Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Character Builds & Optimization
[5e DM Help] Keeping the lid on....what builds should I NOT allow?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alatar" data-source="post: 6964664" data-attributes="member: 38424"><p>I agree. The 5e rules say moving between attacks is allowed. That is the general rule. The general rule on taking bonus actions is, "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified." The timing of the GWM bonus action is not specified in the feat description. The prerequisite that must be met to get the bonus is specified, but that is the nature of all bonus actions. The general rule still applies.</p><p></p><p>A specific exception to the general rule requires an explicit statement to that effect. In this case, there is no exception explicitly stated.</p><p></p><p>In my experience, a strict literal interpretation of the rules text is the correct one. Every once in a great while, Jeremy Crawford says otherwise, overruling RAW in deference to his original intent. But I've only actually seen this happen once, and I follow his feed on Twitter, and I query Sage Advice via Google searches rather assiduously. </p><p></p><p>In the great majority of cases, questions posed to Crawford reveal what the petitioner thinks the rule "should" be, rather than what it plainly states, or fails to state. In almost every instance, they are rebuffed. And were I to see this bonus attack issue brought up on Crawford's twitter feed, I would expect him to affirm your position, and I would categorize the petitioner as another example of someone who has reasoned themselves to what the rule "ought to be," in the absence of any actual supporting text.</p><p></p><p>The one counter example that I have run across is the ruling that the Resilient feat can only be taken once. It does not say this in the text, or in the published errata, but when asked, Jeremy Crawford stated that such was the case. </p><p></p><p>Now, one might argue that the line in the Elemental Adept feat that states, "You can select this feat multiple times," by inference indicates that all feats lacking such a statement can only be taken once. And if you did infer that, you would have been right. So maybe this is not the cleanest example of textual literalism overturned. But to get to the correct answer about the Resilient feat did require the reader to infer a general rule about feats from a specific rule applied to a single feat. And that's not common in the 5e rules. Rather it is exceeding rare, maybe even unique. And contrary to this example, it is inference, in my experience, which most often leads people astray. To get it right in almost every instance, infer as little as need be inferred. </p><p></p><p>Not to get all Talmudic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alatar, post: 6964664, member: 38424"] I agree. The 5e rules say moving between attacks is allowed. That is the general rule. The general rule on taking bonus actions is, "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified." The timing of the GWM bonus action is not specified in the feat description. The prerequisite that must be met to get the bonus is specified, but that is the nature of all bonus actions. The general rule still applies. A specific exception to the general rule requires an explicit statement to that effect. In this case, there is no exception explicitly stated. In my experience, a strict literal interpretation of the rules text is the correct one. Every once in a great while, Jeremy Crawford says otherwise, overruling RAW in deference to his original intent. But I've only actually seen this happen once, and I follow his feed on Twitter, and I query Sage Advice via Google searches rather assiduously. In the great majority of cases, questions posed to Crawford reveal what the petitioner thinks the rule "should" be, rather than what it plainly states, or fails to state. In almost every instance, they are rebuffed. And were I to see this bonus attack issue brought up on Crawford's twitter feed, I would expect him to affirm your position, and I would categorize the petitioner as another example of someone who has reasoned themselves to what the rule "ought to be," in the absence of any actual supporting text. The one counter example that I have run across is the ruling that the Resilient feat can only be taken once. It does not say this in the text, or in the published errata, but when asked, Jeremy Crawford stated that such was the case. Now, one might argue that the line in the Elemental Adept feat that states, "You can select this feat multiple times," by inference indicates that all feats lacking such a statement can only be taken once. And if you did infer that, you would have been right. So maybe this is not the cleanest example of textual literalism overturned. But to get to the correct answer about the Resilient feat did require the reader to infer a general rule about feats from a specific rule applied to a single feat. And that's not common in the 5e rules. Rather it is exceeding rare, maybe even unique. And contrary to this example, it is inference, in my experience, which most often leads people astray. To get it right in almost every instance, infer as little as need be inferred. Not to get all Talmudic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Character Builds & Optimization
[5e DM Help] Keeping the lid on....what builds should I NOT allow?
Top