1. When the slashing flourish for the college of swords bard says ‘any other creature of your choice within five feet of you’, does it mean multiple creatures?
And 2. Do they take the full damage or just the extra from the Bardic Inspiration? It’s quite a contentious issue in the campaign I’m playing in.
1. It says "creature" not "creatures", so no. Just one creature, of your choice, that is not the attack target.
2. The target of your attack takes damage from your attack. The target of your Slashing Flourish takes damage equal to one roll of your bardic inspiration die.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
1. When the slashing flourish for the college of swords bard says ‘any other creature of your choice within five feet of you’, does it mean multiple creatures?
based on my reading, It is the target plus one other creature within the stated range. I would not read this as to be more than one additional creature (because they did not say “any other creatures”)
And 2. Do they take the full damage or just the extra from the Bardic Inspiration? It’s quite a contentious issue in the campaign I’m playing in.
the additional creature only take the damage from the Bardic inspiration die, not any other damage
1. It says "creature" not "creatures", so no. Just one creature, of your choice, that is not the attack target.
2. The target of your attack takes damage from your attack. The target of your Slashing Flourish takes damage equal to one roll of your bardic inspiration die.
1. When the slashing flourish for the college of swords bard says ‘any other creature of your choice within five feet of you’, does it mean multiple creatures?
based on my reading, It is the target plus one other creature within the stated range. I would not read this as to be more than one additional creature (because they did not say “any other creatures”)
And 2. Do they take the full damage or just the extra from the Bardic Inspiration? It’s quite a contentious issue in the campaign I’m playing in.
the additional creature only take the damage from the Bardic inspiration die, not any other damage
You said there was a lot of contention. I would suggest you ignore anything Jeremy Crawford has to say in a tweet. The things he says are sometimes useful, but he has a habit of talking about homebrew he uses in his own games, and at other times he's just flat out wrong. Few people in this forum are willing to treat anything he says as official. I wouldn't bring it up in something that's already a problem and confuse things even more.
Best to check with your DM on how they want to run it!
Anything from JC that wasn’t later added to the Sage Advice Compendium isn’t considered “official”. He’s been known to be wrong, and in this case I think he is. “Any” in this context was paired with a singular noun “creature” which in plain English would mean a singular creature, not multiples.
but ultimately it is up to the DM to rule one way or another.
You said there was a lot of contention. I would suggest you ignore anything Jeremy Crawford has to say in a tweet. The things he says are sometimes useful, but he has a habit of talking about homebrew he uses in his own games, and at other times he's just flat out wrong. Few people in this forum are willing to treat anything he says as official. I wouldn't bring it up in something that's already a problem and confuse things even more.
JCs tweets are unofficial, and while he might be "wrong" (rarely), he is most often "right". He is the Lead Rules designer of D&D and as such the authority regarding what is RAI. Whenever he talks about homebrew, he makes it clear that is the case. Homebrewing doesn't invalidate someone's knowledge about the rules. So if you're looking to settle a dispute, first decide by what measure you're judging the result: if you believe a creator's intention has any weight in a discussion about a rule he created, then JCs tweets are a very good place to argue from, though SAC would be even better as they are official explanations.
JC has a tendency to misread questions and/or answer in an unclear way (which should come as no surprise since he wrote the unclear rules the questions are about). This is part of the reason his answers tend to contradict the rules and eachother (the other part is him changing his mind about how the rule should work).
He is only human, and his opinions have barely more weight than anyone else's. When it come to rules discussions, arguments should be backed by quotes from the rules if at all possible.
JC has a tendency to misread questions and/or answer in an unclear way (which should come as no surprise since he wrote the unclear rules the questions are about). This is part of the reason his answers tend to contradict the rules and eachother (the other part is him changing his mind about how the rule should work).
He is only human, and his opinions have barely more weight than anyone else's. When it come to rules discussions, arguments should be backed by quotes from the rules if at all possible.
I don’t know - I trust Crawford way more than almost anyone on this board when it comes to intention.
JC has a tendency to misread questions and/or answer in an unclear way (which should come as no surprise since he wrote the unclear rules the questions are about). This is part of the reason his answers tend to contradict the rules and eachother (the other part is him changing his mind about how the rule should work).
He is only human, and his opinions have barely more weight than anyone else's. When it come to rules discussions, arguments should be backed by quotes from the rules if at all possible.
I don’t know - I trust Crawford way more than almost anyone on this board when it comes to intention.
