Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9262316" data-attributes="member: 7037866">Boy, you really just don't get it and refuse to see the facts, don't you?[ATTACH=full]345804[/ATTACH]Under the Movement and Position rules. It is a rule about movement before/after your actions (not just attacking). The section on attacks is simply explaining how, IF you have more than one attack, you can break up your move further. They purposefully included this so people would understand if you have Extra Attack or Multiattack, you can move between individual attacks, you are not limited to move, attack-attack, move. Without this special rule on movement, you would be limited to moving, making all your attacks, and then maybe moving again.I know that, but you posted (especially initially) like YOU didn't believe it.No, you didn't say it at all, and I quoted you on that. Maybe you said it later, but not in your earlier posts...It is silent on the issue either way, and thus the only RAW is the DM/group makes that ruling. You know that, so how many times do I have to tell you that?I am not conflating anything. "RAW does not allow" means it does not have a RULE saying you can. RAW disallows says it is, BY RULE, prohibited unless a specific feature allows it. For example, humans have no flying speed, and so cannot fly, unless the gain a flying speed via a spell or magic item or other feature. I really think you do not understand that difference.I am not.You changed (at some point), but you never said that "from the very beginning". I quoted your post afterall and you don't say anything of the kind.Yeah, I know it's a maybe... I've been saying that all along--you weren't, and yes eventually saw the light and changed your position.I never said you did say it was "disallowed by RAW". Not once.Yeah, as I said, I'm not. I just explained the difference between the two. If you want to get off that, I'd appreciate it.Seriously? Ok...Man, it's in your very first post! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL    :ROFLMAO:"  data-smilie="18"data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" />  Which, again I post earlier in the post you replied to. It is RIGHT there!!! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL    :ROFLMAO:"  data-smilie="18"data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" />Your initital position was either wrong, or at best incomplete and misleading as to your intent. You defended it again and again, and without really acknowledging repeated attempts to demonstrate your oversight or mistake. I was not minsconstruing it, I was just using precisely what you wrote.So, yeah, I'm done with you on this. I've got a game-day to go enjoy. <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=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification