So let me get this straight. You are arguing that you can interrupt an attack action any time you want with a bonus action, but then do not understand the fact that implies you could interrupt the attack between it hitting and damage being applied. Or between hitting and before all of the damage is applied.
There is no time between these things. Doing damage is a resolution of hitting them. You're not "interrupting" an attack action by using a bonus action in between two different attacks. just like you're not "interrupting" an attack action by moving between those same attacks. You're just doing stuff in between your attacks. The books, ie RAW, doesn't call this "interrupting" and you probably shouldn't call it that either, it may be what is leading to your confusion here.
As for citing a rule that says you cannot, cite the rule that says that you can.
Sure.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
There you go. You choose when.
There is no rule saying you cannot simply kill all the gods and take over all of reality simply by declaring 'I win,' however there is no rule that says you can, either. 'You can choose when to use a bonus action on your turn,' taken as literally as you are taking it, does indeed mean you can use it after an attack hits but before damage is determined, or before all the damage is determined, or before any triggers that allow the BA to be used at all.
Yeah, when you take the rules text literally it does tend to result in using the rule correctly. This is true. Try it!
You say there is no time between those things but the rule you are holding so tightly to does not say anything about there needing to be time between anything. That is the point you hang on.
If needing time is an issue, you have to show that there is time between attacks within a multi-attack action.
I take "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn" as meaning that you can choose when within a sequence of actions. Sure you can attempt to sync up certain actions to coincide with each other but I wouldn't rule that a non-exceptional 5e character could coincide actions to have any specific stage of those actions as occurring between a hit and the production of damage. That's a really fine target.
So let me get this straight. You are arguing that you can interrupt an attack action any time you want with a bonus action, but then do not understand the fact that implies you could interrupt the attack between it hitting and damage being applied. Or between hitting and before all of the damage is applied.
There is no time between these things. Doing damage is a resolution of hitting them. You're not "interrupting" an attack action by using a bonus action in between two different attacks. just like you're not "interrupting" an attack action by moving between those same attacks. You're just doing stuff in between your attacks. The books, ie RAW, doesn't call this "interrupting" and you probably shouldn't call it that either, it may be what is leading to your confusion here.
As for citing a rule that says you cannot, cite the rule that says that you can.
Sure.
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
There you go. You choose when.
There is no rule saying you cannot simply kill all the gods and take over all of reality simply by declaring 'I win,' however there is no rule that says you can, either. 'You can choose when to use a bonus action on your turn,' taken as literally as you are taking it, does indeed mean you can use it after an attack hits but before damage is determined, or before all the damage is determined, or before any triggers that allow the BA to be used at all.
Yeah, when you take the rules text literally it does tend to result in using the rule correctly. This is true. Try it!
You say there is no time between those things but the rule you are holding so tightly to does not say anything about there needing to be time between anything. That is the point you hang on.
If needing time is an issue, you have to show that there is time between attacks within a multi-attack action.
I need to do what?
Show that time exists between attacks? Uh. Ok. That's obvious but here you go:
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
You can run around between your attacks then we can say with certainty time exists between them.
But that doesn't say you can do anything else during that time without ending the action...
Good. we agree that there is time there! And that it is on your turn!
So: You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
5e characters are very far from being in total control over the timings of their actions. That's why we roll initiative.
This determines when your turn is.
You choose the timing of events... on your turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But that doesn't say you can do anything else during that time without ending the action...
Good. we agree that there is time there! And that it is on your turn!
So: You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
No, we agree that there is time in which one is allowed to move. This does not mean anything else is allowed.
If it is a When, then it is eligble.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The devs make no reference to the feat allowing movement that is vertical. All they've done is that they've written a feat that can be interpreted to say that the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical which, for me, makes no sense. This, and the sheer, apparent impossibility of the vertical interpretation of the feat in many situations, causes me to think that this interpretation can be rightly brought into question.
I don't think that devs should be expected to deny interpretations that regularly face impossibilities, that exceed the practice and art facilitation of the feat and that are internally ridiculous.
Nothing in the contextualised statement "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" prevents "a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area" nothing more. Certainly, in non-d&d contexts, no reasonable person expects levels of performance that may go well beyond the possible.
