# Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019



## MechaTarrasque (Jan 31, 2019)

The official D&D Sage Advice Compendium, by Jeremy Crawford, has been updated.

View attachment 104488​

New items include:

*Can a dragonborn sorcerer with a draconic bloodline have two different kinds of Draconic Ancestry?* A dragonborn sorcerer can choose a different ancestor for the racial trait and for the Dragon Ancestor feature. Your choice for the racial trait is your actual ancestor, while the choice for the class feature could be your ancestor figuratively—the type of dragon that bestowed magic upon you or your family or the kind of draconic artifact or location that filled you with magical energy. 

*Do the benefits from Bardic Inspiration and the guidance spell stack? Can they be applied to the same roll? *Yes, different effects stack if they don’t have the same name. If a creature makes an ability check while it is under the effect of a guidance spell and also has a Bardic Inspiration die, it can roll both a d4 and a d6 if it so chooses. 

*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? If used on a damage roll, does Cutting Words apply to any kind of damage roll including an auto-hit spell like magic missile? *
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. You can use Cutting Words to reduce the damage from any effect that calls for a damage roll (including magic missile) even if the damage roll is not preceded by an attack roll.

*Does the fighter’s Action Surge feature let you take an extra bonus action, in addition to an extra action?* Action Surge gives you an extra action, not an extra bonus action. (Recent printings of the Player’s Handbook no longer include the wording that provoked this question.)

*Can a bound and gagged druid simply use Wild Shape to get out? *It’s hard to capture someone who can turn into a mouse at will. Transforming into a different size can be an effective way of escaping, depending on the nature of the bonds or confinement. All things considered, someone trying to keep a druid captive might be wise to stash the prisoner in a room with an opening only large enough for air to enter.

*Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?* Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.

*Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades? *No. Each of these features has a precondition for its use; Reliable Talent activates when you make an ability check that uses your proficiency bonus, whereas the other two features activate when you make an ability check that doesn’t use your proficiency bonus. In other words, a check that qualifies for Reliable Talent doesn’t qualify for Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades. And Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades don’t work with each other, since you can add your proficiency bonus, or any portion thereof, only once to a roll.

*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. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The "if" must be satisfied before the "then" comes into play.

*Is there a hard limit on how many short rests characters can take in a day, or is this purely up to the DM to decide?* The only hard limit on the number of short rests you can take is the number of hours in a day. In practice, you’re also limited by time pressures in the story and foes interrupting.

*If the damage from disintegrate reduces a half-orc to 0 hit points, can Relentless Endurance prevent the orc from turning to ash?* Yes. The disintegrate spell turns you into dust only if the spell’s damage leaves you with 0 hit points. If you’re a half-orc, Relentless Endurance can turn the 0 into a 1 before the spell can disintegrate you.

*What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? *The druid leaves beast form. As usual, any leftover damage then applies to the druid’s normal hit points. If the leftover damage leaves the druid with 0 hit points, the druid is disintegrated.

*Using 5-foot squares, does cloud of daggers affect a single square?* Cloud of daggers (5 ft. cube) can affect more than one square on a grid, unless the DM says effects snap to the grid. There are many ways to position that cube.

*What actions can monsters use to make opportunity attacks? Are Multiattack and breath weapon actions allowed? *A monster follows the normal opportunity attack rules (PH, 195), which specify that an attack of opportunity is one melee attack. That means a monster must choose a single melee attack to make, either an attack in its stat block or a generic attack, like an unarmed strike. Multiattack doesn’t qualify, not only because it’s more than one attack, but also because the rule on Multiattack (MM, 11) states that this action can’t be used for opportunity attacks. An action, such as a breath weapon, that doesn’t include an attack roll is also not eligible.

*The stinking cloud spell says that a creature wastes its action on a failed save. So can it still use a move or a bonus action or a reaction? *Correct. The gas doesn’t immobilize a creature or prevent it from acting altogether, but the effect of the spell does limit what it can accomplish while the cloud lingers.

*Does a creature with Magic Resistance have advantage on saving throws against Channel Divinity abilities, such as Turn the Faithless?* Channel Divinity creates magical effects (as stated in both the cleric and the paladin). Magic Resistance applies.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jan 31, 2019)

MechaTarrasque said:


> Sorry if someone already posted this, but yesterday the Sage Advice Compendium got updated:  http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/sage-advice-compendium.
> 
> New things:
> 
> ...



I wish the reply on stinking cloud had been more precise - since losing action loses you your bonus action too. Movement and reactions are fine but *technically* spending your action stretching is not the same as losing your action or cannot take action so this reply means...

Inside stinking cloud with failed save, I can still use bonus action abilities and spells that are otherwise legal. 

If that's the actual intent, fine, but it seems off.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 1, 2019)

Losing an action does not lose your bonus action. It may leave you unable to trigger a bonus action if an action was required to trigger it (eg. duel wielding). Rogues in particular have things they can do as bonus actions even if they have no action. Or a sorcerer could cast a quickened spell, etc.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 1, 2019)

I see nothing about having to complete the Attack action, only take it.
Good, everything is as it was.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 1, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Losing an action does not lose your bonus action. It may leave you unable to trigger a bonus action if an action was required to trigger it (eg. duel wielding). Rogues in particular have things they can do as bonus actions even if they have no action. Or a sorcerer could cast a quickened spell, etc.




"...anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."

PHB, page 189




5ekyu said:


> I wish the reply on stinking cloud had been more precise - since losing action loses you your bonus action too. Movement and reactions are fine but *technically* spending your action stretching is not the same as losing your action or cannot take action so this reply means...
> 
> Inside stinking cloud with failed save, I can still use bonus action abilities and spells that are otherwise legal.
> 
> If that's the actual intent, fine, but it seems off.




Strictly speaking, it makes sense. You aren't deprived of your ability to take an action (i.e. Surprised, Paralyzed, etc), but the only action available to you in the Stinking Cloud is coughing.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 1, 2019)

Ah, I see why you find the Sage advice confusing. This spell does not "deprive you of you ability to take actions". It causes you to "spend your action retching and reeling".  I.e. you still have an action, but you have no choice over what you do with it. It's a compulsory vomit action.

It's fairly clear if you look at the wording of the spell - specific beats general.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 1, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> "...anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."
> 
> PHB, page 189
> 
> Strictly speaking, it makes sense. You aren't deprived of your ability to take an action (i.e. Surprised, Paralyzed, etc), but the only action available to you in the Stinking Cloud is coughing.




And the retching!  Don't forget the retching.  And the reeling.  Oh, the reeling.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 1, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Ah, I see why you find the Sage advice confusing. This spell does not "deprive you of you ability to take actions". It causes you to "spend your action retching and reeling".  I.e. you still have an action, but you have no choice over what you do with it. It's a compulsory vomit action.
> 
> It's fairly clear if you look at the wording of the spell - specific beats general.




Disagree.  "the creature spends its action that turn retching and reeling."  Hence the creature has wasted its action or, put another way, it is deprived of taking real actions outlined in the PHB.  Hence no bonus action per PHB rule that [MENTION=1207]Ristamar[/MENTION] quoted.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 1, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Disagree.  "the creature spends its action that turn retching and reeling."  Hence the creature has wasted its action or, put another way, it is deprived of taking real actions outlined in the PHB.  Hence no bonus action per PHB rule that [MENTION=1207]Ristamar[/MENTION] quoted.



Not at all. There's a big difference between "Cannot take it's action" (See Petrified and... Slowed?) and "must spend it's action doing" (See Fear)


----------



## Oofta (Feb 1, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I see nothing about having to complete the Attack action, only take it.
> Good, everything is as it was.




With endless questions of what it means to take the attack action?


----------



## BluejayJunior (Feb 1, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Disagree.  "the creature spends its action that turn retching and reeling."  Hence the creature has wasted its action or, put another way, it is deprived of taking real actions outlined in the PHB.  Hence no bonus action per PHB rule that [MENTION=1207]Ristamar[/MENTION] quoted.




The creature still has it's action, it is just being forced to use it in a specific way. That way may be wasteful, but it isn't being mechanically deprived of the action. The Action is still being taken. Stinking Cloud does not "deprive you of the ability to take actions" even though the action you take is not beneficial.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 1, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Not at all. There's a big difference between "Cannot take it's action" (See Petrified and... Slowed?) and "must spend it's action doing" (See Fear)




Perhaps you are right.  But in the case of Stinking Cloud, "must spend it's action doing" the retching and the reeling may effectively be the same thing as "cannot take it's action".  Right?  Bonus action spells like Healing Word or Misty Step?  Yeah, verbal component doesn't work so well while you're retching.  Rogue Cunning Action bonus action to Dash or Dodge?  Not so much when you are doubled over reeling.  Maybe Cunning Action to Hide, I suppose, but likely at Disadvantage since, you know, noisy and staggering.  Druid coming out of wild shape?  Probably - but jeez now we're getting into real edge cases.

Perhaps _rulings not rules_ covers it. At the table, regardless of how one wants to interpret Sage Advice or the PHB, if a player had a really good explanation for why they could carry out their bonus action while under the effects of Stinking Cloud, of course I'd say "yes".  Or... "yes and... Dex save to not slip on the stuff that's on the floor!"


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 1, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Perhaps you are right.  But in the case of Stinking Cloud, "must spend it's action doing" the retching and the reeling may effectively be the same thing as "cannot take it's action".  Right?  Bonus action spells like Healing Word or Misty Step?  Yeah, verbal component doesn't work so well while you're retching.  Rogue Cunning Action bonus action to Dash or Dodge?  Not so much when you are doubled over reeling.  Maybe Cunning Action to Hide, I suppose, but likely at Disadvantage since, you know, noisy and staggering.  Druid coming out of wild shape?  Probably - but jeez now we're getting into real edge cases.
> 
> Perhaps _rulings not rules_ covers it. At the table, regardless of how one wants to interpret Sage Advice or the PHB, if a player had a really good explanation for why they could carry out their bonus action while under the effects of Stinking Cloud, of course I'd say "yes".  Or... "yes and... Dex save to not slip on the stuff that's on the floor!"




I feel the rules are clear on this and the sage advice only clarified.  I think you are on the outside on this one - great name though 

The rule on limiting bonus actions doesn't apply because you indeed are taking an action.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 1, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> I feel the rules are clear on this and the sage advice only clarified.  I think you are the outside on this one - great name though
> 
> The rule on limiting bonus actions doesn't apply because you indeed are taking an action.




Likewise! 

Yeah, I'm now convinced that free standing bonus actions are possible to invoke even when taking a "forced" action.  But whether the bonus action works or not is case specific.  I was conflating rulings and rules upthread.

Example:
Player: My PC would like to Misty Step out of the Stinking Cloud
DM:  Ok, you use your bonus action to attempt to cast Misty Step... give me a CON check (DC 8 + however much you failed the initial CON check) to see if you can get the words out properly between the retches...

Something like that instead of saying "No, you can't use a bonus action b/c rules (that I've misinterpreted... sorry Sage advice)!"

This rule is gaining focus for me.  Thanks [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6918769]BluejayJunior[/MENTION]!

Cheers


----------



## BluejayJunior (Feb 1, 2019)

Glad to be of help!
I agree that certain bonus actions may not be possible due to the coughing/retching. Harder to cast spells, difficulty hiding, etc.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 1, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Ah, I see why you find the Sage advice confusing. This spell does not "deprive you of you ability to take actions". It causes you to "spend your action retching and reeling".  I.e. you still have an action, but you have no choice over what you do with it. It's a compulsory vomit action.
> 
> It's fairly clear if you look at the wording of the spell - specific beats general.




i said as much in my post - that spending an action retching is not the same as losing an action and so that is what it amounts to...

But, to me that seems off - allowing a healing word cast but not a firebolt or a cure wounds or allowing a cunning action dash but not a regular dash... etc etc.

As it stands its an odd spell that one might want to stand in... if say one has already weaponized your BA and are keeping concentration on another spell.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Feb 1, 2019)

Oofta said:


> With endless questions of what it means to take the attack action?



Shouldn't be any question. You took the Attack action as long as you already made one attack with your action (since, you know, you're committed at that point).

So Shield Master with this ruling works as many in that recent thread thought it should: Make the first attack of your action, but after that you can shove before making your other attack(s).


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 1, 2019)

having a character especially resistant against one of the most iconic game spells just because she is a half-orc is totally silly, IMO.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 1, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> Shouldn't be any question. You took the Attack action as long as you already made one attack with your action (since, you know, you're committed at that point).
> 
> So Shield Master with this ruling works as many in that recent thread thought it should: Make the first attack of your action, but after that you can shove before making your other attack(s).



Actually, just declaring "I take the Attack action" still qualifies


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> having a character especially resistant against one of the most iconic game spells just because she is a half-orc is totally silly, IMO.




No more resistant than they are against everything else that does damage.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 1, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> Shouldn't be any question. You took the Attack action as long as you already made one attack with your action (since, you know, you're committed at that point).
> 
> So Shield Master with this ruling works as many in that recent thread thought it should: Make the first attack of your action, but after that you can shove before making your other attack(s).




That is one interpretation.  Others rule that the action must be completed (all attacks) before you've "taken" it.  I go the other extreme of saying that it doesn't even require an attack - simply saying "I'm attacking the ___" is good enough.  

It's been debated ad nauseam over on other threads.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 1, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> No more resistant than they are against everything else that does damage.




you are right, no 20th level wizard should be able to turn into ash any 1st level half orc, fiction would suffer a lot.

I wonder why half-orc are classified as uncommon race in PHB, they should have conquered the multiverse, the tremendously 'grunts who cannot be destroyed by Elminster or Mordenkainen with a single shot'.


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> you are right, no 20th level wizard should be able to turn into ash any 1st level half orc, fiction would suffer a lot.
> 
> I wonder why half-orc are classified as uncommon race in PHB, they should have conquered the multiverse, the tremendously 'grunts who cannot be destroyed by Elminster or Mordenkainen with a single shot'.



I’m just saying, this isn’t unique to disintegrate. Literally no one can one-shot half-orcs, unless they’ve already used their relentless endurance for the day.


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> having a character especially resistant against one of the most iconic game spells just because she is a half-orc is totally silly, IMO.




Hmm that is not how I interpreted the rulings:

Because of this Sage Advice:
"*What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? *_The druid leaves beast form. As usual, any leftover damage then applies to the druid’s normal hit points. If the leftover damage leaves the druid with 0 hit points, the druid is disintegrated._"

I assumed that this Sage Advice:
"*If the damage from disintegrate reduces a half-orc to 0 hit points, can Relentless Endurance prevent the orc from turning to ash?*_ Yes. The disintegrate spell turns you into dust only if the spell’s damage leaves you with 0 hit points. If you’re a half-orc, Relentless Endurance can turn the 0 into a 1 before the spell can disintegrate you._"

Meant that the half-orc is reduced to 0, jumps back to 1; but if there is leftover damage the half-orc is again reduced to 0 and turned to ash.  IMO, only in the very rare case where the disintegrate reduces the half-orc to exactly 0 HP does it not get turned to ash.  I think that is OK by me.

Now, looking at it and the spells and Wild Shape more closely, I realize that is not explicitly correct, but it works for me!


----------



## Gladius Legis (Feb 1, 2019)

Oofta said:


> That is one interpretation.  Others rule that the action must be completed (all attacks) before you've "taken" it.  I go the other extreme of saying that it doesn't even require an attack - simply saying "I'm attacking the ___" is good enough.
> 
> It's been debated ad nauseam over on other threads.




This Sage Advice entry could've been worded more clearly, but from this part "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action" the intent seems clear enough that at the very least, you're not required to complete the Attack action, just make the first attack of it and thus commit yourself to it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 1, 2019)

"left over damage" is specifically a property of wildshape. It is not a general rule or a characteristic of half orcs.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 1, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> This Sage Advice entry could've been worded more clearly, but from this part "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action" the intent seems clear enough that at the very least, you're not required to complete the Attack action, just make the first attack of it and thus commit yourself to it.




It depends on your definition of "take an attack action" is.  You can move between the attacks granted by an attack action because it's explicitly stated that you can.  Others would rule that you can't "interrupt" an attack action with anything else.

Suffice to say I think this ruling is overly-finicky in addition to a contradiction to previous sage advice tweets.  I know how I rule even if it is technically a house rule, do what makes sense for you.


----------



## flametitan (Feb 1, 2019)

I see that the ruling on Magic Initiate remains unchanged by the errata, which is nice.


----------



## André Soares (Feb 1, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> Meant that the half-orc is reduced to 0, jumps back to 1; but if there is leftover damage the half-orc is again reduced to 0 and turned to ash.  IMO, only in the very rare case where the disintegrate reduces the half-orc to exactly 0 HP does it not get turned to ash.  I think that is OK by me.
> 
> Now, looking at it and the spells and Wild Shape more closely, I realize that is not explicitly correct, but it works for me!




Sorry but that's not how it works. there is no leftover damage with the half-orc, youreceive all the damage and than it goes back to 1. Leftover damage is not a general rule, its an exeption that is applied to wild shape.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 1, 2019)

friends, do what you prefer, but at my table a player who played so long to be able to cast disintegrate is able to turn to ash anything she brings to 0 hp, half-orc or not. especially when she is a high-level spellcaster and the target a low-level half-orc. the other way around will have no justification at all in fiction and would ruin the suspension of disbelief.


----------



## André Soares (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> friends, do what you prefer, but at my table a player who played so long to be able to cast disintegrate is able to turn to ash anything she brings to 0 hp, half-orc or not. especially when she is a high-level spellcaster and the target a low-level half-orc. the other way around will have no justification at all in fiction and would ruin the suspension of disbelief.




You are for sure entitled to your own rulling in your table. What is being said here is that that is not how that interaction was design to happen. But if that's the way you an your group find the most enjoyment, more power to you!


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 1, 2019)

André Soares said:


> Sorry but that's not how it works. there is no leftover damage with the half-orc, youreceive all the damage and than it goes back to 1. Leftover damage is not a general rule, its an exeption that is applied to wild shape.




I know and I even explained that (or at least I thought I did) in the last sentence.


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 1, 2019)

The cloud of daggers ruling. The way I read that, it implies that I can position the cube in the corner of the square, effectively allowing it to cover 4 squares...which is a pretty tremendous power boost


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 1, 2019)

André Soares said:


> What is being said here is that that is not how that interaction was design to happen.




Well, that design is in contrast with some decades of dnd material, setting lore and novels.

In my opinion the sage played a little too much Magic and fell in love with the concepts of 'stack' and 'triggered ability'.


----------



## André Soares (Feb 1, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> I know and I even explained that (or at least I thought I did) in the last sentence.




COMPLETELY missed that sentence hahah sorry XD


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> friends, do what you prefer, but at my table a player who played so long to be able to cast disintegrate is able to turn to ash anything she brings to 0 hp, half-orc or not. especially when she is a high-level spellcaster and the target a low-level half-orc. the other way around will have no justification at all in fiction and would ruin the suspension of disbelief.




Just make sure to do it with charm and elves too. Or paladins and fear spells.

There are several ways low level characters can be immune to high level spells.


----------



## André Soares (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> Well, that design is in contrast with some decades of dnd material, setting lore and novels.
> 
> In my opinion the sage played a little too much Magic and fell in love with the concepts of 'stack' and 'triggered ability'.




Well, a new edition does not have to hold its vallue to the decades of dnd material, or it would be really hard to actualy change anything...


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 1, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> Just make sure to do it with charm and elves too. Or paladins and fear spells.




none of those abilities imply immunity to utterly physical destruction by high level spellcasters.


----------



## epithet (Feb 1, 2019)

Oofta said:


> It depends on your definition of "take an attack action" is.  You can move between the attacks granted by an attack action because it's explicitly stated that you can.  Others would rule that you can't "interrupt" an attack action with anything else.
> 
> Suffice to say I think this ruling is overly-finicky in addition to a contradiction to previous sage advice tweets.  I know how I rule even if it is technically a house rule, do what makes sense for you.




It's not a house rule. Your interpretation, or ruling at your table, is simply applying the published rules appropriately to the circumstances of your game. Jeremy's interpretation of the published rule is no more valid than yours in general, and much less valid than yours in your game and at your table.

If you were to _change_ the rule (as I do) to eliminate the need to take the Attack action to trigger the bonus action, _that _would be a house rule.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> none of those abilities imply immunity to utterly physical destruction by high level spellcasters.




Be like Elsa... Let it go.


----------



## epithet (Feb 1, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> The cloud of daggers ruling. The way I read that, it implies that I can position the cube in the corner of the square, effectively allowing it to cover 4 squares...which is a pretty tremendous power boost




The way we apply area effects is that a square (and anyone in it) is in the area if the effect covers half or more of the square. That means a 5 ft square area could cover half of two adjacent squares and effect both, but if the area were placed at the junction of 4 squares it would cover less than half of each square, and would effect no one (unless that creature were itself situated across two or more of those squares.)


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 1, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Be like Elsa... Let it go.




you are right. thanks, Azzy.

it's just another point in the endless list of wotc discombobulating moves


----------



## epithet (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> friends, do what you prefer, but at my table a player who played so long to be able to cast disintegrate is able to turn to ash anything she brings to 0 hp, half-orc or not. especially when she is a high-level spellcaster and the target a low-level half-orc. the other way around will have no justification at all in fiction and would ruin the suspension of disbelief.




I think for any NPC with a bounce-back ability (like undead fortitude, or the half-orc racial) I would just give the NPC advantage on the saving throw vs. disintegration. Succeed and it has 1 hp, fail and it is dust. In the wind.


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 1, 2019)

André Soares said:


> COMPLETELY missed that sentence hahah sorry XD




No worries!


----------



## epithet (Feb 1, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> This Sage Advice entry could've been worded more clearly, but from this part "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action" the intent seems clear enough that at the very least, you're not required to complete the Attack action, just make the first attack of it and thus commit yourself to it.




I think the commitment is the key. I have no problem with saying that you can strictly adhere to the published rule and still take your bonus action first, but doing so means you can only use your Action to take the Attack Action on that turn. You are committed.

There is a huge distinction between "taking the Attack action" and "making an attack" everywhere else in the rules, it seems silly to conflate the two in this instance.


----------



## JohnnyZemo (Feb 1, 2019)

In my experience, Relentless Endurance creates a fun play experience, while villains that can kill a PC with a single spell do not. So, I'm all for Relentless Endurance.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 1, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> The cloud of daggers ruling. The way I read that, it implies that I can position the cube in the corner of the square, effectively allowing it to cover 4 squares...which is a pretty tremendous power boost




Yeah, that is pretty silly.

The rules were not designed with squares in mind. I think the rulings on them are of the 'anything goes' sort.

Playing this way all of those sorts of spells get a big boost. What then when PCs and creatures start deciding they will be in one half of a square and one of half of another one.

I think you should either play with squares or don't.


----------



## MiraMels (Feb 1, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> you are right, no 20th level wizard should be able to turn into ash any 1st level half orc, fiction would suffer a lot.
> 
> I wonder why half-orc are classified as uncommon race in PHB, they should have conquered the multiverse, the tremendously 'grunts who cannot be destroyed by Elminster or Mordenkainen with a single shot'.




A 20th level wizard can still one shot a 1st level half-orc.  The text of Relentless Endurance reads "when you are reduced to 0 hit points *but not killed outright*".  Massive damage will kill you outright.  A _disintegrate_ spell that deals double the maximum hit points of any half-orc will still dust them.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 1, 2019)

I'm curious: What sort of abuse is the Shield Master ruling supposed to prevent? That is, what is the issue? What's wrong with being able to knock someone over with your shield before you attack them with your sword? From a tactical point of view, that makes much more sense than attacking them with your sword and then knocking them down with your shield afterwards, or even attacking them, then knocking them over, then attacking them again.

Besides, the NPC gladiator can do this: they've got a Shield Bash action, and they can use it as any (or all) of their three melee attacks. I've used this to devastating effect against the PCs - knocking them down and then attacking them twice with advantage. It seems only fair that PCs should be able to do it too.



MiraMels said:


> A 20th level wizard can still one shot a 1st level half-orc.  The text of Relentless Endurance reads "when you are reduced to 0 hit points *but not killed outright*".  Massive damage will kill you outright.  A _disintegrate_ spell that deals double the maximum hit points of any half-orc will still dust them.



They could also use _power word kill_ instead (assuming the half-orc in question has fewer than 100 hp).


----------



## flametitan (Feb 1, 2019)

pukunui said:


> I'm curious: What sort of abuse is the Shield Master ruling supposed to prevent? That is, what is the issue? What's wrong with being able to knock someone over with your shield before you attack them with your sword? From a tactical point of view, that makes much more sense than attacking them with your sword and then knocking them down with your shield afterwards, or even attacking them, then knocking them over, then attacking them again.




I think it's less a balance concern, and more of a case of changing the rules interpretation to line up better with the natural language used. Likewise, it's also undoing a precedent of being able to do bonus actions before taking the action that triggers it, which while not a major concern for shield master specifically, could become one in situations where events that happen between the bonus action and the requisite action end up preventing the requisite action from being taken.



> Besides, the NPC gladiator can do this: they've got a Shield Bash action, and they can use it as any (or all) of their three melee attacks. I've used this to devastating effect against the PCs - knocking them down and then attacking them twice with advantage. It seems only fair that PCs should be able to do it too.




The PCs already can, if they have the extra attack feature. You can trade any of your attacks for grapples or shoves, and it's easy enough to just flavour a shove attack as a shield bash.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 1, 2019)

[MENTION=6822731]flametitan[/MENTION]: Fair enough, I suppose. It does feel like someone who has mastered the use of shields should be able to do it more efficiently (e.g. as a bonus action). 

The wording of the feat — and thus the accompanying ruling from JC — does not seem to be conducive with this interpretation. I think I shall just ignore it. 

No one in either of my groups has the Shield Master feat, but if anyone were to take it, I would allow them to use the bonus action shield bash before they make any attacks with their Attack action.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 1, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> The cloud of daggers ruling. The way I read that, it implies that I can position the cube in the corner of the square, effectively allowing it to cover 4 squares...which is a pretty tremendous power boost




Squares are just a convenient construct for some games, and not how spells and effects actually function. Spells and effects cover a range and area in feet or inches, and you can position that anywhere regardless of a fictional grid tool the DM is using to show where things are.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 1, 2019)

pukunui said:


> I'm curious: What sort of abuse is the Shield Master ruling supposed to prevent? That is, what is the issue? What's wrong with being able to knock someone over with your shield before you attack them with your sword? From a tactical point of view, that makes much more sense than attacking them with your sword and then knocking them down with your shield afterwards, or even attacking them, then knocking them over, then attacking them again.
> 
> Besides, the NPC gladiator can do this: they've got a Shield Bash action, and they can use it as any (or all) of their three melee attacks. I've used this to devastating effect against the PCs - knocking them down and then attacking them twice with advantage. It seems only fair that PCs should be able to do it too.
> 
> They could also use _power word kill_ instead (assuming the half-orc in question has fewer than 100 hp).



Re the gladiator
Yes the gladiator csn take any one of their three attacks and bash...
Similar to how any 11th levrl ftr can use any of the three attacks to shove/bash someone prone then attack with advantage on the other two. 

So, that common conflation is off the mark. If you got multiple attacks the first can shove.

The question is with shield master CAN you use the bonus attack to shove before your other attacks.

Here tho is my suggestion for Shield Master Bashers who really really really need to shove first then attack at will.

Take Polearm Master and use Spear or Staff.

5th level fighter with spear and PAM can use Attack Action with two attacks - first one shove then if that works then second and bonus action attack (d4) are at advantage. 

Instead of getting a bonus shove you get a bonus d4 attack. 

Additionally you get AO whrn folks move into range. 

But you do lose the shield vs saves effects (which often get slightly dished in those discussions.)


----------



## dwayne (Feb 2, 2019)

Most the time i have seen people twisting the intent of a spell or something to gain or do something that would give them a edge or breaks a given spell and action. This is what people in the video game worlds call an exploit and as a GM going on 40 years or more from 1st to now of D&D i have seen much. I have a very firm grip on the way the rules are and how they are to be used and when i see some of the calls i tend to disregard if all they are doing is caving into power build gamer and others who just don't know what they are doing. One reason "dipping" is a no non in my games, i do not let muliclassing also do to power over lap and stacking abilities, which is a thing now "raging barbarian, sneak attack WTH". Anyway i will on my end help by building a path under the class to fit that persons wants "barbarian assassin, that was a fun path called it the night wolf, or what ever the totem was" and the player loved it. So just saying iall i see most the time people just giving them what they want and not really giving them what they need, use your imagination and have fun folks.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 2, 2019)

Gladius Legis said:


> Shouldn't be any question. You took the Attack action as long as you already made one attack with your action (since, you know, you're committed at that point).




Since shoving a creature without the feat requires you to use the Attack action, you're committed to the Attack action once you shove, whether you go on to make other attacks or not.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> friends, do what you prefer, but at my table a player who played so long to be able to cast disintegrate is able to turn to ash anything she brings to 0 hp, half-orc or not. especially when she is a high-level spellcaster and the target a low-level half-orc. the other way around will have no justification at all in fiction and would ruin the suspension of disbelief.




The point of the rule (and other similar rules) is to keep *player characters* alive. In 5e player characters have a degree of plot armour. There is no reason to suppose NPC half orcs even have that ability, any more than an average orc does. Player characters are exceptional.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 2, 2019)

As was pointed out to me a while back when I asked Crawford about the timing issue, there is no declaration step or phase, or whatever you want to call it, in 5E. That is a legacy of previous editions. So you attack or you do not attack. There is no saying "I am going to attack" and then get to do a bonus action before the attack is resolved. If the rules say "take the attack action" then you have to make an attack in order to trigger the bonus action. As for Shield Master itself, this in one of those feats that really feels like it should not be available at low levels, but I know they designed 5E feats to not have any prerequisites.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 2, 2019)

Since you can split up your attacks with movement,  I don't think you must commit all attacks of your attack action before you get to use the bonus action shove. Just like you don't have to use all attacks before you can move. I would say that you have to take at least one attack first before attempting to shove. You could also attack, move, bonus shove, attack, etc depending on how you want to split it up.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The point of the rule (and other similar rules) is to keep *player characters* alive. In 5e player characters have a degree of plot armour. There is no reason to suppose NPC half orcs even have that ability, any more than an average orc does. Player characters are exceptional.




DMG, page 282: you can build the NPC as you would a player character, as discussed in the PHB. 

same page, 'NPC features' table, half orc entry: relentless endurance.

PCs aren't exceptional in ANY way.

But don't worry, I got the point: wotc is right also in silliness and I'm always wrong.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> DMG, page 282: you can build the NPC as you would a player character, as discussed in the PHB.
> 
> same page, 'NPC features' table, half orc entry: relentless endurance.
> 
> ...



I'm confused. Disintergrate does a minimum of 50 damage, insta-killing anything with 25 HP or less.
It's average damage is 75, insta-killing anything with 37 or less HP.

What "low-level half-orcs" are you using it on?


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I'm confused. Disintergrate does a minimum of 50 damage, insta-killing anything with 25 HP or less.
> It's average damage is 75, insta-killing anything with 37 or less HP.
> 
> What "low-level half-orcs" are you using it on?




I don't know, maybe an average 5th level half-orc barbarian with 40 hp (I assume giving him a CON bonus is safe, because he is a barbarian)?

a ghastly challenge for a 20th level wizard, indeed.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> DMG, page 282: you *can* build the NPC as you would a player character, as discussed in the PHB.




Key word highlighted. You do not have to build NPCs as player characters and if anyone does for anything other than important characters, villains or key allies I would be very much surprised. I.e. some NPCs are also exceptional and have plot armour. Not low level half-orc mooks though.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> I don't know, maybe an average 5th level half-orc barbarian with 40 hp (I assume giving him a CON bonus is safe, because he is a barbarian)?
> 
> a ghastly challenge for a 20th level wizard, indeed.



Well I mean, if the Wizard's going to piss about using _the lowest spell slot possible_...

And if it's _literally the first damage_ the Half-Orc's taken...


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Key word highlighted. You do not have to build NPCs as player characters and if anyone does for anything other than important characters, villains or key allies I would be very much surprised. I.e. some NPCs are also exceptional and have plot armour. Not low level half-orc mooks though.




really? really still replying about that? You should be very interested in defending wotc any time! also again the rules written by themselves...

ok, check MM, page 342: 'you can add racial traits to an npc. adding racial traits to an npc doesn't alter its challenge rating' i.e. it doesn't render it exceptional in any way. which means that also a CR 0 half orc commoner can have the relentless endurance trait, and it is still CR 0.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Well I mean, if the Wizard's going to piss about using _the lowest spell slot possible_...
> 
> And if it's _literally the first damage_ the Half-Orc's taken...




my friend, applying what wotc is saying means that a 11th-level wizard, who has a single 6th level slot, could be not capable of turning into dust a half-orc spy, a 27 hp CR 1 npc. a third tier character against a CR 1 challenge!

this, at my table, is utterly ridiculous. not because of rules, but because of fiction.

but it can work at your table, obviously.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> my friend, applying what wotc is saying means that a 11th-level wizard, who has a single 6th level slot, could be not capable of turning into dust a half-orc spy, a 27 hp CR 1 npc. a third tier character against a CR 1 challenge!
> 
> this, at my table, is utterly ridiculous. not because of rules, but because of fiction.
> 
> but it can work at your table, obviously.




Disintergrate one-shots anything with 25HP or less all of the time, and anything with 37HP or less half the time.
Saying it doesn't work one a CR 1 because it has 27 hp is just disingenuous.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Disintergrate one-shots anything with 25HP or less all of the time, and anything with 37HP or less half the time.
> Saying it doesn't work one a CR 1 because it has 27 hp is just disingenuous.




so wotc rules are disingenuous, because the spy stat block, on MM page 349, is exactly a CR 1 challenge with 27 hp. And I can give it the relentless endurance trait without altering its CR, as written in the same MM 7 pages before.

anyway I agree with you, wotc rules are disingenuous.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> so wotc rules are disingenuous, because the spy stat block, on MM page 349, is exactly a CR 1 challenge with 27 hp. And I can give it the relentless endurance trait without altering its CR, as written in the same MM 7 pages before.
> 
> anyway I agree with you, wotc rules are disingenuous.



Not at all. You're being disingenous by ignore that fact that there's a near zero chance of Disintergrate _not_ killing said spy.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Not at all. You're being disingenous by ignore that fact that there's a near zero chance of Disintergrate _not_ killing said spy.




it can be near zero, but it is not zero.
this is the ridiculous point for me. also because it has no fiction justification having a CR 1 half orc spy more resistant to disintegrate among other CR 1 challenges. they have to be turned into ash by the said 11th level wizard all in the same way.


----------



## WhosDaDungeonMaster (Feb 2, 2019)

pukunui said:


> I'm curious: What sort of abuse is the Shield Master ruling supposed to prevent? That is, what is the issue? What's wrong with being able to knock someone over with your shield before you attack them with your sword? From a tactical point of view, that makes much more sense than attacking them with your sword and then knocking them down with your shield afterwards, or even attacking them, then knocking them over, then attacking them again.
> 
> Besides, the NPC gladiator can do this: they've got a Shield Bash action, and they can use it as any (or all) of their three melee attacks. I've used this to devastating effect against the PCs - knocking them down and then attacking them twice with advantage. It seems only fair that PCs should be able to do it too.
> 
> They could also use _power word kill_ instead (assuming the half-orc in question has fewer than 100 hp).




Yeah, ruling the Shove action comes after the attacks only makes it so you can give advantage to others (possibly) if they are within reach of the target. Otherwise, with cyclical initiative, the opponent can always stand up and your shove was pointless.


----------



## WhosDaDungeonMaster (Feb 2, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> As was pointed out to me a while back when I asked Crawford about the timing issue, there is no declaration step or phase, or whatever you want to call it, in 5E. That is a legacy of previous editions. So you attack or you do not attack. There is no saying "I am going to attack" and then get to do a bonus action before the attack is resolved. If the rules say "take the attack action" then you have to make an attack in order to trigger the bonus action. As for Shield Master itself, this in one of those feats that really feels like it should not be available at low levels, but I know they designed 5E feats to not have any prerequisites.




Actually if you use the variant of non-cyclical initiative, re-rolling every round, you must declare your actions before you roll. That is why I allow bonus actions to precede other actions required of them if player declares they are performing the required action (even if it comes after the bonus action). It hasn't been an issue at all.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> really? really still replying about that? You should be very interested in defending wotc any time! also again the rules written by themselves...
> 
> ok, check MM, page 342: 'you can add racial traits to an npc. adding racial traits to an npc doesn't alter its challenge rating' i.e. it doesn't render it exceptional in any way. which means that also a CR 0 half orc commoner can have the relentless endurance trait, and it is still CR 0.




You don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "must". I suggest you invest in some English lessons.

As already pointed out, even if the DM does, for some pointless reason, choose to write down that a random CR0 half orc commoner has relentless endurance, they will still be disintegrated by a Disintegrate spell, so your only agenda appears to be to bash WotC. What happened, did WotC run over your second cousin's best friend's dog?


----------



## Oofta (Feb 2, 2019)

James Grover said:


> Yeah, ruling the Shove action comes after the attacks only makes it so you can give advantage to others (possibly) if they are within reach of the target. Otherwise, with cyclical initiative, the opponent can always stand up and your shove was pointless.




Yeah, it's a pretty worthless feat with this interpretation most of the time.  It's only an advantage if you have more party members that are melee going after you and before any ranged PCs.  In the rare cases where shoving makes sense (there's a handy cliff or you want to limit their movement, etc) you can always use your melee attack.



Markh3rd said:


> Since you can split up your attacks with movement,  I don't think you must commit all attacks of your attack action before you get to use the bonus action shove. Just like you don't have to use all attacks before you can move. I would say that you have to take at least one attack first before attempting to shove. You could also attack, move, bonus shove, attack, etc depending on how you want to split it up.




Movement is an exception to the "doing something else during an action" rule because movement has special rules as indicated in chapter 9 of the PHB 
_*Moving Between Attacks*
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. _

This also means for example that you can't dash between attacks (it's an action) or any other action you might want to do if you use an action surge or your PC is hasted.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "must". I suggest you invest in some English lessons.
> 
> As already pointed out, even if the DM does, for some pointless reason, choose to write down that a random CR0 half orc commoner has relentless endurance, they will still be disintegrated by a Disintegrate spell, so your only agenda appears to be to bash WotC. What happened, did WotC run over your second cousin's best friend's dog?




I'm just trying to highlight the fact that you state false things.
You wrote PCs are exceptional, RAW they are not.
You wrote NPCs with racial traits are exceptional, RAW they are not.
I suggest you invest in some 5E dnd rules lessons.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> it can be near zero, but it is not zero.
> this is the ridiculous point for me. also because it has no fiction justification having a CR 1 half orc spy more resistant to disintegrate among other CR 1 challenges. they have to be turned into ash by the said 11th level wizard all in the same way.




It may be that the spy has an important role to play, and the DM has reason to want them to be hard to kill, despite their low CR indicating they are a minimal threat in a fight. Consider The Two Towers movie. The DM wants the orc berserker not to die before they can detonate the explosives under the wall. So the DM gives the orc relentless endurance. The DM can do this even though the orc is not a half orc, because the DM can give NPCs whatever abilities he likes.


Alternatively, if the spy is not an important NPC and a player chooses to blow a high level spell on them, the DM will likely rule them disintegrated without even bothering to roll the damage dice. The DM is the arbiter, not the rulebook. That is something the rulebook makes abundantly clear.


As for challenge ratings, these are intended as a guide for designing encounters of appropriate difficulty. They are not holy writ. If the DM decides an alteration makes something significantly more or less dangerous they can adjust the CR accordingly. It's called the Dudgeon Master's _Guide_, not the Dungeon Master's Dictum.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> I'm just trying to highlight the fact that you state false things.
> You wrote PCs are exceptional, RAW they are not.
> You wrote NPCs with racial traits are exceptional, RAW they are not.
> I suggest you invest in some 5E dnd rules lessons.




Players Handbook page 45: "ADVENTURERS ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE" (caps reproduced from the original text).


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Players Handbook page 45: "ADVENTURERS ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE" (caps reproduced from the original text).




thanks, you finally demonstrated what I have been saying since a little bit, i.e. 5e design is intrinsically incoherent. in other words, the axiom is that PCs are extraordinary, as you correctly reported, then the rules allow to give any NPC, including CR 0 ones, exactly the same features of PCs, incuding racial traits (without altering the CR in this last case).
not that being the only incoherence, though.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 2, 2019)

James Grover said:


> Yeah, ruling the Shove action comes after the attacks only makes it so you can give advantage to others (possibly) if they are within reach of the target. Otherwise, with cyclical initiative, the opponent can always stand up and your shove was pointless.




I'm cool with it.

Enemy was shoved, some people may get to them and attack before they get up, some don't.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> thanks, you finally demonstrated what I have been saying since a little bit, i.e. 5e design is intrinsically incoherent. in other words, the axiom is that PCs are extraordinary, as you correctly reported, then the rules allow to give any NPC, including CR 0 ones, exactly the same features of PCs, incuding racial traits (without altering the CR in this last case).
> not that being the only incoherence, though.




The PCS can be extraordinary people while some NPCs are also extraordinary people. Not mutually exclusive concepts. 

Also, your dispute with Paul seems silly (each of you). You're upset about scenarios that have never happened to either of you and likely never will.  All RPGs have corner cases. None will always function best with corner cases - which is why you have a DM. I'd much rather hear about your games and what you've actually encountered rather than this silly white room theoretical "If an 11th level wizard with this particular spell comes across a half-orc commoner with this particular racial trait something unanticipated may occur on a small chance."

I mean, have you had issues with disintegrate and low level half-orcs with this racial trait? If not...why are you guys even discussing it beyond a footnote minor observation?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> thanks, you finally demonstrated what I have been saying since a little bit, i.e. 5e design is intrinsically incoherent. in other words, the axiom is that PCs are extraordinary, as you correctly reported, then the rules allow to give any NPC, including CR 0 ones, exactly the same features of PCs, incuding racial traits (without altering the CR in this last case).
> not that being the only incoherence, though.




The rules allow NPCs to have the same abilities as PCs. They don't _require_ NPCs to have the same abilities as PCs, and most don't. Most NPCs are ordinary, but some are just as extraordinary as the PCs. Usually, they are the villains. Batman is extraordinary. The Joker is extraordinary. Gotham PD is ordinary, the joker's minions are ordinary. John McClaine is extraordinary, Hans Gruber is extraordinary. And so on. It's the logic of novels, movies and comic books, not the logic of reality. D&D has always worked this way (explicit in 1st edition AD&D DMG, which states that around 0.01% of humans have adventuring classes, the remaining 99.99% are zero level).


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2019)

James Grover said:


> Yeah, ruling the Shove action comes after the attacks only makes it so you can give advantage to others (possibly) if they are within reach of the target. Otherwise, with cyclical initiative, the opponent can always stand up and your shove was pointless.




Well you COULD combine it with action surge at least. I know I did that, prior to ditching the feat at the kindness of my DM after this ruling.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Also, your dispute with Paul seems silly (each of you).




If I was bothered about being silly I would have a different hobby...


----------



## WhosDaDungeonMaster (Feb 2, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Well you COULD combine it with action surge at least. I know I did that, prior to ditching the feat at the kindness of my DM after this ruling.




Working it so that the attack must precede the Shove is still viable (others attack at advantage, using Action Surge, etc.), it just doesn't make sense in my game to insist the attacks come before the Shove, especially since we re-roll initiative and players actually do declare actions.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 2, 2019)

Oofta said:


> It depends on your definition of "take an attack action" is.  You can move between the attacks granted by an attack action because it's explicitly stated that you can.  Others would rule that you can't "interrupt" an attack action with anything else.
> 
> Suffice to say I think this ruling is overly-finicky in addition to a contradiction to previous sage advice tweets.  I know how I rule even if it is technically a house rule, do what makes sense for you.




Just as importantly, we know that JC on twitter says the that taking the attack action requires completing all your attacks uninterrupted with bonus actions.  Currently that is the most official ruling we have on that matter and so it will stand until he flip flops on it as well.

In the meantime I'm with you and ignore the official ruling in this case.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2019)

James Grover said:


> Working it so that the attack must precede the Shove is still viable (others attack at advantage, using Action Surge, etc.), it just doesn't make sense in my game to insist the attacks come before the Shove, especially since we re-roll initiative and players actually do declare actions.




I agree it's a ruling that does not make sense. And I told Crawford so on Twitter fairly loudly. 

Honestly I found the feat to be pretty mediocre anyway. Using a bonus action to have a chance to shove so I'd have a chance at advantage was...not that big a deal. It would annoy our ranged attackers in the party to no end. More often than not it meant advantage for one attack (me) and disadvantage for two attacks (fellow party members). I am sure it works great for melee-based parties, but for our group it was never particularly good to begin with and this ruling made it even worse.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Currently that is the most official ruling we have on that matter and so it will stand until he flip flops on it as well.



No it's not.
In fact, it's now even less official: the latest Compendium has ruled tweets unofficial. Leaving us just the Compendium entry. Which specifically _doesn't_ include the part you keep bringing up in an attempt to "win".


----------



## Hriston (Feb 2, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Players Handbook page 45: "ADVENTURERS ARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE" (caps reproduced from the original text).




This seems more than a little disingenuous. Apart from the initial A, these are small caps and weren't used for any sort of emphasis but rather because it's the first line of a chapter. The chapter in question is titled "Classes", and it's clear from the context of the sentence you half-quoted that the opinion of the writer is that adventurers are extraordinary because of their appetite for danger and challenge, and because of their membership in a class, not because of their racial traits. 

In other words, a half-orc adventurer benefits from Relentless Endurance not because s/he is extraordinary or an adventurer, but because s/he is a half-orc, just like elven PCs don't sleep and are immune to being charmed, not because they're extraordinary elven adventurers, but simply because they're elves.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> No it's not.
> In fact, it's now even less official: the latest Compendium has ruled tweets unofficial. Leaving us just the Compendium entry. Which specifically _doesn't_ include the part you keep bringing up in an attempt to "win".




The specific quote from sage advice, "*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). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

Whether or not tweets are deemed "official" by wotc, when the same person that makes the official rulings (Jeremy Crawford), tweets about a ruling then by virtue of him being the game's lead rules designer and by virtue of him being the person that puts out the official rulings in Sage Advice, that makes any communication he gives about the rules the closest thing to official that's possible (unless it demonstrably contradicts some past official rule or ruling).  In this case about shield master that's not the case and so JC's tweets still remain the closest thing to official rulings we have for topics that aren't clear in the rules or directly discussed in Sage Advice.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The specific quote from sage advice, "*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). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."
> 
> Whether or not tweets are deemed "official" by wotc, when the same person that makes the official rulings (Jeremy Crawford), tweets about a ruling then by virtue of him being the game's lead rules designer and by virtue of him being the person that puts out the official rulings in Sage Advice, that makes any communication he gives about the rules the closest thing to official that's possible (unless it demonstrably contradicts some past official rule or ruling).  In this case about shield master that's not the case and so JC's tweets still remain the closest thing to official rulings we have for topics that aren't clear in the rules or directly discussed in Sage Advice.




But they are clear. You're the only one stating that there's any murkiness.
You can bonus action bash _when you take_ the Attack action.
You're the only one trying to claim that magically means when you _complete_ the Attack action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> But they are clear. You're the only one stating that there's any murkiness.
> You can bonus action bash _when you take_ the Attack action.
> You're the only one trying to claim that magically means when you _complete_ the Attack action.




JC claimed that.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> JC claimed that.



And? It didn't make it into the Compendium, which is where he revises stuff and makes it canon.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> And? It didn't make it into the Compendium, which is where he revises stuff and makes it canon.




The compendium could have easily overruled that tweet by expressly calling out the idea as incorrect.  It didn't and so the tweet still stands as the closest to official stance we have on the matter of bonus actions between attacks granted by the attack action.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The compendium could have easily overruled that tweet by expressly calling out the idea as incorrect.  It didn't




No, it didn't. Instead it overruled that tweet by categorising it and all other tweets as unofficial.
If they meant "they're all unofficial but this one still applies" then they would have restated that one.

There is no "50 shades of canon" here. Something's either official or it's not.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 2, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> As was pointed out to me a while back when I asked Crawford about the timing issue, there is no declaration step or phase, or whatever you want to call it, in 5E. That is a legacy of previous editions. So you attack or you do not attack. There is no saying "I am going to attack" and then get to do a bonus action before the attack is resolved. If the rules say "take the attack action" then you have to make an attack in order to trigger the bonus action.






Markh3rd said:


> I would say that you have to take at least one attack first before attempting to shove.




Shoving a creature is an attack, so by shoving a creature you are using the Attack action which triggers the feat and gives you a bonus action. You can then decide in what order you use the bonus action and your other attack(s) you get from using the Attack action. There is no declaration phase required here.

edit: Oh boy! My 2,000th post!


----------



## Oofta (Feb 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Just as importantly, we know that JC on twitter says the that taking the attack action requires completing all your attacks uninterrupted with bonus actions.  Currently that is the most official ruling we have on that matter and so it will stand until he flip flops on it as well.
> 
> In the meantime I'm with you and ignore the official ruling in this case.




Yeah, I was trying to find that one (actions can't be interrupted) but I can't.  I know it's not officially official, but some people in AL treat it as such.  Which means that not only can my oath of the ancients not use a shield bash in a way that makes it consistently worthwhile to me, it also means I can't attack/misty step/attack.

Ultimately the biggest issue is that it's just so reliant on gamer speak and rules lawyering instead of just being a simple flow.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 2, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> The PCS can be extraordinary people while some NPCs are also extraordinary people. Not mutually exclusive concepts.
> 
> Also, your dispute with Paul seems silly (each of you). You're upset about scenarios that have never happened to either of you and likely never will.  All RPGs have corner cases. None will always function best with corner cases - which is why you have a DM. I'd much rather hear about your games and what you've actually encountered rather than this silly white room theoretical "If an 11th level wizard with this particular spell comes across a half-orc commoner with this particular racial trait something unanticipated may occur on a small chance."
> 
> I mean, have you had issues with disintegrate and low level half-orcs with this racial trait? If not...why are you guys even discussing it beyond a footnote minor observation?




But ...


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 2, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I agree it's a ruling that does not make sense. And I told Crawford so on Twitter fairly loudly.
> 
> Honestly I found the feat to be pretty mediocre anyway. Using a bonus action to have a chance to shove so I'd have a chance at advantage was...not that big a deal. It would annoy our ranged attackers in the party to no end. More often than not it meant advantage for one attack (me) and disadvantage for two attacks (fellow party members). I am sure it works great for melee-based parties, but for our group it was never particularly good to begin with and this ruling made it even worse.




Yea, I think the notion of attack actions being uninterruptible by bonus actions is something he is ultimately going to back track on eventually.  Just don't hold your breath as it might take him 3 years to do so as it took him nearly 3 years to acknowledge that the attack action must actually be taken before the shield master shove.


----------



## Krachek (Feb 2, 2019)

From the sage advice: “Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. “
English is not my primary langage, but it seem clear.

But go over it, feats are not all equal and appealing for optimizing,
Take some beers and write down a “sane feat variants” list for your table.
In that variant list the shove would be a straight bonus action and savage attacker sometime a better take than GWM.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> it can be near zero, but it is not zero.




True, it's not 0.
You know what it is?
0.00047299171028%


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> True, it's not 0.
> You know what it is?
> 0.00047299171028%




which, divided by 0, is equal to infinite.
so half-orcs are still infinitely more resistant to disintegration than anything else XD XD XD


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 2, 2019)

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]

"I mean, have you had issues with disintegrate and low level half-orcs with this racial trait? If not...why are you guys even discussing it beyond a footnote minor observation?"

For my side, because wotc issued an official interpretation of the problem. So, if you are right, they are wrong, because the situation is a minor footnote and does not require any official interpretation (this is my opinion, for example).
Otherwise, you are wrong, they are right and there was a strong necessity of officially stating that half-orcs are especially resistant against disintegration. In this last case, I expect them to have this fact driven to all the necessary consequences, including first of all updating canon fiction justifying why this happens.
otherwise the system is disconnected by fiction and, therefore, intrinsically incoherent.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> which, divided by 0, is equal to infinite.
> so half-orcs are still infinitely more resistant to disintegration than anything else XD XD XD




Correction: You can't divide by zero.

However the limit of that divided by X as X approaches zero from the left does go to infinity.  It actually goes to negative infinity if X approaches zero from the right.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]
> 
> "I mean, have you had issues with disintegrate and low level half-orcs with this racial trait? If not...why are you guys even discussing it beyond a footnote minor observation?"
> 
> ...




Someone asked the question so they answered it. That doesn't make it important or a "strong necessity" to respond. And it's even less a "strong necessity" for you to make a big deal out of a theoretical situation neither you nor anyone else here has ever encountered concerning a 0.00047299171028% chance of something odd happening IF a higher level wizard were to expend a higher level spell slot to use disintegrate on a low level half-orc NPC who also had this ability. That scenario itself has infinitesimally small odds of happening, and then we add even more infinitesimally small odds of the unusual result, and all this really adds up to is pages of debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If you need a game which is "coherent" for even one in ten trillion scenarios without a DM ruling, I suspect you will remain dissatisfied with gaming your whole life. My hope however is you come around to acknowledging this is kinda an absurd debate you're having for fun and not really a serious issue for the game.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Correction: You can't divide by zero.
> 
> However the limit of that divided by X as X approaches zero from the left does go to infinity.  It actually goes to negative infinity if X approaches zero from the right.




I think you've got your polarities reversed there?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 2, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I think you've got your polarities reversed there?




YES LOL

Proof that purposefully being pedantic rarely pays off 

Just like there's always a bigger fish in the sea.  There's always a bigger pedant than me.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> YES LOL
> 
> Proof that purposefully being pedantic rarely pays off
> 
> Just like there's always a bigger fish in the sea.  There's always a bigger pedant than me.




Nobody is a bigger pedant than [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] !


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 3, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> which, divided by 0, is equal to infinite.
> so half-orcs are still infinitely more resistant to disintegration than anything else XD XD XD




Except for Zombies.  So, I guess divide by something else?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 3, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [For my side, because wotc issued an official interpretation of the problem.




wotc issued an interpretation of what happens when a player character (or NPC built as a player character, and hence a major character) is targeted by Disintegrate. Since thy have never stated "ALL NPC half orcs have the relentless endurance ability" there is no conflict.


Now, if you want to argue that giving a monster relentless endurance should have a bigger effect on CR than is indicated by the DMG, I would say sure, as it means the monster will survive one more hit than it otherwise would. I would also say it really doesn't matter - the DMG has *guidelines* for *estimating* CR - something that is in reality impossible to quantify. For example, if the mob is low level and has less than 7 hp relentless endurance effectively doubles it's survivability, since it takes two shots to kill rather than one. But if it has 400 hp it makes little difference.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]
> 
> "I mean, have you had issues with disintegrate and low level half-orcs with this racial trait? If not...why are you guys even discussing it beyond a footnote minor observation?"
> 
> ...




Few points.

1.  WotC is under no obligation to update canon fiction for events that are not canon in the game.  What canon events have shown orcs surviving disintegrate spells?  It's possible that half orc PC's can do so, but, so what?  None of that is "canon".  It just happens in your game.  IOW, it's up to you, the DM to come up with a justification.  Your inability to do so is not a failure of the game.

2.  The system is and always has been disconnected to the fiction.  It is a mistake to pretend that somehow there is any real correlation.  Any correlation between the system and the fiction is entirely reliant on the DM and the players.  You think I'm wrong?  Then you explain to me what 10 HP of damage looks like.  

3.  Banging the "incoherency" drum in an RPG is a fruitless exercise.  But, hey, keep on shining you brilliant diamond.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 3, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]
> 
> "I mean, have you had issues with disintegrate and low level half-orcs with this racial trait? If not...why are you guys even discussing it beyond a footnote minor observation?"
> 
> ...




uhhh... sorry but is this really all about some now trivial discrepancy between fiction and mechanics in an RPG that has covered some 40 years of development? 

I take it you have not had problems with countless other RPGS that had glitches between fiction and mechanics at some small scale?

I take it you do not understand that "rulings over rules" and the wholehearted embrace of house rules for specific campaigns means that a piece of fiction describing a specific campaign event may well be just an expression of a house rule or ruling that fits that specific campaign better in the minds of its players aka the author?

gee - hope you never read my campaign references or recaps or such - likely there would be a meltdown cuz we really dont get that hung up on stuff being precisely RAW.

See, in one of our recent sessions - a character got an "otherworldly experience" right before leveling up and we tied some of the aspects of that experience to her leveling up gains - even tho thats not required in the rules. We all liked it. It was fun. But its certainly not RAW so... by all means start a thread and explode about how its not strictly necessary to have an otherworldy experience to get darkvision by leveling up.

Enjoy.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Nobody is a bigger pedant than [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] !




I'm not even in this thread, pot.

/kettle


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 4, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not even in this thread, pot.
> 
> /kettle




I was just white knighting your honor as King Pedant.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 4, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I was just white knighting your honor as King Pedant.



Did I pee in your cereal, lately?  I mean, if we often had banter, sure, yukyuk, but this is left field, especially since I'm wasn't even in the thread.  Did I do something or is this just a misfired joke?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 4, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Did I pee in your cereal, lately?  I mean, if we often had banter, sure, yukyuk, but this is left field, especially since I'm wasn't even in the thread.  Did I do something or is this just a misfired joke?




Well it was definitely intended as a joke. As to a misfire? So it would seem, as I thought you'd find it funny.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 4, 2019)

These pretzels are making me thirsty!


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 6, 2019)

Oofta said:


> _*Moving Between Attacks*
> 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. _
> 
> This also means for example that you can't dash between attacks (it's an action) or any other action you might want to do if you use an action surge or your PC is hasted.




???

What do you mean, "You can't Dash between attacks"? Even if you accept the totally unwritten 'rule' of not being able to interrupt action at the same time as ignoring the actually printed rule of being able to take bonus action whenever you like during your turn, 'Dash between attacks' is just nonsense!

Okay, it's my turn. My movement is 30 feet. I 'take the Dash action'. What happens to my mini on the grid? Where does it go?

Nothing happens. My mini goes nowhere. This is because the Dash action does not 'move my mini 30 feet'. What the Dash action does is increase my movement from 30 feet to 60 feet. Since I can break up my move however I like, I can take the Dash action first, _not move anywhere!_ take the Attack action, execute my first attack, move a bit (using some of my now 60 feet), attack again, move some more, attack again, etc.

Even if you rule that actions cannot interrupt other actions, there is never a *need* to take the Dash action between attacks! You would just take the Dash action first, and then actually _move_ whenever you like.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 6, 2019)

Stunned that no-one's called this out yet!



MechaTarrasque said:


> *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?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 6, 2019)

At some point Jeremy just decided to tell people to go back and re-read the books as the answers tend to be right there if you just think about it for a second.  How have you been playing Bardic Inspiration and Cutting Words these past four years?  If no players have questioned you on your comprehension of the rule yet, my guess is you've been playing it correctly.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 6, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> ???
> 
> What do you mean, "You can't Dash between attacks"? Even if you accept the totally unwritten 'rule' of not being able to interrupt action at the same time as ignoring the actually printed rule of being able to take bonus action whenever you like during your turn, 'Dash between attacks' is just nonsense!
> 
> ...




One of the "clarifications" by JC was that actions cannot be interrupted unless specifically stated.  It's specifically stated that you can take your movement between the attacks of an attack action, but it's an exception to the general rule.  Therefore you can't take any bonus actions (or bonus actions) while completing your attack action except move.  The bonus action for shield master can only be taken after the attack action is completely done and over.

