Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7578842" data-attributes="member: 6799649">We tend to treat the rulebook as if it were holy writ, handed down from on high. The RAW is what it is, even if the guy who actually wrote those words wishes it were different.We occasionally doubt what JC has to say via Sage Advice or (especially) Tweet, not merely because we disagree with it and want to ignore what he says if we disagree and leap upon what he says if it backs us up (although this does happen).We can disagree with his Tweet/SA because when he reveals his reasons for his advice, we can see for himself that he is occasionally factually wrong about a thing!Not always wrong, but often enough that we learn to analyse his advice to see if it makes sense, rather than just follow it blindly, as we do when discussing RAW.As an example, the rulebook clearly sets out the difference between 'the damage dice of an attack' and 'the damage dice of the weapon'.Savage Attacker uses 'the damage dice of the weapon', while critical hits use 'the damage dice of the attack'.So, it is a simple matter to analyse the Great Weapon fighting style, to see if the re-roll of 1s and 2s applies only the the damage dice of the weapon, or to ALL the damage dice of the attack: simply read GWF and see which it says!BTW, it says, "when you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack...." So, job done, the re-rolls apply to Smite, Sneak Attack...every damage die for that attack.JC then Tweets that it only applies to the weapon damage dice.That seems....strange, JC! Why do you say this, when it contradicts the RAW?JC says it's because it's too complicated to re-roll lots of dice, and that's the reason.Is it? Is it though? Is it really enough to make a ruling that is the exact opposite of RAW?The 'complexity' of the damage roll, without GWF, is that you roll the dice that the attack has, whether that's a single weapon damage die, or 2d6 (greatsword) + 4d8 radiant (Smite) + 2d6 fire (Flame Tongue).The way GWF works is to add a single step: re-roll any die that came up 1 or 2. This one single added step remains one single added step whether the damage dice for the attack is a single die or 10 dice! It is simply not the case that more damage dice re-rolled makes the process more 'complicated'; certainly not enough to impact RAW.So we can analyse the reasoning JC himself gives for whatever Tweet, and decide for ourselves how credible it is.To the present topic, JC tweets, "If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y."X comes before Y? Are you sure, JC?Because Wikipedia says, "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time".JC is wrong. He made his judgement based on an error, erroneously believing that the antecedent ('taking that Attack action') must precede the consequent (taking the bonus action it 'caused'). He ignore the fact that the two are allowed to coincide.JC is even more wrong. He assumes, wrongly, that conditional statements ARE statements of causality. What does Wikipedia say? "Conditional statements are NOT statements of causality", and, "conditional statements do NOT require this temporal order". The conditional, RAW, was never 'after you finish taking the Attack action', or even 'after you start taking the Attack action'. The condition is, "If you take the Attack action on your turn". There is no required temporal order. The only requirement is to meet the condition, and this condition is satisfied by taking the Attack action on the same turn as you take the bonus action shield shove.Since JC is simply wrong about causality. His rulings on it are fruits of a poisoned tree. That's why it has so little credibility! Not because it agrees or disagrees with our own opinion, but because we can see where he's wrong, and that the mistake caused the erroneous ruling.</blockquote>

Verification