I think that it is perfectly possible that the devs got caught up in the colloquial usage of "move" when they wrote the feat. Typically, if you say "I'm moving x distance" it relates to surface level movement. If instead, you want to jump you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm jumping". If you want to climb you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm climbing". For non-flying creatures gameplay use of the word move is straightforwardly used to describe surface level movement, and I think it's possible that the devs had this in mind when they wrote the feat.
At least I think that this is more possible that they intended an interpretation that allowed vertical movement in all directions except vertical or to allow characters (that might potentially only be able to do standing high jumps to 1 ft in height) could knock a significantly more massive creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick. That would make them out to be morons.
The devs do reference vertical movement, by referencing movement & not excluding vertical movement (or any other direction). 5' of movement, no limitation stated on direction. It's not "can be interpreted", that's what is written in the rules, plain English. No limitation of direction, user's strength, or target's weight is written in the rules.
I get that you feel it can be unrealistic in some situations, but your feelings don't change the rules as written. All of the "I think"s you wrote, not in the rules. What I don't understand is your resistance to just say "I don't like these edge cases, I'm going to add some homebrew to make this feat work better for my table.", rather than continuing to say that because you don't like these edge cases, the devs must have meant something other than what they spent years writing, reviewing, & editing.
The devs make no reference to the feat allowing movement that is vertical. All they've done is that they've written a feat that can be interpreted to say that the feat can enable all directions of vertical movement except vertical which, for me, makes no sense. This, and the sheer, apparent impossibility of the vertical interpretation of the feat in many situations, causes me to think that this interpretation can be rightly brought into question.
I don't think that devs should be expected to deny interpretations that regularly face impossibilities, that exceed the practice and art facilitation of the feat and that are internally ridiculous.
Nothing in the contextualised statement "I'm going to move x, y distance to another area" prevents "a clear interpretation is that I'm moving them from area to area" nothing more. Certainly, in non-d&d contexts, no reasonable person expects levels of performance that may go well beyond the possible.
I think that it is perfectly possible that the devs got caught up in the colloquial usage of "move" when they wrote the feat. Typically, if you say "I'm moving x distance" it relates to surface level movement. If instead, you want to jump you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm jumping". If you want to climb you'd say, or at least include to say, "I'm climbing". For non-flying creatures gameplay use of the word move is straightforwardly used to describe surface level movement, and I think it's possible that the devs had this in mind when they wrote the feat.
At least I think that this is more possible that they intended an interpretation that allowed vertical movement in all directions except vertical or to allow characters (that might potentially only be able to do standing high jumps to 1 ft in height) could knock a significantly more massive creature to a height of 5 ft with a slap or a stick. That would make them out to be morons.
The devs do reference vertical movement, by referencing movement & not excluding vertical movement (or any other direction). 5' of movement, no limitation stated on direction. It's not "can be interpreted", that's what is written in the rules, plain English. No limitation of direction, user's strength, or target's weight is written in the rules.
I get that you feel it can be unrealistic in some situations, but your feelings don't change the rules as written. All of the "I think"s you wrote, not in the rules. What I don't understand is your resistance to just say "I don't like these edge cases, I'm going to add some homebrew to make this feat work better for my table.", rather than continuing to say that because you don't like these edge cases, the devs must have meant something other than what they spent years writing, reviewing, & editing.
The clearest and most closely rules founded interpretation is that they specify the direction in their qualification of the mentioned movement as being "to an unoccupied space" with, according to the combat rules, movement and position supplied definition, that space being an area.
You're moving the target from area to area. Simple. No impossible feats of strength are needed. No requirements for a bizarre claim that the feat enables all directions of vertical movement except vertical are involved. It's incredibly straightforward. All the reader would need to do is to comply with the text's stated direction of movement, "to an unoccupied space".
It's an interpretation that has the added bonus in that it doesn't make out the devs to be morons.
5e characters are very far from being in total control over the timings of their actions. That's why we roll initiative.
This determines when your turn is.
You choose the timing of events... on your turn.
I choose "when" I get into work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that my arrival is timed to the microsecond.
In the context such that, when you may have so little control on when your turn is, I find an interpretation of a time-splitting control on sequences of actions in your turn to be pretty far fetched.
... Sure you can attempt to sync up certain actions to coincide with each other but I wouldn't rule that a non-exceptional 5e character could coincide actions to have any specific stage of those actions as occurring between a hit and the production of damage. That's a really fine target.
