Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[epithet]

There's a real question of whether or not you select all targets before you start resolving the attack rolls. Aside from a tweet from Mearls a year into the life of 5e, I can't find anything definitive. He did reply to Crawford, and Crawford didn't correct him, so take that for what it's worth.

As for for the bonus action timing regarding Eldritch Blast, I have to defer to Crawford's statement that explicit prevents nesting unless an exception is specified:

You don't, though. Honestly, you don't have to defer to Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls or anyone else. There are the published rules, there are your table's rules, and everything else is just advice. Jeremy can't change the rules on Twitter, or even through a Sage Advice pdf. The rules only change with errata.

Edit: it is worth pointing out that Sage Advice does not purport to tell you how Jeremy runs a game, or how he thinks you should run a game. Sage Advice exists to give you an interpretation of the rules that will be, as much as possible, uniformly consistent with other rules and suggested interpretations. He's trying to maintain an integrated system, not to make your game awesome. Frankly, I suspect that Jeremy Crawford believes that a DM running an awesome game will maybe take a look at the Sage Advice and then make his own mind up about how to rule over his own tabletop.

 

[5ekyu]

You don't, though. Honestly, you don't have to defer to Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls or anyone else. There are the published rules, there are your table's rules, and everything else is just advice. Jeremy can't change the rules on Twitter, or even through a Sage Advice pdf. The rules only change with errata.

Edit: it is worth pointing out that Sage Advice does not purport to tell you how Jeremy runs a game, or how he thinks you should run a game. Sage Advice exists to give you an interpretation of the rules that will be, as much as possible, uniformly consistent with other rules and suggested interpretations. He's trying to maintain an integrated system, not to make your game awesome. Frankly, I suspect that Jeremy Crawford believes that a DM running an awesome game will maybe take a look at the Sage Advice and then make his own mind up about how to rule over his own tabletop.

FWIW the sage compendium does snswer the attscks wuestion for dpells - resolve sequentially. You font have to declare all targets st start.

 

[Maxperson]

Nor do they forbid it.

This is meaningless. The rules also do not forbid a longsword from nuking anything it hits and vaporizing a mile square. Just because something is not explicitly forbidden, does not make it allowed. Only what is specifically allowed is allowed. Any other mechanics you want to add you have to create rules for.

In 5e it specifically says that you can move in-between weapon attacks, so by RAW weapon attacks are the only attacks you can move in-between.

That puts the resolution in the realm of a ruling, not the rules. You're certainly welcome to read the rules in the most restrictive manner, but I don't.

No it doesn't. A ruling concerns an ambiguity or hole in the rule. There is no ambiguity or hole here. The rule is crystal clear and covers what it is supposed to cover. If you want to create a new rule that allows you to move in-between spell attacks, create it. But it's a house rule, not a ruling.

 

[Lord Twig]

Just to throw another data point out there. For the eldritch knight, War Magic says, "when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action". So before you cast the cantrip, you have no bonus action available, as nothing has granted you the bonus action yet. Therefore your weapon attack would come after the cantrip.

Whereas for their Arcane Charge ability it says, "you gain the ability to teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space you can see when you use your Action Surge. You can teleport before or after the additional action." This is not a bonus action, but a special action (special movement?) granted by the Arcane Charge ability, but it is an explicit exception to the rule of having to take the granted action after the triggering action.

Personally I listened to the Dragon Talk podcast and Jeremy's reasoning made sense. Just have the free shield bash go after all of your other attacks. If you want to knock someone down first, use your first attack for it. One of the barbarian's special abilities is getting advantage to attack with the drawback that everyone else has advantage to hit them back in the process. Giving a fighter (or whoever else takes the feat) advantage for an athletics roll seems a little overpowered. And that is in addition to the other abilities granted by the feat. It is still a really good teamwork feat.

I also require you to pick all targets for your Magic Missile spell before you roll. The spell explicitly says that all missiles strike simultaneously. But each missile damage is rolled separately, unlike some bizarre ruling that Jeremy made once.

I do let players determine results before picking the next target for spells like scorching ray or eldritch blast, but you can't do anything else in between. The spell is instantaneous. I am being generous in letting them pick targets one at a time already.

If you try to counterspell someone that tries to counterspell your spell, you can, but you lose your other spell so there is no point and you wasted another spell. I don't care if it is RAW. I'm not letting you cast two spells simultaneously. Players are fine with this because then they can counterspell the BBEG without these shenanigans stopping them. And his spells are probably more powerful than theirs anyway.

 

[Yunru]

But you can’t take a bonus action in the middle of an attack action because just like the cast action, actions are not divisible.

"Fake rules"

 

[Yunru]

There's a real question of whether or not you select all targets before you start resolving the attack rolls.

No there isn't. Step 1 of making an attack is choosing a target.

 

[Hussar]

"Fake rules"

No, the fake rule is the stuff you are making up to fit your interpretation. I'm simply reading the rules that are there.

Is there any rule that states that you can break up your Attack Action with a Bonus Action? Yes or no? Is the rule there?

Because, since we're talking about RAW, the only thing we get to discuss is what is explicitly stated. You don't get to invent stuff just because you like it. Well, you do actually. I'd probably rule that you could use shield bash in the middle of the attack too. But, I'd do so knowing that this wasn't RAW but something for my table. Which is fine. It's my table.

I don't see why you need official approval of your rulings. RAW does not say what you want it to say, so, rule otherwise. No problem. But, don't pretend that your additions are RAW.

 

[Yunru]

No, the fake rule is the stuff you are making up to fit your interpretation. I'm simply reading the rules that are there.

Is there any rule that states that you can break up your Attack Action with a Bonus Action? Yes or no? Is the rule there?

Because, since we're talking about RAW, the only thing we get to discuss is what is explicitly stated. You don't get to invent stuff just because you like it. Well, you do actually. I'd probably rule that you could use shield bash in the middle of the attack too. But, I'd do so knowing that this wasn't RAW but something for my table. Which is fine. It's my table.

I don't see why you need official approval of your rulings. RAW does not say what you want it to say, so, rule otherwise. No problem. But, don't pretend that your additions are RAW.

My additiona? Mr. (Ms.? Mrs.?) 'Actions are indivisible despite it not being written anywhere, or in any offical source'?

 

[Markh3rd]

What is funny is most games don't go over level 10, so really, it's an argument that in the real world doesn't mean much at all. Even if you allow attack, slam, attack they get one attack with advantage. Vs a greater invisibility rogue lol.

 

[Ristamar]

You don't, though. Honestly, you don't have to defer to Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls or anyone else. There are the published rules, there are your table's rules, and everything else is just advice. Jeremy can't change the rules on Twitter, or even through a Sage Advice pdf. The rules only change with errata.

Edit: it is worth pointing out that Sage Advice does not purport to tell you how Jeremy runs a game, or how he thinks you should run a game. Sage Advice exists to give you an interpretation of the rules that will be, as much as possible, uniformly consistent with other rules and suggested interpretations. He's trying to maintain an integrated system, not to make your game awesome. Frankly, I suspect that Jeremy Crawford believes that a DM running an awesome game will maybe take a look at the Sage Advice and then make his own mind up about how to rule over his own tabletop.

When I say defer, I'm referring to official interpretation of the rules. It doesn't necessarily mean I plan on running them the same way at my own table. That being said, I'm not the type that goes looking for an answer on the internet regarding a piece of rule advice or interpretation and then gets upset if I don't like what I find. I want to know the designer intent regardless of how I run it.