If you read the rules in a very technical way, if they have an exception anything that does not also have that exception is not allowed.  It is a logical conclusion, just one I ignore.  To me it goes against the whole spirit of 5E and dredges up the worst aspects of 3.x rules lawyering.  

So like I said, I totally ignore it at my table.  Saying "I'm attacking ___" is enough for me to say you've trigger the shove.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 6, 2019)

Oofta said:


> One of the "clarifications" by JC was that actions cannot be interrupted unless specifically stated.  It's specifically stated that you can take your movement between the attacks of an attack action, but it's an exception to the general rule.  Therefore you can't take any bonus actions (or bonus actions) while completing your attack action except move.  The bonus action for shield master can only be taken after the attack action is completely done and over.
> 
> If you read the rules in a very technical way, if they have an exception anything that does not also have that exception is not allowed.  It is a logical conclusion, just one I ignore.  To me it goes against the whole spirit of 5E and dredges up the worst aspects of 3.x rules lawyering.
> 
> So like I said, I totally ignore it at my table.  Saying "I'm attacking ___" is enough for me to say you've trigger the shove.



"When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn. "

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. "

The difference is (what I think AB was bringing up) the attack action *is* make an attack. The Dash action is gain extra movement, not use extra movement.

So, my dash action is *done* in toto as soon as I "take it" and I now have the extra movement to use or not. The "action" is resolved. So the "indivisible action" does not apply.

For the "take attack action" with extra attacks the indivisible action applies (JEC) to everything but movement. But there is no additional limit on what that movement is or where it came from.

You seem to be wanting to see dash action as "making the move" like the attack action is "make an attack" but they are distinctly different.

I dont go with the Indivisible action either btw unless the situation makes it so. But Dash and Attack would be different either way.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 6, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




I think the assumption is that the roll is made out in the open where the bard can see it, but tables differ on this, so the answer allows for tables that use a DM screen as well.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 6, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> "When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn. "
> 
> "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. "
> 
> ...




The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move.  

Which is exactly the type of nit-picky BS argument I try to avoid at all costs at my table.  I don't want to have to parse out the exact meaning of phrases and words in the document.  It's not written like a technical document and I don't want to try to interpret it as one.  To me that's one of the strengths of 5E.

I also have other issues with the ruling.  It means I couldn't do the following between attacks: misty step as a bonus action between attacks; bonus action healing word an ally; use an action surge to take an action to interact with an object; stab someone with my primary weapon then with my off-hand weapon before attacking with my primary again, etc.

That's just not as fun and slows down the flow of the game for me and my group, so I will continue to ignore it.  If other people like the structure that strict parsing of the rules gives them, more power to them.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 6, 2019)

Oofta said:


> The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move.
> 
> Which is exactly the type of nit-picky BS argument I try to avoid at all costs at my table.  I don't want to have to parse out the exact meaning of phrases and words in the document.  It's not written like a technical document and I don't want to try to interpret it as one.  To me that's one of the strengths of 5E.
> 
> ...



"The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move. "

You do not have to take the dash action between your attacks - in this hypothetical case where you can dash and have multiple attacks. 

You can dash, now you have extra movement, then use any/all of movement before, after, between attacks.

It seemed like someone was saying that the movement from Dash was an indivisible action. Trying to construe you could not fo stuff while using that Dash movement, but using the movement is **not** part of the Dash action the way making an attack is part of the Attack action.

"stab someone with my primary weapon then with my off-hand weapon before attacking with my primary again, etc."

Any attack can be used with any weapon unless specified otherwise. So, you could strike (say sword dagger pair) with sword and dagger no problem even with his ruling then move on and take any remaining attacks. You would simply be using two of your attacks from the extra attack.

However, I am pretty sure with TWF the bonus action attack csn be used in the middle of the action... between attacks.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with ..."

That seems to key it to an attack so you can even use your bonus action.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 6, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> However, I am pretty sure with TWF the bonus action attack csn be used in the middle of the action... between attacks.
> 
> "When you take the Attack action and attack with ..."
> 
> That scream bit keys it to an attack so you can even use your bonus action.




Exceeept, weren't you just arguing that Shield Master couldn't put until after all attacks were made because "when you take the Attack action" meant you had to _complete_ the Attack action?


----------



## Oofta (Feb 6, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> "The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move. "
> 
> You do not have to take the dash action between your attacks - in this hypothetical case where you can dash and have multiple attacks.
> 
> ...




Let's say I can take dash action in addition to my normal action.  Rogue, haste, action surge, whatever.

I attack and kill enemy A.  I need 35 ft of movement to get to enemy B.  I _really_ want to get to enemy B.  I only have 30 ft of movement so I want to move and use the dash action to move my base speed.

I can't do that unless I can break up my attack action with anything other than movement.  Dash action grants movement, but it is still an action.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 6, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Exceeept, weren't you just arguing that Shield Master couldn't put until after all attacks were made because "when you take the Attack action" meant you had to _complete_ the Attack action?



Actually let's be clear.
I **do not** in my games require the indivisible action ruling. Have said that several times.
So, **in my games** you can make one attack of your attack action, then use the SM bonus action shove anytime after that, even if you have more of your attack action to finish.

That is different from a discussion about the official rules and rulings.

As for the Indivisible action, there is a difference between the SM BA and the TWF that was in the text you quoted.

SM BA 
"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."

TWF
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon..."

The TWF establishes the attack made as part of the Attack action as also part of the trigger specifically. The SM requires the Attack Action taken. 

So it seems the two rules establish a difference, one calling out the individual attack in the trigger while the other triggers on the whole attack action.

(Typically, the SM debates hinges on whether you can ignore the attack part of the Attsck action and get your shove anyway... intent bring sll that matters... to some... but that's another story.)

If SM had the same "attack action and attack..." wording as TWF it would be great... establishing that one attack is required before the special shove and like TWF avoiding any issues of having to finish the attack action. (Pretty much, that's how I use it... putting it squarely behind the wet dream of the shove firsters and the overly odd indivisible action of JEC rulings.)


----------



## Yunru (Feb 6, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> ASM BA
> "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."
> 
> TWF
> ...




But both require you to "take the Attack action". One just has _more_ requirements. How is one's taking the attack action different just because it also requires you use a certain weapon?

EDIT: Not that any of this matters from an official standpoint, since every tweet is now unofficial.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 6, 2019)

Yunru said:


> But both require you to "take the Attack action". One just has _more_ requirements. How is one's taking the attack action different just because it also requires you use a certain weapon?
> 
> EDIT: Not that any of this matters from an official standpoint, since every tweet is now unofficial.



It doesnt require you to use a different weapon alone, it specifically calls out the making of ** an attack.** That establishes the attack of the attack action as the trigger  - specifically **an attack** not all attacks - singular.

If you desire to not see that as different yo keep arguing it, that's great, have a blast.

But between shield master and twf only one of them has language specifically calling making one attack as part of the trigger.

Now, like I said, for my own games, I font follow the indivisible action ruling, so as long as you take the attack sction by making one attack, you can then usebthd bonus shove.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 6, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> It doesnt require you to use a different weapon alone, it specifically calls out the making of ** an attack.** That establishes the attack of the attack action as the trigger  - specifically **an attack** not all attacks - singular.




No it doesn't.
You've the trigger: When you take the Attack action
and you've the restriction: and attack with...

The trigger isn't "When you make an attack with... as part of the Attack action" it's specifically "When you take the Attack action" which is the same as Shield Master.

Of course, I think we're all playing devil's advocate to each other?


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 6, 2019)

Yunru said:


> No it doesn't.
> You've the trigger: When you take the Attack action
> and you've the restriction: and attack with...
> 
> ...



Wow... Nope, just taking the attack action is not the trigger. The trigger is taking the attack action **and** making an attack with blah blah. 

And means both are part of the trigger. 

Usually, but I guess not to some.

You do you and... wait no better not add any confusion with another znd... 

You just do you.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 6, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> The trigger is taking the attack action **and** making an attack with blah blah.




Okay, still works for me. You were arguing that, officially, Shield Master couldn't come before the attacks because the trigger has to finish first. So for TWF the trigger has to finish first. So the Attack action _and_ the attack with a light weapon have to both of finished.
Not seeing how you're getting just the attack with a light weapon having to finish.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 6, 2019)

I think the whole two weapon fighting is just another example of the tortured/finicky reading you have to use if we try to parse out exact meanings.

I read "when you attack with a light weapon" as meaning that the attacks in the attack action need to be done with a light weapon.  I think that's also how [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] interprets it: the wording has nothing to do with timing.  For [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], it seems to qualify the weapon used _and _the timing (that only one attack needs to be made).

In any case, I just say the heck with that and pay no attention to the letter of the rules.


----------



## Krachek (Feb 6, 2019)

The indivisibilty of the « action ».
Only in DnD we can have such debate.
Of course being able to divide the action offer so much possibilities.
I wonder if warlock debate about the Indivisibilty of the soul?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 6, 2019)

Discussion of bonus action timing starts 1 minute in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1dc6VBHhA


----------



## Yunru (Feb 6, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> Discussion of bonus action timing starts 1 minute in.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1dc6VBHhA



Relevance to being official ended at [Insert date of latest compendium]


----------



## Oofta (Feb 6, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> Discussion of bonus action timing starts 1 minute in.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1dc6VBHhA




It's funny that you linked to that.  Because JC's example of the monk is clear. It states that the bonus action must be taken "immediately after the attack action".  

If other feats and ability were worded in a similar way I wouldn't have a problem.  If it's what they meant, shield master and two weapon fighting could have said "take the bonus action after the attack action".  But they don't.  I never would have taken shield master for my paladin, but there are other feats I think are basically pointless.  But they were not clear, hence page 134 on this topic.

In any case, not being able to take the attack action because you were interrupted is such an edge case I don't care.  You meant to attack, you couldn't, you can't take a different action even if you wanted to.  Just like bonus action spells and cantrips.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 6, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Okay, still works for me. You were arguing that, officially, Shield Master couldn't come before the attacks because the trigger has to finish first. So for TWF the trigger has to finish first. So the Attack action _and_ the attack with a light weapon have to both of finished.
> Not seeing how you're getting just the attack with a light weapon having to finish.



Pointless.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 6, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I think the whole two weapon fighting is just another example of the tortured/finicky reading you have to use if we try to parse out exact meanings.
> 
> I read "when you attack with a light weapon" as meaning that the attacks in the attack action need to be done with a light weapon.  I think that's also how [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] interprets it: the wording has nothing to do with timing.  For [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], it seems to qualify the weapon used _and _the timing (that only one attack needs to be made).
> 
> In any case, I just say the heck with that and pay no attention to the letter of the rules.



Yup, as I said, I play both just need one attack to trigger myself because I dont buy the indivisible action. Doesnt bother me one bit it's not precisely RAW in some eyes. 

But, I tend to clarify that as rulings in my campaign foc.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 6, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Pointless.



No no, it's with a light weapon, not a blunt one!


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 7, 2019)

Oofta said:


> One of the "clarifications" by JC was that actions cannot be interrupted unless specifically stated.  It's specifically stated that you can take your movement between the attacks of an attack action, but *it's an exception to the general rule.*




That's the point though: there is no 'general rule' that actions are indivisible!

If there is, let us know which page of which book states this rule so we can see it for ourselves.

I have Extra Attack and the Shield Master feat. It's my turn. I announce that I am 'taking the Attack action' and execute an attack against an adjacent orc, killing it.

Have I 'taken the Attack action' or not?

If I have, then I have generated a bonus action shield shove, and can now take it at any time from now until the end of my turn, either before or after my extra attack.

If I have not, then I'll take the Cast a Spell action to cast _ensnaring strike_, because I have not used my action yet (you just said so!) and that orc died for free.

Which is it?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 7, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Relevance to being official ended at [Insert date of latest compendium]




I watched the whole thing. At no point did he discuss the relationship between 'taking a bonus action whenever you like, once you have one!' and Extra Attack.

Discussing Shield Master, he said that you don't have the bonus action shield shove until you've actually attacked using the Attack action, because 'taking the Attack action' IS making an attack using that action.

He said it's the same thing. There is no 'declare actions, then execute actions' in 5e like there used to be in 1e and 2e. 'Taking the Action' IS 'doing the thing that the Action allows', so the game itself treats 'executing the things allowed by the Action you took' to be one and the same thing as 'taking an Action'.

Except....Dash (you take the Action and nothing happens; you can just move further. You don't have to have used up your normal move before you are allowed to take the Dash action), Disengage (you don't have to immediately move out of a foes reach as soon as you take this Action. You can take the Disengage action and then attack, draw another weapon, attack again, _then_ move out of a foe's reach), Dodge (you take the Dodge action and...nothing happens...for the rest of your turn...and maybe not at all. The only thing that _might_ happen is that _if_ you are attacked-probably not on your own turn-then the attack roll is made with disadvantage. The Dodge does *not* happen at the same time you 'take the Dodge action! To design it to work that way, it would be a Reaction, not an Action).

And, with Extra Attack, you can attack once as the very first thing you do, move your move divided up as you wish, and attack a second time six seconds later. Are we seriously saying that you literally cannot do anything between those attacks except move? Can't you use your free object interaction to draw another weapon? Can't you drop something? Can't you take a bonus action, even though the rules actually *do* say that you can take bonus actions whenever you like on your turn, and do *not* say that 'actions are indivisible'?

How come JC didn't mention this in the video? How come he didn't mention either the indivisibility of actions or anything about having to complete ALL of your attacks before the shield shove?

Perhaps he was in line at Trader Joe's when he suggested the 'indivisible action' thing...!


----------



## Oofta (Feb 7, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> That's the point though: there is no 'general rule' that actions are indivisible!
> 
> If there is, let us know which page of which book states this rule so we can see it for ourselves.
> 
> ...




My answer?  If you've declared that you are attacking, you've qualified for anything triggered by the attack action.  

Saying that you may not be able to complete the attack action (as in the stream linked to) is silly IMHO.  You get multiple attacks with the attack action, but what happens if you can only do the first attack and can't take any more for some reason?  Is the action complete?  Does that mean your first attack is null and void and didn't really happen?  Just goofy logic I don't want to deal with.

As far as how JC would rule you'd have to ask him.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> That's the point though: there is no 'general rule' that actions are indivisible!
> 
> If there is, let us know which page of which book states this rule so we can see it for ourselves.
> 
> ...



If you made an attack, you have to have done do by taking some form of act - action, bonus sction, reaction - because in 5e there are no non-action attacks (off the top of my head, may be monster thing but iirc not PC.)

Setting aside bonus actions and reaction, the attack action says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. " It then goes on about multiple attacks etc. 

So, if you make an attack that isnt a bonus action or reaction you are taking the attack action, but that one attack does not necessarily finish your attack action. 

At my table, especially since there is no "I intend to..." as soon as you make that first attack of your "allowed extra attacks" your shield master bonus shove is ready for business.

But, until you took that attack, the shield master bonus shove was not an option.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 8, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> If you made an attack, you have to have done do by taking some form of act - action, bonus sction, reaction - because in 5e there are no non-action attacks (off the top of my head, may be monster thing but iirc not PC.)
> 
> Setting aside bonus actions and reaction, the attack action says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. " It then goes on about multiple attacks etc.
> 
> ...




So you agree that as soon as you execute the first of your two attacks of your Attack action that you have generated the bonus action shield shove and can take it any time you want, even before you execute your second attack?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 8, 2019)

The first step of making an attack is chosing a target. Therefore you can Shield Bash as soon as you say "I attack X", if you want to rule declaring you take the action as insufficient.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2019)

_If the damage from disintegrate reduces a half-orc to 0 hit points, can Relentless Endurance prevent the orc from turning to ash? Yes. The disintegrate spell turns you into dust only if the spell’s damage leaves you with 0 hit points. If you’re a half-orc, Relentless Endurance can turn the 0 into a 1 before the spell can disintegrate you.

What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? The druid leaves beast form. As usual, any leftover damage then applies to the druid’s normal hit points. If the leftover damage leaves the druid with 0 hit points, the druid is disintegrated._

This seems to be ignoring the plain wording of the _Disintegrate_ spell in order to be nice to the PCs. Which is ok as a house rule, but I'm not going to use it. Magic should be scary IMO at least occasionally, and Disintegrate as written is one of very few 5e spells that can still scare PCs.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> "...anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."
> 
> PHB, page 189




You can't expect the writer of Sage Advice to actually read the PHB! However Stinking Cloud doesn't actually prevent Actions, it says "You spend your Action Retching & Reeling", so bonus could still apply I think.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 8, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m just saying, this isn’t unique to disintegrate. Literally no one can one-shot half-orcs, unless they’ve already used their relentless endurance for the day.




It says "and does not kill you outright" - the writing & intent is very clear that it stops the half orc dropping to Dying, it is not an immunity to outight death. So the Sage is talking out his hat on this.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So you agree that as soon as you execute the first of your two attacks of your Attack action that you have generated the bonus action shield shove and can take it any time you want, even before you execute your second attack?



At my table, yes. I have said so multiple times already in this thread. 

If they wanted indivisible actions to be a thing, they had both an errata and a compendium to add it and chose not to. 

Imo that says something.

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. "

Seems clear right. You "make" an attack. Not "promise" an attsck. Not "hope" to attack. Not "wish to at some point" attack. Not "order and attack from Amazon Prime with free two-day shipping."

Abilities like the monk have state "immediately" after, but extra attsck does not. 

So, only with the indivisible action ruling that precedes errata, compendium and even the 2-1-19 podcast could i conjure the notion of has to finish all attacks first for SM. 

I was never on board with the bonus bring pre-attzck however for SM.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 8, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Discussing Shield Master, he said that you don't have the bonus action shield shove until you've actually attacked using the Attack action, because 'taking the Attack action' IS making an attack using that action.




I think he was pretty clear, and he also explained that part of the reason is related to not gaining the benefits of the shove already on those attacks of yours.



Arial Black said:


> Except....Dash (you take the Action and nothing happens; you can just move further. You don't have to have used up your normal move before you are allowed to take the Dash action), Disengage (you don't have to immediately move out of a foes reach as soon as you take this Action. You can take the Disengage action and then attack, draw another weapon, attack again, _then_ move out of a foe's reach), Dodge (you take the Dodge action and...nothing happens...for the rest of your turn...and maybe not at all. The only thing that _might_ happen is that _if_ you are attacked-probably not on your own turn-then the attack roll is made with disadvantage.




I have always been aware of the fact that those 3 are defined as "Actions" for the sake of making it clear what is their _cost_. In a most basic turn (i.e. without considering bonus actions or Action Surge or similar) you simply have to give up your main activity (attacking or casting) if you want to move double distance, avoid OA, or get a defensive bonus.

Had they designed Dash to immediately grant an extra move, you'd have to use it immediately, or maybe it would have required a bunch more boring wordy explanations, because "move" isn't an action per se in 5e. Instead with the current design, everything that is already explained about _moving_ is still valid (including splitting up the movement distance), you just increase the maximum distance for this turn.

What is good about this design, is that players can choose to Dash/Disengage/Dodge at _any time_ during their turn, if they still have an Action to use. So the PC might have already done something else, and then realize they need some extra movement/defense or they may incur in an OA. 

A different design option would have been to have some "fight defensively" or "move carefully" condition that applies to the whole turn. Or they could have more strongely defined a move as a "move action". These were kind of things used in 3ed, and they worked fine in the context of that edition's philosophy, but Crawford makes it clear that 5e has a different philosophy and such extra rules artifacts would have gotten in the way of it.



Arial Black said:


> And, with Extra Attack, you can attack once as the very first thing you do, move your move divided up as you wish, and attack a second time six seconds later. Are we seriously saying that you literally cannot do anything between those attacks except move? Can't you use your free object interaction to draw another weapon? Can't you drop something? Can't you take a bonus action, even though the rules actually *do* say that you can take bonus actions whenever you like on your turn, and do *not* say that 'actions are indivisible'?




Well you _can_ use your free object interaction since that is done _during_ your action or movement. OTOH I tend towards saying you can't take a bonus action between those attacks (but I don't think it would be a big deal to allow that) at least if the bonus action is itself one of those with "timing".

But more generally, I think we have to keep in mind that this is a *game* and not a 'model' or 'simulation' of reality, and that (like it or not) means that there is more at stakes than just realism and balance (usually the 2 paramount targets in all rules discussions). Crawford mentions several times during the interview how important it was for WotC designers to design certain things to work in such a way that doesn't bog the game down, even if that means to sacrifice a bit of realism or balance. It just means that the game WILL sometimes fail a reality-check or a balance-check, because they decided it's less important than having other flaws.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

S'mon said:


> You can't expect the writer of Sage Advice to actually read the PHB! However Stinking Cloud doesn't actually prevent Actions, it says "You spend your Action Retching & Reeling", so bonus could still apply I think.



Yup, by the rules as written and this ruling alone, yes. Thatsxwhy I griped at the answer.

Notice the division however between stinking cloud and the Warlock Shadows invocation.

For the Warlock, the ruling is that "until you move or take an action or a reaction" include bonus actions because "Bonus actions are actions."

But for Stinking Cloud (and presumably all those "only action is Dash" fear type effects) "On a failed save, the creature spends its action that turn retching and reeling."

Bah...  at my table, "Any effect that forces a character to spend its zction in a certain way - such as Dash or retching - counts as "anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.""

Although, one could argue by RAW Stinking cloud "deprives you of your ability to take actions" since you cannot Dash, Attack, Disengage etc etc and the "deprives" does not say "anything that deprives you of your ability to take ALL actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."

But its cleaner as a house rule for me.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 8, 2019)

S'mon said:


> _If the damage from disintegrate reduces a half-orc to 0 hit points, can Relentless Endurance prevent the orc from turning to ash? Yes. The disintegrate spell turns you into dust only if the spell’s damage leaves you with 0 hit points. If you’re a half-orc, Relentless Endurance can turn the 0 into a 1 before the spell can disintegrate you.
> 
> What happens if a druid using Wild Shape is reduced to 0 hit points by disintegrate? Does the druid simply leave beast form? The druid leaves beast form. As usual, any leftover damage then applies to the druid’s normal hit points. If the leftover damage leaves the druid with 0 hit points, the druid is disintegrated._
> 
> This seems to be ignoring the plain wording of the _Disintegrate_ spell in order to be nice to the PCs.




They _also _changed the wording of Disintegrate in the errata, however. I think it is now actually consistent with this Sage Advice.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 8, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> I have always been aware of the fact that those 3 are defined as "Actions" for the sake of making it clear what is their _cost_. In a most basic turn (i.e. without considering bonus actions or Action Surge or similar) you simply have to give up your main activity (attacking or casting) if you want to move double distance, avoid OA, or get a defensive bonus.
> 
> Had they designed Dash to immediately grant an extra move, you'd have to use it immediately, or maybe it would have required a bunch more boring wordy explanations, because "move" isn't an action per se in 5e. Instead with the current design, everything that is already explained about _moving_ is still valid (including splitting up the movement distance), you just increase the maximum distance for this turn.
> 
> ...




The problem is that his own rules contradict what he just said about those rules (as soon as you 'take the Action' you ARE doing that thing), AND he's saying that this is the reason he's ruling this way.

An observer notes that _some_ of the actions happen as you take them, and some do not. Claiming that Shield Master MUST be this way because 'the rules are written so that taking the action is the same thing as doing it' is absurd, because of all the rules HE wrote which DON'T work that way!


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 8, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> That's the point though: there is no 'general rule' that actions are indivisible!




That's true. Also, there is no 'general rule' that actions are _divisible_. So pick one and use it.



Arial Black said:


> I have Extra Attack and the Shield Master feat. It's my turn. I announce that I am 'taking the Attack action' and execute an attack against an adjacent orc, killing it.
> 
> Have I 'taken the Attack action' or not?
> 
> ...




Neither. 

I would say that you are currently taking the action, in the middle of its completion, so you can neither use a bonus action or another action.

You can however "interact with an object", communicate, or use any part of your movement, because all these 3 are explicitly allowed to be done _during _an action / freely / between multiple attacks of the same action, respectively.



Arial Black said:


> The problem is that his own rules contradict what he just said about those rules (as soon as you 'take the Action' you ARE doing that thing), AND he's saying that this is the reason he's ruling this way.
> 
> An observer notes that _some_ of the actions happen as you take them, and some do not. Claiming that Shield Master MUST be this way because 'the rules are written so that taking the action is the same thing as doing it' is absurd, because of all the rules HE wrote which DON'T work that way!




I think this is not a real problem, but rather a fabricated one.

But if you care so much about the RAW, I would note that you can still say that "Dash" as an action happens (and is completed) when you take it, and this still doesn't mean in any way that you have to move 30ft immediately, because the action itself explicitly says those 30ft are added to your overall movement distance in your turn, it doesn't say that Dash is equivalent to moving 30ft.

The same thing happens for Disengage, Dodge, Help and Ready. You can still go with the RAW and say their action is taken and completed, but the benefits occur later (for some of those even past the end of your turn, and into next round!) because that's what their specific text says.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 8, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> The problem is that his own rules contradict what he just said about those rules (as soon as you 'take the Action' you ARE doing that thing), AND he's saying that this is the reason he's ruling this way.
> 
> An observer notes that _some_ of the actions happen as you take them, and some do not. Claiming that Shield Master MUST be this way because 'the rules are written so that taking the action is the same thing as doing it' is absurd, because of all the rules HE wrote which DON'T work that way!



Yes but...

"With this [Attack] action, you make one melee or ranged attack."

"When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn."

One of those rules specifically calls out doing something while the other calls out gaining something. Dash specifically did not say "you move an additional distance..." when you take the sction.

For SM, what is required is "If you take the Attack action on your turn..." and its clearly stated that you make an attack with the  Attack action.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 8, 2019)

Oofta said:


> I also have other issues with the ruling.  It means I couldn't do the following between attacks: misty step as a bonus action between attacks; bonus action healing word an ally; use an action surge to take an action to interact with an object; stab someone with my primary weapon then with my off-hand weapon before attacking with my primary again, etc.
> 
> That's just not as fun and slows down the flow of the game for me and my group, so I will continue to ignore it.  If other people like the structure that strict parsing of the rules gives them, more power to them.




FWIW, as Jeremy discussed in this week's Sage Advice video, neither Misty Step nor Healing Word have any kind of timing restrictions in their text and thus you can do them at any point on your turn (including the examples you give above).  Shield Master, Two-Weapon Fighting etc do have triggers, and thus the trigger has to resolve before you get the bonus action, according to JC's interpretation of RAW.  Like many other people, I'm still slightly confused about how Extra Attack interacts with "taking the Attack action" for Shield Master, because I still think it's reasonable to be able to attack-slam-attack since you've already committed to the Attack action after the first attack.  However, I also do agree with what he said in the video about not wanting Shield Master to just grant permanent advantage, as that seems massively overpowered (and that's how it felt when I was playing it that way on my SnB Paladin).

I think there's a reasonable interpretation that if you made one of your 2 attacks but then wanted to Action Surge to "Use an Object" then there's just not enough time in the round for you to make a second attack.  That is, if the object is complex enough that it takes an action to use, then you have to spend several seconds interacting with it.

Having said all of that, I think JC's best advice is to "follow your bliss" and if you don't like these rules, then just change them for your table.


----------



## tabris47 (Feb 9, 2019)

> FWIW, as Jeremy discussed in this week's Sage Advice video, neither Misty Step nor Healing Word have any kind of timing restrictions in their text and thus you can do them at any point on your turn (including the examples you give above).



 @_*Asgorath*_ From rules you can't interrupt your action with other things, unless specified otherwise. So for example you can cast Misty Step as bonus action before the attack action or after the attack action (no timing restrictions), but not beetween attacks (because if you do it you interrupt your Attack action, very few things are allowed during attacks such as using your movement).


----------



## Yunru (Feb 9, 2019)

deryn said:


> From rules you can't interrupt your action with other things, unless specified otherwise.




Cite?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 9, 2019)

deryn said:


> @_*Asgorath*_ *From rules* you can't interrupt your action with other things, unless specified otherwise.




If it's 'from the rules', could you give us the page number and provide a quote?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 9, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> That's true. Also, there is no 'general rule' that actions are _divisible_. So pick one and use it.




But there IS a general rule that you can take your bonus action whenever you like, as soon as you actually have a bonus action. That, combined with complete silence on whether or not actions are divisible, leaves us only with 'take the bonus action when you like' rule.



> Neither.




Not a valid answer.

It cannot be that you have *not* 'taken the Attack action' so you haven't generated the bonus action shield shove, but you *have* 'taken the Attack action' so you can't take a different action.

It's a game rule, not an unresolved quantum probability. We are looking in the box! We can see if the cat is dead or alive! It is one or the other! 



> But if you care so much about the RAW, I would note that you can still say that "Dash" as an action happens (and is completed) when you take it, and this still doesn't mean in any way that you have to move 30ft immediately, because the action itself explicitly says those 30ft are added to your overall movement distance in your turn, it doesn't say that Dash is equivalent to moving 30ft.
> 
> The same thing happens for Disengage, Dodge, Help and Ready. You can still go with the RAW and say their action is taken and completed, but the benefits occur later (for some of those even past the end of your turn, and into next round!) because that's what their specific text says.




'Taking the Attack action' involves, according to PHB p192: "With this action, you make *one* melee or ranged attack." Therefore, as soon as you say you are 'taking the Attack action' and have resolved that attack it is certain that you have, in fact, 'taken the Attack action' at this point. You have generated that bonus action shield shove.

With Extra Attack, you _can_ attack twice. You are not _required_ to attack twice.

If I have Extra Attack, and attack once, but choose not to make a second attack, have I not 'taken the Attack action' as described in the rules? Am I barred from doing anything else ever that requires an action or bonus action because I am still in the middle of my Attack action? Do I have to attack a nearby innocent child because I've killed all the baddies before I am allowed to _misty step_ over the chasm to get to the BBEG?


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 9, 2019)

From the PHB in the Fighter section of class abilities,

"Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class."

I agree with the above poster. Since it says you "can" make extra attacks and not you "must" make extra attacks, and since the bonus action can fire off when it's triggering mechanic fires, once you make an attack with the attack action, you can then shield bash, as you met the requirements, then elect to finish your attacks, or move and continue attacking.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 9, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Not a valid answer.




Not a valid question. 

Setting up a fake dichotomy and ask whether the answer is A or B is unfair. If you are not open to answer C, why bother discussing?

/end communication


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 9, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> From the PHB in the Fighter section of class abilities,
> 
> "Extra Attack
> Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
> ...




I would go one of two ways based on the “can” argument.

1) (actions are divisible) You make an attack, and take a bonus action. Since you had extra attacks, you can now take them or not at your preference.

2) (actions are indivisible) You make an attack, and take a bonus action. When taking a bonus action you have made a conscious decision to finish your attack action without taking your extra attacks, so you now have no attacks left.


As to the whole “divisible vs indivisible” argument...to me actions are indivisible by default. If that was not the case, than the whole “divide your movement between attacks” clause would not be necessary...as that would simply be a natural thing that divisible actions let you do.

If you then want to argue that clause is a “clarity” for the reader instead of a rules exception, well there are plenty of other circumstances that are not explicitly mentioned for clarity. For example, with divisible actions...twin spell would allow me to touch a person, move, and touch another person. Why isn’t that explicitly mentioned for clarity?

So based on that, I assume actions are indivisible by default, until rules exceptions make them otherwise.

So that’s the default. Now at my table, I like the idea of allowing a shield bash in between attacks. So I would allow this as a “rules exception”, but I knowingly accept that it is not RAW and would not allow other divisible action scenarios in automatically.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2019)

I gotta go with the indivisible camp here. Having extra attacks replaces the “one” attack you get when you take the attack action. 

The attack action though is still a discrete unit, regardless of how many attacks you make. 

So, by RAW, you cannot break up an attack action with a bonus action because there is only one action, even though that single action allows multiple attacks.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 9, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I gotta go with the indivisible camp here. Having extra attacks replaces the “one” attack you get when you take the attack action.
> 
> The attack action though is still a discrete unit, regardless of how many attacks you make.
> 
> So, by RAW, you cannot break up an attack action with a bonus action because there is only one action, even though that single action allows multiple attacks.




While I agree (otherwise there would be no reason to mention moving between attacks or that section should have been worded differently), I think it's a very arbitrary/gamist rule that disrupts the flow of the game.

I know D&D is not a simulation, but that doesn't mean we have to have rules that are completely illogical.  Even hit points have a certain action movie logic to them.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 9, 2019)

deryn said:


> @_*Asgorath*_ From rules you can't interrupt your action with other things, unless specified otherwise. So for example you can cast Misty Step as bonus action before the attack action or after the attack action (no timing restrictions), but not beetween attacks (because if you do it you interrupt your Attack action, very few things are allowed during attacks such as using your movement).




Did you watch the Sage Advice video?

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=304

Jeremy Crawford talks about the timing of bonus actions, as documented in the rules.  Here's the section from the PHB that he's talking about (Chapter 9, under The Order of Combat and Your Turn).



> *Bonus Actions*
> 
> Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
> 
> ...




Emphasis added.  The bonus actions rules specifically say you get to choose when to take the bonus action on your turn, unless it has timing specified in the bonus action itself (e.g. Shield Master, TWF etc).  Thus, it's a specific rule that overrides any general "you cannot interrupt your actions with other stuff rule" that I don't even think exists.  If it does, please provide the PHB reference for it.  In any case, specific beats general, and thus you can cast Misty Step and Healing Word whenever you want on your turn.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 9, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So you agree that as soon as you execute the first of your two attacks of your Attack action that you have generated the bonus action shield shove and can take it any time you want, even before you execute your second attack?




Extra attack just adds an attack to the attack action.  It is not separate from it.  In order to take your attack action, you'd have to complete both of your attacks.  The ONLY thing you can do in-between those attacks per RAW, is move.  Once you have taken the attack action by completing your attack(s), you can then use your shield to shove.  That's how the game is written.  That's how JC clarified it as working.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Did you watch the Sage Advice video?
> 
> https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=304
> 
> ...




Does it?  Yes, you can take the bonus action any time during your turn.  One interpretation is that it can be taken either before or after any action.

The "can't interrupt" is one of those fuzzy rules determined by the fact that it spells out the exception for movement.  I was multi-tasking while listening, but I don't remember Crawford specifically addressing the issue.  

From Chapter 9 of the PHB:
_*Moving Between Attacks*
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. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again._​
As a DM, I know how I'm going to rule, but the "can't interrupt an action with anything other than movement" is a valid ruling based on the text.  A nit-picky one perhaps, but still valid.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Extra attack just adds an attack to the attack action.  It is not separate from it.  In order to take your attack action, you'd have to complete both of your attacks.  The ONLY thing you can do in-between those attacks per RAW, is move.  Once you have taken the attack action by completing your attack(s), you can then use your shield to shove.  That's how the game is written.  *That's how JC clarified it as working.*




When?

I am aware of JEC having said this in the past... but...

it did not get into the recent errata, did not make it into the recent compendium and did not make it into the live-stream devoted to bonus actions in Feb 2019.

What did make it into those was the statement about the unofficial nature of even JEC tweets.

Meanwhile, how many different things can you do inside of an action - between it starting and it finishing? You seem to suggest none.
Move for sure between attacks.
Cast reaction spells for sure - counterspell vs counterspell as the best example where you have a Magic missile spell being cast by Joe, a counterspell from Sam tries to stop it and Joe throws his own reaction counterspell - net result is two spent counterspells within the casting of the original Magic missile which then goes off.
There are likely plenty of other things that can be done when one starts looking at the various maneuvers and defensive reactions. 

Attack, move, that movement prompts an AO, that AO prompts a reaction or bonus action, move continues etc.

There is an explicit rule specific to bonus actions that says you can take a bonus action when you want "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."

The revised compendium for Shield Master reads - "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action."

So, there does not seem to have been any part of the earlier uofficial tweets "indivisible actions" brought forward into these products. 

Which leaves us back to what counts as taking the attack action which is defined as making one attack.

They could have said "completed" or "all attacks of" and any number of ways to re-state that Shield master in the compendium, but they did not.
They could have chosen to add the indivisible action as a general rule, but they did not.


So, as of that compendium, it seems a lot like they have not carried forward the older indivisible action at all *and* have now declared the source it came from (JEC Tweets) as unofficial.






Reaction sperlls for sure


----------



## epithet (Feb 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Extra attack just adds an attack to the attack action.  It is not separate from it.  In order to take your attack action, you'd have to complete both of your attacks.  The ONLY thing you can do in-between those attacks per RAW, is move.  Once you have taken the attack action by completing your attack(s), you can then use your shield to shove.  That's how the game is written.  That's how JC clarified it as working.




You do love your absolutes, Max.

The way the game was written and clarified was, for several years, that you could take your Shield Master shove whenever you wanted to. Now, Crawford has decided that he must have been drunk and in line at the grocery store when he tweeted that, and just didn't notice it for a long time after.

For me, there's something important about the way you have to explain a thing to a new player. You tell a player "ok, for a fighter at your level with that feat, you get two melee attacks and then an extra shield bash you can use to shove someone back or knock him down."
The player replies, "Great, I want to knock him down first, because I remember from the wolves last time that Prone sucks!"
"Oh, sorry," you have to say, "you can't do that. You have to make both of your regular attacks first, then try to knock him down."
Your player has a reasonable question. "Why? That doesn't make any sense."
"Because," you respond with a sigh, "that's just what the rule says."

If the only answer you can come up with is "it's just what the rule says," it's a crap rule. All of Jeremy's justifications for this current Sage Advice ruling on this unchanged rule are, in my opinion, really tenuous. It goes to show, I believe, the limited value of Sage Advice, which is to provide an arguably consistent set of rulings and interpretations that a DM can fall back on if he's not comfortable making a ruling or interpreting a rule himself. Your best bet is always to interpret a rule in a way that makes sense to your and your party and fits with the game you're playing at your table, but if that's not something you are comfortable with you can look up the Sage Advice, which has as its primary virtue a reasonable level of internal consistency with other Sage Advice interpretations.

I think the best way to interpret the rule is that the Attack action does the same thing that every other action does in combat--it gives you something you can do. When you take the attack action, you can make one or more attacks. You don't have to, and if something stops you you don't get to. It's just like Dash. Why? Because it is better and simpler to be consistent with similar rules than to be consistent with your interpretation of similar verb clauses and prepositional phrases.


----------



## cbwjm (Feb 9, 2019)

One reason why I would like to allow the bonus action shove after the 1st attack, is because that may have been how it was used for 4 levels then suddenly, at level 5, the fighter needs to make 2 attacks or lose an attack before shield bash. Unless you're getting rid of the rule that requires the attack action and just allow a bonus action shove whenever, I think allowing the bonus action to go after the 1st attack and before the 2nd, is reasonable.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 9, 2019)

And this is why JC's ruling on Shield Master is just crap. It opened the door to more over-analyzation of something in a game that should just be fluid.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 10, 2019)

Oofta said:


> While I agree (otherwise there would be no reason to mention moving between attacks or that section should have been worded differently), I think it's a very arbitrary/gamist rule that disrupts the flow of the game.
> 
> I know D&D is not a simulation, but that doesn't mean we have to have rules that are completely illogical.  Even hit points have a certain action movie logic to them.




Totally and 100% agree.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> When?
> 
> I am aware of JEC having said this in the past... but...
> 
> ...




You have a point about reactions breaking into the middle of an attack, but those are contingent on getting an opportunity attack somehow or having a feat like sentinal.  No bonus action happens during the middle of an attack without being triggered by a reaction or a specific rule that beats the general one.  

Shield master isn't a reaction which specifically allows it to break into the middle of an attack action, or a specific rule that allows you to interrupt the attack action.  In fact, it specifically says if you have taken(past tense) the attack action.  That past tense wording means that you have to have finished the attack action first.  Otherwise you have not taken it at all.  You are taking it.  If you haven't even started it, then you have only declared your intent to take it.  Neither of those two circumstances meets the specific criteria set forth in the feat.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> The way the game was written and clarified was, for several years, that you could take your Shield Master shove whenever you wanted to. Now, Crawford has decided that he must have been drunk and in line at the grocery store when he tweeted that, and just didn't notice it for a long time after.




The way the game is and was written, you have to take the attack action first(past tense_.  In the middle of taking the action and about to take the action are not qualifiers to trigger the feat.  They are justifications for those who choose to "interpret" the feat that way, to do something that the game doesn't allow.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Azzy said:


> And this is why JC's ruling on Shield Master is just crap. It opened the door to more over-analyzation of something in a game that should just be fluid.




So change it.  I happen to think that it makes sense for it to be able to be used in the middle of a multi-attack.  The point of the feat is clearly to set up the shield push with an attack that throws the enemy off balance.  One attack is sufficient for that in my opinion, so I will be house ruling the feat to allow it.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So change it.




Done. It doesn't change the fact I still think that his ruling opened up an unnecessary can of worms and has caused an unproductive (to the game) line of thought and rules-based pedantry that serves no purpose.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Done. It doesn't change the fact I still think that his ruling opened up an unnecessary can of worms and has caused an unproductive (to the game) line of thought and rules-based pedantry that serves no purpose.




Fair enough.  I'm pretty sure I saw this argument a few times before his ruling, though, so I don't think it opened the can so much as reminded people it existed.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The way the game is and was written, you have to take the attack action first(past tense_.  In the middle of taking the action and about to take the action are not qualifiers to trigger the feat.  They are justifications for those who choose to "interpret" the feat that way, to do something that the game doesn't allow.




Totally not the case, from a simple grammatical perspective. "If you take the Attack action on your turn" is not the same as "after you take the attack action," nor is it the same as "once you have completed the attack action in its entirety," nor is it in any other way past tense. "You take" is present tense, as opposed to "you took" or "you have taken."

Similarly, "you can use a bonus action" is also present tense, and not future tense. It is not "you will be able to" or "you can then take" or anything of the sort.

I will agree that in most cases, an "if a, then b" structure suggests that "a" come first, but certainly not all the time. In this instance, it seems most reasonable to read "a" and "b" as happening at the same time. Take, for example, the wording of the Extra Attack feature, "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." That's still an "if a then b" logic structure, but the word "whenever" implies concurrence. In fact, that is exactly how I've been reading the feat all along, reading the "If" the same as a "When," so that the Shield Master can choose to have an Extra Extra Attack that can only be used for the Shove and precludes other bonus actions on his turn, but otherwise (especially for timing) works the same as the Extra Attack. Slice, shove, slice... shove, slice, slice... slice, slice, shove... no difference.

This whole concept that the Attack Action is the same as the attack you make "with this action" (note that "with this action" also doesn't really carry timing constraints) is new, and the fact that Jeremy has been beating that drum a lot in the past few weeks doesn't change the fact that it's new. His insistence that declarations don't count opens other issues, as well. Take, for example, the Sanctuary spell. "Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw." If you fail the saving throw and don't choose another target, then you don't make an attack and therefore under the new Crawford interpretation you have not taken the Attack Action, and you're free to Dash, Dodge, Cast a Spell, etc.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Done. It doesn't change the fact I still think that his ruling opened up an unnecessary can of worms and has caused an unproductive (to the game) line of thought and rules-based pedantry that serves no purpose.




I don't know about that, it caused me to just say "to hell with it" and house rule away the need for an Attack Action altogether both for Shield Master and for Two-Weapon Fighting (you still have to make a "main hand" attack, but it can be an attack that is part of another action, like Cast a Spell.)

That was productive, at least for my game.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 10, 2019)

After listening to the Sage Advice video I have come around on it.

I think both taking a bonus action after its requirement and not splitting up actions is the way to go because it makes things simpler, especially the latter.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> After listening to the Sage Advice video I have come around on it.
> 
> I think both taking a bonus action after its requirement and not splitting up actions is the way to go because it makes things simpler, especially the latter.




I don't think that applies to simplicity that runs contrary to verisimilitude. Unnatural and arbitrary constraint adds complexity and takes the player out of the game.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> Totally not the case, from a simple grammatical perspective. "If you take the Attack action on your turn" is not the same as "after you take the attack action," nor is it the same as "once you have completed the attack action in its entirety," nor is it in any other way past tense. "You take" is present tense, as opposed to "you took" or "you have taken."
> 
> Similarly, "you can use a bonus action" is also present tense, and not future tense. It is not "you will be able to" or "you can then take" or anything of the sort.
> 
> I will agree that in most cases, an "if a, then b" structure suggests that "a" come first, but certainly not all the time. In this instance, it seems most reasonable to read "a" and "b" as happening at the same time. Take, for example, the wording of the Extra Attack feature, "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." That's still an "if a then b" logic structure, but the word "whenever" implies concurrence. In fact, that is exactly how I've been reading the feat all along, reading the "If" the same as a "When," so that the Shield Master can choose to have an Extra Extra Attack that can only be used for the Shove and precludes other bonus actions on his turn, but otherwise (especially for timing) works the same as the Extra Attack. Slice, shove, slice... shove, slice, slice... slice, slice, shove... no difference.




If I take a quarter off of the shelf, it has been taken off of the shelf.  If I take someone's advice, I have taken that advice.  If I take a look at something, that look has been taken.  If I take a selfie, the picture is done.  At no time is any action that I take in the process of happening.  Present tense would be taking.  Can you give an example of take that is in process rather than already having happened?



> This whole concept that the Attack Action is the same as the attack you make "with this action" (note that "with this action" also doesn't really carry timing constraints) is new, and the fact that Jeremy has been beating that drum a lot in the past few weeks doesn't change the fact that it's new. His insistence that declarations don't count opens other issues, as well. Take, for example, the Sanctuary spell. "Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw." If you fail the saving throw and don't choose another target, then you don't make an attack and therefore under the new Crawford interpretation you have not taken the Attack Action, and you're free to Dash, Dodge, Cast a Spell, etc.




That's not true at all.  Specific beats general and the game explicitly says spells are specific rules.  Sanctuary works just fine with both Crawford's ruling AND with not having the ability to switch to a dash or other action.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 10, 2019)

From the PHB

Shield Master
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.

It doesn't say if you have taken. It says if you take, which is present tense. If you are presently attacking, then you can presently (not in the future) take a bonus action to shove.

At this point I feel like JC is just purposefully using his own judgment of " I don't want my fighters at my table giving themselves advantage" but also sees the rules don't explicitly forbid it, so he just isn't coming out and saying "the rules should read, if you take the attack action, and after all attacks are made if you have multiple attacks, then you can as a bonus action attempt to shove with your shield you are wielding."


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> If I take a quarter off of the shelf, it has been taken off of the shelf.  If I take someone's advice, I have taken that advice.  If I take a look at something, that look has been taken.  If I take a selfie, the picture is done.  At no time is any action that I take in the process of happening.  Present tense would be taking.  Can you give an example of take that is in process rather than already having happened?
> ...
> That's not true at all.  Specific beats general and the game explicitly says spells are specific rules.  Sanctuary works just fine with both Crawford's ruling AND with not having the ability to switch to a dash or other action.




If you take a quarter off the shelf, you can pick it up with your left or right hand. If you take someone's advice, you can still pretend to be ignoring her. If you take a look at something, you can squint. If you take a selfie, you can use a special filter to make yourself look pretty.

With regard to Sanctuary, specific and general doesn't enter into the equation. If you fail the saving throw and you do not choose another target, you have not made an attack, period. You've not even targeted the protected creature. You've declared the attack, but not attacked, and therefore (per the new Crawford interpretation) you have not taken the Attack Action and you can do something else instead.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 10, 2019)

Also in the PHB under combat, making an attack. 

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 10, 2019)

And BTW I am not saying if you disagree with me you're wrong and I'm right, I am mainly saying that I can see coming to either conclusion could be valid at this point. I'm just more in favor of my interpretation and mean no offense to anyone who sees it differently than I.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> If you take a quarter off the shelf, you can pick it up with your left or right hand. If you take someone's advice, you can still pretend to be ignoring her. If you take a look at something, you can squint. If you take a selfie, you can use a special filter to make yourself look pretty.




I get what you are trying to do with those examples, but during none of them are you stopping after you start and then doing something else.  

If you take it with your right or left hand,the action is over and done with immediately, regardless of hand.  If you pretend after the fact to ignore her, that doesn't change the fact then when you take her advice, the act is done with as soon as you take it.  Squinting is irrelevant to whether or not the act is over with as soon as you take the look.  The filter is set up before you even begin the act of taking the selfie or else you add it after.



> With regard to Sanctuary, specific and general doesn't enter into the equation. If you fail the saving throw and you do not choose another target, you have not made an attack, period. You've not even targeted the protected creature. You've declared the attack, but not attacked, and therefore (per the new Crawford interpretation) you have not taken the Attack Action and you can do something else instead.




It doesn't matter whether you make an attack.  You don't get to even try to target someone without taking the attack action.  Once you fail the save, you have taken the attack action, but failed to attack anyone so your action for that turn is over.  The same with the cast a spell action.  You have taken the action and cast the spell, but failed to target anything and lost the action and spell.  The new Crawford ruling doesn't affect that.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> Also in the PHB under combat, making an attack.
> 
> "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."




But again, it doesn't matter if you've failed to make the attack.  You don't even get to target someone until you make an attack using the attack action.  Failing to complete the attack due to Sanctuary doesn't undo your attack action.  It just means that your attack action failed at step 1.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 10, 2019)

Grammar Pedantry Warning!!

"You take" is not "present" tense, but, rather present simple and is used for actions that are repeated over time.  "If you take" is conditional tense and typically follows that the conditions must be met before the second part of the sentence occurs.

Such as, "If it rains, I will take an umbrella" would be most common.  If/can clauses are also typically read this way.  "If I have a driver's license, I can legally drive a car" would be a good example.  Without the conditional, the result is not possible.

So, a grammatical reading of "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." would read that the Attack action must be taken before you can take your bonus action.  The Attack action cannot be broken up - additional attacks are not additional actions.  They are simply part of the same action.

(Barring, of course, specific exceptions like moving)

The RAW reading of this, coupled with an actual grammatical reading would support Crawford's interpretation.  Conditionals are not read as suggestions nor are they read as having more conditions than what is stated.  If/then conditionals are what they are.  You take the Attack Action, then you can take the bonus action from Shield Master because the condition for taking the bonus action is that you take the Attack Action.

Now, granted, I won't be changing how we do it in our game.  But, from a RAW reading, yes, I can see why this would be the RAW interpretation.  For you to take the bonus action in the middle of the Attack Action requires reinterpreting the Attack Action to mean that gaining multiple attacks creates multiple Attack Actions, which can be interrupted.  However, RAW doesn't support this.  Attack actions are discrete - regardless of how many attacks you actually make.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> ... The filter is set up before you even begin the act of taking the selfie or else you add it after.
> ...
> ...You don't get to even try to target someone without taking the attack action. ...  The new Crawford ruling doesn't affect that.



The filter is a good example, because you can apply it before or after you snap the picture.

Crawford has made a big deal about how your declaration of action isn't an action, the only way to parse his statements on the D&D YouTube clips lately with the published Sage Advice and the PHB combat rules is that, according to his new interpretation, you have not taken the Attack Action unless you have rolled a d20. "Trying to target someone" doesn't get you there.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> The filter is a good example, because you can apply it before or after you snap the picture.
> 
> Crawford has made a big deal about how your declaration of action isn't an action, the only way to parse his statements on the D&D YouTube clips lately with the published Sage Advice and the PHB combat rules is that, according to his new interpretation, you have not taken the Attack Action unless you have rolled a d20. "Trying to target someone" doesn't get you there.




Yes, and what's the problem with that?

Specific trumps general.  Normally, saying, "I target X" doesn't mean anything.  Nothing has happened until such time as you roll that attack roll.  However, when a Sanctuary spell is in place, then targeting has an effect.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Or are you saying I cannot change my mind about my target before I roll an attack?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> The filter is a good example, because you can apply it before or after you snap the picture.




The act of snapping the picture is the selfie, though.  So yes, the filter is a good example.  If you add it before you take the selfie, it doesn't apply to this conversation because you have not yet even begun the act of taking the selfie.  However, if you add it after the selfie, it's a picture perfect(pardon the pun) example of Shield Master.  If you take a selfie, you may add a filter as a bonus action.



> Crawford has made a big deal about how your declaration of action isn't an action, the only way to parse his statements on the D&D YouTube clips lately with the published Sage Advice and the PHB combat rules is that, according to his new interpretation, you have not taken the Attack Action unless you have rolled a d20. "Trying to target someone" doesn't get you there.




The action rules and specific beats general rules of Sanctuary say otherwise.  Under Making an Attack, step 1 is choose targets, so you are making an attack as soon as targeting comes up as an issue.  Sanctuary interrupts your attack and if it prevents targeting, causes the loss of your attacks.  You don't to Making an Attack until you take the attack action.  The same goes for spells and the Cast a Spell action.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Grammar Pedantry Warning!!
> 
> "You take" is not "present" tense, but, rather present simple and is used for actions that are repeated over time.  "If you take" is conditional tense and typically follows that the conditions must be met before the second part of the sentence occurs.
> 
> ...




None of which precludes the bonus action and the Attack Action from happening concurrently. In fact, it makes the most sense for the shove to take place as part of the Attack Action, since it is an attack. This would be just like Two-Weapon Fighting, with the only semantic difference being that Two Weapon Fighting says "When you take the Attack Action ... you can use a bonus action to attack" instead of "If you take the Attack Action." You can try to make a big deal about "when" vs. "if," but the most reasonable way to read those very similar rules is to interpret them the same way, that is to add another attack of some sort to your Attack Action.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Yes, and what's the problem with that?
> 
> Specific trumps general.  Normally, saying, "I target X" doesn't mean anything.  Nothing has happened until such time as you roll that attack roll.  However, when a Sanctuary spell is in place, then targeting has an effect.
> 
> ...




If you fail your save, though, you have not even targeted the protected creature. Literally nothing has happened other than the saving throw.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> ... Under Making an Attack, step 1 is choose targets, so you are making an attack as soon as targeting comes up as an issue.  ...




So, you're saying that simply picking a target is enough to have taken the Attack Action? Before the first roll of a d20? That should please those folks upthread who have been interpreting the rule to say you can shove after your first attack, but before your Extra Attack feature attack.

And when you activate the camera and apply the filter, you have absolutely "begun the act of taking the selfie," before hitting the shutter button. This is especially true since the image is captured by the phone's camera through the entire process, and the button only designates a frame or series of frames to be retained in the memory.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> But again, it doesn't matter if you've failed to make the attack.  You don't even get to target someone until you make an attack using the attack action.  Failing to complete the attack due to Sanctuary doesn't undo your attack action.  It just means that your attack action failed at step 1.




By the way, I agree with this interpretation, which is _why _I think Jeremy's recent Sage Advice is a load of crap.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> ... The Attack action cannot be broken up - additional attacks are not additional actions.  They are simply part of the same action.
> ...
> For you to take the bonus action in the middle of the Attack Action requires reinterpreting the Attack Action to mean that gaining multiple attacks creates multiple Attack Actions, which can be interrupted.  However, RAW doesn't support this.  Attack actions are discrete - regardless of how many attacks you actually make.




I agree that multiple attacks do not make multiple Attack Actions. My interpretation of the published rules is that all of your attacks that come about because you have taken the Attack Action (including Extra Attack and bonus action attacks from Shield Mastery and Two Weapon Fighting) are part of the Attack Action, and the bonus action modifies the Attack Action by adding another attack.

To interpret otherwise (as Jeremy Crawford is now doing in earnest) is to say that you can break up your Attack Action with movement, with communication, with a flourish including brief utterances and gestures, or by interacting with an object in your environment, during your move or your action. The only thing you can't do during your Attack Action is make an attack. You have to make all of your attacks before you have completed your Action and can make your other attack. Open a door? Sure, no problem. Shove someone with your shield? Nope! You have to finish your attacks first. Why? Because it's an attack!

And he claims this is to keep it simple.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> So, you're saying that simply picking a target is enough to have taken the Attack Action? Before the first roll of a d20? That should please those folks upthread who have been interpreting the rule to say you can shove after your first attack, but before your Extra Attack feature attack.




No, that's not what I'm saying.  This is how you take the attack action.  You tell the DM you are taking the attack action. Then as part of the action, you make an attack.  That moves you a few pages further in the PHB to the Making an Attack section.  Step 1 is choose a target.  Step 2 is determine modifiers.  Step 3 is resolve the attack.  At that point the attack action is done unless you have extra attack, in which case you repeat those three steps with the possibility of moving in-between.  

Sanctuary is a specific rule that beats the general one above.  It stops you at step 1 and if you fail the save, ends your attack action there.  At no point without the specific Sanctuary rule overriding the general Making an Attack rules does the have you taken the attack action prior to step 3.



> And when you activate the camera and apply the filter, you have absolutely "begun the act of taking the selfie," before hitting the shutter button. This is especially true since the image is captured by the phone's camera through the entire process, and the button only designates a frame or series of frames to be retained in the memory.




No.  No you haven't.  You have simply prepared to take the selfie.  The act is pointing the camera at yourself and clicking the button.  That's it.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 10, 2019)

PHB on Two Weapon Fighting 

"Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

This reads that IF you take the attack action AND make an attack, (THEN is assumed), you can bonus action attack etc. 
It doesn't say after all available attacks of the main hand must be taken before the bonus action can trigger. 

So therefore,  the same applies to shield master, as it's description says, "You use shields not just for protection but also for offense." Basically saying your shield becomes a weapon. You are two weapon fighting with a shield. Even though the shield doesn't do damage.

PHB Making an Attack under Resolve the Attack 

"3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."

This function clearly fits a shield shove attack. The shield becomes a weapon that doesn't do damage but has a different attack effect, shove.


PHB
Shoving a Creature
"Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."

Now here it clearly states shoving can come at any time during the multiple attacks, and replaces one of them. The exception is shield master feat which treats the attack as a bonus action you get free, instead of replacing one of your multiple attacks. It's the whole point of the feat, you get a bonus action action attack with your shield, just like a two weapon fighter, but instead of damage,  you shove.

And shoving can come at anytime during your multiple attacks. Except for shield master feat, just like two weapon fighting,  says you make an attack first before you get the bonus action.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> ... This is how you take the attack action.  You tell the DM you are taking the attack action. Then as part of the action, you make an attack.  ... Step 1 is choose a target.  ...




Sanctuary shuts you down before Step 1. If you fail the save, you have not targeted the creature--you "must first make a Wisdom saving throw." You have done nothing. I agree with you that the Attack Action has still been taken, Max, but Jeremy Crawford does not. The Sage has proffered some bad Advice.

Anyway, we'll pick this up tomorrow. I'm seeing double here.


----------



## epithet (Feb 10, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> ...
> Except for shield master feat, just like two weapon fighting,  says you make an attack first before you get the bonus action.




Actually, both TWF and SM require you to take the Attack Action, but only TWF requires you to actually make an attack.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> PHB on Two Weapon Fighting
> 
> "Two-Weapon Fighting
> When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."
> ...




That's a False Equivalence.  Two-Weapon fighting does not say"if" like Shield Master, it says "when."  The "when" makes it simultaneous.  "When" and "If" are not the same.  Shield master requires you to complete the attack action.  Two-Weapon Fighting does not, but it does require you to complete one attack with a light weapon.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> Sanctuary shuts you down before Step 1. If you fail the save, you have not targeted the creature--you "must first make a Wisdom saving throw." You have done nothing. I agree with you that the Attack Action has still been taken, Max, but Jeremy Crawford does not. The Sage has proffered some bad Advice.
> 
> Anyway, we'll pick this up tomorrow. I'm seeing double here.




It doesn't shut you down before step one.  It shuts you down AT step 1.  See you tomorrow!!!


