Level Up (A5E) Press the Attack/Fall Back update

[Morrus]

I disagree on three fronts.

First, it is grammatically proper for "before" to be treated as subjunctive. That is, it appears in the same context as when someone says "Repent before it's too late". "Before" only indicates that it's possible that the future event will happen, not that it must.

The future event is that it will become too late. That will happen — a date will arrive when it is too late to repent. Therefore you must repent before it’s too late. It’s not conditional on the action.

 

[Deset Gled]

I mean, that's not grammatically anything.

What?

But since it only grants you the expertise die until the beginning of your next turn, the only possible time an attack could happen is on the same turn. So no, you can't take an attack the next round to satisfy the requirements unless you're really twisting the intent to serve your own purposes.

I can still take the attack next round, I just don't get the expertise die. No twisting needed.

The future event is that it will become too late. That will happen — a date will arrive when it is too late to repent. Therefore you must repent before it’s too late. It’s not conditional on the action.

The future event that won't happen is that I don't get the expertise die. After the beginning of my next turn, it's too late to receive that bonus. Attacks against me are still made with advantage. Seems well balanced to me.

 

[MarkB]

The future event is that it will become too late. That will happen — a date will arrive when it is too late to repent. Therefore you must repent before it’s too late. It’s not conditional on the action.

So basically, so long as you intend to use the Attack action at some point in the future - this turn, tomorrow, three decades from now - you're okay to go ahead and use Press the Attack now.

 

[lichmaster]

I disagree on three fronts.

First, it is grammatically proper for "before" to be treated as subjunctive. That is, it appears in the same context as when someone says "Repent before it's too late". "Before" only indicates that it's possible that the future event will happen, not that it must.

Second, there's no requirement that the Attack happens right after the PtA. The text doesn't say "immediately before". If I use PtA, I could take an Attack action next round and fulfill the "before" clause. Or two rounds from now. Or tomorrow.

Third, ruling that an Attack action must be taken screws over players when they use PtA but are later unable to attack. Consider if a player uses PtA and the target Falls Back, resulting in the target no longer being attack-able (maybe they fall of a cliff, maybe they activate a floor plate that closes a portcullis between the two combatants, etc). The player is now left with no opponent to attack. Do you force the player to take the Attack action and effectively waste their turn, or do you let them take a different action to respond to the new battlefield conditions? There are a multitude of situations where changing conditions mean an Attack is not possible after PtA is used. Rulings that require you to predict the future are problematic to enforce.

Well, the game is yours, you're fee to do with it whatever you want.
I for sure will not accept any similar interpretation.

 

[Satirical Bard]

The future event is that it will become too late. That will happen — a date will arrive when it is too late to repent. Therefore you must repent before it’s too late. It’s not conditional on the action.

Could you clarify the intent of the new wording please? We no longer seem to even be clear on that. Do you want it to be tied to an Attack action in the same turn, or not?

 

[Morrus]

Could you clarify the intent of the new wording please? We no longer seem to even be clear on that. Do you want it to be tied to an Attack action in the same turn, or not?

Yes.

 

[MarkB]

Yes.

And is the Fall Back reaction tied to moving away from the attacker?

 

[Morrus]

And is the Fall Back reaction tied to moving away from the attacker?

As opposed to towards it?

 

[MarkB]

As opposed to towards it?

As opposed to if there's no room to move away, or the defender is currently unable to move. Movement is granted as part of the reaction, but it isn't clear whether the benefit of the reaction is dependent upon being able to take that movement.

 

[Morrus]

As opposed to if there's no room to move away, or the defender is currently unable to move. Movement is granted as part of the reaction, but it isn't clear whether the benefit of the reaction is dependent upon being able to take that movement.

You can't move if you can't move, no!