No one’s saying you can’t, but it’s only one persons intent, not the whole slate of designers (Crawford isn’t the sole designer) and it’s unpublished (which gives it even less weight). In this case, if that tweet was his intent, he could have chosen better (or at least clearer) words, because his intent and the RAW don’t align. All it would have taken was adding an “s” to “creature” or changing “any” to “all”, and the RAW would have matched the intent (at least per that tweet) perfectly
JC has a tendency to misread questions and/or answer in an unclear way (which should come as no surprise since he wrote the unclear rules the questions are about). This is part of the reason his answers tend to contradict the rules and eachother (the other part is him changing his mind about how the rule should work).
He is only human, and his opinions have barely more weight than anyone else's. When it come to rules discussions, arguments should be backed by quotes from the rules if at all possible.
I don’t know - I trust Crawford way more than almost anyone on this board when it comes to intention.
No one’s saying you can’t, but it’s only one persons intent, not the whole slate of designers (Crawford isn’t the sole designer) and it’s unpublished (which gives it even less weight). In this case, if that tweet was his intent, he could have chosen better (or at least clearer) words, because his intent and the RAW don’t align. All it would have taken was adding an “s” to “creature” or changing “any” to “all”, and the RAW would have matched the intent (at least per that tweet) perfectly
Yeah… I’m gonna go with “nothing is ever edited perfectly” and Crawford was primary rules designer being held in fairly high regard over “nothing is ever printed wrong”. I dunno guys - leave it to the DM.
JC has a tendency to misread questions and/or answer in an unclear way (which should come as no surprise since he wrote the unclear rules the questions are about). This is part of the reason his answers tend to contradict the rules and eachother (the other part is him changing his mind about how the rule should work).
He is only human, and his opinions have barely more weight than anyone else's. When it come to rules discussions, arguments should be backed by quotes from the rules if at all possible.
I don’t know - I trust Crawford way more than almost anyone on this board when it comes to intention.
No one’s saying you can’t, but it’s only one persons intent, not the whole slate of designers (Crawford isn’t the sole designer) and it’s unpublished (which gives it even less weight). In this case, if that tweet was his intent, he could have chosen better (or at least clearer) words, because his intent and the RAW don’t align. All it would have taken was adding an “s” to “creature” or changing “any” to “all”, and the RAW would have matched the intent (at least per that tweet) perfectly
Yeah… I’m gonna go with “nothing is ever edited perfectly” and Crawford was primary rules designer being held in fairly high regard over “nothing is ever printed wrong”. I dunno guys - leave it to the DM.
If something is printed wrong to a degree that it effects how it is played, they errata it. If it has not been errata'd it is not wrong.
If you want to supplement your decision-making material with a reference of similar wording take a look at the Faerie Fire spell. If you allow this spell to affect multiple creatures, it would make sense to have Slashing Flourish affect multiple creatures as well.
If you want to supplement your decision-making material with a reference of similar wording take a look at the Faerie Fire spell. If you allow this spell to affect multiple creatures, it would make sense to have Slashing Flourish affect multiple creatures as well.
But it isn't similar. One generally refers to any creature, while another has qualifiers that it has to be an other creature.
Slashing flourish is the only feature or spell that uses this wording that I can find. Others that work similarly all say "a different creature" instead of "any other creature." So there is some argument to be made that is meant to be different, but there are a number of ways the writers could have made their intentions clearer. "Any number of other creatures" would have been clearest.
If you want to supplement your decision-making material with a reference of similar wording take a look at the Faerie Fire spell. If you allow this spell to affect multiple creatures, it would make sense to have Slashing Flourish affect multiple creatures as well.
But it isn't similar. One generally refers to any creature, while another has qualifiers that it has to be an other creature.
Slashing flourish is the only feature or spell that uses this wording that I can find. Others that work similarly all say "a different creature" instead of "any other creature." So there is some argument to be made that is meant to be different, but there are a number of ways the writers could have made their intentions clearer. "Any number of other creatures" would have been clearest.
But clarity has never been a concern in 5e.
It does not say "another creature" it says "any other creature", "other" simply meaning that you can't choose the primary target again.
If you dont see the obvious similarity between "any creature" and "any other creature" in a discussion regarding the use of plural/singular, I believe you're in the minority. Either way, I simply put the reference for OP to interpret.
If you want to supplement your decision-making material with a reference of similar wording take a look at the Faerie Fire spell. If you allow this spell to affect multiple creatures, it would make sense to have Slashing Flourish affect multiple creatures as well.
But it isn't similar. One generally refers to any creature, while another has qualifiers that it has to be an other creature.
Slashing flourish is the only feature or spell that uses this wording that I can find. Others that work similarly all say "a different creature" instead of "any other creature." So there is some argument to be made that is meant to be different, but there are a number of ways the writers could have made their intentions clearer. "Any number of other creatures" would have been clearest.