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 10, 2019)

I think that is splitting hairs. At least for me, it's pretty clear that you can make an attack with your offhand weapon when you attack with your main hand weapon.  It's also clear that there is no wording that states that all main hand weapon attacks must be finished first. Since its reasonable to treat the shield as a weapon in the off hand that can shove after the main hand attacks, it is also perfectly legal.

But that's me, and my interpretation. If WOTC clarifies further one way or the other, I will accept the official ruling. But right now, for me and others, it's not clear enough.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> So, a grammatical reading of "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." would read that the Attack action must be taken before you can take your bonus action. The Attack action cannot be broken up - additional attacks are not additional actions. They are simply part of the same action.



Exceeept that taking the Attack action is an ongoing action.
A better example would be"If I take a walk, I will lock my house."
You don't lock your house as soon as you've finished, you lock it at the start.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Grammar Pedantry Warning!!
> 
> "You take" is not "present" tense, but, rather present simple and is used for actions that are repeated over time.  "If you take" is conditional tense and typically follows that the conditions must be met before the second part of the sentence occurs.
> 
> ...




Pedantic? I?

I like your approach, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Some actions are basically instantaneous. When you switch the light on, you either have or you haven't.

But some actions are continuous, and if you _start_ to do something but are still in the middle of doing it then you can't claim that you're not.

As for the conditional:-

"*If* you take a law degree, *then* you may use the law library".

This is an 'if/then' statement, where the action (take a law degree) is continuous for several years! The purpose of the law library is to help law students pass their law degree, but those students who are not taking a law degree are not allowed to access the law library.

Sure, the conditional must be satisfied in order to get the result. But if it were the case that that the conditional must in all cases be started, gone through, and completed _before_ the result, then how would it work in the above example?

'If you take the law degree', with that understanding, would mean that you cannot access the law library until _after_ you have completed your degree!

That obviously (and I hope it is obvious!) would be absurd! The conditional does not have to be _completed_.

In fact, in some cases it might not even have to begin!

"*If* you take a law degree, *then* you can take a room in the law dormitory".

You are allowed to take a room in the dormitory before you even attend your first lecture, before your course actually starts. Just saying you will, in the immediate future, take a law degree is enough.

"You cannot practice law until you have passed the bar exam".

Here, it is not enough that you _will_ pass the bar, or that you are in the middle of passing the bar, you must have _completed_ passing the bar in order to practice law! Note that 'passing the bar' is really an instantaneous action rather than an ongoing one.

So, pedandically parsing Shield Master:-

"*If* you take the Attack action on your turn, (*then*) you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature..."

While executing a single attack is an instantaneous action with just a 'before' and 'after', the Attack action is an ongoing action that could last from the beginning of your turn to the end if your Attack action lets you take more than one attack.

So, as with the law student example, merely being an if/then conditional certainly does *not* imply that the continuous action must be _completed_ before you can shield bash, and I would even argue that you don't even have to have executed the first attack yet, although the second one is debatable.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 10, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> As to the whole “divisible vs indivisible” argument...to me actions are indivisible by default. If that was not the case, than the whole “divide your movement between attacks” clause would not be necessary...as that would simply be a natural thing that divisible actions let you do.
> 
> If you then want to argue that clause is a “clarity” for the reader instead of a rules exception, well there are plenty of other circumstances that are not explicitly mentioned for clarity. For example, with divisible actions...twin spell would allow me to touch a person, move, and touch another person. Why isn’t that explicitly mentioned for clarity?




To me, the reason why the 5e PHB _needs_ to explain that you _can_ move between attacks is *not* because they needed a sly way to insert an 'actions are indivisible' rule without making it obvious! Why? Why would they try to conceal a rule?

No, the reason that movement between attacks needed to be written in the 5e PHB is that the expectation was that not only will 5e attract new players to the hobby, but that all the players who are currently playing 3e/4e/Pathfinder will switch to 5e, and one of the significant differences between the editions, crucial information for those who are playing a PC with more than one attack, is that 5e let's you break up your move between attacks while all those previous editions did not!

I played those edition! I love playing melee warriors. THE most frustrating things about playing high level warriors in those editions is that if I am good enough to have, say, 8 attacks per round (easy!), then if I don't move or move 5ft then I get all 8, but if I move even 10ft then I only get 1. _I lose 7 attacks!_ Meanwhile, the guy who is changing the very nature of reality by messing with Forces Man Was Not Meant To Know can do so, and still move 30ft!

I absolutely loved 5e letting me use the attacks that I've earned in conjunction with my move. It's one of the reasons why I'd rather play 5e than 3e, and I like 3e!

So yes, the 5e PHB absolutely had to specify that you _can_ move between attacks, because if it didn't say so then it would be assumed that you could not.

But to imagine that this means that 'actions are indivisible' is an unjustified leap of logic. First, because it doesn't say that, and second because bonus actions have a rule that IS written which says that you CAN use them whenever you want, and reactions say you can use them when they are triggered, with no mention either there or anywhere else that they cannot be used between attacks!


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 10, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> From the PHB
> 
> Shield Master
> You use shields not just for protection but also for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
> ...




He is very clear about when he is talking about the rules, the intent, or both.

In this case it is both.

Take, for example, the Glamour Bard's Mantle.

It says 'creatures who see you' not 'other creatures who see you' so according to Crawford the rule is that the Bard can benefit from it themselves as they are a creature who can see themselves. That isn't the intent, but it is the rule.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> The Sage has proffered some bad Advice.




That could never happen. The Sage is Law. All Rules Flow From the Sage. We Worship His Shadow.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> I think that is splitting hairs. At least for me, it's pretty clear that you can make an attack with your offhand weapon when you attack with your main hand weapon.  It's also clear that there is no wording that states that all main hand weapon attacks must be finished first. Since its reasonable to treat the shield as a weapon in the off hand that can shove after the main hand attacks, it is also perfectly legal.




Two things.  First, the wording of two-weapon fighting explicitly states make AN attack, so the wording specifically allows it to happen after one attack.  Shield Master doesn't allow that, since you have take the entire action.  Second, I agree with you that a shield in the off hand is similar to a weapon in the off hand, which is why up thread I said I would be making a house rule to allow it to happen after the first attack happens.



> But that's me, and my interpretation. If WOTC clarifies further one way or the other, I will accept the official ruling. But right now, for me and others, it's not clear enough.




Er, in this very thread WoTC did clarify as an official ruling that you have to wait until after the entire attack action to use the Shield Master shove.  That's what this debate is all about.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> This is an 'if/then' statement, where the action (take a law degree) is continuous for several years! The purpose of the law library is to help law students pass their law degree, but those students who are not taking a law degree are not allowed to access the law library.
> 
> Sure, the conditional must be satisfied in order to get the result. But if it were the case that that the conditional must in all cases be started, gone through, and completed _before_ the result, then how would it work in the above example?




Well, taking a law degree only takes a few seconds.  The dean or whoever hands you the diploma and you accept it.  EARNING the law degree takes years.



> 'If you take the law degree', with that understanding, would mean that you cannot access the law library until _after_ you have completed your degree!
> 
> That obviously (and I hope it is obvious!) would be absurd! The conditional does not have to be _completed_.




It's only obvious, because it was a bad example.  You can access the school law library while you are a student while earning the law degree, so you don't actually have to take the degree first.



> In fact, in some cases it might not even have to begin!
> 
> "*If* you take a law degree, *then* you can take a room in the law dormitory".




That doesn't make sense.  Once you have a law degree, you won't be staying at the dormitory.  That sentence should read, "While taking(current tense) classes to earn a law degree, you can take(future tense) a room in the law dormitory." or "While taking(current tense) classes to earn a law degree, you take(past tense as you now already have it) a room in the law dormitory."



> You are allowed to take a room in the dormitory before you even attend your first lecture, before your course actually starts. Just saying you will, in the immediate future, take a law degree is enough.




But you have not taken a law degree at that point.  You will be taking classes to earn a law degree at that point.  Once you start the classes, then you are taking classes to earn a law degree.  Until you graduate and accept the diploma, which takes only seconds, you didn't take a law degree.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> To me, the reason why the 5e PHB _needs_ to explain that you _can_ move between attacks is *not* because they needed a sly way to insert an 'actions are indivisible' rule without making it obvious! Why? Why would they try to conceal a rule?
> 
> No, the reason that movement between attacks needed to be written in the 5e PHB is that the expectation was that not only will 5e attract new players to the hobby, but that all the players who are currently playing 3e/4e/Pathfinder will switch to 5e, and one of the significant differences between the editions, crucial information for those who are playing a PC with more than one attack, is that 5e let's you break up your move between attacks while all those previous editions did not!
> 
> ...




He didn't take that leap in logic.  You misunderstood what he was saying.  Actions have not been divisible in any edition(except maybe 4e since I don't know that one).  Not in 1e.  Not in 2e.  Not in 3e.  Not in 5e.  UNLESS an exception allows it.  In 3e you could be a Whirling Dervish and move while attacking.  There may have been other methods such as pounce that you could get to make an exception to that rule.  There was also the 5 foot step.  In 5e you have the movement exception built into the attack rule.  That's all he was saying.  He wasn't saying that the movement being built in proved that there was a rule that you couldn't break up actions.  He was pointing out that you could never break up an action UNLESS an exception such as the one in 5e was given.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Er, in this very thread WoTC did clarify as an official ruling that you have to wait until after the entire attack action to use the Shield Master shove.  That's what this debate is all about.




I mean clarify further. As in further elaboration would be nice as to Indivisible actions.

*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. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The "if" must be satisfied before the "then" comes into play.
*
Because that officially didn’t answer the question of “when” I can use the bonus action except that I cannot shove first then attack.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 10, 2019)




----------



## Hussar (Feb 10, 2019)

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - your example has a problem.  The phrase "If you take a law degree" is wrong.  It should be, "If you are taking a law degree, then you can use the library".  You are trying to use present simple tense for an ongoing action, which, while colloquially done, is grammatically incorrect.  

Now, for the "take a walk, lock my door" example, yes, that's true.  And, honestly, I did misspeak.  However, that doesn't apply in this case because the feat specifically delineates an order of action - take the Attack action THEN take the bonus action.

The issue at hand is, does having multiple attacks make the Attack Action divisible?  Nothing in the rules says that it does.  And, the existence of exceptions like movement during an Attack Action certainly strongly implies that no, it is not divisible.  Having a single attack or multiple attacks has no impact on the Attack Action - when you take the Attack Action, you must complete that action before taking a Bonus action.  ((Or you could take the bonus action first in some cases))


----------



## Yunru (Feb 10, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> Because that officially didn’t answer the question of “when” I can use the bonus action except that I cannot shove first then attack.



It didn't even qualify that, since you take the Attack action as soon as you state you do, which is before you even make an attack.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 10, 2019)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - your example has a problem.  The phrase "If you take a law degree" is wrong.  It should be, "If you are taking a law degree, then you can use the library".  You are trying to use present simple tense for an ongoing action, which, while colloquially done, is grammatically incorrect.



But it _is_ preseng tense, and that's what matters. If it really meant after, it would use "took" or "taken".


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> I mean clarify further. As in further elaboration would be nice as to Indivisible actions.
> 
> *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. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The "if" must be satisfied before the "then" comes into play.
> *
> Because that officially didn’t answer the question of “when” I can use the bonus action except that I cannot shove first then attack.




I don't think clarity is needed on indivisible actions.  Actions have not been divisible in 1e, 2e, 3e or 5e except when an exception is made through an item, spell or ability.  D&D is an exceptions based game.  It forms a general rule and then goes about providing exceptions to most of them.  I think the current ruling provides all the clarity it needs to about how Shield Master is supposed to be ruled.  It differs from Two Weapon Fighting for an important reason.  Being able to knock someone prone before you finish attacking is much strong than an extra off hand attack.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 10, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> View attachment 104703




Can you interrupt a Flogging a Dead Horse action to use your bonus action or is it indivisible?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Actions have not been divisible in 1e, 2e, 3e or 5e except when an exception is made through an item, spell or ability.




This is not true.

In 3e, as soon as swift/immediate actions were introduced, they could be taken at any time on your turn (for swift) and any time at all for immediate.

Free actions were in 3e at its beginning, and you can take them any time on your turn.

A swift action is identical to a free action, except you can only take one swift action per turn.

Swift and free actions certainly can be taken between attacks of a full attack in 3e. It says so in the rules.

It says in the 5e rules that you can take your bonus action, if you have one, at ANY time on your turn. Meanwhile, _nowhere_ does it say that 'actions are indivisible'. You're asserting a 'rule' that does not exist to disregard a rule which does exist!


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> View attachment 104703




I hate bad memes.  Everyone knows that storm troopers couldn't hit a dead horse.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> This is not true.
> 
> In 3e, as soon as swift/immediate actions were introduced, they could be taken at any time on your turn (for swift) and any time at all for immediate.
> 
> ...




Yes it is true.  Swift and immediate actions create a SPECIAL EXCEPTION to the general rule, which matches what I stated.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 11, 2019)

So many things about this ruling on Shield Master bother me. Allow me to enumerate them. 

1. It goes against the RAI for bonus actions. You were supposed to be able to “choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified,” and Shield Master doesn’t specify a timing for the bonus action shove. All it does is require that you take the Attack action on the same turn. Jeremy Crawford’s earlier tweets on Shield Master confirm that this was the intention for the feat, and it’s only since he began emphasizing the RAW in his rulings that he changed his mind about bonus actions. Rather than issue rulings that go against the RAI, he should issue errata for the way bonus actions are written, although I don’t think either is necessary. For an example of a bonus action that does specify timing, look at Flurry of Blows. It says you can use your bonus action “Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn”. If the intent was for Shield Master and TWF to specify timing, they could have been written like Flurry of Blows, but they weren’t, and Jeremy Crawford isn’t claiming they were. Notice, he acknowledges the feat’s lack of timing specificity in his recent ruling when he says, “During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.” But the feat doesn’t say, “after”. It doesn’t specify the shove’s timing, so you should be able to do it at any point during your turn you want. 

2. It confuses causality at the table with causality in the fiction. A fictional character has no awareness that s/he is taking the “Attack action” or a “bonus action”. Those aren’t things in the fiction. They’re things at the table with which only the player is concerned. The fictional character, on the other hand, is concerned with attacking and shoving one or more creatures, perhaps landing blows with a weapon and shoving a creature with a shield. In the fiction, the character doesn’t derive the ability to shove a creature with a shield above his/her normal ability to attack from having satisfied the precondition of a “feat”, but rather because s/he is a Shield Master! What’s special about this character (among other things) is that when fighting, s/he’s good at getting extra shoves in. At the table, the player can activate these extra shoves by taking the Attack action and using them in combination with the character’s other fictional actions, but there’s no compelling reason that the chronological order of events in the fiction needs to follow the order in which rules preconditions are satisfied at the table. Which brings me to...

3. The idea that the character needs to be “locked in” to the Attack action before making the bonus action shove doesn’t require the in-fiction chronology to follow the logical order of the feat. The fact that shoving a creature without the feat requires the use of the Attack action takes care of that. You can shove, then if you take the Attack action, the shove is your bonus action. If you don’t, then the shove is your Attack action. You’re taking the Attack action either way, so why force the fictional character to be concerned with satisfying the non-fictional precondition of the feat. It’s just unnecessary.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I hate bad memes.  Everyone knows that storm troopers couldn't hit a dead horse.




Hey, maybe stormtroopers are marginally better in melee than they are at ranged combat.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 11, 2019)

Hriston said:


> 1. It goes against the RAI for bonus actions. You were supposed to be able to “choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified,” and Shield Master doesn’t specify a timing for the bonus action shove. All it does is require that you take the Attack action on the same turn. Jeremy Crawford’s earlier tweets on Shield Master confirm that this was the intention for the feat, and it’s only since he began emphasizing the RAW in his rulings that he changed his mind about bonus actions. Rather than issue rulings that go against the RAI, he should issue errata for the way bonus actions are written, although I don’t think either is necessary. For an example of a bonus action that does specify timing, look at Flurry of Blows. It says you can use your bonus action “Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn”. If the intent was for Shield Master and TWF to specify timing, they could have been written like Flurry of Blows, but they weren’t, and Jeremy Crawford isn’t claiming they were. Notice, he acknowledges the feat’s lack of timing specificity in his recent ruling when he says, “During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.” But the feat doesn’t say, “after”. It doesn’t specify the shove’s timing, so you should be able to do it at any point during your turn you want.




It doesn't just require that you take the attack action on the same turn as you use it.  It says IF you take the attack action, THEN you can shove.  It specifies the order of events.  Attack action first, then shove.  Specific beats general, so RAW/RAI for bonus actions doesn't apply to this feat.



> 2. It confuses causality at the table with causality in the fiction. A fictional character has no awareness that s/he is taking the “Attack action” or a “bonus action”. Those aren’t things in the fiction. They’re things at the table with which only the player is concerned. The fictional character, on the other hand, is concerned with attacking and shoving one or more creatures, perhaps landing blows with a weapon and shoving a creature with a shield. In the fiction, the character doesn’t derive the ability to shove a creature with a shield above his/her normal ability to attack from having satisfied the precondition of a “feat”, but rather because s/he is a Shield Master! What’s special about this character (among other things) is that when fighting, s/he’s good at getting extra shoves in. At the table, the player can activate these extra shoves by taking the Attack action and using them in combination with the character’s other fictional actions, but there’s no compelling reason that the chronological order of events in the fiction needs to follow the order in which rules preconditions are satisfied at the table. Which brings me to...




I partially agree and partially disagree with this.  The fictional character understands that he has to put his opponent off balance with his attack before the opponent is vulnerable to be shoved back or knocked down, so I disagree with that portion of what you say.  That said, where it does go against the causality in the fiction is in requiring a multi-attack to complete before being able to use it.  Before the PC gets extra attack he can unbalance the opponent to the point where he can use his shield to shove the enemy, but suddenly when he gets better in combat he requires two attacks.  That makes no sense, which is why I'm going to make a house rule that it's usable after one attack.



> 3. The idea that the character needs to be “locked in” to the Attack action before making the bonus action shove doesn’t require the in-fiction chronology to follow the logical order of the feat. The fact that shoving a creature without the feat requires the use of the Attack action takes care of that. You can shove, then if you take the Attack action, the shove is your bonus action. If you don’t, then the shove is your Attack action. You’re taking the Attack action either way, so why force the fictional character to be concerned with satisfying the non-fictional precondition of the feat. It’s just unnecessary.




It's clearly intended that you put the enemy off balance with an attack before you shove as a bonus action using the feat.  The ruling itself is for game balance reasons.  Common sense and in-fiction reasoning are pushed to the wayside and sacrificed to the altar of game balance.  Being able to knock the enemy over before you attack is much, much stronger than having to wait until after all of your attacks.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 11, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Hey, maybe stormtroopers are marginally better in melee than they are at ranged combat.




It's possible, but they have such a hard time moving in that bulky armor that I'm skeptical.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I hate bad memes.  Everyone knows that storm troopers couldn't hit a dead horse.




Only if the Storm Troopers were told to _not_ hit the dead horse because there was a tracking device on the Millenium Falcon that will lead back to the rebel base because they're idiots and didn't think to check for something so obvious.  Seriously?  I know Luke is an idiot, but Han is a smuggler and he didn't think to scan for the most obvious ploy?  Thought the empire would just leave his ship sitting there?  

Umm ... wait ... what were we talking about?


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 11, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Only if the Storm Troopers were told to _not_ hit the dead horse because there was a tracking device on the Millenium Falcon that will lead back to the rebel base because they're idiots and didn't think to check for something so obvious.  Seriously?  I know Luke is an idiot, but Han is a smuggler and he didn't think to scan for the most obvious ploy?  Thought the empire would just leave his ship sitting there?
> 
> Umm ... wait ... what were we talking about?



"Only imperial storm troopers are so precise."


----------



## Hriston (Feb 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't just require that you take the attack action on the same turn as you use it.  It says IF you take the attack action, THEN you can shove.  It specifies the order of events.  Attack action first, then shove.  Specific beats general, so RAW/RAI for bonus actions doesn't apply to this feat.




Well, Crawford’s ruling isn’t that the feat specifies a timing for the bonus action, per se. It’s that it sets up a precondition that needs to be satisfied before the bonus action can be used. Where I disagree with Crawford is that a rules precondition necessarily operates as a precondition in the fiction. The wording of the feat suggests to me that as long as you take the Attack action at some point during your turn that you can also take the bonus action shove on the same turn, so taking the Attack action is a precondition at the table but doesn't need to come before the bonus action in the fiction. The fact that Crawford originally ruled this and other bonus actions as working this way also strongly suggests that this was the intended interpretation when it was written.



Maxperson said:


> I partially agree and partially disagree with this.  The fictional character understands that he has to put his opponent off balance with his attack before the opponent is vulnerable to be shoved back or knocked down, so I disagree with that portion of what you say.  That said, where it does go against the causality in the fiction is in requiring a multi-attack to complete before being able to use it.  Before the PC gets extra attack he can unbalance the opponent to the point where he can use his shield to shove the enemy, but suddenly when he gets better in combat he requires two attacks.  That makes no sense, which is why I'm going to make a house rule that it's usable after one attack.




The feat doesn't require you to shove a creature you've already attacked. You can use your Attack action on one or more creatures and use your bonus action shove on an entirely different creature. I don't believe there's any reason to think there's an intended narrative of setting up an opponent to be shoved.



Maxperson said:


> It's clearly intended that you put the enemy off balance with an attack before you shove as a bonus action using the feat.




If that was true, you'd be required to shove a creature you've already attacked, and that isn't the case.



Maxperson said:


> The ruling itself is for game balance reasons.  Common sense and in-fiction reasoning are pushed to the wayside and sacrificed to the altar of game balance.  Being able to knock the enemy over before you attack is much, much stronger than having to wait until after all of your attacks.




If that's true, then why didn't Jeremy Crawford come out and say so? His stated reason for changing his mind on bonus actions is that it's a more literal interpretation of the RAW. I don't see any reason to question his honesty in this regard.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 12, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Well, Crawford’s ruling isn’t that the feat specifies a timing for the bonus action, per se. It’s that it sets up a precondition that needs to be satisfied before the bonus action can be used. Where I disagree with Crawford is that a rules precondition necessarily operates as a precondition in the fiction. The wording of the feat suggests to me that as long as you take the Attack action at some point during your turn that you can also take the bonus action shove on the same turn, so taking the Attack action is a precondition at the table but doesn't need to come before the bonus action in the fiction. The fact that Crawford originally ruled this and other bonus actions as working this way also strongly suggests that this was the intended interpretation when it was written.




The wording of the feat does not in any way suggest that you can take the bonus action prior to the action.  It explicitly states that IF you take, THEN you shove.  Prior to actually taking the action, you have not taken the action, so there is no trigger for Shield Master to work off of.



> The feat doesn't require you to shove a creature you've already attacked. You can use your Attack action on one or more creatures and use your bonus action shove on an entirely different creature. I don't believe there's any reason to think there's an intended narrative of setting up an opponent to be shoved.




This is a good point, and just makes game balance more likely to be the reason Shield Master works differently.



> If that's true, then why didn't Jeremy Crawford come out and say so? His stated reason for changing his mind on bonus actions is that it's a more literal interpretation of the RAW. I don't see any reason to question his honesty in this regard.




I have no idea why he hasn't come out and said it.  He's also correct about it being a more literal interpretation of RAW, but if that's all it was, he would have said something like he did with Disintegrate and Wild Shape.  In that ruling he let us know RAI prior to saying that the druid by RAW does in fact dust as soon as the wild shape form hits 0 hit points.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 12, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Well, Crawford’s ruling isn’t that the feat specifies a timing for the bonus action, per se. It’s that it sets up a precondition that needs to be satisfied before the bonus action can be used. Where I disagree with Crawford is that a rules precondition necessarily operates as a precondition in the fiction. The wording of the feat suggests to me that as long as you take the Attack action at some point during your turn that you can also take the bonus action shove on the same turn, so taking the Attack action is a precondition at the table but doesn't need to come before the bonus action in the fiction. The fact that Crawford originally ruled this and other bonus actions as working this way also strongly suggests that this was the intended interpretation when it was written.




Why do you need to take the 'attack action' at all in the 'fiction'?

Crawford has explained that it is this way to keep the game flowing. The rules are designed to make combat go smoothly and quickly. You also don't get a bonus action until a thing gives that action. So you don't have it to use until you've done the attack action.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 12, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> until you've done the attack action.




There's that past tense that doesn't exist again.

At any point where you are taking the Attack action, you fulfil the timing, not just at the end.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2019)

Yunru said:


> There's that past tense that doesn't exist again.
> 
> At any point where you are taking the Attack action, you fulfil the timing, not just at the end.




So, I could do my shield push between hitting and dealing damage?  

Why do additional attacks suddenly change the nature of the Attack Action?  Note, no other Actions are divisible either.  It's not like I could start casting a cantrip, drop a bonus action spell in the middle of casting the cantrip and then finish casting the cantrip.  

Having additional attacks does not mean that the Attack Action suddenly completely changes its nature.  Heck, look at the last line of the Attack Action:



> Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.




Note, it doesn't say that Extra Attack suddenly makes the Attack Action plural.  It's still a SINGLE action.  And, just like every other action, it's not divisible by anything else.  Well, to be fair, I suppose you could make the argument for the Dash action, since Dash simply adds additional movement and movement can be interrupted by actions.  But, again, that's specific trumping general.

Unless you can find where it says that making multiple attacks changes the Attack Action to the Attack Action_s_, you really don't have much to work with here.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 12, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Note, no other Actions are divisible either.  It's not like I could start casting a cantrip, drop a bonus action spell in the middle of casting the cantrip and then finish casting the cantrip.




Ummm... yes they are?
You're example is actually the perfect example:
It's confirmed that you can flip someone the counterbird even if they're flipping you the counterbird while you cast a spell.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 12, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Ummm... yes they are?
> You're example is actually the perfect example:
> It's confirmed that you can flip someone the counterbird even if they're flipping you the counterbird while you cast a spell.



Citing an example that is one of the very few stated exceptions on interrupting actions actually undercuts your argument that actions are normally divisible.

Look, to me this is a non-issue.  Crawford's ruling only makes sense if the Attack action is indivisible outside of specifically stated exceptions (movement, some reactions, etc.). This is RAW, and an interpretation easily reachable by RAW.  Doing lingual gynmastics to blur lines to bith claim RAW and disagree with Crawford is counterproductive at best (as in actualky counterproductive, you could have done something productive instead like make a houserule). I think the RAW here is silly (but RAW) and that it reduces shieldmaster from a good feat to a mediocre one.  But, I fixed this already in my games by not tying the extra shive received from advanced training to any other action at all -- it's a freely available bonus action with no timing.  Game breakage?  Absolutely none.

So, sally forth, Shieldmasters!  Get it on with the houserules!  Arguing about which words to read thusly and sidewise so tgat you can claim RAW as your shield is foolish -- it can't block swords at all.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Citing an example that is one of the very few stated exceptions on interrupting actions actually undercuts your argument that actions are normally divisible.




It would do, yes, except it's never state _as an exception_. It's just the resting state of things.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 12, 2019)

Yunru said:


> It would do, yes, except it's never state _as an exception_. It's just the resting state of things.



If this is your benchmark, there are no exceptions.  This is the exact form of textual twisting I'm talking about.

But, point of fact, the general rules for reactions are clear: they occur after their triggers.  Counterspell does explicitly state it interrupts.  Hence exception.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Look, to me this is a non-issue.  Crawford's ruling only makes sense if the Attack action is indivisible outside of specifically stated exceptions (movement, some reactions, etc.). This is RAW, and an interpretation easily reachable by RAW.  Doing lingual gynmastics to blur lines to bith claim RAW and disagree with Crawford is counterproductive at best (as in actualky counterproductive, you could have done something productive instead like make a houserule). I think the RAW here is silly (but RAW) and that it reduces shieldmaster from a good feat to a mediocre one.  But, I fixed this already in my games by not tying the extra shive received from advanced training to any other action at all -- it's a freely available bonus action with no timing.  Game breakage?  Absolutely none.
> 
> So, sally forth, Shieldmasters!  Get it on with the houserules!  Arguing about which words to read thusly and sidewise so tgat you can claim RAW as your shield is foolish -- it can't block swords at all.




Yes - I agree, this is ultimately the most sensible way to think about it.

Don't fall into the trap (as I have done previously) of interpreting houserule < RAW.  "Houserule" is not an insult and anyone trying to use it that way overtly or subtly may have need for a little introspection.

At the end of the day, the DM's job is interpreting the RAW anyway.  As RL humans, we're all going to bring our own biases to the table, so to speak, in how we interpret and apply the rules.  The end goal for our table is to have fun, not debate the rules and hold up the flow of the game.

Here are two examples of how I think about Shield Master at our tables.  If these help someone else somehow, great.  If not, that's ok too.

Example 1:
Player (level 5 fighter with Shield Master feat):  I use my shield to shove the bandit in front of me, then the goblin to my left, and finally the hobgoblin to my right.
DM:  Cool... {rolls dice}...  do your Strength checks  beat a 7, a 3, and a 15?

Note the DM does not ask which is the Bonus Action shove, or insist that the 3rd shove is the bonus action, because... there's no need, right?

Example 2:
Player (same as above):  I slash the orc with my sword - 19 to hit for 8 damage.
DM:  it's looking pretty rough, but is still up.
Player:  Ok, I use my bonus action to shove it to the ground - does a 22 succeed?
DM:  I rolled a 15 for the orc, yep.
Player:  I hold my sword at the orcs throat and say "surrender!"

Note the DM isn't worried about the extra attack finishing before the bonus action shove happens because... reasons... and here's one:  why should a 4th level fighter be able to carry this out but a 5th level fighter could not?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> If this is your benchmark, there are no exceptions.  This is the exact form of textual twisting I'm talking about.
> 
> But, point of fact, the general rules for reactions are clear: they occur after their triggers.  Counterspell does explicitly state it interrupts.  Hence exception.




I can see there will be no reasoning with you.
There is no rule on actions being indivisible, but you will maintain that they are.
There are examples of actions being divisible, but you will merely claim they're exceptions that prove your imaginary rule.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 12, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I can see there will be no reasoning with you.
> There is no rule on actions being indivisible, but you will maintain that they are.
> There are examples of actions being divisible, but you will merely claim they're exceptions that prove your imaginary rule.



Where does it say actions are divisible?  Yoi're holding out a test you can't pass.

Meanwhile, holding that the examples are exceptions is valid because they are specific and called out whereas if actions are freely divisible they would not need to be so.  Further, under your analysis tool, I can have a fly speed because it's not said I don't, there are only examples of a fly speed.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Where does it say actions are divisible?  Yoi're holding out a test you can't pass.
> 
> Meanwhile, holding that the examples are exceptions is valid because they are specific and called out whereas if actions are freely divisible they would not need to be so.  Further, under your analysis tool, I can have a fly speed because it's not said I don't, there are only examples of a fly speed.



It's a catch-22.

We have a bonus action rule that says you choose when to take your bonus action on your turn unless the timing is specified.

We have taking an attack action tied to making an attack.

We have a phantom indivisible rule.

But every specific case of sure you can do this in attacks that is explicit enough to matter is simply deemed and dismissed as an exception somehow proving the phantom menace of indivisible actions.

So, let's be clear, 

If we drink the kool-aid on the phantom indivisible we **cannot** drop a weapon between attacks in an attack action to free a hand to draw another, right? Dropping a weapon is not an interaction. So it doesnt get in there. Without a rule saying we **can** drop a weapon inside an attack action, phantom indivisible applies, right?

If we drink the kool-aid on the phantom indivisible, we cannot drop concentration between attacks in an attack action, right? It says we can drop concentration anytime but does not give us the ability to intervene between attacks explicitly. 

So, I could... "drop my concentration when our fighter moves towards the fog cloud" even on the fighter's turn without a ready (sage iirc confirmed concentration anytime drop was not limited to your turn) but if the fighter had teo attacks, spent one on a goblin, then moved to attack someone in the fog the drop concentration would count as breaking up the indivisible action so... no go.

Of course the phantom indivisible menace rule  might have explicit wording that says "any time" means you can insert into the indivisible and that "choose when" does not allow that... but that would require actually reading that phantom indivisible rule. 

It's impossible to argue with the shadow of the memory of a phantom rule that has always existed to some - even tho now the indivisible ruling is classified as unofficial by subsequent official responses.

Oh well.


----------



## epithet (Feb 12, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> ...
> Don't fall into the trap (as I have done previously) of interpreting houserule < RAW.  "Houserule" is not an insult and anyone trying to use it that way overtly or subtly may have need for a little introspection.
> 
> At the end of the day, the DM's job is interpreting the RAW anyway.  As RL humans, we're all going to bring our own biases to the table, so to speak, in how we interpret and apply the rules.  The end goal for our table is to have fun, not debate the rules and hold up the flow of the game.
> ...



You are completely right, but I think it is worthwhile to note an important distinction. You can interpret the published rule in a way different than Crawford does, and it is still the published rule. Only when you change it (like you have by removing the Attack Action requirement like I did, too) have you made a "house rule." When you interpret the rule as it is written, that is a ruling, and every DM's ruling is exactly as valid and applicable in his game as Jeremy Crawford's is on his tabletop.

A number of people in this thread, like [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] a page or two back, have provided very reasonable interpretations and rulings of the rule (as it is written) that do not change it at all, but are not the same as the new and revised Crawford advice.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 12, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> It's a catch-22.
> 
> We have a bonus action rule that says you choose when to take your bonus action on your turn unless the timing is specified.
> 
> ...



Totally uninterested in conversing with you if you start that conversation by equating one of my arguments with "drinking the kool-aid." You are free to consider this as you winning the internet.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Totally uninterested in conversing with you if you start that conversation by equating one of my arguments with "drinking the kool-aid." You are free to consider this as you winning the internet.



Yawn.

A few facts.

Kool-aid wasnt the stsrt of the conversatiin, not even close.

For both kool-aid references they were preferenced with "if we" followed by an example and then clised with "right?"

They were questions, not equations. Google might help if those two terms are confusing.

But hey, whatever...


----------



## Hussar (Feb 12, 2019)

Note, none of 5eku examples are actually bonus actions so they do not apply.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 12, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Yawn.
> 
> A few facts.
> 
> ...



Problem solved.


----------



## epithet (Feb 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Where does it say actions are divisible?  Yoi're holding out a test you can't pass.
> 
> Meanwhile, holding that the examples are exceptions is valid because they are specific and called out whereas if actions are freely divisible they would not need to be so.  Further, under your analysis tool, I can have a fly speed because it's not said I don't, there are only examples of a fly speed.




Is it not the case that you can (for an action that is not instantaneous, like dodge) divide your action with pretty much anything that can be done on your turn? Movement, flourish, interaction, communication, Reaction... all of those can be done between attacks in an Attack Action, certainly. It seems that you are singling out bonus actions as the only thing that cannot divide attacks within an Attack Action, and so if there is a rule that states an Action to be indivisible by Bonus Actions (when it is divisible by, as far as I can see, everything else) I would expect that rule to be clearly and unequivocally written.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 12, 2019)

epithet said:


> Is it not the case that you can (for an action that is not instantaneous, like dodge) divide your action with pretty much anything that can be done on your turn? Movement, flourish, interaction, communication, Reaction... all of those can be done between attacks in an Attack Action, certainly. It seems that you are singling out bonus actions as the only thing that cannot divide attacks within an Attack Action, and so if there is a rule that states an Action to be indivisible by Bonus Actions (when it is divisible by, as far as I can see, everything else) I would expect that rule to be clearly and unequivocally written.



Part of some of the arguments were hinging on the specific exception for movement being read as needed because of the indivisible action. That if action were divisible that movement rule would never be needed.

So it sure seems like the indivisible phantom ghost of a rule applies to more than just bonus actions from its birth in the movement exceptiin, right?

We should realky tho check the fine print on the indivisible rule tho... Oh wait.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 12, 2019)

epithet said:


> Is it not the case that you can (for an action that is not instantaneous, like dodge) divide your action with pretty much anything that can be done on your turn? Movement, flourish, interaction, communication, Reaction... all of those can be done between attacks in an Attack Action, certainly. It seems that you are singling out bonus actions as the only thing that cannot divide attacks within an Attack Action, and so if there is a rule that states an Action to be indivisible by Bonus Actions (when it is divisible by, as far as I can see, everything else) I would expect that rule to be clearly and unequivocally written.




Actually, flourish/speaking/object interaction are specifically called out:



> *Other Activity on Your Turn*
> 
> Your Turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
> 
> ...




So, yes, I am singling out Bonus Actions, because, besides taking a move and an Action, that's the only other thing in a turn.

Look, it's pretty simple.  For the vast majority of Actions, we can all agree they encompass single, specific actions that aren't divisible.  Dash, Dodge, Cast a Spell, even (although that might be arguable with things like EB or scorching ray).  The issue here is the Attack Action, and really then only after you get multiple attacks.  But, the thing is, Extra Attacks is a modifier to the Attack action itself, not a new extended Attack action that becomes divisible.  It modifies 'one attack' to 'more than one attack'.  That's it.

Now, there's another form of argument that is declaring an Attack action sets a game term flag that immediately enables all things that would key off of that.  But, this is entirely devoid of any indication in the rules and is a form of reading into the rules an increased specificity of flow that's absent from both the RAW and the RAI.  This edition intends less gamey reading, so assuming that declaring an attack action is separate from taking the Attack action, or that taking the Attack action is a concrete substep, isn't mandated by the rules at all.  Instead, on your turn, you move and take one action.  What you do when you take an action is listed under that action -- that's what happens when you take that action.  It isn't a new stack of things that gets resolved LIFO, it is a discrete unit of game that resolves entirely before moving on, outside of explicit exceptions.  Like talking, object interactions, and spending your move.

I read the line of taking your bonus action when you want as a reference to the timing -- you can take an untimed bonus before or after your action.  Taking it during would require exceptional reading.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2019)

Hrm. Could I cast Eldritch Blast and Misty Step between shots?  Presuming of course that I’m over 5th level and have multiple attacks?


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Hrm. Could I cast Eldritch Blast and Misty Step between shots?  Presuming of course that I’m over 5th level and have multiple attacks?




I'd have to find the citation again, but I'm certain the answer to that is "no".

EDIT: Actually, not entirely certain. I was thinking of movement.  You can't move between iterative spell attacks.  Not sure about Misty Step at this point, but I still think it isn't legit.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2019)

What’s the difference?  If I can take bonus actions in the middle of an attack action, why can’t I do the same thing during a cast a spell action?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> What’s the difference?  If I can take bonus actions in the middle of an attack action, why can’t I do the same thing during a cast a spell action?




I suppose, because you can only do so in the middle of an attack action if you have multiple attacks.  Otherwise there is no middle to do anything in.  If you can cast two spells during the one cast a spell action, I suppose they would say you could use a bonus action in the middle.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2019)

But you can’t take a bonus action in the middle of an attack action because just like the cast action, actions are not divisible.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But you can’t take a bonus action in the middle of an attack action because just like the cast action, actions are not divisible.




The attack action is the strange action, though.  If you take one of your attacks and the move away from an enemy, that enemy can take a reaction, which if a wizard with the right ability, could be a spell, which could then prompt an ally to cast a counterspell, which could then allow an enemy to counterspell, and then the original attacker to counterspell and keep moving for his second attack.  

I wouldn't allow the shield shove before the attack action is begun, but I will be allowing it after the first attack.  Even though I agree with you that by RAW it can't happen until after the attack action completes, I don't think that makes sense.


----------



## epithet (Feb 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Hrm. Could I cast Eldritch Blast and Misty Step between shots?  Presuming of course that I’m over 5th level and have multiple attacks?




It would depend on how Eldritch Blast is handled at the table. You can read it to say that all the beams are created at once, even if they are resolved individually. The caster would target all the beams before resolving any of them, and couldn't do anything between beams.

We don't read it that way in my game, and target and resolve each beam one at a time, so that the caster can switch targets if the first beam drops the first target. In that case, sure, why not?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 13, 2019)

epithet said:


> We don't read it that way in my game, and target and resolve each beam one at a time, so that the caster can switch targets if the first beam drops the first target. In that case, sure, why not?




The only reason I can think why not is that the rules don't allow it.  You can specifically only move in-between *weapon* attacks.  Even if the spell has an attack roll involved, it's still a spell attack and not a weapon attack.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 13, 2019)

epithet said:


> It would depend on how Eldritch Blast is handled at the table. You can read it to say that all the beams are created at once, even if they are resolved individually. The caster would target all the beams before resolving any of them, and couldn't do anything between beams.
> 
> We don't read it that way in my game, and target and resolve each beam one at a time, so that the caster can switch targets if the first beam drops the first target. In that case, sure, why not?




There's a real question of whether or not you select all targets before you start resolving the attack rolls.  Aside from a tweet from Mearls a year into the life of 5e, I can't find anything definitive.  He did reply to Crawford, and Crawford didn't correct him, so take that for what it's worth.

As for for the bonus action timing regarding Eldritch Blast, I have to defer to Crawford's statement that explicit prevents nesting unless an exception is specified:



> There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190). There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest actions/reactions inside each other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create exceptions meant to disrupt them.


----------



## epithet (Feb 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The only reason I can think why not is that the rules don't allow it.  You can specifically only move in-between *weapon* attacks.  Even if the spell has an attack roll involved, it's still a spell attack and not a weapon attack.




Nor do they forbid it.

That puts the resolution in the realm of a ruling, not the rules. You're certainly welcome to read the rules in the most restrictive manner, but I don't. 

If a character can bamf-zap-zap, or zap-zap-bamf, then zap-bamf-zap seems perfectly reasonable. Similarly, if you can bash-slice-bash, or bash-bash-bash, or slice-slice-bash, then it's bloody ridiculous to take bash-slice-slice off the menu. It's arbitrary and nonsensical. As Mike Mearls says (I'm paraphrasing,) D&D is not a set of rules to tell you what your character can't do, it is a rules framework to see how well your character does what you want to do. When Crawford revises his advice to place way to much importance on semantic structures such, it doesn't add clarity or simplicity to his interpretation of the rules, because arbitrary limitations--even if they simplify your choices with constraint--only serve to add complexity by forcing you into an unnatural or unwanted pattern.


----------



## epithet (Feb 13, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> There's a real question of whether or not you select all targets before you start resolving the attack rolls.  Aside from a tweet from Mearls a year into the life of 5e, I can't find anything definitive.  He did reply to Crawford, and Crawford didn't correct him, so take that for what it's worth.
> 
> As for for the bonus action timing regarding Eldritch Blast, I have to defer to Crawford's statement that explicit prevents nesting unless an exception is specified:




You don't, though. Honestly, you don't have to defer to Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls or anyone else. There are the published rules, there are your table's rules, and everything else is just _advice_. Jeremy can't change the rules on Twitter, or even through a Sage Advice pdf. The rules only change with errata.

Edit: it is worth pointing out that Sage Advice does not purport to tell you how Jeremy runs a game, or how he thinks you should run a game. Sage Advice exists to give you an interpretation of the rules that will be, as much as possible, uniformly consistent with other rules and suggested interpretations. He's trying to maintain an integrated system, not to make your game awesome. Frankly, I suspect that Jeremy Crawford believes that a DM running an awesome game will maybe take a look at the Sage Advice and then make his own mind up about how to rule over his own tabletop.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 13, 2019)

epithet said:


> You don't, though. Honestly, you don't have to defer to Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls or anyone else. There are the published rules, there are your table's rules, and everything else is just _advice_. Jeremy can't change the rules on Twitter, or even through a Sage Advice pdf. The rules only change with errata.
> 
> Edit: it is worth pointing out that Sage Advice does not purport to tell you how Jeremy runs a game, or how he thinks you should run a game. Sage Advice exists to give you an interpretation of the rules that will be, as much as possible, uniformly consistent with other rules and suggested interpretations. He's trying to maintain an integrated system, not to make your game awesome. Frankly, I suspect that Jeremy Crawford believes that a DM running an awesome game will maybe take a look at the Sage Advice and then make his own mind up about how to rule over his own tabletop.



FWIW the sage compendium does snswer the attscks wuestion for dpells - resolve sequentially. You font have to declare all targets st start.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 13, 2019)

epithet said:


> Nor do they forbid it.




This is meaningless.  The rules also do not forbid a longsword from nuking anything it hits and vaporizing a mile square.  Just because something is not explicitly forbidden, does not make it allowed.  Only what is specifically allowed is allowed.  Any other mechanics you want to add you have to create rules for.  

In 5e it specifically says that you can move in-between weapon attacks, so by RAW weapon attacks are the only attacks you can move in-between.



> That puts the resolution in the realm of a ruling, not the rules. You're certainly welcome to read the rules in the most restrictive manner, but I don't.




No it doesn't.  A ruling concerns an ambiguity or hole in the rule.  There is no ambiguity or hole here.  The rule is crystal clear and covers what it is supposed to cover.  If you want to create a new rule that allows you to move in-between spell attacks, create it.  But it's a house rule, not a ruling.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 13, 2019)

Just to throw another data point out there. For the eldritch knight, War Magic says, "when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action". So before you cast the cantrip, you have no bonus action available, as nothing has granted you the bonus action yet. Therefore your weapon attack would come after the cantrip.

Whereas for their Arcane Charge ability it says, "you gain the ability to teleport up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space you can see when you use your Action Surge. You can teleport before or after the additional action." This is not a bonus action, but a special action (special movement?) granted by the Arcane Charge ability, but it is an explicit exception to the rule of having to take the granted action after the triggering action.

Personally I listened to the Dragon Talk podcast and Jeremy's reasoning made sense. Just have the free shield bash go after all of your other attacks. If you want to knock someone down first, use your first attack for it. One of the barbarian's special abilities is getting advantage to attack with the drawback that everyone else has advantage to hit them back in the process. Giving a fighter (or whoever else takes the feat) advantage for an athletics roll seems a little overpowered. And that is in addition to the other abilities granted by the feat. It is still a really good teamwork feat.

I also require you to pick all targets for your Magic Missile spell before you roll. The spell explicitly says that all missiles strike simultaneously. But each missile damage is rolled separately, unlike some bizarre ruling that Jeremy made once.

I do let players determine results before picking the next target for spells like scorching ray or eldritch blast, but you can't do anything else in between. The spell is instantaneous. I am being generous in letting them pick targets one at a time already.

If you try to counterspell someone that tries to counterspell your spell, you can, but you lose your other spell so there is no point and you wasted another spell. I don't care if it is RAW. I'm not letting you cast two spells simultaneously. Players are fine with this because then they can counterspell the BBEG without these shenanigans stopping them. And his spells are probably more powerful than theirs anyway.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> But you can’t take a bonus action in the middle of an attack action because just like the cast action, actions are not divisible.



"Fake rules"


----------



## Yunru (Feb 13, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> There's a real question of whether or not you select all targets before you start resolving the attack rolls.




No there isn't. Step 1 of making an attack is choosing a target.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> "Fake rules"




No, the fake rule is the stuff you are making up to fit your interpretation.  I'm simply reading the rules that are there.

Is there any rule that states that you can break up your Attack Action with a Bonus Action?  Yes or no?  Is the rule there?  

Because, since we're talking about RAW, the only thing we get to discuss is what is explicitly stated.  You don't get to invent stuff just because you like it.  Well, you do actually.  I'd probably rule that you could use shield bash in the middle of the attack too.  But, I'd do so knowing that this wasn't RAW but something for my table.  Which is fine.  It's my table.  

I don't see why you need official approval of your rulings.  RAW does not say what you want it to say, so, rule otherwise.  No problem.  But, don't pretend that your additions are RAW.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, the fake rule is the stuff you are making up to fit your interpretation.  I'm simply reading the rules that are there.
> 
> Is there any rule that states that you can break up your Attack Action with a Bonus Action?  Yes or no?  Is the rule there?
> 
> ...



My additiona? Mr. (Ms.? Mrs.?) 'Actions are indivisible despite it not being written anywhere, or in any offical source'?


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 13, 2019)

What is funny is most games don't go over level 10, so really,  it's an argument that in the real world doesn't mean much at all. Even if you allow attack, slam, attack they get one attack with advantage. Vs a greater invisibility rogue lol.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 13, 2019)

epithet said:


> You don't, though. Honestly, you don't have to defer to Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls or anyone else. There are the published rules, there are your table's rules, and everything else is just _advice_. Jeremy can't change the rules on Twitter, or even through a Sage Advice pdf. The rules only change with errata.
> 
> Edit: it is worth pointing out that Sage Advice does not purport to tell you how Jeremy runs a game, or how he thinks you should run a game. Sage Advice exists to give you an interpretation of the rules that will be, as much as possible, uniformly consistent with other rules and suggested interpretations. He's trying to maintain an integrated system, not to make your game awesome. Frankly, I suspect that Jeremy Crawford believes that a DM running an awesome game will maybe take a look at the Sage Advice and then make his own mind up about how to rule over his own tabletop.




When I say defer, I'm referring to official interpretation of the rules. It doesn't necessarily mean I plan on running them the same way at my own table. That being said, I'm not the type that goes looking for an answer on the internet regarding a piece of rule advice or interpretation and then gets upset if I don't like what I find. I want to know the designer intent regardless of how I run it.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> No there isn't. Step 1 of making an attack is choosing a target.





Which is a moot point. Resolving 
weapon attacks and resolving spell attacks have some commonality, but they are not identical.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 13, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> Which is a moot point. Resolving
> weapon attacks and resolving spell attacks have some commonality, but they are not identical.



It's not, it's resolving an attack, period.

"Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure.

Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> It's not, it's resolving an attack, period.
> 
> "Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or Making an Attack roll as part of a spell, an Attack has a simple structure.
> 
> Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."




Yet an object that is a valid target for a ranged or melee weapon attack may not be a valid target for a spell attack.

Movement between attack rolls is another area in which they differ.

I'm not arguing that they aren't incredibly similar. But there are some explicit differences.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 13, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> Yet an object that is a valid target for a melee weapon attack may not be a valid target for a spell attack.
> 
> Movement between attack rolls is another area in which they differ.
> 
> I'm not arguing that they aren't incredibly similar. But there are some explicit differences.



That was a direct quote of making any attack spell or weapon.
Thus sequential spell attacks target sequentially


----------



## Sadras (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> My additiona? Mr. (Ms.? Mrs.?) 'Actions are indivisible despite it not being written anywhere, or in any offical source'?




There is also Miss, Mx, Misc and Ind


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 13, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, the fake rule is the stuff you are making up to fit your interpretation.  I'm simply reading the rules that are there.
> 
> Is there any rule that states that you can break up your Attack Action with a Bonus Action?  Yes or no?  Is the rule there?




A general rule, no. There are specific rules that allow it, though.  Commander's Strike for example, allows the fighter to forgo one attack and use a bonus action to allow a friendly creature to use its reaction to attack.  So a 20th level fighter could attack, use bonus action, attack, attack during his attack action.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> That was a direct quote of making any attack spell or weapon.
> Thus sequential spell attacks target sequentially




Planting your flag on a basic structure without considering explicit exceptions and designer commentary and clarification beyond the original source isn't terribly convincing.

The oscillating "target-roll-target-roll" method may be correct for Eldritch Blast (in fact, that's how I've always run it), but it doesn't mean I can't question it when I learn that method may not align with the original intent.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> That was a direct quote of making any attack spell or weapon.
> Thus sequential spell attacks target sequentially



But they resolve instantaneously. So according to the rules you choose a target for the first blast, roll to hit, then roll damage if you succeeded. Then do it again for the second blast, then the third until you are out of attacks. You would know how much damage each blast did, but you wouldn't know the results of the attacks until you finish all of them.

Also, the rules for moving between attacks explicitly calls out weapon attacks. It doesn't say "attacks" or "weapon and spell attacks", just weapon attacks. It seems pretty clear that only weapon attacks are the exception to the rule that you can move either before or after an action.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 13, 2019)

Lord Twig said:


> But they resolve instantaneously. So according to the rules you choose a target for the first blast, roll to hit, then roll damage if you succeeded. Then do it again for the second blast, then the third until you are out of attacks. You would know how much damage each blast did, but you wouldn't know the results of the attacks until you finish all of them.



Nonsense. Because that makes none sense. If it's resolved instantaneously, then the damage is instantaneous, meaning you see the damage instantaneously. Besides which, that's not what duration actually represents.



> Also, the rules for moving between attacks explicitly calls out weapon attacks. It doesn't say "attacks" or "weapon and spell attacks", just weapon attacks. It seems pretty clear that only weapon attacks are the exception to the rule that you can move either before or after an action.



What's movement got to do with anything?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Nonsense. Because that makes none sense. If it's resolved instantaneously, then the damage is instantaneous, meaning you see the damage instantaneously. Besides which, that's not what duration actually represents.
> 
> What's movement got to do with anything?



What does duration actually represent?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 13, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> What does duration actually represent?




How long the magic stays around once cast.
That's why you're unable to dispel magic on instant duration spells.
The casting time is how long it takes to cast completely.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> How long the magic stays around once cast.
> That's why you're unable to dispel magic on instant duration spells.
> The casting time is how long it takes to cast completely.



So, then, have you cast EB and are adjudicating its instantaneous effects on the first bolt or the last?


----------



## Hriston (Feb 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The wording of the feat does not in any way suggest that you can take the bonus action prior to the action.




Sure it does! It says, “If you take the Attack action *on your turn*”. That can be understood to mean you can take the action and qualify for using the bonus action at any point during your turn, including the part of your turn which comes _after_ you use the bonus action. 



Maxperson said:


> It explicitly states that IF you take, THEN you shove.




Except you've interpolated the word _then_! It isn't there, so the timing you imply isn't specified. This isn't computer code. My own paraphrase would be more like, "If you take the Attack action *at any time* during one of your turns, you can also use a bonus action *at any time* during the same turn to try to shove a creature..." I can make interpolations too, you know?



Maxperson said:


> This is a good point, and just makes game balance more likely to be the reason Shield Master works differently.




Differently from what? There are many bonus actions in the game that rely on satisfying the terms of a conditional clause beginning with _when_ or _if_, including bonus action attacks from Charger,  Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, Martial Arts, War Magic, and Two-Weapon Fighting. These all work the same way as Shield Master. Others, such as those from Great Weapon Master and Tavern Brawler, are predicated on scoring a hit or a critical. For an example of a bonus action that has clear timing specificity, however, look at Flurry of Blows. I'm sure there are others examples.



Maxperson said:


> I have no idea why he hasn't come out and said it.  He's also correct about it being a more literal interpretation of RAW, but if that's all it was, he would have said something like he did with Disintegrate and Wild Shape.  In that ruling he let us know RAI prior to saying that the druid by RAW does in fact dust as soon as the wild shape form hits 0 hit points.




He seems to have changed his focus since he replied to your question about _disintegrate_ and Wild Shape. He used to talk about intent, now he seems more interested in promoting the most literal RAW interpretation. I believe his tweet about Shield Master from four years ago gives some insight into the RAI, in that it refers to being able to choose the timing with "most bonus actions", Shield Master included. That seems consistent with what's said about bonus actions under "Your Turn" in the Combat section and was likely how Shield Master was intended to be understood.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 13, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Nonsense. Because that makes none sense. If it's resolved instantaneously, then the damage is instantaneous, meaning you see the damage instantaneously. Besides which, that's not what duration actually represents.
> 
> What's movement got to do with anything?



That duration is not the same as casting time is a fair point. That said I don't think it is incorrect to apply the results of the spell either after all attacks are made or to apply them one at a time. The rules are not clear on which way to do it so it is just a DM call.

The point about movement between attacks is that it is the only exception that allows you to do something else during an action, and it is explicitly an attack action using weapon attacks. Casting a spell is a completely different action. Even if it allows you to make attack rolls as part of the spell it is not an attack action.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 13, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> Why do you need to take the 'attack action' at all in the 'fiction'?




For your character to shove a creature in the fiction (without the feat's bonus action), you need to take the Attack action. I don't think there's any other action that's suitable for that action declaration. Obviously, your character isn't "taking the Attack action" in the fiction unless s/he is playing D&D!



ad_hoc said:


> Crawford has explained that it is this way to keep the game flowing. The rules are designed to make combat go smoothly and quickly.




I get that, but I don't think a monolithic RAW interpretation is necessary for that.



ad_hoc said:


> You also don't get a bonus action until a thing gives that action. So you don't have it to use until you've done the attack action.




You seem to be referencing this passage from the section on bonus actions: You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.​ Notice that it's a game feature that gives you a bonus action, so in the case of Shield Master, it's having the feat that gives you a bonus action to use, not taking the Attack action. In my view, the Attack action just comes along with the bonus action the feat gives you.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Notice that it's a game feature that gives you a bonus action, so in the case of Shield Master, it's having the feat that gives you a bonus action to use, not taking the Attack action. In my view, the Attack action just comes along with the bonus action the feat gives you.




It's not. The Bonus Action becomes available when its requirements are met.

Rogue's Cunning Action is designed the way you are describing.

You don't have one until you do. Crawford is very clear about this. You are free to houserule any way you want of course. 

At first I was against his ruling but after listening to his reasons of why the game is designed like this I have come around to it. If you prefer this aspect of the design of the game to be different then just make it different. It is useful to know the reasoning behind the design at least.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2019)

Yunru said:


> My additiona? Mr. (Ms.? Mrs.?) 'Actions are indivisible despite it not being written anywhere, or in any offical source'?




Show me the rule that supports what you are saying - that Actions maybe be interrupted by any bonus action.  

You can't because only specific instances of where that is true are called out.  The general rule is that actions are not divisible because there is nothing anywhere that states that they are.  You are adding the rule.  I'm simply reading the rules as they are written.  Nothing in the rules states (outside of exceptions) that you can take a bonus action in the middle of an Action.  Nothing states that having multiple attacks actually changes the Attack Action in any form.

When you take an Action, you complete that action (barring exceptions of course) before you can do anything else like a Bonus Action.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 14, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> The Bonus Action becomes available when its requirements are met.




Another way to look at it is that you meet the requirements when you use the bonus action made available by the game feature. It's like the game feature gives you the ability to do a cool action-combination, part of which takes your action.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Show me the rule that supports what you are saying - that Actions maybe be interrupted by any bonus action.
> 
> You can't because only specific instances of where that is true are called out.  The general rule is that actions are not divisible because there is nothing anywhere that states that they are.  You are adding the rule.  I'm simply reading the rules as they are written.  Nothing in the rules states (outside of exceptions) that you can take a bonus action in the middle of an Action.  Nothing states that having multiple attacks actually changes the Attack Action in any form.
> 
> When you take an Action, you complete that action (barring exceptions of course) before you can do anything else like a Bonus Action.




JC clearly points out that unless the bonus action has timing restrictions, you can take it any time you like on your turn.  Between attacks in an attack action qualifies as any time in the turn, and thus I think it's quite reasonable to take a bonus action like Misty Step or Healing Word there, as neither of those bonus actions have any timing restrictions.

This doesn't apply to bonus actions with "if X then Y" style restrictions, as JC indicates X has to be completed before you even have the bonus action Y.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Sure it does! It says, “If you take the Attack action *on your turn*”. That can be understood to mean you can take the action and qualify for using the bonus action at any point during your turn, including the part of your turn which comes _after_ you use the bonus action.




It can be understood that way if you ignore how things are written.  It doesn't say "If you are going to take the attack action on your turn." or "If you take the attack action at any time during your turn."  



> Except you've interpolated the word _then_! It isn't there, so the timing you imply isn't specified. This isn't computer code. My own paraphrase would be more like, "If you take the Attack action *at any time* during one of your turns, you can also use a bonus action *at any time* during the same turn to try to shove a creature..." I can make interpolations too, you know?




