GWM disagreement with my dm

[Lollerabe]

Hey guys I need some input here.
Last session I killed a ghoul and proceeded to move 10 feet before using my bonus attack from GWM, my dm said I couldn't do it as I have to do it on a creature within range. I understand my dm's position as he clearly is thinking of the bonus action attack as a throwback to 3&3,5e cleave, however nothing in GWMs description mentions such restrictions.

The language of the feat is similar to TWF, shieldmaster etc 'when you take X action you can do X as a bonus action' instead it's 'when you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or score a critical hit you..'
Nothing seems to indicate a range restriction or a timer even, I can take the bonus attack whenever I want during my turn it seems.
So who's in the wrong here ?

[Giant2005]

He is in the wrong. You can take your bonus action whenever you like: "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified" (PHB page 189); and you can move freely between your actions: "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet." (PHB page 190).

[Arkhios]

Moving between attacks isn't tied to any type of action taken to attack, if I'm understanding the rules correctly.

You can move as much as you can during your turn and take your actions at any point of that movement. I don't see a problem with moving 10 feet and use the bonus action to attack with GWM allowance.

If you couldn't do that, then while two-weapon fighting you wouldn't be able either. At least that's how I would see this interpretation.

[MrStabby]

Simple answer is DM is right - their game their interpretation of the rules. Different people want different levels of realism vs abstraction. They want to run a game that matches their vision of what is going on, which is fine. This does not mean they did a good job of communicating their expectations in advance.

Regarding the other feats -they are worded differently. One is "if" the other is "when". Is this a material difference? I am not sure but I wouldn't rule it out. Other "when" type feats include things like tavern brawler where moving away wouldn't make much sense.

The difference here is the timing of the bonus action is specified, i.e. the time is when you make a critical hit. If it were "if, on your turn you score a critical hit you may..." then I would say that you can move.

[Lollerabe]

Well luckily for my dm listens to solid arguments so I'm not to worried about him just going 'nope, my game my rules'.

The thing is it isn't specified anymore than shieldmaster or TWF is, shield master allows a BA shove when you take the attack action, with his way of ruling you would have to shove as soon as you take the attack action then, which isn't the case.

GWMs wording to me basically just says 'you unlock this option when you fulfill this requirement (killing or critting)'
When you kill you can now make a BA melee attack, it never says right after the kill/crit or mentions a range.

Much like Arkhios pointed out, if he wants to be consistent then TWF and other similar options would have to be triggered as soon as you meet the requirement, which isn't the case.

Edit: thanks for the feedback btw, I guess my problem with the ruling is that it's s pretty big nerf. If there aren't any creatures nearby after I crit/kill I can't use BA attack, that's pretty big to me

[MrStabby]

The thing is it isn't specified anymore than shieldmaster or TWF is, shield master allows a BA shove when you take the attack action, with his way of ruling you would have to shove as soon as you take the attack action then, which isn't the case.

GWMs wording to me basically just says 'you unlock this option when you fulfill this requirement (killing or critting)'
When you kill you can now make a BA melee attack, it never says right after the kill/crit or mentions a range.



The trouble is that it really isn't clear. Are the different wordings supposed to convey different meanings or not? The wording is different on shield master to GWM. Shield master lets you take the BA shove if you make an attack action not When you make the action. The word when specifies the timing - it is when you make the action not within a few seconds of the action.

I would also be very wary of reading meaning into what is not written. Yes the feats don't say the extra attacks must be made without moving, but nor to they say they have to take place in the same turn or same encounter even - but I think few people would suggest that they can carry over between encounters. There is a very real risk of just interpreting this how you would want to interpret it.

[Lollerabe]

All fair points, there are however multiple rules that supports my reading such as those Giant wrote. If it were intended to be 'you have to use the BA attack on a creature within 5feet' why dosent it specify it then? Horde breaker does fx.

[MrStabby]

All fair points, there are however multiple rules that supports my reading such as those Giant wrote. If it were intended to be 'you have to use the BA attack on a creature within 5feet' why dosent it specify it then? Horde breaker does fx.

