Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7571247" data-attributes="member: 6795602">The Disengage action doesn't imply anything.&nbsp; It's explicit.&nbsp; &quot;If you move you don't provoke OA's.&nbsp; There is no guarantee in that action that you are able to move after taking it, just that if you do move then you don't provoke OA's.&nbsp; My logical argument relies on the presumption/RAI that after taking the disengage action you should be able to move and not provoke OA's.&nbsp; I think we all agree there. I don't think you understand how arguments by contradiction work.&nbsp; You start with premises and show that those premises lead to a contradiction.In this case I have 3 premises1)&nbsp; You should be able to move after taking the disengage action (the RAI that we all know)2)&nbsp; You can only move before or after an action except with an explicit exception (the RAW in the PHB)3)&nbsp; Actions are indivisible (your interpretation)It's obvious those premises lead to a contradiction.&nbsp; You agree there I'm sure.&nbsp; However, what you are trying to say is that premise #2 is wrong because premise #1.&nbsp; The issue with that is that premise #1 only has to do with the intentions/implications and premise #2 only has to do with what is explicitly written.&nbsp; #2 cannot be altered by intentions/implications/RAI because the premise itself is independent of those things.&nbsp; That's why I find it baffling that you keep presenting that as evidence that the argument I'm presenting isn't true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7571247, member: 6795602"] The Disengage action doesn't imply anything. It's explicit. "If you move you don't provoke OA's. There is no guarantee in that action that you are able to move after taking it, just that if you do move then you don't provoke OA's. My logical argument relies on the presumption/RAI that after taking the disengage action you should be able to move and not provoke OA's. I think we all agree there. I don't think you understand how arguments by contradiction work. You start with premises and show that those premises lead to a contradiction. In this case I have 3 premises 1) You should be able to move after taking the disengage action (the RAI that we all know) 2) You can only move before or after an action except with an explicit exception (the RAW in the PHB) 3) Actions are indivisible (your interpretation) It's obvious those premises lead to a contradiction. You agree there I'm sure. However, what you are trying to say is that premise #2 is wrong because premise #1. The issue with that is that premise #1 only has to do with the intentions/implications and premise #2 only has to do with what is explicitly written. #2 cannot be altered by intentions/implications/RAI because the premise itself is independent of those things. That's why I find it baffling that you keep presenting that as evidence that the argument I'm presenting isn't true. [/QUOTE]

Verification