Sage Advice Compendium Update [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 08:14 AM

It now includes the shield master ruling, and it is worded in such a way that, yes, actions are atomic if they have an "if then" wording.

The ruling only state that in order to get the bonus action to shove, you must take the Attack action. Having the intent to use the Attack action isn't enough. This prevent situation where a character would use a bonus action to shove, but after shoving the creature, there would be no valid target to make an attack against.
It also state that once you've taken the Attack action, you can choose when to use your bonus action. Nowhere it prevent you from moving between attack, and permissive DM may allow you to use your bonus action to shove a creature between attacks if you have the extra attack feature.

The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action?
No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your
turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.

Pex

2019-01-31, 08:56 AM

It says that you can declare using cutting words after the roll, but before knowing if it’s a success or a fail (in the case on an ability check or attack roll), which means that if the creature roll a 18, it could be usefull to use cutting words. On a roll of 10, it’s an harder call to make, unless you want to be sure that the roll will fail. As for damage, you need to use cutting words before the roll.
If your DM roll behind a screen, you could let him know that you are considering using cutting words and ask him to reveal the roll, or roll openly for that specific roll.

That's the problem. You have to ask the DM, and if he says no he's not breaking any rule. The DM can roll all he wants behind the screen. Sage Advice does not say you get to see the number or you can't see the number which was the actual question.

If Sage Advice had said you see the number yet the DM refuses that's a House Rule, but at least you know it is. Right now your ability to see the number remains depending on who is DM that day by the Rules.

The ruling only state that in order to get the bonus action to shove, you must take the Attack action. Having the intent to use the Attack action isn't enough. This prevent situation where a character would use a bonus action to shove, but after shoving the creature, there would be no valid target to make an attack against.
It also state that once you've taken the Attack action, you can choose when to use your bonus action. Nowhere it prevent you from moving between attack, and permissive DM may allow you to use your bonus action to shove a creature between attacks if you have the extra attack feature.

If there's no one to attack after you shove does not take away you took the Attack action. Your character doesn't do anything else, but you took the action. It does mean you cannot do another Action in its stead. You're committed to Attack, but there isn't anything to attack.

PeteNutButter

2019-01-31, 09:21 AM

So you can't kill a moon druid with disintegrate anymore (unless you reduce his humanoid form to 0)? That's super lame.

The game is more fun when there are particular spells out there that counter particular strategies. It created tension and altered gameplay choices when the druid knew the enemy can cast disintegrate, or if the party was about to face a beholder.

Unoriginal

2019-01-31, 09:25 AM

That's the problem. You have to ask the DM, and if he says no he's not breaking any rule.

That is true of all situation in all RPGs in existence, and is has been so since Gary Gygax decided to have his kids explore Castle Greyhawk.

It's not a problem, it's one of the bases of the genre.

Of course another basis of the genre is that if the GM is being a ****hole, players should call them out, and vote with their feet if it doesn't work, but that's beside the point.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 09:45 AM

That's the problem. You have to ask the DM, and if he says no he's not breaking any rule. The DM can roll all he wants behind the screen. Sage Advice does not say you get to see the number or you can't see the number which was the actual question.

If Sage Advice had said you see the number yet the DM refuses that's a House Rule, but at least you know it is. Right now your ability to see the number remains depending on who is DM that day by the Rules.

Any DM that would refuse to show you the roll if you told him that you are planning to use Cutting Words is going against the intent of the game. The trick is to have a good communication between the DM and its players.

If there's no one to attack after you shove does not take away you took the Attack action. Your character doesn't do anything else, but you took the action. It does mean you cannot do another Action in its stead. You're committed to Attack, but there isn't anything to attack.

The problem is that one could decide that if there is no attack possible, then it would use it's action to cast a spell or dodge instead. This would invalidate the ability to shove as a bonus action, and would need the DM to revert the actions taken and start the turn all over again.
With the actual ruling it forces you to commit to an attack action before obtaining the ability to use shove as a bonus action.
The ruling is more restrictive, but prevent the possibility for a "bug" to happen. I can see this ruling be ignored in a group where the DM and the players already clarified the situation between them, and stated that if there is no valid target for the attack action after the shove, then you automatically burn your action doing nothing.

Petrocorus

2019-01-31, 10:35 AM

The ruling is more restrictive, but prevent the possibility for a "bug" to happen. I can see this ruling be ignored in a group where the DM and the players already clarified the situation between them, and stated that if there is no valid target for the attack action after the shove, then you automatically burn your action doing nothing.
Which could, maybe should, be the official ruling on this.
This would prevent the bug without creating other bugs due to the new meaning of "if ... then", as LudicSavant pointed out. The distinction between "if" and "when" is quite important for some part of the rules, and as far as this non-native speaker know, in the English language too.

And without breaking a feat whose one of the purpose (or effect) is to alleviate the opportunity cost of using a shield (i.e not going PAM/GWM for big damages).

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 11:18 AM

Which could, maybe should, be the official ruling on this.
This would prevent the bug without creating other bugs due to the new meaning of "if ... then", as LudicSavant pointed out. The distinction between "if" and "when" is quite important for some part of the rules, and as far as this non-native speaker know, in the English language too.

And without breaking a feat whose one of the purpose (or effect) is to alleviate the opportunity cost of using a shield (i.e not going PAM/GWM for big damages).

I don't see this ruling breaking the feat. It only prevent from shoving before the attack, you still can shove after, of if the DM allow, between attacks.

Also, I don't remember the PHB well enough on top of my head, to see where the "if" "when" situation would be problematic. Would you please give me example of those you have in mind?

Unoriginal

2019-01-31, 11:26 AM

The Sage Advice just says "you can't use something requiring you to do an Attack action in the turns before you do the Attack action", which is logical. A slight nerf to "push the guy down with your bonus action and then whale on them", true, but it doesn't kill the feat or anything like that.

Max_Killjoy

2019-01-31, 11:29 AM

Petrocorus

2019-01-31, 11:34 AM

I don't see this ruling breaking the feat. It only prevent from shoving before the attack, you still can shove after, of if the DM allow, between attacks.

You're right. I misworded my point. I didn't meant it breaking the feat, i meant it's breaking one of the purpose of the feat. You still can shove after your attacks and of course it does nothing to the other benefit of the feat.

But shoving the foes just before attacking them to gain advantage for yourself is or at least was one of the main purposes of the feat (for many players who take it), it was how the feat helped you improve your damages, and the feat lose value with this ruling.

Now, the bonus shove's usefulness becomes highly dependant on the initiative order.

Also, I don't remember the PHB well enough on top of my head, to see where the "if" "when" situation would be problematic. Would you please give me example of those you have in mind?

AFB too for now, i'll try to find some exemples later. But there is the one cited by LudicSavant previously.

MaxWilson

2019-01-31, 11:36 AM

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 11:52 AM

AFB too for now, i'll try to find some exemples later. But there is the one cited by LudicSavant previously.

Are you referring to his comment about moving between attacks? If so, it doesn't hold, as if I remember well, the part about moving between attacks, states that if you have more than one attack you can move between those attack when you take the attack action. I fail to see how the Shield master force you to complete the attack action before doing anything else. Especially since they state that you can take your bonus action whenever you want after having initiated the attack action.

Or tell him you want to use it if the roll is at least [number].

I like this idea!

JackPhoenix

2019-01-31, 11:53 AM

Well Sage Compendium now includes the "if, then" tweet that kills Shield Master and also basic functions of the game, like movement (e.g. the rules for movement use the "if, then" wording, but if as Crawford says you have to complete the FULL action to qualify as having fulfilled the "if," then you don't actually qualify for "moving between attacks" until after you complete all your attacks).

You do realize the rules specifically mention moving between attack as a possibility just for that exact reason, right?

Mitsu

2019-01-31, 12:31 PM

You do realize the rules specifically mention moving between attack as a possibility just for that exact reason, right?

I concur. Movement between attacks are allowed according to PHB.

However nowhere in PHB I have found so far that you can use bonus action in the middle of your Action/Attack Action. From what I know- once you start your Attack Action (whenever you use all your extra attacks or not)- you are out of your Action. You can't "go back" to your Action.

Therefore I think it's against rules to do "Attack Action" and 1 attack, pause your action, do bonus action, and go back to your attack action for extra attacks.

Mainly because it could broke something, like for example using a bonus action spells so rest of your extra attacks from attack atction would benefit from it. Therefore I am 99% sure you can either do Bonus Action->Attack Action or Attack Action->Bonus action only, depending on what you do. You can't do bonus action in the middle of attack action.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 12:44 PM

I concur. Movement between attacks are allowed according to PHB.

However nowhere in PHB I have found so far that you can use bonus action in the middle of your Action/Attack Action. From what I know- once you start your Attack Action (whenever you use all your extra attacks or not)- you are out of your Action. You can't "go back" to your Action.

Therefore I think it's against rules to do "Attack Action" and 1 attack, pause your action, do bonus action, and go back to your attack action for extra attacks.

Mainly because it could broke something, like for example using a bonus action spells so rest of your extra attacks from attack atction would benefit from it. Therefore I am 99% sure you can either do Bonus Action->Attack Action or Attack Action->Bonus action only, depending on what you do. You can't do bonus action in the middle of attack action.

I think I’m the one that first suggested that you could use your bonus action between attacks from the Attack action, but only if your DM allows it, which falls into houseruling

Petrocorus

2019-01-31, 02:04 PM

I may be wrong on my previous post. Personnally, i always ruled that you couldn't make a bonus action in the middle of an action, like no bonus action shove between the two attacks of you attack action. This is how i understood the rules at the time.

But now, looking for examples of "if...then" and "when", i'm seeing other stuffs i now start to see as ambiguous.

I'm not trying to use this as an argument, i am really willing to know how i should understand "if" and "when".

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.
Do this mean you make you bonus attack immediately after the triggering attack, hence potentially in the middle of you attack action? I never saw this that way.

When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.
Do you attack after or before the cast is completed?

When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
It use "when" instead of "if", but the ruling seems to be same as the new ruling for SM. Or do you make your bonus attack in the middle of your attack action?

And if the ruling is the same, do this mean that "if" and "when" have the same meaning rule-wise?

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.
...
The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.
In this case, it is explicitly said you make the attack before the creature leaves. Do we extrapolate from there?

Or do we just ignore the exact wording and try to guess what was the intent of the writers behind a rule?

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 02:32 PM

I may be wrong on my previous post. Personnally, i always ruled that you couldn't make a bonus action in the middle of an action, like no bonus action shove between the two attacks of you attack action. This is how i understood the rules at the time.

But now, looking for examples of "if...then" and "when", i'm seeing other stuffs i now start to see as ambiguous.

I'm not trying to use this as an argument, i am really willing to know how i should understand "if" and "when".

This is how I understand the intent, in no means I pretend to be correct, but it should give us a base for discussion:

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.

Do this mean you make you bonus attack immediately after the triggering attack, hence potentially in the middle of you attack action? I never saw this that way.

IMO I would say that it can happen between two attacks, as the cleave happen from felling or critting an enemy, not from killing an enemy, then hitting another one, then cleaving a new target.

When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.

Do you attack after or before the cast is completed?

Again I'd say yes, as it would allow the damage to disrupt the spell if it's a concentration spell.

When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.

It use "when" instead of "if", but the ruling seems to be same as the new ruling for SM. Or do you make your bonus attack in the middle of your attack action?

And if the ruling is the same, do this mean that "if" and "when" have the same meaning rule-wise?

Yes

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.
...
The attack interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.

In this case, it is explicitly said you make the attack before the creature leaves. Do we extrapolate from there?
Or do we just ignore the exact wording and try to guess what was the intent of the writers behind a rule?
I think the reason they specified that the opportunity attack happen before the creature move out of your reach is to prevent the problem of not having a valid target since the creature is now out of reach. Otherwise it happen just the same.

Misterwhisper

2019-01-31, 02:34 PM

On mage slayer it says when they cast the spell not start casting a spell.

The spell goes off first.

That is why mage slayer is not that great of a feat.

Unoriginal

2019-01-31, 02:36 PM

Do this mean you make you bonus attack immediately after the triggering attack, hence potentially in the middle of you attack action?

Yes.

Do you attack after or before the cast is completed?

After. The spell isn't cast unless the cast is completed, and the feat trigger when the spell is cast, not during the casting.

It use "when" instead of "if", but the ruling seems to be same as the new ruling for SM. Or do you make your bonus attack in the middle of your attack action?

It's during or just after the Attack action, it doesn't really matter.

Thurmas

2019-01-31, 02:48 PM

We've never had an issue with doing a bonus action in the middle of an action. To us, the flexibility of 5E is nice because unless the rules say you can't do something, it makes it possible. The rules don't try and rule every situation, letting the DM makes decisions. No where does it say you can't take a bonus action in the middle of an action or between attacks, so 5E gives the ability that you can.

We've had on numerous occasions Rangers or Warlocks move a Hunter's Mark or Hex to another target in between attacks on their turn after the first target died. I've never had anyone think that didn't make sense. I can't see other bonus actions be any different.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 03:00 PM

After. The spell isn't cast unless the cast is completed, and the feat trigger when the spell is cast, not during the casting.

Interesting, I always considered the action of casting the spell triggered the Mage Slayer feat. IMO it makes more sense this way, as it let the character to have a meaningful impact vs the caster, don't you think? It would be more clear if the text was saying that "When the [target] take a cast a spell action", but since most NPC and Monsters don't really declare their actions, it can be assume that when the DM says that [creature] is casting a spell, [creature] is using the casting action in reality. Or am I overthinking?

dejarnjc

2019-01-31, 03:10 PM

Interesting, I always considered the action of casting the spell triggered the Mage Slayer feat. IMO it makes more sense this way, as it let the character to have a meaningful impact vs the caster, don't you think? It would be more clear if the text was saying that "When the [target] take a cast a spell action", but since most NPC and Monsters don't really declare their actions, it can be assume that when the DM says that [creature] is casting a spell, [creature] is using the casting action in reality. Or am I overthinking?

Logically this makes sense but sadly the RAW doesn't seem to support it :/

I prefer to edit/homebrew Mage Slayer though and allow the attack to go off first AND to have a chance to interrupt the spell being cast (no slot used). Makes the feat much desirable to players.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 03:14 PM

Logically this makes sense but sadly the RAW doesn't seem to support it :/

How? Would you care to explain please?

Mitsu

2019-01-31, 03:38 PM

I am not native speaker so please forgive me but I don't understand your doubt about Mage Slayer.

Feat says: "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature. "

Casts- which from what I remember from english class is not "done". So enemy mage did not "casted" spell. He casts, so in my interpretation when he casts so he does an action consider by game as casting spell (be it waving hands, speaking magic words, siging etc.) you make reaction attack. It doesn't say that spells needs to be done. Just when he casts.

It's simillar to all other reactions. Besides from what I remember in rules, reaction interrupts every other action that caused reaction. Reaction > Action.

If enemy attacks you- before he hits you you can cast Shield as reaction. Reaction > Action
If enemy approaches you, before you can attack you- you can OA him with reaction if you have PAM. Reaction > Action
Before he finishes his movement you can OA target with reaction if he leaves your range. Reaction > Action
Vengeance Paladin Oath of Vengeance- when enemy attacks you- you use reaction to attack. No when he hits, finish etc. Just when he attacks. Reaction goes before he can hit as reaction>Action according to RAW.

And so on.

For me it's clear that when enemy caster casts - you can use reaction to attack him, which will come (as all reactions) before his action can be finished as this is how reaction works. It's always faster than action. It will indeed have chance to interrupt his spell.

This is sole reason why OA attacks work when someone leave your range. You interrupt his action/turn (movement) with reaction which is superior in order.

Otherwise we wouldn't be able to do OAs as he would have to finish movement, which would place him away from our range.

Reaction > Action. Always.

JoeJ

2019-01-31, 03:47 PM

Reaction > Action. Always.

It's actually the opposite of this. A reaction comes after the trigger is finished, unless something in the description of the reaction says otherwise. Opportunity attacks interrupt movement and a shield spell can stop an attack because it says explicitly in the rules that they do, not because they are reactions.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 03:57 PM

Finney

2019-01-31, 04:04 PM

jas61292

2019-01-31, 04:07 PM

It's actually the opposite of this. A reaction comes after the trigger is finished, unless something in the description of the reaction says otherwise. Opportunity attacks interrupt movement and a shield spell can stop an attack because it says explicitly in the rules that they do, not because they are reactions.

This is the correct rule. I don't know where it is layed out, but I'm certain this is started somewhere in the rules. Reactions always react to something else happening. And do not occur until after the thing they react to, unless specified otherwise.

In the case of Mage Slayer, since it reacts to a spell being cast, it does not happen until after the spell is cast. That being said, I think this is generally superior to the other potential interpretation. Sure, hitting first is better if you are also using some homebrew spell interruption mechanics. But RAW, no such mechanic exists, and so hitting after and thus being able to instantly disrupt concentration is better most of the time. The only times hitting earlier would be better is if you kill with your hit, or if the spell is a teleport.

Misterwhisper

2019-01-31, 04:13 PM

This is the correct rule. I don't know where it is layed out, but I'm certain this is started somewhere in the rules. Reactions always react to something else happening. And do not occur until after the thing they react to, unless specified otherwise.

In the case of Mage Slayer, since it reacts to a spell being cast, it does not happen until after the spell is cast. That being said, I think this is generally superior to the other potential interpretation. Sure, hitting first is better if you are also using some homebrew spell interruption mechanics. But RAW, no such mechanic exists, and so hitting after and thus being able to instantly disrupt concentration is better most of the time. The only times hitting earlier would be better is if you kill with your hit, or if the spell is a teleport.

There is the fact that many spells would stop it completely.

You can’t use mage slayer if:

The spell stops your reactions
Makes the caster invisible
Makes the caster move out of melee range
Blocks your vision
Or
Stuns or paralyzes or etc you.

Corpsecandle717

2019-01-31, 04:19 PM

Petrocorus

2019-01-31, 04:25 PM

If i count well, that's 3 non-native speakers who have an issue with the Mage Slayer wording.

Maybe part of the problem (which includes the Shield Master issue) is the extensive use of the present tense in the rules.

The present tense is not the same thing in every language. And if it used for several things in a language, it may produce an ambiguity.

It would be good also to know if the writers used "if" and "when" as keyword which always have the same meaning or just went along with the wording that seems natural at this particular time.

I found another one BTW:

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take in response to being damaged by a creature within 60 feet of you that you can see
This is the only reaction spells that doesn't use the word "when". Does "in response to" has a different meaning? Can you let something else happen between the moment you take damage and the moment you take your reaction?

jas61292

2019-01-31, 04:26 PM

There is the fact that many spells would stop it completely.

You can’t use mage slayer if:

The spell stops your reactions
Makes the caster invisible
Makes the caster move out of melee range
Blocks your vision
Or
Stuns or paralyzes or etc you.

While it's true that you cannot make the attack if you cannot take a reaction (which includes both you first and last scenarios), the feat will give you advantage on any save in such a situation, making that less likely to happen.

And while I did call out teleportation (and possibly some other movement spells) as a weakness, your other examples do not negate the situation. Opportunity attacks are a reaction, but not all reactions are opportunity attacks. As the feat does not call the granted attack an opportunity attack, it is not, so it does not follow the rules of such attacks. If the spell being cast is invisibility or darkness, you will not be able to see the caster when you attack (barring special senses) but you still get to attack. It will probably be at disadvantage, but if you hit, there is a good chance their brand new spell drops and is wasted.

jas61292

2019-01-31, 04:28 PM

Can I ask where are you drawing that conclusion from? Are you basing that on the fact that if the reaction does specifically say it resolves first it doesn't? I went back and checked reaction and don't see anything that indicated it resolved before or after the trigger, only a line about abilities that have an interrupt associated with them.

I saw that Ready Action specifically said the trigger resolves first, but nothing like that in Reactions.

I don't have the books on me, but this is mentioned in the sage advice compendium entry on sentinel, which references DMG 252.

Corpsecandle717

2019-01-31, 04:35 PM

I don't have the books on me, but this is mentioned in the sage advice compendium entry on sentinel, which references DMG 252.

Thanks. That would have been really nice for players to know lol.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 04:41 PM

If i count well, that's 3 non-native speakers who have an issue with the Mage Slayer wording.

Maybe part of the problem (which includes the Shield Master issue) is the extensive use of the present tense in the rules.

The present tense is not the same thing in every language. And if it used for several things in a language, it may produce an ambiguity.

It would be good also to know if the writers used "if" and "when" as keyword which always have the same meaning or just went along with the wording that seems natural at this particular time.

@ native english users:

In french the present tense is used for what is happening right now. So if the wording use the present tense for an action, used as a trigger, you can reasonably assume that the reaction to the trigger happen during while the action is done, not after it is completed.

i.e "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature." would mean that you can use a reaction to make a melee weapon attack when the creature is casting the spell.

Is it different with the use of present tense in english?

Unoriginal

2019-01-31, 04:42 PM

If i count well, that's 3 non-native speakers who have an issue with the Mage Slayer wording.

I'm not a native speaker either, and I understood the wording just fine.

A spell is cast when the effect is happening and the spell slot spent, folks. The D&D rules, and English grammar, are clear on this.

The same way that "when he stabs his enemy, the enemy screams" implies that the stabbing happened THEN the scream is uttered. "If" and "when" implies an event resulting in consequences, and consequences don't happen unless the event is done.

They would have used "is casting a spell" if the intervention was during the casting.

In french the present tense is used for what is happening right now. So if the wording use the present tense for an action, used as a trigger, you can reasonably assume that the reaction to the trigger happen during while the action is done, not after it is completed.

i.e "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature." would mean that you can use a reaction to make a melee weapon attack when the creature is casting the spell.

Is it different with the use of present tense in english?

Present tense is for the current events, but present continuous is used for the currently-ongoing action.

Ex: "she eats the pie, and drinks the wine" describe two events happening one after the other.

"She is eating the pie when she drinks the wine" means that in the middle of the continuous "eating" action, she drinks the wine.

When you say "he kills the goblin", it implies the task if finished, while "he is killing the goblin" means the task is ongoing. Same for cast/casting.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 04:51 PM

I'm not a native speaker either, and I understood the wording just fine.

A spell is cast when the effect is happening and the spell slot spent, folks. The D&D rules, and English grammar, are clear on this.

The same way that "when he stabs his enemy, the enemy screams" implies that the stabbing happened THEN the scream is uttered. "If" and "when" implies an event resulting in consequences, and consequences don't happen unless the event is done.

They would have used "is casting a spell" if the intervention was during the casting.

You see that's not my understanding of the intent. IMO a spell is cast the moment you spend the casting a spell action, and the spell is completed after the casting time is done.

Present tense is for the current events, but present continuous is used for the currently-ongoing action.

Ex: "she eats the pie, and drinks the wine" describe two events happening one after the other.

"She is eating the pie when she drinks the wine" means that in the middle of the continuous "eating" action, she drinks the wine.

When you say "he kills the goblin", it implies the task if finished, while "he is killing the goblin" means the task is ongoing. Same for cast/casting.
If that so, then my understanding may be wrong.

Mitsu

2019-01-31, 05:01 PM

Ex: "she eats the pie, and drinks the wine" describe two events happening one after the other.

"She is eating the pie when she drinks the wine" means that in the middle of the continuous "eating" action, she drinks the wine.

When you say "he kills the goblin", it implies the task if finished, while "he is killing the goblin" means the task is ongoing. Same for cast/casting.

I don't think that this is correct when it comes to how book and rules are written. Best example is Opportunity Attack. This is how it goes:

"You can make an opportunity Attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. "

MOVES out of your reach. He is in the middle of moving out of your reach that is why you have a chance to attack.

If we stick to your interpretation that would mean that he already moved out of our reach and therefore- how we would be able to make an Opportunity Attack if he already moved 30 feet away from us?

100% here "moves" does not mean that he is done with his movement as we could not use reaction attack otherwise.

Clearly in DnD rules "s" means that it's happening right now, despite if it's 100% in English grammar rules.

Otherwise they would have to write it as you said "when a hostile creature that you can see is moving out of your reach" - which is of course incorrect as we all now how Opportunity Attack should work. OA would simply not exist if enemy would finish moving out of our reach before we can use reaction.

Therefore, taking OA as prime example, In my opinion all "s" mean action that is happening but is not finished:

Like "casts" in Mage Slayer or "moves out of your reach" or (Soul of Vengeance) "makes an attack, you can use your reaction". It's not done, it's happening.

Otherwise Reaction would make no sense from mechanical perspective.

Unoriginal

2019-01-31, 05:09 PM

You see that's not my understanding of the intent. IMO a spell is cast the moment you spend the casting a spell action, and the spell is completed after the casting time is done.

No, that is not what the rules say. The spell is cast at the end of the casting time.

If a mage was spending 10 mins to cast a spell next to someone who has Mage Slayer, Mage Slayer would only trigger at the end of the casting time, when the spell is cast.

DanyBallon

2019-01-31, 05:15 PM

No, that is not what the rules say. The spell is cast at the end of the casting time.

If a mage was spending 10 mins to cast a spell next to someone who has Mage Slayer, Mage Slayer would only trigger at the end of the casting time, when the spell is cast.

Again that's not my understanding, and except for my lack of proficiency in english about the different form of present tense, I don't recall any rules explicitly stating that a spell is cast only when the casting time is completed.

JackPhoenix

2019-01-31, 05:26 PM

I don't think that this is correct when it comes to how book and rules are written. Best example is Opportunity Attack. This is how it goes:

"You can make an opportunity Attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. "

MOVES out of your reach. He is in the middle of moving out of your reach that is why you have a chance to attack.

If we stick to your interpretation that would mean that he already moved out of our reach and therefore- how we would be able to make an Opportunity Attack if he already moved 30 feet away from us?

You should propably read the whole section: "The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."

Keravath

2019-01-31, 05:39 PM

Rules citations at the end. However ...

To use Shield master to bash an opponent you have to use the Attack Action. Using the Attack action requires taking ONE attack. Using the attack action grants the bonus action to use your shield to shove. Bonus actions can be used at ANY time during your turn unless the ability granting the bonus action specifies otherwise. In the case of Shield Master, the bonus action occurs any time after taking the attack action.

Extra attack grants the ability to take an additional attack as part of the attack action. The rules specifically allow for movement between attacks. The rules specifically allow the bonus action shield bash to be taken at any time. The attack action requires only ONE attack be made for the attack action to have been taken.

So ... even with the current ruling from the Sage advice compendium, it appears perfectly acceptable for a character to attack once to initiate the attack action which activates the ability to use the shield to bash. Then use the shield to bash an opponent and then use the extra attack ability if the character has that.

There is nothing in the rules that says the Attack action has to be completed before Shield bash is allowed ... only that the attack action be taken and the attack action specifically requires one attack with the possibility of other features adding additional attacks to the attack action.

Rules -----------------

Bonus Actions (PHB 189)
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.

Attack Action (PHB 192)
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.

MOVING BETWEEN ATTACKS (PHB 190)
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.

SHIELD MASTER (PHB 170)
You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
• If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
• if you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
• If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.

Note: "Take" not "finish" or "complete" the action ... taking the attack action requires taking at least ONE attack.

