Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5340671" data-attributes="member: 51942">Hmm, I think I'd do exactly that - be in doubt between those three options and choose the 1st, albeit uncertainly <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />.I don't see the motivation to disallow having both effects matter (which would be option two), and in general there's no rule concerning the stacking of pushes or similar.I'm generally not thrilled by scenario's whereby the "packeting" of effects matters, but there's no reason to assume said packaging would be altered merely because it's part of one attack.  After all, that attack could be interrupted half-way (as could be any attack involving movement or multiple sub-attacks).  The attack doesn't represent an atomic, singular, unsplittable event, merely an action expenditure.So - I doubt it's a scenario the designers thought about much, but nevertheless option 1 sounds most reasonable.  On the other hand, since it doesn't seem particularly intentional or necessary, if it significantly disrupts gameplay, it's a prime candidate for a house rule.  It doesn't look like slightly more powerful OA's would be that problematic, however.Is it problematic?</blockquote>