Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

Well, it's not we, it's you that's asking for it, and I'm suggesting the premise of your question (assuming you're asking it to prove your interpretation that the Attack action is separate from the attacks themselves) is flawed.

I'm happy to discuss that AFTER you have provided an actual valid example seeing I've been trying to pry from you for the past 2 pages...

Oh, this is easy then.

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to do Y."

Nice and simple.

Did you forget what you are trying to show? You are trying to write a rule that will provide the same outcome under your interpretation that the current rule does when it's read using my interpretation.

What you just wrote is not a rule that will provide the same outcome under your interpretation as the current rule does under my interpretation. Serious question, are you intentionally trying to be this dense?

 

[Asgorath]

I'm happy to discuss that AFTER you have provided an actual valid example seeing I've been trying to pry from you for the past 2 pages...



Did you forget what you are trying to show? You are trying to write a rule that will provide the same outcome under your interpretation that the current rule does when it's read using my interpretation.

What you just wrote is not a rule that will provide the same outcome under your interpretation as the current rule does under my interpretation. Serious question, are you intentionally trying to be this dense?

Thanks for the homework assignments, but I’m done. I’ve tried showing you the words in the PHB, and the words that are not in the PHB. There are ways Shield Master could’ve been written to allow any of the incorrect interpretations, and the simple fact that it doesn’t use those wordings strongly implies that those interpretations are indeed incorrect.

 

[epithet]

When an interpretation requires Schrodinger's actions and/or time travel in order to work correctly, it's the wrong interpretation.

I'm curious if that means that you'd kill a wild shaped druid PC with a disintegrate spell as soon as the wild shape form hits 0.

Of course not, that would be stupid. Even if the wild shape form hits zero, the druid has not. We had this discussion already, across a couple of different threads, didn't we?

Regardless, it raises in interesting distinction. Jeremy fixed that stupid hyper-literal semantic problem with an errata to preserve the reasonable and intended meaning of the rule after he felt compelled to Sage Advice it the other way, because he seems to be powerless against semantic attacks. Now we have another situation where he's described the intent and then reversed himself in the face of a semantic crisis. I have to wonder if an errata correction will follow, once he finally decides how he thinks the rule should be written.

 

[epithet]

Thanks for the homework assignments, but I’m done. I’ve tried showing you the words in the PHB, and the words that are not in the PHB. There are ways Shield Master could’ve been written to allow any of the incorrect interpretations, and the simple fact that it doesn’t use those wordings strongly implies that those interpretations are indeed incorrect.

After Jeremy reversed his Advice and I-don't-know-how-many people have spent a hundred pages arguing at least 4 different interpretations, surely you're not suggesting that the wording of the rule is unambiguous... are you?

 

[FrogReaver]

Thanks for the homework assignments, but I’m done. I’ve tried showing you the words in the PHB, and the words that are not in the PHB.

[MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION] answered that sufficiently. The rule you cited is so ambiguous in relation to whether the attack action happens at the same time as the attacks or before them that it didn't prove anything. The correct conclusion is that the rules are silent on both sides of that issue.

There are ways Shield Master could’ve been written to allow any of the incorrect interpretations, and the simple fact that it doesn’t use those wordings strongly implies that those interpretations are indeed incorrect.

I don't know how to respond to this. It's apparent that you don't even understand what an interpretation is. Nor does it appear that you are capable of even reading or understanding a statement using an interpretation other than your own. Nor can even make a coherent argument. That shield master wasn't written another way is not evidence that your interpretation is correct or that mine is incorrect.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course not, that would be stupid. Even if the wild shape form hits zero, the druid has not. We had this discussion already, across a couple of different threads, didn't we?

RAW says the druid hits 0 in wild shape before heading to the other pool RAW says dusting happens at 0. RAW(confirmed by JC) is that the druid dies.

Regardless, it raises in interesting distinction. Jeremy fixed that stupid hyper-literal semantic problem with an errata to preserve the reasonable and intended meaning of the rule after he felt compelled to Sage Advice it the other way, because he seems to be powerless against semantic attacks.

You are assuming motives that he hasn't stated. He confirmed what RAW was, and then provided the intent for the interaction. If the rule is the rule and you don't put much stock behind intent, you should be dusting the druid as soon as he hits 0 in wild shape, per RAW.

Now we have another situation where he's described the intent and then reversed himself in the face of a semantic crisis. I have to wonder if an errata correction will follow, once he finally decides how he thinks the rule should be written.

It shows a pattern. He is telling us what the RAW is with both Shield Master and Disintegrate/Wild Shape, and then letting us know what the intent is if different from RAW.

 

[Maxperson]

After Jeremy reversed his Advice and I-don't-know-how-many people have spent a hundred pages arguing at least 4 different interpretations, surely you're not suggesting that the wording of the rule is unambiguous... are you?

It's actually really easy to understand as I pointed out above. There are two states of having taken the Attack action on your turn. You haven't taken it, and you have taken it. Until you actually take it, you are in the "You haven't taken it" state. Once you do take it, you switch states.

 

[epithet]

RAW says the druid hits 0 in wild shape before heading to the other pool RAW says dusting happens at 0. RAW(confirmed by JC) is that the druid dies.

You are assuming motives that he hasn't stated. He confirmed what RAW was, and then provided the intent for the interaction. If the rule is the rule and you don't put much stock behind intent, you should be dusting the druid as soon as he hits 0 in wild shape, per RAW.

It shows a pattern. He is telling us what the RAW is with both Shield Master and Disintegrate/Wild Shape, and then letting us know what the intent is if different from RAW.

Where you and I differ is that I have no aversion to ambiguous rules. When a rule is ambiguous in its meaning, I simply decide based on the context what it should mean, and play accordingly. You, apparently, need to parse out the exact semantics of the terminology and take that as the meaning of the rule, no matter how ridiculous that meaning might be (case in point, disintegrate a perfectly healthy druid.) It often appears to me, as I view or participate in these conversations, that if a rule can be read in more than one way, you will pick the worst possible interpretation and then argue vigorously that it is the only correct way to read the rule. If Jeremy agrees with you, so much the better.

Disintegrate vs wild shape was an ambiguous rule, as demonstrated by hundreds or thousands of posts disputing the "correct" interpretation of the rule. Clearly, the "correct" interpretation of Shield Master's bonus action is also ambiguous. It will be interesting to see whether or not Jeremy amends it with errata, and if he does so, how. I'm tempted toward the suspicion that he will leave it ambiguous, just so that people can continue to interpret it how they feel is appropriate, but that's probably me projecting my own peevishness onto him. He probably regards ambiguity as his own personal kryptonite.

 

[FrogReaver]

After Jeremy reversed his Advice and I-don't-know-how-many people have spent a hundred pages arguing at least 4 different interpretations, surely you're not suggesting that the wording of the rule is unambiguous... are you?

You should have seen how many pages were spent arguing about this both before and after his first advice

 

[Yardiff]

When I read the Shield Master feat this is what I see when you talk about taking the Attack Action.


'If you take the Attack action on your turn', you can make a melee or ranged attack. If your 5th level or higher you can also make an extra attack.

'If you take the Attack action on your turn and have the Shield Master feat', you can make a melee or ranged attack and a shove using a bonus action. If your 5th level or higher you can also make an extra attack.

This is how it has always read to me.


Shield Master feat
'If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.'