Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7775388" data-attributes="member: 6799649"><p>Huzzah! At last! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree! That's because I only hold one of these positions (the correct one!), that "if...then.." statements are <em>not</em> statements of causality. I mentioned this in a previous post, citing Wikipedia's essay on Causality and contrasting with conditionals. This means that the 'effect' <em>can</em> come before the 'cause', depending on what the condition actually is, and since the conditional here is , "on your turn", then the "if...then..." form does not require the shield shove to come <em>after</em> the attack; the only requirement is that both take place on your turn.</p><p></p><p>However, I anticipated that some posters would continue to assert, erroneously, that this particular "if...then..." statement <em>should</em> be adjudicated <em>as if it were</em> a statement of causality. Boy, was my anticipation correct!</p><p></p><p>What I then showed was that, <em>even with that interpretation</em>, it <strong>still</strong> results in being able to resolve the shield shove <em>before</em> you resolve the attack.</p><p></p><p>So, <em>either way</em>, the shield shove <em>can</em> go <em>before</em> the first attack.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not implying that it <em>cannot</em> be a causal relationship. I'm saying that <em>because</em> of the "if...then..." form, the relationship is <em>not</em> bound by Time's Arrow, while straight causal relationships must be. And in this case, the condition itself, freed from having to occur in a set <em>order</em>, instead merely needs to obey the condition! And the condition is merely that they both take place "on your turn".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No!</p><p></p><p>First, 'no' from the perspective that "if...then..." statements are not bound it time, just bound by the particular condition.</p><p></p><p>Second, 'no' from a perspective which tries to claim that <em>this particular</em> "if...then..." statement <em>should</em> be treated as if it <em>were</em> a straight statement of causality, <em>if that claim were true</em> then it <strong>must</strong> obey the requirements for a temporal order, and I <em>know</em> you agree that it should obey that temporal order!</p><p></p><p>But the crucial part is this: "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede <strong><u>or coincide</u></strong> with the consequent in time".</p><p></p><p>So <em>even if</em> you think that the 'effect' (the bonus action shield shove) <strong>cannot</strong> occur <em>before</em> the 'cause' (the attack), <em>the two certainly <strong>can</strong> coincide!</em></p><p></p><p>Even in this interpretation, the <em>very same moment</em> you 'take the Attack action on your turn' you have <em>simultaneously</em> generated that bonus action shield shove. And because of the <em>actual written rule</em> stating that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn as long as you have one to take, and you get this one at the very moment you 'take the Attack action', then, sure, under this interpretation you cannot take the bonus action before you get it, you certainly <strong>can</strong> take it at the very moment you get it! Because, "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede <strong>or coincide</strong> with the consequent in time".</p><p></p><p>Although you are free to choose to take the bonus action <em>after</em> the attack, and (under this interpretation) you cannot take the bonus action <em>before</em> the attack which 'caused' it, you are certainly free to take that bonus action <em>at the same time</em> as the attack which 'caused' it!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not quite.</p><p></p><p>It's not that "combat turns are ordered sequences", it's that the <em>resolution</em> of events is 'ordered', meaning 'resolved' one after the other.</p><p></p><p>So the two actions are certainly allowed to happen simultaneously. Actions like Dash, Dodge and Disengage could not function as we use them if two actions could not occur simultaneously!</p><p></p><p>However, things must be <em>resolved</em> sequentially!</p><p></p><p>In 5e, when things happen simultaneously on a creature's turn, they must be <em>resolved</em> sequentially even if they <em>occur</em> at the same time.</p><p></p><p>But who decides the order in which simultaneous things get resolved?</p><p></p><p>That's right! The player of the acting creature gets to decide the order in which they are resolved!</p><p></p><p>Here, you 'take the Attack action on your turn', which 'causes' the bonus action. That bonus action is generated at the same time as you take the Attack action.</p><p></p><p>Because 'cause' and 'effect' <strong>can</strong> coincide, and the rules say you <strong>can</strong> take your bonus action when you want, you <strong>can</strong> 'take that bonus action' at the same time you get it, which is at the same time as you 'take the Attack action'.