Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Asgorath]

We know this is the case, since JC himself interpreted those words that way for years!

If you still want to argue that the 2015 tweet was JEC's intentional ruling on the matter, when he has since come out and said that he doesn't even remember tweeting that and you should absolutely disregard the tweet because it was incorrect and then updated the official Sage Advice compendium with a specific ruling on the subject, then I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, sure.

 

[Arial Black]

If you still want to argue that the 2015 tweet was JEC's intentional ruling on the matter, when he has since come out and said that he doesn't even remember tweeting that and you should absolutely disregard the tweet because it was incorrect and then updated the official Sage Advice compendium with a specific ruling on the subject, then I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, sure.

As loaded as all that is....yes!

When we are learning something our conscious minds deal with it. Once we have learned that thing, then our subconscious mind takes over, leaving our conscious mind to be ready for other things.

This is how we operate on 'automatic pilot'. On days when we are distracted, we can still do the thing in question without having to concentrate on it, but we do it the way we learned it.

So if JC was in line at Trader Joe's the day they had "buy one get one free" on Jack Daniels....he would answer the question with the way he subconsciously understood the rule to work.

Y'know, the rule he wrote.

Because he wanted the rules to work that way.

He's changed his mind since.

It is not credible that he always wanted the game to work the way his latest tweets interpret it, but while distracted his subconscious went to an interpretation he never had!

Either way, we adjudicate the RAW with the RAW, not with tweets.

 

[Asgorath]

As loaded as all that is....yes!

When we are learning something our conscious minds deal with it. Once we have learned that thing, then our subconscious mind takes over, leaving our conscious mind to be ready for other things.

This is how we operate on 'automatic pilot'. On days when we are distracted, we can still do the thing in question without having to concentrate on it, but we do it the way we learned it.

So if JC was in line at Trader Joe's the day they had "buy one get one free" on Jack Daniels....he would answer the question with the way he subconsciously understood the rule to work.

Y'know, the rule he wrote.

Because he wanted the rules to work that way.

He's changed his mind since.

It is not credible that he always wanted the game to work the way his latest tweets interpret it, but while distracted his subconscious went to an interpretation he never had!

Or, you know, he forgot that Shield Master had a timing requirement and just replied based on the general rule about bonus actions (i.e. that you can take them any time you want). He's mentioned on Dragon Talk and Dragon+ on many occasions that he's now much more careful about looking things up in the books, because he has so many different variations of the rules in his mind and wants to make sure he comments on the actual version of the rules they released. I really don't think there needs to be a grand conspiracy here, and the Sage Advice compendium update really should put to rest any discussion about how the rule is supposed to work. If you want to ignore that ruling at your table, great, more power to you. I just find it kind of funny that you're arguing that no, JEC's subconscious mind was right the first time and the Sage Advice compendium must be wrong as a result.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, both verb forms you’ve written are in the present tense. Taking is the present participle, while take is the simple present. Present tense is often used to refer to future events, however, especially when used in a condition clause such as, “If you take the Attack action”. Past tense would be, “If you took the Attack action,” although I’m not sure what significance you think that grammatical construction would have.

The game does not say, "If you are going to take the Attack action..."

No, there’s no switching involved. What I’m saying is this: If a player declares they shove a creature, I resolve that by the rules, with a contest. Then, when they declare another attack, if they have the Shield Master feat, I see that they’re taking the Attack action on their turn, which qualifies them to have used their bonus action for the shove, meaning they still have their action to use. I haven’t changed the RAW more than anyone else who interprets the rules in order to play the game. I have nothing against house-rules and am not ashamed of the ones I use, but this isn’t a case of making any changes to the rules. There is more than one interpretation, and your interpretation isn’t any better than mine.

The bolded part is against the rules. You can't take a bonus action until after the trigger has happened. You can stretch "interpretation" mean simultaneous, which would trigger after the first attack, since you can't have taken or be taking the Attack action before the first attack. Prior to the first attack it's only a declaration which is insufficient. There is also no rule that allows you to take the bonus action they used and turn it into the Attack action should you be knocked out before the PC can take the Attack action. If you think there is, please quote it in your response.

 

[Maxperson]

If you accept that "your movement this turn does not provoke" to give permission to do what seems 'expressly' forbidden by the unwritten 'rule', then surely the case for "you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn" is even stronger!

While there is no rule which says you can't, there is a rule which says you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn.

Choosing when to take the bonus action seems to me to be in context, an ordering of events. You can do bonus action, move, action, move. Or move, action, bonus action, move. Or action, bonus action, move. Or whatever combination you like. It's not something that allows simultaneous events. In the above context, you are indeed choosing when on your turn to engage a bonus action that doesn't include built in timing.

As for making sense (and I'm a big fan of that!), sure it makes sense that you can't be chanting the verbal components for two spells simultaneously, and it makes sense that you can't use your single weapon to attack two opponents in different rooms simultaneously, it does make perfect sense to be able to execute one attack, misty step into another room, then execute your second attack! What's nonsensicle about that?

Nothing, which is why I'm going to allow it.

And we're not doing that! We're saying that you can pat your head, then cast a spell, then rub your tummy!