Man_Over_Game

2019-01-31, 05:39 PM

I found some relevant information on the Mage Slayer conundrum:

Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see “Concentration” below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Mage Slayer
When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use you reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.

DMG, p.252
If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

Since this falls under the "Timing is Unclear" clause, I'd assume that means that the clearest interpretation is when the Casting A Spell trigger is finished.

Otherwise, it could be interpreted as either when a long-spell-casting mage moves adjacent to you, when you move adjacent to it, when it uses its action to start casting, when it uses its action to maintain the casting, or any variant thereof. And if that's not the definition of "unclear", then I'm not sure how any clearer it could be.

JoeJ

2019-01-31, 05:59 PM

@ native english users:

In french the present tense is used for what is happening right now. So if the wording use the present tense for an action, used as a trigger, you can reasonably assume that the reaction to the trigger happen during while the action is done, not after it is completed.

i.e "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature." would mean that you can use a reaction to make a melee weapon attack when the creature is casting the spell.

Is it different with the use of present tense in english?

I'm a native speaker of American English.

Statements of the form, "When another person does X, you may Y" can mean either that you may act while the person is doing X or or you act immediately after they finish doing X. The statement itself does not distinguish those two cases; you must interpret it from the context.

The context here has to be understood to include the general rule in the DMG that reactions occur after their trigger, unless the description of that reaction in the rules gives a different timing.

Cynthaer

2019-01-31, 06:12 PM

It would be good also to know if the writers used "if" and "when" as keyword which always have the same meaning or just went along with the wording that seems natural at this particular time.

I found another one BTW:

This is the only reaction spells that doesn't use the word "when". Does "in response to" has a different meaning? Can you let something else happen between the moment you take damage and the moment you take your reaction?
The short answer is that "if" and "when" aren't proper keywords in the same way that "melee attack" or "saving throw" are, and there's no guarantee that they'll be structured in precisely the same way everywhere they appear.

The real meat of the Shield Master ruling isn't the "revelation" that when the rules say "if...then" you have do to the "if" to get the "then". It's that everything during your turn happens sequentially, and therefore by RAW merely planning to fulfill the "if" doesn't count.

Regarding Hellish Rebuke, there is no technical difference between "when" and "in response to", and I bet I know why they worded Hellish Rebuke differently from, say, Shield:

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you are damaged by a creature within 60 feet of you that you can see

Do you see the problem? I took damage from the goblin last turn and haven't healed it up yet—I am, at this moment, still in a state of being "damaged by a creature within 60 feet [...]".

Now, a moment's thought makes it clear that this isn't the intent, but it's still bad writing. You can fix it by making it clear what the triggering event is:

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when a creature within 60 feet of you that you can see damages you

OR

Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you take damage from a creature within 60 feet of you that you can see

From a writing standpoint, these are both a little clunky. The first has too many descriptive clauses between the object (a creature) and the action (damages). The second has the words "you take" twice, right next to each other, and referring to different things (you take [a reaction] when you take [damage]).

In the end, they decided it was better to just say "in response to" so the sentence flows better, since "when" isn't a keyword anyway.

Mitsu

2019-01-31, 06:15 PM

I'm a native speaker of American English.

Statements of the form, "When another person does X, you may Y" can mean either that you may act while the person is doing X or or you act immediately after they finish doing X. The statement itself does not distinguish those two cases; you must interpret it from the context.

The context here has to be understood to include the general rule in the DMG that reactions occur after their trigger, unless the description of that reaction in the rules gives a different timing.

I agree with that, but what is the trigger then?

Let's go with Mage Slayer again. Reaction is attack. We need trigger.

Trigger is when "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell"

So I will go with what you have said as you are native speaker and I am not so I trust your knowledge:

"When another person does X, you may Y" can mean either that you may act while the person is doing X or or you act immediately after they finish doing X. The statement itself does not distinguish those two cases

So trigger is either a START of a casting- so you observe mage as Mage Slayer, see that he starts to cast spell and strike immideitly.

Or trigger occurs when he finished casting.

In my opinion, considering OAs, Reaction as mechanic, Mage Slayer purpouse etc. I will would go with first trigger. You see that enemy mage starts to cast- you hit him before he can finish casting.

Unoriginal

2019-01-31, 06:17 PM

Thank you for searching the rules.

Petrocorus

2019-01-31, 06:41 PM

To use Shield master to bash an opponent you have to use the Attack Action. ......Then use the shield to bash an opponent and then use the extra attack ability if the character has that.

Given the new ruling, i agree with your interpretation of the rules. I don't know if this is what Crawford had in mind. I do know that i don't like it. I'll keep letting my players shove before attack, except now, this will be a houserule instead of a ruling.

SHIELD MASTER (PHB 170)
You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
• If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.

Note: "Take" not "finish" or "complete" the action ... taking the attack action requires taking at least ONE attack.
I do note this is present tense despite that several things can happen during this action.

On the present tense thing, i saw in some TV Show or internet conversations that some people (mostly american as far as i noticed) use the present for things that should be present perfect to my mind. Like "i'm told this won't be an issue" to describe the fact that someone has told him several hours earlier that this won't be an issue.
It tends to confuse me.

JoeJ

2019-01-31, 06:54 PM

I agree with that, but what is the trigger then?

Let's go with Mage Slayer again. Reaction is attack. We need trigger.

Trigger is when "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell"

So I will go with what you have said as you are native speaker and I am not so I trust your knowledge:

So trigger is either a START of a casting- so you observe mage as Mage Slayer, see that he starts to cast spell and strike immideitly.

Or trigger occurs when he finished casting.

In my opinion, considering OAs, Reaction as mechanic, Mage Slayer purpouse etc. I will would go with first trigger. You see that enemy mage starts to cast- you hit him before he can finish casting.

The problem with your interpretation is that it is contradicted by the rule in the DMG that the reaction occurs after the trigger. Because of this, in order to react before the spell is finished, the text of Mage Slayer would need to read, "when a creature within 5' of you starts casting a spell."

JakOfAllTirades

2019-01-31, 07:03 PM

Hahahahaha! +1 for meta-humor.

Seriously though, it's an excellent change. Twitter doesn't lend itself to thoughtfulness, and it is not good for D&D when Twitter feeds are given a lot of weight.

It's not good for anything...

"Game design by tweet" has been the single worst "feature" of fifth edition, IMHO.

Inane drivel like this: A melee weapon, such as a dagger or handaxe, is still a melee weapon when you make a ranged attack with it. makes me very glad to hear Sage Advice isn't considered "official" rules. Best news I've heard since 5E was released.

MaxWilson

2019-01-31, 07:12 PM

"Game design by tweet" has been the single worst "feature" of fifth edition, IMHO.

Inane drivel like this: A melee weapon, such as a dagger or handaxe, is still a melee weapon when you make a ranged attack with it. makes me very glad to hear Sage Advice isn't considered "official" rules. Best news I've heard since 5E was released.

I could write that sentence better. How about "rules that refer to a 'attacks made with a melee weapon' are still intended to apply to ranged attacks made by throwing melee weapons. A 'melee weapon' does not always make a 'melee weapon attack.' We apologize for the confusion and wish we had chosen different terminology but it's too late now."

"We further remind DMs of their duty to use their own judgment to make rulings that make sense to themselves and their players based on the situation and not just the rules in the rulebooks."

Arial Black

2019-01-31, 07:37 PM

The process of casting a spell involves (usually) some or all of saying the magic words (verbal component), making the mystic gestures (somatic component), and providing the material components (or presenting a focus).

It is a process. It takes time. Not a lot of time (unless the casting time is longer than one round), but it takes time nonetheless.

At the successful completion of this process, the spell comes into existence for its duration. It literally cannot begin its duration, even if the spell duration is 'instantaneous', until the casting process has been completed. Finished. Ended. Because it is the successful completion of the spellcasting process which causes the spell!

However, at any and every point during the continuous process that is 'spellcasting', you ARE 'casting a spell'.

"It rains" = "It is raining".

"He casts a spell" = "He is casting a spell".

Since he is casting a spell for a period of time, as soon as the caster begins to cast a spell until the time they finish casting a spell, they are 'casting' the spell. At any and every point in that window they are casting the spell, and therefore at any and every point in that window they have triggered potential Mage Slayer reaction attacks.

This means that as soon as the caster begins casting, but before the casting is complete, Mage Slayer is triggered. And, by definition, because the casting process is still ongoing, the casting cannot yet be complete, and so the spell cannot yet exist. The only possible exception would be if the Mage Slayer chooses to wait until the last moment to take that reaction attack, but it would be impossible in practice to time that attack precisely enough to happen at exactly the same time as the spell duration begins. And why would the Mage Slayer want to do that anyway?

What is not allowed is for the Mage Slayer to allow the casting to complete and the spell duration to begin before he takes the reaction attack, because at that point there is no valid trigger for that reaction because the caster is not 'casting' at that point.

So the normal sequence of events re: spellcasting, without any Mage Slayer or anyone else messing with the process, is:-

* caster begins to cast -> caster continues to chant the magic words and make the mystic gestures for a period of time -> caster successfully completes the casting process -> the spell comes into existence for its duration

Mage Slayer is triggered as soon as the casting begins, so the sequence of events becomes:-

* caster begins to cast -> this triggers a melee attack reaction from an adjacent Mage Slayer

Since a caster must maintain concentration throughout the casting process or the spell fails, if this reaction attack hits and damages the caster this means that the caster must make a concentration check, and if that check fails then the spell is lost before it even begins. Another bullet point of the Mage Slayer feat means that this concentration check has disadvantage.

If that concentration check succeeds, or if the reaction attack missed or did no damage, then the casting process continues and (presumably) completes, which causes the spell to come into existence for its duration.

nb: by 'concentration check' I am of course referring to the Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration.

The DMG says that reactions occur after their trigger. In this case the reaction attack occurs after the casting process begins, so the DMG is satisfied. The reaction attack must occur before the casting process is complete (and therefore before the spell comes into existence), because when the casting has finished the trigger no longer exists.

Simples. :smallsmile:

Mitsu

2019-01-31, 07:50 PM

snip

Long but accurate :)

I 100% agree with this and this is how me and everyone I know (inluding official Adventures League in my city which usually helds over 15 DMs and 50-60 players every week) runs it.

Same for OAs, PAM OAs, Mage Slayer, Soul of Vengeance, Shield etc. And imo it's better and more interesting that way and it also makes Mage Slayer a good talent for anyone who can gap close to them and then stay next to them. Reaction attack like that really punishes them trying to cast spell next to Mage Slayer. Which makes sense.

LudicSavant

2019-01-31, 11:49 PM

You do realize the rules specifically mention moving between attack as a possibility just for that exact reason, right?

You do realize those are the very rules I was referencing, right?

Those rules use an if statement, and are therefore impacted by JC's redefinition of If statements.

jas61292

2019-02-01, 01:00 AM

Arial Black

2019-02-01, 04:59 AM

That... makes no sense.

It made enough sense in the previous editions of the game!

Reactions come after the thing that triggers them. Not during (unless specified).

Spelcasting is a continuous action. Casting provokes from a Mage Slayer, so it provokes the moment it begins. The Mage Slayer doesn't have to wait 10 more minutes before he takes that reaction attack. That would be absurd! And what's true for longer casting times is true for any casting time, unless you want to rule that some spells are cast so quickly that the casting begins and ends before it can be reacted to, like I houserule for bonus and reaction casting times.

For example, if the verbal component (part of the casting process) were chanting this phrase in a particular rhythm and intonation (check out the spallcasting chapter): "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!", and spellcasting is what triggers the Mage Slayer reaction attack, then as soon as the caster chants "Blood and...." he gets hit upside the face with a Holy Avenger!

If not, why not? Why would the Mage Slayer have to wait for all seven words to be uttered, when other verbal components for other spells might be four or nine or however many words long? What is it about the end of the final word that triggers the attack? There is nothing!

Meanwhile, for every edition of the game, as soon as you begin casting, you provoke, because you have to concentrate in a specific way to bring forth energies that Man Was Not Meant to Know. The only way 5e differs from previous editions is that in those editions casting provokes from anyone threatening the caster, while in 5e you need the Mage Slayer feat to do this.

The fact that they are no longer casting a spell once it is cast is irrelevant, since the reaction explicitly comes after the trigger.

Of course it's relevant. After a creature has already left your reach, it's too late to take your opportunity attack. The act of moving beyond your reach, while it is in progress, is when you take your OA. Before that or after that you cannot because the trigger has been and gone. Since with Mage Slayer the start of casting provokes, then the start of casting is already over so it happens first (you can't take that reaction attack before the caster even starts to cast after all, so the sequence is preserved) and since the casting is still happening then the trigger is still there.

You are attempting to break up an action into parts that have no support in the rules...

There are lots of things that happen in the game without needing rules to mention them. Normal processes happen as they do in our world, unless specifically changed. Things fall in a downward direction, time goes in one direction, events take a period of time, and so on.

...rather than simply have the action itself be what triggers the reaction, as is intended.

It is not the spell coming into existence which provokes, it is the casting process which provokes, and we know this is intended because that's what the feat says provokes the reaction attack: when a creature casts a spell, not AFTER a creature casts a spell, or when a spell begins its duration.

Furthermore, the whole concentration thing is completely made up. Nothing in the rules says the casting of a spell takes concentration unless it takes more than one action to cast. Even if the hit did come in the middle of the cast, which it doesn't, it would not do anything to concentration, as they have not finished the action and this have not had to start concentrating yet.

Everything that says whether or not you need concentration to cast spells (as opposed to when the rules are silent on the issue), says you do. It says so in the casting time section, it says so in the concentration section, it says so in the section on Readying actions. Nowhere does it make an exception for spells that take an action or less to cast.

It also says it in the rules for previous editions, and not a single word of 5e has altered that. Sure, 5e is a stand alone rules set, but it models the same concepts as the previous editions, and the concept of the spellcasting process provoking an OA, and the OA interrupting the spellcasting, and the damage maybe making the caster lose the spell, has not changed over the editions. In fact, in 3e you could only take the OA if you could see the caster make the somatic components and/or hear the caster say the verbal components. If you could not see and/or hear (for example the spell might be prepared with the Still and Silent feats) then no OA was provoked. In 3e you could cast defensively, and you did not provoke so long as you succeeded in a concentration check DC 15+spell level. If you did not cast defensively then your casting provoked and if you took damage then you had to make a concentration check or lose the spell. No words in 5e have altered this concept of concentration being required to cast a spell, and anything that is written confirms that concentration is required.

Go on, provide a quote that says spells with a casting time of one action do not require concentration to cast!

Millstone85

2019-02-01, 05:17 AM

"We apologize for the confusion and wish we had chosen different terminology but it's too late now."Instead, we got something like "If we meant an attack with a melee weapon, we would have spelled it melee-weapon attack, with a dash."

Can't find the tweet, but I swear it existed.

Everything that says whether or not you need concentration to cast spells (as opposed to when the rules are silent on the issue), says you do. It says so in the casting time section, it says so in the concentration section, it says so in the section on Readying actions. Nowhere does it make an exception for spells that take an action or less to cast.So you saying that "casting another spell that requires concentration" being one of the factors that break concentration (PHB p203, Concentration) really means that casting any spell will break concentration? I highly doubt that was the intent.

Unoriginal

2019-02-01, 05:24 AM

Spelcasting is a continuous action.

Only when the casting time is more than one action.

Casting provokes from a Mage Slayer, so it provokes the moment it begins.

Wrong. Mage Slayer is triggered when a spell is cast, not WHILE a spell is being cast.

and spellcasting is what triggers the Mage Slayer reaction attack

The spell being cast, ie its casting time finishing, the spell slot being consumed, and the effect happening, is what trigger MS.

If not, why not? Why would the Mage Slayer have to wait for all seven words to be uttered, when other verbal components for other spells might be four or nine or however many words long? What is it about the end of the final word that triggers the attack? There is nothing!

5e does not have "I interrupt the casting of an one-action spell" rules, except for Counterspell, which precises it can be used when you see a creature "casting a spell", as opposed to when a spell is cast. Nothing absurd about that.

Meanwhile, for every edition of the game, as soon as you begin casting, you provoke, because you have to concentrate in a specific way to bring forth energies that Man Was Not Meant to Know. The only way 5e differs from previous editions is that in those editions casting provokes from anyone threatening the caster, while in 5e you need the Mage Slayer feat to do this.

Wrong. What other editions did doesn't matter. If MS could interrupt a spell, it would say so.

Of course it's relevant. After a creature has already left your reach, it's too late to take your opportunity attack. The act of moving beyond your reach, while it is in progress, is when you take your OA. Before that or after that you cannot because the trigger has been and gone.

The wording is clear: in 5e, the AoO happens before the creature has left the reach, but it's triggered when they use their movement to get out of the reach and not before. MS has no such wording.

It is not the spell coming into existence which provokes, it is the casting process which provokes,

Wrong. The wording is clear.

A Subbtle-Spell-metamagic-using Sorcerer who casts Subbtle Aganazzar's Scorcher while standing next to an hostile Mage Slayer PC would trigger the Mage Slayer feat when the PC sees the big line-shaped burst of flame gets out of the Sorcerer's hand, even with Subbtle Spell removing the spell's components

Everything that says whether or not you need concentration to cast spells (as opposed to when the rules are silent on the issue), says you do. It says so in the casting time section, it says so in the concentration section, it says so in the section on Readying actions. Nowhere does it make an exception for spells that take an action or less to cast.

All those sections SPECIFICALLY say that it only takes concentration to cast spells if you're taking more than one action to cast them or if

It also says it in the rules for previous editions, and not a single word of 5e has altered that. Sure, 5e is a stand alone rules set, but it models the same concepts as the previous editions, and the concept of the spellcasting process provoking an OA, and the OA interrupting the spellcasting, and the damage maybe making the caster lose the spell, has not changed over the editions.

That is blatantly incorrect. The 5e rules make clear that, ordinarily, casting a spell does NOT provoke Attacks of Opportunity. You can't say that it hasn't changed over the editions when the change did happen and you mentioned it yourself earlier.

No words in 5e have altered this concept of concentration being required to cast a spell, and anything that is written confirms that concentration is required.

Plenty of words, actually.

Go on, provide a quote that says spells with a casting time of one action do not require concentration to cast!

Sure:

Normal activity,such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
-Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.

PHB p. 203.

If what you advanced was true, then there would be no need to precise "spell that requires concentration", because according to you casting any spell requires concentration. More to the point, if what you advanced was true, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to cast another spell and maintain your concentration on a concentration spell, because you can't concentrate on more than one spell.

Since it's perfectly possible to cast spells while under the effect of a concentration self-buff like Haste, your interpretation is not valid.

Arial Black

2019-02-01, 05:42 AM

So you saying that "casting another spell that requires concentration" being one of the factors that break concentration (PHB p203, Concentration) really means that casting any spell but a bonus-action one will break concentration? I highly doubt that was the intent.

Nice try, but not what I or the rules say.

The 'casting another spell that requires concentration' is talking about spells whose casting time entry includes the word 'concentration'.

To prove this, the section on 'Longer Casting Times' says you must "maintain your concentration to do so (see 'Concentration')", but longer casting times do not automatically make you lose the current spell you are concentrating on (by dint of its duration being 'concentration') because it is referring to the fact that you need to concentrate on the casting process, as opposed to the spell duration of 'concentration'. Longer casting times may by ruined if your concentration is broken by taking damage or being incapacitated or killed or what have you, but the first concentration bullet point which reads:-

* you lose concentration on a spell (meaning a spell with a duration of 'concentration') if you cast another spell that requires concentration (ie has a duration of concentration)(emphasis mine)

...is all about the spell duration of 'concentration' rather than the altered state of mind needed to cast a spell requiring your mental discipline.

It is unfortunate that they use the same word for both things. It reminds me of the passage in the 1e DMG where Gary Gygax regrets using the word 'level' for so many different things (spell level, character level, dungeon level, etc.). It has been mentioned before on these forums that 'concentration', meaning the spell duration, is merely a game mechanic to restrict you from having more than one of these on the go at the same time and does not really imply that you have to give those spells your full attention. That's why you can even long rest and as long as you don't actually (need to) fall asleep (unconscious) then your 'concentration' duration spell is still going strong (like hex cast with a 5th level slot giving it a duration of 'concentration, up to 24 hours').

As opposed to the "I've got to give this my full attention" kind of concentration, required for the spellcasting process (rather than the 'spell duration' kind) and which provokes (although, in 5e, only provokes from those with the Mage Slayer feat).

DanyBallon

2019-02-01, 05:46 AM

May I ask a question?
How comes we are willing to accept that with Shield Master you can shove a creature before using your attack action (which may cause an “invalid entry” if shoving the creature 5 ft away from you, leaves you with no valid target for you attack action), but we are not willing to accept that Mage Slayer is triggered by the action of casting a spell instead on waiting after the spell completion (pumping up the usefulness of the feat and giving a tool for martials vs caster)?

Why RAW matters in one instance, but not in the other?

As far as I’m concerned, the intent behind Shield Master is to give you acces to a bonus action under certain conditions and is worded to prevent a situation where you would use your bonus action, then could not use the attack action thus invalidating your bonus action. It’s a very niche situation, and the wording could have been more specific like “you get a bonus action to shove an enemy and must use your attack action on the same turn otherwise you lose your action for the turn”
And the intent behind Mage Slayer is to give martials a way to disrupt or at least make spellcaster pay for casting a spell near you. Again a clearer wording would have helped.

Millstone85

2019-02-01, 05:48 AM

To prove this, the section on 'Longer Casting Times' says you must "maintain your concentration to do so (see 'Concentration')", but longer casting times do not automatically make you lose the current spell you are concentrating on (by dint of its duration being 'concentration') because it is referring to the fact that you need to concentrate on the casting process, as opposed to the spell duration of 'concentration'.
It is unfortunate that they use the same word for both things.Nonsense.

There is only one mechanic called concentration. Nothing here suggests otherwise.

Unoriginal

2019-02-01, 05:52 AM

Millstone85

2019-02-01, 06:05 AM

Trying to claim the designers are incompetent so they used the same word for two different things is not a viable debate tactic.And since this thread is about the Sage Advice Compendium, here is a quote from it.
Does casting a spell as a ritual require concentration if the spell doesn’t normally require it? Concentration is required when casting any spell, including a ritual version, for longer than 1 action (see PH, 202). Once the casting is complete, the spell requires concentration only if its duration entry says it does. While I believe that incompetence and the designers are well acquainted with each other, I do not hold that little trust in them. There is indeed only one ressource called concentration, or they would have said otherwise by now.

Arial Black

2019-02-01, 06:17 AM

Only when the casting time is more than one action.

No, the casting process of chanting the magic words and making the mystic gestures does not take zero time! If it took zero time then it wouldn't exist.

Wrong. Mage Slayer is triggered when a spell is cast, not WHILE a spell is being cast.

"When a creature within 5 feet of you CASTS a spell"! 'Casts' is present tense, and since the spellcasting process takes a period of time then it is a continuous action during that time and 'casts' = 'is casting'. Simple English. The rules use natural language. 'Casts' does not mean 'has finished casting'.

Words mean what they mean. The rest of your points based on your erroneous understanding are fruit of a poisoned tree.

5e does not have "I interrupt the casting of an one-action spell" rules, except for Counterspell, which precises it can be used when you see a creature "casting a spell", as opposed to when a spell is cast.

It does, but 5e restricts it to those with the Mage Slayer feat.

If MS could interrupt a spell, it would say so.

I'm not saying MS interrupts a spell. It interrupts the process of casting a spell, before the spell even begins to exist (starts its duration).

The wording is clear: in 5e, the AoO happens before the creature has left the reach, but it's triggered when they use their movement to get out of the reach and not before. MS has no such wording.

Right. It has the wording which applies to MS, which is that the reaction attack is triggered by the spellcasting process.

A Subbtle-Spell-metamagic-using Sorcerer who casts Subbtle Aganazzar's Scorcher while standing next to an hostile Mage Slayer PC would trigger the Mage Slayer feat when the PC sees the big line-shaped burst of flame gets out of the Sorcerer's hand, even with Subbtle Spell removing the spell's components.

Correct. 5e has simplified this whole process, not only by restricting the OA provoked by spellcasting to those with MS, but also by removing the requirement to see/hear the components. Note that it has also (strangely) removed the need to even see the caster or be aware of him at all! Of course, an unseen caster will still be attacked with disadvantage.

Yes, Mage Slayer isn't very clearly written. This is why those of us with experience of previous editions where the situation is precisely explained have an advantage over those who only know 5e and its slackly written rules.

All those sections SPECIFICALLY say that it only takes concentration to cast spells if you're taking more than one action to cast them

No they don't!

Perhaps you mean something else, but those other sections (Readying, concentration) do not say anything like "by the way, you don't need to concentrate to cast spells if they take one action to cast"!

Nor should they, because each section talks about itself; Readying talks about readying spells, not about what happens when you are not readying. Concentration talks about losing spells, not about whether or not concentration works differently for spells with different casting times. Longer Casting Times talks about that, not about spells with shorter casting times!

Quote a sentence which says that you don't have to concentrate on the spellcasting process if the casting time is one action or less! You can't because the rules are silent there, defaulting to the general assumption anywhere it IS mentioned that you need to concentrate on spellcasting.

The 5e rules make clear that, ordinarily, casting a spell does NOT provoke Attacks of Opportunity. You can't say that it hasn't changed over the editions when the change did happen and you mentioned it yourself earlier.

I've already said, more than once, that 5e has changed who gets the OA, and the way 5e changed it is to restrict the OA to those with the MS feat. But they haven't changed the concept that it is the casting process itself which provokes, not the appearance of the actual spell in the world.

Arial Black

2019-02-01, 06:25 AM

Casting a more-than-one-action spell or maintaining one already cast uses the same Concentration rules. The rules are clear.

Trying to claim the designers are incompetent so they used the same word for two different things is not a viable debate tactic.

Especially when they address it in the book itself, which you quoted: LONGER CASTING TIMES
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituaLs) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see "Concentration" below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Like I said, and like the rule you just quoted shows, there is a difference between 'concentration on the spellcasting process' and 'the spell duration of concentration'. Spellcasting and spell duration are different things, which never even exist at the same time. Spellcasting, when successfully completed, causes the spell duration to begin. They literally cannot overlap.

Like it or not, although the mechanic used to mess with either is the same, they remain different uses of concentration.

Arial Black

2019-02-01, 06:30 AM

And since this thread is about the Sage Advice Compendium, here is a quote from it.

Does casting a spell as a ritual require concentration if the spell doesn’t normally require it? Concentration is required when casting any spell, including a ritual version, for longer than 1 action (see PH, 202). Once the casting is complete, the spell requires concentration only if its duration entry says it does.

This does not say that casting a spell of one action does not require concentration! It merely says that spells with longer casting times do!

It even shows that they acknowledge the difference between the concentration needed during the spellcasting process and the spell duration of concentration.

Unoriginal

2019-02-01, 06:31 AM

Like I said, and like the rule you just quoted shows, there is a difference between 'concentration on the spellcasting process' and 'the spell duration of concentration'. Spellcasting and spell duration are different things, which never even exist at the same time. Spellcasting, when successfully completed, causes the spell duration to begin. They literally cannot overlap.

Like it or not, although the mechanic used to mess with either is the same, they remain different uses of concentration.

So you maintain that it's possible to cast a spell as a ritual while under, for example, an Invisibility spell you cast on yourself?

Zalabim

2019-02-01, 06:35 AM

Quote a sentence which says that you don't have to concentrate on the spellcasting process if the casting time is one action or less! You can't because the rules are silent there, defaulting to the general assumption anywhere it IS mentioned that you need to concentrate on spellcasting.
Quote a sentence that says you don't have to cut off your legs when you make a bogus argument on the internet. You can't, so the general assumption is that your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Millstone85

2019-02-01, 06:40 AM

It even shows that they acknowledge the difference between the concentration needed during the spellcasting process and the spell duration of concentration.On the contrary, it shows that they do not distinguish between multiple types of concentration.

Yes, concentration is used by different processes, such as a casting time of 2+ actions or a duration of concentration, but it is the same ressource. Just like Dash and Dodge compete for your action.

DanyBallon

2019-02-01, 07:04 AM

Mitsu

2019-02-01, 07:11 AM

"When a creature within 5 feet of you CASTS a spell"! 'Casts' is present tense, and since the spellcasting process takes a period of time then it is a continuous action during that time and 'casts' = 'is casting'. Simple English. The rules use natural language. 'Casts' does not mean 'has finished casting'.

Guys, I even went today to my old English teacher that is also native speaker before he moved to my country and asked him about it. And he confirmed that "casts", "goes", "moves" etc. is by default a present tense or an specific thing that someone does regularly. In English grammar this is referred to as "Simple Present".

Here is definition from English B2 dictionary:

"Simple Present. The simple present is a verb tense with two main uses. We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it's sometimes called present indefinite). "

He said that in natural non-academic English when you ask someone: "Hey man, where is Mark" and person answers "He runs", that means that Mark is currently probably running somewhere. He is in the middle of some activity. Similar you can ask "What is Mark hobby?" and person answers "He plays basketball" - means that he has a specific activity that he does regularly and does not mean that he is currently doing it.

However in both cases- this is present tense and does not mean that something is done or some activity has been finished. Simple Present is NEVER used to describe an activity that is done.

Back to Mage Slayer then:

"When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell" means that a creature is in the middle of doing it. Spell casting is happening right now. Right now in present moment, since this is "Simple Present" grammar rule in English - he is casting a spell, he either just started it, is in the middle, near the end, doesn't matter. "Casts" is not a finished action. This is 100% accurate in English language.

The trigger is when casters starts casting spell, not when he finishes it. He starts to cast, "he casts"- meaning he is currently doing it-> reaction attack.

That comes from an 52 old English Teacher who was living 35 years in England before he moved and from B2-level English dictionary used at University at English classes. If this doesn't convince anyone- then I guess we will just argue further about houserulling it.

Unoriginal

2019-02-01, 07:20 AM

Guys, I even went today to my old English teacher that is also native speaker before he moved to my country and asked him about it. And he confirmed that "casts", "goes", "moves" etc. is by default a present tense or an specific thing that someone does regularly. In English grammar this is referred to as "Simple Present".

Here is definition from English B2 dictionary:

"Simple Present. The simple present is a verb tense with two main uses. We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it's sometimes called present indefinite). "

He said that in natural non-academic English when you ask someone: "Hey man, where is Mark" and person answers "He runs", that means that Mark is currently probably running somewhere. He is in the middle of some activity. Similar you can ask "What is Mark hobby?" and person answers "He plays basketball" - means that he has a specific activity that he does regularly and does not mean that he is currently doing it.

However in both cases- this is present tense and does not mean that something is done or some activity has been finished. Simple Present is NEVER used to describe an activity that is done.

"When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell" means that a creature is in the middle of doing it. Spell casting is happening right now. Right now in present moment, since this is "Simple Present" grammar rule in English - he is casting a spell, he either just started it, is in the middle, near the end, doesn't matter. "Casts" is not a finished action.

This is as Arial Black said- simple, natural english.

That comes from an 52 old English Teacher who was living 35 years in England before he moved and for B2 English dictionary used at University at English classes. If this doesn't convince anyone- then I guess we will just argue further about houserulling it.

Have you asked your teacher about the when/if marker for present leading into a conditional? Because it is a different situation than what you asked here.

In "If he eats the fish, he will be sick", the present tense "eats" is used to indicate an action that will have consequence *once it's done*. Same things for "when they work, they get paid" or "when a creature casts a spell, the feat is triggered."

And that is simple, natural English too.

Also that doesn't change the fact that a Reaction happens after the action that triggered it is done, unless it's precised otherwise.

Mitsu

2019-02-01, 07:27 AM

Have you asked your teacher about the when/if marker for present leading into a conditional? Because it is a different situation than what you asked here.

In "If he eats the fish, he will be sick", the present tense "eats" is used to indicate an action that will have consequence *once it's done*. Same things for "when they work, they get paid" or "when a creature casts a spell, the feat is triggered."

And that is simple, natural English too.

Also that doesn't change the fact that a Reaction happens after the action that triggered it is done, unless it's precised otherwise.

In that specific rule (though he does not play RPGs so I had to explain some stuff first) he confirmed that an reaction would happen right when a triggering action started, not when it finished. At least judging solely from English language used here. He said that from his point of view to make reaction happen after casting is done, they should have used "casted". Although as he said "casted" is past tense of cast from the Middle English period to the sixteenth century so it's old word, but grammatically correct.

Trigger is a casting activity, not a spell casted. At least from language perspective used in Mage Slayer.

On a side note: He said that PHB is written in rather simplified English, probably to be more friendly to majority of people.

Millstone85

2019-02-01, 07:32 AM

Is there someone with a Twitter account that can ask Jeremy Crawford the following questions?Hard pass.

One of the annoying things with JC's tweets is that they regularly bring comments like:
* Yet another savage burn from Jeremy!
* Jeremy, you have the patience of a saint.
* People really need to RTFM.

Sorry, but I am not taking that bullet for someone else. Not again.

Unoriginal

2019-02-01, 07:36 AM

In that specific rule (though he does not play RPGs so I had to explain some stuff first) he confirmed that an reaction would happen right when a triggering action started, not when it finished. At least judging solely from English language used here. He said that from his point of view to make reaction happen after casting is done, they should have used "casted". Although as he said "casted" is past tense of cast from the Middle English period to the sixteenth century so it's old word, but grammatically correct.

Trigger is a casting activity, not a spell casted. At least from language perspective used in Mage Slayer.

On a side note: He said that PHB is written in rather simplified English, probably to me more friendly to majority of people.

Substitute "casts" with "attacks" or "kills" or "closes" or any immediate action and the meaning is clear. No one would argue that "When a creature within 5 feet of you attacks" means you can interrupt the attack.

He is correct about the PHB, though.

DanyBallon

2019-02-01, 07:38 AM

Hard pass.

One of the annoying things with JC's tweets is that they regularly bring comments like:
* Yet another savage burn from Jeremy!
* Jeremy, you have the patience of a saint.
* People really need to RTFM.

Sorry, but I am not taking that bullet for someone else. Not again.

I know, hence why I added "With hope it will be clarified in the next Sage Advice Compendium" as like you said, twitter answer are often criticized and I believe that this questions needs more reflection that a quick answer in 140 characters on twitter :smallbiggrin:

Mitsu

2019-02-01, 07:42 AM

Substitute "casts" with "attacks" or "kills" or "closes" or any immediate action and the meaning is clear. No one would argue that "When a creature within 5 feet of you attacks" means you can interrupt the attack.

He is correct about the PHB, though.

Again, depends on how everything is worded. I don't really think PHB authors were sitting at each sentence to make sure it's grammatically 100% clear.

Take look at "Soul of Vengeance":

"Starting at 15th level, when a creature under the effect of your Vow of Enmity makes an attack, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature if it is within range."

Here we have "makes" an attack. Not when it hit or miss, just when he makes attack you can use reaction. Everyone I know always used it as interrupting attack v vs enemy with your attack as it says "makes an attack".

That is why I think they should always make those rules with an additional sentence like under OA:

"You can make an opportunity Attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature. The Attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."

Here there is no doubt because they actually took additional minute to write simple, clarifying sentence for this rule. Something like that should be under every "reaction" action to avoid any doubts about timing.

Unoriginal

2019-02-01, 07:48 AM

Again, depends on how everything is worded. I don't really think PHB authors were sitting at each sentence to make sure it's grammatically 100% clear.

Take look at "Soul of Vengeance":

"Starting at 15th level, when a creature under the effect of your Vow of Enmity makes an attack, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature if it is within range."

Here we have "makes" an attack. Not when it hit or miss, just when he makes attack you can use reaction. Everyone I know always used it as interrupting attack v vs enemy with your attack as it says "makes an attack".

That is why I think they should always make those rules with an additional sentence like under OA:

"You can make an opportunity Attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature. The Attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."

Here there is no doubt because they actually took additional minute to write simple, clarifying sentence for this rule. Something like that should be under every "reaction" action to avoid any doubts about timing.

Specifics trumps generals every time, but if there is no specific, the general rule applies. "Reactions happen once the trigger is done" is the general rule about timing, which applies whenever a different timing isn't mentioned.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm still arguing this, I should know better. 5e isn't a game of exact words and legalese, precisely for situations like this.

Have a wonderful day, everyone.

Mitsu

2019-02-01, 07:54 AM

Specifics trumps generals every time, but if there is no specific, the general rule applies. "Reactions happen once the trigger is done" is the general rule about timing, which applies whenever a different timing isn't mentioned.

Once trigger is done or once action is done? Because if we say that start of casting spell is trigger, the trigger itself (start of casting) is done. However if it's when action is done then enemy would have to finish his action (cast spell fully) for trigger to be done.

But that is all just semantics. I think DMs should use their best judgment here.

For me Mage Slayers are people trained to slay casters. I think a Mage Slayer standing 5 feet from caster is ready for any casting to start (he is experienced to be able to recognize spell being used) so he can try to interrupt them with their attack, which also combos with their second feature "disadvantage on concentration checks". I think it all makes sense for Mage Slayer try to interrupt casting of a mage. It generally should be very unwise and dangerous to cast spells near... Mage Slayer?

That is just my interpretation, by no mean I suggest everyone should use it.

But I really thing we should ask Jeremy about it.

Also have a good day sir!

Unoriginal

2019-02-01, 08:00 AM

Once trigger is done or once action is done?

Once the action is done and complete.

But that is all just semantics. I think DMs should use their best judgment here.

Precisely.

Zalabim

2019-02-01, 08:18 AM

What if people who want to argue about rules took the time to read the rules they're arguing about? For one thing, I wouldn't have to spoonfeed them answers that were given 16 hours (and 4+ years) ago.

Adjudicating Reaction Timing
Typical combatants rely on the opportunity attack and the Ready action for most of their reactions in a fight. Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

Do not ask Jeremy yet another question that can be answered by reading the book.

Depending on the situation, it is better for the mage slayer to attack after the spell is cast anyway, such as when the spell is one that requires concentration to maintain.

Mitsu

2019-02-01, 08:41 AM

anyway[/I], such as when the spell is one that requires concentration to maintain.

Sorry for nitpicking but it's better to attack before cast is done, because while Mage Slayer know that spell is being casted, he doesn't know what kind of spell is being casted. It's better to have a chance to kill caster before he finish (you can get crit, use Smite spell or Smite, prone him, stun him, poison, some weapon effect etc.) as he might be casting Power Word: Kill right now or Cone of Cold instead of Stone Skin.

But as I admitted - I nitpick here :)

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-01, 08:42 AM

Petrocorus

2019-02-01, 08:51 AM

Why RAW matters in one instance, but not in the other?

It matters in both, but we don't agree on what is RAW.

Wrong. Mage Slayer is triggered when a spell is cast, not WHILE a spell is being cast.
The very core of the issue is we not sure about the validity of this distinction.

In that specific rule .... probably to be more friendly to majority of people.
I wonder if american English is different from english English on this point?

I know, hence why I added "With hope it will be clarified in the next Sage Advice Compendium" as like you said, twitter answer are often criticized and I believe that this questions needs more reflection that a quick answer in 140 characters on twitter :smallbiggrin:
BTW, why did they choose Twitter? Do we know? Twitter is infamous for this 140 characters limit and the issues it spans.

Again, depends on how everything is worded. I don't really think PHB authors were sitting at each sentence to make sure it's grammatically 100% clear.

They should have. They've gone too far with the "up to the DM" mentality IMHO.
I'm pretty sure that half of the issues we have with the game is due to bad wording or not thorough enough thinking.
The Lucky feat turning Disadvantage into super-Advantage is another example of bad wording that could have been easily avoided.

The lack of good or thorough wording (or playtest with players that read the rules without preconceived assumptions) can ruin a game or some part of a game. Someone quoted Elric earlier. My table just started playing Mournblade and i painfully found out at first session that range DPR was basically useless against anyone with a proper armor. I borrowed the rulebook and easily found several options that were overpowered or underpowered or very ambiguous due to bad wording or lack of test. And it is sad because the game is good overall.

When i see the number of edits I need to do to get my own wording barely explicit, i can help thinking how important it is.

n00b

2019-02-01, 09:37 AM

Crawford already cleared this up.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/

DanyBallon

2019-02-01, 09:47 AM

Crawford already cleared this up.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/

Thanks!

I'll need to add a new entry to my houserule document :smallbiggrin:

Mitsu

2019-02-01, 09:54 AM

Crawford already cleared this up.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/

Good find sir!

I am not gonna use that and stick to houserule, as I don't see sense in feat saying "Mage Slayer" where he needs to wait for spell to blow his face before he can do his reaction attack as clearly trained person to fight with casters in extreme Close Combat situations (5 feet).

But it is what it is: official ruling. I will houserule that then so Mage Slayer is attractive to my players.

Max_Killjoy

2019-02-01, 09:57 AM

This thread is giving me a massive headache... and dampens the renewed open-mindedness that 5e had created for me regarding D&D.

Pages upon pages of nothing but bickering over the meaning of "is".

DanyBallon

2019-02-01, 10:03 AM

This thread is giving me a massive headache... and dampens the renewed open-mindedness that 5e had created for me regarding D&D.

Pages upon pages of nothing but bickering over the meaning of "is".

It's not a 5e effect but more an effect of passionate players with different background and opinions discussing over a internet forum :smalltongue:

JackPhoenix

2019-02-01, 10:15 AM

Is there someone with a Twitter account that can ask Jeremy Crawford the following questions? With hope that it will be clarified in the next Sage Advice Compendium.

- Is Mage Slayer first bullet triggered when the spellcasting is completed, or as soon the as the spellcaster start casting the spell?
- Does the process of casting a spell requires concentration even if the casting time takes an action or less? (Can be useful if someone ready an action to attack a spellcaster "as soon as he start casting a spell")

Thanks

JC doesn't responded to any of my previous tweets, but as with most cases, someone already asked (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/) similar question (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/17/concentration-and-casting-spells/).

Misterwhisper

2019-02-01, 10:20 AM

Crawford already cleared this up.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/

Thus why i said like 2 mages ago that the feat is very overrated.

I have never once seen a person get an attack from it unless the DM completely forgot the player had it or they were unseen by the enemy.

Took it on my swashbuckler rogue at level 1, in a game that lasted until level 16, where we fought more than an average number of casters, I got to use the attack part a total of twice.

Once when I was stealthed behind a druid who did not know I was there, and once about 20 sessions later when the DM forgot I had it because it never came up.

jas61292

2019-02-01, 10:39 AM

Thus why i said like 2 mages ago that the feat is very overrated.

I have never once seen a person get an attack from it unless the DM completely forgot the player had it or they were unseen by the enemy.

Took it on my swashbuckler rogue at level 1, in a game that lasted until level 16, where we fought more than an average number of casters, I got to use the attack part a total of twice.

Once when I was stealthed behind a druid who did not know I was there, and once about 20 sessions later when the DM forgot I had it because it never came up.

Sounds more like an adversarial DM intentionally trying to weaken your character than an issue with the feat itself.

I don't normally like suggesting something like this, but the fact that it only worked when they 'forgot' you had it seems to imply they were intentionally negating your feature in a way they wouldn't have if you didn't have it, despite the characters having no way to know you have it.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-01, 10:47 AM

Sounds more like an adversarial DM intentionally trying to weaken your character than an issue with the feat itself.

I don't normally like suggesting something like this, but the fact that it only worked when they 'forgot' you had it seems to imply they were intentionally negating your feature in a way they wouldn't have if you didn't have it, despite the characters having no way to know you have it.

It was more along the lines of if the enemy is a full caster they know that standing next to a melee guy is a bad idea so they get out of the way without giving you a chance to stab them.

It is no different than covering an escape because anyone can OA when someone walks out of their square, all mage slayer does is give the attacker a chance to stab the caster if they were stupid enough to cast a spell next to an armed combatant and still be there or not hamper the attacker with it.

Ex.

Attacker with mage slayer is standing next to enemy caster.
Caster is going to want to get out of that range unless they are also a melee based character as well like a heavy armor cleric or some hex blades.

The issue is, everything that stops an OA from just leaving their threat range, also would stop mage slayer in the first place.

Petrocorus

2019-02-01, 10:59 AM

It was more along the lines of if the enemy is a full caster they know that standing next to a melee guy is a bad idea so they get out of the way without giving you a chance to stab them.

I concur.
If a full caster who has no melee capability ends in melee range of a melee guy*, the spells he's going to cast will probably be a spell that allows him to get out of melee range without punishment, like Misty Step.

It's perfectly normal for a DM to have casters NPC avoid melee.

And this indeed diminish one of the purpose of the feat.

* We need to find a word to describe a melee specialist.

Max_Killjoy

2019-02-01, 11:00 AM

I concur.
If a full caster who has no melee capability ends in melee range of a melee guy*, the spells he's going to cast will probably be a spell that allows him to get out of melee range without punishment, like Misty Step.

It's perfectly normal for a DM to have casters NPC avoid melee.

And this indeed diminish one of the purpose of the feat.

* We need to find a word to describe a melee specialist.

"CQC"

Close Quarters Combatant

Man_Over_Game

2019-02-01, 11:08 AM

Good find sir!

I am not gonna use that and stick to houserule, as I don't see sense in feat saying "Mage Slayer" where he needs to wait for spell to blow his face before he can do his reaction attack as clearly trained person to fight with casters in extreme Close Combat situations (5 feet).

But it is what it is: official ruling. I will houserule that then so Mage Slayer is attractive to my players.

I mean, you don't even need Sage Advice for it, though:

Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see “Concentration” below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Mage Slayer
When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use you reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature.

DMG, p.252
If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

Not having it be anything other than when the spell finishes leaves room for these possible interpretations:

When you move adjacent to a caster in the middle of channeling.
When a caster who's in the middle of channeling moves adjacent to you.
When the caster spends the first action to begin channeling.
When the caster spends an action to continue to channel.

So which combination of those is the best interpretation? It's unclear.

But it's not like someone is generally able to channel a spell for 10 rounds straight. Combat generally doesn't last half that long.

It's about as big of a nerf as saying Magic Stone can't be fired from slings. Sure, it technically is, but...when is it ever going to matter?

DanyBallon

2019-02-01, 11:15 AM

I mean, you don't even need Sage Advice for it, though:

Not having it be anything other than when the spell finishes leaves room for these possible interpretations:

When you move adjacent to a caster in the middle of channeling.
When a caster who's in the middle of channeling moves adjacent to you.
When the caster spends the first action to begin channeling.
When the caster spends an action to continue to channel.

So which combination of those is the best interpretation? It's unclear.

But it's not like someone is generally able to channel a spell for 10 rounds straight. Combat generally doesn't last half that long.

It's about as big of a nerf as saying Magic Stone can't be fired from slings. Sure, it technically is, but...when is it ever going to matter?

I'd say that all those situation would be good trigger for my interpretation of Mage Slayer, and would make the feat more useful.

Man_Over_Game

2019-02-01, 11:29 AM

I'd say that all those situation would be good trigger for my interpretation of Mage Slayer, and would make the feat more useful.

It would make the feat more useful, but that's not what is said. If you have to ask and come up with your own definitions of a reactionary trigger, that definitely falls under the guidelines of an "unclear" event. Note that every other possible reactionary trigger has a succinct moment that it specifies when you spend the reaction and gain the benefit.

A few examples:

Shield: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell.
Lore Bardic Inspiration: when a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll.
Redemption Paladin Aura of the Guardian: when a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage.

Mage Slayer doesn't have a specific timing for the sake of a channeled spell, and since "no timing is specified, [..] the reaction occurs after the trigger finishes". It's not that big of a deal, but let's not blame it as "another bad JC ruling". What's supposed to happen seems very clear, just based on the PHB and DMG information.

DanyBallon

2019-02-01, 11:45 AM

It would make the feat more useful, but that's not what is said. If you have to ask and come up with your own definitions of a reactionary trigger, that definitely falls under the guidelines of an "unclear" event. Note that every other possible reactionary trigger has a succinct moment that it specifies when you spend the reaction and gain the benefit.

A few examples:

Shield: 1 reaction, which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell.
Lore Bardic Inspiration: when a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll.
Redemption Paladin Aura of the Guardian: when a creature within 10 feet of you takes damage.

Mage Slayer doesn't have a specific timing, and since "no timing is specified, [..] the reaction occurs after the trigger finishes". It's not that big of a deal, but let's not blame it as "another bad JC ruling". What's supposed to happen seems very clear, just based on the PHB and DMG information.

The timing of Mage Slayer, is when a creature within 5 ft of you casts a spell. The argument is whether the feat triggers when the spell is "casted" or while being cast. IMO it happen during the casting while JC confirm that the designer intent was that it happen when the spell is casted. I'm not saying it's a bad ruling, only that my interpretation makes the feat more useful, and my interpretation will now be recorded as an houserule at my table.

MaxWilson

2019-02-01, 11:52 AM

But it's not like someone is generally able to channel a spell for 10 rounds straight. Combat generally doesn't last half that long.

This is a tangent, but technically you can use spells like Symbol in combat if you just start casting them before combat. E.g. spend nine rounds casting Symbol and then go down the corridor and kick down the door behind which you know (from Arcane Eye or a Shadow Monk scout or a Chainlock's familiar) there are six Spirit Trolls feasting on a child's remains, and then on the first turn of combat you finish casting Symbol of Insanity and disable all the trolls.

I say "technically" because the idea of moving while you're engraving a symbol on a fixed surface doesn't fly with me, RAW or no RAW. I don't buy the idea that you spend a minute just doing abstract mumbo jumbo and then you carve the symbol in an instant. For me, you'd have to enter the room in which the trolls are and then spend a minute casting the spell there. But from a pure RAW perspective, it technically works.

There are some related nuances including "does Invisibility end as soon as you start casting Symbol or only when you finish?" which require DM judgment calls.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-01, 12:01 PM

This is a tangent, but technically you can use spells like Symbol in combat if you just start casting them before combat. E.g. spend nine rounds casting Symbol and then go down the corridor and kick down the door behind which you know (from Arcane Eye or a Shadow Monk scout or a Chainlock's familiar) there are six Spirit Trolls feasting on a child's remains, and then on the first turn of combat you finish casting Symbol of Insanity and disable all the trolls.

I say "technically" because the idea of moving while you're engraving a symbol on a fixed surface doesn't fly with me, RAW or no RAW. I don't buy the idea that you spend a minute just doing abstract mumbo jumbo and then you carve the symbol in an instant. For me, you'd have to enter the room in which the trolls are and then spend a minute casting the spell there. But from a pure RAW perspective, it technically works.

There are some related nuances including "does Invisibility end as soon as you start casting Symbol or only when you finish?" which require DM judgment calls.

There is no DM call on the invisibility spell.

You are concentrating on a spell and begin casting a spell that takes more than one turn, so your concentration ends.

jas61292

2019-02-01, 12:02 PM

The timing of Mage Slayer, is when a creature within 5 ft of you casts a spell. The argument is whether the feat triggers when the spell is "casted" or while being cast. IMO it happen during the casting while JC confirm that the designer intent was that it happen when the spell is casted. I'm not saying it's a bad ruling, only that my interpretation makes the feat more useful, and my interpretation will now be recorded as an houserule at my table.

I think the whole English based argument is irrelevant because the rules explicitly say you react after the trigger is finished. Sure "cast" is present tense, but that only furthers support the idea that you cannot interrupt it, as the trigger must finish (and thus become past tense) for the reaction to come.

The trigger here is that they cast a spell. It is not that they start casting a spell. If they are still in the middle of casting, they may have finished starting to cast, but they have not finished casting. As the latter is the trigger, the trigger has not finished. And you don't get your reaction until the trigger finishes.

Cynthaer

2019-02-01, 12:07 PM

Something to bear in mind here is that in most of these edge cases, the stakes are very low as far as game balance is concerned.

Like, Jeremy Crawford's job is explicitly to state Wizards' official position on what the text says, not to tell anybody how the game should be played.

I guarantee you that JC doesn't care if (like many tables) you let people shield bash before attacking, or let Mage Slayer attacks go off before the spell finishes instead of after. These houserules make the feats feel much more effective, but the long-term increase in power just isn't enough to warp the game one way or the other. The same is true for almost every question of the form, "do I get to see what the role was before deciding?"

So while these are questions worth discussing, because it's useful to understand how the designers view the unmodified rules, always remember that you're free to improve the rules, and it'll probably be fine either way.

MaxWilson

2019-02-01, 12:32 PM

There is no DM call on the invisibility spell.

You are concentrating on a spell and begin casting a spell that takes more than one turn, so your concentration ends.

Are you cognizant of the fact that Invisibility can be cast on other people?

Pex

2019-02-01, 12:42 PM

It's not a 5e effect but more an effect of passionate players with different background and opinions discussing over a internet forum :smalltongue:

I say it's both.

It's made worse when Crawford gives his say so on something making one side wrong but they are not convinced they are wrong just because Crawford says so and insist he's wrong.

It becomes fecal matter hitting the air circulation device when Crawford changes his mind on his say so making the previously wrong people right and right people wrong.

Something to bear in mind here is that in most of these edge cases, the stakes are very low as far as game balance is concerned.

Like, Jeremy Crawford's job is explicitly to state Wizards' official position on what the text says, not to tell anybody how the game should be played.

I guarantee you that JC doesn't care if (like many tables) you let people shield bash before attacking, or let Mage Slayer attacks go off before the spell finishes instead of after. These houserules make the feats feel much more effective, but the long-term increase in power just isn't enough to warp the game one way or the other. The same is true for almost every question of the form, "do I get to see what the role was before deciding?"

So while these are questions worth discussing, because it's useful to understand how the designers view the unmodified rules, always remember that you're free to improve the rules, and it'll probably be fine either way.

But it becomes a problem when people play in more than one campaign and the DMs interpret things differently insisting it's the Rules and not a House Rule or "Ruling". Shield bashing before the attack can matter to a player who's a fighter/rogue in one game to get sneak attack fighting solo and a paladin in another game for crit fishing his smites. One of the DMs agreeing with Crawford means the tactic and possibly fun of playing that character goes out the window.

JoeJ

2019-02-01, 03:36 PM

Thus why i said like 2 mages ago that the feat is very overrated.

I see what you did there. :)

Cynthaer

2019-02-01, 04:17 PM

But it becomes a problem when people play in more than one campaign and the DMs interpret things differently insisting it's the Rules and not a House Rule or "Ruling". Shield bashing before the attack can matter to a player who's a fighter/rogue in one game to get sneak attack fighting solo and a paladin in another game for crit fishing his smites. One of the DMs agreeing with Crawford means the tactic and possibly fun of playing that character goes out the window.

I know from previous discussions that you value cross-table consistency very highly, and that's fair. Unfortunately, that's just not going to happen due to the nature of 5e, so I'm more interested in how we interact with the environment we actually have.

To that end, my point about the stakes being low is largely to the benefit of this player. I want DMs to know not only what the official reading of the text is, but also how important a given reading is to the game's balance.

In this particular instance, I want to communicate to DMs that these two common deviations from RAW (shield bash up front and attacking before spells go off) are not going to destroy encounter balance if your player wants you to allow them. In fact, I'd go even farther and say I recommend allowing them, because they feel really good for the players.

(The flip side is that for builds that don't specifically rely on shield bashing before the first attack, I also want players to know they're not being nerfed into oblivion if the DM prefers Crawford's reading.)

Man_Over_Game

2019-02-01, 04:30 PM

Fair point.

Consider a player's mentality before and after the Shield Master change.

If you have to make the BA after the attack, people would still take PAM, Sentinel or GWM.

But does allowing the BA to be allowed BEFORE the attack change that? I'd say No. People are still going to pick PAM, Sentinel and GWM for their damage builds, but now Shield Master is, at least, something they'd consider.

Skylivedk

2019-02-02, 09:31 AM

Honestly, JC seems to be intentionally vague or he is just not a strong communicator:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/02/shocking-grasp-on-a-mage-slayer/

It's so easy to ever this question better:
Q: "@JeremyECrawford A creature casts shocking grasp on a Mage Slayer PC. If the PC reacts to the spell being "cast," does he get his reaction?"

Official A: "Mage Slayer doesn't specify timing, and a reaction without special timing occurs after its trigger (DMG, 252). "

Better A: "Mage Slayer grants a reaction once the spell is cast, not at the beginning of nor during casting. Shocking grasp can prevent the reaction".

I'm tired of their "natural language" cop out. For next prints, use bold for mechanical references, have a page with proper legalese and add exact page references rather than subchapter references in the name of Oghma and Tyr.

I'd ignore the change to Shieldmaster, let Mage Slayers slay Mages (not interrupt Bonus Action and Reaction spells) and allow experts of the arcane arts a check (maybe with a higher DC) to let them know what they use spell slots to Counterspell. I'm happy most of my tables are RAF (Rules As Fun) and IIC (I Ignore Crawford).

I feel bad for all those who can only get their D&D drugs at the local AL Mafia where they stepdance on the RAW and uncut whenever bossman JC says so. - no offense intended for those of you who love his "clarifications" ("" used because of the Mage Slayer and Shield Master tweets).

Unoriginal

2019-02-02, 09:42 AM

have a page with proper legalese

Yeah, no. 5e is a far better and healthier game without that kind of "proper legalese" mindset.

D&D 5e is meant to be played, not lawyered.

and allow experts of the arcane arts a check (maybe with a higher DC) to let them know what they use spell slots to Counterspell.

This one isn't a tweet precision, though.

You're free to homebrew whatever you want if you don't like the rules for it.

n00b

2019-02-02, 10:09 AM

I agree Crawford's clarifications many times don't answer the question and often just raise more. I wonder if that might be part of the reason they've removed his Tweets from being RAW.

Skylivedk

2019-02-02, 11:14 AM

Yeah, no. 5e is a far better and healthier game without that kind of "proper legalese" mindset.

D&D 5e is meant to be played, not lawyered.

This one isn't a tweet precision, though.

You're free to homebrew whatever you want if you don't like the rules for it.

A) I meant a separate web page where you could look these things up. Maybe only with access granted by book purchase if they fear people pirating (OOC - there's a background for it otherwise)

B) yeah, sorry... My long harboured annoyance of how they did spell identification in Xanathar's got the better of me. And don't worry. It was houseruled, before it was even ruled.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-02, 11:32 AM

A) I meant a separate web page where you could look these things up. Maybe only with access granted by book purchase if they fear people pirating (OOC - there's a background for it otherwise).

I disagree. Getting people in a habit of "legalistic" reading is bad for the game and is contrary to the entire design philosophy of 5e. The "official rulings" don't matter for anything other than persuasion. They're not binding on anyone. Heck, the text of the books is only as binding as a table decides it is. JC makes that very clear--the DM (with the support of the table) is the final authority. No other authority can contravene him once he makes a decision. This also means that the DM bears entire responsibility for his decisions. He can't blame it on JC, the rules, or anything else. A legalistic wording document would merely serve to give fuel to those (on either side of the table) who want to weaponize the rules--to hide behind printed text to deflect responsibility from their anti-social actions. And that is purely toxic behavior with no redeeming value.

I put "legalistic" in quotes because D&D rules-lawyers are bad lawyers. Their readings (called "RAW") are horrible examples of exactly what would get you sanctioned for malpractice in front of a court. They rely on proof-texting (taking phrases out of the context of the passage and insisting they have independent meaning). They selectively read passages, and smash together unrelated uses of the same words (polysemy is a thing...). They demand "magic words"--if it doesn't say exactly such and so, then it doesn't really count. They make artificial, arbitrary fluff vs crunch distinctions, always in favor of their preferred outcome.

RAW-thinking is poison. 5e (and this sub-forum) isn't nearly as bad as 3e was about this, but it's still toxic.

Skylivedk

2019-02-02, 11:45 AM

I disagree. Getting people in a habit of "legalistic" reading is bad for the game and is contrary to the entire design philosophy of 5e. The "official rulings" don't matter for anything other than persuasion. They're not binding on anyone. Heck, the text of the books is only as binding as a table decides it is. JC makes that very clear--the DM (with the support of the table) is the final authority. No other authority can contravene him once he makes a decision. This also means that the DM bears entire responsibility for his decisions. He can't blame it on JC, the rules, or anything else. A legalistic wording document would merely serve to give fuel to those (on either side of the table) who want to weaponize the rules--to hide behind printed text to deflect responsibility from their anti-social actions. And that is purely toxic behavior with no redeeming value.

I put "legalistic" in quotes because D&D rules-lawyers are bad lawyers. Their readings (called "RAW") are horrible examples of exactly what would get you sanctioned for malpractice in front of a court. They rely on proof-texting (taking phrases out of the context of the passage and insisting they have independent meaning). They selectively read passages, and smash together unrelated uses of the same words (polysemy is a thing...). They demand "magic words"--if it doesn't say exactly such and so, then it doesn't really count. They make artificial, arbitrary fluff vs crunch distinctions, always in favor of their preferred outcome.

RAW-thinking is poison. 5e (and this sub-forum) isn't nearly as bad as 3e was about this, but it's still toxic.

I get your point and I sometimes forget how different my tables are from what others apparently deal with. I'd like it, also just as a better compendium. In my context, I don't fear weaponised rules. Also, I don't find the game designers to be very good lawyers nor law writers. In the end it matters little to me: our game is heavily houseruled anyway.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-02, 11:54 AM

I get your point and I sometimes forget how different my tables are from what others apparently deal with. I'd like it, also just as a better compendium. In my context, I don't fear weaponised rules. Also, I don't find the game designers to be very good lawyers nor law writers. In the end it matters little to me: our game is heavily houseruled anyway.

Compendiums are dangerous in their own way--if they exactly replicate the underlying text, then either they or the text is redundant. If they don't, you have 3e's Rules Compendium problem--which is the primary source? There should be one (and only one) source of truth.

Weaponized rules aren't a matter to be feared as much as deplored. "But the book says so you have to obey" is bad play--it focuses on the inanimate and dresses up your contentions in the clothes of authority. Instead, it's better to say "I prefer it this way for reasons X, Y, and Z. It's also more in keeping with the system design, as evidenced by the text here, here and here".

And if the game designers aren't good law writers, then why in the world do you want them to write legalistically? That's a recipe for disaster.

Max_Killjoy

2019-02-02, 12:00 PM

I disagree. Getting people in a habit of "legalistic" reading is bad for the game and is contrary to the entire design philosophy of 5e. The "official rulings" don't matter for anything other than persuasion. They're not binding on anyone. Heck, the text of the books is only as binding as a table decides it is. JC makes that very clear--the DM (with the support of the table) is the final authority. No other authority can contravene him once he makes a decision. This also means that the DM bears entire responsibility for his decisions. He can't blame it on JC, the rules, or anything else. A legalistic wording document would merely serve to give fuel to those (on either side of the table) who want to weaponize the rules--to hide behind printed text to deflect responsibility from their anti-social actions. And that is purely toxic behavior with no redeeming value.

I put "legalistic" in quotes because D&D rules-lawyers are bad lawyers. Their readings (called "RAW") are horrible examples of exactly what would get you sanctioned for malpractice in front of a court. They rely on proof-texting (taking phrases out of the context of the passage and insisting they have independent meaning). They selectively read passages, and smash together unrelated uses of the same words (polysemy is a thing...). They demand "magic words"--if it doesn't say exactly such and so, then it doesn't really count. They make artificial, arbitrary fluff vs crunch distinctions, always in favor of their preferred outcome.

RAW-thinking is poison. 5e (and this sub-forum) isn't nearly as bad as 3e was about this, but it's still toxic.

On one hand, I hate dealing with that kind of parsing, especially when it's done in contradiction of the plain "facts" of the situation at hand in the "fiction level".

On the other hand, I do wish game designers / writers would be a bit more careful about precision in their writing, not contradicting themselves if they can help it, their use of words as Official Terms, etc.

On the third hand, that sort of parsing is a chunk of how we end up with things like "all RPGs are storytelling", and having to write out paragraphs in discussion when sentences should suffice just to avoid "gotchas" where someone does exactly what you describe with our wording.

Unoriginal

2019-02-02, 12:02 PM

Weaponized rules aren't a matter to be feared as much as deplored. "But the book says so you have to obey" is bad play--it focuses on the inanimate and dresses up your contentions in the clothes of authority. Instead, it's better to say "I prefer it this way for reasons X, Y, and Z. It's also more in keeping with the system design, as evidenced by the text here, here and here".

"Weaponized" rules are a waste of time in a game that repeatedly assert that the DM has the last word, anyway.

Rules cannot actually be weaponized, as they have no power except the one given to them.

Also, I don't find the game designers to be very good lawyers nor law writers.

And if the game designers aren't good law writers, then why in the world do you want them to write legalistically? That's a recipe for disaster.

More to the point, the thing isn't "they are not good law writers or lawyers", it's "they are not law writers or lawyers".

There is a difference between an incompetent fisher and a deer hunter, even if both bring back very little fish at the end of a day's work.

MaxWilson

2019-02-02, 12:07 PM

More to the point, the thing isn't "they are not good law writers or lawyers", it's "they are not law writers or lawyers".

There is a difference between an incompetent fisher and a deer hunter, even if both bring back very little fish at the end of a day's work.

They *aren't* good writers because they do write legalistically, sometimes, despite not being good at it and often without making it clear except via Twitter which kind of writing they're using in a particular passage.

Good technical writers do not do that.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-02, 12:09 PM

On one hand, I hate dealing with that kind of parsing, especially when it's done in contradiction of the plain "facts" of the situation at hand in the "fiction level".

On the other hand, I do wish game designers / writers would be a bit more careful about precision in their writing, not contradicting themselves if they can help it, their use of words as Official Terms, etc.

On the third hand, that sort of parsing is a chunk of how we end up with things like "all RPGs are storytelling", and having to write out paragraphs in discussion when sentences should suffice just to avoid "gotchas" where someone does exactly what you describe with our wording.

I find 5e's designers to be precise enough, at least for the purposes they intend. Sure, they're not as precise as a scientific paper (many of whom are just chock-full of crappy writing anyway), but the subject matter is much loser as well. Plus, ambiguity can help when there really are multiple right ways of doing it. I can be right and you can be right with the same wording, even though we do not agree.

"Weaponized" rules are a waste of time in a game that repeatedly assert that the DM has the last word, anyway.

Rules cannot actually be weaponized, as they have no power except the one given to them.

More to the point, the thing isn't "they are not good law writers or lawyers", it's "they are not law writers or lawyers".

There is a difference between an incompetent fisher and a deer hunter, even if both bring back very little fish at the end of a day's work.

True enough. But the attempt to weaponize the rules (even though that's in vain) is what is toxic.

Unoriginal

2019-02-02, 12:13 PM

True enough. But the attempt to weaponize the rules (even though that's in vain) is what is toxic.

True. It's in the great tradition of the Chinese alchemists making their emperor shallow mercury to increase their lifespan.

I always sigh when I see one of those "how do I abuse X" threads. How do you end up thinking "I want to abuse something" sounds like a good premise for an idea, especially for a social game?

Skylivedk

2019-02-02, 12:24 PM

And if the game designers aren't good law writers, then why in the world do you want them to write legalistically? That's a recipe for disaster.

I have a vain hope that if they did a compendium internal inconsistencies would be more apparent to themselves. Also, I'd enjoy not having to look three different places to see how using a scroll works.

On your first part, we use this approach:
"I think it'd be cool if..."

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-02, 12:38 PM

I have a vain hope that if they did a compendium internal inconsistencies would be more apparent to themselves. Also, I'd enjoy not having to look three different places to see how using a scroll works.

On your first part, we use this approach:
"I think it'd be cool if..."

I have yet to see real internal inconsistencies that matter beyond hair-splitting or motivated reasoning.

Scrolls:
General: anyone can use them.
Specific (spell scrolls): they have to be on your class's list.

Yes, there's only a single type of non-spell-scroll listed in the DMG. But the DMG is explicitly only examples of items you might construct.

Petrocorus

2019-02-02, 12:39 PM

I find ..... is what is toxic.

I totally understand your point, and would agree with it. Trying rule lawering and abusing are bad for the game.

But, OTOH, i would like, as a DM, to know what the rules are actually saying before even talking about a houserule or how we do it at my table. And the fact is i don't. Not always, not for everything. There are some part of the rule that i can read 2, 3 our 4 times without being sure of what they actually mean. And i don't like this. And i don't think it's good for the game.
And this is not due to my poor English. My English is far from perfect, but it's not poor either.

And, as a player, i really dislike to discover suddenly in the middle of the game that the DM doesn't understand a particular rule as i do, and that some choice i made in my character build or my tactics are suddenly irrelevant or poor, or simply don't work as i thought.

I really don't want to see the rule-lawering and loophole abuse from 3.5 to come back in force, but more clarity and consistency in the wording would not hurt, IMHO.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-02, 12:59 PM

I totally understand your point, and would agree with it. Trying rule lawering and abusing are bad for the game.

But, OTOH, i would like, as a DM, to know what the rules are actually saying before even talking about a houserule or how we do it at my table. And the fact is i don't. Not always, not for everything. There are some part of the rule that i can read 2, 3 our 4 times without being sure of what they actually mean. And i don't like this. And i don't think it's good for the game.
And this is not due to my poor English. My English is far from perfect, but it's not poor either.

And, as a player, i really dislike to discover suddenly in the middle of the game that the DM doesn't understand a particular rule as i do, and that some choice i made in my character build or my tactics are suddenly irrelevant or poor, or simply don't work as i thought.

I really don't want to see the rule-lawering and loophole abuse from 3.5 to come back in force, but more clarity and consistency in the wording would not hurt, IMHO.

Examples? I haven't seen any real confusing rules.

Petrocorus

2019-02-02, 02:29 PM

Examples? I haven't seen any real confusing rules.

You mean like the Shield Master or Mage Killer feats we've been debating for several pages now, and that i, and many others apparently, including Jeremy Crawford himself, seemingly misunderstood for years.

Maybe i didn't pay enough attention to this famous p. 252 of the DMG, but i genuinely thought you could bonus shove before attacking with SM, or bonus attack with MS a caster before he teleports. I apparently was houseruling without knowing it.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-02, 02:35 PM

You mean like the Shield Master or Mage Killer feats we've been debating for several pages now, and that i, and many others apparently, including Jeremy Crawford himself, seemingly misunderstood for years.

Maybe i didn't pay enough attention to this famous p. 252 of the DMG, but i genuinely thought you could bonus shove before attacking with SM, or bonus attack with MS a caster before he teleports. I apparently was houseruling without knowing it.

From my perspective, those were either abundantly clear (Mage Killer) or acceptable either way (Shield Master). Mage Killer contains no exceptions to the basic rules of reactions, and Shield Master can be read either way and more importantly, breaks nothing either way. Neither of those are inconsistent or hard to understand.

Houserules are not some "bad thing". They're just rulings. Just like any of JC's rulings. Don't like the ones JC makes? Make your own. There are no "fixed rules"--there are only defaults that you can choose to follow or not, your choice.

Edit: There is no such thing as an rule that can be applied without a ruling. Every piece of text must be interpreted to be applied. Thus, all we really have are rulings. Choose one that fits your table and go with it. Talk about it with the people if you're not sure.

JakOfAllTirades

2019-02-02, 05:42 PM

I agree Crawford's clarifications many times don't answer the question and often just raise more. I wonder if that might be part of the reason they've removed his Tweets from being RAW.

Worse, I've seen at least one that flatly contradicts the RAW language in the PHB. Clarifying rules that weren't written clearly is one thing, but making completely unnecessary changes on the fly is outright unacceptable, IMHO.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-02, 06:37 PM

Worse, I've seen at least one that flatly contradicts the RAW language in the PHB. Clarifying rules that weren't written clearly is one thing, but making completely unnecessary changes on the fly is outright unacceptable, IMHO.

He has also contradicted himself at least twice on the concept of weapon attack types.

JackPhoenix

2019-02-02, 07:08 PM

He has also contradicted himself at least twice on the concept of weapon attack types.

Source? Because if you're talking about what I think you are (i.e. that melee weapon is still a melee weapon even if you throw it), then nope, that's not contradiction.

Pex

2019-02-02, 10:05 PM

Yeah, no. 5e is a far better and healthier game without that kind of "proper legalese" mindset.

D&D 5e is meant to be played, not lawyered.

If 5E had the proper legalese we would be having less of these arguments on what the meaning of is is. Not eliminate all of them since this is the internet but less of them.

I disagree. Getting people in a habit of "legalistic" reading is bad for the game and is contrary to the entire design philosophy of 5e. The "official rulings" don't matter for anything other than persuasion. They're not binding on anyone. Heck, the text of the books is only as binding as a table decides it is. JC makes that very clear--the DM (with the support of the table) is the final authority. No other authority can contravene him once he makes a decision. This also means that the DM bears entire responsibility for his decisions. He can't blame it on JC, the rules, or anything else. A legalistic wording document would merely serve to give fuel to those (on either side of the table) who want to weaponize the rules--to hide behind printed text to deflect responsibility from their anti-social actions. And that is purely toxic behavior with no redeeming value.

I put "legalistic" in quotes because D&D rules-lawyers are bad lawyers. Their readings (called "RAW") are horrible examples of exactly what would get you sanctioned for malpractice in front of a court. They rely on proof-texting (taking phrases out of the context of the passage and insisting they have independent meaning). They selectively read passages, and smash together unrelated uses of the same words (polysemy is a thing...). They demand "magic words"--if it doesn't say exactly such and so, then it doesn't really count. They make artificial, arbitrary fluff vs crunch distinctions, always in favor of their preferred outcome.

RAW-thinking is poison. 5e (and this sub-forum) isn't nearly as bad as 3e was about this, but it's still toxic.

Where as I want to know how to play the game instead of relearning when a new DM comes around, but we've been through this ad infinitum. The so called bad lawyers happen because of the player not the rules. I would say it's even worse when the rules are vague because it makes it easier to interpret them in a way such that the player really wants to get away with something. The DM can of course say no it doesn't work that way, but he could do the same thing in the more complex rules system that is 3E.

JakOfAllTirades

2019-02-02, 11:33 PM

Source? Because if you're talking about what I think you are (i.e. that melee weapon is still a melee weapon even if you throw it), then nope, that's not contradiction.

No, there was a tweet (for which I no longer have a link) in which he fabricated a ruling out of whole cloth stating that a Warlock's proficiency with Pact Weapons didn't extend to magic weapons unless they were on the Warlock's proficient weapons list to begin with. (Basically limiting Warlocks to using Simple Weapons for magical Pact Weapons.)

The PHB, however, clearly states that a Warlock is always proficient with his Pact Weapon.

It was complete nonsense; not a "clarification" but rather a blatant contradiction of RAW from the PHB and a completely unnecessary rules change.

I was much relieved to see not a trace of this BS ruling in the new Sage Advice Compendium update. It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of thing was the reason JC's "game design by tweet" was downgraded from official ruling to "free advice."

Zalabim

2019-02-03, 02:28 AM

No, there was a tweet (for which I no longer have a link) in which he fabricated a ruling out of whole cloth stating that a Warlock's proficiency with Pact Weapons didn't extend to magic weapons unless they were on the Warlock's proficient weapons list to begin with. (Basically limiting Warlocks to using Simple Weapons for magical Pact Weapons.)

The PHB, however, clearly states that a Warlock is always proficient with his Pact Weapon.

It was complete nonsense; not a "clarification" but rather a blatant contradiction of RAW from the PHB and a completely unnecessary rules change.

I was much relieved to see not a trace of this BS ruling in the new Sage Advice Compendium update. It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of thing was the reason JC's "game design by tweet" was downgraded from official ruling to "free advice."
From what I recall, it could have just been people misunderstanding a statement that the warlock is proficient when attacking with their pact weapon, but is not proficient in the weapon type of their pact weapon. Having a pact weapon that's a longsword doesn't give you proficiency with longswords.

JakOfAllTirades

2019-02-03, 04:14 AM

From what I recall, it could have just been people misunderstanding a statement that the warlock is proficient when attacking with their pact weapon, but is not proficient in the weapon type of their pact weapon. Having a pact weapon that's a longsword doesn't give you proficiency with longswords.

You're right of course. The tweet is worded vaguely, which is another thing about JC's tweets that drives me insane.

Found the tweet, in all its glory. Like I said, it's BS. He's flat wrong: Pact of the Blade DOES grant proficiency with a magic weapon that Warlock uses as a Pact Weapon, per the PHB. But not with any other weapons of the same type; just the specific weapon chosen for the Pact.

Pact of the Blade neither requires nor grants proficiency with a magic weapon that you turn into your pact weapon. #DnD

Jeremy Crawford added,
Slayer Kast
@SlayerKast
@JeremyECrawford On a diff note, does a Warlock need prof. in a magic weapon to convert it to pact weapon, or does it become innate?

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834850395553816576

DanyBallon

2019-02-03, 04:33 AM

You're right of course. The tweet is worded vaguely, which is another thing about JC's tweets that drives me insane.

Found the tweet, in all its glory. Like I said, it's BS. He's flat wrong: Pact of the Blade DOES grant proficiency with a magic weapon that Warlock uses as a Pact Weapon, per the PHB. But not with any other weapons of the same type; just the specific weapon chosen for the Pact.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834850395553816576

I don’t get what BS you’re talking about. RAW says that you are proficient with a pact weapon you created (limited to melee weapons). Then later says that you can bond a magic weapon (no limitation on weapon type) as a pact weapon. You didn’t created the magic weapon therefor you aren’t automatically proficient with it. In addition, in the reply to the tweet you just link, he also add that the answer he gave reflects the desing intent behind pact weapons.
I understand that it may not be how you would like it to work, but JC is consistent with RAW.

Again, Twitter is not the best media to give and explain an answer about rules clarifications. And I’m glad that they changed its status as official ruling goes.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-03, 04:37 AM

You're right of course. The tweet is worded vaguely, which is another thing about JC's tweets that drives me insane.

Found the tweet, in all its glory. Like I said, it's BS. He's flat wrong: Pact of the Blade DOES grant proficiency with a magic weapon that Warlock uses as a Pact Weapon, per the PHB. But not with any other weapons of the same type; just the specific weapon chosen for the Pact.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/834850395553816576
There is a continuation (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/01/does-a-warlock-need-proficient-in-pact-weapon/) of this twitter conversation where he makes clear that this the intended interaction but any DM is free to rule differently.

To be clear, I also disagree with this intended ruling but you make it seem like he put a boot to your neck forcing you to use it. Even the rulings that do make it into the compendium aren't forced on your table, you choose whether to use them or not.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 06:35 AM

If 5E had the proper legalese we would be having less of these arguments on what the meaning of is is. Not eliminate all of them since this is the internet but less of them.

Given that 3.X or PF have way more legalese and just as much of these arguments, if not more, your assertion doesn't match what can be observed.

Pex

2019-02-03, 09:50 AM

Given that 3.X or PF have way more legalese and just as much of these arguments, if not more, your assertion doesn't match what can be observed.

Since we're having these arguments in 5E anyway its so called lack of legalese isn't helping any. Sage Advice makes it worse, as it always did.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 10:48 AM

Since we're having these arguments in 5E anyway its so called lack of legalese isn't helping any.

So what? We have the same problem both with or without legalese. I prefer the benefits the lack of legalese gives us, even if it doesn't solve this particular problem.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 10:50 AM

So what? If you have the same problem both with or without them, I prefer the benefits from the lack of legalese.

Agreed, and to amplify: many of these debates happen because people falsely expect legalism and thus apply inapt techniques to interpret the text. Once you overcome this false expectation, most of the problems go away.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 10:54 AM

Agreed, and to amplify: many of these debates happen because people falsely expect legalism and thus apply inapt techniques to interpret the text. Once you overcome this false expectation, most of the problems go away.

Also this.

I honestly get the impression most of the supposed problems of 5e come from people having assumptions/expectations, and when 5e doesn't meet them they declare that 5e is wrong/trash.

Don't get me wrong, having assumptions isn't a problem by itself, but there is a difference between something being bad and something not fitting what you thought/think.

Max_Killjoy

2019-02-03, 11:20 AM

Pex

2019-02-03, 12:26 PM

Also this.

I honestly get the impression most of the supposed problems of 5e come from people having assumptions/expectations, and when 5e doesn't meet them they declare that 5e is wrong/trash.

Don't get me wrong, having assumptions isn't a problem by itself, but there is a difference between something being bad and something not fitting what you thought/think.

It's not a question of 5E failing to meet its goals. It's a question of not liking the goals. Not liking the goals does not mean one must keep quiet about it.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 12:37 PM

It's not a question of 5E failing to meet its goals. It's a question of not liking the goals. Not liking the goals does not mean one must keep quiet about it.

But be honest about that. Don't say "it fails" or "it's bad", but rather "I don't like what it succeeds in doing." One is an objective statement, the other a statement of taste.

DanyBallon

2019-02-03, 12:39 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but to me it seems that if a Warlock with all the relevant special class "powers" went to the trouble of binding a weapon with them, that the Warlock would gain Proficiency specifically with that weapon.

So, not all glaives, but THAT glaive, for example.

It would make sense, but I think they didn’t in order to balance out the fact that they cand bond with any magical weapon, not only melee weapons like when creating pack weapons. It’s a design decision they made. We might not agree, but so far JC is consistent with RAW and their design intent.

