Search results

Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the...

Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the...

Again, I am not urging SA in support of any ruling on Shield Master. Nor am I making any reference to the “drunk at Trader Joe’s” tweet on Shield Master. I am referring specifically to the published Sage Advice on the War Magic feature of the eldrich knight, which uses a similar conditional. At...

Again, I am not urging SA in support of any ruling on Shield Master. Nor am I making any reference to the “drunk at Trader Joe’s” tweet on Shield Master. I am referring specifically to the published Sage Advice on the War Magic feature of the eldrich knight, which uses a similar conditional. At...

You do know that you can shove as an attack granted by the Attack action, right? Just checking.

You do know that you can shove as an attack granted by the Attack action, right? Just checking.

With regard to the War Magic feature, the intention was stated in Sage Advice first, then the Advice was changed to reflect the new policy on timing. I’m sorry that it seemed like an appeal to authority, because I expressly and emphatically reject the notion that there is any authority over the...

With regard to the War Magic feature, the intention was stated in Sage Advice first, then the Advice was changed to reflect the new policy on timing. I’m sorry that it seemed like an appeal to authority, because I expressly and emphatically reject the notion that there is any authority over the...

I don't think arguments about what language the rules would include support your side of the argument. We have, in the example of the War Magic feat and the history of Crawford's statements thereupon, clear and unequivocal proof that the same language and construction used in the Shield Master...

I don't think arguments about what language the rules would include support your side of the argument. We have, in the example of the War Magic feat and the history of Crawford's statements thereupon, clear and unequivocal proof that the same language and construction used in the Shield Master...

The errata is: [New] Disintegrate (p. 233). The last sentence of the second paragraph now reads, “The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points.”

The errata is: [New] Disintegrate (p. 233). The last sentence of the second paragraph now reads, “The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points.”

The actual wording is "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon..." That's not the same as "With this action, you make a..."

The actual wording is "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon..." That's not the same as "With this action, you make a..."

Mike Mearls said that if he had it to do over again, he would have just made the bonus actions part of your action instead, presumably like the Extra Attack feature. When he thought about it some more, as I recall, conceded that the bonus action structure served as a useful limitation. It's been...

Mike Mearls said that if he had it to do over again, he would have just made the bonus actions part of your action instead, presumably like the Extra Attack feature. When he thought about it some more, as I recall, conceded that the bonus action structure served as a useful limitation. It's been...

See what I mean? By the way, you do know that disintegrate was changed in the last round of errata, don't you? It's just that you keep talking about what disintegrate "unequivocally says" and, in your earlier post, "RAW says that..." when you're actually talking about what it used to say. If...

See what I mean? By the way, you do know that disintegrate was changed in the last round of errata, don't you? It's just that you keep talking about what disintegrate "unequivocally says" and, in your earlier post, "RAW says that..." when you're actually talking about what it used to say. If...

But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB...

But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB...