Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nswanson27" data-source="post: 7355905" data-attributes="member: 6797553"><p>So I did mention this earlier, but keep in mind a lot of people speak this way, they will say "if..." and not say "only if...", but they do mean equivalence. The other thing is that, if you read it only as a one-directional implication, the sentence fails to accomplish what it sets out to do. The subject in the sentence is "attack", and it's clear what to do if there's an attack roll, but reading it that way just leaves the reader asking, "but what if there isn't an attack roll? How should I know then?". Yet the context of the sentence is an all-encompassing to-go for figure out what an attack is. Would the designers have put in such a deficient sentence if that's what they really meant? I don't think so, and the sage advice columns presented doesn't suggest that either.</p></blockquote><p></p>