Actually Giant pretty much cites the rule I was reffering to - about the order of Actions/BAs not mattering unless the timing is specified. I see that "when you reduce a creature to 0 hp" specifies timing - i.e. it explicitly states when it will happen; the type of feat that says if a condition is met (such as using the attack action) does not specify when.

I certainly am not trying to argue that in other circumstances there cannot be movement in between, but that in each case where it says when the bonus attack happens there cannot be movement.

The 5ft on horde breaker is somewhat different - it is within 5ft of the original target not within 5 ft of yourself. It isn't about stopping you moving but it is about the concept of a "horde" referenced in the name - i.e. lots of creatures close to each other. It is also not requiring the creature to be next to you as you can use a bow to make the attack.

[Lollerabe]

And shieldmaster also gives a timing, when you take the attack action, so therefore it should always be as soon as you declare that but it ain't. I was just referring to hordebreaker to show that normally when there are certain restrictions they spell them out.

[MrStabby]

And shieldmaster also gives a timing, when you take the attack action, so therefore it should always be as soon as you declare that but it ain't. I was just referring to hordebreaker to show that normally when there are certain restrictions they spell them out.

Hmm. Maybe your book is different to mine. Mine uses the "if" phrasing, not the "when" phrasing.

My book reads:

"If you take the Attack Action on your turn you can use a bonus action to try and shove a creature within 4 fet of you with your shield"

[Mr.Moron]

Nobody is the wrong. In the context of RAI you've probably got the right of it. In the context of interpreting rules that don't explicitly call or highlight in any interactions in the text of the ability the GM is correct, as it is their call to make. I personally like the RAI better than the call your DM made, it feels more dynamic.

The bigger question is: Is this worth fighting over? It's a fairly minor issue, only being important when you have multiple enemies and being able to make move attacks one spaced out from your last is make/break for the encounter. Consider carefully if this is worth the potential conflict that comes from effectively saying "I know you made call but I don't like your calls. So, I went over your head to the to the internet to get a bunch of evidence that proves how wrong you are, as I respect their opinion more than yours".

I think there are better ways to approach this rather try to gather evidence for your position. For example you could go:

"OK. That seems fair, but it feels kind of lame that way to me. Like if I chop a guy in a half I should be able to totally carry that momentum through in a charge ya know? That's totally badass. Would you mind if we tried the other way for a while? Maybe I did read wrong or something but I really got that image and head and it's cool! If it's totally busted I understand going back to the other way. "

Why is this a better approach?

1) It shows respect for the GMs authority over the game world and as the arbiter of the rules.
2) It does not presume that GM cares about strict RAW/RAI per the words of the internet and is just waiting to be educated on their ignorance.
3) It frames the issue as you wanting your character to live up to your image of them as they exist in the game world, not as squeezing every bit of CharOP power out of them as numbers on a sheet.
4) It's a request, not a confrontation. This demonstrates a desire to work with the GM, not to win against them.

[Lollerabe]

That's what I get for posting AFB stabby so you are prolly right, even tho the 'if' dosent change the timing from what I can see.

If you take the attack option you unlock the BA shove attempt.

All execellent points mr moron, the dm in question is my brother though, so we very rarely have anything turn into a confrontation, besides he's a member on the forums and welcomed the idea that I got a second(or more) opinion on th matter :)

But all your points are still very valid and I'll keep them in mind, I don't wanna undermine his authority, even less so during the actual session. Hence when he told me to sidebar it we went with his ruling.

[Fighting_Ferret]

It's still worth bringing up, as DM's can change their minds on how they might rule in the future.

As to when you can take the bonus action... it is not specified in the GWM feat, therefore you should be able to take that bonus action when you want to, after fulfilling the conditions(kill/crit) that grant you the bonus action. However, the rule for breaking up movement between attacks uses the wording multiple attacks during one action, not bonus action. The specific wording in the GWM feat say you get to make one weapon attack as a bonus action. Given that the bonus action is a bonus action... you should be able to move as there aren't any other limiting factors in writing.

I can also see why someone might rule it the way your DM did, especially if they are used to older D&D editions where that was exactly how cleave worked. 5e isn't the older editions, but sometimes it takes a little time to adjust to newer ways of seeing/doing things.

