Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

WhosDaDungeonMaster · Feb 2, 2019

Enevhar Aldarion said:
As was pointed out to me a while back when I asked Crawford about the timing issue, there is no declaration step or phase, or whatever you want to call it, in 5E. That is a legacy of previous editions. So you attack or you do not attack. There is no saying "I am going to attack" and then get to do a bonus action before the attack is resolved. If the rules say "take the attack action" then you have to make an attack in order to trigger the bonus action. As for Shield Master itself, this in one of those feats that really feels like it should not be available at low levels, but I know they designed 5E feats to not have any prerequisites.

Actually if you use the variant of non-cyclical initiative, re-rolling every round, you must declare your actions before you roll. That is why I allow bonus actions to precede other actions required of them if player declares they are performing the required action (even if it comes after the bonus action). It hasn't been an issue at all.

Paul Farquhar · Feb 2, 2019

DQDesign said:
really? really still replying about that? You should be very interested in defending wotc any time! also again the rules written by themselves...

ok, check MM, page 342: 'you can add racial traits to an npc. adding racial traits to an npc doesn't alter its challenge rating' i.e. it doesn't render it exceptional in any way. which means that also a CR 0 half orc commoner can have the relentless endurance trait, and it is still CR 0.

You don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "must". I suggest you invest in some English lessons.

As already pointed out, even if the DM does, for some pointless reason, choose to write down that a random CR0 half orc commoner has relentless endurance, they will still be disintegrated by a Disintegrate spell, so your only agenda appears to be to bash WotC. What happened, did WotC run over your second cousin's best friend's dog?

Oofta · Feb 2, 2019

James Grover said:
Yeah, ruling the Shove action comes after the attacks only makes it so you can give advantage to others (possibly) if they are within reach of the target. Otherwise, with cyclical initiative, the opponent can always stand up and your shove was pointless.

Yeah, it's a pretty worthless feat with this interpretation most of the time. It's only an advantage if you have more party members that are melee going after you and before any ranged PCs. In the rare cases where shoving makes sense (there's a handy cliff or you want to limit their movement, etc) you can always use your melee attack.

Markh3rd said:
Since you can split up your attacks with movement, I don't think you must commit all attacks of your attack action before you get to use the bonus action shove. Just like you don't have to use all attacks before you can move. I would say that you have to take at least one attack first before attempting to shove. You could also attack, move, bonus shove, attack, etc depending on how you want to split it up.

Movement is an exception to the "doing something else during an action" rule because movement has special rules as indicated in chapter 9 of the PHB
Moving Between Attacks
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.

This also means for example that you can't dash between attacks (it's an action) or any other action you might want to do if you use an action surge or your PC is hasted.

DQDesign · Feb 2, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
You don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "must". I suggest you invest in some English lessons.

As already pointed out, even if the DM does, for some pointless reason, choose to write down that a random CR0 half orc commoner has relentless endurance, they will still be disintegrated by a Disintegrate spell, so your only agenda appears to be to bash WotC. What happened, did WotC run over your second cousin's best friend's dog?

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that you state false things.
You wrote PCs are exceptional, RAW they are not.
You wrote NPCs with racial traits are exceptional, RAW they are not.
I suggest you invest in some 5E dnd rules lessons.

Paul Farquhar · Feb 2, 2019

DQDesign said:
it can be near zero, but it is not zero.
this is the ridiculous point for me. also because it has no fiction justification having a CR 1 half orc spy more resistant to disintegrate among other CR 1 challenges. they have to be turned into ash by the said 11th level wizard all in the same way.

It may be that the spy has an important role to play, and the DM has reason to want them to be hard to kill, despite their low CR indicating they are a minimal threat in a fight. Consider The Two Towers movie. The DM wants the orc berserker not to die before they can detonate the explosives under the wall. So the DM gives the orc relentless endurance. The DM can do this even though the orc is not a half orc, because the DM can give NPCs whatever abilities he likes.

