Most attacks vs 1 target in 1 turn: 22? Can anyone do better?

[Valmark]

Damon_Tor presented a ruling that was unreasonable and that breaks the game.

I never presented an overly strict RAW. I simply presented the RAW. If you think otherwise please clarify where I was overly strict and please clarify what exactly you are taking issue with.

If you want to know what I consider RAI you simply need to consult the SAC. Otherwise, the rulebook provides the way to rule based on the rules on the page (ie RAW). I adhere to that whether I am acting as a DM or Player. And that is generally the case for the high level players who come together to do PvP. Fairness, neutral arbitration, and reasonable rulings are simply key to the success of any PvP or Battle Royale.

This is what you are arguing as unreasonable:

Said ruling only exists in a single context: a player arguing that the Deva shapeshange ability should be played by RAW to allow for an arbitrary number of stacked abilities instead of the clear RAI that would not. Arguing that RAW should be followed in precisely the manner that favors your tactic while falling back to the intent of the developers wherever it would hinder you isn't reasonable.

You claim that discarding the RAI for an overly strict RAW ruling isn't reasonable while mantaining the stance that making such a ruling in answer to a player that wants to use an overly strict RAW despite it going against RAI isn't reasonable.

There is an obvious contradiction here. Either one sticks to RAW discarding RAI wether bad or good or doesn't discard RAI. One can't just get the most favorable ruling for themselves regardless of logic, which is what Damon said and that you're arguing against.

[J.C.]

This is what you are arguing as unreasonable:



You claim that discarding the RAI for an overly strict RAW ruling isn't reasonable while mantaining the stance that making such a ruling in answer to a player that wants to use an overly strict RAW despite it going against RAI isn't reasonable.

There is an obvious contradiction here. Either one sticks to RAW discarding RAI wether bad or good or doesn't discard RAI. One can't just get the most favorable ruling for themselves regardless of logic, which is what Damon said and that you're arguing against.

Can you clarify what exactly are we talking about (as in which rule issue)?

Also can you point to the ruling in the SAC that is in question here?

[Lunatism]

To conclude all these posts.

J.C. : "I will disclose my awesome 30+ attack solution only if the rules favors me! Everything else are unofficial!"

[J.C.]

To conclude all these posts.

J.C. : "I will disclose my awesome 30+ attack solution only if the rules favors me! Everything else are unofficial!"

To clarify, I adhere to the SAC which designates its rulings as official and all other rulings unofficial. Do you have an issue with the SAC?

[Lunatism]

To clarify, I adhere to the SAC which designates its rulings as official and all other rulings unofficial. Do you have an issue with the SAC?

{Scrubbed}

[J.C.]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You are welcome to your opinion.

However, I follow official guidelines. The SAC provides the RAI and, where RAI is not provided, the rules on the page provide the RAW.

[Lunatism]

I follow official guidelines. The SAC provides the RAI and, where RAI is not provided, the rules on the page provide the RAW.

As you said, you are welcome to your opinion.

[J.C.]

As you said, you are welcome to your opinion.

My opinion coincides with the official view.

I adhere to the SAC.

Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. 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 public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. The tweets of Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), the game’s principal rules designer, are sometimes a preview of rulings that appear here.

[Lunatism]

My opinion coincides with the official view.

Noted with thanks.

[Valmark]

To clarify, I adhere to the SAC which designates its rulings as official and all other rulings unofficial. Do you have an issue with the SAC?

Note that the SAC doesn't designate other rulings as unofficial- in fact it defers to the DM's judgement.

Can you clarify what exactly are we talking about (as in which rule issue)?

Also can you point to the ruling in the SAC that is in question here?

This is the ruling you're arguing against:

In the specific case of the Deva's shapeshifting ability, yes, that's my ruling. By RAW you can accumulate as many abilities as you have forms to take on, but you have no ability to choose specific forms, and can wind up with "abilities" that are harmful, such as the inability to breathe air. And so for the purposes of this thought experiment, the ability to use this ability in this way is unreliable, and can be put in the same category as "casting Wish to gain the ability to attack 5,000,000 times per turn". Technically it could work if the DM allowed it.

A RAW argument in clear violation of RAI is fine, but it has to be iron clad. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

There is no ruling in the SAC about this. You're arguing that a DM making a RAW ruling that violates the RAI if a player makes a RAW argument that violates the RAI isn't a fair or reasonable DM.

[J.C.]

Note that the SAC doesn't designate other rulings as unofficial- in fact it defers to the DM's judgement.



