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
Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated
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="Asgorath" data-source="post: 7775372" data-attributes="member: 6921966"><p>That might be how you play it at your table, but... that's absolutely not what the words in the PHB say. If it was worded like Extra Attack or Dread Ambusher, then sure, this would be a valid RAW interpretation. Fundamentally, bonus actions are separate and distinct from actions themselves, and you can't just change one to the other as you like (JEC talks about this in the recent Sage Advice video for example).</p><p></p><p>I think we're all in violent agreement that people will play this feat in many different ways, in fact I think all the folks arguing that the most recent Sage Advice ruling is actually the one that makes the most sense based on the words in the PHB don't actually use that particular strict RAW version. We're discussing the RAW of things like the Attack action and the Shield Master bonus action. At my table, I'd be okay with either attack-attack-shove or attack-shove-attack, even though the latter is not strictly correct. I absolutely do not think shove-attack-attack is a correct interpretation of the RAW, based on all the evidence we've been presenting in the last couple of hundred posts (and yes I thought this even when JEC tweeted about it back in 2015).</p><p></p><p>You should probably just stop calling this your "interpretation" and call it what it is: your house ruling on this. There's nothing wrong with you playing it this way, but it's also not at all what the PHB says.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Asgorath, post: 7775372, member: 6921966"] That might be how you play it at your table, but... that's absolutely not what the words in the PHB say. If it was worded like Extra Attack or Dread Ambusher, then sure, this would be a valid RAW interpretation. Fundamentally, bonus actions are separate and distinct from actions themselves, and you can't just change one to the other as you like (JEC talks about this in the recent Sage Advice video for example). I think we're all in violent agreement that people will play this feat in many different ways, in fact I think all the folks arguing that the most recent Sage Advice ruling is actually the one that makes the most sense based on the words in the PHB don't actually use that particular strict RAW version. We're discussing the RAW of things like the Attack action and the Shield Master bonus action. At my table, I'd be okay with either attack-attack-shove or attack-shove-attack, even though the latter is not strictly correct. I absolutely do not think shove-attack-attack is a correct interpretation of the RAW, based on all the evidence we've been presenting in the last couple of hundred posts (and yes I thought this even when JEC tweeted about it back in 2015). You should probably just stop calling this your "interpretation" and call it what it is: your house ruling on this. There's nothing wrong with you playing it this way, but it's also not at all what the PHB says. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated
Top