Unoriginal

2019-02-03, 01:13 PM

It's not a question of 5E failing to meet its goals. It's a question of not liking the goals. Not liking the goals does not mean one must keep quiet about it.

Not liking the goals is more than fair. But like PhoenixPhyre said, it's then "I don't like it" and not "it doesn't work".

I can't stand Pathfinder's goals, it doesn't mean I'm going to the PF subforum to complain about how that game is failing to meet the goals I like.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 01:22 PM

I can't stand Pathfinder's goals, it doesn't mean I'm going to the PF subforum to complain about how that game is failing to meet the goals I like.

Very much this (including the example). Because I'm frequently bored, I read the 3e subforum here. And many cases I go away thinking "man I'm glad I don't play that game" or I'm tempted to interject a criticism. But then I think about how annoyed I am with people who come here and do that "your game is so awful because I don't like it" thing and restrain myself.

De gustibas non est disputandum and all that.

Xetheral

2019-02-03, 02:09 PM

Compendiums are dangerous in their own way--if they exactly replicate the underlying text, then either they or the text is redundant. If they don't, you have 3e's Rules Compendium problem--which is the primary source? There should be one (and only one) source of truth.

Having only a single "source of truth" doesn't help much when reasonable people can disagree on what that source says.

I was recently invited to join an ongoing game, and the DM (who I hadn't met yet) sent me character creation instructions via text. Not wanting to annoy the DM, I asked questions judiciously, rather than spamming him with texts. Additionally, I had thematic questions, which further limited my opportunity to ask mechanics questions. This meant that when I made the character my primary focus on was making sure that I designed one that avoided mechanical elements where the community is divided. As I get to know the DM, I'll have a better sense of which interpretations are in use (and more opportunities to ask), so this won't continue to be a problem. But there is a real cost to having ambiguous rules for players joining new groups. It's not insurmountable, but it's still a cost.

They *aren't* good writers because they do write legalistically, sometimes, despite not being good at it and often without making it clear except via Twitter which kind of writing they're using in a particular passage.

Good technical writers do not do that.

This. When reading a rule there is no immediate way for me to know for sure whether it is meant to be read colloquially (i.e. on it's own with dictionary meanings and casual grammar) or technically (i.e. where meaning is determined by cross-reference within the text and careful parsing of the grammar).

The most notorious example of the latter is "melee weapon attack" where Crawford has tweeted that one can discern the intended meaning by relying on the lack of a dash between "melee" and "weapon". If the whole text had been written with that degree of precision, fine. But as it was, I had zero reason to think that the writers intended the lack of a dash to be significant.

I have yet to see real internal inconsistencies that matter beyond hair-splitting or motivated reasoning.

I would note that reasonable people can disagree on what qualifies as hair-splitting or bias.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 02:28 PM

Having only a single "source of truth" doesn't help much when reasonable people can disagree on what that source says.

I was recently invited to join an ongoing game, and the DM (who I hadn't met yet) sent me character creation instructions via text. Not wanting to annoy the DM, I asked questions judiciously, rather than spamming him with texts. Additionally, I had thematic questions, which further limited my opportunity to ask mechanics questions. This meant that when I made the character my primary focus on was making sure that I designed one that avoided mechanical elements where the community is divided. As I get to know the DM, I'll have a better sense of which interpretations are in use (and more opportunities to ask), so this won't continue to be a problem. But there is a real cost to having ambiguous rules for players joining new groups. It's not insurmountable, but it's still a cost.

All text is ambiguous. Inherently. Reasonable people can always disagree. There is no way around it. In this context, there is no substitute for in-person communication and character creation.

This. When reading a rule there is no immediate way for me to know for sure whether it is meant to be read colloquially (i.e. on it's own with dictionary meanings and casual grammar) or technically (i.e. where meaning is determined by cross-reference within the text and careful parsing of the grammar).

The most notorious example of the latter is "melee weapon attack" where Crawford has tweeted that one can discern the intended meaning by relying on the lack of a dash between "melee" and "weapon". If the whole text had been written with that degree of precision, fine. But as it was, I had zero reason to think that the writers intended the lack of a dash to be significant.

Honestly--these hair-splitting differences don't matter. If you assume that only Capitalized Terms are terms of art and you avoid "careful parsing of the grammar" entirely, you'll always get a reasonable meaning. Is it the one the writers intended? Who cares?

I would note that reasonable people can disagree on what qualifies as hair-splitting or bias.

Reasonable people can disagree on everything, in every text ever. Even the best-written legal texts or computer programs are not free of ambiguity.

And note that only in very rare cases do legal professionals do a close-parse of the text. If you tried to pull the D&D rules-lawyer stunts in court, you'd be laughed at and Rule 11 sanctioned for making frivolous arguments.

The basic rules of interpretation for 5e texts are very simple and broadly applicable--

* Things do what they say they do, nothing more, nothing less. Interactions between rules or exceptions to rules will be stated explicitly, not implicitly.
* The basic unit of analysis is the paragraph. Individual sentences or phrases within a rule do not have separate effect, except as noted directly in the text.
* Just because a word is used in one meaning in one ability does not necessarily mean it will be used in that same meaning in other texts. Do not cross-reference texts that do not directly import each other.
* The general rules are found in chapter 1 and the chapters entitled "Playing the Game". Everything else is a specific rule, and specific rules only override each other by explicit statement.
* Anything not specified is left up to the DM to decide.

Xetheral

2019-02-03, 03:07 PM

All text is ambiguous. Inherently. Reasonable people can always disagree. There is no way around it. In this context, there is no substitute for in-person communication and character creation.

All text is not equally ambiguous. In the case of 5e, the ambiguity in the rules is high enough that there is a benefit to having mechanical discussions with the DM as part of character creation. That discussion is not always possible (e.g. limited time/opportunity) or desirable (e.g. a DM who treats mechanics questions as rules lawyering). If the rules were less ambiguous, there would be less need to discuss the mechanics with the DM as part of character creation. I would find that valuable.

Honestly--these hair-splitting differences don't matter. If you assume that only Capitalized Terms are terms of art and you avoid "careful parsing of the grammar" entirely, you'll always get a reasonable meaning. Is it the one the writers intended? Who cares?

Writing is inherently a form of communication. If you don't care what the writer is trying to communicate, why are you reading the text?

That's not so say one has to follow the intent. I read the rules to find out what Wizards of the Coast suggests I do at my table. When I can't unambiguously determine what Wizards of the Coast is suggesting, then the suggestion isn't useful to me.

Reasonable people can disagree on everything, in every text ever. Even the best-written legal texts or computer programs are not free of ambiguity.

If you believe that, then may I suggest that you not dismiss as "hair-splitting" and "motivated reasoning" the opinions of those who believe that the writing is 5e is amabiguous to the point of being problematic?

There seems to be a conflict between your simultaneous claims that reasonable people can disagree about any text ever, and your categorical dismissal of those who disagree with your interpretation that 5e is consistent.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 03:34 PM

All text is not equally ambiguous. In the case of 5e, the ambiguity in the rules is high enough that there is a benefit to having mechanical discussions with the DM as part of character creation. That discussion is not always possible (e.g. limited time/opportunity) or desirable (e.g. a DM who treats mechanics questions as rules lawyering). If the rules were less ambiguous, there would be less need to discuss the mechanics with the DM as part of character creation. I would find that valuable.

Less ambiguity would inherently mean a narrower scope. And that's something I would find a flaw. Ambiguity is not bad. Ambiguity is good, because it lets me play how I want and you play how you want within one system. And a DM who treats mechanics questions as rules lawyering is a DM I won't play with. My stance is always "here's what I think the text says, how do you want to play this?" And then I'll accept what they say, because they're the DM and they have the final say.

Writing is inherently a form of communication. If you don't care what the writer is trying to communicate, why are you reading the text?

That's not so say one has to follow the intent. I read the rules to find out what Wizards of the Coast suggests I do at my table. When I can't unambiguously determine what Wizards of the Coast is suggesting, then the suggestion isn't useful to me.

The intent of the authors is useful as persuasive evidence, but otherwise unnecessary. I care what is being communicated, not necessarily what was intended to be communicated.

If you believe that, then may I suggest that you not dismiss as "hair-splitting" and "motivated reasoning" the opinions of those who believe that the writing is 5e is amabiguous to the point of being problematic?

There seems to be a conflict between your simultaneous claims that reasonable people can disagree about any text ever, and your categorical dismissal of those who disagree with your interpretation that 5e is consistent.

I have yet to see any ambiguity that I find problematic, in part because I find ambiguity the natural state of language. What I do see are a bunch of people who are trying to pick faults or who refuse to accept the basic underlying philosophy and instead try to force it into a mold that does not fit. Calls for increased "legalism" (a bad term for what people seem to want, which is codification and rigidity and a denial of DM agency) usually go hand in hand with casuistry and sophistry, with proof-texting and loophole hunting, and with attempts to weaponize rules and prove other people wrong.

Ambiguity is not inconsistency--ambiguity is a recognition that no set of rules can cover all supported play-styles or situations and that there are multiple, equally valid ways to play with a particular rule. Accusations of inconsistency have all (in my experience) come down to trying to take things out of context and apply rules where they don't apply, usually for the sake of justifying anti-social behavior. That, or refusal to accept that things have changed and an attempt to play 3e/PF using 5e rules.

That is, I see people saying "5e is bad because it's ambiguous" when what they mean is "I don't like the rules that exist (or usually the scope of DM adjudication) and so I'll call them inconsistent using tricky, unnatural parsing and proof-texting".

And even if it's more ambiguous in some parts than people like, I'd rather have ambiguity than dysfunction (which is what happened the last time WotC tried to codify things). 3e was flat out dysfunctional and required substantial monkey-patching of basic core functions. In large part this came from trying to impose a rigid, codified structure on a huge range of disparate things. I have no expectation that an attempt to codify things more would do anything except cause that same dysfunction.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

Xetheral

2019-02-03, 04:41 PM

Less ambiguity would inherently mean a narrower scope. And that's something I would find a flaw. Ambiguity is not bad. Ambiguity is good, because it lets me play how I want and you play how you want within one system.

I disagree that less ambiguity inherently means a narrower scope, because it is possible to describe a broad scope using less-ambiguous words.

Consider the infamous "melee weapon attack" example. The phrase is inherently ambiguous, as it could mean "an attack with a melee weapon" or it could mean "a melee attack with a weapon". If the writers wanted to communicate that there was a broad scope for playing either way, they could have clearly said so. Instead, we're left with (based on the text alone) the uncertainty of not knowing what the writers recommend.

(Sure, JC has since clarified that they recommend the latter interpretation, and that one can tell by the absence of a hyphen between "melee" and "weapon". But that doesn't make the original text any less ambiguous, particularly since a strict application of compound-adjective hyphenation rules goes against the general philosophy of 5e.)

Ultimately, if I can't determine what an ambiguous rule is trying to say, that rule is unhelpful to me. Sure, I can decide how to rule it any way I want to, but I don't have the benefit of knowing what the designers think if I can't figure out what they mean.

The intent of the authors is useful as persuasive evidence, but otherwise unnecessary. I care what is being communicated, not necessarily what was intended to be communicated.

If you care what is being communicated, then it's a problem when the text is ambiguous enough that one can't easily determine what is being communicated.

I have yet to see any ambiguity that I find problematic, in part because I find ambiguity the natural state of language. What I do see are a bunch of people who are trying to pick faults or who refuse to accept the basic underlying philosophy and instead try to force it into a mold that does not fit...

I'm thrilled that you haven't found any of the ambiguity in 5e to be problematic. I, however, have indeed found the ambiguity in 5e to be problematic--not enough to stop playing, but enough to be frustrating. I would ask that you not dismiss my frustration as categorically "hair-splitting" or "motivated reasoning". Particularly since you've already agreed that reasonable people can disagree with you about whether a particular ambiguity falls into those categories.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 04:59 PM

I disagree that less ambiguity inherently means a narrower scope, because it is possible to describe a broad scope using less-ambiguous words.

Consider the infamous "melee weapon attack" example. The phrase is inherently ambiguous, as it could mean "an attack with a melee weapon" or it could mean "a melee attack with a weapon". If the writers wanted to communicate that there was a broad scope for playing either way, they could have clearly said so. Instead, we're left with (based on the text alone) the uncertainty of not knowing what the writers recommend.

(Sure, JC has since clarified that they recommend the latter interpretation, and that one can tell by the absence of a hyphen between "melee" and "weapon". But that doesn't make the original text any less ambiguous, particularly since a strict application of compound-adjective hyphenation rules goes against the general philosophy of 5e.)

I've never had an issue with the whole melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon. One is a broad category of attacks that use the physical modifiers, the other is a sub-set of all attacks made with something from the weapon table. And context has always made it clear to me which is which. No complicated parsing needed.

Ultimately, if I can't determine what an ambiguous rule is trying to say, that rule is unhelpful to me. Sure, I can decide how to rule it any way I want to, but I don't have the benefit of knowing what the designers think if I can't figure out what they mean.

If you care what is being communicated, then it's a problem when the text is ambiguous enough that one can't easily determine what is being communicated.

Which is something I have yet to see. The general intent is clear. The exact details are irrelevant--does X apply to Y attack? Yes? No? choose one and move on. Neither will break anything important. And that's all that matters to me on the subject of intent.

More broadly, there are a few different kinds of possible readings.

1) Unambiguous and sane. There is only one reasonable reading, and that reading works well. Not a problem.
2) Ambiguous but sane. There are multiple reasonable readings and more than one of them works well. Not a problem--pick one and move on.
3) Dysfunction. There are one or more reasonable readings, but none of the reasonable readings work. This is a problem.

I have yet to see anything in case 3 except the last point of the Grappler feat in the original printing. Everything else is case 1 or 2, with much more in case 1 than case 2. And neither of these is an issue anyway. My experience with people trying to codify rules (in many contexts) is that they don't turn case 2 into case 1 as much as they turn case 2 into case 3.

What I reject is the idea that case 2 is a sign of design error or "bad writing." Case 3 is, but case 2 is not. Even if ruling a is inconsistent with ruling b, each table is only going to use one of them and inter-table differences don't matter to me at all because I'm happy to use my words and figure those out in session 0 or in play.

I'm thrilled that you haven't found any of the ambiguity in 5e to be problematic. I, however, have indeed found the ambiguity in 5e to be problematic--not enough to stop playing, but enough to be frustrating. I would ask that you not dismiss my frustration as categorically "hair-splitting" or "motivated reasoning". Particularly since you've already agreed that reasonable people can disagree with you about whether a particular ambiguity falls into those categories.

I'm sorry if I came across as hostile to you in particular. I'm just sick and tired of people (in general) complaining on these forums about ambiguity when, if you dig further, what they really mean is that they don't like a particular rule or don't like giving DMs scope to make choices about things. Or they're looking for a loophole or trying to weaponize rules.

I'm very firmly in the camp that rejects the idea of RAW (at least as the forums would define such) as a useful concept. No rules are meaningful without interpretation, and the "RAW" interpretations I've seen have almost uniformly been pure toxicity made manifest. It's Bible-bashing, just with a different set of holy scriptures and a different end goal. None of it has anything to do with the real game. I reject that the text of the "rules" has more than persuasive force on people--if it's not helpful, leave it alone. If a reading is helpful, use it, even if it's not "sanctioned". As long as the people at your table are happy, you're good to go. What people think on the internet is meaningless. Discussability of rules on the internet is meaningless.

For me, the rules are not some binding contract between players and DM. They're (part of) the starting place for a conversation about what the real rules should be. If I don't like the effect of a particular ruling (because everything is a ruling) I'll bring it up and let the table decide. Compromise is fine--it's just a game.

Pex

2019-02-03, 05:14 PM

I've never had an issue with the whole melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon. One is a broad category of attacks that use the physical modifiers, the other is a sub-set of all attacks made with something from the weapon table. And context has always made it clear to me which is which. No complicated parsing needed.

Which is something I have yet to see. The general intent is clear. The exact details are irrelevant--does X apply to Y attack? Yes? No? choose one and move on. Neither will break anything important. And that's all that matters to me on the subject of intent.

More broadly, there are a few different kinds of possible readings.

1) Unambiguous and sane. There is only one reasonable reading, and that reading works well. Not a problem.
2) Ambiguous but sane. There are multiple reasonable readings and more than one of them works well. Not a problem--pick one and move on.
3) Dysfunction. There are one or more reasonable readings, but none of the reasonable readings work. This is a problem.

I have yet to see anything in case 3 except the last point of the Grappler feat in the original printing. Everything else is case 1 or 2, with much more in case 1 than case 2. And neither of these is an issue anyway. My experience with people trying to codify rules (in many contexts) is that they don't turn case 2 into case 1 as much as they turn case 2 into case 3.

What I reject is the idea that case 2 is a sign of design error or "bad writing." Case 3 is, but case 2 is not. Even if ruling a is inconsistent with ruling b, each table is only going to use one of them and inter-table differences don't matter to me at all because I'm happy to use my words and figure those out in session 0 or in play.

I'm sorry if I came across as hostile to you in particular. I'm just sick and tired of people (in general) complaining on these forums about ambiguity when, if you dig further, what they really mean is that they don't like a particular rule or don't like giving DMs scope to make choices about things. Or they're looking for a loophole or trying to weaponize rules.

I'm very firmly in the camp that rejects the idea of RAW (at least as the forums would define such) as a useful concept. No rules are meaningful without interpretation, and the "RAW" interpretations I've seen have almost uniformly been pure toxicity made manifest. It's Bible-bashing, just with a different set of holy scriptures and a different end goal. None of it has anything to do with the real game. I reject that the text of the "rules" has more than persuasive force on people--if it's not helpful, leave it alone. If a reading is helpful, use it, even if it's not "sanctioned". As long as the people at your table are happy, you're good to go. What people think on the internet is meaningless. Discussability of rules on the internet is meaningless.

For me, the rules are not some binding contract between players and DM. They're (part of) the starting place for a conversation about what the real rules should be. If I don't like the effect of a particular ruling (because everything is a ruling) I'll bring it up and let the table decide. Compromise is fine--it's just a game.

The rule that isn't liked is the ambiguity. Not knowing how a rule works, needing to ask the DM how it works for every DM I play with getting different answers depending on who is DM, that is what is not being liked. Let that have been 5E's goal and succeeded. It's that goal that I would have preferred 5E not pursue. It's where I find 5E to be a flawed game, the goal itself if ambiguity was the goal. If ambiguity was not the goal, the flaw of the game is still that ambiguity.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 05:20 PM

The rule that isn't liked is the ambiguity. Not knowing how a rule works, needing to ask the DM how it works for every DM I play with getting different answers depending on who is DM, that is what is not being liked. Let that have been 5E's goal and succeeded. It's that goal that I would have preferred 5E not pursue. It's where I find 5E to be a flawed game, the goal itself if ambiguity was the goal. If ambiguity was not the goal, the flaw of the game is still that ambiguity.

That's not ambiguity, even by the most generous definition. That's intentional room for variation. Your common complaint is about skill DCs, where specifically, unambiguously, without question the rules give all decision-making to the DM. Those rules have not a whit of ambiguity in them. It's up to the DM what the DC is.

And you don't like it, but you want to give your preferences a veneer of objectivity so you call it ambiguity instead of distaste.

quark12000

2019-02-03, 06:17 PM

Will there be a paper version of the compendium? I dislike reading on a computer screen.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 06:18 PM

Will there be a paper version of the compendium? I dislike reading on a computer screen.

It's in PDF, so you can print it out yourself. Otherwise, probably not.

Pex

2019-02-03, 07:17 PM

That's not ambiguity, even by the most generous definition. That's intentional room for variation. Your common complaint is about skill DCs, where specifically, unambiguously, without question the rules give all decision-making to the DM. Those rules have not a whit of ambiguity in them. It's up to the DM what the DC is.

And you don't like it, but you want to give your preferences a veneer of objectivity so you call it ambiguity instead of distaste.

I wasn't talking about skill DCs. That was an on purpose design choice. We disagree on whether it's good or bad for the game. It being the goal doesn't take away I think it a poor goal to have been wanted. However, there are ambiguities. We've been over this. Who chooses the creatures summoned. Does great weapon style work on paladin smites. Can a familiar use the Help action to give Advantage on an attack. Is Magic Missile (1d4 + 1) x 3 or (1d4 + 1) + (1d4 + 1) + (1d4 + 1). There were others, but 5E made a final choice in reprinting. Evokers used to be able to maximize cantrips for free or maybe not. Fire Dragon Sorcerers added their CH modifier to all Scorching Rays or maybe not. Some rules became more of a problem because of Sage Advice, such as Shield Master.

Xetheral

2019-02-03, 08:14 PM

I've never had an issue with the whole melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon. One is a broad category of attacks that use the physical modifiers, the other is a sub-set of all attacks made with something from the weapon table. And context has always made it clear to me which is which. No complicated parsing needed.

Do you play with new players much? When they read the PHB do they all immediately and inuitively grasp that "melee weapon attack" is used as a term of art that doesn't mean "an attack with a melee weapon" as might be expected? I would guess that two thirds of the time I'm introducing someone new I end up having to explain the D&D-specific meaning, and that leads to a lot of "that's stupid" or "that doesn't make any sense". The other third of the time the new player is playing a spellcaster and it simply doesn't come up.

These are people I'm trying to get to try the game and enjoy it. Fiddly, ambiguous rules like this don't help, especially when it's one of the game's core combat mechanics.

Which is something I have yet to see. The general intent is clear. The exact details are irrelevant--does X apply to Y attack? Yes? No? choose one and move on. Neither will break anything important. And that's all that matters to me on the subject of intent.

More broadly, there are a few different kinds of possible readings.

1) Unambiguous and sane. There is only one reasonable reading, and that reading works well. Not a problem.
2) Ambiguous but sane. There are multiple reasonable readings and more than one of them works well. Not a problem--pick one and move on.
3) Dysfunction. There are one or more reasonable readings, but none of the reasonable readings work. This is a problem.

I have yet to see anything in case 3 except the last point of the Grappler feat in the original printing. Everything else is case 1 or 2, with much more in case 1 than case 2. And neither of these is an issue anyway. My experience with people trying to codify rules (in many contexts) is that they don't turn case 2 into case 1 as much as they turn case 2 into case 3.

What I reject is the idea that case 2 is a sign of design error or "bad writing." Case 3 is, but case 2 is not. Even if ruling a is inconsistent with ruling b, each table is only going to use one of them and inter-table differences don't matter to me at all because I'm happy to use my words and figure those out in session 0 or in play.

We disagree about case 2, I think because we look to the rules for different things. I view a rule as a tool that I can use as a DM if I want to. If I can't easily determine what a rule means, that tool is basically useless for me. Sure, if both possible interpretations are sane I can pick one option and move on, but I could have done that just as well if the rule had never been written, and the space devoted to something that *is* useful.

You say that case 2 isn't an example of "bad writing" for you. I find that interesting. What value do you get out a rule that falls into case 2?

I'm sorry if I came across as hostile to you in particular. I'm just sick and tired of people (in general) complaining on these forums about ambiguity when, if you dig further, what they really mean is that they don't like a particular rule or don't like giving DMs scope to make choices about things. Or they're looking for a loophole or trying to weaponize rules.

I'm very firmly in the camp that rejects the idea of RAW (at least as the forums would define such) as a useful concept. No rules are meaningful without interpretation, and the "RAW" interpretations I've seen have almost uniformly been pure toxicity made manifest. It's Bible-bashing, just with a different set of holy scriptures and a different end goal. None of it has anything to do with the real game. I reject that the text of the "rules" has more than persuasive force on people--if it's not helpful, leave it alone. If a reading is helpful, use it, even if it's not "sanctioned". As long as the people at your table are happy, you're good to go. What people think on the internet is meaningless. Discussability of rules on the internet is meaningless.

For me, the rules are not some binding contract between players and DM. They're (part of) the starting place for a conversation about what the real rules should be. If I don't like the effect of a particular ruling (because everything is a ruling) I'll bring it up and let the table decide. Compromise is fine--it's just a game.

Fair enough. I too find the RAW-focused debates highly problematic, and also find the way RAW is commonly viewed to be problematic on a conceptual level. But on a practical level completely divorced from RAW discussions, I still find ambiguous rules unhelpful as a DM.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 08:37 PM

Do you play with new players much? When they read the PHB do they all immediately and inuitively grasp that "melee weapon attack" is used as a term of art that doesn't mean "an attack with a melee weapon" as might be expected? I would guess that two thirds of the time I'm introducing someone new I end up having to explain the D&D-specific meaning, and that leads to a lot of "that's stupid" or "that doesn't make any sense". The other third of the time the new player is playing a spellcaster and it simply doesn't come up.

These are people I'm trying to get to try the game and enjoy it. Fiddly, ambiguous rules like this don't help, especially when it's one of the game's core combat mechanics.

I basically only play with new players. I teach on average 5-6 new players a year, and all but one of my main "adult" gaming group are ones I taught from scratch. Most don't even read the rules with any specificity. In part, that's because I run a fiction-forward game. They tell me what their character wants to do and we discuss how to mechanically represent it. They couldn't care less about the difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon. They care about the fiction. Heck, half the time I have to remind them which die is which, but they're having fun and that's what matters.

I don't think that in 5 years of playing almost exclusively with new folks (including some who have read the rules in detail and who are English teachers) anyone has complained about ambiguity of rules. They've complained about the content of rules, but not the ambiguity. There have been differences of opinion about how best to run the game, but that's more on other fields than on the rules.

We disagree about case 2, I think because we look to the rules for different things. I view a rule as a tool that I can use as a DM if I want to. If I can't easily determine what a rule means, that tool is basically useless for me. Sure, if both possible interpretations are sane I can pick one option and move on, but I could have done that just as well if the rule had never been written, and the space devoted to something that *is* useful.

You say that case 2 isn't an example of "bad writing" for you. I find that interesting. What value do you get out a rule that falls into case 2?

Case 2 gives discrete options. There are multiple reasonable readings, and all of them work. There are also a bunch of unreasonable readings precluded by the text. This reduces the solution space considerably--instead of <no information> (as the absence of a rule would have it have), you have <choice A> or <choice B>. And both <A> and <B> work. Thus, as long as you're picking a reasonable reading you're fine. If you read it like X and I read it like Y, then there's no big deal. Go with your first impression and you're fine. Don't worry about it so much. It's only when there are zero reasonable readings (nonsense) or one or more dysfunctional readings (case 3) that there's a problem.

To take an example, consider the one cited above (smite + GW fighting style).
Reasonable readings: GW style applies to the smite damage. GW style only applies to the base weapon dice. Unreasonable reading: GW style applies to poison damage (that requires a save) from poisoning the weapon.

The rule doesn't give you no information, it just doesn't have a unique solution. And that's fine. Either reasonable choice is fine and it's up to the table to decide how they want to play it. The slightly slower (but more powerful) way or the faster (but less powerful) way. Both have pros and cons. Neither is unreasonable. Neither is game-breaking.

Same goes for all the other listed "ambiguities". There is a defined, discrete set of "valid" readings and a larger, indefinite set of invalid readings. None of the valid ones break anything. So its up to the table how they want to run things. And you might want to do it differently (because you value different things) than I do. But we're both right. And this variation is something I value strongly. I don't want inter-table consistency on such things. Because sometimes I want to do one thing and other times the other.

