I was right about Shield Master

[Mistwell]

I really don't understand why some people insist they understand the rules better than the people who professionally wrote and interpret said rules.

Normally I'd agree. But when that game designer issues a ruling on how a rule works, and the ruling is 100% clear, and then three years later he issues a different and completely opposite ruling, and that different and completely opposite ruling is also 100% clear, we're now in a territory where the designer of that rule isn't sure how he meant it to work in the first place. He really, honestly didn't understand the rules any better or worse than any of us, for that particular rule, or else he wouldn't have issued two entirely opposite rulings on the same rule.

I mean nobody's arguing against house rules to interpret rules in a way that makes more sense for the fiction or game flow or whatever at anybody's personal table. But if you think you have greater claim on understanding and interpreting the RAW than Jeremy Crawford you're sadly mistaken.

Said Jeremy Crawford to Jeremy Crawford.

Again, I don't think anybody's interpretation or application of the rule is wrong; there's simply RAW and then there's House Rules. You can disagree with the RAW. The entire point of House Rules are when you disagree with the rules as they are written or don't think they work as well for your own table. But there's no sense in arguing that it isn't actually RAW.

There is no way to argue "rules as written" on this one. The rules as written are unclear on how it works, and Twitter clarifications have never themselves been considered the rules as written (they're not errata, and they're not published in updates to the books, and are not even available or seen by most players). The author of the rules said it worked one way, and he was very confident in that ruling saying it worked that way. Three years later, he then said it worked the opposite way, and he was very confident in saying it worked that way. Which means we know for sure we're not in the realm of rules as written, but instead in the realm of rules as clarified. We know, for sure, the rules as written were confusing enough for the very author of those rules to be unsure how they were supposed to work - so unsure he went out of his way to tell everyone they worked one way, and then again went out of his way to tell everyone they worked another way.

I mean, rules as written is a weak argument to begin with for a game like 5e where the theme is rulings not rules. But it becomes essentially a meaningless statement when dealing with a rule that the author wasn't even sure on how it was supposed to work. There is no clear rules as written on this one, so arguing RAW is meaningless. We don't even know what the Rules as Intended are on this one either (and I think one could fairly argue a ruling substantially closer in time to the time when the author drafted that rule is likely closer to what they intended than what they can remember three years later of their intent). We're at that weird, rare third level now - rules as clarified as best the authors could in the moment. Which could in theory change again in less than a month as they issue errata.

 

[epithet]

Is driving a separate thing from guiding the vechile with the steering wheel and applying the breaks and gas?

You are using a real-world example to counter a game mechanics argument, which isn't valid. That said... yes, it is separate. If you, for example, have a Tesla that can steer, brake, and throttle itself, you can "drive" your Tesla without actually performing those functions. You could say, accurately, that you "drove in to work, down the Interstate" without having, at any point, touched the relevant controls on your vehicle while on the interstate.

This is an example of how we can derail the actual discussion point of this thread with semantic malarky.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

You are using a real-world example to counter a game mechanics argument, which isn't valid. That said... yes, it is separate. If you, for example, have a Tesla that can steer, brake, and throttle itself, you can "drive" your Tesla without actually performing those functions. You could say, accurately, that you "drove in to work, down the Interstate" without having, at any point, touched the relevant controls on your vehicle while on the interstate.

This is an example of how we can derail the actual discussion point of this thread with semantic malarky.

I wouldn’t say I drove a self driving car. It drove me. I rode my self driving car or something similar. But I did not drive it

but more importantly the point I was making should have been easily understood by everyone. Some actions are composites of multiple embedded actions.

 

[epithet]

I wouldn’t say I drove a self driving car. It drove me. I rode my self driving car or something similar. But I did not drive it

but more importantly the point I was making should have been easily understood by everyone. Some actions are composites of multiple embedded actions.

You are, in the case of the "self-driving" car, still in control of, and completely responsible for, the operation of the vehicle. That might not apply to an autonomous taxi, but it certainly does to a Tesla.

There are no composite actions, sorry. The fact that you can do some number of things as part of your action (or bonus action, or reaction) doesn't imbed any of them within others. Weapon attacks are not embedded within the Attack action, they are granted by it. Those attacks are not actions (or bonus actions, or reactions,) in the context of 5e game mechanics. They're just attacks.

Edit: I concede that your interpretation of attacks as being embedded within the attack action is not entirely unreasonable. While I don't share that interpretation, I can see that the phrasing of the Attack action ("with this action, you make [an] attack") can be taken to mean "within" this action. Despite not sharing that interpretation, I don't want to imply that I am altogether dismissive of it or that I don't regard it as a valid interpretation of the rule text.

 

[Satyrn]

I wouldn’t say I drove a self driving car. It drove me. I rode my self driving car or something similar. But I did not drive it

but more importantly the point I was making should have been easily understood by everyone. Some actions are composites of multiple embedded actions.

Now I really wish that the bicycle I rode this morning had been self-pedalling. My legs are sooo sore.

 

[epithet]

Now I really wish that the bicycle I rode this morning had been self-pedalling. My legs are sooo sore.

They make those, you know.

Just sayin'.

 

[Satyrn]

They make those, you know.

Just sayin'.

Aye. And in hindsight, I should've rode my Harley to work today.

 

[Mistwell]

For those saying this is purely a Rules As Written or Rules As Intended issue:

Are you guys arguing the Rules As Written changed since these tweets despite no errata to this rule?
Are you guys arguing the Rules As intended changed such that the tweets made closer in time to the point where these guys wrote these rules are less reliable concerning their then-recent intent than tweets made years later about that now-distant intent?

 

[Ristamar]

For those saying this is purely a Rules As Written or Rules As Intended issue:

Are you guys arguing the Rules As Written changed since these tweets despite no errata to this rule?
Are you guys arguing the Rules As intended changed such that the tweets made closer in time to the point where these guys wrote these rules are less reliable concerning their then-recent intent than tweets made years later about that now-distant intent?

I'm arguing the current logic follows the established RAW/RAI for triggers relative to Reactions. The consistency makes sense, even if it does render the Shield Master feat less useful as written.

As for whether or not they issue official errata for the feat, or how anyone runs it at their table, I couldn't care less.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm arguing the current logic follows the established RAW/RAI for triggers that was established with Reactions. The consistency makes sense, even if it does render the Shield Master feat less useful as written.

As for whether or not they issue official errata for the feat, or how anyone runs it at their table, I couldn't care less.

Except the prior logic follows the established RAW/RAI for triggers that was established with Bonus Actions (as opposed to Reactions). As Jeremy Crawford points out in his response, "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing..."