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
*Dungeons & Dragons
How many attacks does it take to take the Attack action?
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="iserith" data-source="post: 7553684" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>This ruling in particular was actually the last straw for me with these "official rulings." That, and watching the guy actually DM.</p><p></p><p>When 5e was released, we discussed Shield Master and I argued that the words on the page aligned with a ruling that said attacks first, then you get your bonus action shove. It made that part of Shield Master not all that great unless initiative or readied actions lined up well enough for allies to take advantage of the prone condition. I figured that was fair - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, which is about par for the course for 5e. Of course, a ton of people disagreed with me, and that's cool.</p><p></p><p>Then the "official ruling" came out that, actually, you can do it the way the people who disagreed with me argued. Fair enough, I accepted and adopted that ruling. Only Crawford could know the RAI, after all, even if a plain reading did not suggest to me this was the correct ruling. And now it's inexplicably changed back.</p><p></p><p>So yeah. I'm done with this guy's rulings. Not because I necessarily disagree with them in all cases but because of the inconsistency. In my view, one of the most important things a DM can do is be consistent as this is part of creating the conditions for players to make informed decisions. As well, having watched him DM, I can't see how you go from the words on the page to the play experience on display. His credibility is shot with me and, because I value that consistency highly, I cannot allow Crawford's rulings to make my game more inconsistent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7553684, member: 97077"] This ruling in particular was actually the last straw for me with these "official rulings." That, and watching the guy actually DM. When 5e was released, we discussed Shield Master and I argued that the words on the page aligned with a ruling that said attacks first, then you get your bonus action shove. It made that part of Shield Master not all that great unless initiative or readied actions lined up well enough for allies to take advantage of the prone condition. I figured that was fair - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, which is about par for the course for 5e. Of course, a ton of people disagreed with me, and that's cool. Then the "official ruling" came out that, actually, you can do it the way the people who disagreed with me argued. Fair enough, I accepted and adopted that ruling. Only Crawford could know the RAI, after all, even if a plain reading did not suggest to me this was the correct ruling. And now it's inexplicably changed back. So yeah. I'm done with this guy's rulings. Not because I necessarily disagree with them in all cases but because of the inconsistency. In my view, one of the most important things a DM can do is be consistent as this is part of creating the conditions for players to make informed decisions. As well, having watched him DM, I can't see how you go from the words on the page to the play experience on display. His credibility is shot with me and, because I value that consistency highly, I cannot allow Crawford's rulings to make my game more inconsistent. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How many attacks does it take to take the Attack action?
Top