It's written in the "if, then" format.  "If you take the attack action on your turn," which is the "if" portion, "you can use.."  It's classic "if, then."  The word "then" not being explicitly written doesn't alter that.



> Differently from what? There are many bonus actions in the game that rely on satisfying the terms of a conditional clause beginning with _when_ or _if_, including bonus action attacks from Charger,  Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, Martial Arts, War Magic, and Two-Weapon Fighting. These all work the same way as Shield Master. Others, such as those from Great Weapon Master and Tavern Brawler, are predicated on scoring a hit or a critical. For an example of a bonus action that has clear timing specificity, however, look at Flurry of Blows. I'm sure there are others examples.




Differently than abilities such as Two-Weapon Fighting which is written differently.  Two-Weapon Fighting just needs a single attack to happen first.



> He seems to have changed his focus since he replied to your question about _disintegrate_ and Wild Shape. He used to talk about intent, now he seems more interested in promoting the most literal RAW interpretation. I believe his tweet about Shield Master from four years ago gives some insight into the RAI, in that it refers to being able to choose the timing with "most bonus actions", Shield Master included. That seems consistent with what's said about bonus actions under "Your Turn" in the Combat section and was likely how Shield Master was intended to be understood.




It's a shame that he shifted his focus.  It was great to know what was intended and not just the literal interpretation of RAW.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> JC clearly points out that unless the bonus action has timing restrictions, you can take it any time you like on your turn.  Between attacks in an attack action qualifies as any time in the turn, and thus I think it's quite reasonable to take a bonus action like Misty Step or Healing Word there, as neither of those bonus actions have any timing restrictions.
> 
> This doesn't apply to bonus actions with "if X then Y" style restrictions, as JC indicates X has to be completed before you even have the bonus action Y.




So your position is that you can splice up actions?

So if you, say, cast a spell you can perform another action while you are resolving the spell? So cast Magic Missile, fire off one missile, do a bonus action, move about, then fire off the rest of the missiles?

You're making the game far too complicated.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Feb 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I hate bad memes.  Everyone knows that storm troopers couldn't hit a dead horse.




To be fair, they _do_ have advantage on their attack rolls.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> So your position is that you can splice up actions?
> 
> So if you, say, cast a spell you can perform another action while you are resolving the spell? So cast Magic Missile, fire off one missile, do a bonus action, move about, then fire off the rest of the missiles?
> 
> You're making the game far too complicated.




No, I never said anything like that.

First of all, all bolts from Magic Missile strike their targets at the same time.



> You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. *The darts all strike simultaneously*, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.




Based on that, it's entirely reasonable to move, cast Magic Missile, do a bonus action, and then move some more.  Or, rearrange those 4 things into any order you like.

The perceived complexity here are the multiple attacks from Extra Attack.  Given the special rule that says you can break up your movement and move between these attacks:



> *Moving Between Attacks*
> 
> 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. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.




then I think it's a perfectly reasonable reading of the bonus action rules that you could also do a timing-independent bonus action like Misty Step or Healing Word between attacks granted via Extra Attack.  Again, the bonus action rules say you get to decide when you take a timing-independent bonus action.



> 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.




Again, the timing of Misty Step and Healing Word is not specified, and thus you can do it any time you like (including between attacks from Extra Attack).

To beat a dead horse some more, Shield Master says you get the bonus action shove after you take the Attack action.  JC has also clearly said that the intent is for Shield Master's slam to be a finishing move.  Folks can decide to follow that intent or not at their table.  The implication there is that the "you take the Attack action" part is resolved when all attacks from Extra Attack are taken, then the Shield Master trigger procs and you now have a bonus action (based on their "if X then Y" rules).  Again, you can decide that your table will allow shove-slice-slice or slice-shove-slice or slice-slice-shove or whatever you want.

No matter what, bonus actions that don't have timing specified can be taken any time you like, and I don't think that makes the game any more complex (in fact I think it simplifies things -- you just have an extra thing you can do on your turn).


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> No, I never said anything like that.




Same question, different spell.
Would you allow a 5th level caster to cast _eldritch blast_ and attack with the first bolt then move then attack with the second bolt? How about casting the first bolt of _eldritch blast_ then casting _misty step_ then attacking with the second bolt?

It seemed cheesy to me but the more I think about it, I think I'd allow the first at my table (not the second though - I don't allow bonus actions in the middle of actions).


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> Same question, different spell.
> Would you allow a 5th level caster to cast _eldritch blast_ and attack with the first bolt then move then attack with the second bolt? How about casting the first bolt of _eldritch blast_ then casting _misty step_ then attacking with the second bolt?
> 
> It seemed cheesy to me but the more I think about it, I think I'd allow the first at my table (not the second though - I don't allow bonus actions in the middle of actions).




It's technically not RAW:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/0...-then-aim-the-2nd-beam-at-a-different-target/

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/2...en-spells-that-allow-for-two-or-more-attacks/

But I'd work with the player to get their desired effect to happen, within reason (perhaps moving a bit first, based on the fact the first target looked near death etc).  I also wouldn't allow Misy Step in between Eldritch Blast bolts, because I imagine the caster has to weave the spell until all bolts have landed, even though they each have separate attack rolls.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> then I think it's a perfectly reasonable reading of the bonus action rules that you could also do a timing-independent bonus action like Misty Step or Healing Word between attacks granted via Extra Attack.  Again, the bonus action rules say you get to decide when you take a timing-independent bonus action.




Because there is one rule allowing something everything else must be allowed?

You're just making things up now. Which is fine of course, you're free to houserule whatever.

You're just making the game more complicated than designed.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> Because there is one rule allowing something everything else must be allowed?
> 
> You're just making things up now. Which is fine of course, you're free to houserule whatever.
> 
> You're just making the game more complicated than designed.




I don't follow.  The rule for bonus actions is clear: you choose when to take the bonus action on your turn.  JC explains in the video that you can take your bonus action at any point during your turn.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 14, 2019)

It's the vague wording of shield master vs the specific wording of two other examples of bonus action if/then statements I don't like.

Bonus action: 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.

Example one: Two weapon fighting: When you take the attack action and attack with a light weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

So take attack action, make an attack, bonus action triggers. I admit this can be read as either, "and attack" means make your first attack or "and attack with a light weapon" means you made at least one of your attacks with a light weapon, but all attacks were completed first. I read it as the first. If you made an attack with a light weapon, the bonus triggers, and then you can use it when you see fit.

Example Two: Flurry of blows: Immediately after you take the attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action. I interpret this as after you finish your attack action, immediately after you can then bonus action make two more attacks. I admit it could be read as you took the action by make an attack, similar to two weapon fighting, and could therefore bonus action flurry, but JC stated the first example was the intent.


The problem with the wording in shield master feat is that it lacks neither the words "and attack" or the words "immediately after". So it's somewhere in the middle ground and vague. Since the specific rule is bonus actions timing can occur whenever the player chooses unless specified, and it does not specify with either "and attack" or "immediately after", we have a 20+ page debate and years of confusion which even the rules designer has flip flopped on its intent.

If they would either state, "It should state AND ATTACK" or "It should state, IMMEDIATELY AFTER" then this debate would be finished. At least for me.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I don't follow.  The rule for bonus actions is clear: you choose when to take the bonus action on your turn.  JC explains in the video that you can take your bonus action at any point during your turn.




He specifically talked about the Attack Action and Extra Attack and stated that you cannot do an action within an action. Being able to move is a special property that applies to the Attack Action. It doesn't allow for doing anything and everything.

You can't splice actions in the middle of other actions.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 14, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> He specifically talked about the Attack Action and Extra Attack and stated that you cannot do an action within an action. Being able to move is a special property that applies to the Attack Action. It doesn't allow for doing anything and everything.
> 
> You can't splice actions in the middle of other actions.




One could argue that, "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." is also an exception to this rule, just like movement is.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> The problem with the wording in shield master feat is that it lacks neither the words "and attack" or the words "immediately after". So it's somewhere in the middle ground and vague. Since the specific rule is bonus actions timing can occur whenever the player chooses unless specified, and it does not specify with either "and attack" or "immediately after", we have a 20+ page debate and years of confusion which even the rules designer has flip flopped on its intent.
> 
> If they would either state, "It should state AND ATTACK" or "It should state, IMMEDIATELY AFTER" then this debate would be finished. At least for me.




If you haven't attacked you haven't taken the attack action.

It's that simple.

Taking the action is doing the thing. There is no declaration of actions step in 5e. You either did the thing or not.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2019)

Reposting this, please watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew1dc6VBHhA


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I don't follow.  The rule for bonus actions is clear: you choose when to take the bonus action on your turn.  JC explains in the video that you can take your bonus action at any point during your turn.



Yeah - I dont get the "making it more complicated" pov.

It seems a lot more complicated to have a phantom rule that's somehow divides all the things that could be done into "those that can go in the middle of an action and "those that cant" along the divisions people keep throwing in without actually any clear rule to read to see how it cuts those up.

"When you want on your turn unless..." seems pretty uncomplicated. 

I can drop concentration at any time... can that be done during an action or not? 

If the answer would be yes, what is the razor line between "when you choose" and "at any time" that would be spotlighted by the phantom rule that would make dropping concentration between attacks fine but not casting misty step?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2019)

And again @5ekyu is conflating actions and non actions. It would make this conversation a lot easier if folks were a bit more precise.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And again @5ekyu is conflating actions and non actions. It would make this conversation a lot easier if folks were a bit more precise.



Well, unless a claim can be made and supported that says the phantom indivisible action rule specifically restricts itself to preventing bonus actions dividing the actions (and within those only some bonus action) then discussions can and should include the other things that the indivisible action prevents.

I mean without a specific reference inside that phantom rule addressing non-actions or specific call-outs in those non-actions that are stronger than "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, " then why aren't they also prevented by the indivisible phantom rule? 

Why isnt "Show me the rule that supports what you are saying - that Actions maybe be interrupted by any non-action. " just as valid or invalid as "Show me the rule that supports what you are saying - that Actions maybe be interrupted by any bonus action."? 

"The general rule is that actions are not divisible because there is nothing anywhere that states that they are. " How is that claim shown to be different if the intrusive event is a non-action as opposed to a bonus action - especially given the big "you choose when..." that we have 8n the core rule for bonus action?

If one believes "The attack action though is still a discrete unit, regardless of how many attacks you make. " and that is a basis for the phantom indivisible trumping "you choose when..." for bonus actions, then what in the PHB or other official sources excludes non-actions from that same indivisible phantom.

That's where my comment pages back came from, the constant ability of a non-existent rule to morph to suit whatever position it needs to counter ACTUAL RULES like "you choose when...".

A character is maintaining concentration on  fog cloud. Some enemies are inside, some outside.
Character has extra attacks.
Character strikes at an enemy outside, crits lucky and kills them.
Character moves towards the Fog Cloud dropping concentration and moves to use its extra attack on the creature - fog now gone.

Until the indivisible action phantom, that was fine. 

Is that why the need now exists for the indivisible and discrete action to only apply to bonus actions? 

Is it different (in the text of the phantom discrete indivisible rule) if instead of concentration, that was somebody else's fog cloud and the way to drop the fog were a quicken dispel magic or gusto of wind?


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 14, 2019)

After reading one of JC's tweets concerning bonus action in a multiple attack sequence, I've come to the conclusion that shield master comes after the attacks and can't trigger between. Two weapon fighting can, however, since it states "and attack".

Here is the tweet I am referring to...
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 14, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> After reading one of JC's tweets concerning bonus action in a multiple attack sequence, I've come to the conclusion that shield master comes after the attacks and can't trigger between. Two weapon fighting can, however, since it states "and attack".
> 
> Here is the tweet I am referring to...
> https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298



But, "and" means both conditions have to apply. You must take the attack action.  When you take the attack action, you must make an attack with a light weapon.  Both have to happen for twf.  The attack is an additional requirement to the attack action, not an independent trigger.  Shield master has the same timing (take an attack action) but doesn't have any restrictions on what has to happen in the attack action.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 14, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> After reading one of JC's tweets concerning bonus action in a multiple attack sequence, I've come to the conclusion that shield master comes after the attacks and can't trigger between. Two weapon fighting can, however, since it states "and attack".



Sorry, but you must be wrong.
Because TWF has more conditions, not less, than Shield Master.
So if taking the Attack action means "take and complete the Attack action" for SM, then the only way to read TWF is "when you take and complete the Attack action and attacked with a ..."
"If you attacked with ... as part of an Attack action" (as you claim) is a very different thing.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2019)

Because, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], no one is claiming that Actions cannot be broken up by non-actions.  That's never been claimed by anyone and would be wrong if it were.  After all, my character can talk while attacking.  My character could drop a weapon in the middle of attacking (also a non-action).  There's a number of things you can do that are not "Actions" as in the game defined term.

However, Bonus Actions are a game defined element.  And you cannot take a Bonus Action in the middle of an Action because Actions are discrete.  You can't drop a Bonus Action in the middle of a Dodge.  You couldn't drop a Bonus Action in the middle of an Attack Action when the attacker only had one attack.  

Where does it say that the Attack Action becomes multipart as soon as you gain multiple attacks?  It doesn't.  All it states is that as part of your Attack Action, you can now make multiple attacks.  That's it.  That's the full extent of having multiple attacks.  Now, any exception to that is stated in the exception - such as moving between attacks when you have multiple attacks.  But, at no point is a Bonus Action allowed in the middle of an Action unless it specifically is stated in the text of the Bonus Action.

it's no different than the RAW that Reactions occur AFTER the trigger action is completed.  Except for movement.  Which is specifically called out as an exception.  

That's the point.  Any exception is called out by the rules.  Otherwise, you go by what the rule states.  The rules state, when you take the Attack Action, you resolve your attacks.  Full stop.  End of story.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Because, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], no one is claiming that Actions cannot be broken up by non-actions.  That's never been claimed by anyone and would be wrong if it were.  After all, my character can talk while attacking.  My character could drop a weapon in the middle of attacking (also a non-action).  There's a number of things you can do that are not "Actions" as in the game defined term.
> 
> However, Bonus Actions are a game defined element.  And you cannot take a Bonus Action in the middle of an Action because Actions are discrete.  You can't drop a Bonus Action in the middle of a Dodge.  You couldn't drop a Bonus Action in the middle of an Attack Action when the attacker only had one attack.
> 
> ...



What is bring claimed is that there is some general rule which makes actions discrete and indivisible snd thst unless there are specific flavors of wording that cannot be broken. 

For bonus actions, apparently adding "an attack" on top of "attack action" gets you around this phantom general rule. 

Drop a weapon is another case of non-action that was mentioned before. 

But, the difference between non-actions and bonus actions is... there actually **is** a specific bona fides there in the PHB rule that says you can take your bonus zction when you want during the turn **unless** there is specific language preventing it.

Yet, somehow you seem to be absolutely sure that indivisible action phantom rule on the "divisible by only this" actions excludes non-actions. 

So, as I pointed out, most every **show me where it says bonus actions can divide** charge is just as applicable to non-actions - more do cuz there isnt the broader "when you choose" to cover them.

"However, Bonus Actions are a game defined element. And you cannot take a Bonus Action in the middle of an Action because Actions are discrete."

You are correct in that first sentence. The rules define bonus action and provide that you can take it when in the turn you choose to unless the specific action specifies a timing.

That second sentence is not a rule. It's just not. It's not a general rule that has exceptions. It's just not a rule. You can keep claiming it is and insisting that everyone else show you a rule that provides an exemption for bonus actions all day long. It doesnt chsnge it.

"However, Bonus Actions are a game defined element. And you cannot take a Bonus Action on odd numbered Thursdays because Actions are discrete on odd numbered Thursdays." There is just as much in the PHB/DMG to support that as is your *action is discrete but only against a subset of bonus actions.*

"That's the point.  Any exception is called out by the rules.  Otherwise, you go by what the rule states.  The rules state, when you take the Attack Action, you resolve your attacks.  Full stop.  End of story."

Except for the cases where it doesn't, right? Like dropping weapon, dropping concentration, slightly different worded attack action bonus actions, etc etc etc none of which explicitly mention interrupting discrete actions.

An invisible general rule that applies a limitation on subsets of some subsets of some options based on a wide variety of different exceptions and which ignores very explicit permission of actual rules is not anything I would build a hill on. 

But yet, that's me. I wont try and parse the difference between "any time" and "when you choose" to chase trying to satisfy some imagined rule that I cannot read.

More to the point, I wont make my players fo that either. 

My Stupid Rule says if I would feel stupid explaining a rule and how it works to my players, then I wont use that rule. It applies doubly to invisible phantom morphing rules that thrmselves require precise language in other rules.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 14, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> But, "and" means both conditions have to apply. You must take the attack action.  When you take the attack action, you must make an attack with a light weapon.  Both have to happen for twf.  The attack is an additional requirement to the attack action, not an independent trigger.  Shield master has the same timing (take an attack action) but doesn't have any restrictions on what has to happen in the attack action.




"You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action."

I read that as "specified an attack, rather than the attack action" which twf does and shield master doesn't.

If that is also wrong and you can't do anything with your cool fighting toys, then this game just got far more nit picky than it needs to be and on a personal note, I have not seen enforced by any official AL game or AL convention including special event games. But that's anecdotal admittedly.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 14, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> I read that as "specified an attack, rather than the attack action" which twf does and shield master doesn't.



It doesn't though. It specifies the Attack action *and* an attack with a light weapon.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I mean without a specific reference inside that phantom rule addressing non-actions or specific call-outs in those non-actions that are stronger than "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, " then why aren't they also prevented by the indivisible phantom rule?




Here's the problem, though.  You also get to choose when you take your actions during your turn.  By arguing that actions are naturally divisible, you are arguing that a fighter can run up, swing his sword for his first attack, move 5 feet, action surge, take an entirely different action, continue moving 10 more feet and finish his second attack.  You are also arguing that a fighter/wizard can move 10 feet, cast Scorching Ray that has a duration of instantaneous, divide that action up and action surge after the first ray, swing his sword at an enemy, move 20 feet(despite being unable to move in-between spell attacks by RAW, because now we are in an entirely different action and you can move in-between weapon attacks), finish up his scorching ray strikes, and then swing a second time.  

There's a reason why you have to have an exception to the "phantom rule" in order to do something else during an action.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 14, 2019)

The end result is the same. Moves 30 feet....check. Made a spell attack with 3 rays.....check......action surged......check.....made two attacks.....check.

Did it break the game completely? Nope.
Was it fun for the players? Yep.

Now if I saw someone trying to game the system every turn? Nope, RAW says....
But just some casual player trying to be thematically cool? Go for it. If anything Acquisition Inc. leans heavily on rule of cool, and many newer players having seen it want to emulate that fun. But that's another discussion for another thread.

As for me, I see your RAW and acknowledge it's validation. But I'm just going to continue allowing fun at the table instead of ruling my players out of their fun. Abuses notwithstanding of course.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> The end result is the same. Moves 30 feet....check. Made a spell attack with 3 rays.....check......action surged......check.....made two attacks.....check.
> 
> Did it break the game completely? Nope.
> Was it fun for the players? Yep.




How exactly do you hold an instantaneous spell up while all that happens? 

Edit: Or to put it another way, if you can hold up the instant rays while you surge and attack, you can hold up a fireball explosion while you surge and attack, finishing the explosion after the attacks.  The duration of them is the same, so those two spell actions would be equally divisible.



> As for me, I see your RAW and acknowledge it's validation. But I'm just going to continue allowing fun at the table instead of ruling my players out of their fun. Abuses notwithstanding of course.




And that's perfectly valid.  The rule of cool works well for people who like to play that way.  My point is that actions are not naturally divisible.  They need a specific exception to allow them to be divided, and there are plenty of such exceptions in the rules.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> He specifically talked about the Attack Action and Extra Attack and stated that you cannot do an action within an action. Being able to move is a special property that applies to the Attack Action. It doesn't allow for doing anything and everything.
> 
> You can't splice actions in the middle of other actions.




You're not taking an action in the middle of another action, you're taking a bonus action.  Those are two very different things.  The bonus action rule very clearly says that you get to decide when to take the bonus action on your turn, unless there are timing requirements in the bonus action itself.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Here's the problem, though.  You also get to choose when you take your actions during your turn.  By arguing that actions are naturally divisible, you are arguing that a fighter can run up, swing his sword for his first attack, move 5 feet, action surge, take an entirely different action, continue moving 10 more feet and finish his second attack.  You are also arguing that a fighter/wizard can move 10 feet, cast Scorching Ray that has a duration of instantaneous, divide that action up and action surge after the first ray, swing his sword at an enemy, move 20 feet(despite being unable to move in-between spell attacks by RAW, because now we are in an entirely different action and you can move in-between weapon attacks), finish up his scorching ray strikes, and then swing a second time.
> 
> There's a reason why you have to have an exception to the "phantom rule" in order to do something else during an action.




There's a rule that says you can move in between attacks in an Attack action.  Action Surge says:



> Action Surge
> Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action.




I don't see any language about allowing that one additional action to take place in between attacks in an Attack action, and therefore, it isn't allowed by the RAW.  Right?

Bonus actions are not actions, and the bonus action rules clearly state you get to decide when to take the bonus action on your turn (unless there are timing requirements in the bonus action itself).  To use your example, you could:

- Move
- Attack action, take first swing
- Move some more
- Take a bonus action without timing requirements, because this qualifies as "any time on your turn"
- Move a little more
- Take second swing, completing the Attack action
- Action Surge
- Move a little more
- Take a second action


----------



## Oofta (Feb 14, 2019)

So according to one interpretation, I couldn't attack, action surge to kick down a door, move and attack?

That is the opposite of "simple and easy to understand" IMHO even though I agree that it is the most literal interpretation of the rules.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Here's the problem, though.  You also get to choose when you take your actions during your turn.  By arguing that actions are naturally divisible, you are arguing that a fighter can run up, swing his sword for his first attack, move 5 feet, action surge, take an entirely different action, continue moving 10 more feet and finish his second attack.  You are also arguing that a fighter/wizard can move 10 feet, cast Scorching Ray that has a duration of instantaneous, divide that action up and action surge after the first ray, swing his sword at an enemy, move 20 feet(despite being unable to move in-between spell attacks by RAW, because now we are in an entirely different action and you can move in-between weapon attacks), finish up his scorching ray strikes, and then swing a second time.
> 
> There's a reason why you have to have an exception to the "phantom rule" in order to do something else during an action.



"Problem"?

I see "examples" but not "problems".

You describe move-attack-move-surge-attack as if its done obviously flawed thing. You just left out what the "problem" was.

You mention the scorching ray and not bring able to move between spell attacks by RAW and dont say how that is a problem.

"(despite being unable to move in-between spell attacks by RAW, because now we are in an entirely different action and you can move in-between weapon attacks), "

Now, let's deal with that one, ok?

You can move between spell attacks in RAW. 
You can.
Really. 
There is no rule stopping it.
Not one.

Now, what you cannot fo, by RAW, is use the Movement Between Attacks rule to split your normal movement in an action between attacks of a spell because ***that rule** requires weapon attacks specifically.

In your example *that rule* is not being used to move between spell attacks, right? The rule being used is the action surge giving you a new action and whatever that gives you. 

See, that's the key, there is no general rule which forbids movement by any means between spell attacks. So, no rule is broken by action surging between spell attacks.

Let's give you an example.

We already know with scorching ray we can pick a target, fire, see results, pick target, fire, see results etc. Nothing RAW forces those "instantaneous" spells with multiple attacks to not be done sequentially (as confirmed by Sage whenever asked.) 

So I move, fire, but if that shot triggers say a reaction like dissonant whispers I may be forced to spend my reaction and move away right then and there - but I still have the ability to choose my target and shoot from that new spot.

That did not violate the MBA rule because ts was these other game features that caused the movement, not the MBA.

Would you force that Scorching Ray player to forfeit his shots because DW made him react move away? Or would you rule that a reaction triggered by "hit by an attack" would have to wait not thru just one attack in a sequential set but all of them? 

The reaction movement away did not violate RAW because I did not have to use "moving between attacks" rule to move. Just like if I action surge between scorching ray shots no rule was violated. 

But the long and short of it is, the rule for MBA does not establish any global prohibition against movement between spell attacks. 

Matter of fact, IIRC JEC answer to the question of moving between spell attacks was that there is no general rule allowing it... which obviously leaves open the cases where a specific rule can allow it.

Movement Between Attacks

"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. "

So, again, we reach the key point to me in all this.

You listed two EXAMPLES that you described as problems that would occur if we did not imagine a phantom discrete indivisible action rule, but hey, guess what, we can actually look at honest to goodness real RAW written down rules to go thru and see "were any rules broken." 

At no point is any phantom rule needed to resolve this. 

That's because the rules being used - using bonus actions when you choose, MBA, sequential attacks - are actually printed rules we can read (and in some cases - printed clarifications)

But this amazingly finessed phantom indivisible discrete action rule whose text is somehow known to be so precise as to divide between "when you choose" and "any time" and between some bonus actions but not non-actions requires us to based rulings on that phantom rule we cannot see, cannot read and cannot examine the wording of.

YMMV.

But in my game, when you action surge, you get a new action, right then and there on your turn. No phantom indivisible need apply. In my game, you cannot use MBA to move between Scorching Ray shots cuz they are not weapon attacks, but there is no problem with movement between them as a result of other features, events and effects and if there are questions we check actual rules for guidance, not phantoms.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

Oofta said:


> So according to one interpretation, I couldn't attack, action surge to kick down a door, move and attack?
> 
> That is the opposite of "simple and easy to understand" IMHO even though I agree that it is the most literal interpretation of the rules.




That's well within the realm of reasonable in my opinion, and so if one of my players wanted to do that, then I would absolutely let them.  I prefer to just keep the combat flowing and not get bogged down with arguing about whether or not you can take the remaining Extra Attacks after the Strength check to kick down the door.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> How exactly do you hold an instantaneous spell up while all that happens?
> 
> Edit: Or to put it another way, if you can hold up the instant rays while you surge and attack, you can hold up a fireball explosion while you surge and attack, finishing the explosion after the attacks.  The duration of them is the same, so those two spell actions would be equally divisible.
> 
> ...



I am not sure what you are meaning by "hold up" with fireball.

Action Surge does not "hold up" anything. It gives you an extra action when you take it.

Fireball and Scorching Ray are both instantaneous durations but the former has one event - one resolution - it goes off. The other has sequential resolution - several different things happen in order and its permitted to make the choices, resolve one, see what happens then make the choices and resolve the next. 

The rules already allow for say reactions to change things between shots of the scorching ray that could not cause the same issues for fireball. A Hellish Rebuke might drop me after one scorching ray shot, before the second shot was even declared - end done. The same rebuke from bring fireballed does not stop the res of the fireball victims from being hurt by it.

Instantaneous duration foes not mean simultaneous resolution or evdnts/effects - which is why magic missile and its explicit simultaneous internal to the spell gets singled out.

But if you want to give more clarity in what "hold up" for fireball means, go ahead.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 14, 2019)

I think people are seeing the reinforcement that actions are divisible as an implicit "actions aren't divisible in other situations."


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Oofta said:


> So according to one interpretation, I couldn't attack, action surge to kick down a door, move and attack?
> 
> That is the opposite of "simple and easy to understand" IMHO even though I agree that it is the most literal interpretation of the rules.



The answer to your first question would have to be yes or maybe or no but it depends on the wording of the phantom indivisible rule to see if it applies to action surge or not. 

It does seem that to some using action surge between attacks is wrong.

So another example...

I shoot one attack with my bow.
I use my non-action to drop my bow.
I use action surge to don my shield.
I move 15'.
The AO has to deal with my shield AC.
I use my interaction to draw my shortsword while I attack with it.

It would seem to some maybe the "you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action." collides with the phantom indivisible in some wsy becsuse... reasons?


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> That's well within the realm of reasonable in my opinion, and so if one of my players wanted to do that, then I would absolutely let them.  I prefer to just keep the combat flowing and not get bogged down with arguing about whether or not you can take the remaining Extra Attacks after the Strength check to kick down the door.



Yeah, not having phantom unwritten rules has helped keep our play moving.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I am not sure what you are meaning by "hold up" with fireball.
> 
> Action Surge does not "hold up" anything. It gives you an extra action when you take it.
> 
> ...




Similarly, someone talked about "interrupting" the Dodge action, which makes no sense to me.  My reading of Dodge (and other similar actions) is that it's an instantaneous action that gives you an effect for the duration.



> When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. *Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage* if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage.




So, there's nothing to interrupt -- you take the Dodge action, it instantly resolves and attackers now have disadvantage to attack you.  You are then free to move, take bonus actions, Action Surges or whatever else you want.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Similarly, someone talked about "interrupting" the Dodge action, which makes no sense to me.  My reading of Dodge (and other similar actions) is that it's an instantaneous action that gives you an effect for the duration.
> 
> 
> 
> So, there's nothing to interrupt -- you take the Dodge action, it instantly resolves and attackers now have disadvantage to attack you.  You are then free to move, take bonus actions, Action Surges or whatever else you want.



Probably means the phantom discrete indivisible rule has specific language calling out dodge, or dodge from bonus actions or dodge on Thursdays before CritRole... Which we would both know if we saw that rule. I think it may be right above the TWF exclusion but before the non-action one.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2019)

Oofta said:


> So according to one interpretation, I couldn't attack, action surge to kick down a door, move and attack?
> 
> That is the opposite of "simple and easy to understand" IMHO even though I agree that it is the most literal interpretation of the rules.




And, that would be the point though.  We're arguing RAW, not what we'd do at our tables.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Similarly, someone talked about "interrupting" the Dodge action, which makes no sense to me.  My reading of Dodge (and other similar actions) is that it's an instantaneous action that gives you an effect for the duration.
> 
> 
> 
> So, there's nothing to interrupt -- you take the Dodge action, it instantly resolves and attackers now have disadvantage to attack you.  You are then free to move, take bonus actions, Action Surges or whatever else you want.




And there's no difference with any other Action.  The only reason that you think that you can interrupt an Attack Action is because we resolve them sequentially.  Mostly because there's no other way to resolve them at the table.  But, that's the thing.  They don't actually resolve sequentially.  They occur, more or less, at the same time.  There's nothing to interrupt.  It's an Action and Actions can't be interrupted except in specific circumstances.  

Barring a rule that states that you can take a Bonus Action in the middle of an Action, you can't.  That's not a phantom rule, that's just the way rules work.  There's no rule that states I can't declare that I have a fly movement, but, barring exceptions like a Fly spell, I cannot do that.  There's no rule stating that I don't crit on a 15 to 20.  After all, I do crit on a 20, so, why not on a 19 or an 18?  But, again, I don't because the rules don't say that I do.  Barring the specific exception of higher level champion fighters.

On and on.  That's how it works.  If it doesn't say that you can, then you can't.  That's how RAW is interpreted.  Has zero to do with what I'd actually do at my table, but, that's how you interpret RAW.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 14, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And there's no difference with any other Action.  The only reason that you think that you can interrupt an Attack Action is because we resolve them sequentially.  Mostly because there's no other way to resolve them at the table.  But, that's the thing.  They don't actually resolve sequentially.  They occur, more or less, at the same time.  There's nothing to interrupt.  It's an Action and Actions can't be interrupted except in specific circumstances.
> 
> Barring a rule that states that you can take a Bonus Action in the middle of an Action, you can't.  That's not a phantom rule, that's just the way rules work.  There's no rule that states I can't declare that I have a fly movement, but, barring exceptions like a Fly spell, I cannot do that.  There's no rule stating that I don't crit on a 15 to 20.  After all, I do crit on a 20, so, why not on a 19 or an 18?  But, again, I don't because the rules don't say that I do.  Barring the specific exception of higher level champion fighters.
> 
> On and on.  That's how it works.  If it doesn't say that you can, then you can't.  That's how RAW is interpreted.  Has zero to do with what I'd actually do at my table, but, that's how you interpret RAW.




Again, I'm not following your logic.  There is a rule that addresses this for bonus actions:



> *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.




That's a specific rule that lets you take your bonus action whenever you want.  I don't think this could be any simpler or clearer.

Based on this rule, if I have multiple attacks from Extra Attack and take the Attack action, then I could choose to take my bonus action to do a Misty Step between attacks because the bonus action rule says I get to decide when to do it.  The only complexity comes from the "if X then Y" triggers that grant you the bonus action in the first place, such as Shield Master, TWF and so on.  There are plenty of bonus actions that don't have any timing restrictions, and thus you can pick any time during your turn to take those bonus actions.  JEC even confirmed this in the most recent Sage Advice video:

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=304


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 14, 2019)

This is like saying to your friend, "Stop by anytime!" and he shows up at 2am saying, "Dude, you said 'anytime'!"

There is really no point arguing at this point. The rules say what they say and people are reading them differently. I don't know if there is really a way to overcome that.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 15, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It can be understood that way if you ignore how things are written.  It doesn't say "If you are going to take the attack action on your turn." or "If you take the attack action at any time during your turn."




Those both seem like acceptable glosses to me. I'm not sure why you and Jeremy Crawford regard the existing language as so restrictive. The way I conceive of game elements like the first bullet of Shield Master, which grant you a bonus action, is that they let you do something extra, a _bonus_, that other characters who don't have that game element can't. In the case of Shield Master's first bullet, it lets you do your usual attack routine _plus_ shove a creature with your shield. It costs you your action and bonus action for that turn. That seems to meet the design goals of the feature, and I don't see any benefit to the game of being more restrictive than that. 



Maxperson said:


> It's written in the "if, then" format.  "If you take the attack action on your turn," which is the "if" portion, "you can use.."  It's classic "if, then."  The word "then" not being explicitly written doesn't alter that.




Yes, it's called a conditional sentence. It expresses the implication that if it's true that you take the Attack action on your turn, then it's also true that you can use a bonus action to shove a creature with your shield. But this is natural language, and I think it's a mistake to read the word _then_ as implying a specific chronology (as your emphasis with all caps seemed to do), especially when you can express something like this sentence in English: If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast was wrong.​


Maxperson said:


> Differently than abilities such as Two-Weapon Fighting which is written differently.  Two-Weapon Fighting just needs a single attack to happen first.




I'd say it works the same way. You can use a bonus action to make an attack as long as you also take the Attack action and satisfy any other conditions. It's the same structure that governs all these features. 



Maxperson said:


> It's a shame that he shifted his focus.  It was great to know what was intended and not just the literal interpretation of RAW.




I think it's telling that he included Shield Master's bonus action shove in a category of "most bonus actions" that he said did not have a timing specification.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 15, 2019)

I get that taking the Attack action is the condition for using the bonus action, but this is something the player can do voluntarily, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to gate the bonus action behind the action because really it's something the player can invoke all at once. I don't think any more than this simple exchange would be needed if anyone was unsure if the rules were being followed by a player playing a Shield Master.

DM: Okay, Shield Master, it's your turn. What do you do?

SM: Well, first I use the bonus action my feat gives me to shove this orc prone with my shield.

DM: Okay, do you take the Attack action?

SM: I do.

DM: Okay, roll your Strength (Athletics) check.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I get that taking the Attack action is the condition for using the bonus action, but this is something the player can do voluntarily, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to gate the bonus action behind the action because really it's something the player can invoke all at once. I don't think any more than this simple exchange would be needed if anyone was unsure if the rules were being followed by a player playing a Shield Master.
> 
> DM: Okay, Shield Master, it's your turn. What do you do?
> 
> ...




You're more than welcome to do that at your table obviously, but that's not RAW/RAI.  JEC has been very clear that Shield Master's shove is intended to be a finishing move, and that 5E doesn't have an "action declaration phase".  Taking the Attack action means actually making one or more attacks.  What happens if you say "hey I'm going to take the Attack action, so let me use my Shield Master shove first" but the enemy uses a reaction that incapacitates you, preventing you from actually making your attacks?  You therefore haven't actually taken the Attack action, which means you shouldn't have had access to the Shield Master shove bonus action, as that has a trigger of "taking the Attack action".  Again, the feat wasn't designed as a way to grant near-permanent advantage.  If you want to play it that way at your table, then naturally you should feel free to do so.

All of this is making me really glad I stopped playing my Shield Master Paladin, so that I don't have to worry about that feat in my games.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I am not sure what you are meaning by "hold up" with fireball.
> 
> Action Surge does not "hold up" anything. It gives you an extra action when you take it.
> 
> ...




This is why there's a problem.  If there wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have to invent an entirely new "phantom rule" that says you can divide one Cast a Spell Action(with multiple attacks),  but not another Cast a Spell Action(resolves in one resolution).  If you can divide the action, you can divide the action regardless of whether it's one resolution or multiple resolution.  If you can split up Scorching Ray to use a completely different action with Action Surge, you can do it with Fireball as well.  So if actions are naturally divisible like you say, you can take the Cast a Spell Action, and the split it up by casting fireball, then while it is traveling towards the enemy, stop it in mid air so that you can take your other action, then have the fireball resume its travel and detonate.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> There's a rule that says you can move in between attacks in an Attack action.  Action Surge says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's not my argument.  If actions are naturally divisible like [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] and other are claiming, then you can in fact trigger the Action Surge in the middle of your Attack Action or Cast a Spell Action.  There's no inherent timing conflict built into Action Surge that would prevent it.  You get to choose when to take your action, and you get to choose when to Action Surge.  However, if actions are not naturally divisible like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are saying, you could not do that.   You would need a rule that explicitly allows you to use it during the action, such as reaction rules or smite.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> All of this is making me really glad I stopped playing my Shield Master Paladin, so that I don't have to worry about that feat in my games.




I will still use it. It's other benefits of protection against spells and AE's are nice. Prone for melee allies is nice, and casters can still do save vs attacks or effects without disadvantage. At higher levels I can still give myself advantage after an action surge. So it's still good.


----------



## cbwjm (Feb 15, 2019)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> Same question, different spell.
> Would you allow a 5th level caster to cast _eldritch blast_ and attack with the first bolt then move then attack with the second bolt? How about casting the first bolt of _eldritch blast_ then casting _misty step_ then attacking with the second bolt?
> 
> It seemed cheesy to me but the more I think about it, I think I'd allow the first at my table (not the second though - I don't allow bonus actions in the middle of actions).



For me, when trying to decide on this I'd probably think "this sounds cool. I'll allow it!" That goes for both moving and the bonus action misty step.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Those both seem like acceptable glosses to me. I'm not sure why you and Jeremy Crawford regard the existing language as so restrictive. The way I conceive of game elements like the first bullet of Shield Master, which grant you a bonus action, is that they let you do something extra, a _bonus_, that other characters who don't have that game element can't. In the case of Shield Master's first bullet, it lets you do your usual attack routine _plus_ shove a creature with your shield. It costs you your action and bonus action for that turn. That seems to meet the design goals of the feature, and I don't see any benefit to the game of being more restrictive than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's called a conditional sentence. It expresses the implication that if it's true that you take the Attack action on your turn, then it's also true that you can use a bonus action to shove a creature with your shield. But this is natural language, and I think it's a mistake to read the word _then_ as implying a specific chronology (as your emphasis with all caps seemed to do), especially when you can express something like this sentence in English: If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast was wrong.​




Sorry, the English teacher in me has to stop you there.  Your sentence is grammatically wrong.  It should be:

If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast will be wrong.​
IOW, it must rain first, THEN the forecast is shown to be wrong.  



> I'd say it works the same way. You can use a bonus action to make an attack as long as you also take the Attack action and satisfy any other conditions. It's the same structure that governs all these features.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's telling that he included Shield Master's bonus action shove in a category of "most bonus actions" that he said did not have a timing specification.




There are two problems with this interpretation:

1.  Complexity.  If you can "nest" actions like this, you can very easily make actions very, very complicated. In the case of a fighter, with Action Surge, you could wind up having to resolve three or four actions in a single turn and track which are which within the loop:

For example, the 5th level fighter takes an Attack Action, makes a single attack, then takes a bonus action to knock an opponent prone with his shield, then takes an action surge to make two more attacks, then concludes with a single attack from his initial Attack action.  Add in things like Superiority dice and possibly Oppotunity Attacks plus movement, and that round can get really, really complicated. 

It's far simpler to rule that Actions (as in the rules defined items) are discrete.  

2.  Balance issues.  A Way of the Hand Monk uses Ki to flurry - can he take his second attack (from being 5th level) after he has knocked an enemy prone from a bonus flurry attack?    After all, why wouldn't you do it every time, if you can?  Or dropping a bonus action spell into the middle of an attack.  There are a number of knock on effects if you allow Actions to be divided whenever the player wishes.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 15, 2019)

Sometimes, in the middle of making coffee, I have to butter the toast when it gets released from the toaster as I prefer to butter it when its warm, I then go back and finish making the coffee.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 15, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> This is why there's a problem.  If there wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have to invent an entirely new "phantom rule" that says you can divide one Cast a Spell Action(with multiple attacks),  but not another Cast a Spell Action(resolves in one resolution).  If you can divide the action, you can divide the action regardless of whether it's one resolution or multiple resolution.  If you can split up Scorching Ray to use a completely different action with Action Surge, you can do it with Fireball as well.  So if actions are naturally divisible like you say, you can take the Cast a Spell Action, and the split it up by casting fireball, then while it is traveling towards the enemy, stop it in mid air so that you can take your other action, then have the fireball resume its travel and detonate.



Yeah, I don't get the "phantom rule" argument line as it cuts just as well both ways. If an argument also applies against my position, I wouldn't use it as a clib against others.  Every time I see it, it just tells me the response is more argumentative than reasoned.

It's fair to point it out, though, in the sense that we don't have a clear rule statement either way, but then you go to secondary reasons for support, you don't say, "and therefore neither of us has a leg to stand on so your wrong, legless guys!  Haha!"  It's just weird.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 15, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> This is why there's a problem.  If there wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have to invent an entirely new "phantom rule" that says you can divide one Cast a Spell Action(with multiple attacks),  but not another Cast a Spell Action(resolves in one resolution).  If you can divide the action, you can divide the action regardless of whether it's one resolution or multiple resolution.  If you can split up Scorching Ray to use a completely different action with Action Surge, you can do it with Fireball as well.  So if actions are naturally divisible like you say, you can take the Cast a Spell Action, and the split it up by casting fireball, then while it is traveling towards the enemy, stop it in mid air so that you can take your other action, then have the fireball resume its travel and detonate.



Huh? 

The game rules provide already for the differences between how scorching ray plays vs fireball. One is a sequential series of attacks and damage the other is a single event. I dont have to invent a mystery rule there, it's already rule. I can point you to actual rules in the book that describe in detail how sequential attacks resolve. I can point you iirc to sage compendium follow-ups and clarifications as well. No "phantoms" here. 

Contrast that to the phantom indivisible rule which has apparently got a lot of only here and not there filters in it's incredibly detailed non-write-up.

As for holding up fireball mid-air, before it detonates, cant really address that unless you give more info on the interruption. There are certainly more than a few interruption type events by rule that could occur.*

But by RAW fireball is one event/resolution and scorching ray is multiple sequential so that difference is not a phantom rule, it's just the rule by the books when they describe each.

*Most likely if you wanted a rule of thumb in a vacuum, I would say that its gonna be similar between fireball and scorching ray for "hold it in air" to fireball being similar to one ray shot of the scorching ray - in terms of kinds of interruptions. Obviously one is an "attack" the other an AoE so different features may trigger.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> The game rules provide already for the differences between how scorching ray plays vs fireball.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 15, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, I don't get the "phantom rule" argument line as it cuts just as well both ways. If an argument also applies against my position, I wouldn't use it as a clib against others.  Every time I see it, it just tells me the response is more argumentative than reasoned.
> 
> It's fair to point it out, though, in the sense that we don't have a clear rule statement either way, but then you go to secondary reasons for support, you don't say, "and therefore neither of us has a leg to stand on so your wrong, legless guys!  Haha!"  It's just weird.



But, the "I can take bonus actions on my turn" has a clear rule. 

"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified,..."

Is "between attacks of my extra attack" includes in and count as "on my turn"?

Yes.

So, no phantom rules. Just plain simple rules there. Black and white.

I can take my bonus actions (ones allowed by feature or circumstance)  between attacks cuz that counts as "on my turn"

Same logic as dropping concentration.

Dropping concentration says it can happen "anytime." 

"You can end concentration at any time (no action required)."

So I can drop my action between attacks I am making because that counts as anytime.

****

So to the other side of the coin you have folks saying that somewhere there is this rule that overrides these explicit permissions. One that says "between attacks" in an extra attack is discrete and indivisible - unless certain wording is there and only for certain sub-sets of sub-sets of things - but no actual rule is pointed to to be read. 

That phantom rule sorts out non-actions like dropping weapons and ending concentration - to some.

But it's not there.

***

So, to me, you want to say a player cannot use Misty step (RAW) between one swing of their sword in an extra attack and the next cuz phantom menace rule #12 says the attack action may not be split by bonus actions of casting Misty Step, GREAT - just show me the rule. 

I can show you the rule which supports it - its quoted above. 

You want to say that rule is void here - isnt it fair yo say "show me your tule cuz I already showed you mine?"

That's an argument I am happy to make.

***


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> So to the other side of the coin you have folks saying that somewhere there is this rule that overrides these explicit permissions. One that says "between attacks" in an extra attack is discrete and indivisible - unless certain wording is there and only for certain sub-sets of sub-sets of things - but no actual rule is pointed to to be read.




This this is a blatant misstatement of our position.  We are saying that the Shield Master feat has explicit timing built into the language used, which it does.  At no time does it say, "When you are going to take an action at any time on your turn, you can shove with your shield as a bonus action."  The language used limits it to when you actually take the attack action, and the action is not taken until it completes.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 15, 2019)

Edit for the wonky quote

There are plenty of cases in the rules that show  divided actions.
There is no rule about indivisible actions so far put forth. If you have one, cute it. 
There is a rule saying you can choose when to take your bonus actions on your turn if its restrictions/conditions are met.
Again **there is a rule**.

You wanna cite a rule that adds "except between attacks in an attsck action" or whatever, please do so. 

As for fireball, without more info on what you mean by holding up etc and how it interacts there cannot be meaningful specificity. For the bonus action side we can discuss easily whether this bonus action is allowed or that bonus action is allowed or this non-action or that **because** we can look at the rules. But if you consider asking for the same from your test case an evasion, that says a lot.

If you have confusion as to how sequential attacks are resolved vs more one-event effects are - consult the rules. 

Not much more to say.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> You're more than welcome to do that at your table obviously, but that's not RAW/RAI.




It most certainly is RAW! The condition is that you take the Attack action on your turn, so the appropriate question is whether the player/character takes the Attack action on their turn, and if they do, then they also get to use a bonus action to shove on their turn.

Whether it's RAI isn't something about which I've seen any sort of definitive statement. I take Jeremy Crawford's tweet of four years ago as evidence, however, that the RAI is that you get to decide when on your turn to use the bonus action shove.



Asgorath said:


> JEC has been very clear that Shield Master's shove is intended to be a finishing move, and that 5E doesn't have an "action declaration phase".




Can you provide a citation for your first claim? If that was the intent, I don't think the feat does a very good job of expressing it.

As for your second claim, I think it's ridiculous. Players declare actions. It's Step 2 of the basic pattern of play: The players describe what they want to do.



Asgorath said:


> Taking the Attack action means actually making one or more attacks.  What happens if you say "hey I'm going to take the Attack action, so let me use my Shield Master shove first" but the enemy uses a reaction that incapacitates you, preventing you from actually making your attacks?  You therefore haven't actually taken the Attack action, which means you shouldn't have had access to the Shield Master shove bonus action, as that has a trigger of "taking the Attack action".




Yes, you have! You took the Attack action when you shoved, because without taking the Attack action in some other way, you don't meet the condition for using your bonus action. Luckily the feat is written in such a way that this isn't a problem, since it's letting you do something as a bonus action that would normally require the action that you have to take to meet the condition for using it as a bonus action.



Asgorath said:


> Again, the feat wasn't designed as a way to grant near-permanent advantage.




The feat was designed to do what it does, which is in part to give your character the ability to shove a creature using its bonus action. 



Asgorath said:


> If you want to play it that way at your table, then naturally you should feel free to do so.




I'm sorry, but I don't need your permission to play any particular way at my table.



Asgorath said:


> All of this is making me really glad I stopped playing my Shield Master Paladin, so that I don't have to worry about that feat in my games.




And you think it's a good thing that this ruling made you want to stop playing your character?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> It most certainly is RAW! The condition is that you take the Attack action on your turn, so the appropriate question is whether the player/character takes the Attack action on their turn, and if they do, then they also get to use a bonus action to shove on their turn.
> 
> Whether it's RAI isn't something about which I've seen any sort of definitive statement. I take Jeremy Crawford's tweet of four years ago as evidence, however, that the RAI is that you get to decide when on your turn to use the bonus action shove.




You mean the tweet that's since been deleted and corrected by many other tweets, videos and the Sage Advice Compendium itself?



Hriston said:


> Can you provide a citation for your first claim? If that was the intent, I don't think the feat does a very good job of expressing it.
> 
> As for your second claim, I think it's ridiculous. Players declare actions. It's Step 2 of the basic pattern of play: The players describe what they want to do.




Sage Advice on Shield Master bonus action:

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=1392

It's a finishing move:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864

No action declaration phase in 5E:

http://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1000164214588112896

It's worth watching the video if nothing else, the section on Shield Master ends at around 30:45 or so.



Hriston said:


> Yes, you have! You took the Attack action when you shoved, because without taking the Attack action in some other way, you don't meet the condition for using your bonus action. Luckily the feat is written in such a way that this isn't a problem, since it's letting you do something as a bonus action that would normally require the action that you have to take to meet the condition for using it as a bonus action.




Taking the Attack action means the action as a whole:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/994997096829804549

Shield Master uses the "if X then Y" timing restrictions:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995112448477749248



Hriston said:


> The feat was designed to do what it does, which is in part to give your character the ability to shove a creature using its bonus action.




Right, but the important part is that you shove after your attacks, because it's intended to be a finishing move to help the rest of your party.



Hriston said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't need your permission to play any particular way at my table.




I'm merely pointing out what the rules say, and what JEC has been saying/clarifying about those rules for a long time now.  You can obviously do whatever you want, but at this point, I don't think you can claim that the intent of the Shield Master slam is that it's an opening move.



Hriston said:


> And you think it's a good thing that this ruling made you want to stop playing your character?




This particular ruling didn't make me stop playing my character.  However, every time I used it as an opening move, I thought it was kind of dumb and overpowered and detracted from my other abilities like Vow of Enmity.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 15, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, the English teacher in me has to stop you there.  Your sentence is grammatically wrong.  It should be:
> 
> If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast will be wrong.​
> IOW, it must rain first, THEN the forecast is shown to be wrong.




This just proves George Bernard Shaw's maxim, "those who can't, teach." The sentence you've written here is nonsense. The forecast doesn't _become_ wrong when it rains. It was either right or wrong from the moment it was made. If using the past tense here bothers you, I suggest using the future perfect tense, "will have been", which actually makes sense. As a teacher of English, however, you should know that while a first conditional sentence usually uses the simple future in the consequence, other variations are also possible, including making a deduction about past time using the past tense, as in the example I posted.

This really highlights the problem of interpretation with treating conditional sentences as if the condition must always precede the consequence, when in truth, conditional sentences that express an implication, like the first bullet of Shield Master, state both the condition and the consequence in whatever grammatical tense is appropriate to them. In the case of Shield Master, they are both in the present tense, so both are true at the same time, i.e. "on your turn".



Hussar said:


> There are two problems with this interpretation:
> 
> 1.  Complexity.  If you can "nest" actions like this, you can very easily make actions very, very complicated. In the case of a fighter, with Action Surge, you could wind up having to resolve three or four actions in a single turn and track which are which within the loop:
> 
> ...




I'm not sure how you got this idea, but none of my arguments have anything to do with nesting actions.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 15, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> This this is a blatant misstatement of our position.  We are saying that the Shield Master feat has explicit timing built into the language used, which it does.  At no time does it say, "When you are going to take an action at any time on your turn, you can shove with your shield as a bonus action."  The language used limits it to when you actually take the attack action, and the action is not taken until it completes.




I think we're in violent agreement about Shield Master, since that bonus action has timing requirements that must be met before you even have access to the bonus action.

However, there are plenty of bonus actions without timing requirements, and those can be taken at any time on your turn (as clearly stated by the rules).  The example we keep using is Misty Step, which does not say "if you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to teleport up to 30 feet...".  It's just a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action.  The bonus action rules say you get to decide when to take the bonus action, unless it specifies timing.  Thus, between attacks granted by Extra Attack while taking the Attack action counts as any point on your turn, and thus you can Misty Step or cast Healing Word and so on (i.e. any bonus action that doesn't have a timing requirement to actually trigger the bonus action).

Or, in other words, just because Shield Master requires the Attack action to be taken and completed, doesn't mean that rule applies to all other bonus actions.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Shield Master requires the Attack action to be taken and completed, doesn't mean that rule applies to all other bonus actions.




You do know repeatedly saying something doesn't automatically make it true, right?

There are zero rules on the action having to be taken and completed. None.

Of all the official text, it is mentioned exactly nowhere.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 15, 2019)

Yunru said:


> You do know repeatedly saying something doesn't automatically make it true, right?
> 
> There are zero rules on the action having to be taken and completed. None.
> 
> Of all the official text, it is mentioned exactly nowhere.




Right, but JEC has been fairly consistent (at least in the last few months) about what the intent of the Shield Master slam is.  I'm with you that slice-shove-slice seems reasonable based on the wording, but my point is that it's a stretch to say shove-slice-slice is allowed by RAW and certainly not by RAI.

Based on this:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/994997096829804549

JEC is claiming that the trigger of "if you take the Attack action on your turn" is only satisfied when all attacks granted via Extra Action have been taken.  Is this language in the PHB?  No, obviously not, or else we wouldn't still be discussing it 5 years after the books were released.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Right, but JEC has been fairly consistent (at least in the last few months) about what the intent of the Shield Master slam is.  I'm with you that slice-shove-slice seems reasonable based on the wording, but my point is that it's a stretch to say shove-slice-slice is allowed by RAW and certainly not by RAI.
> 
> Based on this:
> 
> ...



Then why didn't it make it into the compendium?

Because on review they decided it wasn't. There's no other reasonable explanation.


----------



## mortwatcher (Feb 15, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Then why didn't it make it into the compendium?
> 
> Because on review they decided it wasn't. There's no other reasonable explanation.




But it did make it into the compendium. Page 8.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I think we're in violent agreement about Shield Master, since that bonus action has timing requirements that must be met before you even have access to the bonus action.
> 
> However, there are plenty of bonus actions without timing requirements, and those can be taken at any time on your turn (as clearly stated by the rules).  The example we keep using is Misty Step, which does not say "if you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to teleport up to 30 feet...".  It's just a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action.  The bonus action rules say you get to decide when to take the bonus action, unless it specifies timing.  Thus, between attacks granted by Extra Attack while taking the Attack action counts as any point on your turn, and thus you can Misty Step or cast Healing Word and so on (i.e. any bonus action that doesn't have a timing requirement to actually trigger the bonus action).
> 
> Or, in other words, just because Shield Master requires the Attack action to be taken and completed, doesn't mean that rule applies to all other bonus actions.




"Any time" does not in fact mean "any time," though.  You can't do things simultaneously, so there are limits on when you can do things, even when the rules say any time.  For instance, if you are taking an action and you have a bonus action that can happen at "any time," you must still choose to use it before or after the action, or if you believe in action divisibility, in the middle of two attacks when there is an amount of time not being taken by the first attack.  

If you believe in the phantom action divisibility rule, then you can use those bonus actions during the action as I lay out above.  If you believe in the phantom action indivisibility rule, then you wont be able to without a specific exception such as Two-Weapon Fighting lays out.  It just depends on how you view action divisibility.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Yes, you have! You took the Attack action when you shoved, because without taking the Attack action in some other way, you don't meet the condition for using your bonus action. Luckily the feat is written in such a way that this isn't a problem, since it's letting you do something as a bonus action that would normally require the action that you have to take to meet the condition for using it as a bonus action.




No.  When you shoved you took a bonus action that was granted by the attack action, which if you get knocked out before you take it, you never took.  You do not actually take the attack action until  you attempt to make that first attack.  I say attempt, because Sanctuary can stop the attack without stopping the Attack Action.


----------



## epithet (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Right, but JEC has been fairly consistent (at least in the last few months) about what the intent of the Shield Master slam is.  I'm with you that slice-shove-slice seems reasonable based on the wording, but my point is that it's a stretch to say shove-slice-slice is allowed by RAW and certainly not by RAI.
> 
> Based on this:
> 
> ...




Neither the Sage Advice compendium nor Jeremy's Twitter feed count as "rules as written," and with regard to "rules as intended" Jeremy has changed his mind. Yes, he has and is vigorously disavowing his earlier statement that Shield Master was intended to let you shove first, but the fact remains that the ability to shove first was his official position for a couple of years. I don't think he gets to claw back his RAI position--regardless of what he intends the rule to be now, the rule as intended _when written _seems to be that the shield master can shove first.

He can certainly change his advice, and he can tell us how he intends for the rule to be read _now_, but he can't change what he meant when the rules were published, no matter how much he walks back his tweets.


----------



## epithet (Feb 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  When you shoved you took a bonus action that was granted by the attack action, which if you get knocked out before you take it, you never took.  You do not actually take the attack action until  you attempt to make that first attack.  I say attempt, because Sanctuary can stop the attack without stopping the Attack Action.




You first sentence is only true if you accept Jeremy's new position on timing, whereas your last sentence is only true if you reject his new position. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

epithet said:


> You first sentence is only true if you accept Jeremy's new position on timing, whereas your last sentence is only true if you reject his new position. You can't have it both ways.




That's not true.  Both of my statements are totally in line with what he said.  The first statement is in line with his recent position as you have to complete the action in order to get the bonus action.  That means that if you take the bonus action *before the action*, whether or not you eventually take the Attack action,  you are in violation with his new position.  The second statement is in line with his recent position as the Sanctuary spell is specific that beats general.  The attack action is begun and completes without you ever get to swing. The Sanctuary spell does not stop you from taking the attack action.  It stops you from taking the steps after targeting.


----------



## epithet (Feb 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> That's not true.  Both of my statements are totally in line with what he said.  The first statement is in line with his recent position as you have to complete the action in order to get the bonus action.  That means that if you take the bonus action *before the action*, whether or not you eventually take the Attack action,  you are in violation with his new position.  The second statement is in line with his recent position as the Sanctuary spell is specific that beats general.  The attack action is begun and completes without you ever get to swing. The Sanctuary spell does not stop you from taking the attack action.  It stops you from taking the steps after targeting.




The sanctuary spell stops you from targeting. You have performed no part of an attack. Nothing at all has happened, so you have not (in the new Crawfordverse) taken the attack action. Remember the whole "declarations don't count" thing?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 16, 2019)

epithet said:


> Neither the Sage Advice compendium nor Jeremy's Twitter feed count as "rules as written," and with regard to "rules as intended" Jeremy has changed his mind. Yes, he has and is vigorously disavowing his earlier statement that Shield Master was intended to let you shove first, but the fact remains that the ability to shove first was his official position for a couple of years. I don't think he gets to claw back his RAI position--regardless of what he intends the rule to be now, the rule as intended _when written _seems to be that the shield master can shove first.
> 
> He can certainly change his advice, and he can tell us how he intends for the rule to be read _now_, but he can't change what he meant when the rules were published, no matter how much he walks back his tweets.




