Not going to read all this stuff. It's clear that there is no RAW to cover the spell. I stopped at the point where Jeremy Crawford was mentioned. He said that he "would allow BB and GFB with shadow blade in his own games." His own games. People ask him for rules, and he answers with his personal homebrew rather than telling people the actual rules. That's one of the reasons a lot of people won't listen to a word the man says, and it also taints the Sage Advice Compendium because he might have had something to do with what he said. It's interesting that very few of the things JC tweets ever make it into the SAC. I'm not sure even the writers of the SAC listen to him.
Not going to read all this stuff. It's clear that there is no RAW to cover the spell. I stopped at the point where Jeremy Crawford was mentioned. He said that he "would allow BB and GFB with shadow blade in his own games." His own games. People ask him for rules, and he answers with his personal homebrew rather than telling people the actual rules. That's one of the reasons a lot of people won't listen to a word the man says, and it also taints the Sage Advice Compendium because he might have had something to do with what he said. It's interesting that very few of the things JC tweets ever make it into the SAC. I'm not sure even the writers of the SAC listen to him.
I was under the impression that JC heavily influenced the SAC. Most of his tweets that I see have likewise made it into the SAC. He is also listed as the author of the compendium (or at least the article releasing the compendium). It is also relatively clear that the SAC has a single main author considering the writer's frequent use of "I" throughout the compendium. But at the end of the day, I don't know for sure.
Not going to read all this stuff. It's clear that there is no RAW to cover the spell. I stopped at the point where Jeremy Crawford was mentioned. He said that he "would allow BB and GFB with shadow blade in his own games." His own games. People ask him for rules, and he answers with his personal homebrew rather than telling people the actual rules. That's one of the reasons a lot of people won't listen to a word the man says, and it also taints the Sage Advice Compendium because he might have had something to do with what he said. It's interesting that very few of the things JC tweets ever make it into the SAC. I'm not sure even the writers of the SAC listen to him.
What taints his tweets is that they aren't official, frequently contradict other tweets, and are just one man's opinion. So they're a potentially useful insight into the RAI, particularly since JS is also responsible for rules books like TCOE, but they're not binding. Many of his personal rulings about Booming Blade violate the RAW - for example, the spell currently has two targets (the caster and whomever you choose to hit), but he lets it work with War Caster. It's basically madness trying to count his tweets as RAW, although as I said, your DM or you may highly value his insight into the RAI when making your or their own judgment calls.
Not going to read all this stuff. It's clear that there is no RAW to cover the spell. I stopped at the point where Jeremy Crawford was mentioned. He said that he "would allow BB and GFB with shadow blade in his own games." His own games. People ask him for rules, and he answers with his personal homebrew rather than telling people the actual rules. That's one of the reasons a lot of people won't listen to a word the man says, and it also taints the Sage Advice Compendium because he might have had something to do with what he said. It's interesting that very few of the things JC tweets ever make it into the SAC. I'm not sure even the writers of the SAC listen to him.
What taints his tweets is that they aren't official, frequently contradict other tweets, and are just one man's opinion. So they're a potentially useful insight into the RAI, particularly since JS is also responsible for rules books like TCOE, but they're not binding. Many of his personal rulings about Booming Blade violate the RAW - for example, the spell currently has two targets (the caster and whomever you choose to hit), but he lets it work with War Caster. It's basically madness trying to count his tweets as RAW, although as I said, your DM or you may highly value his insight into the RAI when making your or their own judgment calls.
I tend to avoid gleaning too much 'knowledge" or "insight" from anything that comes in tweet form. But that's just me, personally. Call it a life choice. Clearly, not everyone in the world feels the same way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah, Crawford literally is THE writer of the SAC.
Proof of that? The portion of it which is written in the first person by JC (the "Role of the Rules" section) pre-dates the rest of the introduction which was added in... 2018? distancing SAC from JC's tweets (the "Official Rulings" section).
Maybe there's a different view of it on the WotC site which provides attributions, but as far as I'm aware, the SAC has no specific author other than WotC at this point.
Yeah, Crawford literally is THE writer of the SAC.
