Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Uller" data-source="post: 92948" data-attributes="member: 413">Not quite true.&nbsp; A WWA is a full attack action with a specific limitation: All targets must be within 5'.At what point they must be within 5' it does not say so&nbsp;&nbsp; anything beyond that about the location of the targets is an assumption, IMO.Ah...but I said you MUST make assumptions to be an effective DM.&nbsp; Otherwise you get a lot of crazy stuff.&nbsp; That doesn't make one person's opinion a house rule and another's &quot;official&quot;.&nbsp; The rules are sufficiently(and often purposefully) vague that DMs are required to make assumptions all the time.&nbsp; Otherwise the rules would be written in &quot;legalese&quot; and no one wants that.When I am deciding something like this, I ask myself &quot;Does this sound silly?&quot;...if it does, I rule something that makes more sense.&nbsp; In this case, it seems silly to me that you could move and continue a WWA against targets you previously couldn't reach.Edit:&nbsp; And actually...We're even assuming that a WWA = full attack.&nbsp; The rule actually says &quot;When a character performs a full attack...&quot; not &quot;As a full attack...&quot;So what carries over from the FA rules into the WWA rules is purely up for conjecture, IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Uller, post: 92948, member: 413"] [B][/b] Not quite true. A WWA is a full attack action with a specific limitation: All targets must be within 5'. At what point they must be within 5' it does not say so anything beyond that about the location of the targets is an assumption, IMO. Ah...but I said you MUST make assumptions to be an effective DM. Otherwise you get a lot of crazy stuff. That doesn't make one person's opinion a house rule and another's "official". The rules are sufficiently(and often purposefully) vague that DMs are required to make assumptions all the time. Otherwise the rules would be written in "legalese" and no one wants that. When I am deciding something like this, I ask myself "Does this sound silly?"...if it does, I rule something that makes more sense. In this case, it seems silly to me that you could move and continue a WWA against targets you previously couldn't reach. Edit: And actually...We're even assuming that a WWA = full attack. The rule actually says "When a character performs a full attack..." not "As a full attack..." So what carries over from the FA rules into the WWA rules is purely up for conjecture, IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification