Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer

[DivisibleByZero]

For the three hundredth time, there is no need for that.
The word "when" is not used to denote timing. The word "when" is used to denote the trigger. Replace it with the word "if" if that suits your fancy.
Hey, look at that, it reads EXACTLY[ like they intended it to read.

[Easy_Lee]

For the three hundredth time, there is no need for that.
The word "when" is not used to denote timing. The word "when" is used to denote the trigger. Replace it with the word "if" if that suits your fancy.
Hey, look at that, it reads EXACTLY[ like they intended it to read.

And yet that's not how half of us, or perhaps more, read it. If you manufacted a toaster, would you continue stating that the instructions were correct and unambiguous the three-hundredth time someone burned his hands trying to turn it on? No, of course not. You'd fix the instructions regardless of whether they made sense to you.

[ProphetSword]

He's made his ruling on this exact issue known. And yet, somehow words used in another area are somehow supposed to overwrite his ruling in response to this exact situation?

That's ridiculous.

That document has official rulings and rules in it. So, maybe it does overwrite it until what he says in his tweet also becomes an official ruling and not a quick clarification.

[Talakeal]

No, it's not. Sage Advice is considered to be official rulings. The tweets aren't. They are suggestions or quick rulings to help clarify issues, but they do not count as official rulings until they appear either in the books, in the errata or are addressed in Sage Advice.

That page I quoted before makes it clear that what appears in Sage Advice is official rulings:
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice.

So dang much ambiguity.

I believe that sentence is supposed to be read: Jeremy Crawford can make official rulings. He will usually do so in the form of the Sage Advice column.

But it can also be read as: Jeremy Crawford can make official rulings in the Sage Advice column, and he usually does so.

[ProphetSword]

So dang much ambiguity.

That's why I changed my post.

[LordVonDerp]

He's made his ruling on this exact issue known. And yet, somehow words used in another area are somehow supposed to overwrite his ruling in response to this exact situation?

That's ridiculous.

Ridiculous? Ridiculous is assuming his tweets are the rules in the face of contradictory evidence.

[ryan92084]

It still just boils down to how you read the meaning of casts.

It can mean the throw/release ie casts a stone.

It can mean the wind-up ie casts a (fishing) line.

Both are reasonable interpretations but the devs clearly meant the former. Could it have been written/errata'd differently to eliminate ambiguity, sure. It's likely they just don't see it as ambiguous. Such is English where lots of words can have different meanings depending on context.

[hacksnake]

Testing understanding:
Assume the wizard casts Enlarge.

You get to use your reaction after the 1 action casting time, correct?

And it works that way because casting the spelling is done after casting time & not duration, correct?

Building conclusions off that test:
PHB talks about effects of the spell only in duration section & not casting time section.

I don't think anyone was arguing that you couldn't attack with a reaction after the 1 action casting time for enlarge. Am I wrong?

Given that it establishes that the duration (i.e. - effects) of the spell is separable & after the casting of the spell. I think this reads correctly plain English RAW.

With that reading I don't think mage slayer could 'interrupt' the casting but I think it's a pain English reading for why the attack happens between casting time and duration. The effects would still go of regardless since casting is complete.

It seems like it would have a strange interaction with concentration though. Are you concentrating even if the duration hasn't started? Probably not per RAW.

[Gwendol]

It is the first time in any official ruling where casting a spell and that spell's effect or attack are called out as being something separate. I think it makes a very good case for the idea that the mage slayer could get an attack after the spell is cast but before the effect comes into play. And as I previously pointed out, some people have been saying this for a while.

Well, I've argued for this for many pages, inferring this conclusion from the rules (and helped by you, actually, with the spell thief finding). Nice to see it made official.

Twitter replies are not rules, period. Rulings, yes, but not rules.

[Talakeal]

So I am not too experienced with 5e rules, but if Mage Slayer goes after the spell has taken effect, doesn't that actually make it better against spells which require concentration, as it would force a concentration save only if it struck after the spell has taken effect?

[Gwendol]

You mean the concentration requirment comes online after the reaction hits? Why?

[Elbeyon]

So I am not too experienced with 5e rules, but if Mage Slayer goes after the spell has taken effect, doesn't that actually make it better against spells which require concentration, as it would force a concentration save only if it struck after the spell has taken effect?That's a good point. If Mage Slayer goes off during the casting of a spell no concentration would ever be needed. If it goes off after the spell completes a concentration check might be required.

[Gwendol]

I can see that go either way. If its considered an interrupt (of the casting) then no concentration. If not (happens efter the casting is completed) then likely yes.

[Elbeyon]

Finally, a positive for mage slayer going off after the casting.

A positive that would come into affect a lot more than a mage slayer situation would ever come up.

[GiantOctopodes]

Ridiculous? Ridiculous is assuming his tweets are the rules in the face of contradictory evidence.

Can I use this in my signature? This is the best statement I've seen on the boards, ever.

[Gwendol]

Can I use this in my signature? This is the best statement I've seen on the boards, ever.

+1

Ditto for this one :-)