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="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7510594" data-attributes="member: 2525">Nope. He never says he ruled against RAW. He never once mentions that phrase Rules As Written. The fact he, and Mike Mearls for that matter, both had conflicting and contradictory interpretations tells us, without any debate needed further, that the Rules As Written were not clear.  That they needed intepretation, and that it wasn't that easy to intepret it because the guys who wrote it were not even sure and it took them YEARS to even come up with an answer they seem happy with.So can we please dispense with the phrase Rules As Written for this issue at least? It helps nothing. We all know what was written, and we all know it was vague enough to be clearly open to differing intpretations even by the very people who wrote them. WHATEVER resolution you use in your game, it's not because of the "Rules As Writtten" it's because you chose an intepretation of those rules which were not, themselves, particularly clear. And if you still disagree, please do try to explain to me why you think that continuing to claim this is just an issue of Rules As Written is helping in any way in this debate? Is anyone who disagrees with you the least bit persuaded by that rhetoric? Is anyone even vaguely on the fence suddenly seeing your reasoning better because you keep using the phrase Rules As Written? I think the clear answer is no. It's not helping anyone come to any conclusions about anything concerning this topic.  This just isn't one of those debates that can be won by claiming Rules As Written. We're having this debate BECAUSE we have vague Rules As Written, and the very people who wrote these rules admit they need intepreting. There are other bonus actions which can come between two or more attacks in your attack sequence. Jeremy Crawford even mentions this in his first reply on this topic. It's one issue that made this so complicated. So, you are incorrect...and incorrect in a way which says you're not really appreciating the arguments people are making here, including Crawford himself, about the complexities of this issue.  Nope. That's the OPPOSITE of the rules. The general rule is you can choose when to place your bonus action, even between attacks. Exceptions to this rule must be called out in a specific rule. Here is the general rule from the book, "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified". Get it now? Once you start an action, the general rule says you can in fact add a bonus action in there where ever you choose, UNLESS some specific rule forbids that. So for instance if you have three attacks, and you want to use a bonus action as well, the general rule says you place the bonus action wherever you want in that sequence unless something specific forbids it. You could use the bonus action after the first attack but prior to the second and third attacks, or after the second attack but prior to the third attack, etc..</blockquote>

Verification