This is the ruling you're arguing against:



There is no ruling in the SAC about this. You're arguing that a DM making a RAW ruling that violates the RAI if a player makes a RAW argument that violates the RAI isn't a fair or reasonable DM.

In addition to being unfair and unreasonable, Damon_Tor's ruling carries with it the logical consequence of breaking the game. Others referred to his ruling as "silly".

I never proposed anything that goes against RAW or RAI or that has the logical consequence of breaking the game.

Damon_Tor has expressed interest in not being the arbiter and not having to rule fairly and sensibly. He could nominate someone who is prepared to be a neutral arbiter and to rule fairly and sensibly.

[MaxWilson]

In addition to being unfair and unreasonable, Damon_Tor's ruling carries with it the logical consequence of breaking the game. Others referred to his ruling as "silly".

No. I referred to the rule as silly. The ruling is a clever, if deliberately perverse, response to a rule lawyer's attempt to twist the rules. It would be more accurate to say "Others praised his ruling as brilliant" except that there weren't "others" (plural), just me.

[J.C.]

No. I referred to the rule as silly. The ruling is a clever, if deliberately perverse, response to a rule lawyer's attempt to twist the rules. It would be more accurate to say "Others praised his ruling as brilliant" except that there weren't "others" (plural), just me.

Who is the rule lawyer you are referring to and what rule exactly is being twisted by this rule lawyer and how is he/she twisting the rule exactly?

[MaxWilson]

Who is the rule lawyer you are referring to and what rule exactly is being twisted by this rule lawyer and how is he/she twisting the rule exactly?

Who and what wasn't really the point, but since you're insisting on a confrontation, the answers to your questions are:

You. Deva shapechange. You know perfectly well that permanent ability gain is not the intent of Shapechange.

[LudicSavant]

@J.C. Why won't you post a link to your competitive venue?

[J.C.]

Who and what wasn't really the point, but since you're insisting on a confrontation, the answers to your questions are:

You. Deva shapechange. You know perfectly well that permanent ability gain is not the intent of Shapechange.

What happens when you apply the Changeshape rule as it is written?

Can you or I speak to the intent of Shapechange? Intent (RAI) is the domain of the Sage Advice Compendium, correct?

I am doing the opposite of rule lawyering. I am allowing the words of ChangeShape to be applied as written.

[MaxWilson]

What happens when you apply the Changeshape rule as it is written?

Can you or I speak to the intent of Shapechange? Intent (RAI) is the domain of the Sage Advice Compendium, correct?

I answered your questions, and you're not interesting enough for me to want to let you drive the conversation. Either answer questions you've been dodging for pages (e.g. LudicSavant has asked multiple times for information about your venue, others have asked for evidence that you do in fact have a build that can do the things you claim it can) or accept that you have no credibility any more on this thread. Until then, goodbye.

[J.C.]

I answered your questions, and you're not interesting enough for me to want to let you drive the conversation. Either answer questions you've been dodging for pages (e.g. LudicSavant has asked multiple times for information about your venue, others have asked for evidence that you do in fact have a build that can do the things you claim it can) or accept that you have no credibility any more on this thread. Until then, goodbye.

I indicated at the beginning of the thread that I will share my solutions once we have agreed upon fair and sensible ground rules.

[MaxWilson]

I indicated at the beginning of the thread that I will share my solutions once we have agreed upon fair and sensible ground rules.

And by this point it's become clear that any old ground rules won't do--you have specific ground rules you're angling toward, and you cagily refuse to say anything interesting until you get them. Not interested in playing that game for another 77 pages, so goodbye.

[J.C.]

And by this point it's become clear that any old ground rules won't do--you have specific ground rules you're angling toward, and you cagily refuse to say anything interesting until you get them. Not interested in playing that game for another 77 pages, so goodbye.

The Sage Advice Compendium provides official ground rules. Do you have issue with the Sage Advice Compendium?

[Valmark]

In addition to being unfair and unreasonable, Damon_Tor's ruling carries with it the logical consequence of breaking the game. Others referred to his ruling as "silly".

I never proposed anything that goes against RAW or RAI or that has the logical consequence of breaking the game.

Damon_Tor has expressed interest in not being the arbiter and not having to rule fairly and sensibly. He could nominate someone who is prepared to be a neutral arbiter and to rule fairly and sensibly.

It doesn't carry any such logical consequence because it only exist for a player who is trying to break the RAI, not for everybody.

You proposed such trick so yes, you proposed something like that.

The Sage Advice Compendium provides official ground rules. Do you have issue with the Sage Advice Compendium?

Which doesn't figure here because there is no ruling from there on the matter.

[Lunatism]

{Scrubbed}

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: closed for review.