Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asgorath" data-source="post: 7775920" data-attributes="member: 6921966">To each their own, but it's just astounding to me that you can look at the sum total of JEC's tweets (and Sage Advice videos etc) on this subject since 2017 and conclude that the intent is bonus actions with conditions can happen any time you like.<a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864</a>"It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move."<a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995043696251842561" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995043696251842561</a>"If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y."<a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216</a>"In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight."Did he just need to use the word "intent" in one of those tweets or something?</blockquote>