But clarity has never been a concern in 5e.
It does not say "another creature" it says "any other creature", "other" simply meaning that you can't choose the primary target again.
If you dont see the obvious similarity between "any creature" and "any other creature" in a discussion regarding the use of plural/singular, I believe you're in the minority. Either way, I simply put the reference for OP to interpret.
Who said I didn't? I'm simply pointing out that all effects that involve choosing targets tell you exactly how many you can target unless it is one. Can you find any other example where that is not the case?
JC has a tendency to misread questions and/or answer in an unclear way (which should come as no surprise since he wrote the unclear rules the questions are about). This is part of the reason his answers tend to contradict the rules and eachother (the other part is him changing his mind about how the rule should work).
He is only human, and his opinions have barely more weight than anyone else's. When it come to rules discussions, arguments should be backed by quotes from the rules if at all possible.
I don’t know - I trust Crawford way more than almost anyone on this board when it comes to intention.
No one’s saying you can’t, but it’s only one persons intent, not the whole slate of designers (Crawford isn’t the sole designer) and it’s unpublished (which gives it even less weight). In this case, if that tweet was his intent, he could have chosen better (or at least clearer) words, because his intent and the RAW don’t align. All it would have taken was adding an “s” to “creature” or changing “any” to “all”, and the RAW would have matched the intent (at least per that tweet) perfectly
Yeah… I’m gonna go with “nothing is ever edited perfectly” and Crawford was primary rules designer being held in fairly high regard over “nothing is ever printed wrong”. I dunno guys - leave it to the DM.
If something is printed wrong to a degree that it effects how it is played, they errata it. If it has not been errata'd it is not wrong.
… until it’s errata’d again. That’s just one way of claiming that RAW is the only form of rules that can be accepted, but that’s also not how DnD works - the rules are synthesized by a DM and they base their ideas around RAW and RAI and RAF. Saying that the “lead rules designer” of the entire game has almost no more relevance for RAI than any other schlub on the Internet is dishonest.
For example: the size of the Sage Advice Compendium is hundreds of pages smaller than the entire rule set, which implies that JC got vastly more “correct” and edited properly than anyone had even questioned. To write him off as somehow unreliable because he changed his mind on a couple things? That’s again, overgeneralized.
edit: this reads to me like a reader telling a poet what *they* meant when *they* wrote the poem, even when a poet is telling you exactly what they meant. You can disagree with RAI or JC, but that doesn’t diminish his impression when he’s telling you what he meant by it. It also doesn’t stop the reader from interpreting it in their own way and disregarding the poet. But to claim to others that the poet can’t be trusted any more than any other reader when determining what the poet intended… that doesn’t fit that at all.
edit: this reads to me like a reader telling a poet what *they* meant when *they* wrote the poem, even when a poet is telling you exactly what they meant. You can disagree with RAI or JC, but that doesn’t diminish his impression when he’s telling you what he meant by it. It also doesn’t stop the reader from interpreting it in their own way and disregarding the poet. But to claim to others that the poet can’t be trusted any more than any other reader when determining what the poet intended… that doesn’t fit that at all.
It's generally only of interest what the rules writer intended when what came out was word salad, like the Artillerist/Spirits Bard ability to "cast through" a focus. When the RAW is unambiguous and clear, it's hard to see why anyone would care what the RAI was. Certainly the original poest is no more trustworthy than any other reader when parsing the RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have two questions on the wording of the rules:
1. When the slashing flourish for the college of swords bard says ‘any other creature of your choice within five feet of you’, does it mean multiple creatures?
And 2. Do they take the full damage or just the extra from the Bardic Inspiration? It’s quite a contentious issue in the campaign I’m playing in.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
1. It says "creature" not "creatures", so no. Just one creature, of your choice, that is not the attack target.
2. The target of your attack takes damage from your attack. The target of your Slashing Flourish takes damage equal to one roll of your bardic inspiration die.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
based on my reading, It is the target plus one other creature within the stated range. I would not read this as to be more than one additional creature (because they did not say “any other creatures”)
the additional creature only take the damage from the Bardic inspiration die, not any other damage
Ok, thanks to both of you.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
As per an old tweet, the intention may have been to have multiple extra creatures allowed to be targeted.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-slashing-flourish-mean-you-only-deal-extra-damage-to-one-other-creature-within-5ft/
Best to check with your DM on how they want to run it!
