Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CanadienneBacon" data-source="post: 6697522" data-attributes="member: 11146">Here's the entry for Fighting Style (Protection) from the PHB, pp 84:&nbsp; &quot;When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll.&nbsp; You must be wearing a shield.&quot;I've been specifying a protectee because we're in a PbP environment and if ever Dent was to be surrounded by more than one ally, it's more efficient for me to specify in advance who Dent protects.&nbsp; I figured no one would want to wait on the DM holding up init to query me whether Dent protects ally x when ally x gets hit.&nbsp; Granted, my declaring the protectee limits who Dent protects that round (an adjacent ally could get hit but would be SOL if I specified a different person to protect), but I weighted efficiency over flexibility because of the slow nature of PbP.The other thing about the grammar of the PHB entry is that it specifies the singular:&nbsp; &quot;a creature,&quot; &quot;a target,&quot;, and &quot;the attack roll.&quot;&nbsp; Since other PHB entries for other abilities specify plural (e.g. &quot;targets&quot;) or make use of the word &quot;any,&quot; I figured the use of the singular here meant that I needed to be specific, and that the protection would apply to only one attack made on a protectee.&nbsp; Well, that was my reasoning, anyway.&nbsp; I'm certainly open to hearing others' interpretation, particularly since my read is by far the most limiting of the ability.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CanadienneBacon, post: 6697522, member: 11146"] Here's the entry for Fighting Style (Protection) from the PHB, pp 84: "When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wearing a shield." I've been specifying a protectee because we're in a PbP environment and if ever Dent was to be surrounded by more than one ally, it's more efficient for me to specify in advance who Dent protects. I figured no one would want to wait on the DM holding up init to query me whether Dent protects ally x when ally x gets hit. Granted, my declaring the protectee limits who Dent protects that round (an adjacent ally could get hit but would be SOL if I specified a different person to protect), but I weighted efficiency over flexibility because of the slow nature of PbP. The other thing about the grammar of the PHB entry is that it specifies the singular: "[B]a [/B]creature," "[B]a[/B] target,", and "[B]the[/B] attack roll." Since other PHB entries for other abilities specify plural (e.g. "targets") or make use of the word "any," I figured the use of the singular here meant that I needed to be specific, and that the protection would apply to only one attack made on a protectee. Well, that was my reasoning, anyway. I'm certainly open to hearing others' interpretation, particularly since my read is by far the most limiting of the ability. [/QUOTE]

Verification