 

[FrogReaver]

Or, you know, he forgot that Shield Master had a timing requirement and just replied based on the general rule about bonus actions (i.e. that you can take them any time you want). He's mentioned on Dragon Talk and Dragon+ on many occasions that he's now much more careful about looking things up in the books, because he has so many different variations of the rules in his mind and wants to make sure he comments on the actual version of the rules they released. I really don't think there needs to be a grand conspiracy here, and the Sage Advice compendium update really should put to rest any discussion about how the rule is supposed to work. If you want to ignore that ruling at your table, great, more power to you. I just find it kind of funny that you're arguing that no, JEC's subconscious mind was right the first time and the Sage Advice compendium must be wrong as a result.

Sadly the original tweet and sage advice should have out the issue to bed as well

 

[Maxperson]

So if JC was in line at Trader Joe's the day they had "buy one get one free" on Jack Daniels....he would answer the question with the way he subconsciously understood the rule to work.

Or it could have just easily been, "Tee hee!! This one is really going to throw them for a loop." I've been around enough tipsy and drunk people to know that it often releases the smart ass in them, and also prevents sound judgment.

I don't know which of those is true, or if it was his unconscious mind, or some other option, but those two possibilities seem a lot stronger to me than he unconsciously wrote his true understanding.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

(As in, "If you go to the mailbox, you can take the dog for a walk.")

I find it interesting how we are sometimes "divided by a common language." For example, in New Zealand English the quoted sentence would be parsed as, "You are only allowed to take the dog for a walk once you have finished going to the mailbox". This is both the condition (go to the mailbox) and the timing of that condition (finish going to the mailbox).

Similarly, "If you finish your vegetables, you can have pudding." and, "If you do your expense claim, you can have the afternoon off."

I read discussions in this forum, and others, with interest because I never understood any parsing of the rule other than, "You only get to do the Bonus Action Shove if you have finished the Attack Action."

 

[Arial Black]

I find it interesting how we are sometimes "divided by a common language." For example, in New Zealand English the quoted sentence would be parsed as, "You are only allowed to take the dog for a walk once you have finished going to the mailbox". This is both the condition (go to the mailbox) and the timing of that condition (finish going to the mailbox).

Similarly, "If you finish your vegetables, you can have pudding." and, "If you do your expense claim, you can have the afternoon off."

I read discussions in this forum, and others, with interest because I never understood any parsing of the rule other than, "You only get to do the Bonus Action Shove if you have finished the Attack Action."

"IF you take the Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory".

Does anyone understand that as meaning you must finish the course before you are allowed to take a room in that dormitory? Or is it conditional in the sense that you can only take the room if you also take the Law course?

You would even be expected to move into the dormitory before term even starts! All that is required is that you are only allowed to take that room if you are also taking the Law course that term/semester.

The way that Shield Master bullet point is written allows this arrangement; that you may only take the bonus action shield bash if you also take the Attack action this semester turn.

 

[Arial Black]

He's mentioned on Dragon Talk and Dragon+ on many occasions that he's now much more careful about looking things up in the books, because he has so many different variations of the rules in his mind and wants to make sure he comments on the actual version of the rules they released.

The two parts I bolded are what I'm talking about here.

First, whoever designed the game-JC here-did not come down a mountain carrying tablets of stone with the 5e game system inscribed upon them! No, JC, and game designers generally, have gone through weeks, months, even years, coming up with ideas, rejecting some and keeping others, refining some, researching past rules systems (especially true for D&D!), and having many different solutions before actually settling on one.

Then they publish The Book.

Then the designer continues to do what designers do, which is to continue to think about these ideas and better ways to do them, sometimes utilising feedback on the actual play experience of others, and frequently come to think things like, "They don't seem to understand what I meant; I could've explained it better", "I didn't realise the ramifications of all those rules and one rule has had unintended and undesirable consequences; I wish I'd have done it differently. I should change it".

So, for the designer, their thoughts about a rule system are in a constant state of flux.

But for us, there is only....The Book.

We treat The Book like it was The Revealed Word. Which it literally is!

What it says in The Book about its own rules must, by definition, be True.

But what if there are inconsistencies? Well, we could ask The Creator what he meant!

So we ask him.

First, because his own understanding of the rules has been in constant flux this whole time, it is easy to understand that his current understand is not what The Book says. And that when asked on different occasions years apart, when his own thinking about the rules has changed over time, it's easy to understand how he comes to different conclusions. Not because he is stupid or drunk or bored or distracted, but simply that his thoughts on the rules, in constant evolving flux, has changed.

Even when The Creator goes back and reads The Book to check, the very fact that his understanding has changed may lead him to very different conclusions about that same rule over a period of time.

But we only have The Book.

We cannot be privy to The Creator's thoughts, even as accessible as JC is on Twitter. We also cannot reasonably be expected to change the way our game works at exactly the same moment as The Creator changes his opinion on his own rules, which are now Set In Stone for the rest of us.

Because, make no mistake, when we go to our FLGS and come back with this brand spanking new 5e PHB, we HAVE been to the mountain and come down with tablets of stone with the 5e game system inscribed upon them! ....Metaphorically speaking.

Sure, each table then sets up its own denomination, but most of us don't declare a Crusade against unbelievers....even though it might seem that way on the forums.