Alternatively, if the spy is not an important NPC and a player chooses to blow a high level spell on them, the DM will likely rule them disintegrated without even bothering to roll the damage dice. The DM is the arbiter, not the rulebook. That is something the rulebook makes abundantly clear.

As for challenge ratings, these are intended as a guide for designing encounters of appropriate difficulty. They are not holy writ. If the DM decides an alteration makes something significantly more or less dangerous they can adjust the CR accordingly. It's called the Dudgeon Master's Guide, not the Dungeon Master's Dictum.

Paul Farquhar · Feb 2, 2019

DQDesign said:
I'm just trying to highlight the fact that you state false things.
You wrote PCs are exceptional, RAW they are not.
You wrote NPCs with racial traits are exceptional, RAW they are not.
I suggest you invest in some 5E dnd rules lessons.

Players Handbook page 45: "ADVENTURERS ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE" (caps reproduced from the original text).

DQDesign · Feb 2, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
Players Handbook page 45: "ADVENTURERS ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE" (caps reproduced from the original text).

thanks, you finally demonstrated what I have been saying since a little bit, i.e. 5e design is intrinsically incoherent. in other words, the axiom is that PCs are extraordinary, as you correctly reported, then the rules allow to give any NPC, including CR 0 ones, exactly the same features of PCs, incuding racial traits (without altering the CR in this last case).
not that being the only incoherence, though.

SkidAce · Feb 2, 2019

James Grover said:
Yeah, ruling the Shove action comes after the attacks only makes it so you can give advantage to others (possibly) if they are within reach of the target. Otherwise, with cyclical initiative, the opponent can always stand up and your shove was pointless.

I'm cool with it.

Enemy was shoved, some people may get to them and attack before they get up, some don't.

Mistwell · Feb 2, 2019

DQDesign said:
thanks, you finally demonstrated what I have been saying since a little bit, i.e. 5e design is intrinsically incoherent. in other words, the axiom is that PCs are extraordinary, as you correctly reported, then the rules allow to give any NPC, including CR 0 ones, exactly the same features of PCs, incuding racial traits (without altering the CR in this last case).
not that being the only incoherence, though.

The PCS can be extraordinary people while some NPCs are also extraordinary people. Not mutually exclusive concepts.

Also, your dispute with Paul seems silly (each of you). You're upset about scenarios that have never happened to either of you and likely never will. All RPGs have corner cases. None will always function best with corner cases - which is why you have a DM. I'd much rather hear about your games and what you've actually encountered rather than this silly white room theoretical "If an 11th level wizard with this particular spell comes across a half-orc commoner with this particular racial trait something unanticipated may occur on a small chance."

I mean, have you had issues with disintegrate and low level half-orcs with this racial trait? If not...why are you guys even discussing it beyond a footnote minor observation?

Paul Farquhar · Feb 2, 2019

DQDesign said:
thanks, you finally demonstrated what I have been saying since a little bit, i.e. 5e design is intrinsically incoherent. in other words, the axiom is that PCs are extraordinary, as you correctly reported, then the rules allow to give any NPC, including CR 0 ones, exactly the same features of PCs, incuding racial traits (without altering the CR in this last case).
not that being the only incoherence, though.

The rules allow NPCs to have the same abilities as PCs. They don't require NPCs to have the same abilities as PCs, and most don't. Most NPCs are ordinary, but some are just as extraordinary as the PCs. Usually, they are the villains. Batman is extraordinary. The Joker is extraordinary. Gotham PD is ordinary, the joker's minions are ordinary. John McClaine is extraordinary, Hans Gruber is extraordinary. And so on. It's the logic of novels, movies and comic books, not the logic of reality. D&D has always worked this way (explicit in 1st edition AD&D DMG, which states that around 0.01% of humans have adventuring classes, the remaining 99.99% are zero level).

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

WhosDaDungeonMaster

Guest

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Oofta

Legend

DQDesign

Guest

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Paul Farquhar

Legend

DQDesign

Guest

SkidAce

Legend

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Similar Threads

Related Articles