But that doesn't say you can do anything else during that time without ending the action...
Good. we agree that there is time there! And that it is on your turn!
So: You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
No, we agree that there is time in which one is allowed to move. This does not mean anything else is allowed.
If it is a When, then it is eligble.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
You keep omitting the rest, which is 'unless there is something you are doing that prohibits it.'
Edit: Also, taken literally, 'When it is guaranteed to hit' is also a 'when.'
You know, It'd be better if you didn't lie about me. "You keep omitting the rest". Really?
You know I've quoted the whole thing at least half a dozen times now. How many times do you need it quoted for you? You have the book I'm assuming. Maybe you don't have the book. That'd explain some things.
But no, it does NOT say: "unless there is something you are doing that prohibits it.". <---- This is blatant misinformation. Trying to pass your own words off as rules text isn't acceptable.
Full quote again since you don't have a copy apparently:
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
That underlined bit is what you're mischaracterizing. This bit is referring to conditions like surprised, or incapacitated. You know, black and white rules text that "deprives you of your ability to take actions".
Again, please do not pass off your own words as rules text here. It isn't going to help anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But that doesn't say you can do anything else during that time without ending the action...
Good. we agree that there is time there! And that it is on your turn!
So: You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
No, we agree that there is time in which one is allowed to move. This does not mean anything else is allowed.
If it is a When, then it is eligble.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
You keep omitting the rest, which is 'unless there is something you are doing that prohibits it.'
Edit: Also, taken literally, 'When it is guaranteed to hit' is also a 'when.'
You know, It'd be better if you didn't lie about me. "You keep omitting the rest". Really?
You know I've quoted the whole thing at least half a dozen times now. How many times do you need it quoted for you? You have the book I'm assuming. Maybe you don't have the book. That'd explain some things.
But no, it does NOT say: "unless there is something you are doing that prohibits it.". <---- This is blatant misinformation. Trying to pass your own words off as rules text isn't acceptable.
Full quote again since you don't have a copy apparently:
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
That underlined bit is what you're mischaracterizing. This bit is referring to conditions like surprised, or incapacitated. You know, black and white rules text that "deprives you of your ability to take actions".
Again, please do not pass off your own words as rules text here. It isn't going to help anyone.
I don't always agree with Kothath but, have to admit, they are one of the most straightforward and honest people here.
Your argument is that you are justifiably and even sensibly "omitting the rest" within a situation in which "you are omitting the rest".
My question here is does the telekinetic bonus action, in which "you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you", take time. IF a DM adjudicates that it does take time, then it wouldn't be able to be completed in a lesser length of time.
My question here is does the telekinetic bonus action, in which "you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you", take time. IF a DM adjudicates that it does take time, then it wouldn't be able to be completed in a lesser length of time.
Oh a DM is entirely free to shut down this whole combination if they want to. That's never been in question. DMs can do whatever they want at their table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My question here is does the telekinetic bonus action, in which "you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you", take time. IF a DM adjudicates that it does take time, then it wouldn't be able to be completed in a lesser length of time.
Oh a DM is entirely free to shut down this whole combination if they want to. That's never been in question. DMs can do whatever they want at their table.
Oh, and a d&d participant can also homebrew to assert that actions don't take time.
This at no point says you cant BA shove in the middle of an attack action. If you're in the middle of the action, you're absolutelytaking it. Which is the only requirement here.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
I don't know how you can simply pretend the very first paragraph in the linked text doesn't exist. It is extremely explicit too. I'll paste it here for your benefit:
The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.
Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form.
The link is telling me I'm right, as we're discussing RAW (see the 1st sentence of the 2 sentences quoted above).
If you believe that a bonus action can be used within an action without the specific BA stating a timing that allows this, do you also believe that it is possible to interrupt a reaction with a bonus action on your own turn?
Potentially. Most reactions are instantaneous and not a multi-sequence event though so I doubt this would come up often. You got some sort of long drawn out multi-stage reaction in mind?
Quote from BeyondMisty>> It doesn't have to be multi-sequence to fit within your interpretation of RAW. If you believe a Bonus Action can fit within any Action, then there shouldn't be a difference between how many sub-sequences said Action consists of. Whether the Attack Action consists of 1, 2, or more attacks, it is still considered a singular Action. To humor you on multi-sequence Reactions, how would you rule if 2 separate Reactions triggered at the same time? Would you allow the creature whose turn it is to squeeze a Bonus Action in between the 2 Reactions? Would you allow a Bonus Action to be inserted between the 3 rays of Scorching Ray?
