TRPG General Chat

Rubiksmoose

19:00

Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn. #DnD https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on May 11, 2018 at 5:32 PM

If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise. The action as a whole is the condition. #DnD https://twitter.com/siziyman/status/994996317150695424

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on May 11, 2018 at 5:46 PM

Yuuki

> "You can do X." - Jeremy Crawford
> "You can't do X." - Also Jeremy Crawford

Sdjz

@Rubiksmoose Now what should be done about this

Rubiksmoose

@Sdjz What indeed...

And actually a lot of questions have been based off of that as well

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose @Yuuki you must use the Attack action but you can spread out the attack to another time during that turn (such as after your shield bash) just like you would with movement. That's how I've reconciled that at least

Yuuki

I don't like how the revised ruling works with sword-and-board tactics though. I'd rule that you can use the Shield Master shove before making your attack but doing so means that you have to attack.

Rubiksmoose

19:04

This is the danger of basing something off of a Crawford tweet unfortunately.

Sdjz

@Rubiksmoose We could open a meta on this

Yuuki

tl;dr you combine the bonus action and the Attack action when using Shield Master

Rubiksmoose

@Yuuki Yeah I'm with you on this a bit. Though at least the rules make sense now. It was very weird to have the bonus granted by something that hadn't happened yet.

@LongbowJon @ivstinus It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move.

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on May 11, 2018 at 5:47 PM in reply to LongbowJon

David Coffron

Here's how I think it goes:

Yuuki

@Rubiksmoose Nobody's ever granted a bonus action, you always have one bonus action per turn.

Rubiksmoose

19:07

Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling #DnD https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on May 11, 2018 at 7:03 PM

David Coffron

1. You use the Attack action meaning you must attack 1+ times this turn / 2. You now have access to the bonus action push / 3. You decide the order of any movement, the push (if thats the bonus actoon you choose), and the actual attacks. This way Crawford is right in both tweets

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron Unfortunately I disagree with this.

Yuuki

@Rubiksmoose What is the general rule and what are the exceptions he's talking about?

Rubiksmoose

@Yuuki the general rule that bonus actions can be taken at the choosing of the taker is the general I believe.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose so do I tbh. That's just the only way to reconcile, but I guess Crawford admitted former fault so...

Rubiksmoose

19:09

The specific probably being the exact implementation in SM

Yuuki

If (part of) your job is to explain rules, you should always provide context and supplementary information to your explanations, Crawford.

David Coffron

We have to change the answers to the question then...

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron My main objection is that when you take the Attack action you must then attack. You can't pre-take an action.

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose At least he admits that he is changing the ruling

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage Agreed. But really it is literally the least he could do.

David Coffron

19:11

@Rubiksmoose wholly agree. That's why I had issue with Crawford's original reasoning. But he's fixed that (for this ruling...)

Rubiksmoose

To be fair, this ruling is by far more intuitive and logical than his former one just from a first reading point of view.

And even from a narrative point of view.

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose Indeed, it removes the "quantum attack state" problem

Although I personally think being able to use the bonus actions before the attack opens up more fun gameplay

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage That is very much true as well.

Luckily JC isn't at our tables so we can rule whatever we want :)

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose Huzzah for anarchy!

Yuuki

Basically, I don't care if you shove before your attack as long as you don't get crazy with it and as long as you don't try to use it to argue other rules.

Maximillian

19:15

I have changed the ruling, pray I don't change it further.

GreySage

So, if you have multiple attacks, do you need to take ALL of them before you can push?

Yuuki

Multiple attacks? Can you get more than two (with Extra Attack)?

Tiggerous

@Helwar What Defines A West Marches Campaign?

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage That is what he is saying yes.

GreySage

@Yuuki Fighters get 3 extra attacks

Yuuki

19:20

> Beginning at 5th level, you can Attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on Your Turn.

Hmm... I could see an argument for shoving between attacks.

David Coffron

@Yuuki I think the answer is no. Movement has a specific rule that allows it the shove does not

GreySage

The feat says "If you take the Attack action", not make an attack

Yuuki

@GreySage Ah, I was thinking about Multiattack, which is a separate action and would technically not trigger Shield Master.

@GreySage I'd need to look at the PHB to see whether Extra Attack says you can "Attack twice" or "attack twice".

Rubiksmoose

10

Q: Can you break up your Attack action for a bonus action?