Did you actually watch the video I've linked a few times now?  He talks about his original (incorrect) tweet in some detail, and he makes it extremely clear that his original tweet was a mistake on his part.  And, given that he's the lead rules designer, I think his more recent in-depth discussions about the intent of the Shield Master shove bonus action gives a better insight into the rules than a quick off-hand tweet that he made while standing in line at Trader Joe's or whatever it was.

As discussed in the video, if the intent was for Shield Master to just give you a bonus action shove, then it would've said exactly that (i.e. no timing restriction, you just get a bonus action).  Similarly, if the intent was to grant permanent advantage on all attacks, it would've just said that.  D&D is a co-op game and he goes to great lengths in the video to explain that it's meant to be a finishing move that helps your melee allies out.  You can chose to ignore all of this of course, but I really think it's hard to deny what the intent of the rule is at this point.

For me, the only slightly grey area is whether or not you have to take all attacks granted by Extra Attack before the Attack action is considered "taken".  As I linked above, JEC has tweeted that the intent is yes, it really is meant to be slice-slice-shove not slice-shove-slice.  This isn't really spelled out in the PHB, but I'll take his word for it that this was the intent (given that, you know, he probably wrote the rule in the first place).  If I was a DM and someone had taken this feat and really wanted to slice-shove-slice, I would let them, because after the first attack you have committed yourself to the Attack action and can't take any other actions on your turn (outside of Action Surge of course).


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

mortwatcher said:


> But it did make it into the compendium. Page 8.



No, it didn't. If you actually read it, nothing about the Attack action being finished is mentioned. Why the change, one must ask.


----------



## epithet (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Did you actually watch the video I've linked a few times now?  He talks about his original (incorrect) tweet in some detail, and he makes it extremely clear that his original tweet was a mistake on his part.  And, given that he's the lead rules designer, I think his more recent in-depth discussions about the intent of the Shield Master shove bonus action gives a better insight into the rules than a quick off-hand tweet that he made while standing in line at Trader Joe's or whatever it was.
> 
> As discussed in the video, if the intent was for Shield Master to just give you a bonus action shove, then it would've said exactly that (i.e. no timing restriction, you just get a bonus action).  Similarly, if the intent was to grant permanent advantage on all attacks, it would've just said that.  D&D is a co-op game and he goes to great lengths in the video to explain that it's meant to be a finishing move that helps your melee allies out.  You can chose to ignore all of this of course, but I really think it's hard to deny what the intent of the rule is at this point.
> 
> For me, the only slightly grey area is whether or not you have to take all attacks granted by Extra Attack before the Attack action is considered "taken".  As I linked above, JEC has tweeted that the intent is yes, it really is meant to be slice-slice-shove not slice-shove-slice.  This isn't really spelled out in the PHB, but I'll take his word for it that this was the intent (given that, you know, he probably wrote the rule in the first place).  If I was a DM and someone had taken this feat and really wanted to slice-shove-slice, I would let them, because after the first attack you have committed yourself to the Attack action and can't take any other actions on your turn (outside of Action Surge of course).




Yes, and I find the "I was drunk in line at Trader Joes, tweeting" hypothesis to be amusing enough, but the fact remains that he didn't change his mind for a couple of years after that. He might think of it as a "finishing move" now, but he didn't back then, and I personally think if it had been meant as a finishing move, "it would have just said that." I mean, he also talks about how this is somehow supposed to simplify and streamline combat, but he's just complicating things with extra timing restrictions and arbitrary limitations. I am not surprised when I disagree with Jeremy, but it is much less common when Jeremy disagrees with himself.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 16, 2019)

epithet said:


> Yes, and I find the "I was drunk in line at Trader Joes, tweeting" hypothesis to be amusing enough, but the fact remains that he didn't change his mind for a couple of years after that. He might think of it as a "finishing move" now, but he didn't back then, and I personally think if it had been meant as a finishing move, "it would have just said that." I mean, he also talks about how this is somehow supposed to simplify and streamline combat, but he's just complicating things with extra timing restrictions and arbitrary limitations. I am not surprised when I disagree with Jeremy, but it is much less common when Jeremy disagrees with himself.




Well, he's made it pretty clear that he didn't even remember tweeting the original tweet, so it's not particularly surprising that it took a long time to resolve the issue.  The wording of the feat makes it pretty clear that it's intended to be a finishing move.  When you take the Attack action, you now have access to a bonus action shove.  You don't have the bonus action until you've taken the Attack action.  Given the lack of an action declaration phase, taking the Attack action means actually attacking a target.  There's a reasonable debate to be had about whether you need to take all the attacks granted by Extra Attack or not (and JEC has made his thoughts on that matter quite clear at this point).  We can all just agree to disagree and play the feat differently at our tables.  JEC's best advice is to "follow your bliss" in my opinion.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Well, he's made it pretty clear that he didn't even remember tweeting the original tweet, so it's not particularly surprising that it took a long time to resolve the issue.  The wording of the feat makes it pretty clear that it's intended to be a finishing move.  When you take the Attack action, you now have access to a bonus action shove.  You don't have the bonus action until you've taken the Attack action.  Given the lack of an action declaration phase, taking the Attack action means actually attacking a target.  There's a reasonable debate to be had about whether you need to take all the attacks granted by Extra Attack or not (and JEC has made his thoughts on that matter quite clear at this point).  We can all just agree to disagree and play the feat differently at our tables.  JEC's best advice is to "follow your bliss" in my opinion.




You added a past tense there that isn't actually there in order to justify yourself. Next.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

epithet said:


> The sanctuary spell stops you from targeting. You have performed no part of an attack. Nothing at all has happened, so you have not (in the new Crawfordverse) taken the attack action. Remember the whole "declarations don't count" thing?




This is false.  As you note, you cannot declare something to happen before you get to that step of the game.  That means that in order to get to step one of the attack, which is targeting, you MUST begin the Attack action first.  Since you have begun the attack action and Sanctuary's specific rules prevent you from targeting that PC, you must immediately target a new target or lose that attack or spell.  Note that you only lose one of the attacks on a failed save, so clearly the attack action must have started since you cannot lose both attacks if you have Extra Attack.


----------



## epithet (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ... JEC's best advice is to "follow your bliss" in my opinion.




I completely agree with you there.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> "Any time" does not in fact mean "any time," though.  You can't do things simultaneously, so there are limits on when you can do things, even when the rules say any time.  For instance, if you are taking an action and you have a bonus action that can happen at "any time," you must still choose to use it before or after the action, or if you believe in action divisibility, in the middle of two attacks when there is an amount of time not being taken by the first attack.
> 
> If you believe in the phantom action divisibility rule, then you can use those bonus actions during the action as I lay out above.  If you believe in the phantom action indivisibility rule, then you wont be able to without a specific exception such as Two-Weapon Fighting lays out.  It just depends on how you view action divisibility.




let me quote you from above

"This this is a blatant misstatement of our position. We are saying that the Shield Master feat has explicit timing built into the language used, which it does."

That was in response to my saying this...
"So to the other side of the coin you have folks saying that somewhere there is this rule that overrides these explicit permissions. One that says "between attacks" in an extra attack is discrete and indivisible - unless certain wording is there and only for certain sub-sets of sub-sets of things - but no actual rule is pointed to to be read."

So, amazingly when i claimed some folks on this thread were claiming indivisibility and discrete rules and restrictions you go all "blatant misrep" but in fact here you are just a few posts down on the same page no less waxing on about indivisible and discrete and not between attacks and so forth.

I have never disputed that Shield master has timing restrictions. 
Whether that timing restriction requires you to complete all your attacks - that i dispute.

But the main gist that i have been arguing here is against the phantom indivisible or now the phantom "any time does not mean any time" rule you seem to believe in.

But, hey, the comparison of your claims on this very pager makes it obvious there is no point to continuing that point with you.

EDIT - change reference to "this page" to "that very page". Forgot to account for where this post might land.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

I think it's too difficult to say when actions end.  Consider the following questions:

If you have extra attack and take the attack action and make one attack, when does your attack action end?
If you take the dodge action when does that action end?
If you take the disengage action when does that action end?
If you take the ready action when does that action end?

So then if actions are meant to be atomic units that can't be subdivided then are you capable of doing anything after you start taking them?  And how come no one has asked about when they end before?

Further consider the movement rule:



> You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.




Does that mean that once you disengage you literally can't move because your action doesn't finish till the end of the turn?  

IMO, Crawford's ruling about you not having taken an action until it's finished was an even more egregious error than his previous ruling about taking the shield master shove before the attack action.  It makes us have to think about when actions end and 5erules were never set up around the end of an action being an important event.

*IMO, if Crawford was right about not being able to do things during an action then the rules would more clearly specify when actions end.*


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I think it's too difficult to say when actions end.  Consider the following questions:
> 
> If you have extra attack and take the attack action and make one attack, when does your attack action end?
> If you take the dodge action when does that action end? Instantaneous
> ...





The Attack action ends after you make your last attack or choose to forfeit any extra attacks in order to do something else (e.g. Shield Master bonus Shove attack, cast a spell, etc.)
The Dodge action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the start of your next turn.
The Disengage action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the end of your turn (you can move freely given you have movement to spend).
The Ready action is instantaneous, the potential effect (one reaction keyed off a trigger) may last until the start of your next turn.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> So, amazingly when i claimed some folks on this thread were claiming indivisibility and discrete rules and restrictions you go all "blatant misrep" but in fact here you are just a few posts down on the same page no less waxing on about indivisible and discrete and not between attacks and so forth.




Er, I didn't wax on about anything.  Or wax off for that matter.  No Karate Kid for me.  Maybe you should re-read that post.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Er, I didn't wax on about anything.  Or wax off for that matter.  No Karate Kid for me.  Maybe you should re-read that post.



No point.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 16, 2019)

This is so simple, and people are trying to make it hard. You have an action on your turn. You take your action. You can move before and/or after. If you have a bonus action, like the rogue, you can take your action, then your bonus action or you can do your bonus action and then your regular action. You can move as much or as little as you want between your action and bonus action, but not during your actions. Done. That's the rule. There's an exception, but that's irrelevant. 

If you don't have a bonus action, but an action you perform grants you a bonus action, then you take that bonus action after your action. Because you don't have a bonus action before your action, obviously.

You can't dash as a bonus action first and then cast Expeditious Retreat later. You can't order your Unseen Servant to bring you the material components as a bonus action so you can then cast Unseen Servant. You have to do the thing that gives you the the bonus action before you get the bonus action. How is that not common sense?

Of course now we are dealing with the fact that people don't like to be wrong. Once a decision is made people (including me) will stick with it. They'll start making excuses and rationalizations. And the more they do this, the more invested they are in making sure they are right. The more they will refuse to agree that they were wrong. It's embarrassing. "How could I be so wrong, for so long? No. I wasn't wrong. I couldn't have made that big of a mistake. I didn't waste hours of my time and dozen of post defending something that was incorrect."

Of course some of us here has done just that. It may be the side you are on or the other side. Each side of course thinks it's the other side. But please consider. Maybe you're wrong.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

If I use a lance while mounted, and have the shield master feat, can I use multiattack as I'm closing on my target from 10' away, then close to within 5' to shield bash and knock the target prone, then action surge, moving my mount back to 10' away, then multiattack with the lance at advantage?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> The Attack action ends after you make your last attack or choose to forfeit any extra attacks in order to do something else (e.g. Shield Master bonus Shove attack, cast a spell, etc.)
> The Dodge action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the start of your next turn.
> The Disengage action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the end of your turn (you can move freely given you have movement to spend).
> The Ready action is instantaneous, the potential effect (one reaction keyed off a trigger) may last until the start of your next turn.




Can you cite PHB for this info?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 16, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> If I use a lance while mounted, and have the shield master feat, can I use multiattack as I'm closing on my target from 10' away, then close to within 5' to shield bash and knock the target prone, then action surge, moving my mount back to 10' away, then multiattack with the lance at advantage?



No, because you only get advantage on a prone opponent if you're within 5 feet.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Lord Twig said:


> This is so simple, and people are trying to make it hard. You have an action on your turn. You take your action. You can move before and/or after. If you have a bonus action, like the rogue, you can take your action, then your bonus action or you can do your bonus action and then your regular action. You can move as much or as little as you want between your action and bonus action, but not during your actions. Done. That's the rule. There's an exception, but that's irrelevant.
> 
> If you don't have a bonus action, but an action you perform grants you a bonus action, then you take that bonus action after your action. Because you don't have a bonus action before your action, obviously.
> 
> ...



"That's the rule."

Fantastic! Great! Finally someone who has seen the rule 

Please, give us the rule cite for limiting the bonus action to either before or after the action. 

Then we can put this to bed.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, because you only get advantage on a prone opponent if you're within 5 feet.




Ok, but I could drop the lance and draw my sword then get advantage if I stayed with 5' correct? Not that I would usually want to but it is possible?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 16, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> Ok, but I could drop the lance and draw my sword then get advantage if I stayed with 5' correct? Not that I would usually want to but it is possible?



Don't see why not, under either argued position.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> No point.




The way you've been evading and changing arguments, I suspect that you are right.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

I think 5ekyu is just wanting further official clarification on some of the obscure wording or details. Nothing wrong with that and I hope you get it. I also think this has been the case, but I feel like my understanding of both sides of the coin has greatly improved after this debate. So I feel good about learning something, and it helps me make better decisions as both a player and DM.


----------



## cmad1977 (Feb 16, 2019)

An awful lot of contortions about extremely simple stuff.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> An awful lot of contortions about extremely simple stuff.



Yeah, once we got to any time not meaning any time we passed the "definition of is" stage.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 16, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> "That's the rule."
> 
> Fantastic! Great! Finally someone who has seen the rule
> 
> ...



You obviously haven't stopped to actually think if perhaps you're wrong. And I don't mean just "Hmmm. Nope! I'm right!"

 Actually go back to the beginning. Think, if you had just been introduced to D&D, what would be the most obvious answer? What would a normal person on the street think? How would they run it if it had been explained to them in 5 minutes?

Because they didn't write the rules to prevent people from twisting the rules around. They wrote them on the assumption that most players just want to play the game and not argue over rules. People that are going to twist the rules are going to do it no matter what.

But let's face it, the vast majority of players are never going to even think about this. They are going to play the game and most people will just take the shove after the attack. Because the rules say, if you do this, you can do that. So they'll do the first thing first and the second thing second. 

Of course eventually someone is going to say, "Hey! It would be so much better if I can knock them down first!" They will ask the DM and he will say yes or no and that will be the end of it. If they really want to know if they are doing it right they will find Jeremy's answer about it being a finishing move.

And that's it!

So there is a rule telling you that you can take one action a round. A rule that says you can take a bonus action if you get one. And a rule about moving between those actions. There is one big exception for moving between weapon attacks in an attack action, but there isn't a list of the thousands of things you can't do. Because they aren't going to bother.

If you think that a rule telling you that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn means you can do it in the middle of a different action, or that you can take it before the action that grants it, feel free to do so. You're wrong, but if you haven't been convinced that you are wrong by now, you are so deep you never will be.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Can you cite PHB for this info?




It's mostly self evident from the text.  I say mostly because the Attack Action ambiguity regarding Shield Master could have been avoided with better writing.

To be more specific, one only has to look at the rules for movement that you already quoted:



> You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.




You move _before _and _after _your action.  The Attack action is the obvious exception.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

Just anecdotally, I found for my area, many people read "take a bonus action when you like" and " if you take the attack action you get a bonus shove" as I can shove anytime after I started attacking. This confusion led to people asking online, led to JC agreeing with that interpretation and then disagreed with it later, which confused people even more. If it was as clear as you make it sound we wouldn't be here at all, and videos wouldn't have been made trying to clarify things. It's not just a matter of you missed reading the rule correctly, if many people read the rule incorrectly, the fault is with the rule.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Lord Twig said:


> You obviously haven't stopped to actually think if perhaps you're wrong. And I don't mean just "Hmmm. Nope! I'm right!"
> 
> Actually go back to the beginning. Think, if you had just been introduced to D&D, what would be the most obvious answer? What would a normal person on the street think? How would they run it if it had been explained to them in 5 minutes?
> 
> ...



Such certainty thst bonus action cannot be taken inside an action but no rule. 

Because we are all supposed to just know that is true in spite of...
Lots of cases of things that can happen during that action very clearly dpecified.
Other cases where "any time" drop concentration and things like dropping weapons are just assumed to be able to be done during that action without a specific call out to them doing so. 

You ask what would be the most obvious answer? Well, the most obvious answer is the rule which tells me when I can use a bonus action I am entitled to means what it says. 

The most obvious answer is that a bonus action **with no timing specified** (the chose when) can be used in as many or more places than one where the timing is specified.

It's also not obvious that a claim of "that's the rule is actually not referencing an actual tule but a belief or article of faith. 

"I strike down the goblin guard, action surge to force the door then step thru and strike the next goblin with my extra attack" is not obviously forbidden.

It is obviously legal tho, unless one takes it on faith that actions cannot be violate by things you can do on your turn.

"I strike the goblin shaman, then misty strp bonus over to the worg and strike eith my extra attack." Is also not obviously illegal for a bonus action misty I can choose when to use on my turn. Nor does it seem unreasonable with the actual rule being do blasted clear. 

It is not twisted to read "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, " and think it means what it says. 

Twisted is assuming there is dome unwritten mystery 0hsntom that adds another "except in these cases" (beyond the timing one or losing ability to take actions) that only applies to a subset of bonus actions.

That is twisting. 

Well, maybe not in one regard. Since it doesnt reference any actual rule I guess one might not see that as twisting a rule at all. A friend I know once made up all his references, sources and citation and quotes for a term paper. Just whole cloth. But the profs and faculty were on a plagiarism kick. So they nailed a bunch for plagiarism but hey got his solid B cuz they did not find any plagiarized stuff. So his just base it 9n non-stuff served him well.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> Just anecdotally, I found for my area, many people read "take a bonus action when you like" and " if you take the attack action you get a bonus shove" as I can shove anytime after I started attacking. This confusion led to people asking online, led to JC agreeing with that interpretation and then disagreed with it later, which confused people even more. If it was as clear as you make it sound we wouldn't be here at all, and videos wouldn't have been made trying to clarify things. It's not just a matter of you missed reading the rule correctly, if many people read the rule incorrectly, the fault is with the rule.



I agree completely. Shield master and indeed most of the attack action timers should have gotten very clear language in the last eratta or compendium. These controversies have been going on for a while.

Trying to tell someone "yes you can run 30 feet between swings but you cannot teleport 30 feet between swings because "choose when"  doesnt really mean that at all" when they just saw someone else do the "at any time" in that spot...  that violates my stupid rule.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 16, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> Just anecdotally, I found for my area, many people read "take a bonus action when you like" and " if you take the attack action you get a bonus shove" as I can shove anytime after I started attacking. This confusion led to people asking online, led to JC agreeing with that interpretation and then disagreed with it later, which confused people even more. If it was as clear as you make it sound we wouldn't be here at all, and videos wouldn't have been made trying to clarify things. It's not just a matter of you missed reading the rule correctly, if many people read the rule incorrectly, the fault is with the rule.




Is your argument that 5e wasn't worded perfectly?

That is a given. The game would still be in editing if they were striving for perfection.

The rule is fine. The section on Bonus Actions could have been a bit clearer and there could be some clarification text on some abilities like Shield Master.


----------



## epithet (Feb 16, 2019)

Lord Twig said:


> ...
> Actually go back to the beginning. Think, if you had just been introduced to D&D, what would be the most obvious answer? What would a normal person on the street think? How would they run it if it had been explained to them in 5 minutes?
> ...
> .




I still remember when we were talking about 5e as a new system, looking at all the classes, feats, etc. and comparing them to what we were used to with Pathfinder. It was obvious at the time that Shield Master was designed to let you knock a target down before you hit him, because waiting until you were done with your damaging attacks to use the thing that would make the target easier to hit would be completely fornicating stupid. Since no timing is specified, the rule for bonus actions was that you could take it when you wanted. No problem, no argument. 

It wasn’t until I read about it here that it even occurred to me that someone would read the conditional as a timing requirement, but then Crawford cleared that up by saying you could take the shove when you wanted to. No problem, no argument. 

A couple of years later, Crawford decides he must have been tweeting while drunk in line at the store, changes his mind and his Advice. Now, fornicating stupid is the official Sage Advice on the Shield Master feat, and half the internet wants to explain how that was the right way all along, even when it wasn’t. Problems and argument abound. 

I think that whenever you want means whenever you want. I also believe that trying to bind the loose fiction of an attack action within arbitrary constraints motivated by the belief that if the rules don’t expressly allow a thing it must be forbidden by implication is ridiculous. I believe Crawford has offered bad (revised) advice on Shield Master. 

I am aware that you think those of us who hold some version of these views are wrong, but hey... that’s like, your opinion, man. Go ahead and tell me how deep I am.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 16, 2019)

epithet said:


> I still remember when we were talking about 5e as a new system, looking at all the classes, feats, etc. and comparing them to what we were used to with Pathfinder. It was obvious at the time that Shield Master was designed to let you knock a target down before you hit him, because waiting until you were done with your damaging attacks to use the thing that would make the target easier to hit would be completely fornicating stupid. Since no timing is specified, the rule for bonus actions was that you could take it when you wanted. No problem, no argument.
> 
> It wasn’t until I read about it here that it even occurred to me that someone would read the conditional as a timing requirement, but then Crawford cleared that up by saying you could take the shove when you wanted to. No problem, no argument.
> 
> ...



So your argument is that it is more powerful if you can shield bash first, therefore it must be correct. That is a white room power gamer argument. The fact that you see no value in knocking down the opponent so other people get advantage is telling.

But this has turned into an endurance test. The same arguments are repeated over and over. I have already pointed out the relevant rules. Others in this thread have posted statements from the lead rule developer. There was the video where he said how it worked and why. Doing all of that over again will not accomplish anything.

So I am pretty comfortable that the weight of evidence is on my side. But that's like, my opinion, man.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> Is your argument that 5e wasn't worded perfectly?
> 
> That is a given. The game would still be in editing if they were striving for perfection.
> 
> The rule is fine. The section on Bonus Actions could have been a bit clearer and there could be some clarification text on some abilities like Shield Master.




Not my argument, just my observation. And I agree with you that it could have been clearer when written.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2019)

5ekyu said:
			
		

> Lots of cases of things that can happen during that action very clearly dpecified.




Yup, the rules clearly specify exceptions.  That's 100% true.  If you could drop a bonus action into the middle of other Actions, then they wouldn't need to specify all the exceptions would they?


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Lord Twig said:


> So your argument is that it is more powerful if you can shield bash first, therefore it must be correct. That is a white room power gamer argument. The fact that you see no value in knocking down the opponent so other people get advantage is telling.
> 
> But this has turned into an endurance test. The same arguments are repeated over and over. I have already pointed out the relevant rules. Others in this thread have posted statements from the lead rule developer. There was the video where he said how it worked and why. Doing all of that over again will not accomplish anything.
> 
> So I am pretty comfortable that the weight of evidence is on my side. But that's like, my opinion, man.



Actually I think their point was - in a response to a claim about the *obvious* way it works- to show another take on what was *obvious* yo them.

I might paraphrase it like this...

** Like common sense isn't common, obvious isnt obvious. That's why we have actual rules. **

I mean the PHB would be a lot smaller if it were just supposed to be "just do what is onvious."


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 16, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> Not my argument, just my observation. And I agree with you that it could have been clearer when written.




Right, and water is wet.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

If you take the Attack action on your turn, immediately after you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.

If it was worded like that I would never have started looking for a clarification. To be honest, I wouldn't be here from the way it is worded now but a DM I know mentioned how they "nerfed" the feat recently and it got me to look into it because I was looking at taking the feat on my fighter in AL. But hey, I got to meet all of you guys so I'm glad I came here anyway.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

"Right. And water is wet."

I'm not following you. Is that sarcasm? Has my statement offended you?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 16, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> "Right. And water is wet."
> 
> I'm not following you. Is that sarcasm? Has my statement offended you?




I'm just making an observation.

Water is wet.


----------



## Markh3rd (Feb 16, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm just making an observation.
> 
> Water is wet.




Ahhhhhh. But wet is not water.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm just making an observation.
> 
> Water is wet.



God don't start that!
(Although I choose to define "wet" as something covered in a liquid, or a liquid that can saturate a solid. Then I laugh at everyone who's arguing over it like language is immutable or something.)


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> It's mostly self evident from the text.  I say mostly because the Attack Action ambiguity regarding Shield Master could have been avoided with better writing.
> 
> To be more specific, one only has to look at the rules for movement that you already quoted:
> 
> ...




Mostly self evident = they aren't in the rules.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Mostly self evident = they aren't in the rules.




They are, they just don't contain whatever magical keyword(s) you're hung up on (I assume it's my use of "instantaneous" and not the action effects).  

Being purposefully stubborn or obtuse doesn't change the meaning of the text. Unless there's a revelatory passage or hidden subtext elsewhere in the rules regarding movement "_before _and _after _ your action" that I'm overlooking. If so, then please enlighten me.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

Lord Twig said:


> Actually go back to the beginning. Think, if you had just been introduced to D&D, what would be the most obvious answer? What would a normal person on the street think? How would they run it if it had been explained to them in 5 minutes?




Agreed.  What really floors, me though, is that [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] not only thinks the following is okay by the rules, but is somehow simpler than keeping actions separate.

"You are also arguing that a fighter/wizard can move 10 feet, cast Scorching Ray that has a duration of instantaneous, divide that action up and action surge after the first ray, swing his sword at an enemy, move 20 feet(despite being unable to move in-between spell attacks by RAW, because now we are in an entirely different action and you can move in-between weapon attacks), finish up his scorching ray strikes, and then swing a second time."

A new person to the game would have a much easier time not mixing up actions like that.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> They are, they just don't contain whatever magical keyword(s) you're hung up on (I assume it's my use of "instantaneous" and not the action effects).
> 
> Being purposefully stubborn or obtuse doesn't change the meaning of the text. Unless there's a revelatory passage or hidden subtext elsewhere in the rules regarding movement "_before _and _after _ your action" that I'm overlooking. If so, then please enlighten me.




Right you can move before and after your action.  Now please show me where the rules state when any action ends.

You see the point is that if you don't actually know when an action ends then you can't determine if you are still allowed to move on your turn.

I'm not claiming there isn't an end to an action.  I'm claiming the rules leave that end undefined.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> The most obvious answer is that a bonus action ***with no timing specified*** (the chose when) can be used in as many or more places than one where the timing is specified.




You don't seem to be understanding the part you keep calling out.  Here is an example of a bonus action with no timing specified. "In battle, you fight with primal ferocity. On your turn, you can enter a rage as a bonus action."  Here is another example of no timing specified.  "Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each o f your turns in combat."  Now, here is an example of a bonus action with the timing specified.  "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."  It specifies that you have to actually take the attack action, not just declare that an attack action will be taken.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I mean the PHB would be a lot smaller if it were just supposed to be "just do what is onvious."




That's actually backwards.  If you didn't have to "just do what is obvious," the PHB would be much much bigger.  I can find rations and waterskins for sale, but no rule for eating, so according to your logic on needing a rule for things, there is no requirement to eat.  I can find gas spells, but no rule that PCs have to breathe, so according to your logic on needing a rule for things, PCs don't need to breathe and can just ignore those spells.  I can find the age at which a race is an adult, but no rules on aging.  Do races not age?  At what rate do they age?  1 day per day in game, or 1 day per week in game?  Perhaps supposed to "just do what is obvious."  

If we weren't supposed to just do what is obvious and needed a rule to spell it all out for us, the PHB would be a collection of books costing hundreds of dollars.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

Markh3rd said:


> Ahhhhhh. But wet is not water.




He's also wrong.  I used that example once and someone rightly pointed out that water is water.  It makes OTHER things wet.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Right you can move before and after your action.  Now please show me where the rules state when any action ends.




Right.  The first action you took at first level is still going on.  It never ended, because no rules for ending actions!!!

C'mon man.  They end when you complete the action.  If you take the Attack, it starts when you attempt to target for your first attack and ends when you hit or miss with your final attack, unless a specific rule like Sanctuary changes things.  If you take the Cast a Spell action, it begins as soon as the spell starts being cast, and ends as soon as the casting time is over and unless other specific rules change things, the effect takes place.



> You see the point is that if you don't actually know when an action ends then you can't determine if you are still allowed to move on your turn.




This is just pendantry.  35+ years of gaming and not once have I ever had anyone confused by not knowing then their action started and ended.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm not claiming there isn't an end to an action.  I'm claiming the rules leave that end undefined.




I agree that it isn't hard coded in the text except for very specific cases (casting times beyond "1 action", for example).  But given all the rules regarding the use and timing of actions and movement, there is generally a clear context to make a logical inference.  Within the fiction, the result of an action may have an ongoing effect (e.g dodging attacks until your next turn), but as a piece of the game economy, it's typically over the instant you use it unless otherwise specified.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You don't seem to be understanding the part you keep calling out.  Here is an example of a bonus action with no timing specified. "In battle, you fight with primal ferocity. On your turn, you can enter a rage as a bonus action."  Here is another example of no timing specified.  "Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each o f your turns in combat."  Now, here is an example of a bonus action with the timing specified.  "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."  It specifies that you have to actually take the attack action, not just declare that an attack action will be taken.




The conditional phrase "if you take the attack action then.." doesn't set forth a a timing IMO.  It simply sets a condition such that without that condition being met you don't have a bonus action you are able to take.

Now we as humans have logic and reasoning.  We know that if a condition must be met in order to do something that I can define a specific moment in time called X such that before X you didn't have a bonus action you were able to take and such that after X you have a bonus action you are able to take.  

I think you refer to this idea of having the times you are able to do something restricted as timing because there's a time period before moment X you can't do something and a time period after moment X that you can do something.  I don't think that's the best definition of timing.

I think timing is best defined as having to do something at a specific moment X.  You don't do it before or after, you do it at exactly the moment X.  Shield Master doesn't require timing like this.  However, just because it doesn't require you perform the bonus action shove at a specific time, that doesn't mean it doesn't restrict the available times you are able to take it.  

If you want to use a term like implicit timing to reference this concept above then I'm not going to stop you but given that people have a rather concrete concept of timing requiring something to be done at a specific moment X then using "implicit timing" to refer to the concept above may actually make things less clear and cause more contention.  Again, I won't stop you from doing this, but just know its a path riddled with proverbial landmines.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> I agree that it isn't hard coded in the text except for very specific cases (casting times beyond "1 action", for example).  But given all the rules regarding the use and timing of actions and movement, there is generally a clear context to make a logical inference.  Within the fiction, the result of an action may have an ongoing effect (e.g dodging attacks until your next turn), but as a piece of the game economy, it's typically over the instant you use it unless otherwise specified.




I tend to agree.  Though take a close look at the dodge action.  Does it's text lead to a clear logical inference about when the action ends?



> When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn...


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Right you can move before and after your action.  Now please show me where the rules state when any action ends.
> 
> You see the point is that if you don't actually know when an action ends then you can't determine if you are still allowed to move on your turn.
> 
> I'm not claiming there isn't an end to an action.  I'm claiming the rules leave that end undefined.




I think it's actually pretty simple, and most actions are simply instantaneous.

Attack - JEC says it ends when you've taken all your attacks.
Cast a Spell - Many/most of these are instantaneous.  For example, Scorching Ray has a duration of "instantaneous" despite it having 3 or more rays that you roll to hit for individually.
Dash - Instantaneous.  You take this action, and your speed doubles.
Disengage - Instantaneous.  You take this action, and movement no longer provokes OAs.
Dodge - Instantaneous.  You take this action, and all attacks against you have disadvantage.
Help - Open for debate.
Hide - Instantaneous.
Ready - Instantaneous.
Search - Open for debate, I'd argue not instantaneous.
Use an Object - Open for debate, probably not instantaneous.

There's no need to argue about breaking up a Dash, Disengage or Dodge action for example, because the action is instantaneous and the effects last for the duration.  While those effects are in play, you can do other things you have access to, such as bonus actions or movement.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I tend to agree.  Though take a close look at the dodge action.  Does it's text lead to a clear logical inference about when the action ends?




As a stand alone passage, no, probably not.  Within the larger context of all the action and movement rules, I don't think it's a big leap to make.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> As a stand alone passage, no, probably not.  Within the larger context of all the action and movement rules, I don't think it's a big leap to make.




Sure.  So when it comes to whether you can take a bonus action like misty step between attacks granted by the extra attack action, it seems to me that given the larger context of action and movement rules that allowing for misty step and other bonus actions between attacks is not a big leap to make.

In fact until JC changed his mind not a single person in all of 5e ever beleived bonus actions were not usable between attacks granted by extra attack.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The conditional phrase "if you take the attack action then.." doesn't set forth a a timing IMO.  It simply sets a condition such that without that condition being met you don't have a bonus action you are able to take.




That would be called timing.  You can take it at such time as the condition is met.  



> Now we as humans have logic and reasoning.  We know that if a condition must be met in order to do something that I can define a specific moment in time called X such that before X you didn't have a bonus action you were able to take and such that after X you have a bonus action you are able to take.
> 
> I think you refer to this idea of having the times you are able to do something restricted as timing because there's a time period before moment X you can't do something and a time period after moment X that you can do something.  I don't think that's the best definition of timing.




As has been noted, it's not the clearest written timing, but it does specify a time frame for which the bonus action can be taken.  In 5e there are two condition under which you can take a bonus action.  At any time, and with defined timing.  It's the dichotomy that the game sets forth.  If not A, then B.  



> I think timing is best defined as having to do something at a specific moment X.  You don't do it before or after, you do it at exactly the moment X.  Shield Master doesn't require timing like this.  However, just because it doesn't require you perform the bonus action shove at a specific time, that doesn't mean it doesn't restrict the available times you are able to take it.




I agree that would be better defined timing.  Shield Master does include timing, though.  It's definitely not an "any time" bonus action, which by the rules makes it timed. It just has a time range.  That range being when you take the attack action, which prevents you from taking it before the attack action is taken.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> That would be called timing.  You can take it at such time as the condition is met.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sigh, Advice given and advice rejected.  Have fun arguing about the meaning of timing.  I won't join you down that pointless rabbit hole.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I think it's actually pretty simple, and most actions are simply instantaneous.
> 
> Attack - JEC says it ends when you've taken all your attacks.
> Cast a Spell - Many/most of these are instantaneous.  For example, Scorching Ray has a duration of "instantaneous" despite it having 3 or more rays that you roll to hit for individually.
> ...




The point is that the rules don't make those explicit claims.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Sigh, Advice given and advice rejected.  Have fun arguing about the meaning of timing.  I won't join you down that pointless rabbit hole.




There's not really much to argue about, JEC has make it clear that Shield Master uses the "if A then B" timing rules on many occasions.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995112448477749248

That is, you don't have the Shield Master shove bonus action until you've taken the Attack action.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The point is that the rules don't make those explicit claims.




Why does it need to?



> *Disengage*
> If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn.




I don't understand how anyone could read that and conclude that the action doesn't take effect immediately, and thus the action itself is instantaneous.  Same can be said for Dash and Dodge, at the very least.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> There's not really much to argue about, JEC has make it clear that Shield Master uses the "if A then B" timing rules on many occasions.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736
> https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995112448477749248
> ...




I totally agree with the bolded.  In fact I said the exact same thing in my post.  But he bolded is not an example of timing IMO.  Timing is when you do something at moment X.  Shield Master doesn't require you do anything at moment X.  

When you precisely define your terms and avoid contentious terms most of the issues magically go away, or at least if they don't we can get to the real nuts and bolts of the issues instead of arguing about pointless stuff like what timing means.  Or have 5 different meanings of timing and everyone answering everyone elses posts as if they were all using the same definition.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I totally agree with the bolded.  In fact I said the exact same thing in my post.  But he bolded is not an example of timing IMO.  Timing is when you do something at moment X.  Shield Master doesn't require you do anything at moment X.
> 
> When you precisely define your terms and avoid contentious terms most of the issues magically go away, or at least if they don't we can get to the real nuts and bolts of the issues instead of arguing about pointless stuff like what timing means.  Or have 5 different meanings of timing and everyone answering everyone elses posts as if they were all using the same definition.




I'm using the word timing because that's what the bonus action rule uses.



> 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.




Again, JEC has made it clear that some bonus actions follow an "if X then Y" model, and X must happen before you get the bonus action Y, and that this is what the words above in bold mean in the context of the bonus action rules.  Or, in other words, there are two classes of bonus actions.

1) The bonus action itself has some kind of "if X then Y" trigger, and X must happen before you can do Y.
2) You just have the bonus action, and can do it any time you like on your turn.

If you don't think "timing" is the correct word to use to describe the first case, fair enough.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I'm using the word timing because that's what the bonus action rule uses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Right, I believe the bonus action rule about "unless the bonus action's timing is specified" doesn't apply to shield master.  I believe you can choose when to use the shield master bonus action shove during your turn. However, I don't believe you even have the shield master bonus action to use before you take the attack action because of the "if you take the attack action then you can bonus action shove" (paraphrased) coupled with another less familiar rule I quote below.

See the difference in my construction?  Nearly the same outcome but the way I get there is much different.  I avoid timing issues altogether.  The way I can say shield master doesn't specify timing and still get out of saying shield master can be used before the attack action as the rule you cited would seem to imply is by remembering another rule below:



> You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.




I view JC's tweets about the meaning of the "if then" clause in shield master more as a reference to the rule above than as a ruling about timing.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> There's not really much to argue about, JEC has make it clear that Shield Master uses the "if A then B" timing rules on many occasions.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736
> https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995112448477749248
> ...



None of which is official, and didn't make it into any of the official materials like Eratta or SA Compendium.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Yunru said:


> None of which is official, and didn't make it into any of the official materials like Eratta or SA Compendium.




You must have some sage advice that the rest of us don't.  Cause there is sage advice about shield master.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> You must have some sage advice that the rest of us don't.  Cause there is sage advice about shield master.



But there's no Sage Advice on "take an action" meaning the action has to be finished. Not for bonus actions like JC originally references, not for Shield Master.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Sure.  So when it comes to whether you can take a bonus action like misty step between attacks granted by the extra attack action, it seems to me that given the larger context of action and movement rules that allowing for misty step and other bonus actions between attacks is not a big leap to make.




True, and I'm not disputing that.  The bonus action timing intent has been a mess, though it's been clarified repeatedly at this point (and people can take it or leave it). 

My contention was with the start and end of an action as a game unit being hard to discern.  It's not.  It's usually fairly obvious, IMO.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You don't seem to be understanding the part you keep calling out.  Here is an example of a bonus action with no timing specified. "In battle, you fight with primal ferocity. On your turn, you can enter a rage as a bonus action."  Here is another example of no timing specified.  "Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each o f your turns in combat."  Now, here is an example of a bonus action with the timing specified.  "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."  It specifies that you have to actually take the attack action, not just declare that an attack action will be taken.



Since on this thread I have commented multiple times on the shield master timing etc the idea that you think I dont understand that it is a timing specified is funny. 

Not sure if you really dont know or are just spinning.

Doesnt matter either way.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I think it's actually pretty simple, and most actions are simply instantaneous.
> 
> Attack - JEC says it ends when you've taken all your attacks.
> Cast a Spell - Many/most of these are instantaneous.  For example, Scorching Ray has a duration of "instantaneous" despite it having 3 or more rays that you roll to hit for individually.
> ...



Re the bit about disengage and dash, even they get drawn into indivisible phantom tho.

My fighter rogue with cunning and extra attacks has two enemies- a weakened  warrior and mage keeping hold person going on allies.

 Rogue has two shortswords.

Rogue moves 15' to the warrior strikes (attack action first swing) hoping to drop the injured foe cuz he needs to hit the mage. Misses. 

Now he wants to use cunning action to disengage from the warrior safely moving 15' around and away to strike the mage with his remaining extra attack. (If he had hit, no disengage needed, he could have gotten two strikes on the mage with his bonus action twf. )

I have never seen a GM who said "no, you cannot use your bonus action disengage because you have started an attack action and attack actions are indivisible by some bonus actions." Doubt I would see anyone object to it if the BA was cast Misty Step either

The GMs I have seen would be saying "smart, ok, so move and now make your..."

But some here seem to know that for  bonus actions without certain keywords ( that the no timing specified bonus actions lack by default) the bonus action cannot be taken in between those strikes.  They *know* that it's just *obvious* that bonus actions without timing specifies cannot be taken between attacks cuz "You choose when..." does not mean "You choose when... " seemingly like how "any time" does not mean "any time".


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 16, 2019)

Ristamar said:


> True, and I'm not disputing that.  The bonus action timing intent has been a mess, though it's been clarified repeatedly at this point (and people can take it or leave it).
> 
> My contention was with the start and end of an action as a game unit being hard to discern.  It's not.  It's usually fairly obvious, IMO.



Yeah, me too. 

Shield Master is what it is and after all those old tweets and tweet-versals they clarified in the latest combo of errata and sage compendium...

1 Shield master requires the attack action, not the intent of the attack action.
2 All previous and future tweets are unofficial - only sage advice compendium and actual rules are official.

They chose to not put indivisible actions into either of those sources with the errata and compendium.

They even chose to officially be to a GM to let timing specific bonus action reverse the order - EK cantrip melee attack for example. 

None of which leads to the indivisible action kerfuffle still being a thing, to me.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Yunru said:


> But there's no Sage Advice on "take an action" meaning the action has to be finished. Not for bonus actions like JC originally references, not for Shield Master.




Generally speaking it's not said that you have taken a drink, taken a turn, taken a college course etc until you have completed whatever it is that you are taking.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

Ignore this, stupid wikis removing vital wording.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Generally speaking it's not said that you have taken a drink, taken a turn, taken a college course etc until you have completed whatever it is that you are taking.




Ummm... no.
I've taken a computing course for a year and a bit. I haven't finished, but I've most definitely taken the course (just not to completion).
Further more, ruling otherwise means you still have your action available until you make all the attacks. So I can take the Attack action to attack a creature. Then since I haven't taken an action yet, I can kick down a door, and attack another creature. Then, because I'm an 11th level fighter, I'm stuck at the next door because I did take an action to kick down the last one, so I use my third attack against the door. But then I can't, because that would mean I've taken two actions.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Ummm... no.
> I've taken a computing course for a year and a bit. I haven't finished, but *I've most definitely taken the course (just not to completion).*
> Further more, ruling otherwise means you still have your action available until you make all the attacks. So I can take the Attack action to attack a creature. Then since I haven't taken an action yet, I can kick down a door, and attack another creature. Then, because I'm an 11th level fighter, I'm stuck at the next door because I did take an action to kick down the last one, so I use my third attack against the door. But then I can't, because that would mean I've taken two actions.




I think the nuance of the English Language in relation to tense alludes you.

You *have been taking* a computer course for a little over a year.  You do that by attending the classes etc.  
But, you *have not taken* a computer course for a little over a year.  You have only taken the course once it's completed.

You could say "I've *taken* 12 months of a computer course" and that would be accurate as you already have completed those 12 months of the course.

For example:
Has a 2nd day Calculus student taken a calculus course because he went to class on day one?  No, that's a ridiculous.
However, the 2nd day Calculus student could say "I've taken 1 day of a calculus course".  

See the difference?


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I think the nuance of the English Language in relation to tense alludes you.
> 
> You *have been taking* a computer course for a little over a year.  You do that by attending the classes etc.
> But, you *have not taken* a computer course for a little over a year.  You have only taken the course once it's completed.
> ...




I see you trying to argue your interpretation is the correct and only interpretation, but you're wrong.

From the dictionary:
Take: "make, *undertake*, or perform (an action or task)."
Undertake: "commit oneself to and begin (an enterprise or responsibility); take on."

Thus you have taken an action once you have committed yourself to it and begun it. Such as by saying "I take the Attack action."


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

Yunru said:


> I see you trying to argue your interpretation is the correct and only interpretation, but you're wrong.
> 
> From the dictionary:
> Take: "make, *undertake*, or perform (an action or task)."
> ...




WOW.  You really believe you have taken a college course just because you signed up and paid your tuition and went to it one day? 

If you really do there's no point in us discussing this further because that's such a divergent view that we aren't going to find any common ground.  So if you really believe that then I'll happily let you have the last word as I see no value in debating something that should be a simple axiomatic truth.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> WOW.  You really believe you have taken a college course just because you signed up and paid your tuition and went to it one day?
> 
> If you really do there's no point in us discussing this further because that's such a divergent view that we aren't going to find any common ground.  So if you really believe that then I'll happily let you have the last word as I see no value in debating something that should be a simple axiomatic truth.




Read: I don't have a counter argument so I'm going to say wow and pretend your point is absurd?
Yes, that is exactly what I believe. Because, and this seems to be an alien concept to you, _taking_ an action and _completing_ an action are two different things.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2019)

[MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION]

Try whatever tactic you want to entice me back into the argument.  It's not going to work.  I'm done wasting my time on pointless arguments.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Read: I don't have a counter argument so I'm going to say wow and pretend your point is absurd?
> Yes, that is exactly what I believe. Because, and this seems to be an alien concept to you, _taking_ an action and _completing_ an action are two different things.





You see, here's the thing - you *state* what the counter argument is, right after you say he doesn't have one.  So, your characterization of this is pretty bogus.  It treads rather like you are trying to win, rather than to understand.  How do you figure that's going to play out, hm?  Is it going to end well?

How about you, _and everyone else_, stop treating each other badly, and accept that it is entirely possible for two entirely reasonable people come to different conclusions based on slightly different perspectives and word use.  

If you are not willing to do that, please leave the thread, because you will not be capable of discussion of the topic.  Argument and beating of heads together is your only option at that point, and it isn't constructive for anyone.


----------



## Yunru (Feb 16, 2019)

I was genuinely asking, although I could of been more verbose about it for clarity.
An ad hominem was the only interpretation I could read, but didn't think it matched Frog's norm.
I meant no insult.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 17, 2019)

Yunru said:


> Read: I don't have a counter argument so I'm going to say wow and pretend your point is absurd?
> Yes, that is exactly what I believe. Because, and this seems to be an alien concept to you, _taking_ an action and _completing_ an action are two different things.



Actually taking a college course by signing up, paying tuition then showing for one day brings back very bad memories.

"Did you take Meyers Chemistry this semester?" 
"Yup"
"How is it going?"
"So far, so good."

I think there is in the common language a difference between taking a course, passing a course or even completing a course. 

Of course, shield master references take not taken, right?

"If you take the Attack action on your turn,..."

So, taken is not really part of the rule.

The for attack action...

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. "


But SM is not one I currently see need to fuss over.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 17, 2019)

So, who's winning?

*muching on popcorn*


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 17, 2019)

Azzy said:


> So, who's winning?
> 
> *muching on popcorn*



Not the Panthers. Sigh.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Sigh, Advice given and advice rejected.  Have fun arguing about the meaning of timing.  I won't join you down that pointless rabbit hole.




Beats a pointlessly narrow definition of timing that ignores portions of the game.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  When you shoved you took a bonus action that was granted by the attack action, which if you get knocked out before you take it, you never took.  You do not actually take the attack action until  you attempt to make that first attack.  I say attempt, because Sanctuary can stop the attack without stopping the Attack Action.




Shoving a creature is an attack, so even if you get knocked out after that, you still took the Attack action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Beats a pointlessly narrow definition of timing that ignores portions of the game.




I'm curious.  What portions of the game do you think I'm ignoring?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Shoving a creature is an attack, so even if you get knocked out after that, you still took the Attack action.




Making an attack does not equal an attack action.  You seem to be confused about attacks.  You can get attacks from many sources outside of the Attack action.  None of those sources count as you taking the Attack action.  In fact, let's examine your statement for a moment.  If you are allowed to take the shove as your bonus action BEFORE you take the Attack action, and if that shove counts AS the Attack action, then you are not allowed to take the Attack action a second time later unless you Action Surge.  That means that taking the shove as a bonus action BEFORE the Attack action, you now can no longer use your weapon to attack.  So sure, if you were to come into my game and ask me to let you gimp yourself that badly, I'd probably let you.  I'd explain it to you before hand to make sure you understood how badly you were gimping yourself, but if you still wanted to go for it...

What you could do, though, is take the Attack action and use your attack to shove, THEN you can get the bonus action from Shield Master and shove a second time.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm curious.  What portions of the game do you think I'm ignoring?




The portions of the game that involve timing that is broader than your excessively narrow scope.  Timing doesn't have to be as exacting as you claim in order for it to be timing.  It can be, but it isn't required.  By focusing on that excessively narrow definition, you are ignoring those other portions of the game.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The portions of the game that involve timing that is broader than your excessively narrow scope...




Obviously, but not so obviously is what portions those would be?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 17, 2019)

My final thoughts on the matter:

I do think it's interesting that they've changed the wording about official rulings in the Sage Advice Compendium.

Old:



> Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), *can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter.*
> 
> A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play.




New:



> 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). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. *Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.*
> 
> 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.




Based on the most recent Sage Advice video, it sounds like they're trying to avoid another situation where JEC replies to a tweet and makes an incorrect ruling that stands for many years (i.e. he only replies to rules questions when he has the books in front of him).  Having said that, I still think there's a ton of value in his tweets as they give the exact same amount of insight into RAI as before.  It's obviously a shame that he dug a large hole for himself with the original incorrect Shield Master tweet, but I really think it's hard to deny what the intent of the rule is at this point, or the timing of bonus actions in general.  Even if his tweets no longer count as official rulings, I'm still going to be following his Twitter feed and checking sageadvice.eu when questions do come up at our table, because for me it's still valuable to know what the lead rules designer meant by a particular rule.  If "following your bliss" means ignoring what JEC says he meant by a particular rule or sentence in the PHB so that you can do more damage in combat, then so be it.

Perhaps the main thing I like about the 5E rules is the fact they are generally simple and streamlined, with the goal of keeping the game flowing.  I don't think there's ever been a case where a simple Occam's razor test hasn't worked for our tables.  Any time I come across some language I'm not entirely sure about the meaning of and start thinking in depth about words like "take" and whether it means past, present or future, I generally find that I've gone off into the weeds and am missing the bigger picture.  Quite frankly, I found that I started enjoying the game a lot more once I stopped treating it like a mathematical optimization problem and more as a shared storytelling experience.


----------



## epithet (Feb 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Making an attack does not equal an attack action.  You seem to be confused about attacks.  ...



You know he's not confused, you're just being snide. His point, which is valid in my opinion, is that being a DM ideally involves taking what a player wants his character to do and resolving it using the rules, not setting out arbitrary limitations and conjuring extra timing constraints. If a shield master character shoves first, then takes all the attacks granted by an attack action, then both the attack action and the bonus action from Shield Master were used. If one or more of those attacks is frustrated before it is taken, then it was just the attack action. Hriston's point, if I may speak for him, seems to be that as a human being running a tabletop RPG (and not as a computer,) we are perfectly capable of looking at the character's entire turn instead of constraining ourselves to consider each action, attack, flourish, or 5 feet of movement individually, in isolation, with rigid attention to what must come first.



> So sure, if you were to come into my game and ask me to let you gimp yourself that badly, I'd probably let you.



I think one of the clearest indications that this new and revised Shield Master comment from Jeremy Crawford is bad advice is that across the dozens of pages of this thread, it seems that most of the people who defend his new interpretation of the rule do so only in theory, while 'confessing' that they would not adhere to it in their own game. Whether 'allowing' the shove to come between attacks, or whenever the character wants, or declaring by house rule that the attack action itself is unnecessary, there don't seem to be a lot of commenters who are eager to use Jeremy's new Shield Master advice in their own game. And why would they? At no point during the years when Jeremy's advice (whether because he was drunk in line at the grocer's or not) was to "take your bonus shove whenever you want it" did the Shield Master feat dominate the game. I think most of us need a much better reason to tell a player he can't string his attacks together the way he wants to on his turn than "Well, see, Jeremy changed his mind, so... sorry."

Ultimately, the rules are best when they are at their most flexible. There is no way for a set of rules to contemplate every situation in every game, and the magic of tabletop RPGs is that they don't have to. The DM can apply the rules to resolve the acts and efforts of the player characters without having to look at the Actions in Combat section like an instruction manual from Ikea. If, at the end of a shield master's turn, the Attack Action has been taken and a bonus action shove was taken, the conditional described in the feat has been satisfied regardless of the sequence of attacks. The ability to reconcile complex behavior during a combat turn into movement, action, bonus action, and flourish is part of what makes a live D&D game better than playing Baldur's Gate on your PC.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 17, 2019)

epithet said:


> You know he's not confused, you're just being snide. His point, which is valid in my opinion, is that being a DM ideally involves taking what a player wants his character to do and resolving it using the rules, not setting out arbitrary limitations and conjuring extra timing constraints. If a shield master character shoves first, then takes all the attacks granted by an attack action, then both the attack action and the bonus action from Shield Master were used. If one or more of those attacks is frustrated before it is taken, then it was just the attack action. Hriston's point, if I may speak for him, seems to be that as a human being running a tabletop RPG (and not as a computer,) we are perfectly capable of looking at the character's entire turn instead of constraining ourselves to consider each action, attack, flourish, or 5 feet of movement individually, in isolation, with rigid attention to what must come first.
> 
> 
> I think one of the clearest indications that this new and revised Shield Master comment from Jeremy Crawford is bad advice is that across the dozens of pages of this thread, it seems that most of the people who defend his new interpretation of the rule do so only in theory, while 'confessing' that they would not adhere to it in their own game. Whether 'allowing' the shove to come between attacks, or whenever the character wants, or declaring by house rule that the attack action itself is unnecessary, there don't seem to be a lot of commenters who are eager to use Jeremy's new Shield Master advice in their own game. And why would they? At no point during the years when Jeremy's advice (whether because he was drunk in line at the grocer's or not) was to "take your bonus shove whenever you want it" did the Shield Master feat dominate the game. I think most of us need a much better reason to tell a player he can't string his attacks together the way he wants to on his turn than "Well, see, Jeremy changed his mind, so... sorry."
> ...



Point of oddity (non-space variety)

At no point did shield master dominate my game under the previous pre-action shield master tweet cuz I ignored that one too. Its always been make st least one attack (of your attack action) then you can bash (or other attack action based feature) at my table. 

I guess we have been radicals the whole time. Doing our own thing and ignoring the man, flaunting our independence.

"And if the man rules again, we will flaunt him a third time!" <<<--- typed in a faux french fry accent. 

So, perhaps lumping all of us into that pool of validation inferred is not necessarily convincing.

As for the see the results then decide what the action type was, since that creates the possibility of bonus act bash, retro to attsck sction bash, then add-in bonus action something else - not a route I would be anxious to try. 

I pre-action shield master shove fred who stays up
Now due to whatever the approved change action type triggers are, that becomes an attack action shove and now
I second wind myself as a bonus action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

epithet said:


> I think one of the clearest indications that this new and revised Shield Master comment from Jeremy Crawford is bad advice is that across the dozens of pages of this thread, it seems that most of the people who defend his new interpretation of the rule do so only in theory, while 'confessing' that they would not adhere to it in their own game. Whether 'allowing' the shove to come between attacks, or whenever the character wants, or declaring by house rule that the attack action itself is unnecessary, there don't seem to be a lot of commenters who are eager to use Jeremy's new Shield Master advice in their own game. And why would they? At no point during the years when Jeremy's advice (whether because he was drunk in line at the grocer's or not) was to "take your bonus shove whenever you want it" did the Shield Master feat dominate the game. I think most of us need a much better reason to tell a player he can't string his attacks together the way he wants to on his turn than "Well, see, Jeremy changed his mind, so... sorry."




For many of the people here that agree with JC's ruling, we only started playing that you could shove prone before your attack action because of his initial tweet that it was allowed.  Because that was so long ago, because it's hard to take something people get used to away from them, because allowing it before doesn't imbalance the game etc.... because of all these reasons we don't feel the need to change how we play with the feat even though he has now made clear the correct ruling.  That doesn't mean we won't acknowledge the ruling and celebrate it as a correct ruling despite it not being a good rule for us to use at this time.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

epithet said:


> Ultimately, the rules are best when they are at their most flexible.




I think that rules are best when they line up with the rules in the book.  The old shield master rule from JC didn't do that IMO.  The new one does.



> There is no way for a set of rules to contemplate every situation in every game, and the magic of tabletop RPGs is that they don't have to.  The DM can apply the rules to resolve the acts and efforts of the player characters without having to look at the Actions in Combat section like an instruction manual from Ikea.




They don't have to spell out every course of action.  However, when a mechanical rule spells out a certain ability a certain way then that ability does exactly what it says (or overridden by houserules).  If a player wants to attack and shove without the shield master feat then the DM can rule on if that's possible and what order he can do it in etc.  But if he wants to do so by using the shield master feat then he needs to go by the mechanics that are spelled out (either in the rules themselves or in the DM's houserules).



> If, at the end of a shield master's turn, the Attack Action has been taken and a bonus action shove was taken, the conditional described in the feat has been satisfied regardless of the sequence of attacks. The ability to reconcile complex behavior during a combat turn into movement, action, bonus action, and flourish is part of what makes a live D&D game better than playing Baldur's Gate on your PC.




Sure if you define moment X as at the end of the turn and then look at the shield master feat then it's criteria have been satisfied.  No argument there.  The issue is that they also need to be satisfied at moment Y when you made the bonus action shove attack.  If they aren't satisfied at that moment in time then by rule you actually didn't have a bonus action to take, which means that doing so was against the rules.

PHB Rule that I am referring to.


> You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.


----------



## epithet (Feb 17, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> ...
> Sure if you define moment X as at the end of the turn and then look at the shield master feat then it's criteria have been satisfied.  No argument there.  The issue is that they also need to be satisfied at moment Y when you made the bonus action shove attack.  If they aren't satisfied at that moment in time then by rule you actually didn't have a bonus action to take, which means that doing so was against the rules.
> 
> PHB Rule that I am referring to.




Sure, and the "other feature" here is the Shield Master feat. All I'm saying is that you can consider the action (Attack Action) and bonus action (shove) together. You don't have to: you can increment your way through the turn like you're assembling a bookshelf if you want to. I obviously think that my way is better.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

epithet said:


> Sure, and the "other feature" here is the Shield Master feat. All I'm saying is that you can consider the action (Attack Action) and bonus action (shove) together. You don't have to: you can increment your way through the turn like you're assembling a bookshelf if you want to. I obviously think that my way is better.




My point was that you can't actually do it that way.  You don't have a bonus action shove attack to take unless you've already satisfied the conditions given in the shield master feat that grant it.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 17, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I think it's actually pretty simple, and most actions are simply instantaneous.
> 
> Attack - JEC says it ends when you've taken all your attacks.
> Cast a Spell - Many/most of these are instantaneous.  For example, Scorching Ray has a duration of "instantaneous" despite it having 3 or more rays that you roll to hit for individually.
> ...




You are asserting these interpretations without sufficient evidence to back them up. This results in glaring inconsistencies.

If you 'take the Dodge action', then from the moment you say that you are taking this action until the start of your next turn, you can....dodge.

If you 'take the Disengage action', then from the moment you say that you are taking this action until the end of your turn, you can....disengage.

If you 'take the Hide action', then from the moment you say you are taking this action until the moment you are either discovered or you choose to do something that ends that condition, you are....hiding.

If you 'take the Attack action', from the moment you say you are taking this action until the end of your turn you may....attack, as many times as you have attacks.

From this, how on Earth is it possible to conclude that the Attack action ends only when you have executed the last of your required attacks, but that ALL the other actions are 'instantaneous', but their _effects_ last longer? You could equally say, based on the same evidence (or lack thereof) that the Attack action is 'instantaneous' but its _effects_ last until the end of your turn.


----------



## epithet (Feb 17, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> My point was that you can't actually do it that way.  You don't have a bonus action shove attack to take unless you've already satisfied the conditions given in the shield master feat that grant it.