As a matter of fact, I have three tables going currently. Two do Magic Missile as (1d4+1)x3 (for expedience), the other does 1d4+1, rolled separately per bolt. Both have equal fun with it. Some tables of mine do "player chooses" summoning (with DM veto); others do "DM chooses". And both enjoy it. Both were reached by table negotiation and based on the people at the table. A more "strict" rule would make that an untenable position--I'd have to <gulp> be consistent between tables. And that would stink. Because different people like different things.

(And familiars being able to Help to give advantage on an Attack isn't even an ambiguity--it's a black and white yes by a simple context-aware reading).

Fair enough. I too find the RAW-focused debates highly problematic, and also find the way RAW is commonly viewed to be problematic on a conceptual level. But on a practical level completely divorced from RAW discussions, I still find ambiguous rules unhelpful as a DM.

But you can't get to "unambiguous" without going down the path of RAW and the resulting loophole-hunting. Even 4e (the most codified D&D edition yet) had debates about ambiguous statements. Frequently. I don't think I've ever read a set of rules or instructions that lacked substantial ambiguity, including in critical segments. This includes scientific and technical writing. Ambiguity is normal. Ambiguity is natural and essential. The more writers try to remove it, the worse and more painful the writing gets and the more dysfunction is introduced. Even legal writing is full of ambiguity by necessity. Languages that try to remove ambiguity don't catch on (cf lobjan), in part because they're unnatural.

99% of the time, the context makes clear what the "better" reading is (and thus clears up the ambiguity in practice). People are very good about using context to disambiguate. The rest of the time, any of the reasonable readings work, so there's no problem.

My whole point is that ambiguity is not bad. Ambiguity is necessary and good, as long as the core is clear. And 5e's core is crystal clear, at least to me. And every attempt to "clarify" by third parties makes it worse, not better.

Petrocorus

2019-02-03, 08:54 PM

@PhoenixPhyre I'm under the impression reading several of your posts that you're arguing that there are no ambiguity of relevance in the rules and that, in the same time, it's a good thing the rules are ambiguous. Those two arguments seems contradictory to me.

Less ambiguity would inherently mean a narrower scope. And that's something I would find a flaw. Ambiguity is not bad. Ambiguity is good, because it lets me play how I want and you play how you want within one system. And a DM who treats mechanics questions as rules lawyering is a DM I won't play with. My stance is always "here's what I think the text says, how do you want to play this?" And then I'll accept what they say, because they're the DM and they have the final say.

I'd like to know, do you believe that if the rules were crystal clear, that would be harder for the DM to depart from them or houserule?

1) Unambiguous and sane. There is only one reasonable reading, and that reading works well. Not a problem.
2) Ambiguous but sane. There are multiple reasonable readings and more than one of them works well. Not a problem--pick one and move on.
3) Dysfunction. There are one or more reasonable readings, but none of the reasonable readings work. This is a problem.
...

What I reject is the idea that case 2 is a sign of design error or "bad writing." Case 3 is, but case 2 is not. Even if ruling a is inconsistent with ruling b, each table is only going to use one of them and inter-table differences don't matter to me at all because I'm happy to use my words and figure those out in session 0 or in play.

This may be the core of the disagreement. A significant number of us think case 2 should be avoided by the writer as much as case 3.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 09:03 PM

@PhoenixPhyre I'm under the impression reading several of your posts that you're arguing that there are no ambiguity of relevance in the rules and that, in the same time, it's a good thing the rules are ambiguous. Those two arguments seems contradictory to me.

I'd like to know, do you believe that if the rules were crystal clear, that would be harder for the DM to depart from them or houserule?

This may be the core of the disagreement. A significant number of us think case 2 should be avoided by the writer as much as case 3.

There are ambiguities, but they're not important because they're type 2.

If the rules were more "locked down", then there would be much stronger cultural barriers to modifications. CF 3e, where all deviations from the sacred RAW must be published ahead of time and are subject to the same lawyering as the actual rules. That's toxic to new folks. Been there, seen that. It's a rules-first mentality that I personally hate.

Personal experience says you can't. The total ambiguity is constant, only the distribution changes. Every time they've tried, they've made more of case 3. And can we agree that case 3 is worse than case 2 by a long shot? I sure hope so.

For some of us (well, me at least), case 2 is a feature when used right (ie in optional or secondary rules). Case 3 is poison. Case 1 is great for the core, but outside of that it's really limiting. Most of the time, to make case 1 happen you get more tightly interwoven rules. This inhibits variation and modification, something that I find a core feature.

Give me a case 1 core and let the rest be case 2. Just avoid any case 3 (or pure nonsense, where zero reasonable readings are available).

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-03, 09:16 PM

And back to the main topic, JC has made it abundantly clear (and the current SA compendium doubles down on this) that the printed text, the tweets and SA--none of these have any privileged position. They're not "rules" in the board game sense. They're suggestions to the DM as to what might make good rulings.

Rulings over rules. That's the basic design philosophy of 5e. Any form of codification or "regularization" or "legalization" would go strictly against this philosophy and would require rewriting the entirety of the core books. Because they're suffused with "these are suggestions. Do what you will with them. You're the one in charge, not us." Codifying the rules would say that the designers are the ones whose intent carries weight, and they've specifically and explicitly disclaimed that position.

So this is a fundamental thing you're asking to change. It's not just a writing thing, it's a philosophy change, back to the dark ages when DMs couldn't be trusted and strict laws had to be emplaced to counter the specter of "tyrannical DMs". And I'm very glad that that is unlikely to happen, because that new philosophy of players trusting the DM and the DM trusting the players more than anything attracted me to 5e. I used it when I DM'd 4e and had to fight the system in doing so. It's the natural design, and it's (IMO) the healthy design. Because in the end, if you can't trust your DM and your DM can't trust you...why are you playing together? Strict rules substitute for trust and can actually diminish it (just like a crutch can substitute for healthy musculature and can lead to atrophy if used improperly).

Xetheral

2019-02-03, 10:20 PM

I basically only play with new players. I teach on average 5-6 new players a year, and all but one of my main "adult" gaming group are ones I taught from scratch. Most don't even read the rules with any specificity. In part, that's because I run a fiction-forward game. They tell me what their character wants to do and we discuss how to mechanically represent it. They couldn't care less about the difference between a melee weapon attack and an attack with a melee weapon. They care about the fiction. Heck, half the time I have to remind them which die is which, but they're having fun and that's what matters.

I don't think that in 5 years of playing almost exclusively with new folks (including some who have read the rules in detail and who are English teachers) anyone has complained about ambiguity of rules. They've complained about the content of rules, but not the ambiguity. There have been differences of opinion about how best to run the game, but that's more on other fields than on the rules.

Then we simply have drastically different personal experiences.

Case 2 gives discrete options. There are multiple reasonable readings, and all of them work. There are also a bunch of unreasonable readings precluded by the text. This reduces the solution space considerably--instead of <no information> (as the absence of a rule would have it have), you have <choice A> or <choice B>. And both <A> and <B> work. Thus, as long as you're picking a reasonable reading you're fine. If you read it like X and I read it like Y, then there's no big deal. Go with your first impression and you're fine. Don't worry about it so much. It's only when there are zero reasonable readings (nonsense) or one or more dysfunctional readings (case 3) that there's a problem.

To take an example, consider the one cited above (smite + GW fighting style).
Reasonable readings: GW style applies to the smite damage. GW style only applies to the base weapon dice. Unreasonable reading: GW style applies to poison damage (that requires a save) from poisoning the weapon.

The rule doesn't give you no information, it just doesn't have a unique solution. And that's fine. Either reasonable choice is fine and it's up to the table to decide how they want to play it. The slightly slower (but more powerful) way or the faster (but less powerful) way. Both have pros and cons. Neither is unreasonable. Neither is game-breaking.

Same goes for all the other listed "ambiguities". There is a defined, discrete set of "valid" readings and a larger, indefinite set of invalid readings. None of the valid ones break anything. So its up to the table how they want to run things. And you might want to do it differently (because you value different things) than I do. But we're both right. And this variation is something I value strongly. I don't want inter-table consistency on such things. Because sometimes I want to do one thing and other times the other.

As a matter of fact, I have three tables going currently. Two do Magic Missile as (1d4+1)x3 (for expedience), the other does 1d4+1, rolled separately per bolt. Both have equal fun with it. Some tables of mine do "player chooses" summoning (with DM veto); others do "DM chooses". And both enjoy it. Both were reached by table negotiation and based on the people at the table. A more "strict" rule would make that an untenable position--I'd have to <gulp> be consistent between tables. And that would stink. Because different people like different things.

(And familiars being able to Help to give advantage on an Attack isn't even an ambiguity--it's a black and white yes by a simple context-aware reading).

What are you trying to convince me of here? That I'm wrong to find case 2 rules unhelpful? How about if I rephrase my claim to be less absolute: I find more-ambiguous rules (i.e. suggestions) less helpful than less-ambiguous rules. Because I value more-helpful rules, I dislike case 2 rules.

But you can't get to "unambiguous" without going down the path of RAW and the resulting loophole-hunting.

You can certainly get less ambiguous without heading down that spiral. If they had written "when you make a melee attack with a weapon" instead of "when you make a melee weapon attack", then the meaning wouldn't depend on whether the lack of a hyphen between "melee" and "weapon" was purposeful. That's a simple example of how reducing ambiguity does not inherently devolve into RAW and loopholes. It's just cleaner, less-ambiguous phrasing.

Heck, the alternative phrasing is less nit-picky than the version in the PHB because it doesn't revolve around the (oft-ignored) rules in English grammar governing compound adjectives. I would think you'd consider it an improvement.

My whole point is that ambiguity is not bad. Ambiguity is necessary and good, as long as the core is clear. And 5e's core is crystal clear, at least to me. And every attempt to "clarify" by third parties makes it worse, not better.

First, the value of ambiguity (or the lack thereof) is, by definition, a value judgment. You and I are allowed to have different opinions on the extent to which ambiguity is a good or bad thing.

Second, I disagree with you that the core is clear.

Third, can you please explain to me why you consider the ambiguity introduced by "melee weapon attack" and its lack of a hyphen to be a "necessary" or "good" thing? If I want to know what the designers suggest regarding how various abilities interact, what value do you see in my being unable to so determine from the text?

MaxWilson

2019-02-03, 11:15 PM

You can certainly get less ambiguous without heading down that spiral. If they had written "when you make a melee attack with a weapon" instead of "when you make a melee weapon attack", then the meaning wouldn't depend on whether the lack of a hyphen between "melee" and "weapon" was purposeful. That's a simple example of how reducing ambiguity does not inherently devolve into RAW and loopholes. It's just cleaner, less-ambiguous phrasing.

I 100% endorse this rewrite. The next printing of the PHB should adopt it, and the corresponding equivalent for the opposite case, "when you attack with a melee weapon."

(Bolding to represent distinct typography for jargon words, but it could be just a different font instead of bolding.)

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 08:54 AM

Petrocorus

2019-02-04, 10:48 AM

If the rules were more "locked down", then there would be much stronger cultural barriers to modifications. CF 3e, where all deviations from the sacred RAW must be published ahead of time and are subject to the same lawyering as the actual rules. That's toxic to new folks. Been there, seen that. It's a rules-first mentality that I personally hate.

I agree that for new DM, the psychological barriers to houserule is real. But new DM are probably the ones less able to deal with ambiguity and who'd need the more explicit wording. I've seen several new DM having issues with a set of rule that was not clear to them (not just in D&D).

Personal experience says you can't. The total ambiguity is constant, only the distribution changes. Every time they've tried, they've made more of case 3. And can we agree that case 3 is worse than case 2 by a long shot? I sure hope so.

I totally agree with this. As well as i agree the plague is worse by a long shot than the flu. But do i want to get the flu? Even if i can cure it in a week, i'm better off without it.

And i understand that for you, case 2 is not the flu. For you, case 2 is healthy, and that's what we disagree on.

Writers should aim for case 1. Case 2 should be accidental. If you have only case 1, and several reminders of rule 0, then the DM, when he has some experience, can easily depart from the rules. Case 2 create headscratchers and inconsistencies for the sake of giving more freedom to the DM that already has it.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 11:08 AM

I agree that for new DM, the psychological barriers to houserule is real. But new DM are probably the ones less able to deal with ambiguity and who'd need the more explicit wording. I've seen several new DM having issues with a set of rule that was not clear to them (not just in D&D).

I totally agree with this. As well as i agree the plague is worse by a long shot than the flu. But do i want to get the flu? Even if i can cure it in a week, i'm better off without it.

And i understand that for you, case 2 is not the flu. For you, case 2 is healthy, and that's what we disagree on.

Writers should aim for case 1. Case 2 should be accidental. If you have only case 1, and several reminders of rule 0, then the DM, when he has some experience, can easily depart from the rules. Case 2 create headscratchers and inconsistencies for the sake of giving more freedom to the DM that already has it.

And there we'll have to agree to disagree. I find case 2 to be a good healthy thing and not an exercise of rule 0 at all. Rule 0 says that you can change the rules. Case 2 says "members of set {X} are all equally valid choices within the rules already." They're completely separate things, and the phrasing needed to only have case 1 inherently requires a rigid, high-interaction system that will usually be quite fragile (and is much harder to change without breakage due to the strong interactions between components). In the language of computer science, game systems that strive for case 1 all end up being tightly coupled. Or just fail and create lots of case 3 instead, or both. Both is the most common failure state.

Is it ambiguous if there's a facility policy (a rule) that says "you must serve dessert with dinner" (for a cafeteria, say) but doesn't specify what kinds of dessert "count"? No. It just means that one day you can serve cookies and a different day you can serve ice cream without breaking any rules! Anything that fits within the definition of dessert is OK by the rules. This is case 2 in a nutshell. Case 1 would require enumerating all possible desserts (and worrying about what exactly counts as a chocolate chip cookie, for example).

Now if there isn't trust between the rule writers and the rule users, then case 2 breaks down. But in the context of games and DMs, if there isn't trust between the DM and the players then the game is already broken even before the rules come into play! So the rule writers have to assume trust exists. You can't fix bad DMs (or even ones who can't/won't/haven't read rules) by adding more rules.

DMs are not computer programs. Humans handle ambiguity much better than we handle the odd phrasings necessary to remove ambiguity. It's why it takes a special type of thinking to program computers (who can't handle ambiguity and so need special constructs). It's why we've done a lot of work toward making compilers handle context better--so we can disambiguate with context instead of with explicit terms (because writing all those separate keywords unambiguously is genuinely hard).

Xetheral

2019-02-04, 11:38 AM

Honestly, I've never seen the difficulty with that particular case (melee weapon attack). The phrase "melee-weapon attack" (note the hyphen) does not occur in the SRD, which indicates that that particular distinction just doesn't come up. The much more common distinction is between "[melee/ranged] weapon attack" and "attack you make with a [melee/ranged] weapon", which is clear by itself. Once you realize that there are two categories of attacks (weapon vs spell) and that all attacks are one or the other, the parsing becomes clear.

Given how often this example comes up, I assume you are aware that a large number of people consider it unclear? It's great that you never had a problem with it, but that doesn't mean it's unambiguous.

The phrase "X Y attack" breaks down as [range] [attack type]--the same pattern holds for weapon or spell attacks, which preserves symmetry between the types of attacks. After all, you wouldn't parse "ranged spell attack" as "[ranged spell] [attack]", would you? That would be horribly unclear, while the "[ranged] [spell attack]" tells you what type of attack it is (and thus what modifier to use) and whether it suffers disadvantage from adjacent attackers, things the other doesn't do at all. Using brackets, it's a [melee [weapon attack]], not a [melee weapon] [attack], which would leave the type of attack (and thus the modifier) unclear.

Your analysis presents a good argument for favoring one interpretation of "melee weapon attack" over another. But the ability to resolve the ambiguity doesn't mean there wasn't an ambiguity in the first place. Additionally, like any analysis, reasonable people can disagree as to whether it's a persuasive resolution of the ambiguity.

Also, note that you've included cross-references in your analysis to other parts of the rules separate from many of the abilities where "melee weapon attack" is used. That's more similar to a technical reading than it is a natural language reading. A new player, reading the class section for the first time, has no way to know whether "melee weapon attack" means "an attack with a melee weapon" or a "melee attack with a weapon".

To me, requiring an analysis of separate parts of the rulebook to resolve the meaning of a common phrase is highly problematic.

Sure, they could have been more clear by using a different term other than "weapon attack", but the other terms I can think of are horribly overloaded.

What's wrong with my suggested phrasing ("when you make a melee attack with a weapon")? It has only two extra words, and is less ambiguous.

As a side note--that one sentence from the SA

is just wrong (or a failed joke), because they don't write that. At least that I can find. They write "attack you make with a X weapon".

They don't need to use the version with the hyphen for the distinction to be important. In this tweet, JP (implicitly) pointed out that the writers use the standard English grammar rules for compound adjectives, which require a hyphen if "melee" were intended to modify "weapon" rather than "attack". In other words, he's saying that readers can rely on the lack of a hyphen to know that "melee weapon attack" means "a melee attack with a weapon". The intended meaning of the phrase thus hinges on whether or not the absence of a hyphen was intentional. It's nice that sage advice clarified that it was intentional, but a player reading the PHB without checking sage advice has no way of determining whether the absence of a hyphen was intentional.

This is particularly problematic because that grammar rule is routinely ignored in non-formal writing. Accordingly, a great many people (not including you) read the phrase as most naturally referring to "an attack with a melee weapon", which is contrary to how it was intended to be used. Additionally, that the designers intended the meaning to be clear merely by the absence of a hyphen suggests that they are expecting players to rely on semi-obscure grammar rules to be able to understand the text. I think you agree that expecting such a close, technical reading is inconsistent with the designers' other statements regarding how the rules are intended to be read?

Rhedyn

2019-02-04, 11:47 AM

Anyone still seriously believe Sage Advice offers anything of value to the table?

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 11:55 AM

Given how often this example comes up, I assume you are aware that a large number of people consider it unclear? It's great that you never had a problem with it, but that doesn't mean it's unambiguous.

Lots of people bring up climbing as an example of bad skill DCs, but that's not ambiguous at all. They're just wrong. Same here. The meaning is clear

Your analysis presents a good argument for favoring one interpretation of "melee weapon attack" over another. But the ability to resolve the ambiguity doesn't mean there wasn't an ambiguity in the first place. Additionally, like any analysis, reasonable people can disagree as to whether it's a persuasive resolution of the ambiguity.

Also, note that you've included cross-references in your analysis to other parts of the rules separate from many of the abilities where "melee weapon attack" is used. That's more similar to a technical reading than it is a natural language reading. A new player, reading the class section for the first time, has no way to know whether "melee weapon attack" means "an attack with a melee weapon" or a "melee attack with a weapon".

To me, requiring an analysis of separate parts of the rulebook to resolve the meaning of a common phrase is highly problematic.

Melee weapon attack is a defined term, meaning "an ability that is resolved by rolling 1d20 + STR vs AC". PHB 193-194. As is Ranged weapon attack. The exceptions are noted, and thrown/finesse are specifically called out. There is no ambiguity left in this single term at this point. The only possible ambiguity is with "attacks made with a weapon", which is called out exactly like you suggest when it's important (which isn't often). There's no cross-referencing going on here at all, simply reading a couple words of text.

What's wrong with my suggested phrasing ("when you make a melee attack with a weapon")? It has only two extra words, and is less ambiguous.

It lacks symmetry with the spell case and gets confusing when a spell causes you to make a MWA--is that a spell attack or a melee attack with a weapon or both?

They don't need to use the version with the hyphen for the distinction to be important. In this tweet, JP (implicitly) pointed out that the writers use the standard English grammar rules for compound adjectives, which require a hyphen if "melee" were intended to modify "weapon" rather than "attack". In other words, he's saying that readers can rely on the lack of a hyphen to know that "melee weapon attack" means "a melee attack with a weapon". The intended meaning of the phrase thus hinges on whether or not the absence of a hyphen was intentional. It's nice that sage advice clarified that it was intentional, but a player reading the PHB without checking sage advice has no way of determining whether the absence of a hyphen was intentional.

This is particularly problematic because that grammar rule is routinely ignored in non-formal writing. Accordingly, a great many people (not including you) read the phrase as most naturally referring to "an attack with a melee weapon", which is contrary to how it was intended to be used. Additionally, that the designers intended the meaning to be clear merely by the absence of a hyphen suggests that they are expecting players to rely on semi-obscure grammar rules to be able to understand the text. I think you agree that expecting such a close, technical reading is inconsistent with the designers' other statements regarding how the rules are intended to be read?

Except that the distinction between [melee weapon] [attack] and [melee] [weapon attack] never comes up at all because the first meaning is always phrased as "attack with a X weapon" just as you suggest. So you're hyper focused on a tweet that has only theoretical meaning at all, because it never comes up in practice. That is, standard english grammar demands that the second (correct) reading is the only valid reading. Rephrasing all "make a melee weapon attack" abilities as "make an attack with a melee weapon" breaks lots of things--what about unarmed strikes (that aren't weapons)? What about natural weapons (which aren't melee weapons)? Etc.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-04, 12:22 PM

Anyone still seriously believe Sage Advice offers anything of value to the table?

Advice, that you can choose whether or not to take. It's a valuable resource to have when learning the game and not having other avenues to look at for help in answering questions. The fact that it's compiled is a nice bonus compared to individually google searching a solution from sources that might not have all of the information.

People come to forums like this for the same type of advice, and people offer it up in the hopes of being helpful. Sage Advice is literally the same thing. Saying it has no value would also be saying that forums like this offering advice also have no value. I certainly found both this forum and the compendium to be helpful when I was learning the mechanics of 5E.

What's wrong with my suggested phrasing ("when you make a melee attack with a weapon")? It has only two extra words, and is less ambiguous.
This exact wording is used in Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade. Personal experience has shown that it doesn't help my players avoid the confusion, your mileage may vary.

Pex

2019-02-04, 12:41 PM

Lots of people bring up climbing as an example of bad skill DCs, but that's not ambiguous at all. They're just wrong. Same here. The meaning is clear

Lack of skill DCs is not an ambiguous thing. It's a poor design decision in some people's opinion. 5E has both concise rules some people think were a bad idea to implement and ambiguous rules open to interpretation that causes problems. Other concise rules that are not ambiguous some people think were a bad idea to implement include the -5 to hit/+10 damage rules of Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter feats.

Rhedyn

2019-02-04, 01:23 PM

Advice, that you can choose whether or not to take. It's a valuable resource to have when learning the game and not having other avenues to look at for help in answering questions. The fact that it's compiled is a nice bonus compared to individually google searching a solution from sources that might not have all of the information.

People come to forums like this for the same type of advice, and people offer it up in the hopes of being helpful. Sage Advice is literally the same thing. Saying it has no value would also be saying that forums like this offering advice also have no value. I certainly found both this forum and the compendium to be helpful when I was learning the mechanics of 5E.

Forum advice is just advice. Sage Advice is official rulings. It's implied to be "the correct interpretation" even if most of it is bad.

A quick way to make your table worse is to use/reference/look-at Sage Advice.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-04, 02:23 PM

Forum advice is just advice. Sage Advice is official rulings. It's implied to be "the correct interpretation" even if most of it is bad.

A quick way to make your table worse is to use/reference/look-at Sage Advice.

"Official" rulings are only as concrete as your table wants them to be. What you should be afraid of is if those rulings that you dislike make it into an Errata where it actually matters. Unless they make it into an Errata, your DM is the final decider, not the compendium.

The compendium makes that clear.

DanyBallon

2019-02-04, 02:26 PM

Forum advice is just advice. Sage Advice is official rulings. It's implied to be "the correct interpretation" even if most of it is bad.

A quick way to make your table worse is to use/reference/look-at Sage Advice.

The Sage Advice Compendium, is a document that offer rules clarification on the design intent of said rules. In no way it enforces it's ruling upon you.

Xetheral

2019-02-04, 02:31 PM

Lots of people bring up climbing as an example of bad skill DCs, but that's not ambiguous at all. They're just wrong. Same here. The meaning is clear

Wait a moment. You agree that reasonable people can disagree with each other regarding whether a rule is ambiguous. But when I disagree with you over whether "melee weapon attack" is ambiguous, you claim I'm "just wrong"?

Melee weapon attack is a defined term, meaning "an ability that is resolved by rolling 1d20 + STR vs AC". PHB 193-194. As is Ranged weapon attack. The exceptions are noted, and thrown/finesse are specifically called out. There is no ambiguity left in this single term at this point. The only possible ambiguity is with "attacks made with a weapon", which is called out exactly like you suggest when it's important (which isn't often). There's no cross-referencing going on here at all, simply reading a couple words of text.

Yes, it is a defined game term, but I disagree with your definition. Your definition shows how a melee weapon attack is resolved, but doesn't explain what qualifies as a melee weapon attack in the first place. If one wants to know what qualifies as a melee weapon attack, one can:

Consult Twitter. JC has unambiguously stated that, due to the lack of a hyphen, "melee weapon attack" means "a melee attack with a weapon". Analyze the combat chapter and decide which possible meaning is the most consistent. I personally agree with you that, having conducted such an analysis, your reading is the more-consistent one. But others might analyze it differently. Assume that the text is written in formal, technical English (contrary to the assertions of the designers) and strictly apply the rules for hyphenating compound adjectives.
Each of those three methods will (or may) lead one to the conclusion that "melee weapon attack" means "a melee attack with a weapon". But none of those methods are a simple reading of the text in context. I suggest that an inability to resolve the meaning of this defined game term without going to the lengths above is strong evidence that the term is ambiguous.

It lacks symmetry with the spell case and gets confusing when a spell causes you to make a MWA--is that a spell attack or a melee attack with a weapon or both?

So you're hyper focused on a tweet that has only theoretical meaning at all, because it never comes up in practice. That is, standard english grammar demands that the second (correct) reading is the only valid reading. Rephrasing all "make a melee weapon attack" abilities as "make an attack with a melee weapon" breaks lots of things--what about unarmed strikes (that aren't weapons)? What about natural weapons (which aren't melee weapons)? Etc.

To be clear, I am also suggesting replacing "ranged weapon attack" with "ranged attack with a weapon", "melee spell attack" with "melee attack with a spell", and "ranged spell attack" with "ranged attack with a spell". Spells such as booming blade would simply specific that after casting you make a "melee attack with a weapon". And remember that I am not saying that my phrasing is unambigous. I am saying it is less ambiguous than the current phrasing. Exceptions for unarmed combat and natural weapons are required in both the existing rule and my alternative phrasing.

Also, contrary to your assertion, the issue does come up in practice at my table.

Except that the distinction between [melee weapon] [attack] and [melee] [weapon attack] never comes up at all because the first meaning is always phrased as "attack with a X weapon" just as you suggest.

We've already discussed how your personal experience is different than mine. At my table, the distinction between [melee weapon] [attack] and [melee] [weapon attack] comes up routinely as players try to figure out the requirements for using specific abilities.

