How many attacks does it take to take the Attack action?

[DEFCON 1]

For an edition meant to be light on rules and heavy on DM judgement, Crawford has this horrible tendency to get technical on stupid things. I occasionally read Sage Advice to look for RAI, because knowing where they were coming from might actually impact my rulings. Sticking strictly to RAW in an edition littered with poor wording (possibly intentionally so) is the dumbest way to judge a game, IMNSHO.

He's only doing it because some people refuse to just do what they've been telling us all along to do, which is make a ruling. If people would actually do that and stop asking him about what is "right" (as though there is some perfect gods-eye-view of all these rules that combine together perfectly), he wouldn't have to keep answering.

And he keeps telling people to go re-read the PH in the hopes that they will actually do that and then interpret it for themselves, rather than just blindly get a yes and no answer and not ever think about it. Because once they get that, it'll just inspire them to continue to ask and ask and ask and never make a ruling of their own.

If people don't like what Jeremy says, then don't ask him or don't read him, and just do what you've been told to do and make your own decision.

 

[cmad1977]

You and others who have brought this "player gaming the system" up have witnessed this in play or is this also theorycraft?

Either way it’s a problem with the player and not the rule.

 

[cmad1977]

He's only doing it because some people refuse to just do what they've been telling us all along to do, which is make a ruling. If people would actually do that and stop asking him about what is "right" (as though there is some perfect gods-eye-view of all these rules that combine together perfectly), he wouldn't have to keep answering.

And he keeps telling people to go re-read the PH in the hopes that they will actually do that and then interpret it for themselves, rather than just blindly get a yes and no answer and not ever think about it. Because once they get that, it'll just inspire them to continue to ask and ask and ask and never make a ruling of their own.

If people don't like what Jeremy says, then don't ask him or don't read him, and just do what you've been told to do and make your own decision.

How dare you suggest people take responsibility for their game.

 

[jgsugden]

Ask yourself, "What makes for the best story?"

Do that.

This is an RPG. A role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. The game works best when we optimize the story, not the rules. In this story, your PCs are the main characters, and main characters often can do things nobody else can do in that story.

To that end, as a DM, I treat the players like an improv troop... and the first rule of improv is to say, "Yes". (Note: This is a great reason to date improv actors.) If a player asks if they can do something, I ask myself if it will ruin the game to allow it. If the game will not be ruined, I ask if it tells a good story. If so, go for it. There is obviously a limit to how far this approach can go, but I tend to find that if your group is sruggling with that limit, your problem is not how the game is run, it is with the players not being a good fit. In other words, the rule abuse is not the only problem....

This does not mean that I don't remind players of the rules. It means I elect to allow them to break the rules to have a better game. At some moments, I throw the rules out the window. At the end of a boss battle against a hated foe, the PC monk lands the final blow... and I allow the PC monk to rip out the heart of their enemy, show it to them as it beats one last time and then push that enemy off the cliff. Dramatic, exciting, cinematic... but not exatly something that the rules cover.

On the flip side, however, as a DM, I rarely, if ever, give the NPCs and monsters the benefit of the doubt. This is not "their" story. They do not shine. While the PC might be allowed to do an offhand bonus action attack before their main action attack in my game, the NPCs will never attempt it because it is technically against the rules.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Somewhere along the line, Jeremy switched from giving helpful insight on developer intent and advice about the implications of RAW vs. RAI, to just spitting out direct RAW clarification. In fact, at times it seems like he is actively avoiding giving any indication of what the actual intent behind a rule he’s been asked to clarify is.

Quite frankly, part of that is because a crapton of the questions that are asked of him that he is answering that way are actually quite clear if they'd only read the Handbook and take what they read at face-value. Many of the questions are along the lines of "The book says this... does that mean I can do this other thing too then?" trying to extrapolate a bunch of extra junk they want to get out the rule that the book doesn't actually say. To which he responds quite clearly "The books says what the book says. If it was allowing you to do what you are asking, the book would say you could do it."

 

[Li Shenron]

I know, this is a tired topic, but I'm genuinely curious what people think.
The "Sage Advice" has told us that in order to fulfil "when you take the Attack action" you have to have finished taking the Attack action (a paradox in and of itself), but what do you guys think?

Do you have to make all your attacks before you're considered to have taken your action? If so, how do you respond to players deciding to take an action after they've attacked, but before they've made all their attacks?

Do you rule it to require you have completed at least one attack?
Do you rule it to require you have started at least one attack?
Do you rule it to merely require they declare they're using their attack action?
Are there any others I have missed?

I try to uphold the general principle that everything in combat happens simultaneously. You move while you take your action, and even your bonus action is something you do "on top" of everything else (and that's why there is no such thing for me as a measurement in seconds for a bonus action).

Thus for me resolving stuff in sequence is a practical commodity, not a model for reality.

 

[Oofta]

He's only doing it because some people refuse to just do what they've been telling us all along to do, which is make a ruling. If people would actually do that and stop asking him about what is "right" (as though there is some perfect gods-eye-view of all these rules that combine together perfectly), he wouldn't have to keep answering.

And he keeps telling people to go re-read the PH in the hopes that they will actually do that and then interpret it for themselves, rather than just blindly get a yes and no answer and not ever think about it. Because once they get that, it'll just inspire them to continue to ask and ask and ask and never make a ruling of their own.

If people don't like what Jeremy says, then don't ask him or don't read him, and just do what you've been told to do and make your own decision.

While I don't disagree with you, it is a pain that when I play AL I have to ask the DM how he runs it. One of my PCs was written with the feat in mind based on the sage advice at the time I wrote him up.

Still a fun PC to play, but had I known this change was coming, shield master would have been at the bottom of the list of options.