You said there was a lot of contention. I would suggest you ignore anything Jeremy Crawford has to say in a tweet. The things he says are sometimes useful, but he has a habit of talking about homebrew he uses in his own games, and at other times he's just flat out wrong. Few people in this forum are willing to treat anything he says as official. I wouldn't bring it up in something that's already a problem and confuse things even more.
<Insert clever signature here>
Anything from JC that wasn’t later added to the Sage Advice Compendium isn’t considered “official”. He’s been known to be wrong, and in this case I think he is. “Any” in this context was paired with a singular noun “creature” which in plain English would mean a singular creature, not multiples.
but ultimately it is up to the DM to rule one way or another.
JCs tweets are unofficial, and while he might be "wrong" (rarely), he is most often "right". He is the Lead Rules designer of D&D and as such the authority regarding what is RAI. Whenever he talks about homebrew, he makes it clear that is the case. Homebrewing doesn't invalidate someone's knowledge about the rules. So if you're looking to settle a dispute, first decide by what measure you're judging the result: if you believe a creator's intention has any weight in a discussion about a rule he created, then JCs tweets are a very good place to argue from, though SAC would be even better as they are official explanations.
JC has a tendency to misread questions and/or answer in an unclear way (which should come as no surprise since he wrote the unclear rules the questions are about). This is part of the reason his answers tend to contradict the rules and eachother (the other part is him changing his mind about how the rule should work).
He is only human, and his opinions have barely more weight than anyone else's. When it come to rules discussions, arguments should be backed by quotes from the rules if at all possible.
I don’t know - I trust Crawford way more than almost anyone on this board when it comes to intention.
No one’s saying you can’t, but it’s only one persons intent, not the whole slate of designers (Crawford isn’t the sole designer) and it’s unpublished (which gives it even less weight). In this case, if that tweet was his intent, he could have chosen better (or at least clearer) words, because his intent and the RAW don’t align. All it would have taken was adding an “s” to “creature” or changing “any” to “all”, and the RAW would have matched the intent (at least per that tweet) perfectly
Yeah… I’m gonna go with “nothing is ever edited perfectly” and Crawford was primary rules designer being held in fairly high regard over “nothing is ever printed wrong”. I dunno guys - leave it to the DM.
If something is printed wrong to a degree that it effects how it is played, they errata it. If it has not been errata'd it is not wrong.
If you want to supplement your decision-making material with a reference of similar wording take a look at the Faerie Fire spell. If you allow this spell to affect multiple creatures, it would make sense to have Slashing Flourish affect multiple creatures as well.
But it isn't similar. One generally refers to any creature, while another has qualifiers that it has to be an other creature.
Slashing flourish is the only feature or spell that uses this wording that I can find. Others that work similarly all say "a different creature" instead of "any other creature." So there is some argument to be made that is meant to be different, but there are a number of ways the writers could have made their intentions clearer. "Any number of other creatures" would have been clearest.
But clarity has never been a concern in 5e.
And ruleswise, 5e is the “clearest” edition of D&D I have ever played.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It does not say "another creature" it says "any other creature", "other" simply meaning that you can't choose the primary target again.
If you dont see the obvious similarity between "any creature" and "any other creature" in a discussion regarding the use of plural/singular, I believe you're in the minority. Either way, I simply put the reference for OP to interpret.
Who said I didn't? I'm simply pointing out that all effects that involve choosing targets tell you exactly how many you can target unless it is one. Can you find any other example where that is not the case?
… until it’s errata’d again. That’s just one way of claiming that RAW is the only form of rules that can be accepted, but that’s also not how DnD works - the rules are synthesized by a DM and they base their ideas around RAW and RAI and RAF. Saying that the “lead rules designer” of the entire game has almost no more relevance for RAI than any other schlub on the Internet is dishonest.
For example: the size of the Sage Advice Compendium is hundreds of pages smaller than the entire rule set, which implies that JC got vastly more “correct” and edited properly than anyone had even questioned. To write him off as somehow unreliable because he changed his mind on a couple things? That’s again, overgeneralized.
edit: this reads to me like a reader telling a poet what *they* meant when *they* wrote the poem, even when a poet is telling you exactly what they meant. You can disagree with RAI or JC, but that doesn’t diminish his impression when he’s telling you what he meant by it. It also doesn’t stop the reader from interpreting it in their own way and disregarding the poet. But to claim to others that the poet can’t be trusted any more than any other reader when determining what the poet intended… that doesn’t fit that at all.
It's generally only of interest what the rules writer intended when what came out was word salad, like the Artillerist/Spirits Bard ability to "cast through" a focus. When the RAW is unambiguous and clear, it's hard to see why anyone would care what the RAI was. Certainly the original poest is no more trustworthy than any other reader when parsing the RAW.