Rephrasing all "make a melee weapon attack" abilities as "make an attack with a melee weapon" breaks lots of things

I quoted this passage again because I'd like to offer it as anecdotal evidence that "melee weapon attack" is at least confusing. Note that you have interpreted it as meaning "an attack with a melee weapon" despite arguing that it unambigously means "a melee attack with a weapon".

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-04, 03:39 PM

Wait a moment. You agree that reasonable people can disagree with each other regarding whether a rule is ambiguous. But when I disagree with you over whether "melee weapon attack" is ambiguous, you claim I'm "just wrong"?

Ambiguity requires multiple readings allowed by english grammar. And this one only has one reasonable reading. Period. So yes, in general you can disagree but not in this case. There is no ambiguity if you understand english.

Yes, it is a defined game term, but I disagree with your definition. Your definition shows how a melee weapon attack is resolved, but doesn't explain what qualifies as a melee weapon attack in the first place. If one wants to know what qualifies as a melee weapon attack, one can:

Consult Twitter. JC has unambiguously stated that, due to the lack of a hyphen, "melee weapon attack" means "a melee attack with a weapon". Analyze the combat chapter and decide which possible meaning is the most consistent. I personally agree with you that, having conducted such an analysis, your reading is the more-consistent one. But others might analyze it differently. Assume that the text is written in formal, technical English (contrary to the assertions of the designers) and strictly apply the rules for hyphenating compound adjectives.
Each of those three methods will (or may) lead one to the conclusion that "melee weapon attack" means "a melee attack with a weapon". But none of those methods are a simple reading of the text in context. I suggest that an inability to resolve the meaning of this defined game term without going to the lengths above is strong evidence that the term is ambiguous.

Things are melee weapon attack if and only if one of the following is true (by the definition I gave from the PHB):

The ability itself says to make a melee weapon attack.
It is an attack (as defined by the PHB) made in melee range (as defined in the PHB) that adds STR* as a modifier to the attack roll.
There is no 3.

Note that you do not need to be using a weapon** to make a melee weapon attack. Unarmed attacks are defined not to be weapons, yet make melee weapon attacks. And spells can force you to make a melee weapon attack.

* Exceptions may apply, but only those that explicitly say they're exceptions, as per 5e standard rules.
** which are defined in the PHB to be only those things from the weapon tables. "Natural weapons" aren't weapons. Unarmed attacks aren't weapons. But they make weapon attacks.

No further parsing is needed. No ambiguity exists because all options are foreclosed.

To be clear, I am also suggesting replacing "ranged weapon attack" with "ran[ged attack with a weapon", "melee spell attack" with "melee attack with a spell", and "ranged spell attack" with "ranged attack with a spell". Spells such as booming blade would simply specific that after casting you make a "melee attack with a weapon". And remember that I am not saying that my phrasing is unambigous. I am saying it is less ambiguous than the current phrasing. Exceptions for unarmed combat and natural weapons are required in both the existing rule and my alternative phrasing.

But then you have monster abilities that are not spells yet make melee/ranged spell attacks. And those break horribly if you make that definition.

All attacks are either weapon attacks or spell attacks, based on what modifier they use. All weapon attacks use physical modifiers, all spell attacks use spell-casting modifiers. And this works in reverse--anything that uses a physical modifier is a weapon attack. Period. Full stop. Confirmed by JC.

Also, contrary to your assertion, the issue does come up in practice at my table.

We've already discussed how your personal experience is different than mine. At my table, the distinction between [melee weapon] [attack] and [melee] [weapon attack] comes up routinely as players try to figure out the requirements for using specific abilities.

In what specific abilities? There just really aren't that many effects that care. 90% are "melee weapon attack" and the rest are quite uncommon or specify "attack with a melee weapon" to disambiguate.

I quoted this passage again because I'd like to offer it as anecdotal evidence that "melee weapon attack" is at least confusing. Note that you have interpreted it as meaning "an attack with a melee weapon" despite arguing that it unambigously means "a melee attack with a weapon".

I was using your phrasing, showing that if you change "melee weapon attack" everywhere to "attack with a melee weapon", things break badly in lots of places. IE that your proposed replacement fails to reproduce the intent.

Rhedyn

2019-02-04, 07:29 PM

"Official" rulings are only as concrete as your table wants them to be. What you should be afraid of is if those rulings that you dislike make it into an Errata where it actually matters. Unless they make it into an Errata, your DM is the final decider, not the compendium.

The compendium makes that clear.

No amount of errata will change words in the 5e books everyone already has.

If a rule is unclear, you ask the DM. If the DM is unsure he/she asks the table.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-05, 03:46 AM

No amount of errata will change words in the 5e books everyone already has.

If a rule is unclear, you ask the DM. If the DM is unsure he/she asks the table.
On the errata note, it makes a difference for those using DND Beyond, which WOTC is pushing hardcore. The errata that happened this past November can be found on all of the digital resources. Since my table is online, across states, DND Beyond is our go-to resource. An errata is also very likely to be used for AL play where Sage Advice is in no way forced into AL, from what I've heard anyway. Sure it can't affect players and DM's who choose not to use it, but these changes actually mean something when compared to Sage Advice.

I'm also not sure how useful it is for the DM to be asking his players for the solution in cases where both he and at least one of his players doesn't actually know the answer, that's the exact point where it makes sense to look for a third party who has an answer you can use, possibly to help reach your own conclusion.

In a perfect world, the DM would make his own ruling and correct any glaring errors after the session. There would be fewer headaches for everyone involved.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-05, 06:07 AM

I'm also not sure how useful it is for the DM to be asking his players for the solution in cases where both he and at least one of his players doesn't actually know the answer, that's the exact point where it makes sense to look for a third party who has an answer you can use, possibly to help reach your own conclusion.

In a perfect world, the DM would make his own ruling and correct any glaring errors after the session. There would be fewer headaches for everyone involved.

In my opinion, it's better not to think of getting the "right" answer in some global sense, but instead deciding what is right for your table. And that doesn't need external input, although other perspectives can be useful. That's what the rules (and SA and erratta and forums, etc) are good for. Other perspectives on the situation.

Your "perfect world" is the central design of 5e. DMs make rulings and adjust as needed. But the touchstone isn't necessarily some external rule set (that's merely a helpful set of tools), it's the needs and desires of the real people at the table.

JoeJ

2019-02-06, 01:19 AM

Each of those three methods will (or may) lead one to the conclusion that "melee weapon attack" means "a melee attack with a weapon". But none of those methods are a simple reading of the text in context. I suggest that an inability to resolve the meaning of this defined game term without going to the lengths above is strong evidence that the term is ambiguous.

If we ignore terms of art and consider just ordinary language for a moment, an attack with a melee weapon and a melee attack with a weapon are pretty much the same thing. If you're making a melee attack with a weapon, it's a melee weapon (although possibly an improvised one). If you're making a ranged attack with it, it's a ranged weapon.

Unoriginal

2019-02-06, 04:38 AM

If we ignore terms of art and consider just ordinary language for a moment, an attack with a melee weapon and a melee attack with a weapon are pretty much the same thing. If you're making a melee attack with a weapon, it's a melee weapon (although possibly an improvised one). If you're making a ranged attack with it, it's a ranged weapon.

The whole point of the distinction is "weapons not used for what they're meant to do don't count for X ability".

I.e. a shortsword is a melee weapon, if you throw it at the hobgoblin leader's face, you are making a ranged attack with a melee weapon. That doesn't let you use abilities that require a weapon attack in melee.

Arial Black

2019-02-06, 04:43 AM

So you maintain that it's possible to cast a spell as a ritual while under, for example, an Invisibility spell you cast on yourself?

Of course! You haven't satisfied the conditions of that bullet point, where casting a spell with a duration of 'concentration' makes you lose any spell with a duration of concentration.

Concentrating on the casting process (VSM components) is a different thing than maintaining concentration on the spell duration.

Arial Black

2019-02-06, 04:48 AM

Sage Advice and JC's tweets.....

"Is the intent that a bard gets to know the number rolled on an attack roll or ability check before using Cutting Words, or should they always guess?
You can wait to use Cutting Words after the roll, but you must commit to doing so before you know for sure whether the total of the roll or check is a success or a failure."

He totally fails to answer the question!

We want to know whether the bard can/should see the number rolled on the d20 so he can get a clue whether or not to use Cutting Words.

We still don't know.

How hard can it be? How hard can it be to answer the darn question?

I hate it when he acts as if unwritten stuff he just made up (you can't interrupt actions with other actions/bonus actions) supersedes actual written rules to the contrary (you can take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn)!

ThePolarBear

2019-02-06, 06:17 AM

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-06, 07:15 AM

Of course! You haven't satisfied the conditions of that bullet point, where casting a spell with a duration of 'concentration' makes you lose any spell with a duration of concentration.

Concentrating on the casting process (VSM components) is a different thing than maintaining concentration on the spell duration.

Chapter 10: Spellcasting (Casting a Spell)
Longer Casting Times
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.

Chapter 10: Spellcasting (Casting a Spell)
Duration - Concentration - Casting another spell that requires concentration
You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
You are considered to be concentrating as well as casting a ritual spell for the duration of your ritual. You can't complete a spell cast as a ritual while also maintaining an Invisibility spell.

There is no stipulation that the spell must have a duration of "concentration" to be considered a spell that you concentrate on (what a ludicrous statement in its own right) simply that you can't maintain concentration on two spells at once. Spells cast as a ritual take your concentration and you are considered to be casting them for the duration, it's really quite simple.

Rhedyn

2019-02-06, 08:10 AM

Both of these things depends on DM interpretation.

There are other versions of D&D if you actually want to play something closer to RAW.

CorporateSlave

2019-02-06, 09:25 AM

I find 5e's designers to be precise enough, at least for the purposes they intend. Sure, they're not as precise as a scientific paper (many of whom are just chock-full of crappy writing anyway), but the subject matter is much loser as well.

Hang on, did you just call us all "losers"? :smallbiggrin:

Man there is some harsh criticism being laid down about what terrible writers these D&D 5e authors are. Not technically proficient enough with legalese? Eeesh. Any series of large documents written by humans is always going to have ambiguities and errors discovered when being perused by thousands or other humans. No matter how skilled the writer is. Especially given this particular subject matter!

I deal with this semi-professionally (which is to say, it is a part, if not the main part, of my job) and I've seen medical documents written by doctors, proofread by doctors and professional editors, and finally scoured by lawyers - still filled with errors that need clarification later on. These errors tend to come to light by the hundreds-thousands of end users who go to these documents for direction, and apply them endlessly to different situations - something there is simply no practical way to do while preparing said documents.

You can playtest, and beta test, and whatever test an RPG, but you just aren't going to come up with every situation imaginable and be able to make sure the text covers it all. Sometimes they write legalistically and sometimes ambiguously? My guess (based on personal experience) would be that the "legalistic" parts were once upon a draft ambiguous - but during play testing they realized they needed to expand and specify the RAW to better fit their RAI. There is likely a story behind each of these, but a bit unreasonable to expect annotated footnotes to expand upon the humorous or frustrating reason a particular hyphen, or and-or-but or shall-may, is present in the text.

I can appreciate that the anonymity of the internet makes high horsing criticism self-reinforcing and relatively consequence free. Criticism and fair criticism are two different things however.

I for one appreciate the hard (and ongoing) work that Crawford and the game's other designers put in to clarify the rules as they intended them to be, while leaving the field open for DM's and tables to tailor them as they see fit.

"How hard can it be to....?"

Actually, really f****** hard. If you don't believe me, have a go at making 100% of people happy 100% of the time.

Pex

2019-02-06, 09:39 AM

"How hard can it be to....?"

Actually, really f****** hard. If you don't believe me, have a go at making 100% of people happy 100% of the time.

Yes it's hard, but that's why game designers are paid to do the work and we the customers buy it. Given the number of problems 5E had in its first printing and still has despite a few revisions just being hard is not an excuse. If Crawford can't even give a direct answer to a question, can a Bard player see the die roll before deciding to use Cutting Words, it becomes less an excuse.

Petrocorus

2019-02-06, 10:02 AM

Hang on, did you just call us all "losers"? :smallbiggrin:

I don't really want to talk for him but i believe he meant "looser" and not "loser" in this instance. At least, that what i understood based on the context of the sentence.

Man there is some harsh criticism being laid down about what terrible writers these D&D 5e authors are. Not technically proficient enough with legalese? Eeesh. Any series of large documents written by humans is always going to have ambiguities and errors discovered when being perused by thousands or other humans. No matter how skilled the writer is. Especially given this particular subject matter!

.....

"How hard can it be to....?"

Actually, really f****** hard. If you don't believe me, have a go at making 100% of people happy 100% of the time.

This is exactly why, IMO, Twitter is certainly not the best place for Sage Advice. Explaining a rule, the intend behind it, and the potential difference between the two requires much more than 140 characters.

And concerning the "hard" part, i've seen other systems that had less bugs and ambiguities despite being more complex. That's the case of Shadowrun 5, IMHO, and that may have been the case of even 3.5 if they had only published as few books as 5E.
OTOH, i've seen simpler systems with more bugs and ambiguities, like the Mournblade game i sometimes rant about this days.

Unoriginal

2019-02-06, 10:11 AM

If you don't believe me, have a go at making 100% of people happy 100% of the time.

I had a DM who tried to do that.

It made the gaming group beyond noxious.

Max_Killjoy

2019-02-06, 10:19 AM

Sage Advice and JC's tweets.....

"Is the intent that a bard gets to know the number rolled on an attack roll or ability check before using Cutting Words, or should they always guess?
You can wait to use Cutting Words after the roll, but you must commit to doing so before you know for sure whether the total of the roll or check is a success or a failure."

He totally fails to answer the question!

We want to know whether the bard can/should see the number rolled on the d20 so he can get a clue whether or not to use Cutting Words.

We still don't know.

How hard can it be? How hard can it be to answer the darn question?

He's making an assumption as to whether DM's dice are rolled openly or behind a screen.

Rhedyn

2019-02-06, 10:24 AM

5e is meant to be vague so that DMs can run 5e like their favorite version of D&D or in the case of new DMs, how they think D&D should run.

It's not meant to be specific and Sage Advice undermines that "feature" to turn 5e into a very vague system with pages of official rulings that clearer language could have fixed in the first place.

But JCs one vision of D&D is inferior to the specific version for your table that your DM has in mind.

Don't use Sage Advice. Don't reference it. It's bad for 5e.

Zhorn

2019-02-06, 10:38 AM

Don't use Sage Advice. Don't reference it. It's bad for 5e.
Sage advice (and the erratas for that matter) are not bad for 5e. There are many usefully clarifications and corrections to the books as they were published. Saying the entire lot is bad just because there are a handful of rulings you don't like is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Rhedyn

2019-02-06, 11:13 AM

Sage advice (and the erratas for that matter) are not bad for 5e. There are many usefully clarifications and corrections to the books as they were published. Saying the entire lot is bad just because there are a handful of rulings you don't like is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Official rulings undermine the point of the 5th AD&D revision. They can't be good.

JoeJ

2019-02-06, 04:59 PM

Sage Advice and JC's tweets.....

"Is the intent that a bard gets to know the number rolled on an attack roll or ability check before using Cutting Words, or should they always guess?
You can wait to use Cutting Words after the roll, but you must commit to doing so before you know for sure whether the total of the roll or check is a success or a failure."

He totally fails to answer the question!

We want to know whether the bard can/should see the number rolled on the d20 so he can get a clue whether or not to use Cutting Words.

We still don't know.

Unless we use common sense and assume that every rule is supposed to affect game play in some way. The difference between requiring the ability to be used before the roll and allowing it to be used after a roll that the player can not see is…*nothing. If the DM hides the roll, then the text stating that the ability can be used after the roll is completely meaningless.

ad_hoc

2019-02-06, 05:16 PM

Sage advice bonus action discussion happens 1 min in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1dc6VBHhA

Unoriginal

2019-02-06, 05:44 PM

Sage advice bonus action discussion happens 1 min in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1dc6VBHhA

Crawford: "you don't have a bonus action until something tell you that you do"

It's actually an important point. Bonus action is a bonus, not something you get naturally as part of the turn.

MaxWilson

2019-02-06, 05:54 PM

Unless we use common sense and assume that every rule is supposed to affect game play in some way. The difference between requiring the ability to be used before the roll and allowing it to be used after a roll that the player can not see is…*nothing. If the DM hides the roll, then the text stating that the ability can be used after the roll is completely meaningless.

Unless the DM lets the player declare e.g. "I'm using Cutting Words if the roll is at least [number]". That's not quite the same thing as getting to see the roll--you still don't know in the end exactly what the DM rolled, and it makes it much harder to accurately deduce details of monster stats like to-hit bonus.

I doubt Crawford had anything that sophisticated in mind, but it does allow a Cutting Words to be meaningful on a hidden roll.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-06, 06:02 PM

Sage advice bonus action discussion happens 1 min in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1dc6VBHhA

Interesting.

Things I took from it:
* They have a HUGE focus on streamlining things, especially combat. That seems to be the driving force behind a lot of the "balancing" rules, especially action economy. It came up over and over in the podcast.

* JC was clear that the original Shield Master tweet was a) wrong, b) ill-advised, c) made under the wrong conditions (ie at a bar, in line at a store, etc). Chalk it up to the flaws of modern technology. Thus, the "change" isn't a contradiction, it was a correction to a previous mistake.

* The idea of narrative and theme as being a major driving force. Keeping things in character instead of out-of-character negotiations between players as to upcoming tactics, not worrying about tactics optimization, etc.

Pex

2019-02-06, 07:39 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-06, 07:49 PM

I'll say this.

As much as I don't like inconsistency across the tables of different DMs interpreting the rules differently, I much rather have the DM make the decision than follow what anyone says in some tweet or blog post. Sage Advice has no value to me.

That makes no sense to me. The value of such things as SA is in persuasion and giving ideas, not mandates. Whether they came up with it themselves or not, if it's a good idea it's a good idea.

Jama7301

2019-02-06, 07:57 PM

ad_hoc

2019-02-06, 08:57 PM

Interesting.

Things I took from it:
* They have a HUGE focus on streamlining things, especially combat. That seems to be the driving force behind a lot of the "balancing" rules, especially action economy. It came up over and over in the podcast.

* JC was clear that the original Shield Master tweet was a) wrong, b) ill-advised, c) made under the wrong conditions (ie at a bar, in line at a store, etc). Chalk it up to the flaws of modern technology. Thus, the "change" isn't a contradiction, it was a correction to a previous mistake.

* The idea of narrative and theme as being a major driving force. Keeping things in character instead of out-of-character negotiations between players as to upcoming tactics, not worrying about tactics optimization, etc.

yeah that is all in keeping with how 5e is designed.

What's the difference between a Sage Advice ruling and one that exists within the PHB? Same people are making the decisions, aren't they? Does Sage Advice get checked past other devs? I don't get how clarifications on intent made after the fact is less valid than what's in the books. Do the handbooks get priority because they're some big fancy physical Thing?

Yep.

People also like 5e but think its lead designers are terrible at game design.

There is a weird deification that happens with the core books.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-06, 09:09 PM

yeah that is all in keeping with how 5e is designed.

Yep.

People also like 5e but think its lead designers are terrible at game design.

There is a weird deification that happens with the core books.

I think, and I'm being mostly serious here, that written words, written "rules" have this quasi-magic power somewhere deep in the subconscious mind. "But the RULES SAY!!!!!" is a powerful force.

Sigreid

2019-02-06, 09:21 PM

What's the difference between a Sage Advice ruling and one that exists within the PHB? Same people are making the decisions, aren't they? Does Sage Advice get checked past other devs? I don't get how clarifications on intent made after the fact is less valid than what's in the books. Do the handbooks get priority because they're some big fancy physical Thing?

For my part it boils down to once I've made interpretations based on what's in print I don't want to constantly be changing the rulings going forward based on a constantly changing string of input. Not even from the designers clearing up their intent.

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-06, 09:25 PM

For my part it boils down to once I've made interpretations based on what's in print I don't want to constantly be changing the rulings going forward based on a constantly changing string of input. Not even from the designers clearing up their intent.

And that's fine with me. But to not consider all the arguments (because that's what SA is, it's an attempt to persuade or inform) when it's a matter of first impression (or for things you haven't had to rule on yet) seems... Ill advised.

Sigreid

2019-02-06, 09:28 PM

And that's fine with me. But to not consider all the arguments (because that's what SA is, it's an attempt to persuade or inform) when it's a matter of first impression (or for things you haven't had to rule on yet) seems... Ill advised.

I don't even look at Sage Advice to be honest. If one of my players wants to bring it into a brief discussion on how a ruling would go down, it can be considered. If no one else brings it up, I'm just not going to worry about it.

Pex

2019-02-06, 11:03 PM

That makes no sense to me. The value of such things as SA is in persuasion and giving ideas, not mandates. Whether they came up with it themselves or not, if it's a good idea it's a good idea.

What's the difference between a Sage Advice ruling and one that exists within the PHB? Same people are making the decisions, aren't they? Does Sage Advice get checked past other devs? I don't get how clarifications on intent made after the fact is less valid than what's in the books. Do the handbooks get priority because they're some big fancy physical Thing?

Because if I have to ask what rules we are using this time I want the answer from the person I'm playing with who knows what the game will be like and not some stranger on the internet who has no vested interest in the game I'm playing. The DM may even ask my opinion on the matter to make his decision even if it does not involve my character. We're the ones playing the game, not Sage Advice. It's our opinions that matter. When my opinion is asked I give both sides, so to speak, of the issue but state my preference.

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 01:20 AM

Unless the DM lets the player declare e.g. "I'm using Cutting Words if the roll is at least [number]". That's not quite the same thing as getting to see the roll--you still don't know in the end exactly what the DM rolled, and it makes it much harder to accurately deduce details of monster stats like to-hit bonus.

I doubt Crawford had anything that sophisticated in mind, but it does allow a Cutting Words to be meaningful on a hidden roll.

Okay, but how is saying that after the roll (that you didn't see) different than saying it before the roll?

Rhedyn

2019-02-07, 08:13 AM

Interesting.

Things I took from it:
* They have a HUGE focus on streamlining things, especially combat. That seems to be the driving force behind a lot of the "balancing" rules, especially action economy. It came up over and over in the podcast.

* JC was clear that the original Shield Master tweet was a) wrong, b) ill-advised, c) made under the wrong conditions (ie at a bar, in line at a store, etc). Chalk it up to the flaws of modern technology. Thus, the "change" isn't a contradiction, it was a correction to a previous mistake.

* The idea of narrative and theme as being a major driving force. Keeping things in character instead of out-of-character negotiations between players as to upcoming tactics, not worrying about tactics optimization, etc.
Man, the Shield Master Sage Advice was the only good one!

It wasn't obvious or wrong, but offered a new way to look at the rules that someone couldn't easily come to on their own AND it fixed an issue in their game. "Spend actions, then do actions; aka I am going to attack and spend the bonus action on a shove, then I shove first and attack 1-4 times".

What's the difference between a Sage Advice ruling and one that exists within the PHB? Same people are making the decisions, aren't they? Does Sage Advice get checked past other devs? I don't get how clarifications on intent made after the fact is less valid than what's in the books. Do the handbooks get priority because they're some big fancy physical Thing?
The PHB was a collaborative effort by some of the best names in the industry who brought in perspectives and ideas that neither Mearls or JC fully understand or appreciate. That said, I have a lot of problems with 5e. I find the version of 5e coalesced in Sage Advice to be unpalatable.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 08:14 AM

What's the difference between a Sage Advice ruling and one that exists within the PHB? Same people are making the decisions, aren't they? Does Sage Advice get checked past other devs? I don't get how clarifications on intent made after the fact is less valid than what's in the books. Do the handbooks get priority because they're some big fancy physical Thing?

The books are written by teams and, as far as I understand it, a lot of the core underlying concepts and logic in 5e come from people who are not Crawford.

Sage Advice is pretty much just Crawford.

Arial Black

2019-02-07, 08:28 AM

You are considered to be concentrating as well as casting a ritual spell for the duration of your ritual.

You are concentration on the process of casting a spell (saying the magic words, making the mystic gestures, providing the eye of a newt; the VSM components). But the crucial part here is the the casting of a spell, if completed successfully, causes a spell to come into existence, which technically means the spell duration begins (even if that duration is 'instantaneous'). The two processes (casting, spell existing for its duration) are not the same thing. They literally cannot be the same thing, as one causes the other.

So, when the rules refer to "a spell that requires concentration" they refer to a spell who's duration requires concentration (like dancing lights which has a duration of "Concentration, up to 1 minute"). They are not referring to a spell who's casting (VSM components, the thing that causes the spell to begin its duration) requires concentration.

You can't complete a spell cast as a ritual while also maintaining an Invisibility spell.

Why not? There is no rule that says so!

Let's go to the rule that you erroneously think forbids it:-

"You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once."

'You lose concentration on a spell...' refers to the spell duration, so that the duration ends the moment you lose concentration on maintaining its duration/existence.

'...if you cast another spell that requires concentration' refers to casting a spell with a duration of 'Concentration, up to (whatever). It has nothing to do with anything about the spellcasting process of causing a spell to begin.

Let's say you want to cast alarm. Is alarm a spell which 'requires concentration'? We look at the 'duration' entry in its stat block and we find, "8 hours". So it is not 'a spell which requires concentration'. If, instead of "8 hours" the duration was "Concentration, up to 8 hours", then it would be 'a spell which requires concentration', but it doesn't so it's not.

Now, the casting time for alarm is "1 minute". This means that for the casting process of saying the magic words and making the mystic gestures which cause the spell's duration to begin you must spend an action each round and must concentrate on casting throughout the process.

So, I begin to cast, I use an action and I concentrate on the casting process, and the spell will not even begin to exist until I have successfully completed the casting process.

Am I already concentrating on maintaining a spell with a duration of 'Concentration, up to (whatever)' at the moment? Let's say yes, I'm concentrating on maintaining invisibility which has a duration of "Concentration, up to 1 hour".

Does my concentrating on the casting process of casting alarm make me lose invisibility? No, because I am not "...casting another spell which requires concentration", since alarm is not a spell which requires concentration to maintain its duration, and the fact that I'm concentrating on casting a spell is not something that causes me to lose concentration on maintaining a spell.

"You can't concentrate on two spells at once". True, but I'm not. While I'm casting alarm, the alarm spell does not yet exist, so I literally cannot be "concentrating on two spells at once" because there is only one spell in existence.

After I complete the casting process for alarm its duration (8 hours) begins. Am I concentrating on the alarm spell now? No, because it is not 'a spell that requires concentration'.

There is no stipulation that the spell must have a duration of "concentration" to be considered a spell that you concentrate on (what a ludicrous statement in its own right) simply that you can't maintain concentration on two spells at once. Spells cast as a ritual take your concentration and you are considered to be casting them for the duration, it's really quite simple.

'Concentrating on casting a spell' is not the same thing as 'concentrating on maintaining the duration of a spell', because casting a spell is not the same thing as the spell itself.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-07, 08:32 AM

SNIP
There aren't multiple forms of concentration. Whether you are concentrating during the casting, or to maintain the duration it is concentrating on a spell. There are even class features that require your concentration.

Notice they don't say "as if concentrating to maintain a spell" they say "as if concentrating on a spell"

There is no distinction, if you are concentrating, you are concentrating. You can't concentrate on two things at once.