Proof of that? The portion of it which is written in the first person by JC (the "Role of the Rules" section) pre-dates the rest of the introduction which was added in... 2018? distancing SAC from JC's tweets (the "Official Rulings" section).
Maybe there's a different view of it on the WotC site which provides attributions, but as far as I'm aware, the SAC has no specific author other than WotC at this point.
Like I said, I didn't check the WotC compendium page, I was looking the dndbeyond source link, so I hadn't seen that... but even now, I'm pretty sure that's been there since before they added the introduction section that made clear that SAC is not just JC. If SAC is just JC, then the "we" tone of voice on that page and in the SAC itself is confusing as well...
But hey, maybe you're right. I'm not aware of any interviews that have gone in depth into whether there's an SAC team (with JC on it? led by JC? independent of JC entirely?) or what exactly is going on with it post-tweet crackdown.
Like I said, I didn't check the WotC compendium page, I was looking the dndbeyond source link, so I hadn't seen that... but even now, I'm pretty sure that's been there since before they added the introduction section that made clear that SAC is not just JC. If SAC is just JC, then the "we" tone of voice on that page and in the SAC itself is confusing as well...
But hey, maybe you're right. I'm not aware of any interviews that have gone in depth into whether there's an SAC team (with JC on it? led by JC? independent of JC entirely?) or what exactly is going on with it post-tweet crackdown.
Until October 1st 2020, the following paragraph could be found in the SAC under the Official Rulings heading:
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter)."
Hopefully this makes things a little clearer at least up until that point? In the current edition of the SAC, this paragraph has been removed.
Not going to read all this stuff. It's clear that there is no RAW to cover the spell. I stopped at the point where Jeremy Crawford was mentioned. He said that he "would allow BB and GFB with shadow blade in his own games." His own games. People ask him for rules, and he answers with his personal homebrew rather than telling people the actual rules. That's one of the reasons a lot of people won't listen to a word the man says, and it also taints the Sage Advice Compendium because he might have had something to do with what he said. It's interesting that very few of the things JC tweets ever make it into the SAC. I'm not sure even the writers of the SAC listen to him.
<Insert clever signature here>
I was under the impression that JC heavily influenced the SAC. Most of his tweets that I see have likewise made it into the SAC. He is also listed as the author of the compendium (or at least the article releasing the compendium). It is also relatively clear that the SAC has a single main author considering the writer's frequent use of "I" throughout the compendium. But at the end of the day, I don't know for sure.
Yeah, Crawford literally is THE writer of the SAC.
What taints his tweets is that they aren't official, frequently contradict other tweets, and are just one man's opinion. So they're a potentially useful insight into the RAI, particularly since JS is also responsible for rules books like TCOE, but they're not binding. Many of his personal rulings about Booming Blade violate the RAW - for example, the spell currently has two targets (the caster and whomever you choose to hit), but he lets it work with War Caster. It's basically madness trying to count his tweets as RAW, although as I said, your DM or you may highly value his insight into the RAI when making your or their own judgment calls.
I tend to avoid gleaning too much 'knowledge" or "insight" from anything that comes in tweet form. But that's just me, personally. Call it a life choice. Clearly, not everyone in the world feels the same way.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Proof of that? The portion of it which is written in the first person by JC (the "Role of the Rules" section) pre-dates the rest of the introduction which was added in... 2018? distancing SAC from JC's tweets (the "Official Rulings" section).
Maybe there's a different view of it on the WotC site which provides attributions, but as far as I'm aware, the SAC has no specific author other than WotC at this point.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Like, half the page is "about the author."
Like I said, I didn't check the WotC compendium page, I was looking the dndbeyond source link, so I hadn't seen that... but even now, I'm pretty sure that's been there since before they added the introduction section that made clear that SAC is not just JC. If SAC is just JC, then the "we" tone of voice on that page and in the SAC itself is confusing as well...
But hey, maybe you're right. I'm not aware of any interviews that have gone in depth into whether there's an SAC team (with JC on it? led by JC? independent of JC entirely?) or what exactly is going on with it post-tweet crackdown.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Until October 1st 2020, the following paragraph could be found in the SAC under the Official Rulings heading:
Hopefully this makes things a little clearer at least up until that point?
In the current edition of the SAC, this paragraph has been removed.