Make your case, outside of the game (nothing worse than arguing rules at the table) and let the DM (your brother in this case) make his decision...

[Stan]

Another thing to consider when judging is not just raw but how the feat stands overall. Is GWM a weak feat that could use a boost by a loose interpretation or is a strong feat that could use a toning down?

[Sianthus]

GWM to me is uncertain in terms of its power level? It really depends on the DM. For example, GWM working with paladin smite would make it stronger but that ruling is DM dependent.

[Rysto]

GWM to me is uncertain in terms of its power level? It really depends on the DM. For example, GWM working with paladin smite would make it stronger but that ruling is DM dependent.

I think that you've confused GWM with GWF.

[Lombra]

Why did this thread hasn't stopped after the first reply? RAW you can move between attacks if you have steps left to do it, period.

[R.Shackleford]

Simple answer is DM is right - their game their interpretation of the rules. Different people want different levels of realism vs abstraction. They want to run a game that matches their vision of what is going on, which is fine. This does not mean they did a good job of communicating their expectations in advance.

Wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

Everyone at the table is there to have fun, the GM may make rulings on the spot in order to keep the game going but, especially if the DM didn't mention any houserules, the GM can be wrong on rules quite easily and should fix their mistakes to not screw over the players.

On this instance the GM is wrongnno matter what. The DM took a core rule, didn't seem to have a houserule already established, and rules against what the player assumed was in play (rules as written). The point of having rules is the assumption that they will be used and the game won't turn into Calvin ball. Now, if you say something before hand and the party agrees to use altered rules then that's fine.

Changing the rules or ruling based off another edition just because you those are the rules you know is breaking the trust of the players. They came to play 5e and they shouldn't have to ask every time they use core rules of they can use said core rules.

I'm a DM a lot, the first rule of DMing is to know your system. The second rule is to realize that everyone makes mistakes, just try to make sure you don't repeat said mistakes.

Moving between actions and bonus actions is a core 5e change from previous editions, to take that away is to take away something that was specifically designed to make the game the way it is.

DMs can make mistakes once or twice but on things like this they should do their homework and make sure they are being fair to the players. They came to play 5e, not to come play 5e with you changing core principals of the game in a whim.


Edit

It isn't the DM's game, it's the group's game. People need to stop being so arrogant about the title of DM.

[bid]

The trouble is that it really isn't clear.
Horde breaker makes it more than clear enough.

There's no right or wrong in house-ruling away from RAW as long as the DM is upfront about it.

[Mr.Moron]

Horde breaker makes it more than clear enough.

There's no right or wrong in house-ruling away from RAW as long as the DM is upfront about it.

If you need to read another rule to understand than the RAW is not clear. Clearly written rules are those in which case the text is unambiguous on its own. The fault here is with the "Moving Between Attacks" section of the rules which refers to "Actions that include more than one weapon attack". The question then becomes are triggered abilities part of the action? The action taken was "attack" but this is the result of the feat, not the "attack" action.

A clearly written rule would say something along the lines of, "You may move between attacks, before or after you make any weapon attack you may use any portion of your movement you have remaining. This holds true even if the attacks are part of the same action, such as with the Extra Attack Feature. For example... <the same example that is in the book>"

[BiPolar]

If you need to read another rule to understand than the RAW is not clear. Clearly written rules are those in which case the text is unambiguous on its own. The fault here is with the "Moving Between Attacks" section of the rules which refers to "Actions that include more than one weapon attack". The question then becomes are triggered abilities part of the action? The action taken was "attack" but this is the result of the feat, not the "attack" action.

A clearly written rule would say something along the lines of, "You may move between attacks, before or after you make any weapon attack you may use any portion of your movement you have remaining. This holds true even if the attacks are part of the same action, such as with the Extra Attack Feature. For example... <the same example that is in the book>"

I don't think GWM needs this level of clarification. The language in it, when combined with the existing language regarding movement and bonus actions, is perfectly fine and accurate.

In OPs case, his DM chose to house-rule something different. Which, as Mr.Stabby said, is totally legit and his right as DM. However, it is a ruling that does creating a nerf of GWM and should be discussed so that the player(s) understand and can make a new decision on that feat with the new information.