Arial Black

2019-02-07, 04:44 PM

There aren't multiple forms of concentration. Whether you are concentrating during the casting, or to maintain the duration it is concentrating on a spell. There are even class features that require your concentration.

Notice they don't say "as if concentrating to maintain a spell" they say "as if concentrating on a spell"

There is no distinction, if you are concentrating, you are concentrating. You can't concentrate on two things at once.

That is simply untrue. If you are concentrating on casting are spell, you absolutely and certainly cannot be concentrating on 'the spell', because 'the spell' is not yet in existence, and actually might never come into existence if that concentration on the casting process is interrupted.

'Spellcasting': an old man in robes jumping around with some bat poop, chanting gibberish and making obscene gestures.

'The Spell': the resulting fireball.

According to the PHB p201:- "A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the universe into a specific, limited expression."

Chanting, gesturing, and holding bat poop is not 'a spell'.

The 'spellcasting' is not 'the spell'.

You would be correct, if the rule in question read:- "you lose concentration on a spell if you do anything else which requires concentration."

But the rule does not say that! It says, "you lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell which requires concentration.

It does not say, "if you cast a spell who's casting requires concentration"! If the spell itself requires concentration, you lose any spell which requires concentration.

I believe you are sincere in your belief, it's just that you have misunderstood 'the spell' as if it meant 'anything which requires concentration'.

ThePolarBear

2019-02-07, 05:38 PM

[...]

A spell that cannot be cast without concentration is a spell that requires it, one way or another. It doesn't mean that it has concentration listed as a duration, nor that it requires concentration to be maintained - but that is not the definition of what concentration is, nor in any way the "Concentration" part in the PHB limits "spells that require concentration" to those with "concentration" listed as a duration.

"Requires concentration" as a condition is met, and thus fits under the rule.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-07, 08:25 PM

That is simply untrue. If you are concentrating on casting are spell, you absolutely and certainly cannot be concentrating on 'the spell', because 'the spell' is not yet in existence, and actually might never come into existence if that concentration on the casting process is interrupted.

I believe you are sincere in your belief, it's just that you have misunderstood 'the spell' as if it meant 'anything which requires concentration'.

I don't believe I'm the one misunderstanding.

Longer Casting Times:
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours.When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.
Casting a spell as a ritual or with a casting time longer than an action or reaction does not make it a different type of "spell cast" as you put it. It's exactly the same as if you cast a spell otherwise, except the magic effect won't take place until you've reached the casting time.

When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character's class or the spell's effects.
They follow the same rules. There is no "casting concentration" and "duration concentration" there is only Concentration.

Telesphoros

2019-02-07, 08:42 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2019-02-07, 09:17 PM

I'm down with having the errata for the rule books on hand, but I don't go looking for Sage Advice or JC tweets every time something comes up at the table. Make a ruling and move on. Advice is just that, advice. Not a rule written in stone, just advice.

Yeah. I don't pull it up at the table, but I'll read through the compendium periodically. Most of the time my on the spot rulings exactly match the SA, so :shrug:. But it's useful especially for insight into the thought process of the developers--that helps me stay in the design area, especially when homebrewing, which I do often.

druid91

2019-02-07, 09:27 PM

What's the difference between a Sage Advice ruling and one that exists within the PHB? Same people are making the decisions, aren't they? Does Sage Advice get checked past other devs? I don't get how clarifications on intent made after the fact is less valid than what's in the books. Do the handbooks get priority because they're some big fancy physical Thing?

Yes. You bought the book because presumably you wanted to use the rules that are in that book. If those rules are ambiguous, it's up to us as a group to decide how we want to play it.

I didn't pay for Sage Advice, and don't want it. I'm more liable to just throw 5e as a whole out and play a different system than use Sage Advice.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-07, 10:10 PM

Yes. You bought the book because presumably you wanted to use the rules that are in that book. If those rules are ambiguous, it's up to us as a group to decide how we want to play it.

I didn't pay for Sage Advice, and don't want it. I'm more liable to just throw 5e as a whole out and play a different system than use Sage Advice.

You don't have to use it, clearly.

A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The books have exactly as much weight as these official rulings do. Zero, if your DM chooses to rule differently. It absolutely boggles my mind how much of competition there is for who can dislike being offered advice more. It's not forced on you and it's a terrific resource for the people who search it out to make use of it. I don't know why some insist on making it seem like the very idea of advice being offered is offensive, to such a degree that they'll flaunt how much they're willing to "not play the game they paid for because this advice column exists"

Sigreid

2019-02-07, 10:33 PM

You don't have to use it, clearly.

The books have exactly as much weight as these official rulings do. Zero, if your DM chooses to rule differently. It absolutely boggles my mind how much of competition there is for who can dislike being offered advice more. It's not forced on you and it's a terrific resource for the people who search it out to make use of it. I don't know why some insist on making it seem like the very idea of advice being offered is offensive, to such a degree that they'll flaunt how much they're willing to "not play the game they paid for because this advice column exists"

I'd almost bet that it boils down to experience at the table. If, for example, you've had a string of players that try to use Sage Advice to bully you into the ruling they want; I could see why you'd be annoyed by its existence.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-07, 11:03 PM

I'd almost bet that it boils down to experience at the table. If, for example, you've had a string of players that try to use Sage Advice to bully you into the ruling they want; I could see why you'd be annoyed by its existence.

That's hardly the fault of Sage Advice, those types of players could do the same thing (they often do, from my experience) with the PHB where it also states that the DM is encouraged to improvise their own solutions.

It's a nuisance, I can see that, but it's a problem you should take up with those individuals, not necessarily problem with the resources they're pulling from. I had a player who caused an issue like this, it was never serious enough to cause me to consider quitting DND outright and after talking it over with him we reached an understanding about it. Now he runs his own game, making his own rulings and we all enjoy a nice game of DND on the weekends.

Sigreid

2019-02-07, 11:07 PM

That's hardly the fault of Sage Advice, those types of players could do the same thing (they often do, from my experience) with the PHB where it also states that the DM is encouraged to improvise their own solutions.

It's a nuisance, I can see that, but it's a problem you should take up with those individuals, not necessarily problem with the resources they're pulling from. I had a player who caused an issue like this, it was never serious enough to cause me to consider quitting DND outright and after talking it over with him we reached an understanding about it. Now he runs his own game, making his own rulings and we all enjoy a nice game of DND on the weekends.

Not disagreeing. Just pointing out what I think the most likely source is.

Arial Black

2019-02-08, 02:45 AM

A spell that cannot be cast without concentration is a spell that requires it, one way or another.

False.

'Spellcasting' =/= 'the spell'

Therefore, the 'spellcasting' requiring concentration =/= 'the spell' requiring concentration.

Arial Black

2019-02-08, 03:11 AM

I don't believe I'm the one misunderstanding.

Sure. You don't realise it yet, but I'm here to help you. :smallsmile:

Casting a spell as a ritual or with a casting time longer than an action or reaction does not make it a different type of "spell cast" as you put it. It's exactly the same as if you cast a spell otherwise, except the magic effect won't take place until you've reached the casting time.

I completely agree.

They follow the same rules. There is no "casting concentration" and "duration concentration" there is only Concentration.

Again, I agree.

You seem to be making your ruling AS IF the rule was, "You lose concentration on a spell if you do anything else requiring concentration."

IF that was the rule, THEN you'd be correct.

But that is not the rule. The actual rule is, "You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell which requires concentration".

I'm concentrating on invisibility, which IS 'a spell which requires concentration'; "Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour".

IF I were to cast hex (Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour), THEN I would lose invisibility according to the rule: I have cast 'another spell which requires concentration'.

But, IF I were to cast alarm instead (Duration: 8 hours), THEN nothing has caused me to lose invisibility because alarm is not 'another spell which requires concentration'.

Sure, casting it requires concentration, but there is no rule about that. The only rule is about casting 'a spell' which requires concentration, and 'the casting of a spell' is not 'the spell'.

When I am taking that minute to cast alarm, using an action each round and concentrating on doing so, I have not 'cast another spell which requires concentration', and I have no intention of doing so.

The rule also says, "You can't concentrate on two SPELLS at once". But, while in the process of casting alarm, the second spell doesn't yet exist, so I literally cannot be concentrating on two spells at once because there is only one spell right now!

When I complete the casting process, the alarm spell comes into existence. Have I cast 'another spell which requires concentration'? No, because alarm is not 'a spell which requires concentration'.

Am I concentrating on two spells at once? No, because alarm is not 'a spell that requires concentration'.

The fact that concentration = concentration is not in dispute. The problem is that you read the rule AS IF it said that if you do ANYTHING that requires concentration the you lose invisibility (in this example). But that is not the rule.

Do you understand the difference?

ThePolarBear

2019-02-08, 05:19 AM

Therefore, the 'spellcasting' requiring concentration =/= 'the spell' requiring concentration.

No? Both are true!

Casting a spell that has a longer casting time requires your concentration.
Maintaining a spell that has a duration of concentration requires your concentration.

See? It's the same!

Changing the order of what action is required to concentrate on FOR A SPELL TO WORK is doesn't change the fact that ITS THAT SPELL that requires the concentration in the first place for that action to be performed on it or with it.

There is not a single difference in changing "to cast [...] longer casting time" to "to maintain [...] duration of concentration" in the phrase above and you still end up with the same result. Casting is still an action on a "object" - the spell -, that is the same as "maintaining".

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-08, 06:53 AM

But that is not the rule. The actual rule is, "You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell which requires concentration".
Read this very carefully. I bolded and underlined it previously, please read it carefully again.

Longer Casting Times:
Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so. If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don't expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.
You should note that it says "when you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while doing so"

"When you cast a spell" not "to begin casting" or "before casting" but "when you cast".

There is no process called "casting" as far as your concentration is concerned. You have already "cast" the spell, the difference being that you must maintain your concentration until the spell takes effect. The moment you cast a spell that must be cast for a longer time than an action or reaction, your concentration is being used to complete the casting of that spell. You are concentrating on that new spell, so you cannot concentrate on any other spell for the duration.

The fact that concentration = concentration is not in dispute. The problem is that you read the rule AS IF it said that if you do ANYTHING that requires concentration you lose invisibility (in this example). But that is not the rule.

I read it this way because every single effect that requires your concentration is either already explicitly related to having cast a spell, or in the case of class abilities like Glamour Bard's Mantle of Majesty or Trickery Cleric's Invoke Duplicity where it is told that you must concentrate on it "as if you were concentrating on a spell". There is no way for you to be concentrating on an effect that isn't considered to be concentrating on a spell. And since we all agree that you can't concentrate on two spells at once, you definitely can't cast a ritual while maintaining another concentration spell.

Arial Black

2019-02-08, 07:20 AM

Read this very carefully. I bolded and underlined it previously, please read it carefully again.

You should note that it says "when you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while doing so"

"When you cast a spell" not "to begin casting" or "before casting" but "when you cast".

There is no process called "casting" as far as your concentration is concerned. You have already "cast" the spell, the difference being that you must maintain your concentration until the spell takes effect. The moment you cast a spell that must be cast for a longer time than an action or reaction, your concentration is being used to complete the casting of that spell. You are concentrating on that new spell, so you cannot concentrate on any other spell for the duration.

Ah, so this is where you've gone wrong!

You imagine that:-

* 'casting a spell' (present tense) = 'having just finished casting a spell' (past tense)

* the cause of the spell (the entirely mundane process of saying some words, making some gestures and providing bat poop) IS 'the spell' (the resulting fireball)

* you provide the VSM components, wait for a period of time where nothing happens except you concentrating, and THEN the spell effect appears

ALL of these things are in error!

* read the spellcasting chapter. It describes the process of spellcasting (the VSM components) as the cause of 'the spell effect' = 'the spell'. There is no gap. As soon as the casting (VSM components) are successfully completed, 'the spell' appears. Not before. Not sometime after. Instantly

* when you cast a spell with a longer casting time, you are chanting, gesturing, and/or holding bat poop for the entire time. This is a mundane process. We can do it in our world! It. Is. NOT. 'The Spell'!

* you have to maintain concentration throughout the casting process. But there is no rule which says you lose your spell if you do something, anything, requiring concentration....with the SINGLE exception of casting a second spell which requires concentration. The spell itself, not what you have to do to cast the spell!

You misunderstand the relationship between 'casting a spell' and 'the resulting spell'. This is a far more serious misunderstanding than simply applying the 'no two spells which require concentration' rule incorrectly!

I can only suggest you re-read the spellcasting chapter with all this in mind. There is only so much I can do to help you in a post.

Arial Black

2019-02-08, 07:28 AM

No? Both are true!

Casting a spell that has a longer casting time requires your concentration.
Maintaining a spell that has a duration of concentration requires your concentration.

See? It's the same!

I agree. That part is not in dispute.

Changing the order of what action is required to concentrate on FOR A SPELL TO WORK is doesn't change the fact that ITS THAT SPELL that requires the concentration in the first place for that action to be performed on it or with it.

I can't correct this sentence because it doesn't make sense.

There is not a single difference in changing "to cast [...] longer casting time" to "to maintain [...] duration of concentration" in the phrase above and you still end up with the same result. Casting is still an action on a "object" - the spell -, that is the same as "maintaining".

No! Concentrating on casting a spell simply does not trigger the rule, which is all about a second spell itself requiring concentration.

Spellcasting (saying some words, making some gestures, providing some bat poop) is NOT 'the same thing' as a fireball!

We know this, beyond doubt, is because one causes the other! If they were the same thing then you could never cast a spell because you would be required to cast a spell in order to get a spell but since the spell = the casting, and since the spell cannot exist without being cast then the casting cannot exist either!

It's a total logical mess to imagine that the cause of a thing IS the thing! It is a logical impossibility!

Laolir

2019-02-08, 07:42 AM

Ah, so this is where you've gone wrong!

* read the spellcasting chapter. It describes the process of spellcasting (the VSM components) as the cause of 'the spell effect' = 'the spell'. There is no gap. As soon as the casting (VSM components) are successfully completed, 'the spell' appears. Not before. Not sometime after. Instantly

* when you cast a spell with a longer casting time, you are chanting, gesturing, and/or holding bat poop for the entire time. This is a mundane process. We can do it in our world! It. Is. NOT. 'The Spell'!

* you have to maintain concentration throughout the casting process. But there is no rule which says you lose your spell if you do something, anything, requiring concentration....with the SINGLE exception of casting a second spell which requires concentration. The spell itself, not what you have to do to cast the spell!

The spellcasting section doesn't indicate that "the spell effect" = "the spell". It says "Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."

So, the spell's effect is just one part of the spell, like it's casting time and it's name. If you cast a spell with a casting time of more than one action, you are concentrating on a spell. You aren't just concentrating on "casting a spell" you are concentrating on a specific spell. At least that's how I understand it.
And the rules says that "You can't concentrate on two spells at once."

But you do you!

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-08, 08:00 AM

* read the spellcasting chapter. It describes the process of spellcasting (the VSM components) as the cause of 'the spell effect' = 'the spell'. There is no gap. As soon as the casting (VSM components) are successfully completed, 'the spell' appears. Not before. Not sometime after. Instantly

* when you cast a spell with a longer casting time, you are chanting, gesturing, and/or holding bat poop for the entire time. This is a mundane process. We can do it in our world! It. Is. NOT. 'The Spell'!
Except it's not a mundane process. The entire process is a deliberate thing that weaves the very magic in the air into the desired result. If it were a mundane process like you're basing your argument off, any random commoner off the street could cast fireball with enough bat guano.

In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect — in most cases, all in the span of seconds.
The entire process is magical and intricate. The VSM components are integrally important to shaping the magic of the spell and if it takes an hour of very precise chanting*, purposeful handwaiving** and incense burning in a very particular kind of brazier to cast Find Familiar, you'd better believe that the entire process is both magical and precise enough that it would take your full attention.

*Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.
**Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures.

There's also this note at the top of VSM descriptions.

If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.
So yes, the VSM components are vitally important. They are "The Spell". Casting a spell for longer than an action/reaction would involve using these components for the duration, making it impossible from an in-world standpoint to rationalize how useful it would be for someone to be invisible while casting (you'd have a damn hard time hiding the open flame from your burning incense) and impossible from a gamist standpoint to rationalize how they'd be able to concentrate on both spells at once.

However, if you're intent on making such leaps of logic, I can make my own to refute you.

Concentration
The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can't concentrate on two spells at once.
See, it says "casting" right there. That includes the entire time you've spent "casting" your ritual spell. Or are you honestly trying to tell me that "casting a spell" is not the same as "casting a spell".

To be more serious on that, "Casting" and "Cast" are identical in meaning as far as your concentration is concerned. Your argument is based on them having a meaningful difference in relation to your concentration, they don't. Your maintained concentration on the casting of a spell is just as important as your maintained concentration to keep a spell you have already cast active. Both involve you concentrating on a spell.

If you were meant to be able to concentrate on the casting of a spell and the duration of a spell, the wording wouldn't have to even use "concentration". It would simply say "if you are interrupted during the casting, the spell fails to take effect".

Rhedyn

2019-02-08, 08:12 AM

And all this fun can happen at YOUR TABLE if both the GM and a player think they SHOULD follow Official ruling Sage Advice to have the best experience.

Arial Black

2019-02-08, 08:28 AM

The spellcasting section doesn't indicate that "the spell effect" = "the spell". It says "Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."

Yep. Thank you! What you just described is a long way of saying that 'the spell' IS 'the spell effect'. The fireball IS the explosion of fire that burns creatures for 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius that appears within 150 ft of you!

The spell IS 'instantaneous', but 'instantaneous' is not the fireball!

So, the spell's effect is just one part of the spell,

No, it IS the spell!

... like it's casting time and it's name.

Wait, you're saying that the NAME of the spell IS the spell! Great! I'll go round saying, "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball!" and roasting my enemies to death!

If you cast a spell with a duration of more than one action, you are concentrating on a spell.

I don't think even you mean this. If every spell with a duration (your words) of more than one action required you to concentrate on it, this would mean that EVERY non-instantaneous spell would be a concentration spell.

Perhaps you mean, "If you cast a spell with a casting time of more than one action...." That is a coherent sentence, but it's still wrong. The process of casting a spell logically cannot be 'the spell' itself, because the casting is the cause of the spell.

You aren't just concentrating on "casting a spell" you are concentrating on a specific spell.

Impossible, because while you are still in the process of casting, the casting cannot yet have been successfully completed, and until the casting is completed then 'the spell' itself does not yet exist. There is no spell on which to concentrate!

At least that's how I understand it.

You've explained how you understand it, but you are still wrong.

And the rules says that "You can't concentrate on two spells at once."

Exactly! And when you are in the process of casting the second spell, that spell cannot exist yet, therefore you are not concentrating on two spells at once because there is only one spell on which you are concentrating: your ongoing invisibility spell. Alarm doesn't exist yet, because the casting of it is not yet complete.

And if and when you successfully complete the casting process, you no longer have to concentrate on the casting process because it is finished, and you don't have to concentrate on alarm because alarm is not a spell that requires concentration, so you are not concentrating on two spells at once then either.

At no point are you concentrating on two spells at once. Yes, you are concentrating on spellcasting while you are performing the VSM components for a minute, but the rule does not make you lose your first spell if you do ANYTHING that requires concentration, only if you cast a second spell that requires concentration, because-and this is important-because you can't concentrate on two spells at once!

Laolir

2019-02-08, 09:03 AM

Yep. Thank you! What you just described is a long way of saying that 'the spell' IS 'the spell effect'. The fireball IS the explosion of fire that burns creatures for 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius that appears within 150 ft of you!

The spell IS 'instantaneous', but 'instantaneous' is not the fireball!

No, it IS the spell!

Wait, you're saying that the NAME of the spell IS the spell! Great! I'll go round saying, "Fireball! Fireball! Fireball!" and roasting my enemies to death!

No I'm saying the whole is the spell. Not just the effect, not just the name, not just the component, the whole.
Fireball is all the characteristic you can find in the spell block + the spell effect. Fireball isn't just the spell effect. A spell called Ball of fire with the exact same component, range, casting time, and effect is still another spell. Every spell that do an "explosion of fire that burns creatures for 8d6 fire damage in a 20 ft radius that appears within 150 ft of you" don't have to be fireball. If it's 5th lvl and only need V component, it's not fireball at all. It's another spell.

I don't think even you mean this. If every spell with a duration (your words) of more than one action required you to concentrate on it, this would mean that EVERY non-instantaneous spell would be a concentration spell.

Perhaps you mean, "If you cast a spell with a casting time of more than one action...." That is a coherent sentence, but it's still wrong. The process of casting a spell logically cannot be 'the spell' itself, because the casting is the cause of the spell.

Impossible, because while you are still in the process of casting, the casting cannot yet have been successfully completed, and until the casting is completed then 'the spell' itself does not yet exist. There is no spell on which to concentrate!

There's no need to be rude, but yes, my bad, I meant "casting time", not duration. And no, I don't agree with you, the casting isn't the cause of the spell, it's a part of the spell. Just like the effect. You need every part of it for the spell to work. So, when you are concentrating on the casting part of the spell, you are concentrating on a spell. The spell already exist, the effect of the spell does not.

Arial Black

2019-02-08, 09:19 AM

Except it's not a mundane process. The entire process is a deliberate thing that weaves the very magic in the air into the desired result. If it were a mundane process like you're basing your argument off, any random commoner off the street could cast fireball with enough bat guano.

Well, it would be, if we lived in a world suffused by magic! PHB p201, "A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the universe for a specific, limited expression."

I could correctly execute all the VSM components of a fireball in the real world, because saying "abracadabra", twisting my fingers into intricate gestures, and holding bat poop are all perfectly possible in our totally non-magical real world! The reason we would not expect this activity to result in a fireball is that magical energies do not suffuse the real world!

The entire process is magical and intricate. The VSM components are integrally important to shaping the magic of the spell and if it takes an hour of very precise chanting*, purposeful handwaiving** and incense burning in a very particular kind of brazier to cast Find Familiar, you'd better believe that the entire process is both magical and precise enough that it would take your full attention.

*Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion.
**Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures.

There's also this note at the top of VSM descriptions.

What it says under 'Components', the very first thing it says, is this:- "A spell's components are the PHYSICAL requirements you must meet in order to cast it. They are not magical themselves, they just shape the magical energies and release them into the world.

So yes, the VSM components are vitally important.

Yes.

They are "The Spell".

No. They literally cannot be 'the spell' itself. They cause the spell. Saying precise words and making precise gestures does not cause 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius! 'The Spell' does that!

Casting a spell for longer than an action/reaction would involve using these components for the duration, making it impossible from an in-world standpoint to rationalize how useful it would be for someone to be invisible while casting (you'd have a damn hard time hiding the open flame from your burning incense) and impossible from a gamist standpoint to rationalize how they'd be able to concentrate on both spells at once.

No-one used find familiar as the example, because it would be pointless to be invisible while casting it, I agree. But that is not the issue. Invisibility isn't a good example either to be honest, because it has its own restrictions about ending when you cast ANY spell, concentration or no.

So let's take example spells which do make sense. I'm concentrating on maintaining hex, whose duration is 'Concentration, up to 24 hours' because I used a 5th level slot to cast it. Now I want to cast alarm, 'a spell which does not require concentration' (duration: 8 hours) but whose casting, because the casting time is 1 minute, requires concentration.

When I am chanting, gesturing and concentrating on the casting process, I am not 'concentrating on two spells at once' (just one spell and one activity which is not 'a spell' itself), and when I have successfully completed the casting process I am no longer 'casting' (therefore not concentrating on casting), and since alarm does not require concentration then I am neither 'concentrating on two spells at once' (I'm only concentrating on hex, alarm does not require concentration), nor have I 'cast a second spell which requires concentration', because alarm does not require concentration.

See, it says "casting" right there. That includes the entire time you've spent "casting" your ritual spell. Or are you honestly trying to tell me that "casting a spell" is not the same as "casting a spell".

When you cast, say, fireball, first you provide the VSM components by chanting, gesturing, and providing bat poop, and THEN 'the spell' appears.

"When you begin chanting, gesturing, etc" does not mean that you have 'cast the spell' yet. No spell exists until the casting is finished. So 'the process of trying to cast a spell' is not the same thing as 'having successfully cast a spell and that spell is now in existence'.

To be more serious on that, "Casting" and "Cast" are identical in meaning as far as your concentration is concerned. Your argument is based on them having a meaningful difference in relation to your concentration, they don't.

I agree. The concentration is the same. That is not where we disagree.

Where we disagree is that you imagine that there is a rule which says you lose your first spell if you concentrate on ANYTHING else! But there is no such rule. The rule says you only lose the first spell if you successfully bring into being a second spell which requires concentration. because you can't have two spells that require concentration on the go at the same time.

There is absolutely no restriction about concentrating on ANYTHING ELSE, apart from 'another spell which requires concentration'.

Your maintained concentration on the casting of a spell is just as important as your maintained concentration to keep a spell you have already cast active.

Yes, they are both important.

Both involve you concentrating on a spell.

No, because 'casting a spell' (the mundane process of providing the VSM components) is not 'the spell itself' (a fiery explosion doing 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius).

If you were meant to be able to concentrate on the casting of a spell and the duration of a spell, the wording wouldn't have to even use "concentration". It would simply say "if you are interrupted during the casting, the spell fails to take effect".

There is more than one way to state the same thing.

Unoriginal

2019-02-08, 09:22 AM

And all this fun can happen at YOUR TABLE if both the GM and a player think they SHOULD follow Official ruling Sage Advice to have the best experience.

Very little in the last few pages have anything to do with Sage Advice.

ProsecutorGodot

2019-02-08, 09:32 AM

SNIP

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this, I just can't keep up with the logic you're using. "casting a spell" isn't the same as "casting a spell" and "when" means "after". The materials that go into shaping the magic in the air apparently hold no importance to the spells magic. "Concentrating on a spell" isn't "Concentrating on a spell" because "when" means "after". I'm really supposed to believe that the same word used in the same way means a different thing?

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me anymore.

Arial Black

2019-02-08, 09:37 AM

There's no need to be rude, but yes, my bad, I meant "casting time", not duration.

No problem, you just mis-typed. I don't think less of you for it, and a mis-type has no bearing on either of our cases. :smallsmile:

And no, I don't agree with you, the casting isn't the cause of the spell, it's a part of the spell. Just like the effect. You need every part of it for the spell to work. So, when you are concentrating on the casting part of the spell, you are concentrating on a spell. The spell already exist, the effect of the spell does not.

PHB, p203, 'Components':-

"I you can't provide one or more of the spell's (VSM) components, you are unable to cast the spell."

'Verbal':-

"...a character who is gagged or in an area of (magical silence) can't cast a spell with a verbal component."

'Somatic':-

"...the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures."

'Material':-

"...a character must have this specific component before he or she can cast the spell."

The result of all this is that if any of these components are not provided then there is no spell. If they are provided, there is a spell. Successfully providing the VSM components is what causes the spell to come into existence, and even then only if you have the power to do so, like knowing the spell or having it prepared, using an appropriate spell slot, etc.

The components cause the spell. They are not 'the spell itself'. PHB 203:- "A spell's components are the physical (not 'magical') requirements you must meet in order to cast it!"

First: components. Then: 'the spell'.