I am still curious about how you'd handle the 2-reactions-same-trigger and the Scorching Ray scenarios with your reading of RAW.
This at no point says you cant BA shove in the middle of an attack action. If you're in the middle of the action, you're absolutelytaking it. Which is the only requirement here.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
I don't know how you can simply pretend the very first paragraph in the linked text doesn't exist. It is extremely explicit too. I'll paste it here for your benefit:
The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.
Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form.
The link is telling me I'm right, as we're discussing RAW (see the 1st sentence of the 2 sentences quoted above).
Bro.
Tweets are not RAW no matter how often you insist they are. Tweets can only tell us their RAI. And that one tells us their RAI is that the action can be broken up.
RAW also agrees. And if you say otherwise provide the RAW that says so. no, not another tweet that says so, RAW is rules as written again, no tweet can ever tell you what RAW is because the rules are not found on twitter.
If you believe that a bonus action can be used within an action without the specific BA stating a timing that allows this, do you also believe that it is possible to interrupt a reaction with a bonus action on your own turn?
Potentially. Most reactions are instantaneous and not a multi-sequence event though so I doubt this would come up often. You got some sort of long drawn out multi-stage reaction in mind?
Quote from BeyondMisty>> It doesn't have to be multi-sequence to fit within your interpretation of RAW. If you believe a Bonus Action can fit within any Action, then there shouldn't be a difference between how many sub-sequences said Action consists of. Whether the Attack Action consists of 1, 2, or more attacks, it is still considered a singular Action. To humor you on multi-sequence Reactions, how would you rule if 2 separate Reactions triggered at the same time? Would you allow the creature whose turn it is to squeeze a Bonus Action in between the 2 Reactions? Would you allow a Bonus Action to be inserted between the 3 rays of Scorching Ray?
I am still curious about how you'd handle the 2-reactions-same-trigger and the Scorching Ray scenarios with your reading of RAW.
I don't know what 2-reaction-same-trigger is referencing. Care to elaborate?
Scorching ray happens all at once. You aim your rays, you roll as many d20s as you have rays, you determine results. There is no in-between-rays moment here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This at no point says you cant BA shove in the middle of an attack action. If you're in the middle of the action, you're absolutelytaking it. Which is the only requirement here.
The rules in D&D are based around Actions, not intention. The rules operate around the assumption that you have not taken an Action until the Action is completed, meaning you haven't taken the Attack action until you have completed all the attacks you wish to complete with said action. The rules unfortunately do not address this design philosophy (that I can find), but the designers do.
I want you to click on your own link and read it again. Your link is telling you you're wrong.
Bro.
"you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it"
How can you link their RAI and still argue you have to complete the whole action? RAW you don't. And clearly RAI , based on your own link, you don't.
I don't know how you can simply pretend the very first paragraph in the linked text doesn't exist. It is extremely explicit too. I'll paste it here for your benefit:
The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.
Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form.
The link is telling me I'm right, as we're discussing RAW (see the 1st sentence of the 2 sentences quoted above).
Bro.
Tweets are not RAW no matter how often you insist they are. Tweets can only tell us their RAI. And that one tells us their RAI is that the action can be broken up.
RAW also agrees. And if you say otherwise provide the RAW that says so. no, not another tweet that says so, RAW is rules as written again, no tweet can ever tell you what RAW is because the rules are not found on twitter.
If you believe that a bonus action can be used within an action without the specific BA stating a timing that allows this, do you also believe that it is possible to interrupt a reaction with a bonus action on your own turn?
Potentially. Most reactions are instantaneous and not a multi-sequence event though so I doubt this would come up often. You got some sort of long drawn out multi-stage reaction in mind?
Quote from BeyondMisty>> It doesn't have to be multi-sequence to fit within your interpretation of RAW. If you believe a Bonus Action can fit within any Action, then there shouldn't be a difference between how many sub-sequences said Action consists of. Whether the Attack Action consists of 1, 2, or more attacks, it is still considered a singular Action. To humor you on multi-sequence Reactions, how would you rule if 2 separate Reactions triggered at the same time? Would you allow the creature whose turn it is to squeeze a Bonus Action in between the 2 Reactions? Would you allow a Bonus Action to be inserted between the 3 rays of Scorching Ray?