And my point is that you totally can do it that way, as evidenced by the fact that Hriston and I both did it that way before I simply house ruled away the Attack Action requirement. (I'm only assuming Hriston still does it this way.) Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but doing it this way was Jeremy's drunk grocery store tweet advice for a couple of years.

I get that you disdain this reading of the rules--you have made that abundantly clear. I get, also, that Jeremy is so contrite over having to reverse himself that he won't tweet about the rules except in a controlled environment now. I fully comprehend your position, Jeremy's position, and every other opinion expressed in this thread, barring only a few that were not, in the strictest sense, written in English.

I just don't agree with you.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

epithet said:


> And my point is that you totally can do it that way, as evidenced by the fact that Hriston and I both did it that way before I simply house ruled away the Attack Action requirement. (I'm only assuming Hriston still does it this way.) Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but doing it this way was Jeremy's drunk grocery store tweet advice for a couple of years.
> 
> I get that you disdain this reading of the rules--you have made that abundantly clear. I get, also, that Jeremy is so contrite over having to reverse himself that he won't tweet about the rules except in a controlled environment now. I fully comprehend your position, Jeremy's position, and every other opinion expressed in this thread, barring only a few that were not, in the strictest sense, written in English.
> 
> I just don't agree with you.




I understand what you are saying to.   I disagree with you.  However, unlike you I'm trying to tell you *WHY* I disagree with you.  So since you really understand why I disagree with you then surely you can do more than simply reassert your position.  Surely you can tell me why my position that you understand doesn't sway you.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 17, 2019)

I've been away for a few days, and I've just spent the time to go through 200 posts or so. One thing jumped out at me...

One thing about how players seem to think 5e works just astonishes me, and I believe stems from 5e's lack of wording; something that players of 3e would not do...

...and that is: not realising the consequences of the 'instantaneous' duration!

If something has a duration of 'instantaneous', then there is a 'before' that instantaneous event, there is an 'after', but there is no 'during', because 'instantaneous' denotes an infinitely small (but non-zero) period of time. If a duration _can_ be subdivided, then it cannot by definition be 'instantaneous'.

So spells with an 'instantaneous' duration but with multiple beams/attacks, it *cannot* be that you could resolve the first beam, _have your character wait to see if this kills the target_, and then use the information to either attack the same creature with the second beam if it is still alive, or switch targets to attack a different creature with the second beam if the first is dead.

This is because the observation of the results of the first beam *must* occur _after_ the beam's instantaneous existence, and by that point in time the whole spell and ALL its beams has come and gone.

From these forums it appears that many 5e players play it as if the spell had a duration of '1 round' during which you have several beams to use. This astonishes me.

However, multiple weapon attacks are not assumed to all happen simultaneously. In most cases it would be impossible for them to occur in the same instant, but you could say that you could make two _weapons_ hit at the same time, and I suppose you could fluff that two attacks with a spear was one spear thrust going through two enemy bodies...

On the larger topic, when it comes to the actual rules of the game, they are permissive: you can only do something rules-wise if the rules say you *can*. You cannot say, "Ah, but nowhere in the rules does it say that a 1st level barbarian _can't_ cast 9th level spells, so I can!"

(BTW, this is in contrast to non-rules things, like breathing or shaving or eating. You don't need a rule to give you permission to do _non_-rules things)

Does this solve the dispute between, "It doesn't say that actions are divisible" versus "It doesn't say that actions are *in*divisible"?

Yes.

If we restrict our rules actions (like 'attack', 'move', 'cast a spell', etc.) to only those which the rules specifically _allow_, then:-

* I can attack, move, and attack again later (I have Extra Attack and I rule which says I *can* do this

* I can cast _misty step_ (and I can cast it whenever I want during my turn because I have a rule that says I *can*

* I can do them both in the same round, because the rules say I can take an action, take a bonus action, _and_ move, in my turn

* therefore, I *can* attack, move, cast _misty step_, move, and attack again, because I have restricted all my game rule elements only to those things the rules say that I *can* do

* given that I am only doing those things that the rules say I *can* do, and since that sequence of events is not absurd in the fiction of the game world, the only thing that could disallow this is...a rule that says so!

* since there is NO rule which prevents me from doing those things in that order, and there ARE rules which allow everything I've done in this round, then I *can*.

QED

IF there were a rule which prevented this, then it would....prevent this. But there is no such rule.

If there is, cite it.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 17, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> You are asserting these interpretations without sufficient evidence to back them up. This results in glaring inconsistencies.
> 
> If you 'take the Dodge action', then from the moment you say that you are taking this action until the start of your next turn, you can....dodge.
> 
> ...




Let's apply the Occam's razor test to each of these actions.  What's the simplest explanation of each of these rules?  In my opinion: In all cases, you take the action, and something instantly happens or changes.  For everything but the Attack action, some effect applies for the duration (end of your turn, start of your next turn, whatever it might be).  The simplest explanation at that point is that you've now taken that action.  This avoids any possibility of nested actions or all the other leaps people have been taking in this thread lately, with unwritten rules about action indivisibility and so on.  If all these actions are instantaneous, then you simply never have to worry about whether an action is divisible or not.

Extra Attack clearly complicates things, as now you have multiple weapon attacks making up a single action.  The rules explicitly say you're allowed to move between attacks, which implies this is no longer an instantaneous effect.  My initial reading of all of this was that once you've made the first attack, you've committed yourself to the Attack action, and thus I played Shield Master as slice-shove-slice for a long time.  Turns out that was not the intent of the feat.  Jeremy Crawford has gone to great lengths to explain that Shield Master's shove was designed as a finish move to assist your party.  Perhaps they could make the wording of the feat clearer, or the fact that the Attack action isn't taken until all attacks have been made, or whatever.

So, at this point, you basically have 2 options:

1) Ignore what JEC has said and do something that wasn't intended.
2) Listen to what JEC has said and play the feat as intended.

If the lead rules designer of the game says that you haven't taken the Attack action until all attacks from Extra Attack have been made, and that features like Shield Master's shove are based around an "if X then Y" timing restriction that requires the Attack action to have been made (i.e. the shove is a finishing move to help your party), then that's the way I'm going to play it at my table by default.  I can certainly understand that interpretation of the rules (slice-slice-shove), just as I can understand coming to my original conclusion (slice-shove-slice).  Again, JEC has made it clear that the intent was not to grant near-permanent advantage to someone with the feat, and when I was incorrectly playing it like that it really did cheapen some of my other class abilities like Vow of Enmity.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Let's apply the Occam's razor test to each of these actions.  What's the simplest explanation of each of these rules?  In my opinion: In all cases, you take the action, and something instantly happens or changes.  For everything but the Attack action, some effect applies for the duration (end of your turn, start of your next turn, whatever it might be).  The simplest explanation at that point is that you've now taken that action.  This avoids any possibility of nested actions or all the other leaps people have been taking in this thread lately, with unwritten rules about action indivisibility and so on.  If all these actions are instantaneous, then you simply never have to worry about whether an action is divisible or not.
> 
> Extra Attack clearly complicates things, as now you have multiple weapon attacks making up a single action.  The rules explicitly say you're allowed to move between attacks, which implies this is no longer an instantaneous effect.  My initial reading of all of this was that once you've made the first attack, you've committed yourself to the Attack action, and thus I played Shield Master as slice-shove-slice for a long time.  Turns out that was not the intent of the feat.  Jeremy Crawford has gone to great lengths to explain that Shield Master's shove was designed as a finish move to assist your party.  Perhaps they could make the wording of the feat clearer, or the fact that the Attack action isn't taken until all attacks have been made, or whatever.
> 
> ...




One small observation.  He wasn't talking about the shield master feat....


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 17, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So spells with an 'instantaneous' duration but with multiple beams/attacks, it *cannot* be that you could resolve the first beam, _have your character wait to see if this kills the target_, and then use the information to either attack the same creature with the second beam if it is still alive, or switch targets to attack a different creature with the second beam if the first is dead.
> 
> This is because the observation of the results of the first beam *must* occur _after_ the beam's instantaneous existence, and by that point in time the whole spell and ALL its beams has come and gone.
> 
> From these forums it appears that many 5e players play it as if the spell had a duration of '1 round' during which you have several beams to use. This astonishes me.




This is addressed in the Sage Advice Compendium:



> When casting a spell that affects multiple targets, such as scorching ray or eldritch blast, do I fire one ray or beam, determine the result, and fire again? Or do I have to choose all the targets before making any attack rolls?
> 
> Even though the duration of each of these spells is instantaneous, *you choose the targets and resolve the attacks consecutively*, not all at once. If you want, you can declare all your targets before making any attacks, but you would still roll separately for each attack (and damage, if appropriate).




Spells like Magic Missile that explicitly say they strike their target simultaneously mean you're supposed to do a single damage roll and thus apply of effects like the Wizard's Empowered Evocation and so on.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 17, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> One small observation.  He wasn't talking about the shield master feat....




Sorry, I assumed that's why he was talking about when the Attack action ended, as that's clearly important for the Shield Master shove (and not much else AFAIK).


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 17, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Let's apply the Occam's razor test to each of these actions.  What's the simplest explanation of each of these rules?  In my opinion: In all cases, you take the action, and something instantly happens or changes.  For everything but the Attack action, some effect applies for the duration (end of your turn, start of your next turn, whatever it might be).  The simplest explanation at that point is that you've now taken that action.  This avoids any possibility of nested actions or all the other leaps people have been taking in this thread lately, with unwritten rules about action indivisibility and so on.  If all these actions are instantaneous, then you simply never have to worry about whether an action is divisible or not.




The fallacy of special pleading. All of these actions, including the Attack action, are in the same form: 'take the (whatever) action -> you can do the things that the action allows for the specified time'. And yet you assert, without evidence, that it works differently for the Attack action.

Let's take Dodge: in game rules, you 'take the Dodge action'. Then, _when attacked_, the attacker rolls with disadvantage. The actual 'dodging' happens either only when you are being attacked or you are dodging for then entire duration. You don't take all your dodges *now*, then stop dodging, then subsequent attacks have disadvantage anyway! So you are _actually_ dodging at various points within the time span between taking the action and the start of your next turn, or you are actively dodging for that entire duration without stopping.

Similarly, with the Attack action, you might 'take the Attack' action _now_, but _actually_ attack later in the round. We know for a fact that this is permissible for your second and subsequent attacks, even though it is unclear if it also applies to your first attack.

There is no difference in RAW re: 'instantaneous action->game effect for a duration' and 'the action's effect has a duration', between how the rules apply to the Attack action and the Dodge, Disengage and Hide actions. So, either they ALL work as 'instantaneous->effect' OR as 'action has a duration'. Saying that the Attack action is treated differently, without rules back-up, is special pleading and leads to an unsafe conclusion.     



> So, at this point, you basically have 2 options:
> 
> 1) Ignore what JEC has said and do something that wasn't intended.
> 2) Listen to what JEC has said and play the feat as intended.




This is the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy. Here you are asserting, without support, that there are ONLY two options, just because you don't know of other options. There is at least one more option, and there may be more:-

3) Play the Rules As Written. What JEC says or means is irrelevant to RAW.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2019)

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - I agree, that the rules delineate what you can do.

However, nothing in the rules says that you can divide up an Attack Action with anything other than movement, and then only if you have multiple attacks.  If you have a single attack, obviously you cannot divide up the Attack Action at all.

The only exception seems to be when you gain multiple attacks and you want to move.  

If you were correct and you could drop a bonus action into the middle of an Attack Action, why wouldn't they have called this out, the way they called out movement?  I mean, the movement rules are pretty clear - it's called out in a completely separate paragraph that if you have multiple attacks, you can move between attacks.

If the intent was to allow bonus actions the same latitude, wouldn't it be called out the same way?

Since it isn't called out and in fact the only thing about timing that is called out is that you can do it during your turn or at the time specified by the bonus action, why would you presume that you could bonus action during an attack action?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 17, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> This is addressed in the Sage Advice Compendium:
> 
> 
> 
> Spells like Magic Missile that explicitly say they strike their target simultaneously mean you're supposed to do a single damage roll and thus apply of effects like the Wizard's Empowered Evocation and so on.




All this shows is that JC doesn't understand the consequences of 'instantaneous' either!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2019)

Arial Black said:
			
		

> Similarly, with the Attack action, you might 'take the Attack' action now, but actually attack later in the *round*. We know for a fact that this is permissible for your second and subsequent attacks, even though it is unclear if it also applies to your first attack.




Just a point of clarity, you take your attacks later in your turn, not later in the round.


----------



## epithet (Feb 17, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I understand what you are saying to.   I disagree with you.  However, unlike you I'm trying to tell you *WHY* I disagree with you.  So since you really understand why I disagree with you then surely you can do more than simply reassert your position.  Surely you can tell me why my position that you understand doesn't sway you.




In every role playing game, whether on the tabletop or a video game, there is a conflict between the rule system and the fiction it is modeling. To create a rule system that was a realistic simulation wouldn't just be difficult, it would be a waste of time--no one wants that kind of granularity--but a complete abstraction is very unsatisfying. The happy medium is somewhere in the realm of having the player free to state what his character will do in a scenario, and for the most part how the character will do it, and then use the rule system to abstract that into something that can be resolved with a die roll.

Obviously, your game rules must have a lot of constraints built into them. Constraints are necessary for a number of reasons, including making sure everyone gets a turn and that the game flows along, and also so that your character has limitations that can be overcome as it gains power. In broad terms, then, when your character can't do something the limit should be either in service to the gameplay or to the fiction. Arbitrary limitations and restrictions on what your character can do in the game are a disservice to both causes, mucking up the gameplay while you figure it out and bringing your awareness back to the books and character sheets instead of the monsters and magic your character is dealing with. There's not much you can do about it when your RPG is a video game, you just deal with the arbitrary limitations and watch your cooldown timer. It is what it is. When you're playing on a tabletop (physical or virtual) with a live Dungeon Master, though, everything changes. The player is liberated to come up with the zaniest free-form swing-from-the-chandelier Jackie Chan sequence he can imagine, and the Dungeon Master will parse it into one or more rolls of the dice and tell him how it turned out.

So, when you maintain that an action in combat must be resolved in accordance with strict timing requirements which are implied rather than expressly enumerated, and that a character's turn should be resolved according to rigid procedure such that an action must be completed in its entirety before you can consider a bonus action it enables, I disagree. There is no difference between the shove you get as a bonus action and a shove you can make as part of the Attack Action, and making a timing distinction serves neither the gameplay nor the fantasy. Only if you adhere to an inflexible, procedural, meta-gamist approach to a character's turn in combat will you gain any benefit from using Jeremy's new restrictive approach to timing, and I do not.

To put it another way, the Dungeon Master can interpret the Shield Master feat in a couple of different ways. The first, which I'll call the Hriston approach, emphasises role-play by giving the DM the flexibility to adjudicate the entire sequence of a character's turn as a whole. The second, which I'll call the Crawford approach, emphasizes most emphatically roll-playing by demanding an iterative procedural resolution of the turn without regard for fantasy verisimilitude. Your position doesn't sway me because you favor the roll-play of the Crawford approach, while I strongly prefer the role-play of the Hriston approach. I will, almost every time, choose role-play over roll-play.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> All this shows is that JC doesn't understand the consequences of 'instantaneous' either!




I look at it slightly differently.  While the resolution is handled sequentially, the effect isn't.  From a design perspective, you have a choice-  either tell the player to declare everything first and then resolve, or allow the player to resolve the action sequentially.

5e has gone with the player empowerment route of allowing the player to resolve sequentially.  It makes for less "wasted" action as in, "I magic missile target A twice and B once.  Oh, the first one killed Target A?  Guess that second missile was pointless."


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2019)

Note, [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION], the question isn't really how we would resolve it at our tables, but, a discussion over what the rules say.  I'd likely resolve things the way you do and wouldn't really care.

But, when discussing what the rules actually say, we have to be more precise than, "Well, this makes my game better, so that's what I'm doing".


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - I agree, that the rules delineate what you can do.
> 
> However, *nothing in the rules* says that you can divide up an Attack Action with anything other than movement, and then only if you have multiple attacks.  If you have a single attack, obviously you cannot divide up the Attack Action at all.




Er, the rule regarding the timing of bonus actions is exactly where you'd expect it to be: in the rules describing bonus actions. Here, it says in black and white that you *can* take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn. There should be no expectation that this rule would be repeated in the rules for every other action in the game which has a non-instantaneous duration.  



> If you were correct and you could drop a bonus action into the middle of an Attack Action, *why wouldn't they have called this out*, the way they called out movement?  I mean, the movement rules are pretty clear - it's called out in a completely separate paragraph that if you have multiple attacks, you can move between attacks.




They did call it out! It's part of the rules for bonus actions!



> If the intent was to allow bonus actions the same latitude, *wouldn't it be called out the same way*?




Yes! It IS called out! Exactly where it SHOULD be called out, _in the section describing the rules for bonus actions!_



> *Since it isn't called* out and in fact the only thing about timing that is called out is that you can do it during your turn or at the time specified by the bonus action, why would you presume that you could bonus action during an attack action?




Since it IS called out, your objection falls away.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Just a point of clarity, you take your attacks later in your turn, not later in the round.




I stand corrected. I mis-typed.


----------



## epithet (Feb 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> ...
> If you were correct and you could drop a bonus action into the middle of an Attack Action, why wouldn't they have called this out, the way they called out movement?  I mean, the movement rules are pretty clear - it's called out in a completely separate paragraph that if you have multiple attacks, you can move between attacks.
> ...



The rules say "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified..." which suggests that, absent other provisions, you can take your bonus action any time you please. There is no express provision allowing you to use a bonus action during your movement, but I don't see anyone suggesting that you can only break up your movement with your extra attacks.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I look at it slightly differently.  While the resolution is handled sequentially, the effect isn't.  From a design perspective, you have a choice-  either tell the player to declare everything first and then resolve, or allow the player to resolve the action sequentially.
> 
> 5e has gone with the player empowerment route of allowing the player to resolve sequentially.  It makes for less "wasted" action as in, "I magic missile target A twice and B once.  Oh, the first one killed Target A?  Guess that second missile was pointless."




I agree with you that, from a game design perspective, you could handle it either way. My objection is not that it could not be handled that way in the rules; my objection is that it makes no sense to handle it that way in the fiction, given that the game rules should enable the fiction.

I don't think it is an unreasonable burden to expect the players to have to use their intellects to handle things they do know and things they don't. Coping with the uncertain is part of the challenge.

Will that first baddy be killed by one beam, or will it take more? How many will it take? These are things that neither the player nor their character would necessarily know for a fact, although each could have an educated guess.

In previous editions it was no hardship for the caster of _scorching ray_ to choose the target for each beam _before_ any are resolved, because that matched the fiction of an instantaneous effect and the player/PC has to make judgement calls. This is a good thing.

If both ways of resolving the instantaneous effect made sense then I would have no objection for a game design which chose one over the other. My problem here is that one option makes sense in the fiction while the other does not, and JC seems to have chosen the one that does not.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Sorry, I assumed that's why he was talking about when the Attack action ended, as that's clearly important for the Shield Master shove (and not much else AFAIK).




The broader context of JC's ruling is that no bonus action can be done in between attacks granted by the attack action.  That part of JC's ruling isn't specific to shield master.  That broad ruling He and I both are basically calling out as terrible.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 17, 2019)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - I agree, that the rules delineate what you can do.
> 
> However, nothing in the rules says that you can divide up an Attack Action with anything other than movement, and then only if you have multiple attacks.  If you have a single attack, obviously you cannot divide up the Attack Action at all.
> 
> ...




They did call out that "you choose when to use the bonus action on your turn, ***unless timing is specified"

I think that covers being able to use a bonus action like misty step between attacks granted by attack action and extra attack.  Don't you?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

epithet said:


> In every role playing game, whether on the tabletop or a video game, there is a conflict between the rule system and the fiction it is modeling. To create a rule system that was a realistic simulation wouldn't just be difficult, it would be a waste of time--no one wants that kind of granularity--but a complete abstraction is very unsatisfying. The happy medium is somewhere in the realm of having the player free to state what his character will do in a scenario, and for the most part how the character will do it, and then use the rule system to abstract that into something that can be resolved with a die roll.
> 
> Obviously, your game rules must have a lot of constraints built into them. Constraints are necessary for a number of reasons, including making sure everyone gets a turn and that the game flows along, and also so that your character has limitations that can be overcome as it gains power. In broad terms, then, when your character can't do something the limit should be either in service to the gameplay or to the fiction. Arbitrary limitations and restrictions on what your character can do in the game are a disservice to both causes, mucking up the gameplay while you figure it out and bringing your awareness back to the books and character sheets instead of the monsters and magic your character is dealing with. There's not much you can do about it when your RPG is a video game, you just deal with the arbitrary limitations and watch your cooldown timer. It is what it is. When you're playing on a tabletop (physical or virtual) with a live Dungeon Master, though, everything changes. The player is liberated to come up with the zaniest free-form swing-from-the-chandelier Jackie Chan sequence he can imagine, and the Dungeon Master will parse it into one or more rolls of the dice and tell him how it turned out.
> 
> ...




So basically you don't actually care how the rules actually say to resolve something.  Basically you ignore all requirements on abilities that you think are arbitrary restrictions that you think don't go with the fiction being modeled.  I get it now.  I want to say 1 thing and then you can have the last word as I don't think continuing a rules conversation with someone that holds those beliefs is going to be productive.

1.  Consider how the shield shove attack followed by an attack is modeled in the featless game.  To me everything you want about the fiction is already present in a game without feats and by virtue also in a game with feats.  All shield master does is give a mechanical benefit in a particular situation.  Everything else involving shield shoving can already be modeled by the other rules of the game.  Are you sure the issue isn't just that none of those other models allow you to get a sweet mechanical benefit when performing the shield shove then attack sequence?  Because even a level 1 fighter is capable of shield shoving then attacking (he just has to do it over 2 rounds).


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

epithet said:


> You know he's not confused, you're just being snide. His point, which is valid in my opinion, is that being a DM ideally involves taking what a player wants his character to do and resolving it using the rules, not setting out arbitrary limitations and conjuring extra timing constraints. If a shield master character shoves first, then takes all the attacks granted by an attack action, then both the attack action and the bonus action from Shield Master were used. If one or more of those attacks is frustrated before it is taken, then it was just the attack action. Hriston's point, if I may speak for him, seems to be that as a human being running a tabletop RPG (and not as a computer,) we are perfectly capable of looking at the character's entire turn instead of constraining ourselves to consider each action, attack, flourish, or 5 feet of movement individually, in isolation, with rigid attention to what must come first.




The problem is that you cannot resolve it with the rules.  The rule is that the shove is a bonus action, that means that per the rules, it is not an action.  If he wants to house rule that it becomes an action, turning into some sort of paradox where the bonus actions gives itself the ability to be a bonus action, that's fine.  He's free to do as he likes for his game.  What he can't do, though, is make the claim that the shove is the action as he did.  That's a statement of fact about the rules that just isn't true.



> I think one of the clearest indications that this new and revised Shield Master comment from Jeremy Crawford is bad advice is that across the dozens of pages of this thread, it seems that most of the people who defend his new interpretation of the rule do so only in theory, while 'confessing' that they would not adhere to it in their own game. Whether 'allowing' the shove to come between attacks, or whenever the character wants, or declaring by house rule that the attack action itself is unnecessary, there don't seem to be a lot of commenters who are eager to use Jeremy's new Shield Master advice in their own game. And why would they? At no point during the years when Jeremy's advice (whether because he was drunk in line at the grocer's or not) was to "take your bonus shove whenever you want it" did the Shield Master feat dominate the game. I think most of us need a much better reason to tell a player he can't string his attacks together the way he wants to on his turn than "Well, see, Jeremy changed his mind, so... sorry."




We are a highly limited pool of very experienced DM's.  I don't think what is happening in this thread is an indicator that the new ruling is bad advice.  I think it's more an indicator that we like to tinker with the game a lot.  I know I do.  I've highly edited every edition I've played.  That doesn't make the rules I change bad ones.  It just makes them ones that I think I can do better for my game.



> Ultimately, the rules are best when they are at their most flexible. There is no way for a set of rules to contemplate every situation in every game, and the magic of tabletop RPGs is that they don't have to. The DM can apply the rules to resolve the acts and efforts of the player characters without having to look at the Actions in Combat section like an instruction manual from Ikea.




This I totally agree with.  D&D is a very flexible system and that's one of the main reasons I've been with it since 1983.



> If, at the end of a shield master's turn, the Attack Action has been taken and a bonus action shove was taken, the conditional described in the feat has been satisfied regardless of the sequence of attacks. The ability to reconcile complex behavior during a combat turn into movement, action, bonus action, and flourish is part of what makes a live D&D game better than playing Baldur's Gate on your PC.




With a house rule, sure.  I don't have any problem with a DM running it this way.  It's just not how the feat is written, or the official ruling has been made.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

I still can't believe JC said this:



> *No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action.* You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.




The rule JC apparently forgot about was:



> *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.




Absolutely terrible ruling from JC!


----------



## epithet (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So basically you don't actually care how the rules actually say to resolve something.  Basically you ignore all requirements on abilities that you think are arbitrary restrictions that you think don't go with the fiction being modeled.  I get it now.  I want to say 1 thing and then you can have the last word as I don't think continuing a rules conversation with someone that holds those beliefs is going to be productive.
> 
> 1.  Consider how the shield shove attack followed by an attack is modeled in the featless game.  To me everything you want about the fiction is already present in a game without feats and by virtue also in a game with feats.  All shield master does is give a mechanical benefit in a particular situation.  Everything else involving shield shoving can already be modeled by the other rules of the game.  Are you sure the issue isn't just that none of those other models allow you to get a sweet mechanical benefit when performing the shield shove then attack sequence?  Because even a level 1 fighter is capable of shield shoving then attacking (he just has to do it over 2 rounds).




I do care how the rules say to resolve something, certainly. Your group comes together to play a particular game, and you should generally follow the rules of that game unless you agree to modifications of them. What I'm saying is that in circumstances where there is ambiguity, I will choose the reasonable interpretation that is flexible and in accordance with the fiction over a gamist interpretation that imposes arbitrary restrictions. I'm of the opinion that, among the reasonable ways to read and interpret the rules presently being discussed, Jeremy Crawford has chosen the worst. He is prioritising consistency, and trying to make sure that his interpretation can be applied to every rule the same way, but while I see the reason someone in his position would feel the need to do that I fundamentally disagree with that approach. Screw consistency; the right way to read and interpret a rule might not be the same from one group to the next, or one combat to the next, and certainly not from one page of the rules to the next. Flexibility is the reason you have a Dungeon Master instead of a choose-your-own-adventure book, and to discount that (as I feel Crawford has done) is a disservice to those DMs who look to him for guidance in the Sage Advice publication.

What you say about a featless game is certainly true. Now, consider the fact that the feat is intended to add something of significance, to empower your character in some way. To take the feat, you are giving up two stat points, which translates to +1 to hit and damage and +1 to your saves and ability checks for the stat. By taking a feat you are refining and defining your character, foregoing that strong general benefit for one that is more specific but potentially more powerful. Given that, as you say, the ability to shove and attack is already established in the rules and the fiction, don't you agree that the feat should enhance that ability rather than arbitrarily complicate it?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> This is the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy. Here you are asserting, without support, that there are ONLY two options, just because you don't know of other options. There is at least one more option, and there may be more:-
> 
> 3) Play the Rules As Written. What JEC says or means is irrelevant to RAW.




That's not really a third option as RAW ignores what JC said and you are doing what wasn't intended, which is option 1.  It's just the reason why you are doing number 1.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Er, the rule regarding the timing of bonus actions is exactly where you'd expect it to be: in the rules describing bonus actions. Here, it says in black and white that you *can* take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn. There should be no expectation that this rule would be repeated in the rules for every other action in the game which has a non-instantaneous duration.




This is one of my complaints with the 5e rules.  They often just list a rule once in some section of the game, but when you want to know if that rule is applied, the location of the rule is non-intuitive to the situation at hand.  I and my players have had multiple moments(minutes actually) where we know we have seen a rule, but have to scour the PHB looking for where it was.  They didn't do the best job organizing the rules with this edition.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The broader context of JC's ruling is that no bonus action can be done in between attacks granted by the attack action.  That part of JC's ruling isn't specific to shield master.  That broad ruling He and I both are basically calling out as terrible.



I don't follow that logic.  There is one bonus action where the "if X" trigger is "when you take the attack action", and that's the Shield Master shove (i.e. the "then Y" part).


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I still can't believe JC said this:
> 
> The rule JC apparently forgot about was:
> 
> Absolutely terrible ruling from JC!




Not if you understand that an action is one indivisible event as the game intended.  Remember what I posted earlier in the thread. "At any time." is not really at any time.  You can't do an "at any time" ability simultaneously with another action, reaction or bonus action. You have to do it before or after.  He's saying that the attack action is an indivisible event unless the specific rule specifies it can interrupt, like movement, or when it's a bonus action that is triggered by an attack, like Two-Weapon Fighting.  

You can't for example, cast a Magic Missile and then activate a bonus action before the spell completes.  You have to resolve the MM and then you can activate the bonus action.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 18, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> All this shows is that JC doesn't understand the consequences of 'instantaneous' either!




Since you started this most recent run with the following i think it helps to repeat it...

"One thing about how players seem to think 5e works just astonishes me, and I believe stems from 5e's lack of wording; something that players of 3e would not do... ...and that is: not realising the consequences of the 'instantaneous' duration!"

You then went on to make a lot of claims about what a duration of instantaneous means even in terms of in-game choices - and not one rule cite from 5e to support them?

Is it possible you are dragging 3e rules definitions into this - is that because thats something 3e players would do or how it worked in 3e? 

As for your retort about JEC and whether he knows what instantaneous means... this is from the notion of 5e rules, 5e terms and what that means and he answered that clearly in the Sage Compendium. That was already quoted.

But what was not quoted as recently was this...

"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). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

So, the publishers establish an official source for 5e rulings.  
So, that source provides a clear example and answer that directly contradicts your long run on about "how players seem to think 5e works" and then go about trying to show how it really works.

Maybe, just maybe, those 3e players should read what 5e rules and official rulings sources have to say about what instantaneous duration means before trying to tell those players what they know?

Maybe? 



But maybe, just maybe, before going off on how many 5e players don't know this or


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 18, 2019)

epithet said:


> There is no express provision allowing you to use a bonus action during your movement, but I don't see anyone suggesting that you can only break up your movement with your extra attacks.




This seems like a very compelling point to me.  But noteworthy, the Movement rule does call out:

Breaking Up Your Move: You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. 

And

Moving Between Attacks: 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. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Not if you understand that an action is one indivisible event as the game intended.  Remember what I posted earlier in the thread. "At any time." is not really at any time.  You can't do an "at any time" ability simultaneously with another action, reaction or bonus action. You have to do it before or after.  He's saying that the attack action is an indivisible event unless the specific rule specifies it can interrupt, like movement, or when it's a bonus action that is triggered by an attack, like Two-Weapon Fighting.
> 
> You can't for example, cast a Magic Missile and then activate a bonus action before the spell completes.  You have to resolve the MM and then you can activate the bonus action.




An Attack Action is divisible by movement.  That is called out explicitly.  Given that, we know an attack action is divisible by something.  So then what's the basis for claiming it isn't divisible by bonus actions?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> An Attack Action is divisible by movement.  That is called out explicitly.  Given that, we know an attack action is divisible by something.  So then what's the basis for claiming it isn't divisible by bonus actions?




An Attack Action is not divisible by anything if you only get a single attack. It only becomes potentially divisible once a character reaches the point where they get multiple attacks.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> An Attack Action is divisible by movement.  That is called out explicitly.  Given that, we know an attack action is divisible by something.  So then what's the basis for claiming it isn't divisible by bonus actions?




Yes, specific does beat general.  So we know that movement is specifically allowed to divide the Attack Action.  That's what is explicitly permitted.  We also know from JC's official rulings that a bonus action that is triggered by an attack may also do it.  That's it.  I can't think of anything else that specifically says it can be used in the middle of the Attack action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, specific does beat general.  So we know that movement is specifically allowed to divide the Attack Action.  That's what is explicitly permitted.  We also know from JC's official rulings that a bonus action that is triggered by an attack may also do it.  That's it.  I can't think of anything else that specifically says it can be used in the middle of the Attack action.




So your belief is that to divide the attack action that must be specifically allowed in a specific beats general sort of way.  Good!  Then isn't the rule that *a bonus action can be taken when you choose* sufficient to establish a specific beats general case for bonus actions being able to divide the attack action attacks as well?  If it's not then why isn't it?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> An Attack Action is not divisible by anything if you only get a single attack. It only becomes potentially divisible once a character reaches the point where they get multiple attacks.




It never hurts to be more precise!  

Obviously the situation detailed above is the one I am referring to.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So your belief is that to divide the attack action that must be specifically allowed in a specific beats general sort of way.  Good!  Then isn't the rule that *a bonus action can be taken when you choose* sufficient to establish a specific beats general case for bonus actions being able to divide the attack action attacks as well?  If it's not then why isn't it?




No.  A bonus action being taken when you want is also a general rule, not a specific one.  General does not beat general.  A bonus action SPECIFICALLY saying when it can be used would be an example of a specific rule.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2019)

epithet said:


> The rules say "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified..." which suggests that, absent other provisions, you can take your bonus action any time you please. There is no express provision allowing you to use a bonus action during your movement, but I don't see anyone suggesting that you can only break up your movement with your extra attacks.




Note, movement is not an action.  There is no more Move Action in 5e, the way there was in earlier editions.  Thus, movement is not discrete.  You can break up movement pretty much however you want because it's not an action.

Unlike the Attack Action which very much is.

And, considering JC's quote which FrogReaver quoted:



> No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.




pretty much falls in line with precisely what we've been saying, you all can disagree all you like.  Doesn't change the fact that this is how the rules are being officially interpreted.  THIS is how RAW is being interpreted.  It's not like the interpretation is completely left field, obviously, otherwise we wouldn't be forty some pages into the discussion.  

Actions are not divisible, nor can you nest actions within actions.  Makes the game MUCH simpler to adjudicate and run.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I still can't believe JC said this:
> 
> *No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action.* You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.
> 
> ...




C'mon, the context of that first tweet is important.  It's about 3 tweets in on a discussion specifically about Shield Master.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736



> Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn.




https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997096829804549



> If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise. The action as a whole is the condition.




The reply from someone else:

https://twitter.com/clintzbonds/status/995022782055378944



> So if I take the attack action, and am able to attack multiple times per attack action, can I bonus action between the attacks like I can with movement? Related: can I take the attack action and then use a bonus action before making any attacks that the attack action grants me?




https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995024061267767298



> No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.




It's pretty clear to me that Clint was asking about the Shield Master bonus action shove here, and that Jeremy is clarifying that the trigger for the shove is the entire Attack action (i.e. all attacks) not a single weapon attack like Two-Weapon Fighting which says:



> When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.




Here, the "if X" part is "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand", and the "then Y" part is "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand".  This differs from Shield Master, which just says you have to take the Attack action (as a whole) before you are granted the bonus action.

That entire discussion was about bonus actions with timing restrictions, and does not (in my opinion) have anything to do with bonus actions in general.  If you don't believe me, please watch the most recent Sage Advice video where JEC explains all of this in great detail.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  A bonus action being taken when you want is also a general rule, not a specific one.  General does not beat general.  A bonus action SPECIFICALLY saying when it can be used would be an example of a specific rule.




*a bonus action can be taken when you choose* is specific.  It's a specific, explicit and broad rule that covers when bonus actions can be used.  I think you are mistaking broadness for generalness.  Just because a rule is broad doesn't mean it's not specific.

The only thing the rule I keep quoting doesn't do is use the words "this can be used between attacks granted by the attack action".  It doesn't need to do that though because it's specific and explicit that they can be used when you choose and there's no other rule that actually states they can't be used between the attacks of the attack action.  

_If dividing the attack action wasn't possible at all then I'd be with you, but we have numerous examples of it being divisible._ _Heck, if we even had a rule stating the attacks granted by the attack action aren't divisible then I'd be with you, as at that point in time we could debate about which rule took precedence (the general vs general case you alluded to)._ *But we don't actually have that rule*.  So in absence of that rule shouldn't we actually go by the rule that we have which is that you choose when to use your bonus action?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> It's pretty clear to me that Clint was asking about the Shield Master bonus action shove here, and that Jeremy is clarifying that the trigger for the shove is the entire Attack action (i.e. all attacks) not a single weapon attack like Two-Weapon Fighting which says:




Clint didn't ask about shield master, he asked about a bonus action.  He may have meant to ask about shield master, I can't say.  JC may have thought he was asking about shield master, that I can't say.  I do know that many times on twitter followup questions are asked that are related to the original question but not exactly the same.  I personally think this was one of those cases.  I think because JC said something about bonus actions in relation to shield master that someone asked him in general about bonus actions.  Is that an unreasonable stance?

Either way it doesn't really matter because JC's answer was so broad that it covered all bonus actions and not just shield master.  He could have wrote a book about shield master and made the same statement and it still wouldn't mean those words only apply to shield master.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Clint didn't ask about shield master, he asked about a bonus action.  He may have meant to ask about shield master, I can't say.  JC may have thought he was asking about shield master, that I can't say.  I do know that many times on twitter followup questions are asked that are related to the original question but not exactly the same.  I personally think this was one of those cases.  I think because JC said something about bonus actions in relation to shield master that someone asked him in general about bonus actions.  Is that an unreasonable stance?
> 
> Either way it doesn't really matter because JC's answer was so broad that it covered all bonus actions and not just shield master.  He could have wrote a book about shield master and made the same statement and it still wouldn't mean those words only apply to shield master.




Okay, so there's a long Twitter thread about Shield Master where JEC makes a broader statement, or the PHB wording itself and the most recent Sage Advice video where he explicitly says that if the bonus action doesn't have specific timing built into it, you can take it at any time on your turn.

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=304

Given the large amount of confusion about all of this, I think I'll lean towards the Sage Advice segment about bonus actions and the timing thereof for the answer here.  I don't think he can be any clearer in the segment above for bonus actions without timing restrictions/triggers.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Okay, so there's a long Twitter thread about Shield Master where JEC makes a broader statement, or the PHB wording itself and the most recent Sage Advice video where he explicitly says that if the bonus action doesn't have specific timing built into it, you can take it at any time on your turn.
> 
> https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=304
> 
> Given the large amount of confusion about all of this, I think I'll lean towards the Sage Advice segment about bonus actions and the timing thereof for the answer here.  I don't think he can be any clearer in the segment above for bonus actions without timing restrictions/triggers.




I listened to the relevant part of the video.  He was pretty adamant that you can use your bonus action when you choose on your turn.  However, he didn't specify the exact situation we are discussing.  So it could be more clear IMO.  I'm certainly not convinced that we can conclude he misspoke on twitter based on this segment, though it does raise that as a possibility.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I listened to the relevant part of the video.  He was pretty adamant that you can use your bonus action when you choose on your turn.  However, he didn't specify the exact situation we are discussing.  So it could be more clear IMO.  I'm certainly not convinced that we can conclude he misspoke on twitter based on this segment, though it does raise that as a possibility.




I knew I'd seen this before.  Reading more of the thread, we see this:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995134313841676288



> My tweet below was addressing bonus actions and reactions that have triggers. A bonus action that has no trigger—such as Cunning Action and the misty step spell—can take place whenever you want on your turn (PH, 189).




So yeah, he was specifically talking about bonus actions with triggers like Shield Master and Two-Weapon Fighting when discussing the "if X then Y" timing, and what that means when X is "the Attack action".  The tweet above makes it clear that bonus actions without triggers, such as Misty Step, can indeed be taken between attacks granted by Extra Attack while you're taking the Attack action.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

Nevermind


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> *a bonus action can be taken when you choose* is specific.  It's a specific, explicit and broad rule that covers when bonus actions can be used.  I think you are mistaking broadness for generalness.  Just because a rule is broad doesn't mean it's not specific.




JC says it is a general rule, not a specific one in this ruling.  "No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action."

If it was a specific rule, it would specify that you can interrupt the Attack action, but it doesn't.  



> The only thing the rule I keep quoting doesn't do is use the words "this can be used between attacks granted by the attack action".  It doesn't need to do that though because it's specific and explicit that they can be used when you choose and there's no other rule that actually states they can't be used between the attacks of the attack action.




Not so.  See above.  If it doesn't specifically state you can use it in the middle of the Attack action, you can't.  The reason is that it is a general rule.  It is telling you generally how bonus actions work.  A general rule cannot create an exception for another general rule, even if it appears to.  It requires a specific rule to do so.



> _If dividing the attack action wasn't possible at all then I'd be with you, but we have numerous examples of it being divisible._




By SPECIFIC rules man! We do indeed have multiple specific rules creating exceptions.  That alone should clue you in that the general rule on bonus actions does not apply.  If it did, we wouldn't have these specific rules creating all those exceptions.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Okay, so there's a long Twitter thread about Shield Master where JEC makes a broader statement, or the PHB wording itself and the most recent Sage Advice video where he explicitly says that if the bonus action doesn't have specific timing built into it, you can take it at any time on your turn.




But without specific wording, you cannot take two actions at the same time.  A bonus action is still an action.  It's just a bonus one.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> But without specific wording, you cannot take two actions at the same time.  A bonus action is still an action.  It's just a bonus one.




A bonus action is not an action, though.  You can't just convert one to the other.  The bonus action rules explicitly say that you get to decide when you take your bonus action (if you have one), unless the bonus action itself specifies a timing restriction or trigger.  JEC has clarified this on Twitter, in response to questions along the lines of the discussion we're having now:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/05/23/clarification-about-bonus-actions/

In particular, the section with the following:

"It’s not just about shield master or triggered bonus actions when you say that no rule permits a bonus action between multiple attacks."

...

"But you wanted to know where you said no bonus actions between attacks. I identified the phrase. Whether you meant that or not, that’s what you said here."

"Ah ha! Now I get what you're driving at. I was focused on bonus actions with triggers. You're talking about bonus actions without triggers. I'll clarify things! Thanks for your patience."

The in the Sage Advice video also talks about how actions and bonus actions are separate things.


----------



## guachi (Feb 18, 2019)

Every time Shield Master devolves into a multi-hundred post argument I get a thrill that I'm the one who asked the question on Twitter in the first place. Created a Twitter account just to ask the question, in fact.

You're welcome.

Give XP if you are thankful. Laugh at me if you rue the day I asked the question.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> A bonus action is not an action, though.  You can't just convert one to the other.  The bonus action rules explicitly say that you get to decide when you take your bonus action (if you have one), unless the bonus action itself specifies a timing restriction or trigger.  JEC has clarified this on Twitter, in response to questions along the lines of the discussion we're having now:
> 
> https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/05/23/clarification-about-bonus-actions/
> 
> ...




These quotes seal the deal, though.

1. "There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190). *There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest actions/reactions inside each other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create exceptions meant to disrupt them.*"

Right there it he is saying that actions are indivisible except by specific beats general.

2. "In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight."

And here is where he says there is specific timing in the Shield Master feat, where taking and completing the requirement for the bonus action is necessary in order to get it.  Basically, if there is a requirement that needs to be met in order to get a bonus action, there is timing built into that bonus action.

So while a bonus action with no trigger at all could be used in-between attacks(it still can't be used simultaneously with one), Shield Master still requires that you complete the full Attack action.  The last portion is at odds with #1 above, though.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> These quotes seal the deal, though.
> 
> 1. "There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190). *There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest actions/reactions inside each other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create exceptions meant to disrupt them.*"
> 
> ...




Right, so it sounds like you’re agreeing with me?  Misty Step or Healing Word between attacks is fine, Shield Master shove not allowed until all attacks are taken because it has a timing requirement that must be met before you even have the bonus action.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Right, so it sounds like you’re agreeing with me?  Misty Step or Healing Word between attacks is fine, Shield Master shove not allowed until all attacks are taken because it has a timing requirement that must be met before you even have the bonus action.




I would say yes to the first part, but I am leaning toward the Shield Master bonus action being allowed in between the first attack and any extra attacks a character has as part of their attack action. The rule is not well worded and Crawford's explanations are not well worded either, really. When you "take the attack action" is present tense, so it reads like you can mix in the bonus action in between attacks because you are in the process. If the wording was when you "have taken the attack action", which is past tense, then it would be obvious you would have to complete all attacks that are part of the action before the bonus action triggers.

For example, a fighter with two attacks and Shield Master who is facing three enemies should be able to use the first attack on one enemy, knock the second one out of the way with his shield, then attack the third, especially if I want my game running more cinematically than a typical D&D game.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> These quotes seal the deal, though.
> 
> 1. "There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190). *There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest actions/reactions inside each other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create exceptions meant to disrupt them.*"
> 
> ...



I wasn't going to reply to this thread anymore, but reading through Jeremy's tweets definitely clarified things.

I believed that you could not take bonus actions in the middle of another action, because nothing said you could. Just saying "you can take a bonus action anytime" is not specific enough for me. I have played hundreds of games, and in none of them can you take an action in the middle of another action unless it specifically says so. It would have been a lot clearer if it had said: "You can take a bonus action any time during your turn, even in the middle of other actions."

But anyway, apparently I was wrong. You can take bonus actions in the middle of other actions. Although I will probably house rule some limitations on that. Like casting a bonus spell in the middle of casting another spell (like Eldritch Blast). But I understand that would be a house rule.

You still can't take the bonus action shove from Shield Master until after you have completed the attack though. Which is fine since that is the way we have always run it.


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Right, so it sounds like you’re agreeing with me?  Misty Step or Healing Word between attacks is fine, Shield Master shove not allowed until all attacks are taken because it has a timing requirement that must be met before you even have the bonus action.



This seems correct to me.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 18, 2019)

Lord Twig said:


> This seems correct to me.



And likely why no mention of indivisible action made it into the two official resources once they made them explicit.

Partly at least.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> JC says it is a general rule, not a specific one in this ruling.  "No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action."
> 
> If it was a specific rule, it would specify that you can interrupt the Attack action, but it doesn't.
> 
> ...




There isn’t even a general or specific rule that says attacks granted by the attack action can’t be divided.  It may well be RAI that they cannot but that rule isn’t actually written.  As such I’ve not got to find a specific rule to say I can do something between attacks granted by the attack action. Instead, I just need a rule that says “you choose when to take your bonus action” because there’s no other actual rule at all that this rule is competing with.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I knew I'd seen this before.  Reading more of the thread, we see this:
> 
> https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995134313841676288
> 
> ...




Great find. Then he simply misspoke. That’s good to know!  That makes the whole ordeal less unimaginable.  

That said I don’t buy that his statement we are discussing even applies to triggered bonus actions. But I’ll let him backtrack at his own pace and save some face since the biggest issue was about not being able to use non-triggered bonus actions between attacks.  I think he’s sufficiently clarified that part.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 18, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> You mean the tweet that's since been deleted and corrected by many other tweets, videos and the Sage Advice Compendium itself?




Although Jeremy Crawford claimed to have deleted the original tweet in the 2/1/19 Sage Advice segment on Dragon Talk to which you linked, he didn't. It's right here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329, and yes, I think it's evidence of the intent with which the rules were written. It also implies that when/if conditions don't constitute specified timing for bonus actions to which they apply.

I also find his story about it being a "clipped" tweet that he didn't remember tweeting because he was in line at Trader Joe's or waiting for someone at a bar to be completely unconvincing. The tweet doesn't read as a case of him pressing send before he was finished composing his thoughts or anything like that. I think rather that it accurately reflects his thinking about bonus actions at the time, and that he has since changed his mind about his interpretation of the RAW and doesn't want to publicly take responsibility for the change.



Asgorath said:


> Sage Advice on Shield Master bonus action:
> 
> https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=1392
> 
> ...




He didn't say anything in the Dragon Talk video about the bonus action shove having been intended as a finishing move. What he said is that it wasn't intended to give you advantage on all your attacks upon successfully knocking your opponent prone. I think his original tweet calls this statement into question, however. 

His "finishing move" tweet, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be an expression of intent, but rather a doubling-down on his RAW interpretation, focusing on what the feat "is", even though the questioner had asked about what the feat "was" supposed to be. This sort of evasive answer has become typical for Crawford.

I also don't get why you and Jeremy seem to think the absence of an action-declaration phase from 5E combat is at all relevant. The player doesn't need to declare actions for his/her entire turn. All s/he needs to do is describe to the table that his/her character is shoving another creature, which is a totally permissible move no matter what happens on the rest of his/her turn.



Asgorath said:


> Taking the Attack action means the action as a whole:
> 
> https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/994997096829804549
> 
> ...




Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with only taking part of the Attack action, but I disagree with Crawford that the condition must happen first. Also, I disagree that "If X, then Y" constitutes a timing restriction or implies any particular sequence of events.



Asgorath said:


> Right, but the important part is that you shove after your attacks, because it's intended to be a finishing move to help the rest of your party.




You haven't established that intent. If it was, I think the feat would have said something to that effect. Such a move may not help your party at all if, for example, you're the only melee combatant.



Asgorath said:


> I'm merely pointing out what the rules say, and what JEC has been saying/clarifying about those rules for a long time now.  You can obviously do whatever you want, but at this point, I don't think you can claim that the intent of the Shield Master slam is that it's an opening move.




I think the intent, as per Crawford's original tweet and the RAW for bonus actions with no specified timing, is that you use the bonus action shove at a time of your choosing during your turn. And you aren't "merely pointing out what the rules say". You're making a particular interpretation with which I happen to disagree.



Asgorath said:


> This particular ruling didn't make me stop playing my character.  However, every time I used it as an opening move, I thought it was kind of dumb and overpowered and detracted from my other abilities like Vow of Enmity.




So, why'd you keep doing it?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 18, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Although Jeremy Crawford claimed to have deleted the original tweet in the 2/1/19 Sage Advice segment on Dragon Talk to which you linked, he didn't. It's right here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329, and yes, I think it's evidence of the intent with which the rules were written. It also implies that when/if conditions don't constitute specified timing for bonus actions to which they apply.
> 
> I also find his story about it being a "clipped" tweet that he didn't remember tweeting because he was in line at Trader Joe's or waiting for someone at a bar to be completely unconvincing. The tweet doesn't read as a case of him pressing send before he was finished composing his thoughts or anything like that. I think rather that it accurately reflects his thinking about bonus actions at the time, and that he has since changed his mind about his interpretation of the RAW and doesn't want to publicly take responsibility for the change.




If you'd rather use the one tweet that JEC says he doesn't even remember tweeting as the basis for your interpretation, despite the massive amount of evidence that suggests that particular tweet was incorrect (including JEC saying on many different occasions on many different platforms that the original tweet was incorrect), then we'll just have to agree to disagree. The latest Sage Advice compendium is pretty clear on the matter:



> 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.




This is the exact opposite of what the original incorrect tweet says, and is quite clear about how the timing of this particular bonus action works.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I also find his story about it being a "clipped" tweet that he didn't remember tweeting because he was in line at Trader Joe's or waiting for someone at a bar to be completely unconvincing. The tweet doesn't read as a case of him pressing send before he was finished composing his thoughts or anything like that. I think rather that it accurately reflects his thinking about bonus actions at the time, and that he has since changed his mind about his interpretation of the RAW and doesn't want to publicly take responsibility for the change.
> 
> His "finishing move" tweet, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be an expression of intent, but rather a doubling-down on his RAW interpretation, focusing on what the feat "is", even though the questioner had asked about what the feat "was" supposed to be. This sort of evasive answer has become typical for Crawford.




You're seeing what you want to see, not what's there.  That tweet you just linked was one sentence with commas.  It wasn't some super composed tweet as you make it out to be.  I could write that up in about 10 seconds while in line somewhere as well.  And his finishing move tweet is an expression of intent, whether you believe it or not.



> The player doesn't need to declare actions for his/her entire turn. All s/he needs to do is describe to the table that his/her character is shoving another creature, which is a totally permissible move no matter what happens on the rest of his/her turn.




This is true, but to do so requires taking an attack action.  Either to get the attack to convert into the shove, or to get the bonus action from Shield Master.  You cannot get the bonus action from Shield Master before you take the attack action.  That's not how the rules work.



> Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with only taking part of the Attack action, but I disagree with Crawford that the condition must happen first. Also, I disagree that "If X, then Y" constitutes a timing restriction or implies any particular sequence of events.




Do you disagree that longswords deal damage when they hit, too?  If you do, change it like you are changing these rules.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Making an attack does not equal an attack action.




This is the question to which I was responding:



Asgorath said:


> What happens if you say "hey I'm going to take the Attack action, so let me use my Shield Master shove first" but the enemy uses a reaction that incapacitates you, preventing you from actually making your attacks?




This hypothetical situation that both [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] and Jeremy Crawford have brought up as a problem with the interpretation that allows a shield master to bonus action shove first isn't actually a problem. If the only action you take on your turn is to shove a creature, then it most certainly counts as taking the Attack action. Since that's the situation we're talking about, none of the things you bring up in your post about what happens after I've shoved a creature matter because, according to the example given, at that point, I've been incapacitated.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 19, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> If you'd rather use the one tweet that JEC says he doesn't even remember tweeting as the basis for your interpretation, despite the massive amount of evidence that suggests that particular tweet was incorrect (including JEC saying on many different occasions on many different platforms that the original tweet was incorrect), then we'll just have to agree to disagree. The latest Sage Advice compendium is pretty clear on the matter:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the exact opposite of what the original incorrect tweet says, and is quite clear about how the timing of this particular bonus action works.




He changed his mind about his interpretation. I'm not sure what "massive amount of evidence" you're talking about *other* than him changing his mind, though. What we disagree about is that you think I'm making an error in interpretation. My view is that both interpretations are valid. I know which one I prefer, however.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 19, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Since you started this most recent run with the following i think it helps to repeat it...
> 
> "One thing about how players seem to think 5e works just astonishes me, and I believe stems from 5e's lack of wording; something that players of 3e would not do... ...and that is: not realising the consequences of the 'instantaneous' duration!"
> 
> ...






This edition, 5e, is proud of the fact that it uses 'natural language' rather than more technical language like in 3e and 4e.

Fine. The consequence of this 'natural language' decision is that words in the rules mean what they mean in everyday language, rather than loads of words being defined in the game which only have that meaning in this game.

The word 'instantaneous' has a real world meaning. The 'natural language' decision means that 'instantaneous' means the same thing in the rules as it does outside the rules, unless 5e were to publish a rules definition of that word which excludes the real-world meaning.

Since they have not, we are left with the real-world definition of 'instantaneous': an infinitely small, but non-zero, period of time.

That has consequences. It means that all of the effects of a spell with an instantaneous duration happen at the same time, because there can be no 'before' or 'after' _within_ that infinitely small time period, because if you could sub-divide a time period then by definition it could not be infinitely small!

There is no point claiming that you are using 'natural language' and then using that language in un-defined ways that are opposite to their actual meanings!


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> A general rule cannot create an exception for another general rule, even if it appears to.  It requires a specific rule to do so.




Putting aside the fact that I don't agree with your assertion about which rule counts as general and which counts as specific...!

"A general rule cannot create an exception for another general rule".

Fine.

One 'general' rule (which I'm granting for the sake of argument) is 'bonus actions can be taken whenever you want in your turn'.

What is this other general rule you think is in opposition?

Is it the phantom 'actions are indivisible' rule?

Because, if that is the other general rule, then I will point out once again, _there is no such rule!_

If that is not the other general rule, then what is?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> But without specific wording, you cannot take two actions at the same time.  A bonus action is still an action.  It's just a bonus one.




Why not?

What rule prevents you?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 19, 2019)

Dash: double the distance you can walk *this turn*.

Disengage: your movement *this turn* does not provoke AoAs.

Dodge: if you are attacked at any time *from now until the start of your next turn* that attack roll has disadvantage.

Attack: you may execute the attacks that you have *from now until the end of this turn*.

Hide: you become hidden *until your Stealth check is beaten, your cover goes away, or you do something to end your hidden condition*.

There are two ways to view when an action ends:-

1) 'taking an action' is an instantaneous event, but the _effects_ of that action (movement, not provoking, dodging, executing your attacks, being hidden) have a duration.

2) 'taking an action' is the same thing as the action itself, which means the action itself has a duration, and the action has not ended until that duration expires. Dash, Disengage, Attack start when you 'take the action' and only end when your turn ends. Dodge starts when you take the action and only ends at the start of your next turn. Hide starts when you take the Hide action and only ends when you are discovered, your cover goes away, or if you do something to end it.

If 1) is true, then yes, 'actions are indivisible', but not because there is any such rule but because 'taking an action' is an instantaneous event and you cannot divide 'instantaneous'. However, the _effects_ of that action have a duration, and nothing prevents those effects being divided. This means that your bonus action shove has been generated as soon as you 'took the attack action' and you are now free to use that bonus action whenever you want, even between attacks or before you execute your first attack.

If 2) is true, then the question of whether or not 'actions are indivisible' becomes relevant.

2a) Actions ARE divisible: this means you can cast a bonus action spell _while you are in the middle of an action_. So you can _misty step_ after you take the Dash action, the Disengage action, the Dodge action, _the Attack action_, the Hide action, etc. This means that you definitely can take the bonus action shield bash between attacks, and arguably before you execute the first attack.

2b) Actions are NOT divisible: this means that you *cannot* cast a bonus action spell while you are in the middle of an action. So you could not _misty step_ after you take the Dash action! The Disengage action! The Dodge action! The Attack action! OR the Hide action!

It also means that a rogue who uses Cunning Action to Dash or Disengage as a bonus action before he uses his action for anything, now *cannot* take his actual action for anything at all! _Actions are indivisible_, so because his Dash or Disengage started when he took that bonus action and will not end until the end of his turn, his turn is already over before he can use his action for anything!

Also, since some posters are fond of asserting that you can only move between attacks is because there is a clause which says you can, and without such a clause then you could not, this means that you cannot move _during_ any action _except_ the Attack action! If 2b) is true AND that assertion is true, then after you take the Dash, Disengage or Dodge actions, _you are not allowed to move!_

I contend that 2b) is absurd. There is no reason at all to suppose that you cannot take a bonus action after you Dash, Disengage, Hide or Dodge, and there is no excuse for treating the Attack action differently without a written rule which says so; if you do, that is the fallacy of Special Pleading.

It is also absurd to imagine you cannot move after you take the Dash or Disengage actions! They would become meaningless! This shows that the clause which says you can move between attacks is not a rules exception, it just reminds us that the ability to divide your move is not restricted by multiple attacks, important for players of previous editions who would assume the opposite.

If 2b) is absurd, this leaves either 2a), which certainly allows a bonus action between attacks and arguably allows it before the first attack, and 1) which certainly allows the bonus action between attacks or before your first attack.

Easy!


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 19, 2019)

Hriston said:


> This hypothetical situation that both [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] and Jeremy Crawford have brought up as a problem with the interpretation that allows a shield master to bonus action shove first isn't actually a problem. If the only action you take on your turn is to shove a creature, then it most certainly counts as taking the Attack action. Since that's the situation we're talking about, none of the things you bring up in your post about what happens after I've shoved a creature matter because, according to the example given, at that point, I've been incapacitated.




Where's the rule that lets you go back in time and change your bonus action to an action instead?  Given the fact that the Shield Master shove has a trigger of taking the Attack action first, how did you even do the bonus action first?  The Sage Advice compendium is quite clear that this isn't supported by the rules, and I'm not aware of any rule that lets you retroactively change a bonus action to an action if something happens that prevents you from taking your action.



