Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2202493" data-attributes="member: 2011">These are not inferences.These are RAW.I quoted them for you.You ignored them again.You continue to look at one sentence and claim that it takes precedence over the other sentences in the same paragraph (and in the rest of the rules) and that it means within game from the character perspective when there is nothing in that paragraph to indicate that.An "action" is a DND game mechanic.Your fallacy here is that you are confusing actions with initiative (or turn).You get to perform your actions on your initiative. Nobody else gets to perform their actions on your initiative with the exception of them performing a ready action on your initiative (or performing an action like Speaking which is allowed outside your turn). In order for the Ready Action to perform, your initiative has HAD to occur.Just because their ready action can be resolved before yours on your initiative, it is still your initiative, not theirs. In future rounds, they are on the same initiative count and their turn is first. But, their turn is not on the current initiative. They cannot change their mind on what to do and decide to do something else. They cannot do a full round action. They are resolving the action that they declared during their initiative. It is not currently their initiative.If Fred readies against Barney and Barneys initiative comes up and he starts performing an action that triggers Fred's ready action, it does not become Fred's initiative or Fred's turn. Fred's action is resolved, but it is NOT Fred's initiative, it is still Barney's initiative.It is not Fred's turn, it is Barney's turn.Barney still got to act, regardless of Fred negating that act in some way with his ready action. If Barney is casting a spell, he can STILL lose that spell because the spell is interrupted. The spell is NOT preempted.If your interpretation were correct, then the spell would never be lost because the action was not started. Everything in the rules disagrees with your interpretation.You cannot preempt Barney from getting his initiative and immediately no longer being flat-footed with a ready action.You dropped the phrases "in response", "interrupted", and "continues" from that paragraph."Interrupted", not "preceded by".What part of the word "interrupted" do you not understand?The text there is quite clear:1) His action has to be started in order to be interrupted.2) His action has to be started in order to be continued. You cannot continue something you have not yet started.3) His action has to be started in order for someone to respond to it. You cannot respond to something happening if that something is not yet happening.Hence, he is no longer flat-footed because he has gotten the chance to act (regardless of outcome).You can claim to the high heavens that RAW supports your interpretation, but that is not what the words state.They state "in response", "interrupts", and "continues". In your interpretation, you are totally ignoring the meaning of these words.Just because your action is interrupted does not mean that you did not get to do it. For example, you still lose your spell. It means you were unsuccessful in your attempt to do it. Not all actions are guaranteed.Your entire false premise is based on the interpretation of:"Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed."to mean that he must finish his action. It does not state this. This one sentence definition does not address the issue at all.The following quote which you dismissed DOES specifically address it:"Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed."You cannot drop sentences or phrases out of the rules, just because they do not support your interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification