitly spell it out? No. I didn't have to, because it's part of what I said. And you agree that RAW doesn't allow it. Again, after explaining this to you at LEAST 5 times now, you are still trying(and I have to assume deliberately) to conflate "RAW does not allow" with "RAW disallows." The former means that there is no RAW saying that you can do it. The latter means RAW explicitly denies. Why are you deliberately misconstruing my position after being told several times what the words mean? I changed that a long time ago from can't to maybe, because from the very beginning I have been saying that the DM has to decide. If RAW is silent on something, it's permissible by the DM/group only and non-permissible by the DM/group only simultaneously until the DM makes the ruling. In other words, it's a maybe. Not once did I ever say it was disallowed by RAW. Not once. Yet another conflation! By RAW it cannot be done, because you cannot show in the [B]R[/B]ules [B]A[/B]s [B]W[/B]ritten that it can be done. If you cannot show an explicit rule allowing it, then it cannot by the written rules be done. I'll repeat for the 7th time, "RAW does not allow" is not the same as "RAW disallows." STOP conflating them. And yet another conflation! I've never once argued that RAW says he can't do it. Not once and you can't quote an instance of my saying that. Do you seriously fail to understand the very distinct difference between "Not allowed by RAW" and "Disallowed by RAW?" Or are you just deliberately misconstruing my position? RAW Allows = Written rule allowing it to be done. RAW Does Not Allow = [U]No written rule allowin[/U]g or disallowing it to be done. RAW Disallows = Written rule denying the ability to do it. [/QUOTE]

Verification