Hriston said:


> He changed his mind about his interpretation. I'm not sure what "massive amount of evidence" you're talking about *other* than him changing his mind, though. What we disagree about is that you think I'm making an error in interpretation. My view is that both interpretations are valid. I know which one I prefer, however.




Again, we can agree to disagree about what happened here, though I think his explanation of the original tweet (i.e. he replied when he did not have the books in front of him and then promptly forgot about it) is reasonable.  Once he realized that the incorrect tweet existed, he's been going out of his way to correct it on many different platforms, including putting a new question about it in the latest Sage Advice compendium and doing a whole segment on Dragon Talk about it.  If "following your bliss" means ignoring all of his most recent statements and essentially house-ruling that Shield Master just gives you a bonus action shove, more power to you.  I just think it's really hard to argue that it's the intent of the feat at this point in time.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 19, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You're seeing what you want to see, not what's there.  That tweet you just linked was one sentence with commas.  It wasn't some super composed tweet as you make it out to be.  I could write that up in about 10 seconds while in line somewhere as well.  And his finishing move tweet is an expression of intent, whether you believe it or not.




"Super composed"? I made no such claim. It's a tweet, after all. Why would you expect it to be more than one sentence?

I disagree that Crawford's colloquial use of the phrase _supposed to be_ constitutes a statement of designer intent.



Maxperson said:


> This is true, but to do so requires taking an attack action.  Either to get the attack to convert into the shove, or to get the bonus action from Shield Master.  You cannot get the bonus action from Shield Master before you take the attack action.  That's not how the rules work.




You don't "get" attacks by taking the Attack action. You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks. See the difference? And we aren't talking about how things work at your table.



Maxperson said:


> Do you disagree that longswords deal damage when they hit, too?  If you do, change it like you are changing these rules.




I'm not changing any rules. I'm using the same rules in the book that you are. I'm just using a different interpretation of those rules than you are. Does that make you uncomfortable?


----------



## Lord Twig (Feb 19, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Dash: double the distance you can walk *this turn*.
> 
> Disengage: your movement *this turn* does not provoke AoAs.
> 
> ...



I think option 1 is the way to go. Actions are indivisible and instantaneous, but can have lasting durations. They also can be interrupted, of course, by reactions. So you can't do things in the middle of casting a spell or right in the middle of doing a dodge action. Before or after the dodge, sure, but not in the middle. 

The attack action is an exception of course. You can move between the attacks of the action. So I would rule that while you can't use a bonus action in the middle of making an attack, because actions are instantaneous, you could use bonus actions while moving in between those attacks (even if you move 0'). There is no rule saying exactly this, but that would (and will) be my ruling at the table. Essentially the movement allowance between attacks is interrupting the instantaneous action, just like a reaction would, then once the movement ends the attack action continues. Just like if your spell were interrupted by a counterspell that failed to counter your spell. 

Speaking of counterspell, this ruling prevents the situation of a warlock casting eldritch blast with multiple blasts who, after the first blast, then misty steps into view of a caster with counterspell. The caster should be able to counterspell the eldritch blast, but then it should counter the whole spell, not just the remaining blasts.

Anyway, I am not going to say that this way of running things is the only way to do it by the RAW. But it is not a house rule either. This is just my interpretation of the RAW based on the natural English used and what makes sense to me. Rulings over rules.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 19, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Where's the rule that lets you go back in time and change your bonus action to an action instead?




Are you asking me this question as a player or as a character? As a player, it was always my intention to use my bonus action to shove. Since I was prevented from doing that, however, it counts as my full action. As a character, my intention is to shove a creature. Whether that uses my action or my bonus action doesn't have any relevance to me.



Asgorath said:


> Given the fact that the Shield Master shove has a trigger of taking the Attack action first, how did you even do the bonus action first?




The trigger isn't taking the Attack action *first*. It's taking the Attack action *on your turn*. I can do the bonus action shove first because I am taking the Attack action on my current turn.



Asgorath said:


> The Sage Advice compendium is quite clear that this isn't supported by the rules, and I'm not aware of any rule that lets you retroactively change a bonus action to an action if something happens that prevents you from taking your action.




There's nothing retroactive about it. All that happens in the fiction is that my character shoves a creature. That event is resolved at the table with a contest. Whether or not it uses my action or bonus action has no rules relevance at this point. If after that I'm able to take my full Attack action, then I've qualified for the shove to have used my bonus action. If not, then it counts as my action.



Asgorath said:


> Again, we can agree to disagree about what happened here, though I think his explanation of the original tweet (i.e. he replied when he did not have the books in front of him and then promptly forgot about it) is reasonable.  Once he realized that the incorrect tweet existed, he's been going out of his way to correct it on many different platforms, including putting a new question about it in the latest Sage Advice compendium and doing a whole segment on Dragon Talk about it.  If "following your bliss" means ignoring all of his most recent statements and essentially house-ruling that Shield Master just gives you a bonus action shove, more power to you.  I just think it's really hard to argue that it's the intent of the feat at this point in time.




There is no "intent of the feat at this point in time". There is only "intent of the feat when it was written". That's what RAI means. The RAI doesn't change. All that has changed here is Crawford's (official) interpretation of the RAW. And it isn't a house-rule to use a different interpretation.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 19, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Are you asking me this question as a player or as a character? As a player, it was always my intention to use my bonus action to shove. Since I was prevented from doing that, however, it counts as my full action. As a character, my intention is to shove a creature. Whether that uses my action or my bonus action doesn't have any relevance to me.




But the rules provide a framework for your character to act in combat.  If you want to shove first, then the rules say you have to take the Attack action and use one of your attacks to shove, because you don't have a bonus action from the Shield Master feat yet.  So, if you have 2 attacks from Extra Attack, you could use the first to shove, and then have advantage on your second attack.  If you have the Shield Master feat, you now have a bonus action which can be used to shove someone else as well.



Hriston said:


> The trigger isn't taking the Attack action *first*. It's taking the Attack action *on your turn*. I can do the bonus action shove first because I am taking the Attack action on my current turn.




This is incorrect.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736

"Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn."

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

"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.

This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play."



Hriston said:


> There's nothing retroactive about it. All that happens in the fiction is that my character shoves a creature. That event is resolved at the table with a contest. Whether or not it uses my action or bonus action has no rules relevance at this point. If after that I'm able to take my full Attack action, then I've qualified for the shove to have used my bonus action. If not, then it counts as my action.




Again, there is no action declaration phase in 5E where you can say "I intend to take the Attack action in the future" which would unlock the bonus action.  The rules provide the framework that the player and DM translate what your character wants to do into the underlying mechanics of the game.  On your turn, you have movement and an action.  You can use an attack from the Attack action to shove a creature, and then if you still have attacks from Extra Attack left, you could attack the now-prone target with advantage.  If you have the Shield Master feat, you could also do an extra shove after all of that has been resolved.



Hriston said:


> There is no "intent of the feat at this point in time". There is only "intent of the feat when it was written". That's what RAI means. The RAI doesn't change. All that has changed here is Crawford's (official) interpretation of the RAW. And it isn't a house-rule to use a different interpretation.




I think it's a real stretch to argue that the intent of the feat back in 2014 when the PHB was released was that you could shove before attacking.  I don't know of anyone who was playing it that way before JEC made his infamous and incorrect tweet in 2015.  In the years following that tweet, many people (myself included) looked at that tweet and changed the way we played the feat at our tables.  It never really made sense to me, but I figured if JEC said it, then that's how it was supposed to be played.  He has since corrected this, and in the process, actually explained the intent of the bonus action shove (i.e. it's designed to be a finishing move to help your melee allies out).

Based on all the information we have today, I think it's hard to argue the RAI is the exact opposite of what he's now saying the intent of the feat is.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2019)

Hriston said:


> The *trigger* isn't taking the Attack action first. It's taking the Attack action on your turn. I can do the bonus action shove first because I am taking the Attack action on my current turn.




I'm very curious what you think the word "trigger" means...

If the trigger is taking the attack action on your turn and you haven't yet taken the attack action on your turn then how has anything been triggered?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 20, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Dash: double the distance you can walk *this turn*.
> 
> Disengage: your movement *this turn* does not provoke AoAs.
> 
> ...




I'm in the camp of #2, except that I don't think that Dash, Disengage and Attack have a duration of your turn.  Dash would last until your movement is done, Disengage would be similar, and Attack would end when the last attack granted by the Attack action finishes.  

JC has stated that action are discrete and can only be interrupted by specific instances, but then later said that he was only talking about specific instances, and not about general bonus actions, which contradicts the "only" portion of his first statement.  I asked for clarity on Twitter, but no response yet.

Personally, since I view actions as taking varied amounts of time, I will allow them to be interrupted by things that make sense.  I've seen the argument made that actions like Dodge are instantaneous, but that makes no sense whatsoever.  If it were instant,  you could literally do a 1 second jig and then stand stock still until your next turn, and every attack made on you while you aren't moving at all would be at disadvantage.  That to me is nonsense.  Dodge to me MUST continue until the PC's next turn, allowing him to dodge and give disadvantage to attacks that happen during that turn.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 20, 2019)

Hriston said:


> You don't "get" attacks by taking the Attack action. You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks.




By RAW you do take the attack action to get the attacks.

"*With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack*. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter,* allow you to make more than one attack with this action*."

With the action you make an attack, not you make an attack and you get the action.  Extra attack allows you to make more than one attack with the action, not making two attacks gives you the action.



> See the difference? And we aren't talking about how things work at your table.
> 
> I'm not changing any rules. I'm using the same rules in the book that you are. I'm just using a different interpretation of those rules than you are. Does that make you uncomfortable?




I do see the difference.  I'm discussing RAW and you are not.  And yes, I suppose yours is an "interpretation," in the same way as you could interpret day as night, hot as cold, and wet as dry.  Your arguments smack of sophistry designed to allow you to do something that the rules do not allow.  Why is it so hard for you to just admit that you are changing the rules and you enjoy playing in a way that is different from RAW?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I'm in the camp of #2, except that I don't think that Dash, Disengage and Attack have a duration of your turn.  Dash would last until your movement is done, Disengage would be similar, and Attack would end when the last attack granted by the Attack action finishes.
> 
> JC has stated that action are discrete and can only be interrupted by specific instances, but then later said that he was only talking about specific instances, and not about general bonus actions, which contradicts the "only" portion of his first statement.  I asked for clarity on Twitter, but no response yet.
> 
> Personally, since I view actions as taking varied amounts of time, I will allow them to be interrupted by things that make sense.  I've seen the argument made that actions like Dodge are instantaneous, but that makes no sense whatsoever.  If it were instant,  you could literally do a 1 second jig and then stand stock still until your next turn, and every attack made on you while you aren't moving at all would be at disadvantage.  That to me is nonsense.  Dodge to me MUST continue until the PC's next turn, allowing him to dodge and give disadvantage to attacks that happen during that turn.




The issue with disengage particularly is this:



> You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.




So consider the statement:  "If you take the disengage action then it must end before you can move and thus you never are able to move while under the effects of the disengage action."  We all agree that's absurd (at least I hope we do).  Thus, at a minimum we know that the disengage action itself doesn't extend over the full period of time that it's effects occur.  

This is a very important point to establish in this discussion.  That actions aren't simultaneous with their effects.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 20, 2019)

Hriston said:


> This hypothetical situation that both [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] and Jeremy Crawford have brought up as a problem with the interpretation that allows a shield master to bonus action shove first isn't actually a problem. If the only action you take on your turn is to shove a creature, then it most certainly counts as taking the Attack action.




RAW does not allow it to take a Bonus Action as the Attack action.  Actions and Bonus Actions are defined and different in the rules.  One is not the other and a Bonus Action cannot be converted into an Action short of a house rule.  If you use the Bonus Action to shove, you did not take an action if you are knocked out.  What you did is cheat and take a Bonus Action that you were not allowed to take because the trigger never happened.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Feb 20, 2019)

I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules, so can someone tell me if it is possible to take the Attack action when it isn't your turn?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 20, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So consider the statement:  "If you take the disengage action then it must end before you can move and thus you never are able to move while under the effects of the disengage action."  We all agree that's absurd (at least I hope we do).  *Thus, at a minimum we know that the disengage action itself doesn't extend over the full period of time that it's effects occur*.




Shouldn't the bold portion be "does extend over the full period of time that its effects occur."?  The rule is as follows, "If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn."  That's it.  It simply allows all of your movement, which is not an action, to not provoke an opportunity attack.  It clearly lasts until your movement is done.  

What you can do on your turn when you use the disengage action is use part of your movement, use the Disengage action, then finish your move with the rest of that move not provoking attacks.  Or you can use the action, then use all or part of your movement on your turn without provoking an attack.  Lastly,  you can move fully, use the Disengage action, not move any further and be done.  In the first and second examples the Disengage action lasts from the moment you take it until the moment your movement ends or turn ends if you still have movement.  In the third example it's instantaneous and does nothing except make you feel foolish for wasting your action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules, so can someone tell me if it is possible to take the Attack action when it isn't your turn?




The only possibility I can think of would be a ready action which let's you use your reaction to act later in the round.  It's not explicitly defined as letting you take an attack action when it isn't your turn so there may be some disagreement with terminology but that's essentially what would be occurring no matter how people want to define the terms around that interaction.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 20, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules, so can someone tell me if it is possible to take the Attack action when it isn't your turn?




No.  You can only take reactions when it's not your turn.  There's a work-around called Ready, though.  You can Ready to attack when something specific occurs, allowing you to effectively use your Attack action as a Reaction.

Edit:  Jinx!


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Shouldn't the bold portion be "does extend over the full period of time that its effects occur."?  The rule is as follows, "If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn."  That's it.  It simply allows all of your movement, which is not an action, to not provoke an opportunity attack.  It clearly lasts until your movement is done.
> 
> What you can do on your turn when you use the disengage action is use part of your movement, use the Disengage action, then finish your move with the rest of that move not provoking attacks.  Or you can use the action, then use all or part of your movement on your turn without provoking an attack.  Lastly,  you can move fully, use the Disengage action, not move any further and be done.  In the first and second examples the Disengage action lasts from the moment you take it until the moment your movement ends or turn ends if you still have movement.  In the third example it's instantaneous and does nothing except make you feel foolish for wasting your action.




I said it exactly as I meant it.  

Let me repeat:  The issue is that rules only provide for you moving before or after an action (barring a specific exception like the attack action).  So if you take the disengage action, we know it's effects last till the end of the turn.  We also know that movement is only allowed before or after an action unless it's specifically called out like it is in the attack action example.  (I quoted the rule above)

Option 1)  The disengage action itself lasts as long as it's effects.  If this was true then given the above rule you would have a strange interaction.  You would not be able to actually move after taking the disengage action since it would last until the end of your turn and you can't move while taking an action, only before or after it.

or Option 2)  The disengage action doesn't last as long as it's effects.  Thus you would have some period of time between when the action ends and when the effects end (which is at the end of your turn) that you would be allowed to move and benefit from it's effect.  

We all disagree with option 1 and thus option 2 is the only reasonable alternative.  Thus we know that the disengage action doesn't last as long as it's effects.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  *You can only take reactions when it's not your turn*.  There's a work-around called Ready, though.  You can Ready to attack when something specific occurs, allowing you to effectively use your Attack action as a Reaction.
> 
> Edit:  Jinx!




Stop lying to the new guy.  The bolded is demonstrably false.

PHB


> A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 20, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I said it exactly as I meant it.
> 
> Let me repeat:  The issue is that rules only provide for you moving before or after an action (barring a specific exception like the attack action).  So if you take the disengage action, we know it's effects last till the end of the turn.  We also know that movement is only allowed before or after an action unless it's specifically called out like it is in the attack action example.  (I quoted the rule above)
> 
> ...




You are missing option 3.  Specific Beats General.  The specific rule in the disengage action allows it to continue on throughout its effects and for you to move.  Similar to how you can move in-between attacks in your attack action.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 20, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Stop lying to the new guy.  The bolded is demonstrably false.
> 
> PHB




Context is your friend.  You should use it.  He asked about when it's NOT his turn.  Therefore my answer was in that context.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You are missing option 3.  Specific Beats General.  The specific rule in the disengage action allows it to continue on throughout its effects and for you to move.  Similar to how you can move in-between attacks in your attack action.




No.  
1) There is not even a rule that says that.  I'm starting to feel like you are just making stuff up out of thin air.

2)"Option 1:  The disengage action itself lasts as long as it's effects" And "Option 2:  The disengage action doesn't last as long as it's effects." cover all possibilities.  There is simply no room for an additional possibility as I made sure I exhausted every possibility when I carefully crafted those statements.  This is the quintisential it's either "X" or "not X" type of logical reasoning.

So do you care to stop evading my question and instead try to answer it?  Is it option 1 or option 2?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 20, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Context is your friend.  You should use it.  He asked about when it's NOT his turn.  Therefore my answer was in that context.




Dude, you said reactions can't be taken on your turn and the PHB rules say you can.  At least own up to being wrong.  SHEESH


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 20, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules, so can someone tell me if it is possible to take the Attack action when it isn't your turn?




The Ready Action is the one you're looking for.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 20, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules, so can someone tell me if it is possible to take the Attack action when it isn't your turn?




Yes, you can Ready the Attack action and take it using your reaction on another creature's turn. Taking the Attack action that way, however, wouldn't meet the condition for using the Shield Master shove because it wouldn't be "on your turn".


----------



## epithet (Feb 20, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...
> ...I don't know of anyone who was playing it that way before JEC made his infamous and incorrect tweet in 2015.  ...
> ...



Funny, I don't know anyone who didn't think you could take the shove when you wanted. Crawford's initial (and in my opinion, correct) tweet simply confirmed what we all already supposed was the intent of the feat, specifically that you could shove before, after, or between.

I have never actually played 5e with anyone who doesn't let the shove come whenever the shield master character wants it to. and before Crawford reversed himself and issued the new (an in my opinion incorrect) Advice on the rule, I would not have taken seriously the assertion that a significant number of players of D&D thought that forcing the shove to come after all of a character's attacks was a reasonable interpretation, much less the "right way." 

Fortunately, Jeremy has limited himself to just reversing his Advice, and has not changed the rule via errata. That means everyone is free to disregard his flip-flop and continue to use the common-sense interpretation of the published rule without using a homemade variant, which I know a lot of DMs are hesitant to do.


----------



## cbwjm (Feb 21, 2019)

epithet said:


> Funny, I don't know anyone who didn't think you could take the shove when you wanted. Crawford's initial (and in my opinion, correct) tweet simply confirmed what we all already supposed was the intent of the feat, specifically that you could shove before, after, or between.
> 
> I have never actually played 5e with anyone who doesn't let the shove come whenever the shield master character wants it to. and before Crawford reversed himself and issued the new (an in my opinion incorrect) Advice on the rule, I would not have taken seriously the assertion that a significant number of players of D&D thought that forcing the shove to come after all of a character's attacks was a reasonable interpretation, much less the "right way."
> 
> Fortunately, Jeremy has limited himself to just reversing his Advice, and has not changed the rule via errata. That means everyone is free to disregard his flip-flop and continue to use the common-sense interpretation of the published rule without using a homemade variant, which I know a lot of DMs are hesitant to do.




Depends on what you think of as common-sense when reading the feat. I always read it as occurring after the attack action was completed, I just houserule it so that it can be whenever, no attack action required. If I was going to require an attack then I'd allow it to be after the first attack but really, I'm not too concerned if it comes before all of their other attacks.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 21, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> Depends on what you think of as common-sense when reading the feat. I always read it as occurring after the attack action was completed, I just houserule it so that it can be whenever, no attack action required. If I was going to require an attack then I'd allow it to be after the first attack but really, I'm not too concerned if it comes before all of their other attacks.




Right, my sample size is obviously very small in the grand scheme of things, but everyone agreed about the “if X then Y” timing that JEC clarified in 2017 to at least mean one attack had to be made before the bonus action was available.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 21, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> But the rules provide a framework for your character to act in combat.




I fundamentally disagree with this formulation of how the rules operate in the game. I'd refer you to Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, "The players describe what they want to do." That's how my character acts in combat. The rules come into play when "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So the rules don't provide a framework for my character to act in combat. They provide a framework for the DM to adjudicate how my character's actions in combat are resolved. We seem to be coming at this from opposite directions.



Asgorath said:


> This is incorrect.




No it isn't. The condition for using the bonus action shove is exactly as I said, i.e. "If you take the Attack action on your turn". The condition is not what you said, i.e. "taking the Attack action first". The feat doesn't put a timing on the use of the bonus action. Quoting Jeremy Crawford's rulings to me doesn't change that.



Asgorath said:


> Again, there is no action declaration phase in 5E where you can say "I intend to take the Attack action in the future" which would unlock the bonus action.




I'm not sure why I keep getting this particular talking-point from you. It seems like you're only comfortable repeating ideas from Jeremy Crawford's tweets even when they have nothing to do with anything I've said.



Asgorath said:


> I think it's a real stretch to argue that the intent of the feat back in 2014 when the PHB was released was that you could shove before attacking.  I don't know of anyone who was playing it that way before JEC made his infamous and incorrect tweet in 2015.  In the years following that tweet, many people (myself included) looked at that tweet and changed the way we played the feat at our tables.  It never really made sense to me, but I figured if JEC said it, then that's how it was supposed to be played.




Well, it makes sense to me, and I think I've explained that pretty well, so if it still doesn't make sense to you, I have to think you don't really want to get it.



Asgorath said:


> He has since corrected this, and in the process, actually explained the intent of the bonus action shove (i.e. it's designed to be a finishing move to help your melee allies out).
> 
> Based on all the information we have today, I think it's hard to argue the RAI is the exact opposite of what he's now saying the intent of the feat is.




Again, you're claiming that Crawford saying, "It's supposed to be what it is" is a statement of intent, when really it's just an assertion that his interpretation is correct and avoids the question about what was intended.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I fundamentally disagree with this formulation of how the rules operate in the game. I'd refer you to Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, "The players describe what they want to do." That's how my character acts in combat. The rules come into play when "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So the rules don't provide a framework for my character to act in combat. They provide a framework for the DM to adjudicate how my character's actions in combat are resolved. We seem to be coming at this from opposite directions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Using the idea of DM abdication to claim a rule says something it doesn’t is the issue. If you simply said the rule says X but I ignore that and abdicate it like Y because Reasons ABZ. We have no problem with that. We admit we are doing the same thing. 

The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2019)

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]

I can abjucate that a level 1 fighter makes 4 attacks when using his attack action. However doing so is objectively not following the attack action and extra attack rules. 

The same thing with shield master (although there are much better reasons to abjucate it the way you do than a DM abjucate first a level 1 fighter gets 4 attacks). It’s still an abjucate on that is objectively not following the shield master and other bonus action rules. If you want to argue it is then for the love of god stop bringing abjucation into it. Whether or not you abjucate however you do has no relevance on whether you are objectively following the rules as they are written.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 21, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I fundamentally disagree with this formulation of how the rules operate in the game. I'd refer you to Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, "The players describe what they want to do." That's how my character acts in combat. The rules come into play when "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So the rules don't provide a framework for my character to act in combat. They provide a framework for the DM to adjudicate how my character's actions in combat are resolved. We seem to be coming at this from opposite directions.




We're saying the same thing.  The player describes what they want to do, the DM then translates that to game mechanics using the rules.

Player: "I want to run over to that monster, slam it in the face with my shield, and then attack it with my sword".

DM: "Great, you can use one of your attacks to shove it prone, and then make the second attack with advantage if you succeeded."

Player: "Why can't I attack it twice?  I have the Shield Master feat."

DM: "You have to attack first before you get the bonus action to shove from that feat."



Hriston said:


> No it isn't. The condition for using the bonus action shove is exactly as I said, i.e. "If you take the Attack action on your turn". The condition is not what you said, i.e. "taking the Attack action first". The feat doesn't put a timing on the use of the bonus action. Quoting Jeremy Crawford's rulings to me doesn't change that.




Again, we can agree to disagree here, but as Jeremy Crawford has explained at length, the standard phrasing of "if X, then Y" in the wording of bonus actions like Shield Master or Two-Weapon Fighting is the game's definition of timing restrictions for those bonus actions.  He has also clarified that for this type of bonus action, the "X" part has to happen before the "Y" part.  Perhaps they could've spent more time explaining this in greater detail in the PHB, but when the lead rules designer comes out and says "this is what we mean by these words in the PHB" then that's what the rules are, in my opinion.



Hriston said:


> I'm not sure why I keep getting this particular talking-point from you. It seems like you're only comfortable repeating ideas from Jeremy Crawford's tweets even when they have nothing to do with anything I've said.




Given the fact that the "if X, then Y" timing requirement is a trigger, and that X has to happen before Y, you have to actually take the Attack action before you can get a bonus action to shove someone from the Shield Master feat.  The Sage Advice compendium is pretty clear about this.  You can't skirt the rules by saying "well I declare that I'm going to take the Attack action on my turn" to get the bonus action first.



Hriston said:


> Well, it makes sense to me, and I think I've explained that pretty well, so if it still doesn't make sense to you, I have to think you don't really want to get it.




As I've said, I played the feat using the incorrect 2015 tweet for a long time.  I think the difference here is that I'm willing to accept the new information from the lead rules designer of the game about how the feat is actually supposed to work, while you are not.  Again, as JEC has explained in detail on many different platforms, the feat is not designed to just grant near-permanent advantage.  If it was, then they would've just said "you have advantage on all weapon attacks while wearing a shield" or something similar.



Hriston said:


> Again, you're claiming that Crawford saying, "It's supposed to be what it is" is a statement of intent, when really it's just an assertion that his interpretation is correct and avoids the question about what was intended.




When the lead rules designer says "this is what we intended" by a particular rule, yeah, I'm going to take that as a statement of intent as to how they expected the rules to work.

"RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule."

You can obviously just ignore that and play some mental gymnastics to extract a meaning from the words that isn't designed to be there, I'm just pointing out that the Sage Advice compendium is quite clear that this is not the way the feat is supposed to work.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 21, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm very curious what you think the word "trigger" means...
> 
> If the trigger is taking the attack action on your turn and you haven't yet taken the attack action on your turn then how has anything been triggered?




In the context of this conversation, it means the same thing as the word _condition_. If the condition for using your bonus action on your turn is that you take the Attack action on your turn, then the condition has been met if you take the Attack action on your turn.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2019)

Hriston said:


> In the context of this conversation, it means the same thing as the word _condition_. If the condition for using your bonus action on your turn is that you take the Attack action on your turn, then the condition has been met if you take the Attack action on your turn.




Wouldn’t  you say that the condition has not been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Shouldn't the bold portion be "does extend over the full period of time that its effects occur."?  The rule is as follows, "If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn."  That's it.  It simply allows all of your movement, which is not an action, to not provoke an opportunity attack.  It clearly lasts until your movement is done.
> 
> What you can do on your turn when you use the disengage action is use part of your movement, use the Disengage action, then finish your move with the rest of that move not provoking attacks.  Or you can use the action, then use all or part of your movement on your turn without provoking an attack.  Lastly,  you can move fully, use the Disengage action, not move any further and be done.  In the first and second examples the Disengage action lasts from the moment you take it until the moment your movement ends or turn ends if you still have movement.  In the third example it's instantaneous and does nothing except make you feel foolish for wasting your action.




So here, you're taking the view that 'taking the action' is the same thing as the effects of the action, and that the duration of the action is identical to the duration of its effect. You are also taking the view that 'actions are indivisible'. I can tell that because if you thought either that 'actions are instantaneous but with longer-lasting effects', and/or 'actions ARE divisible', then you would have no objections to dividing actions and no reason to defend that point of view.

You also seem to be of the view that you cannot move _during_ an action, unless you have a rule saying you can.

If I've misunderstood your positions then by all means clarify.

If this is the case, then a rogue could use Cunning Action to disengage as a bonus action, and until the rogue has used up ALL of his movement, he absolutely *cannot* take the Attack action, because 'actions are indivisible'.

Is this the way 5e works or is intended to work?


----------



## Hriston (Feb 21, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> By RAW you do take the attack action to get the attacks.
> 
> "*With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack*. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter,* allow you to make more than one attack with this action*."
> 
> With the action you make an attack, not you make an attack and you get the action.  Extra attack allows you to make more than one attack with the action, not making two attacks gives you the action.




Is it your position, then, that "taking the Attack action" is the trigger for making your attacks? According to that line of reasoning, if you're a shield master, "taking the Attack action" will give you not only your attacks but also a bonus action shove, and you can then decide what order to do them in. 

For clarity, I haven't made this claim you're attributing to me. What I said was, "You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks." Another way to say this is that making one or more attacks with the Attack action _is_ taking the Attack action.



Maxperson said:


> I do see the difference.  I'm discussing RAW and you are not.




All you seem prepared to discuss is slavish adherence to the official interpretation. As another poster recently pointed out to me, Crawford’s rulings, even the official ones, do not constitute RAW. RAW is just what is written. It requires interpretation to have meaning. 



Maxperson said:


> Why is it so hard for you to just admit that you are changing the rules and you enjoy playing in a way that is different from RAW?




Because I haven’t changed any rules. 



Maxperson said:


> RAW does not allow it to take a Bonus Action as the Attack action.  Actions and Bonus Actions are defined and different in the rules.  One is not the other and a Bonus Action cannot be converted into an Action short of a house rule.




Good thing that isn’t what I’ve suggested then!



Maxperson said:


> If you use the Bonus Action to shove, you did not take an action if you are knocked out.  What you did is cheat and take a Bonus Action that you were not allowed to take because the trigger never happened.




No, what you did is take the Attack action. There’s no way you could’ve used your bonus action without taking the Attack action on your turn.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So here, you're taking the view that 'taking the action' is the same thing as the effects of the action, and that the duration of the action is identical to the duration of its effect. You are also taking the view that 'actions are indivisible'. I can tell that because if you thought either that 'actions are instantaneous but with longer-lasting effects', and/or 'actions ARE divisible', then you would have no objections to dividing actions and no reason to defend that point of view.




You're over generalizing me just a bit.  What I'm saying is that each action has a time frame, and also spells out which specific rules exist for it.  So no, they don't have to be divisible for their effects to last until the effect ends.  Attack specifies that you can move in-between attacks.  Dash specifies that your move speed doubles, so the duration for it is the duration of your movement.  Disengage specifies that you can move and that such moves do not provoke attacks.  And so on.  

If we say that the actions are all instantaneous, but the effects last longer, then you end up with the ridiculous situation I described above.  You can take the Disengage action, do a 1 second jig, and then stand stock still.  A monster who was nowhere near you when you began your jig can rush up to you, attack you while you are standing stock still, and get disadvantage to the attack.  That's just silly, but it's the result of treating all actions as being instantaneous.  

Now, this is my reading of how RAW works.  How I personally would run things would be to allow bonus actions to be used when it seems reasonable.  I would let the shove from Shield Master work after the first attack and not require the attack to end first.  I would allow bonus actions to work while you are moving for disengage and dash.  



> If this is the case, then a rogue could use Cunning Action to disengage as a bonus action, and until the rogue has used up ALL of his movement, he absolutely *cannot* take the Attack action, because 'actions are indivisible'.




Nothing requires you to use all of your movement.  The rogue could use the bonus action, move however much he wants to until he decides to stop, then attack.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Is it your position, then, that "taking the Attack action" is the trigger for making your attacks? According to that line of reasoning, if you're a shield master, "taking the Attack action" will give you not only your attacks but also a bonus action shove, and you can then decide what order to do them in.




No.  The trigger is not "taking the Attack action," which is a present tense statement.  The trigger is "When you take the Attack action," which is past tense.  You actually have to take the action, which means making your attacks.  Until you take your attacks, you have not taken the action.  



> For clarity, I haven't made this claim you're attributing to me. What I said was, "You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks." Another way to say this is that making one or more attacks with the Attack action _is_ taking the Attack action.




Here is you making that claim. "You don't "get" attacks by taking the Attack action. You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks."  You do in fact get attacks by taking the attack action.  You do not in fact get the attack action by making one or more attacks.  Perhaps you made that claim inadvertently and don't believe what you said, but it is what you said.



> All you seem prepared to discuss is slavish adherence to the official interpretation. As another poster recently pointed out to me, Crawford’s rulings, even the official ones, do not constitute RAW. RAW is just what is written. It requires interpretation to have meaning.




All JC has done is back up what RAW.  I don't need his ruling and don't rely upon them.  I have been pointing to them as back-up for what RAW has said.



> Because I haven’t changed any rules.




Perhaps you don't, but the inadvertent claim you made above does involve a rules change.



> No, what you did is take the Attack action. There’s no way you could’ve used your bonus action without taking the Attack action on your turn.




You don't get to change RAW without making a house rule.  If you are stating that according to your house rule, this Schrodingers situation of yours where it's not an action or a bonus action until you look at it sideways is used at your table, then I'm fine with your statement.  However, if you are trying to say that according to the PHB or DMG the bonus action switches to an action, you are absolutely and factually wrong.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (Feb 22, 2019)

Hriston said:


> In the context of this conversation, it means the same thing as the word _condition_. If the condition for using your bonus action on your turn is that you take the Attack action on your turn, then the condition has been met if you take the Attack action on your turn.



I think the tense needs to be changed in that last sentence.
…then the condition has been met if you _have taken _the Attack action on your turn.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 22, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Using the idea of DM abdication to claim a rule says something it doesn’t is the issue. If you simply said the rule says X but I ignore that and abdicate it like Y because Reasons ABZ. We have no problem with that. We admit we are doing the same thing.
> 
> The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules.




No, it isn’t. The issue is that I expressed a dissenting interpretation, and there are some who, for whatever reason, won’t admit the possibility of multiple valid interpretations. 



FrogReaver said:


> @_*Hriston*_
> 
> I can abjucate that a level 1 fighter makes 4 attacks when using his attack action. However doing so is objectively not following the attack action and extra attack rules.
> 
> The same thing with shield master (although there are much better reasons to abjucate it the way you do than a DM abjucate first a level 1 fighter gets 4 attacks). It’s still an abjucate on that is objectively not following the shield master and other bonus action rules. If you want to argue it is then for the love of god stop bringing abjucation into it. Whether or not you abjucate however you do has no relevance on whether you are objectively following the rules as they are written.




I brought up the idea that the rules belong to the DM in my conversation with @_*Asgorath*_ not to prove in any way that the rules mean what I say they do, but rather to refute the idea that the purpose of the rules is to limit the scope of player action declarations. It’s the player’s job to describe what their character does, and it’s the DM’s job to resolve the character’s actions, using the rules as appropriate. I think that, given their response (which I plan to address in a separate post), we’re largely in agreement about this, and that the exchange is mostly due to a misconstrual on my part. 



FrogReaver said:


> Wouldn’t  you say that the condition has not been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn?




Yes, as I assume you would also. Where I think our disagreement lies is I don't think that whether you take the Attack action on your turn can be checked until either you take the Attack action, you take another action (if you only have one to take), or your turn ends. Once the condition has been met, however, that qualifies you to use your bonus action to shove a creature at any time during the same turn.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 22, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You're over generalizing me just a bit.




Thank you for clarifying. 



> What I'm saying is that each action has a time frame, and also spells out which specific rules exist for it.




Fair enough. One minor quibble: each action does not necessarily spell out ALL the rules for it, but the rules it does include are undoubtably...rules for it...!



> So no, they don't have to be divisible for their effects to last until the effect ends.




Sure, but IF actions are indivisible, AND each action lasts until its effects end (specific for each action), THEN if an action's duration has not ended, no other action can be taken.



> Attack specifies that you can move in-between attacks.




And if you take the view that the _reason_ you can move _during_ the Attack action between attacks is because it says so, this means that you *cannot* move _during_ ANY action if the book _doesn't_ say so!

Note that the rule for the Attack action does *not* give you permission to move between attacks! There is no mention of moving between attacks in the description of the Attack action on p192.

The reason we are certain that you _can_ move between attacks is because it says so on p.190 under Movement and Position under Breaking Up Your Move: Moving Between Attacks.

IF you take the view that you cannot move *during* an action without a rule saying you *can* (I am not of that opinion myself), then in order to move _during_ an action is if it says so under Breaking Up Your Move (it does not, except for the Attack action) OR it says so under the heading of that particular action. 



> Dash specifies that your move speed doubles, so the duration for it is the duration of your movement.




Agreed. However, it certainly does *not* say that you can move *during* this action! Therefore, with the previous assumption, you *cannot* move until ALL your movement has been expended, nor can you take any other action until ALL your move has been expended. So, with those assumptions, if you Dash then you cannot move(!) and cannot take any other action!



> Disengage specifies that you can move and that such moves do not provoke attacks.




No. It does *not* say that you can move! It says that your movement doesn't provoke. It remains in effect until your movement is expended, but with the above assumption you are not _allowed_ to move _during_ the Disengage action because you have no written permission to do so! Not in the description of Disengage, not in the section on Breaking Up Your Move. 



> If we say that the actions are all instantaneous, but the effects last longer, then you end up with the ridiculous situation I described above.  You can take the Disengage action, do a 1 second jig, and then stand stock still.  A monster who was nowhere near you when you began your jig can rush up to you, attack you while you are standing stock still, and get disadvantage to the attack.  That's just silly, but it's the result of treating all actions as being instantaneous.




I agree that this interpretation would lead to 'silly'. But this position (position 1) is not that you Dodge for a moment and then stop while getting the benefit for a period of time; the position is that 'taking the action' is an instantaneous game construct decision by the player which allows the character to do the things associated with that action for the specified time. So 'taking the Dodge action' is an instantaneous event at the game table which then means that the character can dodge incoming attacks from now until the start of their next turn.

To remind you:-

1) is the position that 'taking the action' is an instantaneous player decision at the table which allows the character to do the stuff for a period of time

2) is the position that 'taking the action' and 'doing the stuff' are one and the same with the same duration.

2a) follows that actions are divisible

2b) follows that actions are *not* divisible

Which of these positions do you hold? 



> Now, this is my reading of how RAW works.  How I personally would run things would be to allow bonus actions to be used when it seems reasonable.  I would let the shove from Shield Master work after the first attack and not require the attack to end first.  I would allow bonus actions to work while you are moving for disengage and dash.




I appreciate that, because in my view it is not possible to hold position 2b) AND the position that you cannot break up your move without text saying that you can! You *must* 'houserule' at this point, because that interpretation of RAW is unplayable!

However, it is of no value to debate what our houserules are! We can only debate the RAW and our interpretations of it. For me, the very fact that position 2b) and 'cannot break up your move without permission' positions result in an unplayable game clearly demonstrates that those are incorrect interpretations of the RAW!  



> Nothing requires you to use all of your movement.  The rogue could use the bonus action, move however much he wants to until he decides to stop, then attack.




Since he cannot move _during_ an action, he cannot move. This means that taking the Dash or Disengage action is totally pointless given those previous interpretations.

For me, all this clearly rules out both 2b) AND the 'cannot move during an action without permission' interpretations of the RAW.

This leaves us with the interpretation that you CAN move during an action that is itself a non-instantaneous event. The Movement Between Attacks section therefore is not something that gives permission, but is there to clarify that you CAN move between attacks in this new 5e system, unlike in 3e/Pathfinder.

It also means that either position 1) OR position 2a) must be true.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 22, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I brought up the idea that the rules belong to the DM in my conversation with @_*Asgorath*_ not to prove in any way that the rules mean what I say they do, but rather to refute the idea that the purpose of the rules is to limit the scope of player action declarations. It’s the player’s job to describe what their character does, and it’s the DM’s job to resolve the character’s actions, using the rules as appropriate. I think that, given their response (which I plan to address in a separate post), we’re largely in agreement about this, and that the exchange is mostly due to a misconstrual on my part.




For reference, I completely agree that the DM can ignore the strict RAW + RAI + Sage Advice on how Shield Master is supposed to work if that's what is best for their table and their players.  I've been saying all along that if "following your bliss" as JEC advises means that you just play the feat as shove-slice-slice and everyone at your table has fun and combat encounters aren't trivialized, then that's great and you should absolutely continue to do that.  There's no need to try to extract a different meaning from the wording of the feat or the other related rules to justify that position though, just ignore the rule and do what's best for your table.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 22, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> For reference, I completely agree that the DM can ignore the strict RAW + RAI + Sage Advice on how Shield Master is supposed to work if that's what is best for their table and their players.  I've been saying all along that if "following your bliss" as JEC advises means that you just play the feat as shove-slice-slice and everyone at your table has fun and combat encounters aren't trivialized, then that's great and you should absolutely continue to do that. * There's no need to try to extract a different meaning from the wording of the feat or the other related rules to justify that position though, just ignore the rule and do what's best for your table.*




Exactly. I make no bones that i have played it as one-attack-procs-bonus since before the ruling from JEC that was later reversed etc. While i think its actually fitting with RAW or close enough to hit Gm ruling, calling it a house rule in my game is fine by me and my players, just like we list "claws are finesse weapons."


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Fair enough. One minor quibble: each action does not necessarily spell out ALL the rules for it, but the rules it does include are undoubtably...rules for it...!




Heh.  That's a feature, not a bug.  5e is about rulings over rules, so the rules tend to be vague, sometimes open to multiple interpretations, or left with holes in them that individual DMs have to fill.



> Sure, but IF actions are indivisible, AND each action lasts until its effects end (specific for each action), THEN if an action's duration has not ended, no other action can be taken.




Unless specific rules allow for them to be taken.  The actions that involve movement include movement as a part of that action.



> And if you take the view that the _reason_ you can move _during_ the Attack action between attacks is because it says so, this means that you *cannot* move _during_ ANY action if the book _doesn't_ say so!




As a strict reading, yes.



> Note that the rule for the Attack action does *not* give you permission to move between attacks!* There is no mention of moving between attacks in the description of the Attack action* on p192.




That's exactly where the rule SHOULD be, though!  The rule is entirely about moving during the attack action, so it really should have been in the attack action, not pages earlier.

/begin rant

5e has exceptionally poor rules organization that is rife throughout both the PHB and DMG.  I can't tell you how many times I or another player has mentioned a rule that we are positive that we read, but when the DM asks to see it we spend much more time than is necessary scouring through the books.  Why?  Because it's not in the spot where it should most logically be.  It's a royal pain in the rear.  Right up there with the index taking more space and characters telling me to "See planes of existence" if I look up Acheron, rather than "See page 302."

/end rant



> IF you take the view that you cannot move *during* an action without a rule saying you *can* (I am not of that opinion myself), then in order to move _during_ an action is if it says so under Breaking Up Your Move (it does not, except for the Attack action) OR it says so under the heading of that particular action.




Not true.  There are many places an specific rule creating an exception could be.  One of those places is the action itself.



> Agreed. However, it certainly does *not* say that you can move *during* this action! Therefore, with the previous assumption, you *cannot* move until ALL your movement has been expended, nor can you take any other action until ALL your move has been expended. So, with those assumptions, if you Dash then you cannot move(!) and cannot take any other action!




If you couldn't move during that action, it wouldn't be an action, it would be an inaction. 



> I agree that this interpretation would lead to 'silly'. But this position (position 1) is not that you Dodge for a moment and then stop while getting the benefit for a period of time; the position is that 'taking the action' is an instantaneous game construct decision by the player which allows the character to do the things associated with that action for the specified time. So 'taking the Dodge action' is an instantaneous event at the game table which then means that the character can dodge incoming attacks from now until the start of their next turn.
> 
> To remind you:-
> 
> ...




I hold that the rules are such that actions are discreet and not divisible unless some other rule or itself acts on it to allow division.  I also hold that the action lasts until it is completed, whether that's in an instant, or until the next turn.

That said, as a DM I will allow them to be divisible when reasonable.  I don't have a problem with Misty Step being used in-between attacks.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Yes, as I assume you would also. Where I think our disagreement lies is I don't think that whether you take the Attack action on your turn can be checked until either you take the Attack action, you take another action (if you only have one to take), or your turn ends. Once the condition has been met, however, that qualifies you to use your bonus action to shove a creature at any time during the same turn.




JC has said(and it's obvious from reading the rules) that there is no such thing as declaring an action, so the check cannot happen until the action is taken.  If you check before it is taken, you are into declaring an action which is not something in the rules.



> No, it isn’t. The issue is that I expressed a dissenting interpretation, and there are some who, for whatever reason, won’t admit the possibility of multiple valid interpretations.




The issue is that some of your interpretations are not interpretations.  For instance, the idea that of you take a Bonus Action that is dependent on the Attack action for the trigger ahead of the Attack action and are prevented from taking said action, that somehow the Bonus Action becomes the Attack action.  There's no rule that can even remotely be interpreted as allowing that to happen.

I mean hell, if I could do that within the rules, the next time the wizard is going to cast Magic Weapon on my sword and I go before him, I'll just swing with my enchanted sword.  After all, I can trigger the effect before the action happens so long as it happens at some point on the turn.  And if the wizard should be knocked out before he can cast the spell, well then he must have cast it at the moment I swung the sword.  Man!  "Interpreting" the rules like this is fun!


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

Hriston said:


> No, it isn’t. The issue is that I expressed a dissenting interpretation, and there are some who, for whatever reason, won’t admit the possibility of multiple valid interpretations.




There's 2 issues now.  

1.  The initial discussion about your interpretation being invalid.  You see if an interpretation is valid I'm perfectly happy with multiple valid interpretation.  Please don't mistaken believing a particular interpretation is invalid as a belief that there is only ever a single valid interpretation.

2.  The point you made just a few posts back where you argued that due to rules being non-restrictive and you being able to abdicate your particular way meant you were playing by the rules.  In short that issue is as I stated "The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules."



> I brought up the idea that the rules belong to the DM in my conversation with @_*Asgorath*_ not to prove in any way that the rules mean what I say they do, but rather to refute the idea that the purpose of the rules is to limit the scope of player action declarations. It’s the player’s job to describe what their character does, and it’s the DM’s job to resolve the character’s actions, using the rules as appropriate. I think that, given their response (which I plan to address in a separate post), we’re largely in agreement about this, and that the exchange is mostly due to a misconstrual on my part.




"Purpose" is such an odd word.  The purpose of rules is to give us structures by which we can play the game.  Players definitely can describe whatever they want their character to do and the DM definitely does resolve the characters actions, using the rules as appropriate.  That said while the purpose of rules isn't to limit the scope of a players declaration, rules can definitely limit the mechanical resolution of such actions.  As my previous example.  A level 4 Fighter player may declare he attacks the ogre 4 times with his greatsword.  The rules restrict the mechanical resolution of that declaration to a single attack and damage roll on this particular turn (barring the extra attack feature).  
Now you as a DM are welcome to ignore that mechanical restriction placed upon the PC by the rules.  It's your right to abdicate however you want.  It's just that some abjucations follow the rules as they are written and some do not.  There's no shame in admitting that, but most importantly in a rules discussion it does need to be admitted when you are doing one and when you are doing the other.  

So I don't believe I'm misconstruing your statements.  I flat out disagree with your portrayal of non-restrictive rules.  I flat out disagree with the logical consequences that these beliefs incur.  You see, the consequence of agreeing that rules never restrict actions is to admit that you can abdicate however you want and still be playing by the rules.  I vehemently reject any premise that is going to lead down that kind of path.  

I also think your purpose of using this abjucation and non-restrictive rules stance was to argue that your position is valid.  As noted above, I reject your premises for this argument.  So to me. the only way for your position to be valid is if it's a valid interpretation of the rules text.  How about we get back to talking about that?



> Yes, as I assume you would also. Where I think our disagreement lies is I don't think that whether you take the Attack action on your turn can be checked until either you take the Attack action, you take another action (if you only have one to take), or your turn ends. Once the condition has been met, however, that qualifies you to use your bonus action to shove a creature at any time during the same turn.




So you believe the condition for the bonus action shove hasn't been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn.  That's a good start.  At least we agree there.

So you also believe you can't check whether you took the attack action on your turn until 1 of 3 things happen
1)  you take the attack action
2)  you take another action
3)  your turn ends

I agree here as well.  You even go on to say that ONCE the condition has been met that qualifies you to use the bonus action shove any time during the same turn.  I agree there as well.  What I don't get is how you are saying "ONCE the condition has been met" and then insist on being able to "time travel" back to a point before you actually met the condition and then claim that because you actually met the condition in the pre time travel timeline that you now have also met the condition in the post time traveled timeline even though you've still not met the condition in this post time travel timeline yet.  How does your interpretation not essentially boil down to something like this?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]

In my games a turn is treated as a sequential series of events.  Is it not treated as such in your game?  If it's not I could maybe see how your position makes sense?


----------



## Yardiff (Feb 23, 2019)

I think this is the way some of see things.

Attack Action:
Attack (melee/ranged)
(Extra Attack)

Shield Master character Attack Action:
(Bonus Action Shove)
Attack (melee/ranged)
(Extra Attack)


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 23, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> I think this is the way some of see things.
> 
> Attack Action:
> Attack (melee/ranged)
> ...




Sure, but the Sage Advice compendium says that this is not the correct way to interpret the timing requirement of the feat.



> *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.
> 
> This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.




The PHB says:



> *Attack*
> The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
> 
> With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
> ...




The wording seems pretty clear that the Attack action means actually making an attack, which JEC has confirmed on Twitter and elsewhere.


----------



## Yardiff (Feb 23, 2019)

I disagree with all that. Whether its a house rule or RAW interpretation I prefer the bonus action taken when you like. Also most people I know made the interpretation of bonus action when you like.






Asgorath said:


> *The wording seems pretty clear* that the Attack action means actually making an attack, which JEC has confirmed on Twitter and elsewhere.




And repeating the bold part doesn't make true. If it had been clear there wouldn't have been questions for clarification.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> I disagree with all that. Whether its a house rule or RAW interpretation I prefer the bonus action taken when you like. Also most people I know made the interpretation of bonus action when you like.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There's been questions and clarification on nearly every rule in 5e.  I don't think questions or clarification mean something is unclear.  

The key to eliminating most confusion in shield master is realizing that you don't even have a bonus action to take until you've taken the attack action and satisfied the condition required for it's bonus action.  

That said the question of whether taking the attack action extends the whole duration of your attacks or not is still up for debate.  Is the attack action like the disengage action where it's effects by necessity last longer than the disengage action itself?  Or is the attack action only finished when you as a player either have used all the attacks or declared the end of that action before using all the attacks?  

I had previously considered the later as the only answer possible.  Now because of the disengage action discussion I view the first answer as possible as well.  Thus, I'm with you that the RAW isn't clear.  I do think JC's clarification is currently clear though.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> And repeating the bold part doesn't make true. If it had been clear there wouldn't have been questions for clarification.




A lot of people see what they want to see.  It's a human thing.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 23, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> If you couldn't move during that action, it wouldn't be an action, it would be an inaction.




...Which just goes to show that this interpretation of the rules is unplayable!

If there are two ways to interpret the rules, and one way is unplayable while the other works just fine, we *must* interpret the rules the way that works.  



> I hold that the rules are such that actions are discreet and not divisible unless some other rule or itself acts on it to allow division.  I also hold that the action lasts until it is completed, whether that's in an instant, or until the next turn.




WHY do you believe that? What rules tell you that 'actions are indivisible'?

All the rules tell us about this is what we CAN use actions to do. Nowhere does it mention that 'actions are indivisible', so why interpret the rules this way when this results in unplayable rules?

In the face of a rule which IS actually written-you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn-why would you believe that this written rule is trumped by a rule which is NOT written?



> That said, as a DM I will allow them to be divisible when reasonable.  I don't have a problem with Misty Step being used in-between attacks.




Why interpret the rules such that they are unplayable, forcing you to houserule, rather than interpret them such that they ARE playable?


----------



## epithet (Feb 24, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Sure, but the Sage Advice compendium says that this is not the correct way to interpret the timing requirement of the feat.
> ...




It doesn't, because the role of Sage Advice is not to tell you the "correct" way to interpret anything. Sage Advice recommends an interpretation that is largely consistent with the recommended interpretation of other rules. Since he doesn't know your group or your game, Jeremy is not in a position to tell you what's correct for you, he can only offer a more-or-less consistent set of interpretations of the rules.

Sage Advice isn't "rules," its "advice," and it isn't wrong to disregard that advice and interpret a rule in a way that works for your circumstance.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 24, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> We're saying the same thing.  The player describes what they want to do, the DM then translates that to game mechanics using the rules.




That isn’t quite what I’m saying, though. Deciding how to resolve a player’s action declaration isn’t the same as simply matching it up with game mechanics. Besides, players usually have a pretty good idea of what mechanics they’re engaging when they act. If there’s a mismatch in expectations about what the rules are, then something like the following discussion may be necessary, but it isn’t ideal as an instance of play. 



Asgorath said:


> Player: "I want to run over to that monster, slam it in the face with my shield, and then attack it with my sword".
> 
> DM: "Great, you can use one of your attacks to shove it prone, and then make the second attack with advantage if you succeeded."
> 
> ...




This is all an example of the sort of conversation that might happen when player and DM need to get on the same page about what mechanics are going to be involved in resolving the player’s declared action, but it hasn’t progressed beyond establishing exactly what the player’s action declaration is. I.e., there is no resolution forthcoming from the DM in your example, but rather mechanics are being used to tell the player what his/her action declaration can or can’t be. Now, this DM is free to interpret the text of Shield Master that way. That isn’t at issue. What’s at issue is that the DM is bringing the rules in to modify the player’s action declaration before adjudicating a resolution. I don’t see that as an appropriate use of the rules in play, which is why I don’t think it matters whether the character’s shove is an action or a bonus action, because either way the resolution is the same.



Asgorath said:


> Again, we can agree to disagree here, but as Jeremy Crawford has explained at length, the standard phrasing of "if X, then Y" in the wording of bonus actions like Shield Master or Two-Weapon Fighting is the game's definition of timing restrictions for those bonus actions.  He has also clarified that for this type of bonus action, the "X" part has to happen before the "Y" part.  Perhaps they could've spent more time explaining this in greater detail in the PHB, but when the lead rules designer comes out and says "this is what we mean by these words in the PHB" then that's what the rules are, in my opinion.




And that’s a perfectly valid interpretation. What the official ruling doesn’t do, however, is overwrite the words in the books. It’s just an interpretation, not a rule. 



Asgorath said:


> Given the fact that the "if X, then Y" timing requirement is a trigger, and that X has to happen before Y, you have to actually take the Attack action before you can get a bonus action to shove someone from the Shield Master feat.




But that isn’t a given. That’s your interpretation. 



Asgorath said:


> The Sage Advice compendium is pretty clear about this.  You can't skirt the rules by saying "well I declare that I'm going to take the Attack action on my turn" to get the bonus action first.




Right, well, I disagree with the compendium. That’s the point, isn’t it? It doesn’t do your argument any good to turn around and say, “But the compendium says...” I know what it says, and I disagree with it. What do you have to say about that? Also, I’ve never once said anything about declaring an action in order to “get” a bonus action, so it’s a waste of time telling me I can’t do that. 



Asgorath said:


> As I've said, I played the feat using the incorrect 2015 tweet for a long time.  I think the difference here is that I'm willing to accept the new information from the lead rules designer of the game about how the feat is actually supposed to work, while you are not.




I’m actually very interested in the information Jeremy Crawford has put out about the game in general and about this feat specifically. I wouldn’t be participating in this thread if I wasn’t. That doesn’t mean I need to take everything he says as gospel truth. 



Asgorath said:


> Again, as JEC has explained in detail on many different platforms, the feat is not designed to just grant near-permanent advantage.  If it was, then they would've just said "you have advantage on all weapon attacks while wearing a shield" or something similar.




But that isn’t what it does by anyone’s interpretation! You have to win a contest to gain advantage. It isn’t free!



Asgorath said:


> When the lead rules designer says "this is what we intended" by a particular rule, yeah, I'm going to take that as a statement of intent as to how they expected the rules to work.




That’s great, but he hasn’t said that. 



			
				Jeremy Crawford said:
			
		

> "RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed in communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
> When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.”




This is a great quote, and I think we have a case here of where the RAW and RAI don’t align perfectly. Unfortunately, there has been no RAI interpretation issued by Crawford for this feat. I think the closest we have is his tweet from 2015. The interpretation he has issued more recently has been based solely on RAW, which he has decided to read in the most literalistic fashion possible. I can only speculate about his reasons for this, but I imagine it’s driven by a desire at some level of the company to have a consistent product. 



Asgorath said:


> You can obviously just ignore that and play some mental gymnastics to extract a meaning from the words that isn't designed to be there, I'm just pointing out that the Sage Advice compendium is quite clear that this is not the way the feat is supposed to work.




I don’t need the compendium to tell me how the feat is supposed to work. The meaning I derive is quite simple and requires no gymnastics. 



Asgorath said:


> For reference, I completely agree that the DM can ignore the strict RAW + RAI + Sage Advice on how Shield Master is supposed to work if that's what is best for their table and their players.  I've been saying all along that if "following your bliss" as JEC advises means that you just play the feat as shove-slice-slice and everyone at your table has fun and combat encounters aren't trivialized, then that's great and you should absolutely continue to do that.  There's no need to try to extract a different meaning from the wording of the feat or the other related rules to justify that position though, just ignore the rule and do what's best for your table.




Who are you agreeing with? It certainly isn’t me! There’s very little trying involved actually. There’s certainly no need for me to ignore anything. I don’t think you understand my position and that it’s easier for you to be rude than have a productive conversation. Have a nice day.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 24, 2019)

epithet said:


> It doesn't, because the role of Sage Advice is not to tell you the "correct" way to interpret anything. Sage Advice recommends an interpretation that is largely consistent with the recommended interpretation of other rules. Since he doesn't know your group or your game, Jeremy is not in a position to tell you what's correct for you, he can only offer a more-or-less consistent set of interpretations of the rules.
> 
> Sage Advice isn't "rules," its "advice," and it isn't wrong to disregard that advice and interpret a rule in a way that works for your circumstance.




But again, my point is that you don't have to ignore the official ruling on the Shield Master feat and try to extract a meaning from the words to support your position.  Just change the rule for your table.  There's a great segment in the recent Dragon+ Q&A video on this:

https://youtu.be/jzHRp-GTsKA?t=1221

20:21 - 21:20 or so, where Jeremy says that DMs should "change the rules boldly and happily" in order to "run the game we want to".  If your table wants to be able to use the Shield Master bonus action shove any time the player wants, then just play it that way at your table.  You don't need to try and extract that meaning from the rules, especially when there have been so many official responses that this is not what the rule supports.  Just change the rule if that's what will make you and your players happy, and realize that changing the rules is totally fine and part of being a DM.


----------



## epithet (Feb 24, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...  Just change the rule if that's what will make you and your players happy, and realize that changing the rules is totally fine and part of being a DM.




Oh, I do. Still, there are folks who, for whatever reason, don’t want to deviate from the published rules. I think for them it is important to distinguish between the rule and the advised interpretation of it. Using the Shield Master feat as Hriston interprets it (and in accordance with Jeremy’s original tweet on the subject) is still using the rule “as written,” as opposed to the way I and others houserule away the Attack Action requirement altogether. My point is that you can follow the rule without following the Advice.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 24, 2019)

epithet said:


> Oh, I do. Still, there are folks who, for whatever reason, don’t want to deviate from the published rules. I think for them it is important to distinguish between the rule and the advised interpretation of it. Using the Shield Master feat as Hriston interprets it (and in accordance with Jeremy’s original tweet on the subject) is still using the rule “as written,” as opposed to the way I and others houserule away the Attack Action requirement altogether. My point is that you can follow the rule without following the Advice.




