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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khashir" data-source="post: 6789269" data-attributes="member: 6779189">Indeed, let's look: the spell grants you a melee attack and specifies the conditions under which you can use said attack. You're wrong about the laxity of the restrictions: it's precisely because you can't take Actions outside your turn that PHB 192 is written that way. You can only take reactions, or resolve a Ready Action (which you took on your turn), if it triggers.The thing is, you've conflated two questions:1. Can I do X according to the rules? (X = repeat the VT attack as an OA)2. Can I do X in my game?Since the OP explicitly said he's looking for a "solid ruling," he's clearly asking the first question, while you're answering the second (hint: the answer to the second, regardless what X is, is always "yes, so long as your GM allows it.") Further, answering the first actually requires knowing the rules (which leads me to calling out BS on your part: you were derogatory towards people concerned with the rules, since you opened a reply saying "No one likes a rules lawyer.") The rules provide structure and balance to the game: Rule 0 is the first, of course, but that doesn't trivialize discussing what the rest of the rules allow. Otherwise, WotC wouldn't bother developing them, and just provide fluff and allow a free for all. Many of the rules that seem most arbitrary are precisely to promote balance/bounded accuracy. (I recall a post by a GM"I tend to judge [rule-bending] based on "are they doing it because it's cool, or because they're sneaking an extra attack in?". Cool gets a nod, power-gaming gets a "nice try".")Here's an informative/insightful post on <a href="http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/6212/how-do-you-help-players-not-focus-on-the-rules/6334#6334" target="_blank">not focusing on the rules</a>. Perfectly legitimate style of play, not what the OP asked.And that's the last bit of time I waste on this thread...</blockquote>

Verification