Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8587433" data-attributes="member: 7032025">Once more, a proof that you simply don't read the RAW: "First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction."Hence, very simply, a trigger is a "perceivable circumstance". Nothing more, nothing less.Just read the rules instead of imagining things and trying to put our imagination in words. The rules are clear as they are. There is no "entailing", no consequences, it's extremely simple: "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger."Don't invent anything else, don't link the trigger to anything, the rules don't do that.Trigger = perceivable circumstance. That is the simple definition of it. So, I'm just substituting the words in the sentence and I obtain: "When the perceivable circumstance occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the perceivable circumstance finishes or ignore the trigger."If my perceivable circumstance is "the caster disappears", which is totally perceivable if you are watching him (and he is of course visible, if you do that when he is on the other side of the wall and you can't even see him disappear, your declaration will fail and for good readon), it becomes:"When the caster disappears, you can either take your reaction right after the caster finishers disappearing or ignore the trigger."How can it be more simple and obvious ?Since it says NOTHING, and the 5e rules only do what they say they do, you are INVENTING THINGS. Just apply the sentence above, without tying in things about actions WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN THE RULES.And this especially when the rules tell you, again in very plain english: "If the reaction interrupts another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."The "trigger = perceivable circumstance = the caster disappears" occurs, the REACTION INTERRUPTS ANOTHER CREATURE'S TURN. Does it say anything about completing anything ? It does not, so there is no such rule. Sorry.Again, the 5e rules don't say anything of the kind, so IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE RAW. Are we clear about this ? Your preconceptions DO NOT MATTER FOR THE RAW.No, I'm inconsistent only when applying YOUR rules, which have nothing to do with the RAW, as clearly demonstrated above.And yet, I have given you many reasons for it working exactly as the RAW says and as I explain it, and it causes  no one any problem, except for your and YOUR INVENTED RULES.You are evading the question, showing that you have no answer for this, and zero proof in the RAW, as usual. So I can only conclude that you have, as predicted totally failed to find a rule explaining how long exactly a move is taking, how long an instant is, and whether a move can fit in an instant.You are so stuck in your personal convictions that you don't even see that this is exactly what happens in genre fiction, and that because this is what the game simulates, it's not a problem at all.So now you have to make a perception check, right, I see you backpedalling really fast on this. Not fast enough though, once more you have zero proof in the RAW.As for the real or simulated world, we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, when you are facing a unique opponent, it might not be too hard to see that he is attacking you. When you are surrounded by opponents, I clearly don't see you detect who is targeting what instantaneously for all adversaries. As you say, it might be a perception (I would personally use insight) check, but it's certainly not automatic.And we are back to the fact that your awesome warriors only make one swing every 6 seconds, or maybe every 60 seconds, I still don't understand how long your turns are. So no, you might rule that way, but not only is it not in the RAW, if every swing that telegraphed as an attack, the warriors in my game would not be heroes, they would not even be level 1...And I totally disagree here, once more. When there's a hit, the damage has already been done. Otherwise it's not a hit. So no, I once more disagree. First, RAW, you have zero support for that. And second, even in real or simulated life, a hit is only a hit if it does damage. Otherwise, it's called a miss. So you can't distinguish one from the other.It's still a RAW. You are allowed to disregard it in your campaign.You mean, the sequence of combat that you understand so little that you 're not even sure if your rounds are about six seconds as written or if they last 60 seconds ? <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/if-you-use-thunderstep-but-teleport-less-than-10-feet-do-you-take-damage.686796/post-8586525" target="_blank">Hmmm, let me see: "By RAW people on the battlefield notice almost everything unless the DM says otherwise during special circumstances."</a>True, you did say "almost" when there are "special circumstances", so walls are special circumstances ? Having people fighting around you, blocking your view and taking your attention are "special circumstances" ? What do you mean by "special circumstances" ?Yes, walls are truly special...So being aware of danger means seeing almost everything unless there are special circumstances ? So first, no, sorry, that rule is unitary, it's a simple sentence. While I agree that "most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around", I personally find it very fluffy ( <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ) and I don't think it's appropriate to derive a specific rule for hidden creatures approaching in the open to an instant view of anything happening on the battlefield (except for these dawn "exceptional circumstances" walls, of course.).It's just to show that no, very simple circumstances which have nothing "special" about them clearly mean that you don't see or perceive everything on a battlefield.It's interesting, because it's exactly the way I feel about the way YOU argue. You are so desperate to impose your personal views on ready actions that you go about making totally unsustained broad statements about people able, all the time to act upon any swing happening everywhere on the battlefield because they are "aware". Just stop dithering and introducing new rules that exist only for you. The RAW is simple, there are very few rules.Actually, they are not. Sorry. This describes only some spells and effects. But tell me, again, where it says how long a move takes ? Where it says that it cannot happen in an instant ? I'll be waiting for the EXACT rule, mind you. Because, as far as I know, actions do not have a duration set, none of them.There is no such thing as an "instantaneous action", actions are not labelled. In particular move actions do not have a duration. So please, once more, in the RAW, show me the EXACT RULE that says that teleportation is faster than a move ? Teleportation takes an instant, I can absolutely describe a fantasy movement taking but an instant, if the distance is short, whereas I can perfectly describe my teleportation as "star trek like", where the caster disappears and reappears fairly slowly. The RAW supports exactly that.What teleportation does that normal movement does not is the fact that you don't cross the intervening space, for sure. But the duration, in milliseconds ? Nothing in the RAW.I know, it's shocking to you and your personal convictions, but it's all they are, personal. They are not in the RAW. Simply they are not. So please stop trying to impose your personal convictions, the game is way more open than this.</blockquote>

Verification