D&D 5E Great Weapon Mastery - once more into the breach! (with math)

[FrogReaver]

I have the first printing of the PHB and the errata. It is written as I have written it.
The errata does not mention anything about a change in wording.

I just phone to a friend, who has the 3rd or 4th printing. The interupting of movement by OA isn't there anymore. It was not errata in anyway on the sage advice on Wizard's site... Which one is the correct way?

I think they removed it because it was causing the type of confusion in the rule that you are having. I can see and understand where you got it from after reading the rule. Perhaps many of us had enough background in 5e before it was released to know freedom of movement was a focus and that's why we never read that phrase as anything more than timing.

I have the first printing and it's in mine but I think it was just to help clarify the timing.

 

[Ancalagon]

I have the first printing of the PHB and the errata. It is written as I have written it.
The errata does not mention anything about a change in wording.

I just phone to a friend, who has the 3rd or 4th printing. The interupting of movement by OA isn't there anymore. It was not errata in anyway on the sage advice on Wizard's site... Which one is the correct way?

We have noticed that some changes are *not* tallied in the errata. Unfortunately I cannot recall what the other change was... but yeah, there has been at least 2 of those changes, and they are rather significant.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm going to be nice because I know you believe you are right. So I won't be belligerent.

Do you believe you can move 15ft west to your sword that's lying on the ground. Pick up the sword and then move 10ft north and then finally attack something?

Of course you can. You have one free interaction that you can use that does not interfere with movement, action, bonus action and reaction.
Nothing in the rules prevents you from doing that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wow to you. Opportunity stop declared movement p.195 of the PHB. Sentinel feat reduces your movement to zero. Top right side paragraph just under the boxed text.

Meaning: I move to the archer, leaving the dodger in the dust. I need 20 feet to reach the archer. The dodger hit with OA. Bang! You lost 20 feet to your movement. You have to use your action to either: Attack, or continue to move an other 30 feet. Which could be interrupted by an other OA if an other foe is in range. Then when your action is over; you move the rest of your movement that is 10 feet.

With the sentinel feat, your movement is reduced to zero, forcing you to attack or dodge. You wouldn't be able to use your action to move as your movement is now zero.

You should re read some of the mechanics of the game... But it is a common mistakes that I have often seen.

From the PHB: "The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occuring right before it leaves your reach."

If that does not stop the declared movement... nothing will. Read the interupt entry in the dictionnary. For the dictionary, something that is interupted has been stop. Be it momentarily, or permanently. In that case, it is only temporary. With the sentinel feat. It is permanent (for the round that means.)

Um, what PHB do you have? Mine doesn't use the word 'interrupt' at all in the rules for OA. I looked at the errata, thinking there might have been a change to the rule at some point (although I have an early printing PHB), and there's been no errata on OAs. So... whiskey tango foxtrot?

ETA: nevermind, this is OBE

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course you can. You have one free interaction that you can use that does not interfere with movement, action, bonus action and reaction.
Nothing in the rules prevents you from doing that.

Very good. So it seems you can move then stop moving and pick something up and then continue to move. So even if the OA stopped your move. You would still have all of your speed that hasn't been used and you could start moving again right there right?

 

[Helldritch]

I think they removed it because it was causing the type of confusion in the rule that you are having. I can see and understand where you got it from after reading the rule. Perhaps many of us had enough background in 5e before it was released to know freedom of movement was a focus and that's why we never read that phrase as anything more than timing.

I have the first printing and it's in mine but I think it was just to help clarify the timing.

I still have the D&D next data and it was in there too...
I would really have liked to see something that major (in my games and the games that I am aware of in my vincinity) to be advertise in the errata... This will change a lot of things in my games I can assure you.

 

[FrogReaver]

I still have the D&D next data and it was in there too...
I would really have liked to see something that major (in my games and the games that I am aware of in my vincinity) to be advertise in the errata... This will change a lot of things in my games I can assure you.

I understand. But for most of us that errata makes no difference and I think it wouldn't have to you if you had logically thought through all the movement stuff with it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I still have the D&D next data and it was in there too...
I would really have liked to see something that major (in my games and the games that I am aware of in my vincinity) to be advertise in the errata... This will change a lot of things in my games I can assure you.

Well, the original wording didn't stop movement, either. Just like you can just start an interrupted conversation back right where you left off, you could always continue with your remaining move after the interruption of the OA was over. They must have stealth changed the wording to clarify that.

 

[Caliban]

I still have the D&D next data and it was in there too...
I would really have liked to see something that major (in my games and the games that I am aware of in my vincinity) to be advertise in the errata... This will change a lot of things in my games I can assure you.

I can only guess that it's not in the errata because they don't consider it a rule change or modification. Just cleaning up the language to prevent confusion.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've started a new thread about these non-errataed changes...