You can do it to move: If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet,...

Yuuki

I'm currently looking at the R20 Compendium as a source.

GreySage

19:23

> Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose but do you make all Extra Attacks "when you take the Attack action" or only the first (the specified trigger for shield master)? I know other bonus actions can fit in between attacks

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose I think it really depends on what the trigger is

For Shield Master the trigger is the Attack Action, for GWM the trigger is a specific outcome from an attack (lower case 'a')

David Coffron

I read it as when you complete the Attack action (which means all attacks)

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron What JC is saying is that actions are units taht cannot be divided up for the sake of the trigger. Extra Attack is still just an Attack action. That action must complete before any conditions absed on that can be considered true.

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose Agreed. The question you linked implies a different answer if you don't understand the specific trigger of Shield Master

GreySage

19:27

@Rubiksmoose Things that trigger off an action cannot interrupt the action they triggered off of, in other words

David Coffron

^ that

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage Well said. Now, if only the rules said this...

David Coffron

Also, I am never citing a tweet again...

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron however, the second answer does actually have exactly the right logic.

Can you break up your Attack action for a bonus action?

GreySage

@Rubiksmoose I don't think the rules really need to say it. Before being exposed to all this I assumed that was the case. It's possible for others to think differently (and having the opposite as a rule definitely screws with things)

Rubiksmoose

19:30

@GreySage Yeah they don't need to say it at all for sure as it is common sense. Of course then we have a dev who seems to be contradicting common sense a lot...

David Coffron

@Rubiksmoose true. Didn't see that one

Yuuki

@Rubiksmoose But they can be divided up for other reasons?

Rubiksmoose

No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action. #DnD https://twitter.com/clintzbonds/status/995022782055378944

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on May 11, 2018 at 7:33 PM

Yuuki

Never mind, there's an explicit exception made for breaking up your movement with an Attack.

Rubiksmoose

@Yuuki Yeah that is a lot of the confusion I think

This reversal really got people riled up lol

David Coffron

19:36

Hey, he reached the same conclusion as us (this time)

Rubiksmoose

Partially because the last ruling was non-intuitive but it gave the players greater power. Now that the power is had, I would guess that it feels like he is taking that away.

ay ay ay. This is going to cause some answers to change for sure.

0xFFF1

I'm pretty sure you can break up your Extra Attack feature, such as using Mobile to attack the guy next to you, then use that to prevent the AoO so you can spend the rest of your turn moving to and focusing another guy

Yuuki

4 mins ago, by Yuuki

Never mind, there's an explicit exception made for breaking up your movement with an Attack.

Rubiksmoose

There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190). There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest actions/reactions inside each other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create exceptions meant to disrupt them. #DnD https://twitter.com/Cybren/status/995024427199983617

Tweeted by JeremyECrawford on May 11, 2018 at 7:37 PM

It is like he is listening to us.

0xFFF1

As a 5th level+ Sorcerer, if you have crafted or obtained a Wand of Fireball, can you Quicken Spell on Fireball for your bonus action and then use the Wand of Fireball as an action for a second Fireball that turn?

Rubiksmoose

19:41

(if he hadn't added that last phrase it would have added an interesting wrinkle to the Ready action debate)

GreySage

@0xFFF1 Yes

0xFFF1

@GreySage thanks

any sources?

GreySage

I really hate how twitter is organized. trying to follow or even find a twitter thread is a herculean task

Yuuki

Well, it's a confluence of rules. 1) Casting a spell is not necessarily an action. 2) Sorcerers can choose to Quicken when they cast a spell. 3) Quickened spells have a casting time of one bonus action.

Metamagic itself doesn't consume your bonus action, it merely turns a spell's casting into one bonus action. And since casting a spell doesn't have a trigger, you can choose to cast a Quickened spell whenever you want during your turn.

GreySage

I'm almost positive the answer is yes, but wands do state that you cast the spells from them, so maybe there is an argument to the contrary

0xFFF1

19:44

If I understood the point of wands is it lets you circumvent the cantrips only rule for casting spells during a turn you cast a bonus action spell

GreySage

@0xFFF1 Possibly, I think the main benefit is that spells from wands don't consume spell slots

Yuuki

@0xFFF1 Oh huh, must've missed that rule somewhere.

