Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7773971" data-attributes="member: 6795602">It doesn't have to reference the concept by name for it to be meaningful.  The movement rule only allows movement before or after an action.  So whether actions have or don't have a duration is at least meaningful in that context.Exactly and because the attack action can be divided into separate pieces then the attack action is no longer a sequential building block of a turn.  The pieces that make it up are, the individual attacks, but the attack action can't be because nesting movement or a bonus action inside the attack action breaks the sequential building block theory.  That was the whole point of my post.Being able to split the attack action into multiple distinct SEQUENTIAL elements proves that the attack action is not a sequential building block of a turn.Agreed.Why?  1)  The attack action has no duration (your own words).  2)  If it has no duration and you place it in your sequential chain either at the same moment as the 2nd attack or immediately after that attack then how did you take the first attack without taking the attack action?Of course if you've already taken your no duration attack action by the time the first attack is completed then how do you explain being able to make the 2nd attack? So we can establish1)  The no duration attack action needs made either before or concurrently with the first attack2)  The 2nd attack cannot be part of that no duration attack action as it's already completed by the time the 2nd attack begins.  As such the attack action in your interpretation has at least 1 effect that carries over beyond it's no duration timeframe, the ability to make a 2nd attack.It's still not a discrete element in the timeline.  Whether you have attack, attack or attack, move, attack, each of those attacks are discrete elements and since you described the attack action as no duration it can't possibly overlap 2 discrete events in the sequence.  Agreed Because as noted above, there are a number of implications for no duration and sequential elements on the turn.  What happens is that those premises together force the conclusion that the attack action isn't a discrete sequential action on your turn.  Abilities like shield master trigger off the attack action.  So if the attack action isn't a discrete sequential element then we have no idea where to place shield master in the sequence.  That's the problem. This doesn't work for the attack action, see above. This doesn't work with your no duration premise. We have just spent this whole part here talking about their duration or lack thereof.  The concept isn't directly important to the RAW and thus it's not mentioned.  However it is an important concept when interpreting the RAW as it allows us to establish facts that would otherwise be unestablishable.I'm confused, are actions not part of the list of discrete elements that make up your turn?  I thought you were arguing the opposite?Sure, and because I can place that element into a sequence then triggers that happen based off that movement and everything else work out just fine.  With your interpretation the attack action in particular can't be placed into that sequence.  The attacks it grants are elements that can be.  So when something triggers off the attack action how do we know when the trigger occurs?  IMO that means the attack action must be part of the sequential elements of a turn.  So then if we have to place a no duration attack action into the list of sequential turn elements where are you placing it?So where in the sequence does the discrete element of the attack action get placed?  If it's not a discrete element that can be placed in the sequence then how can things like shield master trigger off it?There's no rules on when the attack action is made one way or the other.  But what we know is that 1)  The attack action has no duration (your interpretation)2)  The turn is made up of discrete sequential elements (your interpretation)3)  Each attack of the attack action is a discrete sequential element (your interpretation)4)  The attack action (with extra attack) requires more than 1 discrete sequential element to complete (direct implication of having an attack action made up of 2 discrete sequential attacks)Contradiction: 1 and 4 = A single discrete sequential element could have a no duration action essentially overlapping it.  It's impossible for a no duration action to overlap 2 discrete sequential elements.That shows that one of your premises is incorrect.</blockquote>

Verification