I am still curious about how you'd handle the 2-reactions-same-trigger and the Scorching Ray scenarios with your reading of RAW.
I don't know what 2-reaction-same-trigger is referencing. Care to elaborate?
The scenario I just quoted. I'll quote it again:
To humor you on multi-sequence Reactions, how would you rule if 2 separate Reactions triggered at the same time? Would you allow the creature whose turn it is to squeeze a Bonus Action in between the 2 Reactions?
If you need a specific example, consider 2 archers who have both readied an action to shoot you when you move outside your cover. On your turn you move outside your cover and their reactions trigger. Do you get to use a bonus action in-between their 2 attacks?
Scorching ray happens all at once. You aim your rays, you roll as many d20s as you have rays, you determine results. There is no in-between-rays moment here.
Scorching Ray is a single action, just like the Attack action is a single action. Both can consist of multiple attacks. You argue bonus actions can be used between attacks. The rules say nothing about in-between moments, except in the specific case of movement, which is not what we are discussing.
To humor you on multi-sequence Reactions, how would you rule if 2 separate Reactions triggered at the same time? Would you allow the creature whose turn it is to squeeze a Bonus Action in between the 2 Reactions?
If you need a specific example, consider 2 archers who have both readied an action to shoot you when you move outside your cover. On your turn you move outside your cover and their reactions trigger. Do you get to use a bonus action in-between their 2 attacks?
Well, your bonus action's 'when' would also have to be "When you move out of cover based on the frame of reference of 2 archers". Then you'd have 3 simultaneous effects. I can't think of a way in which someone would practically do this, how would you set that as their 'when' as it is impractical. But, sure, assuming that is the 'when' of their bonus action, then yes. Whosoever's turn it is determines the order of simultaneous events.
Realistically, the 2 archers attacks probably aren't even simultaneous, nor is your bonus action. Since, from their respective vantage points one or the other will see you out of cover before the other does. And, you're unlikely to choose to pick a 'when' that triggers when you yourself are fully exposed from outside cover to not only one but both of them simultaneously. No one in my decades of play has ever attempted something so convoluted.
You got some example that might actually happen or exist in play?
Scorching ray happens all at once. You aim your rays, you roll as many d20s as you have rays, you determine results. There is no in-between-rays moment here.
Scorching Ray is a single action, just like the Attack action is a single action. Both can consist of multiple attacks. You argue bonus actions can be used between attacks. The rules say nothing about in-between moments, except in the specific case of movement, which is not what we are discussing.
Scorching Ray isn't an action, it is a spell. Casting it is typically using the Cast a Spell action. But, that isn't certain. It can be done as a reaction if you have warcaster feat. Or as a bonus action if you quicken it. Spells aren't actions. They can be 'cast' using actions.
The attacks the the spell scorching ray creates are all created as the spell text explains they are. The order here is explicit. You make all attacks rolls. Then you determine damage for the ones that hit their target. All rays are fired simultaneously. There isn't an in-between rays.
When you take the Attack action, however, you make each attack sequentially. You fully resolve one attack before moving on to the next (if you even have more than one).
There is a pretty clear difference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You got some example that might actually happen or exist in play?
Got an example for you:
You are casting a spell. Enemy spellcaster counter-spells. Since it is your turn, does this mean you cast a bonus action spell before their counter-spell completes, despite your first spell technically not having completed yet?
False equivalence....
They stated that they dictate the order of actions for their own actions first and foremost.
And even then yes according to Xanathars if it's your turn you do decide in what order reactions occur.
"If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen."
Counterspell is a specific example that supersedes the general. You need to complete it before you can move on.
You got some example that might actually happen or exist in play?
Got an example for you:
You are casting a spell. Enemy spellcaster counter-spells. Since it is your turn, does this mean you cast a bonus action spell before their counter-spell completes, despite your first spell technically not having completed yet?
Bonus actions can't be used before using them. That's a function fairly unique to reactions. Reactions often have phrasing that lets you change outcomes of things that have already happened.
Take shield for example. it triggers when you're hit. but then causes the hit to not hit. But if it doesn't hit how can you even use shield? They're paradoxical in this way. Reactions warp time a bit.