0xFFF1

@GreySage Staves that cast spells have a different language, and they specifically use your spellcasting ability, whereas the Wand of Fireball uses the spellcasting ability of the one who crafted it

so maybe a staff of fireball would not allow double fireballs, but a wand of fireball would

at least from an in-universe argument

Rubiksmoose

30

Q: Does casting a spell from an item allow you to apply class abilities that are used when casting a spell?

This question is updated to request additional answers and details in light of information now available in the Dungeon Master's Guide. In the released DM basic rules, Lost Mine of Phandelver, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and the DMG teaser there are wands, staves, and rings that you can use to c...

dnd-5e spells magic-items

0xFFF1

I think I've already looked at that one

GreySage

19:48

@0xFFF1 This definitely fits into my brain

0xFFF1

> Jeremy Crawford has said via Twitter that casting spells from magic items (scrolls, wands, staves, etcetera) is neither a Use an Object/Item nor a Cast a Spell action.

I wonder if that's enough to seal the deal as to whether or not you can double fireball

Rubiksmoose

@0xFFF1 I don't buy his logic honestly.

GreySage

Honestly, it seems like both staves and wands would allow double fireball

0xFFF1

yeah, for integrity's sake, I won't try to use Crawford and Mearls twitter comments as proof that it works, when I tend to think they are garbage when they contradict RAW to the chagrin of my shenanigans

Rubiksmoose

@GreySage If you are considered to be casting the spell then I would say no you can't since fireball is not a cantrip.

But that first part is the core issue.

GreySage

19:54

@Rubiksmoose Yeah. Assuming that using a wand/staff isn't using the Cast a Spell action, I'd allow the double fireball, but that is just me.

Yuuki

@0xFFF1 Then... what is it?

0xFFF1

as far as I'm concerned, MM or JC answering a question about how D&D 5e works on twitter is like JK Rowling confirming or denying a Harry Potter fan theory on twitter. Death of the Author dictates their rulings are just as valid, and specifically not more valid than any other fan of the work. If they wanted to make that ruling, they should publish it in another volume such that the quality of the volume meets the standards of quality that made the previous works so successful.

Until then, they are just fan theories. In the case for D&D 5e, make an official published errata splatbook or include it in another splatbook that meets the 5e standards of playtesting.

just because they are the only ones empowered to publish doesn't mean they can skip the due process

GreySage

@0xFFF1 in D&D5e they have an errata document that they update from time to time

0xFFF1

yes, i know about that, and that's fine, so long as they only update with the proper playtesting. I'm specifically talking about the invalidity of twitter answers

Maximillian

Twitter twitter on the wall, how do you rule my game question today?

0xFFF1

20:03

I proved that RAW, coffeelock lives, even through Xanathar's errata
https://twitter.com/SuspInkling/status/942811005914112000

GreySage

@Maximillian Twitter twitter on the wall, do your rulings supersede them all?

Maximillian

Today between 12:00 GMT and 18:00 GMT, Magic Missile is 1d4+2! Then from 18:00 to 24:00 it is 1d4-1.

SO SAYETH THE TWITTER.

0xFFF1

lol

> A long rest is never mandatory, but going without sleep does have its consequences. If you want to account for the effects of SLEEP DEPRIVATION

Full stop. Ignore the rest of this, it isn't applicable when you don't need to sleep, such as with Aspect of the Moon.

Maximillian

We ran into debates on this topic in the first edition of Warmachine. People who regularly read the forums got commentary from devs on how to resolve some oddball rule issues that people had been quite content to make their own ruling in their gaming halls.

"But Dev said X!" "Well we do Y here." "That's not really fair." "Okay, you don't have to play here."

It would be some time before they would compile and release a regular errata document.

A nasty one was a 'rule' printed in a sidebar that there was "It's a comment" vs. "It's a rule" in extended debate.

0xFFF1

oof

that sounds especially nasty

Maximillian

20:08

The sidebar said you had to place 'focus' (magical power markers) next to models on the table so they're clearly visible to you and your opponent. People backing it's a comment wanted to keep them on unit cards on their side of the table, which is easier for them to read/remember.

In 2nd edition it simply became a clearly printed rule, but that one sucked to debate at tables.

David Coffron

This in the Spells section not the Casting a Spell action: "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" @0xFFF1 @GreySage @Rubiksmoose @Yuuki

Maximillian

Events brought in people from other local gaming areas that had their own meta and their own house rulings, which many assume they're right, so they would try to play that way in our gaming area.... And that's where things get tense.

