I gave my interpretation. Im sorry I do not agree that Crawford thinks time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike. But that is my interpretation; he is saying the spell must be cast in the time frame when Eldritch Strike is active.
I asked you to interpret what the questioner meant by "previous" - and you literally said "it does not matter" (which is an excuse NOT to answer). And now you claim "I gave my interpretation" when you know as a fact you did not.
You also know I am not arguing that Crawford thinks "time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike, " yet you made a conscious decision to mischaracterize my argument.
You, sir, are a dishonest interlocutor.
I said the question doesn't matter because Crawford wasn't agreeing/disagreeing with it. The questioner could mean anything whatsoever by "previously," and nothing about Crawford's answer needs to be construed as depending on that at all.
You want "spell you cast" to be "spell you have cast or cast while Eldritch Strike is in effect." It is time travel shenanigans, even if the example I used was extreme. The developer says you have to cast the spell while Eldritch Strike is in effect, and so does the text of the feature. Its just that simple.
I gave my interpretation. Im sorry I do not agree that Crawford thinks time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike. But that is my interpretation; he is saying the spell must be cast in the time frame when Eldritch Strike is active.
I asked you to interpret what the questioner meant by "previous" - and you literally said "it does not matter" (which is an excuse NOT to answer). And now you claim "I gave my interpretation" when you know as a fact you did not.
You also know I am not arguing that Crawford thinks "time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike, " yet you made a conscious decision to mischaracterize my argument.
You, sir, are a dishonest interlocutor.
I said the question doesn't matter because Crawford wasn't agreeing/disagreeing with it. The questioner could mean anything whatsoever by "previously," and nothing about Crawford's answer needs to be construed as depending on that at all.
You want "spell you cast" to be "spell you have cast or cast while Eldritch Strike is in effect." It is time travel shenanigans, even if the example I used was extreme. The developer says you have to cast the spell while Eldritch Strike is in effect, and so does the text of the feature. Its just that simple.
While Crawford's answers are sometimes a bit murky, the notion that when he responds to questions he's not at leastintendingto answer them is pretty preposterous.
The questioner asked if eldritch strike applies to spells cast "previously" (in other words: first spell, then strike with a weapon).
In his ANSWER, Crawford included, "This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn."
So, Q: (paraphrased) "does ES work on a spell I previously cast, before my weapon attack" A: "It works against a spell you cast at any point"
All four other participants in his thread agree that's what he's saying. My interpretation of his answer is not even controversial. You are the outlier here.
I gave my interpretation. Im sorry I do not agree that Crawford thinks time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike. But that is my interpretation; he is saying the spell must be cast in the time frame when Eldritch Strike is active.
I asked you to interpret what the questioner meant by "previous" - and you literally said "it does not matter" (which is an excuse NOT to answer). And now you claim "I gave my interpretation" when you know as a fact you did not.
You also know I am not arguing that Crawford thinks "time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike, " yet you made a conscious decision to mischaracterize my argument.
You, sir, are a dishonest interlocutor.
I said the question doesn't matter because Crawford wasn't agreeing/disagreeing with it. The questioner could mean anything whatsoever by "previously," and nothing about Crawford's answer needs to be construed as depending on that at all.
You want "spell you cast" to be "spell you have cast or cast while Eldritch Strike is in effect." It is time travel shenanigans, even if the example I used was extreme. The developer says you have to cast the spell while Eldritch Strike is in effect, and so does the text of the feature. Its just that simple.
While Crawford's answers are sometimes a bit murky, the notion that when he responds to questions he's not at leastintendingto answer them is pretty preposterous.
The questioner asked if eldritch strike applies to spells cast "previously" (in other words: first spell, then strike with a weapon).
In his ANSWER, Crawford included, "This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn."
So, Q: (paraphrased) "does ES work on a spell I previously cast, before my weapon attack" A: "It works against a spell you cast at any point"
I never said Crawford isn't even intending to answer, he just has a habit of reciting the rules as an answer. Reciting the rules does not mean agreeing/disagreeing with the questioner, it means he believes the answer is obvious.
