Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8650513" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Whichever term is deemed accurate, it is certain a case where people just playing the game without thought to using the hyper-specifics of the ruleset will be playing vastly differently from those that are. It'd be great if there was a neutral term for this kind of thing, as whichever way people want to play the game is fine so long as there is in-group consensus.The issue this raises is that 5e doesn't have a clear-cut resolution metric for if-thens (especially with regards to temporality), that bonus actions in particular break up often otherwise atomic processes, and that thrown weapons role as being in-hand and not at various points in an attack sequence are not well defined.Exactly when you need to meet the qualifying standard for your bonus action isn't spelled out. It says when you take an attack action, but not when in the attack action you must qualify. Your interpretation that you check for qualifying at some point, and thereafter you retain that permission even if you lose the requirements is not inherently wrong (so far as I can see, someone else might dig up the relevant text here before I'm done typing), but neither is the counterpoint position. We can apply a 'but this or that position leads to nonsensical results' analysis to the situation, but this is a RAW discussion, and there isn't really a requirement that that RAW make sense, not induce paradoxes, or anything else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8650513, member: 6799660"] Whichever term is deemed accurate, it is certain a case where people just playing the game without thought to using the hyper-specifics of the ruleset will be playing vastly differently from those that are. It'd be great if there was a neutral term for this kind of thing, as whichever way people want to play the game is fine so long as there is in-group consensus. The issue this raises is that 5e doesn't have a clear-cut resolution metric for if-thens (especially with regards to temporality), that bonus actions in particular break up often otherwise atomic processes, and that thrown weapons role as being in-hand and not at various points in an attack sequence are not well defined. Exactly when you need to meet the qualifying standard for your bonus action isn't spelled out. It says when you take an attack action, but not when in the attack action you must qualify. Your interpretation that you check for qualifying at some point, and thereafter you retain that permission even if you lose the requirements is not inherently wrong (so far as I can see, someone else might dig up the relevant text here before I'm done typing), but neither is the counterpoint position. We can apply a 'but this or that position leads to nonsensical results' analysis to the situation, but this is a RAW discussion, and there isn't really a requirement that that RAW make sense, not induce paradoxes, or anything else. [/QUOTE]

Verification