Bonus actions don't work in this way unless a specific one was worded in that way, but I cannot even think of a single example of one that is worded that way. You can choose when to use them. But they're not interrupting something in the sense that they cause you to reevaluate the precipitating trigger or anything.
Short answer: No. You can't interrupt a counterspell with a bonus action. Once they've counterspelled your bonus action can't time-travel to before the counterspell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You got some example that might actually happen or exist in play?
Got an example for you:
You are casting a spell. Enemy spellcaster counter-spells. Since it is your turn, does this mean you cast a bonus action spell before their counter-spell completes, despite your first spell technically not having completed yet?
Bonus actions can't be used before using them. That's a function fairly unique to reactions. Reactions often have phrasing that lets you change outcomes of things that have already happened.
Take shield for example. it triggers when you're hit. but then causes the hit to not hit. But if it doesn't hit how can you even use shield? They're paradoxical in this way. Reactions warp time a bit.
Bonus actions don't work in this way unless a specific one was worded in that way, but I cannot even think of a single example of one that is worded that way. You can choose when to use them. But they're not interrupting something in the sense that they cause you to reevaluate the precipitating trigger or anything.
Short answer: No. You can't interrupt a counterspell with a bonus action. Once they've counterspelled your bonus action can't time-travel to before the counterspell.
But there is no specific rule that says you cannot. It is simply understood. That is the same argument we are making with respect to timing of bonus actions more generally.
Rules don't really work like that. You're free to implement a houserule if you think that bonus actions should be able to time travel though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I take "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn" as meaning that you can choose when within a sequence of actions. Sure you can attempt to sync up certain actions to coincide with each other but I wouldn't rule that a non-exceptional 5e character could coincide actions to have any specific stage of those actions as occurring between a hit and the production of damage. That's a really fine target.
That is a rule specific to Breaking Up Your Move and has nothing to do with bonus action.
5e characters are very far from being in total control over the timings of their actions.
That's why we roll initiative.
Good. we agree that there is time there! And that it is on your turn!
So: You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This determines when your turn is.
You choose the timing of events... on your turn.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If it is a When, then it is eligble.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The devs do reference vertical movement, by referencing movement & not excluding vertical movement (or any other direction). 5' of movement, no limitation stated on direction. It's not "can be interpreted", that's what is written in the rules, plain English. No limitation of direction, user's strength, or target's weight is written in the rules.
I get that you feel it can be unrealistic in some situations, but your feelings don't change the rules as written. All of the "I think"s you wrote, not in the rules. What I don't understand is your resistance to just say "I don't like these edge cases, I'm going to add some homebrew to make this feat work better for my table.", rather than continuing to say that because you don't like these edge cases, the devs must have meant something other than what they spent years writing, reviewing, & editing.
The clearest and most closely rules founded interpretation is that they specify the direction in their qualification of the mentioned movement as being "to an unoccupied space" with, according to the combat rules, movement and position supplied definition, that space being an area.
You're moving the target from area to area. Simple. No impossible feats of strength are needed. No requirements for a bizarre claim that the feat enables all directions of vertical movement except vertical are involved. It's incredibly straightforward. All the reader would need to do is to comply with the text's stated direction of movement, "to an unoccupied space".
It's an interpretation that has the added bonus in that it doesn't make out the devs to be morons.
I choose "when" I get into work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that my arrival is timed to the microsecond.
In the context such that, when you may have so little control on when your turn is, I find an interpretation of a time-splitting control on sequences of actions in your turn to be pretty far fetched.
You know, It'd be better if you didn't lie about me. "You keep omitting the rest". Really?
You know I've quoted the whole thing at least half a dozen times now. How many times do you need it quoted for you? You have the book I'm assuming. Maybe you don't have the book. That'd explain some things.
But no, it does NOT say: "unless there is something you are doing that prohibits it.". <---- This is blatant misinformation. Trying to pass your own words off as rules text isn't acceptable.
Full quote again since you don't have a copy apparently:
That underlined bit is what you're mischaracterizing. This bit is referring to conditions like surprised, or incapacitated. You know, black and white rules text that "deprives you of your ability to take actions".
Again, please do not pass off your own words as rules text here. It isn't going to help anyone.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't always agree with Kothath but, have to admit, they are one of the most straightforward and honest people here.