[Mr.Moron]

I don't think GWM needs this level of clarification. The language in it, when combined with the existing language regarding movement and bonus actions, is perfectly fine and accurate.

In OPs case, his DM chose to house-rule something different. Which, as Mr.Stabby said, is totally legit and his right as DM. However, it is a ruling that does creating a nerf of GWM and should be discussed so that the player(s) understand and can make a new decision on that feat with the new information.

Except it's not really a "House Rule" unless the GM intended it as such. Everything about the the OPs story indicates that:

A) They were pretty sure the GM was acting in good faith.
B) The GM was making what they thought was a correct interpretation of the existing rules, not adding new ones.

This was a call, a ruling. A ruling that contradicts a strict, technical reading of RAW but a ruling all the same. You can accuse the GM of having poor reading comprehension but not of trying to slip house rules under the radar.

[bid]

If you need to read another rule
One only needs to do so to curb the desire to invent words that aren't there.

And you can take your bonus action anytime during your turn.

[BiPolar]

Except it's not really a "House Rule" unless the GM intended it as such. Everything about the the OPs story indicates that:

A) They were pretty sure the GM was acting in good faith.
B) The GM was making what they thought was a correct interpretation of the existing rules, not adding new ones.

This was a call, a ruling. A ruling that contradicts a strict, technical reading of RAW but a ruling all the same. You can accuse the GM of having poor reading comprehension but not of trying to slip house rules under the radar.

Fair enough, in that case it's an accidental against-RAW ruling that can be fixed just by talking to GM or the GM making a house-rule.

[MrStabby]

I don't think GWM needs this level of clarification. The language in it, when combined with the existing language regarding movement and bonus actions, is perfectly fine and accurate.

In OPs case, his DM chose to house-rule something different. Which, as Mr.Stabby said, is totally legit and his right as DM. However, it is a ruling that does creating a nerf of GWM and should be discussed so that the player(s) understand and can make a new decision on that feat with the new information.

The issue is that it isn't clear if it is a house rule or RAW. There is a degree of interpretation. Giant helpfully posted the relevant rule above - it is worth reading. If the correct interpretation is that a move is needed then it isn't a nerf. I am not saying that this excuses poor communication - if there is doubt over how this works the player should have asked and the DM been up-front over the answer. In this case however, I suspect that no one ever questioned their own reading of the rules till it came up.


"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified" (PHB page 189); and you can move freely between your actions: "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet." (PHB page 190).

So yes you can move during your turn between your action and bonus action, with the exception of when the timing of the bonus action is specified. This is pretty clear. What isn't clear is if the timing of the bonus action is specified. I am arguing that to say "when you roll a critical" may be a description of when the action happens is not unreasonable; it happens at the time you roll the critical.

The bit that some people seem to be having difficulty with is that there are feats that were clarified, like shield mastery, but those feats do not specify when the bonus action happens but instead express a condition; i.e. "if you use the attack action...".

Furthermore I believe that the right to move between attacks is not universal - for example I think that there was clarification on the ranger's whirlwind attack that prevented movement between attacks.

[Ruslan]

He is in the wrong. You can take your bonus action whenever you like: "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified" (PHB page 189); and you can move freely between your actions: "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet." (PHB page 190).You quoted the actual rule, yet drew completely the wrong conclusion.


You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified

Unless the timing is specified.

On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you canAnd what does "when you score a critical hit etc.." do? It <drumroll> specifies the timing of the bonus action.

So the DM was right.

[BiPolar]

The issue is that it isn't clear if it is a house rule or RAW. There is a degree of interpretation. Giant helpfully posted the relevant rule above - it is worth reading. If the correct interpretation is that a move is needed then it isn't a nerf. I am not saying that this excuses poor communication - if there is doubt over how this works the player should have asked and the DM been up-front over the answer. In this case however, I suspect that no one ever questioned their own reading of the rules till it came up.