His answer just slightly rewords the actual text of the actual feature "it works against a spell you cast at any point" (as in at any point while the feature is active).
Your interpretation takes his original answer in the thread, that the feature is made to work while its active, and makes it a lie. I won't accuse Crawford and the other developers of being 100% consistent, but changing his mind between tweets is a bit much.
I don't think its game breaking anyways, and EK has so many features that don't click for me that I'd allow it at my table as semi-homebrew. Its just not RAW or RAI.
I never said Crawford isn't even intending to answer, he just has a habit of reciting the rules as an answer. Reciting the rules does not mean agreeing/disagreeing with the questioner, it means he believes the answer is obvious.
His answer just slightly rewords the actual text of the actual feature "it works against a spell you cast at any point" (as in at any point while the feature is active).
Your interpretation takes his original answer in the thread, that the feature is made to work while its active, and makes it a lie. I won't accuse Crawford and the other developers of being 100% consistent, but changing his mind between tweets is a bit much.
I don't think its game breaking anyways, and EK has so many features that don't click for me that I'd allow it at my table as semi-homebrew. Its just not RAW or RAI.
First of all there's no agree or disagree. He was responding to a question, not a claim.
He did a lot more than recite the rules, he elaborated and explained them as they pertain to his specific question. The part about it working against a spell you cast "at any point" is not even in the rules. It was a direct answer to the question about whether ES works against a spell you cast previous to the attack that triggers ES.
The answer: "This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn."
He did NOT say "at any point during that period" which you're just kind of adding yourself. He just said "at any point." He DID specify a time window for both the effects of ES and when the saving throw is made. But only said "at any point" for when the spell is cast. You also cannot ignore that this was a direct answer to whether the spell can have been cast "previously"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I said the question doesn't matter because Crawford wasn't agreeing/disagreeing with it. The questioner could mean anything whatsoever by "previously," and nothing about Crawford's answer needs to be construed as depending on that at all.
You want "spell you cast" to be "spell you have cast or cast while Eldritch Strike is in effect." It is time travel shenanigans, even if the example I used was extreme. The developer says you have to cast the spell while Eldritch Strike is in effect, and so does the text of the feature. Its just that simple.
While Crawford's answers are sometimes a bit murky, the notion that when he responds to questions he's not at least intending to answer them is pretty preposterous.
The questioner asked if eldritch strike applies to spells cast "previously" (in other words: first spell, then strike with a weapon).
In his ANSWER, Crawford included, "This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn."
So, Q: (paraphrased) "does ES work on a spell I previously cast, before my weapon attack" A: "It works against a spell you cast at any point"
Of note, here's a thread discussing his answer.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/fighter/113722-eldritch-knight-eldritch-strike-confirmation
All four other participants in his thread agree that's what he's saying. My interpretation of his answer is not even controversial. You are the outlier here.
I never said Crawford isn't even intending to answer, he just has a habit of reciting the rules as an answer. Reciting the rules does not mean agreeing/disagreeing with the questioner, it means he believes the answer is obvious.
His answer just slightly rewords the actual text of the actual feature "it works against a spell you cast at any point" (as in at any point while the feature is active).
Your interpretation takes his original answer in the thread, that the feature is made to work while its active, and makes it a lie. I won't accuse Crawford and the other developers of being 100% consistent, but changing his mind between tweets is a bit much.
I don't think its game breaking anyways, and EK has so many features that don't click for me that I'd allow it at my table as semi-homebrew. Its just not RAW or RAI.
First of all there's no agree or disagree. He was responding to a question, not a claim.
He did a lot more than recite the rules, he elaborated and explained them as they pertain to his specific question. The part about it working against a spell you cast "at any point" is not even in the rules. It was a direct answer to the question about whether ES works against a spell you cast previous to the attack that triggers ES.
The answer: "This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn."
He did NOT say "at any point during that period" which you're just kind of adding yourself. He just said "at any point." He DID specify a time window for both the effects of ES and when the saving throw is made. But only said "at any point" for when the spell is cast. You also cannot ignore that this was a direct answer to whether the spell can have been cast "previously"