Your argument is that you are justifiably and even sensibly "omitting the rest" within a situation in which "you are omitting the rest".
My question here is does the telekinetic bonus action, in which "you can try to telekinetically shove one creature you can see within 30 feet of you", take time. IF a DM adjudicates that it does take time, then it wouldn't be able to be completed in a lesser length of time.
Oh a DM is entirely free to shut down this whole combination if they want to. That's never been in question. DMs can do whatever they want at their table.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Oh, and a d&d participant can also homebrew to assert that actions don't take time.
I don't know how you can simply pretend the very first paragraph in the linked text doesn't exist. It is extremely explicit too. I'll paste it here for your benefit:
The link is telling me I'm right, as we're discussing RAW (see the 1st sentence of the 2 sentences quoted above).
Bro.
I am still curious about how you'd handle the 2-reactions-same-trigger and the Scorching Ray scenarios with your reading of RAW.
Tweets are not RAW no matter how often you insist they are. Tweets can only tell us their RAI. And that one tells us their RAI is that the action can be broken up.
RAW also agrees. And if you say otherwise provide the RAW that says so. no, not another tweet that says so, RAW is rules as written again, no tweet can ever tell you what RAW is because the rules are not found on twitter.
I don't know what 2-reaction-same-trigger is referencing. Care to elaborate?
Scorching ray happens all at once. You aim your rays, you roll as many d20s as you have rays, you determine results. There is no in-between-rays moment here.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The scenario I just quoted. I'll quote it again:
If you need a specific example, consider 2 archers who have both readied an action to shoot you when you move outside your cover. On your turn you move outside your cover and their reactions trigger. Do you get to use a bonus action in-between their 2 attacks?
Scorching Ray is a single action, just like the Attack action is a single action. Both can consist of multiple attacks. You argue bonus actions can be used between attacks. The rules say nothing about in-between moments, except in the specific case of movement, which is not what we are discussing.
Well, your bonus action's 'when' would also have to be "When you move out of cover based on the frame of reference of 2 archers". Then you'd have 3 simultaneous effects. I can't think of a way in which someone would practically do this, how would you set that as their 'when' as it is impractical. But, sure, assuming that is the 'when' of their bonus action, then yes. Whosoever's turn it is determines the order of simultaneous events.
Realistically, the 2 archers attacks probably aren't even simultaneous, nor is your bonus action. Since, from their respective vantage points one or the other will see you out of cover before the other does. And, you're unlikely to choose to pick a 'when' that triggers when you yourself are fully exposed from outside cover to not only one but both of them simultaneously. No one in my decades of play has ever attempted something so convoluted.
You got some example that might actually happen or exist in play?
Scorching Ray isn't an action, it is a spell. Casting it is typically using the Cast a Spell action. But, that isn't certain. It can be done as a reaction if you have warcaster feat. Or as a bonus action if you quicken it. Spells aren't actions. They can be 'cast' using actions.
The attacks the the spell scorching ray creates are all created as the spell text explains they are. The order here is explicit. You make all attacks rolls. Then you determine damage for the ones that hit their target. All rays are fired simultaneously. There isn't an in-between rays.
When you take the Attack action, however, you make each attack sequentially. You fully resolve one attack before moving on to the next (if you even have more than one).
There is a pretty clear difference.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
False equivalence....
They stated that they dictate the order of actions for their own actions first and foremost.
And even then yes according to Xanathars if it's your turn you do decide in what order reactions occur.
"If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen."
Counterspell is a specific example that supersedes the general. You need to complete it before you can move on.
Bonus actions can't be used before using them. That's a function fairly unique to reactions. Reactions often have phrasing that lets you change outcomes of things that have already happened.
Take shield for example. it triggers when you're hit. but then causes the hit to not hit. But if it doesn't hit how can you even use shield? They're paradoxical in this way. Reactions warp time a bit.
Bonus actions don't work in this way unless a specific one was worded in that way, but I cannot even think of a single example of one that is worded that way. You can choose when to use them. But they're not interrupting something in the sense that they cause you to reevaluate the precipitating trigger or anything.
Short answer: No. You can't interrupt a counterspell with a bonus action. Once they've counterspelled your bonus action can't time-travel to before the counterspell.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Rules don't really work like that. You're free to implement a houserule if you think that bonus actions should be able to time travel though.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.