So yes you can move during your turn between your action and bonus action, with the exception of when the timing of the bonus action is specified. This is pretty clear. What isn't clear is if the timing of the bonus action is specified. I am arguing that to say "when you roll a critical" may be a description of when the action happens is not unreasonable; it happens at the time you roll the critical.

The bit that some people seem to be having difficulty with is that there are feats that were clarified, like shield mastery, but those feats do not specify when the bonus action happens but instead express a condition; i.e. "if you use the attack action...".

Furthermore I believe that the right to move between attacks is not universal - for example I think that there was clarification on the ranger's whirlwind attack that prevented movement between attacks.

The Language for GWM is as follows:

On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.

This states that when you score a critical hit, or reduce a creature to 0 points, you are given the option to make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action. This language does not state that you have to use this bonus action on the crit. It simply states that when you crit, it triggers THE OPTION to use an attack as a bonus action.

When you take that bonus action is up to you. This is an example of general vs specific. If no there is no specificity, than the general rules are used. Which are the bonus action rules and your freedom to use it at your choice.

[bid]

Furthermore I believe that the right to move between attacks is not universal - for example I think that there was clarification on the ranger's whirlwind attack that prevented movement between attacks.
Whirlwind has the "within 5 feet of you" which requires a position to evaluate. Seems clear enough.

[Fighting_Ferret]

@Ruslan

Would you rule the same way for two weapon fighting?

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."

[BiPolar]

Furthermore, Crawford has ruled (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/09/great-weapon-master-feat-do-you-have-to-use-the-bonus-action-immediately/)on this as well


The intent is that you could move before taking the bonus action in the Great Weapon Master feat.

[Easy_Lee]

GWM grants a bonus attack.
The book specifically states that you can move between attacks.
You can move and then make the GWM attack.

DMs should respect all rules which they don't explicitly house rule. Players plan characters and make decisions based on the rules as written. If you dislike the current rules, you as a DM are responsible for house ruling them and notifying your players. But don't tell a player he's wrong when he's right, and definitely don't say you're right because rule 0. Saying it's this way, and has always been this way, because you say so, is childish.

DMs should act like adults, not children. Respect the rules or change them and notify your players; those are your options as DM.

[MrStabby]

When you take that bonus action is up to you. This is an example of general vs specific. If no there is no specificity, than the general rules are used. Which are the bonus action rules and your freedom to use it at your choice.


This is the bit I don't believe is as you say. I say that when you take the bonus action is not up to you. I say that the timing is, as it states, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one. It tell you exactly when to do it.

[bid]

And what does "when you score a critical hit etc.." do? It <drumroll> specifies the timing of the bonus action.
So TWF... you cannot move to do your offhand attack, it must be done at the same time as (one of) your main attack(s). /s

Maybe "when" is shorthand for "on the turn"?

[Fighting_Ferret]

No the critical hit/kill is the flag to grant you a bonus action in the first place, not the description of the timing of the bonus action. That bonus action is limited to making one weapon attack. After acquiring the bonus action, you should technically be able to move, if you have movement left and make any additional attacks you have left...including the bonus action: attack.

[BiPolar]

This is the bit I don't believe is as you say. I say that when you take the bonus action is not up to you. I say that the timing is, as it states, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one. It tell you exactly when to do it.

And therein lies the disagreement. You are reading it as:

Trigger:Crit/reduce to 0
Effect:Take bonus action immediately

I'm reading it as follows:
Trigger:crit/Reduce to 0
Effect:option to take a melee attack as a bonus action. Bonus action rules apply as normal.

Your interpretation, I believe, requires additional specificity that isn't there (which is to take it immediately). Without that language in it, you can't assume it's there and therefore regular Bonus Action rules apply.

[Easy_Lee]

This is the bit I don't believe is as you say. I say that when you take the bonus action is not up to you. I say that the timing is, as it states, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one. It tell you exactly when to do it.

That's not a solid argument because I can find places in the book where "when" means two different things.

Protection Fighting Style: "When a creature you can see attacks a target..." This occurs before the attack resolves.
Mage Slayer: "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell..." This occurs after the spell resolves.

WotC have been inconsistent with their wording. The only possible interpretation is that "when" is used to mean "if this happens, then you may," in the context of the PHB.

