NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6702147" data-attributes="member: 6799649">I've seen this tweet before, and others from Mearls on various subjects. They nearly all illustrate why Mearls in not the rules guy. He frequently gives the opposite answer to the same questions asked to both him and Crawford, and sometimes even contradicts himself!I have no confidence in his rulings matching RAW; they are, as he says himself (usually when it's pointed out where he's gone wrong), just the rulings that he'd make at his table.A tweet from Crawford would be more influential. It must be said that some of his tweets have been unintentionally ambiguous, with both sides of a debate claiming that the same tweet supports their case! I think the 140 character limit is the main culprit here.Also, our single thread on this subject has over 500 replies, many with lengthy posts laying out detailed arguments with citations and examples, and even we don't agree!Even if the designers read through the whole thread (never mind other threads on the same subject), it would be hard to sum up in 140 characters. But that is not what happens. What happens is that someone tweets them 140 characters, without 500 pages of debate attached, or even one post attached which would lay out the argument.I understand the urge to get the immediate response that Twitter offers, but find it a limited medium to get solid answers to difficult or subtle questions.As to why I'm not satisfied with the 'until his first turn is over' solution: it doesn't make sense that you notice something hidden just because time has passed, it is not written in the rules that surprise ends just when one of its effects has occurred, and a better solution which doesn't have any drawbacks follows right on from the written rule of what causes surprise, 'not noticing a threat'.Thanks for the debate. The rules become clearer for me as I think about how to respond to the case. There have been occasions where my mind has been changed because the case I was answering led me to an understanding that was new to me. The way actions are used in 5E was one of these occasions, which led to me changing my stance of the timing of Shield Master bonus actions because of that new understanding.This hasn't happened on the subject of when surprise ends. I don't expect it will. If Crawford himself publishes a Sage Advice article on the subject, then I'll have to go along with it whether or not I think the ruling is a good one.</blockquote>

Verification