NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 7560804" data-attributes="member: 5889">I would go one of two ways based on the “can” argument.1) (actions are divisible) You make an attack, and take a bonus action. Since you had extra attacks, you can now take them or not at your preference.2) (actions are indivisible) You make an attack, and take a bonus action. When taking a bonus action you have made a conscious decision to finish your attack action without taking your extra attacks, so you now have no attacks left.As to the whole “divisible vs indivisible” argument...to me actions are indivisible by default. If that was not the case, than the whole “divide your movement between attacks” clause would not be necessary...as that would simply be a natural thing that divisible actions let you do.If you then want to argue that clause is a “clarity” for the reader instead of a rules exception, well there are plenty of other circumstances that are not explicitly mentioned for clarity. For example, with divisible actions...twin spell would allow me to touch a person, move, and touch another person. Why isn’t that explicitly mentioned for clarity?So based on that, I assume actions are indivisible by default, until rules exceptions make them otherwise.So that’s the default. Now at my table, I like the idea of allowing a shield bash in between attacks. So I would allow this as a “rules exception”, but I knowingly accept that it is not RAW and would not allow other divisible action scenarios in automatically.</blockquote>

Verification