Furthermore, Extra Attack says "...whenever you take the Attack action..." And we all know players can move between those attacks.

The correct answer is that one may move before the bonus attack from GWM, according to the PHB.

[MrStabby]

And therein lies the disagreement. You are reading it as:

Trigger:Crit/reduce to 0
Effect:Take bonus action immediately

I'm reading it as follows:
Trigger:crit/Reduce to 0
Effect:option to take a melee attack as a bonus action. Bonus action rules apply as normal.

Your interpretation, I believe, requires additional specificity that isn't there (which is to take it immediately). Without that language in it, you can't assume it's there and therefore regular Bonus Action rules apply.

I think you are taking it too strongly - what I am saying is that it is a reasonable interpretation. I can't blame the DM for reading the rules, seeing what makes most sense to him and thinking that this is it. It has a sentence that could be considered to specify the timing (when something happens) and the game rules specifically make an exception for bonus actions that specify a timing.

I don't think the DM has departed from RAW at all; possibly RAI, but that is a different interpretation.

Now you can have a debate over whether the feat is strong or weak and which interpretation is more appropriate from a balance and fun perspective.

[BiPolar]

I think you are taking it too strongly - what I am saying is that it is a reasonable interpretation. I can't blame the DM for reading the rules, seeing what makes most sense to him and thinking that this is it. It has a sentence that could be considered to specify the timing (when something happens) and the game rules specifically make an exception for bonus actions that specify a timing.

I don't think the DM has departed from RAW at all; possibly RAI, but that is a different interpretation.

Now you can have a debate over whether the feat is strong or weak and which interpretation is more appropriate from a balance and fun perspective.

I can see how he MAY have read it like that, but given that the language is missing the specificity requires to override standard bonus action rules, it's an incorrect reading. I don't really see any possible reading where it would work as you suggest it could. Combine that with Crawford's interpretation and you've got a very clear case for the ruling I'm stating and no real case for ruling it as a trigger requiring immediate action.

[MrStabby]

I can see how he MAY have read it like that, but given that the language is missing the specificity requires to override standard bonus action rules, it's an incorrect reading. I don't really see any possible reading where it would work as you suggest it could. Combine that with Crawford's interpretation and you've got a very clear case for the ruling I'm stating and no real case for ruling it as a trigger requiring immediate action.

So first of all there might be an assumption from the player that the PHB contains the rules and hence they don't do an internet search for the bits of the PHB that were missing. Requiring that someone look outside the book to be confident of an interpretation seems a bit of a stretch.

I would also argue that the interpretation that prohibits the movement is also an example of the specific trumping general. It is that a BA with a specified timing is an exception to the free movement between actions and bonus actions rule.

To avoid this you have to believe that "when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one" does not specify timing. I think it is hard to have great confidence that it doesn't.

[Easy_Lee]

So first of all there might be an assumption from the player that the PHB contains the rules and hence they don't do an internet search for the bits of the PHB that were missing. Requiring that someone look outside the book to be confident of an interpretation seems a bit of a stretch.

I would also argue that the interpretation that prohibits the movement is also an example of the specific trumping general. It is that a BA with a specified timing is an exception to the free movement between actions and bonus actions rule.

To avoid this you have to believe that "when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one" does not specify timing. I think it is hard to have great confidence that it doesn't.

Again, see my post. The word "when" does not consistently specify the same timing.

Extra attack: "Whenever" - you can move between these attacks.
Mage Slayer: "When" a spell is cast - means after the spell is cast
Protection (fighting style): "When" an attack hits - means before the attack hits

When is not timing. There is no specific argument, here.

[Saggo]

That's not a solid argument because I can find places in the book where "when" means two different things.

Protection Fighting Style: "When a creature you can see attacks a target..." This occurs before the attack resolves.
Mage Slayer: "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell..." This occurs after the spell resolves.

WotC have been inconsistent with their wording. The only possible interpretation is that "when" is used to mean "if this happens, then you may," in the context of the PHB.

Furthermore, Extra Attack says "...whenever you take the Attack action..." And we all know players can move between those attacks.

