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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Hriston" data-source="post: 7776017" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>I've already talked about this up-thread, and @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6796566" target="_blank">epithet</a></u></strong></em> has beat me to it this time around, but I'll give it another go and see if you can understand my position this time. This tweet makes no mention of intent. My claim with respect to this tweet is that it's an interpretation of the RAW that is in accordance with the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions as expressed in the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature that was made in July, 2015. As far as Jeremy's story about not referencing the text, what part of the PHB that wasn't already paraphrased in the question to which he was responding do you think would have caused him to make a different ruling?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What aspect of the rules do you think Jeremy Crawford forgot? Both question and answer refer to the Attack action and the timing of the bonus action. Also, the fact that Jeremy's response agrees with what he said was the intent in another tweet six months later indicates that, in this case, he was ruling in accordance with what he believed was the intent at that time, and what he still believed as late as June, 2016 when his statement of intent was expanded and included in a Sage Advice article. So my conclusion is that this isn't something that happened while he was away from his books during one drunken evening in-line at Trader Joe's. It's a period of nearly a year-and-a-half during which he is documented as ruling consistently on the timing of bonus actions with conditions in accordance with his stated intent. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's because that's what it is. It's a ruling on the RAW of the shield master shove's timing. The tweet that shows the design intent behind bonus actions with conditions is this one: <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Does the "when" in war magic mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can get it come before? </strong>The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, because I don't think that. What I think is the source for the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions is the July 6, 2015 tweet on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature in which he said what the intent of that feature was. When he says what the intent is of some element of the game, as he does in that and the other tweets you linked, it indicates an acknowledgement that the text is ambiguous but that, when it was written, the designers had a particular interpretation in mind.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 7776017, member: 6787503"] I've already talked about this up-thread, and @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6796566"]epithet[/URL][/U][/B][/I] has beat me to it this time around, but I'll give it another go and see if you can understand my position this time. This tweet makes no mention of intent. My claim with respect to this tweet is that it's an interpretation of the RAW that is in accordance with the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions as expressed in the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature that was made in July, 2015. As far as Jeremy's story about not referencing the text, what part of the PHB that wasn't already paraphrased in the question to which he was responding do you think would have caused him to make a different ruling? What aspect of the rules do you think Jeremy Crawford forgot? Both question and answer refer to the Attack action and the timing of the bonus action. Also, the fact that Jeremy's response agrees with what he said was the intent in another tweet six months later indicates that, in this case, he was ruling in accordance with what he believed was the intent at that time, and what he still believed as late as June, 2016 when his statement of intent was expanded and included in a Sage Advice article. So my conclusion is that this isn't something that happened while he was away from his books during one drunken evening in-line at Trader Joe's. It's a period of nearly a year-and-a-half during which he is documented as ruling consistently on the timing of bonus actions with conditions in accordance with his stated intent. That's because that's what it is. It's a ruling on the RAW of the shield master shove's timing. The tweet that shows the design intent behind bonus actions with conditions is this one: [INDENT][B]Does the "when" in war magic mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can get it come before? [/B]The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip.[/INDENT] No, because I don't think that. What I think is the source for the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions is the July 6, 2015 tweet on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature in which he said what the intent of that feature was. When he says what the intent is of some element of the game, as he does in that and the other tweets you linked, it indicates an acknowledgement that the text is ambiguous but that, when it was written, the designers had a particular interpretation in mind. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated
Top