David Coffron

It doesn't matter how you cast that new spell. It must be a cantrip

Rubiksmoose

@DavidCoffron oh good catch about the section! Hadn't even considered that. It is also restated in the 10 things to remember.

GreySage

@0xFFF1 Aspect of the Moon looks like is just makes you an elf

0xFFF1

20:15

speaking of that, there was this 1v1 pvp tournament an acquaintance was with 5e, and I came up with a cheese build that used the elf's ability to rest faster and concentrate while resting to keep a Suggestion spell up while maintaining spell slots and keeping your opponent from doing anything or resting, such that they gain exhaustion stacks from lack of sleep until they gain 6 stacks and die

David Coffron

@0xFFF1 I got your back :)

twitter.com/dcoffron/status/995035073056526336?s=20

Maximillian

Evil Plan: Lookalike twitter that gives the rulings you want!

0xFFF1

Suggestion spell lasts 8 hours, just give them the suggestion to "sit there and do nothing." Trance to gain the spell slots and HP you lost back (if any) and jostle them awake (that doesn't deal damage to break the spell) to prevent them from finishing their long rests.

David Coffron

@0xFFF1 jostling awake doesnt interrupt long rest though

Unless it's a 1 hour jostle

" If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity—at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity—the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

GreySage

@0xFFF1 A long rest doesn't require you to sleep for 8 hours, but without the 8 hours of sleep you still get the exhaustion

David Coffron

20:21

@GreySage 6 hours of sleep*

GreySage

Nevermind, I'm wrong. As long as you finish the long rest you don't get the exhaustion, and unless you are interrupted for an hour, you still get to finish the rest

0xFFF1

two or three jostles just over an hour apart from the first to last, or just jostle them continuously for one hour, you have the time to

it's a 1v1, you have nothing better to do

David Coffron

Actually is there any official rule on sleep deprivation

GreySage

Even an hour long jostle isn't "strenuous activity"

David Coffron

26

Q: What happens if you don't sleep?

The description of a long rest says: A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps or performs light activity: reading, talking, eating, or standing watch for no more than 2 hours. A recent Sage Advice, while discussing whether elves ne...

dnd-5e rests

SPavel

20:24

Sleep deprivation makes you better and more productive and you get all the things done

Adventurers who do not sleep should be rewarded with extra spell slots and cake

Rubiksmoose

^Fact.

0xFFF1

I've read it as, it gives you an exhaustion stack each time you forgo it. and remember, you die at 6 stacks

im sure you can jostle them enough that it becomes strenuous without it dealing damage

David Coffron

I know a long rest requires sleep per errata but what is the penalty for not sleeping

0xFFF1

finishing a long rest cures an exhaustion stack, while not finishing a long rest gives you an exhaustion stack

pretty sure

Maximillian

Potions of the Red Bull can delay the effects but not prevent it.

David Coffron

20:27

@0xFFF1 Xanathar's says that you make a Constituion save and THEN suffer exhaustion, but is that a variant rule?

GreySage

@DavidCoffron By definition everything in Xanathar's is optional

David Coffron

@GreySage not quite everything. Some things it lists are rules clarifications

That may be one

GreySage

All the stuff about sleep is in the DM tools section, which is optional

David Coffron

Thanks. I'm AFB

@0xFFF1 Your cheese stat relies on DM adjudication I think but otherwise very clever

SmokeDetector

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer: How do I balance a party's ability scores? by Janice Anthony on rpg.SE

Rubiksmoose

20:32

@0xFFF1 doesn't this also depend on them failing their WIS saves each time you cast it?

SPavel

@SmokeDetector What a lousy spellcaster, takes 48 hours to bring an ex back

Rubiksmoose

@SmokeDetector got my delete vote in right before it went lol

@SPavel XD

Man that guy must have been blessed to have been born with the last name Guru and then became a spellcaster.

SPavel

Or cast a name changing spell

David Coffron

@SPavel Raise Dead has a casting time of 1 hour. What took him so long

@SPavel your new avatar is very distracting

Zachiel

A guy I know tried it. "If I can work 8 hours, and use 8 hours to eat and do stuff, why can't I play with a console for the other 8 hours?"

Now, he's lucky being alive.

David Coffron