The correct answer is that one may move before the bonus attack from GWM, according to the PHB.

There's a large problem with their use of natural language. Crawford has ruled (I can't link right now, if someone else wants to) that War Magic and Shield Master bonus actions can occur before or after the action, despite using conditional conjunctions like "when" and "if" respectively. Regardless of the intent (Shield Master is definitely better with this interpretation), they improperly use "when" and "if".

Basically, it means they're playing fast and loose with conditionals, we can't trust those words in the text and really can only rely context of the rest of the feature or rule in question. It's authorial intent at its worst.

[Easy_Lee]

There's a large problem with their use of natural language. Crawford has ruled (I can't link right now, if someone else wants to) that War Magic and Shield Master bonus actions can occur before or after the action, despite using conditional conjunctions like "when" and "if" respectively. Regardless of the intent (Shield Master is definitely better with this interpretation), they improperly use "when" and "if".

Basically, it means they're playing fast and loose with conditionals, we can't trust those words in the text and really can only rely context of the rest of the feature or rule in question. It's authorial intent at its worst.

Yep, this is pretty much what I'm trying to say. When doesn't really denote timing, so the rule seems to be to follow the general rules when unsure.

[BiPolar]

I'm still trying to find an example where you have a bounded timeframe to use a bonus action. The PHB cites "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action." However, I'm trying to find an example where a bonus action's timing is specified.

edit: so far, every instance in the PHB seems to say when a bonus action is granted and not when to use it.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm still trying to find an example where you have a bounded timeframe to use a bonus action. The PHB cites "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action." However, I'm trying to find an example where a bonus action's timing is specified.

edit: so far, every instance in the PHB seems to say when a bonus action is granted and not when to use it.

Originally pre 5e release there was specific time frames. Look at Shield Master as the best example of this. It was *after* the attack action but they have changed the rules on BA since making that feat and now it can be before the attack action.

[BiPolar]

Originally pre 5e release there was specific time frames. Look at Shield Master as the best example of this. It was *after* the attack action but they have changed the rules on BA since making that feat and now it can be before the attack action.

So far, the Monk's Flurry of Blows is the only example, with the requirement of "Immediately".

[R.Shackleford]

So far, the Monk's Flurry of Blows is the only example, with the requirement of "Immediately".

Shield Master is a example of order that was a hold over from the play test.

You could move between them, but the old rules were that you must do SM after the weapon attack.

It has been clarified this is not the case in 5e.

Side Note:
Essentially it is yet another example of how lazily/hastily 5e was really put together. Yeah it had a decent dev time but they seem to have worked on parts, went to a new part, and then didn't really think about the old part again.

PAM bonus attack and frenzy bonus attack comes to mind of this.

[ThaKaptin]

why did this post make it past the first page? Someone linked where Crawford ruled on it and he says he CAN move between the attack and the impending bonus attack. Period. Done. He told you how it was meant to be taken. Now you can take any other rules with the same wording as the same. Good lord I think some of you rules lawyers argue for the sake of argueing.

Also, this notion that the DM is god is ridiculous. It's not his game, its the groups game, as someone else mentioned. God complex DM's are the fastest way to ruin a game.

[Ruslan]

Also, this notion that the DM is god is ridiculous. It's not his game, its the groups game, as someone else mentioned. God complex DM's are the fastest way to ruin a game.I'm glad you don't like God Complex DM's, but what you have done in your last post is effectively outsourced the God role to Crawford. "Crawford said X, despite of X clearly not meshing with the rule as written? Then X it is".

Can you please explain how deifying Crawford and treating his tweets as gospel is in any way better than "DM decides what seems right"?

Why is a tweet by a person whom I never met and will likely never meet is more important than the opinion of the person with whom I play every single week, and with whom I can actually communicate and potentially argue?

[R.Shackleford]

I'm glad you don't like God Complex DM's, but what you have done in your last post is effectively outsourced the God role to Crawford. "Crawford said X, despite of X clearly not meshing with the rule as written? Then X it is".

Can you please explain how deifying Crawford and treating his tweets as gospel is in any way better than "DM decides what seems right"?

