Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Mistwell · Feb 2, 2019

James Grover said:
Yeah, ruling the Shove action comes after the attacks only makes it so you can give advantage to others (possibly) if they are within reach of the target. Otherwise, with cyclical initiative, the opponent can always stand up and your shove was pointless.

Well you COULD combine it with action surge at least. I know I did that, prior to ditching the feat at the kindness of my DM after this ruling.

Paul Farquhar · Feb 2, 2019

Mistwell said:
Also, your dispute with Paul seems silly (each of you).

If I was bothered about being silly I would have a different hobby...

WhosDaDungeonMaster · Feb 2, 2019

Mistwell said:
Well you COULD combine it with action surge at least. I know I did that, prior to ditching the feat at the kindness of my DM after this ruling.

Working it so that the attack must precede the Shove is still viable (others attack at advantage, using Action Surge, etc.), it just doesn't make sense in my game to insist the attacks come before the Shove, especially since we re-roll initiative and players actually do declare actions.

FrogReaver · Feb 2, 2019

Oofta said:
It depends on your definition of "take an attack action" is. You can move between the attacks granted by an attack action because it's explicitly stated that you can. Others would rule that you can't "interrupt" an attack action with anything else.

Suffice to say I think this ruling is overly-finicky in addition to a contradiction to previous sage advice tweets. I know how I rule even if it is technically a house rule, do what makes sense for you.

Just as importantly, we know that JC on twitter says the that taking the attack action requires completing all your attacks uninterrupted with bonus actions. Currently that is the most official ruling we have on that matter and so it will stand until he flip flops on it as well.

In the meantime I'm with you and ignore the official ruling in this case.

Mistwell · Feb 2, 2019

James Grover said:
Working it so that the attack must precede the Shove is still viable (others attack at advantage, using Action Surge, etc.), it just doesn't make sense in my game to insist the attacks come before the Shove, especially since we re-roll initiative and players actually do declare actions.

I agree it's a ruling that does not make sense. And I told Crawford so on Twitter fairly loudly.

Honestly I found the feat to be pretty mediocre anyway. Using a bonus action to have a chance to shove so I'd have a chance at advantage was...not that big a deal. It would annoy our ranged attackers in the party to no end. More often than not it meant advantage for one attack (me) and disadvantage for two attacks (fellow party members). I am sure it works great for melee-based parties, but for our group it was never particularly good to begin with and this ruling made it even worse.

Yunru · Feb 2, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Currently that is the most official ruling we have on that matter and so it will stand until he flip flops on it as well.

No it's not.
In fact, it's now even less official: the latest Compendium has ruled tweets unofficial. Leaving us just the Compendium entry. Which specifically doesn't include the part you keep bringing up in an attempt to "win".

Hriston · Feb 2, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
Players Handbook page 45: "ADVENTURERS ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE" (caps reproduced from the original text).

This seems more than a little disingenuous. Apart from the initial A, these are small caps and weren't used for any sort of emphasis but rather because it's the first line of a chapter. The chapter in question is titled "Classes", and it's clear from the context of the sentence you half-quoted that the opinion of the writer is that adventurers are extraordinary because of their appetite for danger and challenge, and because of their membership in a class, not because of their racial traits.

In other words, a half-orc adventurer benefits from Relentless Endurance not because s/he is extraordinary or an adventurer, but because s/he is a half-orc, just like elven PCs don't sleep and are immune to being charmed, not because they're extraordinary elven adventurers, but simply because they're elves.

FrogReaver · Feb 2, 2019

Yunru said:
No it's not.
In fact, it's now even less official: the latest Compendium has ruled tweets unofficial. Leaving us just the Compendium entry. Which specifically doesn't include the part you keep bringing up in an attempt to "win".

The specific quote from sage advice, "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

Whether or not tweets are deemed "official" by wotc, when the same person that makes the official rulings (Jeremy Crawford), tweets about a ruling then by virtue of him being the game's lead rules designer and by virtue of him being the person that puts out the official rulings in Sage Advice, that makes any communication he gives about the rules the closest thing to official that's possible (unless it demonstrably contradicts some past official rule or ruling). In this case about shield master that's not the case and so JC's tweets still remain the closest thing to official rulings we have for topics that aren't clear in the rules or directly discussed in Sage Advice.

Yunru · Feb 2, 2019

FrogReaver said:
The specific quote from sage advice, "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

Whether or not tweets are deemed "official" by wotc, when the same person that makes the official rulings (Jeremy Crawford), tweets about a ruling then by virtue of him being the game's lead rules designer and by virtue of him being the person that puts out the official rulings in Sage Advice, that makes any communication he gives about the rules the closest thing to official that's possible (unless it demonstrably contradicts some past official rule or ruling). In this case about shield master that's not the case and so JC's tweets still remain the closest thing to official rulings we have for topics that aren't clear in the rules or directly discussed in Sage Advice.

But they are clear. You're the only one stating that there's any murkiness.
You can bonus action bash when you take the Attack action.
You're the only one trying to claim that magically means when you complete the Attack action.

FrogReaver · Feb 2, 2019

Yunru said:
But they are clear. You're the only one stating that there's any murkiness.
You can bonus action bash when you take the Attack action.
You're the only one trying to claim that magically means when you complete the Attack action.

JC claimed that.

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Paul Farquhar

Legend

WhosDaDungeonMaster

Guest

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Yunru

Banned

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Yunru

Banned

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Similar Threads

Related Articles