</p><p></p><p>Since you chose to have the two things occur at the same time, you get to choose the order in which they are resolved. Therefore, you <strong>can</strong> choose to <em>resolve</em> the shield bash first, even though both the shield bash and the attack coincide. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 7775388, member: 6799649"] Huzzah! At last! ;) I agree! That's because I only hold one of these positions (the correct one!), that "if...then.." statements are [i]not[/i] statements of causality. I mentioned this in a previous post, citing Wikipedia's essay on Causality and contrasting with conditionals. This means that the 'effect' [i]can[/i] come before the 'cause', depending on what the condition actually is, and since the conditional here is , "on your turn", then the "if...then..." form does not require the shield shove to come [i]after[/i] the attack; the only requirement is that both take place on your turn. However, I anticipated that some posters would continue to assert, erroneously, that this particular "if...then..." statement [i]should[/i] be adjudicated [i]as if it were[/i] a statement of causality. Boy, was my anticipation correct! What I then showed was that, [i]even with that interpretation[/i], it [b]still[/b] results in being able to resolve the shield shove [i]before[/i] you resolve the attack. So, [i]either way[/i], the shield shove [i]can[/i] go [i]before[/i] the first attack. I'm not implying that it [i]cannot[/i] be a causal relationship. I'm saying that [i]because[/i] of the "if...then..." form, the relationship is [i]not[/i] bound by Time's Arrow, while straight causal relationships must be. And in this case, the condition itself, freed from having to occur in a set [i]order[/i], instead merely needs to obey the condition! And the condition is merely that they both take place "on your turn". No! First, 'no' from the perspective that "if...then..." statements are not bound it time, just bound by the particular condition. Second, 'no' from a perspective which tries to claim that [i]this particular[/i] "if...then..." statement [i]should[/i] be treated as if it [i]were[/i] a straight statement of causality, [i]if that claim were true[/i] then it [b]must[/b] obey the requirements for a temporal order, and I [i]know[/i] you agree that it should obey that temporal order! But the crucial part is this: "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede [b][u]or coincide[/u][/b] with the consequent in time". So [i]even if[/i] you think that the 'effect' (the bonus action shield shove) [b]cannot[/b] occur [i]before[/i] the 'cause' (the attack), [i]the two certainly [b]can[/b] coincide![/i] Even in this interpretation, the [i]very same moment[/i] you 'take the Attack action on your turn' you have [i]simultaneously[/i] generated that bonus action shield shove. And because of the [i]actual written rule[/i] stating that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn as long as you have one to take, and you get this one at the very moment you 'take the Attack action', then, sure, under this interpretation you cannot take the bonus action before you get it, you certainly [b]can[/b] take it at the very moment you get it! Because, "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede [b]or coincide[/b] with the consequent in time". Although you are free to choose to take the bonus action [i]after[/i] the attack, and (under this interpretation) you cannot take the bonus action [i]before[/i] the attack which 'caused' it, you are certainly free to take that bonus action [i]at the same time[/i] as the attack which 'caused' it! Not quite. It's not that "combat turns are ordered sequences", it's that the [i]resolution[/i] of events is 'ordered', meaning 'resolved' one after the other. So the two actions are certainly allowed to happen simultaneously. Actions like Dash, Dodge and Disengage could not function as we use them if two actions could not occur simultaneously! However, things must be [i]resolved[/i] sequentially! In 5e, when things happen simultaneously on a creature's turn, they must be [i]resolved[/i] sequentially even if they [i]occur[/i] at the same time. But who decides the order in which simultaneous things get resolved? That's right! The player of the acting creature gets to decide the order in which they are resolved! Here, you 'take the Attack action on your turn', which 'causes' the bonus action. That bonus action is generated at the same time as you take the Attack action. Because 'cause' and 'effect' [b]can[/b] coincide, and the rules say you [b]can[/b] take your bonus action when you want, you [b]can[/b] 'take that bonus action' at the same time you get it, which is at the same time as you 'take the Attack action'. Since you chose to have the two things occur at the same time, you get to choose the order in which they are resolved. Therefore, you [b]can[/b] choose to [i]resolve[/i] the shield bash first, even though both the shield bash and the attack coincide. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated
Top