Why is a tweet by a person whom I never met and will likely never meet is more important than the opinion of the person with whom I play every single week, and with whom I can actually communicate and potentially argue?

If I run my games via rule of cool, does that mean I outsourced my god complex to to 11th Doctor?

[Easy_Lee]

I personally have no problems with house rules, obviously. But DMs need to write them down so players know before they play. Rules, rulings, interpretations, even clarifications ought to be codified and shared as comprehensively as possible.

[bid]

I'm glad you don't like God Complex DM's, but what you have done in your last post is effectively outsourced the God role to Crawford.
{scrubbed} Why are you playing 5e instead of inventing your own system?

The group decides to play 5e as RAW and RAI was meant to be. Then, collectively, the group tweaks for RAF.

Deify happens when you refuse to tweak, or you unilaterally decide your word is law.

[Mr.Moron]

I personally have no problems with house rules, obviously. But DMs need to write them down so players know before they play. Rules, rulings, interpretations, even clarifications ought to be codified and shared as comprehensively as possible.

That's certainly one way to play. I think most folks don't try to approach D&D with the same procedural rigor as a legal hearing. Most folks are pretty comfortable with just taking things as they come and kind of loosely remembering rulings as group or even changing them or handling things differently depending on the mood at the table. D&D is just make believe with dice and largely a casual affair among friends. Frankly, recording everything and making sure you're keeping every little thing you do on the fly consistent is just a giant hassle.

Every time I do write down house rules half the table doesn't bother to read them and are like "OK, whatever" when I go to apply them. Heck, most players I've run into don't even have the baseline rules of whatever system we're dealing with at the time memorized enough to even recognize a house rule.

A rigidly procedural codified and approach is certainly a fine way to do things but it's a bit much to present it as something that needs to happen.

[Mjolnirbear]

I personally have no problems with house rules, obviously. But DMs need to write them down so players know before they play. Rules, rulings, interpretations, even clarifications ought to be codified and shared as comprehensively as possible.

I agree with Mr Moron. Half the time my players don't look at my scribbles; I write it down and post changes because I'd want to see it if I were the player. But houserules come up when a circumstance makes the DM sit up and go "... That can't be right". Who goes through the rules expecting they'll find every problem rule? Its only after it comes up that most DMs make a decision, not before a game.

In principle your rulings should be consistent and as much in advance as possible to help the player make plans. Practically speaking, it'll be after the fact even when you've already tweaked the rules a dozen times.

For this reason I tell my players that if a ruling I make affects their plans for their character too badly, they have the option of rebuilding.

[ThaKaptin]

I'm glad you don't like God Complex DM's, but what you have done in your last post is effectively outsourced the God role to Crawford. "Crawford said X, despite of X clearly not meshing with the rule as written? Then X it is".

Can you please explain how deifying Crawford and treating his tweets as gospel is in any way better than "DM decides what seems right"?

Why is a tweet by a person whom I never met and will likely never meet is more important than the opinion of the person with whom I play every single week, and with whom I can actually communicate and potentially argue?

Because he is one of the guys that wrote the book and therefore knows the intended meaning of the wording because, well, he came up with it. If someone says something to you and their wording confuses you do you take them at their word when they clarify it for you or do you and some other people stand there and argue over the exact words he said and their meaning while you ignore him standing there trying to tell you what he, IN FACT, actually meant?

And house ruling is fine, but this post wasnt about a house rule, it was about trying to decipher the RAW on GWM. Crawford pretty much has the last word on RAW/RAI.

[Skylivedk]

Except it's not really a "House Rule" unless the GM intended it as such. Everything about the the OPs story indicates that:

A) They were pretty sure the GM was acting in good faith.
B) The GM was making what they thought was a correct interpretation of the existing rules, not adding new ones.

This was a call, a ruling. A ruling that contradicts a strict, technical reading of RAW but a ruling all the same. You can accuse the GM of having poor reading comprehension but not of trying to slip house rules under the radar.

I thought it was the correct interpretation. My understanding was that "when" was used to mean in that instance (mimicking cleave) - a trigger mechanism, since "if" had been used to indicate a condition had been fulfilled.

The discussion here has made me realise I was wrong.