Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7575922" data-attributes="member: 6795602">You are projecting.That doesn't mean it's not an important concept. The PHB doesn't talk about the attack action being part of the attacks themselves Not my position so no comment.Typically yes. Sure, but you do realize that is opposed to the JC ruling you adore so much?Those aren't weeds.  That's an integral part of the discussion, especially in regards to whether just 1 or both attacks need to be taken. On things the PHB is silent about we are left to our reasoning.  My approach is no more complex than yours.  It's just different.  My approach is very simple.  My justifications for my approach are complex because this is a complex subject and one where the PHB gave no direct rules for.  On the other hand your justification for your approach has boiled down to, "the PHB doesn't explicitly state Frogreaver's interpretation and therefore mine is right".  Well no.  Unless it explicitly states yours too then we are in the same boat so to speak.  The difference is that I'm using my reasoning to derive a conclusion and you just keep coming back to "the PHB doesn't explicitly state Frogreaver's interpretation and therefore mine is right".That's nonsensical.  We can derive truths from other truths.  That's the basis of complex reasoning in general.  We take truths and combine them together and reason about them in such a way that we discover more truths.  Action duration itself is an axiom.  Either actions are instantaneous or they have a duration.  There is no other option.  We use logic and reasoning based on the truths we already know to discover that truth as well.So you can try to argue it's not an important truth, but you can't conflate it's importance with it's existence as you continue to attempt to do.The PHB doesn't talk about the action being non-separate from the attacks themselves.  Then that's not a thing either.  Does that mean the Attack Action is neither separate nor non-separate from the attacks themselves....  opps that's a contradiction.  I just proved your reasoning incorrect AGAIN!</blockquote>

Verification