Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7287398" data-attributes="member: 6775031">If that were true, then it should be possible to perform this maneuver while wielding a glaive in one hand, which is also impossible by the rules. I don't see the guy in the video using this maneuver with two hands, or while holding a shield in the other hand; nor do I imagine that it would work very well, if he was carrying a shield. That being the case, I'm inclined to believe that what he is doing is not strongly representative of what the feat ability represents.Unless Jeremy Crawford has actually appended that opinion as official errata, all we have to go on is the text in the book, which remains open to interpretation. Designers are allowed to be idiots, and it doesn't hurt anyone unless it actually makes it into the game. My agreement to run a flawed game does not mean I'll automatically parrot back the same flawed arguments as though they were gospel. My agreement to run is contingent on the fact that the DM has the latitude to make a judgment call when the rules are vague or inconsistent, except where the point has been officially canonized to the contrary; and if such a thing was declared as official, then I might wish to reconsider running the game in an official capacity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7287398, member: 6775031"] If that were true, then it should be possible to perform this maneuver while wielding a glaive in one hand, which is also impossible by the rules. I don't see the guy in the video using this maneuver with two hands, or while holding a shield in the other hand; nor do I imagine that it would work very well, if he was carrying a shield. That being the case, I'm inclined to believe that what he is doing is not strongly representative of what the feat ability represents. Unless Jeremy Crawford has actually appended that opinion as official errata, all we have to go on is the text in the book, which remains open to interpretation. Designers are allowed to be idiots, and it doesn't hurt anyone unless it actually makes it into the game. My agreement to run a flawed game does not mean I'll automatically parrot back the same flawed arguments as though they were gospel. My agreement to run is contingent on the fact that the DM has the latitude to make a judgment call when the rules are vague or inconsistent, except where the point has been officially canonized to the contrary; and if such a thing was declared as official, then I might wish to reconsider running the game in an official capacity. [/QUOTE]

Verification