Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 2202801" data-attributes="member: 8158">Just to be clear what I mean when I say you are not distinguishing between RAW and your own inferrences, let me point out the following is not stated anywhere in the PHB: "First off, the word "occurs" here means in the real world. It occurs on the table top first. The word "occurs" is talking about resolution order, it is not talking about from the viewpoint of the characters. Put the phrase "is resolved" in place of "occurs" and the sentence makes total sense"That is entirely your inferrence of what the word "occurs" means, and it is your interpretation that inserting "is resolved" in place of "occurs" causes the sentence to make sense ("making sense" apparently meaning it says what you think it should say).You quoted, then declared a bunch of stuff based on what you think the sentences mean. That's inferrence. Right, and the fallacy of your reasoning is "that which is not mandatory is forbidden", i.e. if something is not expressly stated in the rules, then de facto one must assume the negative rather than the affirmative, rather than be swayed by what "makes sense". In this case, there is nothing that supports the notion that conditions like flat-footed or helpless are mere game mechanics that a character has no means for discerning even if he's actively scrutinizing for it. However, because there is no physical correllary specifically mentioned, your are concluding that there is none, despite what makes sense. And the rules do not say a character cannot voluntarily choose to remain flat-footed or become helpless. But there is no rule stating they can make such a choice, so ergo you assert that a character cannot, despite what makes sense, right?Reality check: these are inferrences. If you are making these extrapolations based on what is not written, then you can hardly claim to be quoting RAW. Rather, you are inferring RANW.Is there a rule saying that humanoids possess a sense of taste? If not, would you say that means they don't? Is there a rule that says a character can clap his hands? If not, can a character still do it?Is there a rule that says I can spend a full-round action drawing my sword if I felt like doing it very slooowly? If not, am I forced to use a move action because that's what RAW states? If I want to grapple someone, and they attempt to grapple me first, is there a rule saying I can wave the opposed grapple check? If not, does that mean I have to try to push the opponent off? These questions may sound facetious because common sense provides obvious answers, but with you, I am genuinely curious to know how you would answer them.You apparently misread a good deal of my previous post (or you're just confusing me with Saev). I spoke entirely in the context of the action having started. It simply doesn't take effect until the action is actually completed. The interruption clearly takes place before the completion.That's fine. The opponent won't be flat-footed after he takes whatever action he action to takes, but I'll have used my readied action against his non-compliant arse, which is still flat-footed since I act before his first action is concluded.Now, you have stated that I'm confusing initiative with action. That is what you are doing. You are saying that as soon as my initiative comes up, I'm acting. However, if you haven't performed an action, you haven't acted.</blockquote>

Verification