Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Skallgrim" data-source="post: 4911781" data-attributes="member: 79271">And, as I was trying to point out, this is an ongoing debate.&nbsp; No matter how vociferously you argue one side, someone else is going to argue the other side.&nbsp; No matter how continuously you point out that their position is obviously inconsistent and wrong, they are going to level the same claim against you.Until WOTC issues a faq or errata on this issue, there is going to be someone telling you that RAW clearly proves you wrong and them right.That is why my position on this was to assume that both sides were arguing in good faith, and not supporting a position that they knew to be false.&nbsp; I just, myself, would allow the Swift Charge to be used after a Charge, simply because it doesn't seem any more powerful to be allowed two Charge attacks in your own turn than it does to be allowed an Opportunity Attack or Immediate Interrupt/Reaction attack and a charge in someone else's turn.&nbsp; In both cases, two attacks occur at a time when only one attack can normally be made.&nbsp; That's not an argument from RAW.&nbsp; I think, from RAW, the answer isn't crystal clear.&nbsp; If someone can present some objective evidence that every single one of the people arguing the &quot;wrong side&quot; of RAW is actually lying, and knows their argument to be false, then I think that you have to accept that at least some of the &quot;wrong people&quot; are genuinely confused by the way that the rules are written.&nbsp; There's just no need to keep hammering away at the same debate in each thread.&nbsp; This person was a self-described 'noob'.&nbsp; I think it would have been charitable to simply acknowledge that this situation (Swift Charge after a Charge) is a 'debated' issue, and perhaps offer your own perspective on the question.&nbsp; I don't think his question was an invitation to indoctrinate him into your own 'side' of the argument.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Skallgrim, post: 4911781, member: 79271"] And, as I was trying to point out, this is an ongoing debate. No matter how vociferously you argue one side, someone else is going to argue the other side. No matter how continuously you point out that [I]their[/I] position is obviously inconsistent and wrong, they are going to level the same claim against you. Until WOTC issues a faq or errata on this issue, there is going to be someone telling you that RAW clearly proves you wrong and them right. That is why my position on this was to assume that both sides were arguing in good faith, and not supporting a position that they knew to be false. I just, myself, would allow the Swift Charge to be used after a Charge, simply because it doesn't seem any more powerful to be allowed two Charge attacks in your own turn than it does to be allowed an Opportunity Attack or Immediate Interrupt/Reaction attack and a charge in someone else's turn. In both cases, two attacks occur at a time when only one attack can normally be made. That's not an argument from RAW. I think, from RAW, the answer isn't crystal clear. If someone can present some objective evidence that [U]every single one[/U] of the people arguing the "wrong side" of RAW is actually lying, and knows their argument to be false, then I think that you have to accept that at least [I]some[/I] of the "wrong people" are genuinely confused by the way that the rules are written. There's just no need to keep hammering away at the same debate in each thread. This person was a self-described 'noob'. I think it would have been charitable to simply acknowledge that this situation (Swift Charge after a Charge) is a 'debated' issue, and perhaps offer your own perspective on the question. I don't think his question was an invitation to indoctrinate him into your own 'side' of the argument. [/QUOTE]

Verification