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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6775490" data-attributes="member: 16814">Appeal to authority -- you've substituted making an argument by saying that reading the rules is insufficient for clarity, you must get the clear statement of an authority in order to prevail.  You could correct this by pointing out where you think the case for not interrupting actions lies, as I and Seebs have for pointing out the clear words 'immediately after the trigger' for our case, and then still say that you'd like to hear from the devs.  That, at least, would result in an argument for your position in addition to seeking further clarification from an authority, which is not an appeal to authority.  However, the substitution of only accepting an authority's opinion without making your own counterargument is a fallacy.All I'm asking is that you support your assertion that you cannot interrupt actions.  If this is as easy as you claim, then we'd be shut up already.  However, the truth is that you've made an assumption that isn't supported in any way.Sigh.  Well done, you've shown that you can only say 'nuh-uh.'  My six year old daughter does arguing better than you.You're conflating.  I've already said that I don't think that's how the rules work, even if I would allow such a weird thing to happen at my table if it ever came up because I wouldn't punish such a horribly bad use of resources just to make a rule argument.  Again, I agree that you cannot dispel an eldritch blast in between attacks.My sole current contention is that readied actions can clearly interrupt other actions (ie, they don't have to wait until the full action is completed, just their trigger).  You said clearly before that this was impossible (specifically to the example situation I posted above).  The rules read clearly otherwise.  You've yet to point to anything that supports your position. Yes, a total of 30 when you take the dash action.  I struggle with your ability to read rules as ambiguous in cases that don't support you, but rock solid in cases where there's actually some ambiguity.  Whatever, as I said, this isn't integral to my point so I don't care either way.Yes, but nothing in there contradicts the ability to perform your reaction as part of a readied action immediately after the trigger occurs.  Nor are triggers defined as anything other than a "perceivable circumstance."  If they intended action, then that's a great place to say so, yes? Instead, they say "perceivable circumstance" and then go on to give examples that are not actions, but could occur within actions.  There's no place the rules say you cannot interrupt an action. In fact, under reactions, it says that if a "reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."  In that same paragraph, it describes reactions as, "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."  Nothing about actions, it's all about triggers.  Triggers don't say anything about actions, the reference 'perceivable circumstance."  There is no place that says that actions cannot be interrupted.Even looking at other reactions, which have the same limitations of reacting immediately to a trigger, it's clear they interrupt actions.  Counterspell is a reaction that triggers on spellcasting that has additional specific language that allows it to do the one thing most reactions can't -- preempt it's own trigger.  With the exception of that additional specific language, it otherwise functions as all other reactions do.  Same with AOs, which can clearly occur inside other actions, such as movement between attacks.  It also has specific wording that allows it to preempt it's own trigger, but otherwise it has to wait for it's trigger and then the reaction occurs.  Both still follow the pattern established as 'set a trigger, set an action, if the trigger occurs, then action' with the added words of 'and this reaction can retroactively preempt it's trigger.'  Hellish rebuke is a reaction that doesn't preempt it's trigger, and it follows the same path.  But, with all of that, you're insisting that readied action, despite no words that say otherwise, breaks this pattern and cannot interrupt the one word missing in every discussion of triggers and reactions: actions. At this point, the burden is really on you to explain where and what you base this one.  Refusal to do so, especially when complaining that someone needs to ask the mods, is tacit acknowledgement that you're avoiding the question because you have no answer.  It's long past time to put up or shut up.</blockquote>

Verification