Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storyteller01" data-source="post: 1906706" data-attributes="member: 20931">Fisrt of all...HOLD IT!Next, READ THE FIRST MESSAGE ON THIS THREAD, NOW!Third, as the originator of this thread, I hold myself responsible for anything said by and to other members of this site while in this thread. If I see any further insults; backhanded, thinly veiled or otherwise...  YOU WILL BE REPORTED!!!No questions asked, no quarter given...I hope you do the same for me as well.*ahem* Now back to the dicussion.I have placed a challenge to the members of this thread. Specifically, it was to explain an example to which killing an ally justifies gaining an extra attack against an enemy. Please keep away from the RAW as much as possible. Simply describe the event.To date, I have received examples of 'they were my enemy previously, and I took them both out', 'my buddy was dying, and he said take the shot', and 'it is in the game world'. The last I will have to assume is another intrepretation of "It's in the rules", as no one has yet given specific examples of a DM stating ahead of time that attacking summoned creatures for this tactic is legal,or of players making comntracts with the summoned creatures (or their bosses) ahead of time. It may be implied in specific campaigns, but unless the DM clears such actions ahead of time, I'd say the matter definitely merits a discussion.For one last time, I will place this challenge to you, the members of this site: Please describe an event, real time or otherwise, where intentiaonally striking and killing, with the intent to 'abstarcly' droppingthe hp  to 0 or less, justifies gaining an extra attack on an enemy. Please stay away from using the RAW, or using game mechanics (there is a cleric available) to justify the situation.EDIT: also justify how this allows an attack out of turn (not one you have already lined up), if possile (I know, I asked you not to use the RAW. We'll deal with it as best we can).Please use an example that can be used in multiple situations. The previous examples are good, but limited to specific circumstances. These circumstances do not apply to summoned crearures (most summoned creatures have no direct history to the players, and summoned creatures are at full hit points. They have not been injured, and have no immediate fear of dying).PS: Claiming that the fighter is a ranger who's hated enemy is  outsiders/elementals/fey or any other variant of summoned creature ies 1) a very specific situation and 2) uses the RAW almost entirely to explain itself.I ask this because (and I'm sure I'll see some rebuttal for this, but...)if it cannot be explained outside the rules, then isn't it just a manipulation of said rules?Please note: the same challenge has already been placed to me. Specifically, to give an example when striking an enemy justifes striking another enemy with an extra attack. I have done this, well enough in fact that variations of my arguement have been given as examples to my own stated challenge. And the example I gave can be used in nearly every combat situation (two handed swords are not manditory. All you need is a sharp edge).If I can do what was asked of me without debasement, twisting of the original intent of the challenge, or claiming that it does not apply to the argument, then I ask that you be able to as well.(no insults or finger pointing had been intended. sorry if you see it.)</blockquote>

Verification