At this point we can just agree to disagree, because the original text of the feat doesn't say you have a bonus action until you take the attack action, which JEC has clarified in his many recent discussions about the timing of bonus actions.  I personally think there's a difference between the advice parts of the Sage Advice compendium (e.g. how Lucky should interact with advantage/disadvantage) and the official rulings (e.g. Q: Can you shove before you attack? A: No.).  At the end of the day, the result will be the same: you, Hriston and others will play it one way, and many other folks will play it as it was designed to be played as clarified by the lead rules designer of the game.  I don't understand why you need to justify this as simply interpreting the words differently to extract the meaning you want when you can simply ignore that part of the rule, but as long as everyone is having fun then it just doesn't matter.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> ...Which just goes to show that this interpretation of the rules is unplayable!
> 
> If there are two ways to interpret the rules, and one way is unplayable while the other works just fine, we *must* interpret the rules the way that works.




Sure, but neither way is unplayable. If you believe that actions are not divisible without an exception being made, then it follows that the exception is built into the rule itself, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.  If the Disengage action is not divisible and one interpretation of an indivisible Disengage action is that you cannot then move, and another interpretation is that you can move and the rule stating that your movement for the rest of the turn does not provoke attacks means that it's an exception, we *must* interpret the rule in the way that works. 



> WHY do you believe that? What rules tell you that 'actions are indivisible'?




There is no explicit rule one way or the other, but typically one cannot do multiple actions simultaneously, so it makes more sense for them to be indivisible.



> In the face of a rule which IS actually written-you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn-why would you believe that this written rule is trumped by a rule which is NOT written?




5e is written with common usages and language in mind.  It's not common in my experience for people to think that someone can do two different actions simultaneously.  It can be done, but it's really hard to accomplish outside of patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, and I've seen a few people fail to be able to do even that.


----------



## epithet (Feb 24, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> At this point we can just agree to disagree, because the original text of the feat doesn't say you have a bonus action until you take the attack action, which JEC has clarified in his many recent discussions about the timing of bonus actions.  I personally think there's a difference between the advice parts of the Sage Advice compendium (e.g. how Lucky should interact with advantage/disadvantage) and the official rulings (e.g. Q: Can you shove before you attack? A: No.).  At the end of the day, the result will be the same: you, Hriston and others will play it one way, and many other folks will play it as it was designed to be played as clarified by the lead rules designer of the game.  I don't understand why you need to justify this as simply interpreting the words differently to extract the meaning you want when you can simply ignore that part of the rule, but as long as everyone is having fun then it just doesn't matter.




I think for me there are a few assertions that are just very difficult to leave unchallenged. For example, you continue to insist that Crawford's new interpretation of the feat is "as it was designed," when nothing of the sort has been established. Yes, Crawford is very clear indeed about his current intent for the feat, but he's never said that it was originally written to be a so-called "finishing move," just that he interprets it to be so now. I think the fact that the "official ruling" was originally and for a couple of years that you could take the shove bonus action whenever you want is a strong indicator that the original concept was to have the shove be a set-up for your attacks. The idea that the feat would be written to require the shove to happen at the time when it would be least useful to the person who took the feat is patently ridiculous, in my opinion, and Crawford's reference to it as a "finishing move" has caused me to lose a measure of respect for his published opinions generally.

Another assertion that is galling is the insistence that since Crawford has published an interpretation of the "If you ... you can" language to impose a timing requirement, that it must therefore be the case that this language unambiguously has a timing requirement and that, in fact, there is no other reasonable way to read the sentence. I think interpreting the sentence to mean that you can take the shove if you take the attack action, meaning the shove would be simultaneous with the attack action, is a far more reasonable, natural, and intuitive reading of that sentence. (As in, "If you go to the mailbox, you can take the dog for a walk.") All this "indivisible action" malarky has been concocted to try to justify this "if means after" construction, to (what I regard as) the detriment of any game run by a DM who tries to adhere to "official rulings."

No, I don't need to justify anything. I do, however, feel an urge to respond to your apparent belief that the only way to hold an opinion different from yours on this issue is to willfully fail a reading comprehension check, because the way you and Jeremy read the sentence in question is obviously, inarguably, unassailably correct. Never mind that pages and pages of forum posts, in addition to earlier tweets from Jeremy Crawford himself, reasonably interpret the language of the sentence to mean something other than "if equals after."

Mind you, I'm not saying--nor do I recall seeing anyone else suggest--that it is not possible to reasonably parse the language of the sentence in question the way that you and Jeremy Crawford are so enthusiastically championing. I do feel that it leads to an unreasonable conclusion regarding the Shield Master feat's bonus action shove, but I will certainly agree that the very obviously ambiguous language of the feat can be interpreted that way (which is why I removed any ambiguity in my home game with a house rule.) It's really only you and Max who seem to regard the sentence as being entirely unambiguous, and insisting that yours is the clearly and unequivocally right way to read the bloody thing.

Edit: One final point: the only distinction I draw among Crawford's statements regarding the rules is between errata and everything else. Errata changes the rules, while nothing else does. An "official ruling" is no different that a drunken grocery store tweet, really, other than the implication that he probably thought about it a bit more. I think the drunken tweets are probably more indicative of how he would rule at the table as a Dungeon Master, while the "official ruling" has been overthought in an attempt to preserve some kind of internal consistency among his Sage Advice suggestions.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 24, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> the original text of the feat doesn't say you have a bonus action until you take the attack action




A bit confusing, but I _think_ you're saying, "the original text of the feat _says you *don't* have a bonus action *until* you take the attack action"_.

Well, on this specific point, what the feat _actually_ says is this:-

"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".

Sure, you _can_ read that as meaning "*after* you have taken the Attack action".

However, you can _also_ interpret that "If you take the Attack action *on your turn*...", then all you need to do is, sometime on your turn, use your action to take the Attack action. The _only_ specified timing is 'on your turn'. There is no restriction to '_after_ your action'!

We _know_ this is the case, since JC himself interpreted those words that way for years!


----------



## Hriston (Feb 24, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  The trigger is not "taking the Attack action," which is a present tense statement.  The trigger is "When you take the Attack action," which is past tense.




Actually, both verb forms you’ve written are in the present tense. _Taking_ is the present participle, while _take_ is the simple present. Present tense is often used to refer to future events, however, especially when used in a condition clause such as, “If you take the Attack action”. Past tense would be, “If you *took* the Attack action,” although I’m not sure what significance you think that grammatical construction would have. 



Maxperson said:


> You actually have to take the action, which means making your attacks.  Until you take your attacks, you have not taken the action.




I’ll take this as a “no” to the question I asked you, and I agree; taking the Attack action is synonymous with making your attack(s). There is no condition that needs to be met before you can make your attack(s), and when you do, you’re taking the Attack action. 



Maxperson said:


> Here is you making that claim. "You don't "get" attacks by taking the Attack action. You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks."  You do in fact get attacks by taking the attack action.  You do not in fact get the attack action by making one or more attacks.  Perhaps you made that claim inadvertently and don't believe what you said, but it is what you said.




It’s weird how you quote me saying one thing and then try to use that to claim I’m saying something else. Look at your own quote. I didn’t say you “get” the Attack action. I said you “take” the Attack action. This agrees with your statement that taking the Attack action “means making your attacks.” You’re seeing disagreement where none exists, and it seems you’ve gone back to saying you get attacks by taking the Attack action. This contradicts your statement that taking the Attack action means making your attack(s). If you put those two statements together, it means you get attacks by making attacks, which is kind of circular and paradoxical, don’t you think?



Maxperson said:


> You don't get to change RAW without making a house rule.  If you are stating that according to your house rule, this Schrodingers situation of yours where it's not an action or a bonus action until you look at it sideways is used at your table, then I'm fine with your statement.  However, if you are trying to say that according to the PHB or DMG the bonus action switches to an action, you are absolutely and factually wrong.




No, there’s no switching involved. What I’m saying is this: If a player declares they shove a creature, I resolve that by the rules, with a contest. Then, when they declare another attack, if they have the Shield Master feat, I see that they’re taking the Attack action on their turn, which qualifies them to have used their bonus action for the shove, meaning they still have their action to use. I haven’t changed the RAW more than anyone else who interprets the rules in order to play the game. I have nothing against house-rules and am not ashamed of the ones I use, but this isn’t a case of making any changes to the rules. There is more than one interpretation, and your interpretation isn’t any better than mine.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 24, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but neither way is unplayable. If you believe that actions are not divisible without an exception being made, then it follows that the exception is built into the rule itself, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.  If the Disengage action is not divisible and one interpretation of an indivisible Disengage action is that you cannot then move, and another interpretation is that you can move and the rule stating that your movement for the rest of the turn does not provoke attacks means that it's an exception, we *must* interpret the rule in the way that works.




If you accept that "your movement this turn does not provoke" to give permission to do what seems 'expressly' forbidden by the unwritten 'rule', then surely the case for "you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn" is even stronger! 



> There is no explicit rule one way or the other, but typically one cannot do multiple actions simultaneously, so it makes more sense for them to be indivisible.




While there is no rule which says you _can't_, there _is_ a rule which says you _can_ take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn.

As for making sense (and I'm a big fan of that!), sure it makes sense that you can't be chanting the verbal components for two spells simultaneously, and it makes sense that you can't use your single weapon to attack two opponents in different rooms simultaneously, it _does_ make perfect sense to be able to execute one attack, _misty step_ into another room, then execute your second attack! What's nonsensicle about that?



> 5e is written with common usages and language in mind.  It's not common in my experience for people to think that someone can do two different actions simultaneously.  It can be done, but it's really hard to accomplish outside of patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, and I've seen a few people fail to be able to do even that.




And we're not doing that! We're saying that you can pat your head, _then_ cast a spell, _then_ rub your tummy!


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 24, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> We _know_ this is the case, since JC himself interpreted those words that way for years!




If you still want to argue that the 2015 tweet was JEC's intentional ruling on the matter, when he has since come out and said that he doesn't even remember tweeting that and you should absolutely disregard the tweet because it was incorrect and then updated the official Sage Advice compendium with a specific ruling on the subject, then I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, sure.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 24, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> If you still want to argue that the 2015 tweet was JEC's intentional ruling on the matter, when he has since come out and said that he doesn't even remember tweeting that and you should absolutely disregard the tweet because it was incorrect and then updated the official Sage Advice compendium with a specific ruling on the subject, then I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion, sure.




As loaded as all that is....yes!

When we are learning something our conscious minds deal with it. Once we _have_ learned that thing, then our _sub_conscious mind takes over, leaving our conscious mind to be ready for other things.

This is how we operate on 'automatic pilot'. On days when we are distracted, we can still do the thing in question without having to concentrate on it, but we do it the way we learned it.

So _if_ JC was in line at Trader Joe's the day they had "buy one get one free" on Jack Daniels....he would answer the question with the way he _sub_consciously understood the rule to work.

Y'know, the rule _he_ wrote.

Because he _wanted_ the rules to work that way.

He's changed his mind since.

It is not credible that he _always_ wanted the game to work the way his latest tweets interpret it, but while distracted his subconscious went to an interpretation he _never_ had!

Either way, we adjudicate the RAW with the RAW, not with tweets.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 24, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> As loaded as all that is....yes!
> 
> When we are learning something our conscious minds deal with it. Once we _have_ learned that thing, then our _sub_conscious mind takes over, leaving our conscious mind to be ready for other things.
> 
> ...




Or, you know, he forgot that Shield Master had a timing requirement and just replied based on the general rule about bonus actions (i.e. that you can take them any time you want).  He's mentioned on Dragon Talk and Dragon+ on many occasions that he's now much more careful about looking things up in the books, because he has so many different variations of the rules in his mind and wants to make sure he comments on the actual version of the rules they released.  I really don't think there needs to be a grand conspiracy here, and the Sage Advice compendium update really should put to rest any discussion about how the rule is supposed to work.  If you want to ignore that ruling at your table, great, more power to you.  I just find it kind of funny that you're arguing that no, JEC's subconscious mind was right the first time and the Sage Advice compendium must be wrong as a result.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Actually, both verb forms you’ve written are in the present tense. _Taking_ is the present participle, while _take_ is the simple present. Present tense is often used to refer to future events, however, especially when used in a condition clause such as, “If you take the Attack action”. Past tense would be, “If you *took* the Attack action,” although I’m not sure what significance you think that grammatical construction would have.




The game does not say, "If you are going to take the Attack action..." 



> No, there’s no switching involved. What I’m saying is this: If a player declares they shove a creature, I resolve that by the rules, with a contest. *Then, when they declare another attack, if they have the Shield Master feat, I see that they’re taking the Attack action on their turn, which qualifies them to have used their bonus action for the shove*, meaning they still have their action to use. I haven’t changed the RAW more than anyone else who interprets the rules in order to play the game. I have nothing against house-rules and am not ashamed of the ones I use, but this isn’t a case of making any changes to the rules. There is more than one interpretation, and your interpretation isn’t any better than mine.




The bolded part is against the rules.  You can't take a bonus action until after the trigger has happened.  You can stretch "interpretation" mean simultaneous, which would trigger after the first attack, since you can't have taken or be taking the Attack action before the first attack.  Prior to the first attack it's only a declaration which is insufficient.  There is also no rule that allows you to take the bonus action they used and turn it into the Attack action should you be knocked out before the PC can take the Attack action.  If you think there is, please quote it in your response.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> If you accept that "your movement this turn does not provoke" to give permission to do what seems 'expressly' forbidden by the unwritten 'rule', then surely the case for "you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn" is even stronger!
> 
> While there is no rule which says you _can't_, there _is_ a rule which says you _can_ take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn.




Choosing when to take the bonus action seems to me to be in context, an ordering of events.  You can do bonus action, move, action, move.  Or move, action, bonus action, move.  Or action, bonus action, move. Or whatever combination you like.  It's not something that allows simultaneous events.  In the above context, you are indeed choosing when on your turn to engage a bonus action that doesn't include built in timing.



> As for making sense (and I'm a big fan of that!), sure it makes sense that you can't be chanting the verbal components for two spells simultaneously, and it makes sense that you can't use your single weapon to attack two opponents in different rooms simultaneously, it _does_ make perfect sense to be able to execute one attack, _misty step_ into another room, then execute your second attack!* What's nonsensicle about that?*




Nothing, which is why I'm going to allow it.  



> And we're not doing that! We're saying that you can pat your head, _then_ cast a spell, _then_ rub your tummy!


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 24, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Or, you know, he forgot that Shield Master had a timing requirement and just replied based on the general rule about bonus actions (i.e. that you can take them any time you want).  He's mentioned on Dragon Talk and Dragon+ on many occasions that he's now much more careful about looking things up in the books, because he has so many different variations of the rules in his mind and wants to make sure he comments on the actual version of the rules they released.  I really don't think there needs to be a grand conspiracy here, and the Sage Advice compendium update really should put to rest any discussion about how the rule is supposed to work.  If you want to ignore that ruling at your table, great, more power to you.  I just find it kind of funny that you're arguing that no, JEC's subconscious mind was right the first time and the Sage Advice compendium must be wrong as a result.




Sadly the original tweet and sage advice should have out the issue to bed as well


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So _if_ JC was in line at Trader Joe's the day they had "buy one get one free" on Jack Daniels....he would answer the question with the way he _sub_consciously understood the rule to work.




Or it could have just easily been, "Tee hee!!  This one is really going to throw them for a loop."  I've been around enough tipsy and drunk people to know that it often releases the smart ass in them, and also prevents sound judgment.

I don't know which of those is true, or if it was his unconscious mind, or some other option, but those two possibilities seem a lot stronger to me than he unconsciously wrote his true understanding.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (Feb 25, 2019)

epithet said:


> (As in, "If you go to the mailbox, you can take the dog for a walk.")



I find it interesting how we are sometimes "divided by a common language." For example, in New Zealand English the quoted sentence would be parsed as, "You are only allowed to take the dog for a walk once you have finished going to the mailbox". This is both the condition (go to the mailbox) and the timing of that condition (finish going to the mailbox).

Similarly, "If you finish your vegetables, you can have pudding." and, "If you do your expense claim, you can have the afternoon off."

I read discussions in this forum, and others, with interest because I never understood any parsing of the rule other than, "You only get to do the Bonus Action Shove if you have finished the Attack Action."


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 25, 2019)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> I find it interesting how we are sometimes "divided by a common language." For example, in New Zealand English the quoted sentence would be parsed as, "You are only allowed to take the dog for a walk once you have finished going to the mailbox". This is both the condition (go to the mailbox) and the timing of that condition (finish going to the mailbox).
> 
> Similarly, "If you finish your vegetables, you can have pudding." and, "If you do your expense claim, you can have the afternoon off."
> 
> I read discussions in this forum, and others, with interest because I never understood any parsing of the rule other than, "You only get to do the Bonus Action Shove if you have finished the Attack Action."




"IF you take the Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory".

Does anyone understand that as meaning you must _finish_ the course _before_ you are allowed to take a room in that dormitory? Or is it conditional in the sense that you can only take the room if you _also_ take the Law course?

You would even be expected to move into the dormitory _before_ term even starts! All that is required is that you are only allowed to take that room if you are also taking the Law course that term/semester.

The way that Shield Master bullet point is written allows this arrangement; that you may only take the bonus action shield bash if you also take the Attack action this semester turn.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 25, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> He's mentioned on Dragon Talk and Dragon+ on many occasions that he's now much more careful about looking things up in the books, because *he has so many different variations of the rules in his mind* and wants to make sure he comments on the *actual version of the rules they released*.




The two parts I bolded are what I'm talking about here.

First, whoever designed the game-JC here-did not come down a mountain carrying tablets of stone with the 5e game system inscribed upon them! No, JC, and game designers generally, have gone through weeks, months, even years, coming up with ideas, rejecting some and keeping others, refining some, researching past rules systems (_especially_ true for D&D!), and having many different solutions before actually settling on one.

Then they publish The Book.

Then the designer _continues to do what designers do_, which is to continue to think about these ideas and better ways to do them, sometimes utilising feedback on the actual play experience of others, and frequently come to think things like, "They don't seem to understand what I meant; I could've explained it better", "I didn't realise the ramifications of all those rules and one rule has had unintended and undesirable consequences; I wish I'd have done it differently. I should change it".

So, for the designer, their thoughts about a rule system are in a constant state of flux.

But for us, there is only....The Book.

We treat The Book like it was The Revealed Word. Which it literally is!

What it says in The Book about its own rules *must*, by definition, be True.

But what if there are inconsistencies? Well, we could ask The Creator what he meant!

So we ask him.

First, because his own understanding of the rules has been in constant flux this whole time, it is easy to understand that his current understand is _not_ what The Book says. And that when asked on different occasions years apart, when his own thinking about the rules has changed over time, it's easy to understand how he comes to different conclusions. Not because he is stupid or drunk or bored or distracted, but simply that his thoughts on the rules, in constant evolving flux, has changed.

Even when The Creator goes back and reads The Book to check, the very fact that his understanding has changed may lead him to very different conclusions about _that same rule_ over a period of time.

But we only have The Book.

We cannot be privy to The Creator's thoughts, even as accessible as JC is on Twitter. We also cannot reasonably be expected to change the way our game works at exactly the same moment as The Creator changes his opinion on his own rules, which are now Set In Stone for the rest of us.

Because, make no mistake, when we go to our FLGS and come back with this brand spanking new 5e PHB, *we* HAVE been to the mountain and come down with tablets of stone with the 5e game system inscribed upon them! ....Metaphorically speaking.

Sure, each table then sets up its own denomination, but most of us don't declare a Crusade against unbelievers....even though it might seem that way on the forums.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Feb 25, 2019)

Hriston said:


> No, there’s no switching involved. What I’m saying is this: If a player declares they shove a creature, I resolve that by the rules, with a contest. Then, when they declare another attack, if they have the Shield Master feat, I see that they’re taking the Attack action on their turn, which qualifies them to have used their bonus action for the shove, meaning they still have their action to use. I haven’t changed the RAW more than anyone else who interprets the rules in order to play the game. I have nothing against house-rules and am not ashamed of the ones I use, but this isn’t a case of making any changes to the rules. There is more than one interpretation, and your interpretation isn’t any better than mine.



Hriston, this is how I would adjudicate it. The "If...on your turn" tells me to check at the end of the turn to see if the trigger has been met. That statement says to me that timing does not matter, only that the Attack action occurred at some point. If it said "After" instead of "If" then timing would matter.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 25, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Choosing when to take the bonus action seems to me to be in context, an ordering of events.  You can do bonus action, move, action, move.  Or move, action, bonus action, move.  Or action, bonus action, move. Or whatever combination you like.  It's not something that allows simultaneous events.  In the above context, you are indeed choosing when on your turn to engage a bonus action that doesn't include built in timing.




We agree about ordering of events. Where we seem to differ is that you seem to take the view that:-

* game rules 'Action' = in world 'event'

...which it _can_ be (cast a spell with a casting time of an action, bonus action, or reaction), make a _single_ attack with a weapon, and so on, but is certainly not limited in that way!

The Dodge action either represents a single 'event' which lasts as long as the in-game Action lasts (zig-zagging/tumbling around) or represents a sequence of individual 'events' (dodging each incoming attack individually).

The Disengage action either represents a single 'event' which lasts until the end of your turn (or until you use up your move), or it represents multiple 'events' where potential AoOs are avoided.

The Dash action either represents a single 'event' (I decide to focus on moving) or it represents a series of 'events' depending on how you split up your move.

You rule that RAW says that you CAN divide these actions (because you rule that the RAW says that you can still take your Action despite a bonus action Dodge/Disengage is still ongoing), OR you rule that they are a single instantaneous event with continuing effects. Since you've previously ruled out the latter, you must rule the former.

Meanwhile, we _know_ for a fact that the game rules 'Action', where you have Extra Attack, is *not* a single in-world 'event' but a sequence of individual 'events' (in this case, individual attacks) taking place anytime you want during your turn.

Given your ruling that you CAN divide Dodge/Disengage/Dash when you interpret them as single 'events', how can you rule that Attack/Extra Attack CANNOT be divided even though they ARE distinct 'events'?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 25, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> First, because his own understanding of the rules has been in constant flux this whole time, it is easy to understand that his current understand is _not_ what The Book says. And that when asked on different occasions years apart, when his own thinking about the rules has changed over time, it's easy to understand how he comes to different conclusions. Not because he is stupid or drunk or bored or distracted, but simply that his thoughts on the rules, in constant evolving flux, has changed.




But that's not what happened here.  It would be one thing if JEC said in 2017 or 2018 "hey everyone, turns out that my old ruling in 2015 meant the Shield Master feat was massively overpowered, so I'm going to nerf it into the ground by enforcing a new timing requirement.  The next errata will change the wording of the feat so that you only get to shove if 3 members of your party dance in a circle for 10 rounds."  or something like that.  That would indicate a change in his position on the rule.

In 2017, he clarified the "if X then Y" means X has to happen before Y for bonus actions.  This is an important foundational rule that applies to many things, as indicated by the Sage Advice compendium:



> This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.




Given the fact he still didn't remember he even tweeted about Shield Master in 2015, Shield Master slipped through the cracks and he had to tweet about it in 2018 (I believe in response to someone from these forums asking about his 2017 ruling in relation to the feat).  Once he realized he had made an incorrect tweet, he corrected it.  Since that point, he's been very vocal about the fact that he made a mistake, and that his 2015 tweet was flat-out incorrect and should be ignored.  The Sage Advice compendium has now been updated with a clarification to avoid any confusion on the matter.  I'd like to believe that JEC and WOTC have the intellectual honesty to be up front about cases where they are changing rules.  I really see no sign that this is what happened in relation to Shield Master, though.

For those that are still playing the Shield Master shove as coming before the Attack action, do you use the Sage Advice compendium for anything else?  And if so, what is special about this particular ruling that makes you believe it's incompatible with the words in the PHB?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 25, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> Hriston, this is how I would adjudicate it. The "If...on your turn" tells me to check at the end of the turn to see if the trigger has been met. That statement says to me that timing does not matter, only that the Attack action occurred at some point. If it said "After" instead of "If" then timing would matter.




Can you point me at the rule for adjudicating what happens when the end of the turn is reached and the Attack action hasn't been taken?  I've read through the PHB several times and haven't seen any language that allows you to go back in time and change a bonus action to an action, for example.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 25, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> But that's not what happened here.  It would be one thing if JEC said in 2017 or 2018 "hey everyone, turns out that my old ruling in 2015 meant the Shield Master feat was massively overpowered, so I'm going to nerf it into the ground by enforcing a new timing requirement.  The next errata will change the wording of the feat so that you only get to shove if 3 members of your party dance in a circle for 10 rounds."  or something like that.  That would indicate a change in his position on the rule.
> 
> In 2017, he clarified the "if X then Y" means X has to happen before Y for bonus actions.  This is an important foundational rule that applies to many things, as indicated by the Sage Advice compendium.




But Shield Master does *not* say, "If...Then". There is no 'then'; no timing beyond that turn. It's written like, "If...You may _also_"



> Given the fact he still didn't remember he even tweeted about Shield Master in 2015, Shield Master slipped through the cracks and he had to tweet about it in 2018 (I believe in response to someone from these forums asking about his 2017 ruling in relation to the feat).  Once he realized he had made an incorrect tweet, he corrected it.  Since that point, he's been very vocal about the fact that he made a mistake, and that his 2015 tweet was flat-out incorrect and should be ignored.  The Sage Advice compendium has now been updated with a clarification to avoid any confusion on the matter.  I'd like to believe that JEC and WOTC have the intellectual honesty to be up front about cases where they are changing rules.  I really see no sign that this is what happened in relation to Shield Master, though.
> 
> For those that are still playing the Shield Master shove as coming before the Attack action, do you use the Sage Advice compendium for anything else?  And if so, what is special about this particular ruling that makes you believe it's incompatible with the words in the PHB?




That is one possibility.

Another possibility is that his memory has let him down. We _know_ this is credible because he said that he doesn't remember he even tweeted about it!

We each come to our own judgement about which version we find most credible.

But here's the point: his later musings are irrelevant! Only what is written in The Book is RAW, by definition. Only the RAW can be used when discussing the RAW. And the RAW for Shield Master is that the only timing is that both Attack action and bonus action are on the same turn.

And JC appealing to a _non-existent_ 'actions are indivisible' rule to justify the change (yes, _change!_) is just insulting!


----------



## Hriston (Feb 25, 2019)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> I think the tense needs to be changed in that last sentence.
> …then the condition has been met if you _have taken _the Attack action on your turn.




Why would you need to change the tense? I quoted the condition verbatim from the book.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 25, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> JC has said(and it's obvious from reading the rules) that there is no such thing as declaring an action, so the check cannot happen until the action is taken.  If you check before it is taken, you are into declaring an action which is not something in the rules.




You can also check once you know the action is not taken, which is when another action is taken instead or the turn ends without it being taken. Before that, you won’t know whether the action will be taken or not, but it’s still alright to shove a creature at that time. You just won’t know whether the shove used the Attack action or a bonus action until after you’ve checked. 

Edit: Actually, what Crawford said is that there’s no action-declaration *phase* in 5E combat. You still have to declare actions to play the game because actually attacking the people you’re playing with is not okay. 



Maxperson said:


> iThe issue is that some of your interpretations are not interpretations.  For instance, the idea that of you take a Bonus Action that is dependent on the Attack action for the trigger ahead of the Attack action and are prevented from taking said action, that somehow the Bonus Action becomes the Attack action.  There's no rule that can even remotely be interpreted as allowing that to happen.




You don’t have that quite right. The idea is that if you shove a creature and are prevented from making any more attacks after that, even if you’re a shield master, you still only took the Attack action and didn’t use a bonus action. The rules that allow this are the Attack action, the rules for making attacks, and the rules for shoving a creature. 



Maxperson said:


> I mean hell, if I could do that within the rules, the next time the wizard is going to cast Magic Weapon on my sword and I go before him, I'll just swing with my enchanted sword.  After all, I can trigger the effect before the action happens so long as it happens at some point on the turn.  And if the wizard should be knocked out before he can cast the spell, well then he must have cast it at the moment I swung the sword.  Man!  "Interpreting" the rules like this is fun!




I’m trying to take your post seriously, but I have a hard time believing you don’t honestly see the many glaring differences between declaring that you shove a creature without first attacking it (which is something you can do) and declaring your nonmagical weapon is magic without a spell first being cast on it (which is something you can’t do). Have a nice day.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 25, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> "IF you take the Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory".
> 
> Does anyone understand that as meaning you must _finish_ the course _before_ you are allowed to take a room in that dormitory? Or is it conditional in the sense that you can only take the room if you _also_ take the Law course?
> 
> ...




False analogy.

You are using "take a course" as "sign up for a course"  which is a separate step from actually say attending a class.

in 5e, taking the attack action and making an attack as that action are not separate steps - they are one and the same.  there are certainly other ways to get an attack without it but taking the attack action is done by making an attack. 

i can sign up for classes, get the dorm room and never once attend a class - until they figure out whats up and come to evict me. 

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." No room there for "signing up to make an attack later." 

I have no disagreement that you do not have to finish all the attacks, but you do need to take one... or you haven't "taken the action."


----------



## Sadras (Feb 25, 2019)

I'm starting to suspect there's a strong possibility Winds of Winter will be released before this issue is resolved.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2019)

Hriston said:


> You can also check once you know the action is not taken, which is when another action is taken instead or the turn ends without it being taken.




Show me that rule.



> Before that, you won’t know whether the action will be taken or not, but it’s still alright to shove a creature at that time.




Show me that rule, too.



> You just won’t know whether the shove used the Attack action or a bonus action until after you’ve checked.




And this is just blatantly false.  You know the moment you use something whether it's an action or a bonus action.  The ability you use tells you straight out.  Despite your claims, there is no Shrodinger's action in 5e.



> Edit: Actually, what Crawford said is that there’s no action-declaration *phase* in 5E combat. You still have to declare actions to play the game because actually attacking the people you’re playing with is not okay.




This is just sophistry.  You don't declare that you are going to use an action in the game at some point during the turn.  I'll go Yoda on you.  Use or use not, there is no declare.



> You don’t have that quite right. The idea is that if you shove a creature and are prevented from making any more attacks after that, even if you’re a shield master, you still only took the Attack action and didn’t use a bonus action. The rules that allow this are the Attack action, the rules for making attacks, and the rules for shoving a creature.




This is not possible by RAW.  The Rules as Written tell you what type of action you are taking in the instant you take it.  The moment the PC takes a shove, it is either the action or the bonus action.   Either you take it as a Bonus Action, in which case the trigger already has to have happened, or  you take it as part of your Attack action, in which case you must say that as soon as you take it.  There is no limbo state that the shove waits in to see what it will become. 

Edit: I left out Reactions since they are not a part of this discussion.  I added it in, because many people here have problems with context and/or will seize on the omission as an evasion.



> I’m trying to take your post seriously, but I have a hard time believing you don’t honestly see the many glaring differences between declaring that you shove a creature without first attacking it (which is something you can do) and declaring your nonmagical weapon is magic without a spell first being cast on it (which is something you can’t do). Have a nice day.




1. Magic Weapon: Is this contingent on something occurring later in the round?  Yes.
1. Shove: Is this contingent on something occurring later in the round?  Yes.

2. Magic weapon: Am I using the ability before the trigger happens?  Yes.
2. Shove.  Are you using the ability before the trigger happens?  Yes.

3. Is my wizard being knocked out before the trigger occurs?  Yes.
3. Is your fighter being knocked out before the trigger occurs?  Yes.

4. Am I then re-writing reality so that the trigger never needed to happen and an action was taken to provide the effect?  Yes.
4. Are you then re-writing reality so that the trigger never needed to happen and an action was taken to provide the effect?  Yes.

I'm not seeing any difference in the steps taken between the two.  The reasoning for both examples is the same.  That one is an action and the other a bonus action is not relevant.  Both can be taken at any point during the turn.  If you are having problems with my wizard example, you really should take a closer look at what you are claiming.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> "IF you take the Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory".
> 
> Does anyone understand that as meaning you must _finish_ the course _before_ you are allowed to take a room in that dormitory? Or is it conditional in the sense that you can only take the room if you _also_ take the Law course?




Here's the thing.  Harvard wouldn't make a mistake like that and say, "IF you take the Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory."  What Harvard(other colleges) would say is, "IF you enrolled in a Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory."  Enrollment is the trigger, not taking.  You are not by any stretch of the imagination "taking" the class until it begins.  And you certainly didn't take the class before it ended.  Prior to the class beginning you were "going to take it," during the class you were, "taking it," and after the class you have "taken it" or "did you take it?  Yes."


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Given your ruling that you CAN divide Dodge/Disengage/Dash when you interpret them as single 'events', how can you rule that Attack/Extra Attack CANNOT be divided even though they ARE distinct 'events'?




My ruling is not that you CAN divide them.  Nor is my reading of RAW.  My reading of RAW is that they contain specific exceptions that divide them.  The Attack action also has a specific exception that divides it.  Movement.  RAW provides the exceptions and nothing else by RAW can divide them.  I disagree with RAW, so my ruling will allow divisions that are reasonable.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Can you point me at the rule for adjudicating what happens when the end of the turn is reached and the Attack action hasn't been taken?  I've read through the PHB several times and haven't seen any language that allows you to go back in time and change a bonus action to an action, for example.




The "If...on your turn" just tells you that you have until the end of the turn to check, but until you have checked and the trigger has occurred, you don't get the bonus action from the trigger.  They both have that wrong.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Feb 25, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Can you point me at the rule for adjudicating what happens when the end of the turn is reached and the Attack action hasn't been taken?  I've read through the PHB several times and haven't seen any language that allows you to go back in time and change a bonus action to an action, for example.




The PHB doesn't explain how to handle any rules violation because that is something that each group decides for themsleves how they will deal with.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Feb 25, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The "If...on your turn" just tells you that you have until the end of the turn to check, but until you have checked and the trigger has occurred, you don't get the bonus action from the trigger.  They both have that wrong.



If the bonus action had to happen after the trigger, then there would be no point in waiting until the end the end of the turn to check because you would already know before then.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 25, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> If the bonus action had to happen after the trigger, then there would be no point in waiting until the end the end of the turn to check because you would already know before then.




He didn't say (nor do the rules say) that you have to wait until the end of your turn, the trigger is taking the Attack action and you have until the end of your turn to use the bonus action you were just granted as a result of taking the Attack action.

I'll repeat my question from earlier:

For those that are still playing the Shield Master shove as coming before the Attack action, do you use the Sage Advice compendium for anything else? And if so, what is special about this particular ruling that makes you believe it's incompatible with the words in the PHB?


----------



## Hriston (Feb 25, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> There's 2 issues now.
> 
> 1.  The initial discussion about your interpretation being invalid.  You see if an interpretation is valid I'm perfectly happy with multiple valid interpretation.  Please don't mistaken believing a particular interpretation is invalid as a belief that there is only ever a single valid interpretation.




I would usually assume as much if my interpretation were received with anything resembling good faith. Instead, there's a great deal of misrepresentation going on, including the following:



FrogReaver said:


> 2.  The point you made just a few posts back where you argued that due to rules being non-restrictive and you being able to abdicate your particular way meant you were playing by the rules.  In short that issue is as I stated "The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules."




This is an issue you've created by misunderstanding my argument, and despite my efforts to clarify my meaning, you've persisted in your misconception and are even claiming I made a point I haven't. If your intention isn't to misrepresent me, then I would suggest reconsidering what it is you _think_ I'm saying when I tell you it isn't what I said.



FrogReaver said:


> A level 4 Fighter player may declare he attacks the ogre 4 times with his greatsword.  The rules restrict the mechanical resolution of that declaration to a single attack and damage roll on this particular turn (barring the extra attack feature).




That doesn't restrict the player's action-declaration, though. It just requires his/her action-declaration to be resolved over the course of four rounds and that the ogre will be allowed to attack in return.



FrogReaver said:


> So you believe the condition for the bonus action shove hasn't been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn.  That's a good start.  At least we agree there.
> 
> So you also believe you can't check whether you took the attack action on your turn until 1 of 3 things happen
> 1)  you take the attack action
> ...




No, you don't. If I understand your position correctly, you believe it qualifies you to use your bonus action only in the part of your turn that comes after the condition has been met. I take the rule on bonus actions seriously when it says, "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified," and I don't accept the argument that the Shield Master shove's timing is specified.



FrogReaver said:


> What I don't get is how you are saying "ONCE the condition has been met" and then insist on being able to "time travel" back to a point before you actually met the condition and then claim that because you actually met the condition in the pre time travel timeline that you now have also met the condition in the post time traveled timeline even though you've still not met the condition in this post time travel timeline yet.  How does your interpretation not essentially boil down to something like this?




Because there's no time traveling. Whether I take the Attack action on my turn or not is an objective truth. If I do, I have a bonus action to use.



FrogReaver said:


> @_*Hriston*_
> 
> In my games a turn is treated as a sequential series of events.  Is it not treated as such in your game?




It is. The fictional events that happen in a character's turn happen in a sequence.



FrogReaver said:


> If it's not I could maybe see how your position makes sense?




I doubt you're trying to see how it makes sense.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (Feb 25, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> "IF you take the Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory".
> 
> Does anyone understand that as meaning you must _finish_ the course _before_ you are allowed to take a room in that dormitory? Or is it conditional in the sense that you can only take the room if you _also_ take the Law course?



The second option would be phrased here as "While you take the Law course, you may take a room."


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 25, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I don't accept the argument that the Shield Master shove's timing is specified.




So when the lead rules designer says that "if X, then Y" has special meaning within the rules of the game, and that Shield Master is an example of such a trigger, he's just wrong?  Or is it because the PHB wording of Shield Master doesn't specifically contain the word "then" that he's wrong?  Or that when he's been telling everyone on many different platforms that the intent of the feat is the shove happens after the Attack action, and that the feat's bonus action is intended to be a finishing move, he's just wrong?  Do you just flat-out ignore the entire Sage Advice compendium, or just the question about Shield Master?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." No room there for "signing up to make an attack later."




I agree....

....until you get Extra Attack. As soon as you have Extra Attack, we both agree that executing that first attack really does effectively sign you up for making an attack later. 



> I have no disagreement that you do not have to finish all the attacks, but you do need to take one... or you haven't "taken the action."




And again, there is no requirement in the wording of SM that you must take the Attack action and only _then_ get the bonus action shield shove.

The only written timing requirement is that the Attack action and bonus action shield shove take place on your turn.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Here's the thing.  Harvard wouldn't make a mistake like that and say, "IF you take the Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory."  What Harvard(other colleges) would say is, "IF you enrolled in a Law course at Harvard, you may take a room in the Law dormitory."  Enrollment is the trigger, not taking.  You are not by any stretch of the imagination "taking" the class until it begins.  And you certainly didn't take the class before it ended.  Prior to the class beginning you were "going to take it," during the class you were, "taking it," and after the class you have "taken it" or "did you take it?  Yes."




No.

I should expand that a bit: sure, 'going to take' indicates a future intention, 'taking a course' indicates the present tense of you are currently within the time period of the start and end of the course, and 'taken the course' indicates that the course has finished.

My 'no' is simply that _none_ of those are the words used by the feat! I'm sure we wish the feat was so clearly written!

The feat uses the word 'take'. "If you take".

To be the past tense, the phrase would be, "If you *have taken*".

"It rains" = "it _is_ raining", not "it _will_ rain".

"You take" = "you _are_ taking", not "you _will have_ taken".

"_If_ you take", is conditional on a future action. It =/= "if you _have taken_".


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> My ruling is not that you CAN divide them.  Nor is my reading of RAW.  My reading of RAW is that they contain specific exceptions that divide them.  The Attack action also has a specific exception that divides it.  Movement.  RAW provides the exceptions and nothing else by RAW can divide them.  I disagree with RAW, so my ruling will allow divisions that are reasonable.




I'm pretty sure that we are both talking about the 5e PHB, so please can you cite where it gives you permission to move _during_ the Dash, Dodge, and/or the Disengage actions?

Y'know, the same way as we can cite the rule which says you _can_ take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> The second option would be phrased here as "While you take the Law course, you may take a room."




So, "*While* you take the Attack action, you may shield shove as a bonus action"? Allowing the shove between attacks.

Also, you don't have to wait until _after_ your first Law lecture has _finished_ to move into the dorm! You are expected to move in _before_ the first lecture of that course even begins.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> If the bonus action had to happen after the trigger, then there would be no point in waiting until the end the end of the turn to check because you would already know before then.




This is wrong.  At the end of the turn you check, if you didn't attack, you don't get a bonus action and the turn is over.  At any time prior to the turn being over, up to and including the end of the turn, you can take your action and prolong the turn.  If you do, and it's an Attack action, you will trigger the bonus action from Shield Master.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

Hriston said:


> No, you don't. If I understand your position correctly, you believe it qualifies you to use your bonus action only in the part of your turn that comes after the condition has been met. I take the rule on bonus actions seriously when it says, "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified," and I don't accept the argument that the Shield Master shove's timing is specified..




Every last bonus action caused by a trigger has timing built in.  That timing is the trigger.  That's how language commonly works, so that's how it works in 5e.  Only bonus actions that have no trigger can be used at any time.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> So when the lead rules designer says that "if X, then Y" has special meaning within the rules of the game, and that Shield Master is an example of such a trigger, he's just wrong?  Or is it because the PHB wording of Shield Master doesn't specifically contain the word "then" that he's wrong?  Or that when he's been telling everyone on many different platforms that the intent of the feat is the shove happens after the Attack action, and that the feat's bonus action is intended to be a finishing move, he's just wrong?  Do you just flat-out ignore the entire Sage Advice compendium, or just the question about Shield Master?




With the best will in the world, it must be admitted that JC has, at different times, held opposing views on this. Therefore, he is demonstrably wrong at least once!

Which is why we get our understanding of the rules from...the rules. From RAW.

The RAW wording allows the multiple attacks of the Attack action and the shield shove from the bonus action _because_ of the rules that _are_ written:-

* the rules say you can do each of these things on your turn

* a written rules says you can take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn

* no rule says you cannot

* the Shield Master feat's only specified timing is that both things must happen on your turn

We have written rules that say we _can_, and *no* written rules which say we _can't_.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Every last bonus action caused by a trigger has timing built in.  That timing is the trigger.  That's how language commonly works, so that's how it works in 5e.  Only bonus actions that have no trigger can be used at any time.




Sure. In the case of the Shield Master feat, the timing is "on your turn."


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 26, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> With the best will in the world, it must be admitted that JC has, at different times, held opposing views on this. Therefore, he is demonstrably wrong at least once!
> 
> Which is why we get our understanding of the rules from...the rules. From RAW.
> 
> ...




I'll repeat my question for the 4th time: Do you just flat-out ignore the entire Sage Advice compendium, or just the question about Shield Master?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> And again, there is no requirement in the wording of SM that you must take the Attack action and only _then_ get the bonus action shield shove.




Yes there is.  Since there is no ability to declare an action to come, there is no possible interpretation of take that involves going before the action is being taken.  You can squint sideways and interpret it to happen after the first attack.  I'll grant you that much, but until that first attack happens, you are not "taking," have not "taken" and are not in any part of "take."



> The only written timing requirement is that the Attack action and bonus action shield shove take place on your turn.




This just isn't true.  A trigger cannot happen before it actually, you know, happens.



> My 'no' is simply that none of those are the words used by the feat! I'm sure we wish the feat was so clearly written!
> 
> The feat uses the word 'take'. "If you take".
> 
> ...




The bolded is simply false and I can prove it.  If I take a quarter off of a shelf, the action is not being performed at all before I grab the quarter, and is over and done as soon as I pick it up.  At no point is there a present tense situation where take = taking.  When I grab it, I didn't yet take it as it's still on the shelf.  As soon as it lifts off of the counter, I did take it and the action is immediately past tense.

Now, if there is a stack of quarters and I want to take the stack of quarters and I pick one up, at no time did I take the stack.  I am taking the stack, so there is a present tense to be had, but "take" is not it.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> So when the lead rules designer says that "if X, then Y" has special meaning within the rules of the game, and that Shield Master is an example of such a trigger, he's just wrong?  Or is it because the PHB wording of Shield Master doesn't specifically contain the word "then" that he's wrong?  Or that when he's been telling everyone on many different platforms that the intent of the feat is the shove happens after the Attack action, and that the feat's bonus action is intended to be a finishing move, he's just wrong?  Do you just flat-out ignore the entire Sage Advice compendium, or just the question about Shield Master?




That last question is a great one. I don't ignore the Sage Advice compendium, nor do I disregard the tweets from Crawford, Mearls, & Co. (despite my general opinion that if something is worth saying, it is worth saying somewhere other than "social media." Get off my lawn.) I find Sage Advice to be interesting and informative, and I often find it persuasive. What I don't _ever _do is consider it authoritative, much less binding. Sage Advice is a suggestion, an offering of advice, meant to help a dungeon master like me to make rulings for my game. It is absolutely not designed to replace my rulings with an official interpretation of a rule--Jeremy isn't mastering my dungeons for me.

Regardless of where you stand on the matter of shove timing, the Shield Master issue has highlighted the fact that Jeremy Crawford is not infallible. It is up to each of us to decide how much weight, if any, to give to his advice (whether from tweets or "official rulings") and then make up our own minds about what the rules require or permit in our games.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> I'm pretty sure that we are both talking about the 5e PHB, so please can you cite where it gives you permission to move _during_ the Dash, Dodge, and/or the Disengage actions?
> 
> Y'know, the same way as we can cite the rule which says you _can_ take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn.




I'll only post one, since that's all I need.

"When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers. With a speed of 30 feet, for example, you can move up to 60 feet on your turn if you dash."

Since there is no rule that makes actions instantaneous, we have to look at the wording to see how long the action lasts.  Dash says that the action gives you extra movement during the turn, so by far the most reasonable explanation is that the Dash action lasts until you decide that you are done moving.  That's the common understanding of what action means.  While you are acting, you are in action.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> Sure. In the case of the Shield Master feat, the timing is "on your turn."




No it's not.  The timing is explicitly "If you take the Attack action" which limits you to when you actually take the action and after.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> ... If I take a quarter off of a shelf, the action is not being performed at all before I grab the quarter, and is over and done as soon as I pick it up.  At no point is there a present tense situation where take = taking.  When I grab it, I didn't yet take it as it's still on the shelf.  As soon as it lifts off of the counter, I did take it and the action is immediately past tense.
> 
> Now, if there is a stack of quarters and I want to take the stack of quarters and I pick one up, at no time did I take the stack.  I am taking the stack, so there is a present tense to be had, but "take" is not it.




Max, you really take the cake.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No it's not.  The timing is explicitly "If you take the Attack action" which limits you to when you actually take the action and after.




"If" is not the same as "when."


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> Max, you really take the cake.




And if you try to take it back, I'll use my bonus action Shove that triggered when I got it.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> "If" is not the same as "when."




True, but those "ifs" that are not "whens" don't happen until they become whens.

If I ever win the lottery I will buy a big house is an example of an if that is not a when, but you can be sure no big house is happening until the "if" becomes that "when."  Or I get enough money a different way.

Similarly, "If you take the attack action" doesn't trigger anything unless you begin the Attack action, since at no point have you taken the Attack action in any way, shape or form.  Until that "if" becomes the "when" of taking the attack action, there is no trigger for Shield Bash.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> ... The Rules as Written tell you what type of action you are taking in the instant you take it.  The moment the PC takes a shove, it is either the action or the bonus action.   Either you take it as a Bonus Action, in which case the trigger already has to have happened, or  you take it as part of your Attack action, in which case you must say that as soon as you take it.  There is no limbo state that the shove waits in to see what it will become.
> ...



That's not necessarily true.

The player states what her character is doing. The dungeon master determines what happens, or at least the means by which what happens is determined. Between those two, there is indeed a warm ray of sunshine in which sleeps Schrodinger's cat.

For example, the player states that her character, a rogue, is going to hide. Was that an action? Was it a cunning (bonus) action? You don't know until you hear what else she's going to do in the round. Furthermore, until then, you probably don't care. You know she can hide, and she has a couple of game options to make that happen, so you can just see what happens. It's called role playing. Now, you certainly can make a player state definitively what a character is doing in game terminology. You can refuse to accept "I stab it with my sword," and require a formal declaration of "I take the attack action and make an attack with my short sword." That's roll playing, and sounds like a crappy game to me, but hey... your table, your rulings.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> That's not necessarily true.
> 
> The player states what her character is doing. The dungeon master determines what happens, or at least the means by which what happens is determined. Between those two, there is indeed a warm ray of sunshine in which sleeps Schrodinger's cat.




No.  The DM cannot play the PC at all without some sort of domination effect.  Short of that, the DM cannot tell the player that it's a bonus action or action.  The player tells the DM which one he is doing as he states what his character is doing unless there is no option for a different kind of action.  "I am using the bonus action I gained from Shield Master after my attack to shove the enemy." or "I am using my first attack in my Attack action to shove the enemy."



> For example, the player states that her character, a rogue, is going to hide. Was that an action? Was it a cunning (bonus) action? You don't know until you hear what else she's going to do in the round.




Um, no.  You ask which it is if the player forgot to tell you. Otherwise you know which it is, because the player is the only one who can make that decision based on the rules in question, which with Shield Master requires the "if" to become the "when" before it triggers.

How about you quote me this mythical Schrodinger's Actions rule.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> ...
> Similarly, "If you take the attack action" doesn't trigger anything unless you begin the Attack action, since at no point have you taken the Attack action in any way, shape or form.  Until that "if" becomes the "when" of taking the attack action, there is no trigger for Shield Bash.




When the player begins the turn with "I close to melee with the hobgoblin and try to shove him to the ground with my shield, then attack him when he's down," it is up to you to determine whether the shove is part of the Attack Action or, since the Attack Action has been taken at that point, whether it was the Shield Master bonus action and the PC has his extra attack left to strike the hobgoblin a second time. "If" has a value of "true," and "when" is "on your turn."


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  The DM cannot play the PC at all without some sort of domination effect.  Short of that, the DM cannot tell the player that it's a bonus action or action.  The player tells the DM which one he is doing as he states what his character is doing unless there is no option for a different kind of action.  "I am using the bonus action I gained from Shield Master after my attack to shove the enemy." or "I am using my first attack in my Attack action to shove the enemy."
> ...



Applying game mechanics to the player's states character actions is not even remotely the same as "playing the character." It's the same as the player saying "I look for a way to open the gate," and you replying "Make an investigation check."


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I'll repeat my question for the 4th time: Do you just flat-out ignore the entire Sage Advice compendium, or just the question about Shield Master?




Epithet posted the reply that I would have, so I'll ask you:- do you flat-out _obey_ Sage Advice?

Because if you do then you have both obeyed his advice that you _can_ shield bash before your first attack AND obeyed the advice that you cannot! But only one of these opposing interpretations is actually true, so we know that Sage Advice can be false. Slavishly, uncritically obeying is not the way forward.

On the other hand, if you do critically scrutinise the advice, how can you criticise me for doing the same?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> Applying game mechanics to the player's states character actions is not even remotely the same as "playing the character." It's the same as the player saying "I look for a way to open the gate," and you replying "Make an investigation check."




You aren't just applying mechanics.  You are deciding for him what his PC is doing.  You are making the decision to use his one bonus action for the turn or not, and that's wrong.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> When the player begins the turn with "I close to melee with the hobgoblin and try to shove him to the ground with my shield, then attack him when he's down," it is up to you to determine whether the shove is part of the Attack Action or, since the Attack Action has been taken at that point, whether it was the Shield Master bonus action and the PC has his extra attack left to strike the hobgoblin a second time. "If" has a value of "true," and "when" is "on your turn."




No it isn't up to me.  I don't have the right to force him to use his one bonus action for the turn.  That's his decision to make.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The bolded is simply false and I can prove it.  If I take a quarter off of a shelf, the action is not being performed at all before I grab the quarter, and is over and done as soon as I pick it up.  At no point is there a present tense situation where take = taking.  When I grab it, I didn't yet take it as it's still on the shelf.  As soon as it lifts off of the counter, I did take it and the action is immediately past tense.




Not proven, and here's why:-

You can reach out your hand, touch the coin, pick it up, move the coin in your hand to your pocket, then walk away hoping to sell it later.

If I catch you sometime between lifting the coin and putting it in your pocket, I have caught you _during_ the act of taking it.

There _is_ a present tense of 'taking the coin' here.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Not proven, and here's why:-
> 
> You can reach out your hand,* touch the coin*, pick it up, move the coin in your hand to your pocket, then walk away hoping to sell it later.




The bolded does not involve taking at all.  At the point I picked it up, it was taken.



> If I catch you sometime between lifting the coin and putting it in your pocket, I have caught you _during_ the act of taking it.




No you haven't.  You caught me after I took it and before I sold it.  You don't have to get away with the theft to have taken something.  I took it and you took it back.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

The question was, "please can you cite where it gives you *permission to move during* the Dash, Dodge, and/or the Disengage actions".



Maxperson said:


> I'll only post one, since that's all I need.
> 
> "When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers. With a speed of 30 feet, for example, you can move up to 60 feet on your turn if you dash."




You've failed to provide a rule that gives you permission to move *during* that action. The rule says you can move more. It does not give you permission to divide that action up or to divide that move up.



> Since there is no rule that makes actions instantaneous, we have to look at the wording to see how long the action lasts.  Dash says that the action gives you extra movement during the turn, so by far the most reasonable explanation is that the Dash action lasts until you decide that you are done moving.  That's the common understanding of what action means.  While you are acting, you are in action.




I agree!

So where is the permission that lets you divide this action?

Remember, the assertion is that the ONLY reason that you CAN move DURING the Attack action is because Moving Between Attacks gives you permission, and without that written permission you could NOT move between attacks! Neither that section nor Dash itself gives permission to move _during_ the Dash action, so where is this permission?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The bolded does not involve taking at all.




Agreed, and I never said it was.

I caught you _after_ you picked it up and _before_ you put it in your pocket. You are still taking it.



> At the point I picked it up, it was taken.




You are still taking it. I've caught you _during_, not _after_.



> No you haven't.  You caught me after I took it and before I sold it.  You don't have to get away with the theft to have taken something.  I took it and you took it back.




Show how it would be possible for a person could take a coin in zero time. _Then_, and only then, could it not be interrupted.


----------



## jgsugden (Feb 26, 2019)

We're, what, 17 more posts from a final resolution?  This is so exciting to see an argument like this that will finally get enough posts to get that magical resolution.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Agreed, and I never said it was.
> 
> I caught you _after_ you picked it up and _before_ you put it in your pocket. You are still taking it.




You didn't.  You caught me after I took it.  All it takes to take something is to pick it up.



> You are still taking it. I've caught you _during_, not _after_.




There is no "during."  Before I pick it up, I am not even in the process of taking yet.  I've only touched it.  After I pick it up, it has been taken.  



> Show how it would be possible for a person could take a coin in zero time. _Then_, and only then, could it not be interrupted.




It's not a matter of zero time.  It's a matter of before it's picked up it hasn't been taken.  After it was picked up it has been taken.  There is no middle step at all to allowing "taking."


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 26, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Epithet posted the reply that I would have, so I'll ask you:- do you flat-out _obey_ Sage Advice?
> 
> Because if you do then you have both obeyed his advice that you _can_ shield bash before your first attack AND obeyed the advice that you cannot! But only one of these opposing interpretations is actually true, so we know that Sage Advice can be false. Slavishly, uncritically obeying is not the way forward.
> 
> On the other hand, if you do critically scrutinise the advice, how can you criticise me for doing the same?




I'm not talking about Twitter, I'm talking about the Sage Advice Compendium:

https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Up until the most recent version, the Compendium has never said anything about Shield Master.  The most recent version added a new section on the Shield Master feat, to specifically clearly up the confusion about the timing of the bonus action it grants.  According to the Compendium, Jeremy's tweets no longer count as official rulings, though they may be a preview for future official rulings in the Compendium.

As I've explained, once I saw the 2015 tweet I played the feat as allowing the bonus action at any time (i.e. before the Attack action).  In 2018, when he corrected that ruling, I stopped doing that, because his explanation made more sense than his 2015 tweet.  Once it was added to the Sage Advice Compendium as an official ruling of how it's supposed to be played, there's no more room for questioning how the words are supposed to be interpreted -- the Compendium contains an official ruling that the bonus action shove must come after the Attack action.  At that point, I can decide I don't like the rule and change it for my table, but continuing to argue what the rule actually means seems kind of silly at this point.  After all, isn't that the whole point of an official ruling about a particular rules question?

So, yes, I do take the tweets with a grain of salt, but I'm not talking about tweets here.  I'm specifically asking about the Sage Advice Compendium (you know, the thing that started this thread).  There might be cases where I decide to play a particular rule differently at my table, but that's a conscious choice on my part and not me trying to extract a different meaning from the words in a given rule while ignoring what the Compendium says on the matter.  Tweaking the rules for my table is part of the job of being a DM, but that's very different to taking the position that because the Shield Master feat doesn't contain the word "then" after the comma that there is no trigger and thus you can take the bonus action whenever you like, despite the Sage Advice Compendium very clearly saying that this is not what the feat allows.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So where is the permission that lets you divide this action?
> 
> Remember, the assertion is that the ONLY reason that you CAN move DURING the Attack action is because Moving Between Attacks gives you permission, and without that written permission you could NOT move between attacks! Neither that section nor Dash itself gives permission to move _during_ the Dash action, so where is this permission?




As I said, there is no rule that says either what you think about actions, or what I think about actions.  Mine is just the most reasonable interpretation, given the word action and how it is commonly used.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No it isn't up to me.  I don't have the right to force him to use his one bonus action for the turn.  That's his decision to make.




The player decides what her character does. The dungeon master decides what game mechanics apply, and how. Of course almost every dungeon master will respect his player's application of game mechanics, because that's doing your work for you. Many players will specify game mechanics when they describe a character's actions. Ultimately, though, the player decides what the character does and the DM decides how the rules and game mechanics apply to that.

So no, I'm not forcing a PC to use the bonus action, but if the player describes a course of action that involves movement, action, and bonus action I can easily parse that into those game terms. If the rogue says she's going to run in, stab the hobgoblin, and disengage, I don't need her to tell me it is a cunning action she's using to disengage. I put effort into keeping my players in the moment, playing their characters. The last thing I'm going to do is to instruct them to repeat their action sequence, this time in game mechanics terms. Well... actually that's the second-last thing. The last thing I'd do is to wreck verisimilitude by telling them their attacks have to come in a certain order because Jeremy changed his mind.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I'm not talking about Twitter, I'm talking about the Sage Advice Compendium:
> 
> https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf
> 
> ...




The "Official Rulings" designation serves only to deprecate all of his previous rulings on Twitter, and to designate any future tweets as a "preview," but that's really and truly meaningless. The same section goes on to emphasize that "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." That means that the "Official Ruling" in Sage Advice is in the same category as, for example, however Matt Mercer ruled on the way a certain spell worked in an episode of Critical Role that you saw. Sage Advice is carefully worded, internally consistent, thoughtful advice. Matt screws up the rules pretty often. Still, whatever the DM finds persuasive can influence his adjudication of the game.

There are all kinds of rulings, none of which are the rules. The only rules are the ones in the books, and the only rulings that matter are the ones made by the DM at the game you're playing. Everything else (including Sage Advice) is, to quote The Dude, "just like, your opinion, man."

The Dude Abides.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> The "Official Rulings" designation serves only to deprecate all of his previous rulings on Twitter, and to designate any future tweets as a "preview," but that's really and truly meaningless. The same section goes on to emphasize that "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." That means that the "Official Ruling" in Sage Advice is in the same category as, for example, however Matt Mercer ruled on the way a certain spell worked in an episode of Critical Role that you saw. Sage Advice is carefully worded, internally consistent, thoughtful advice. Matt screws up the rules pretty often. Still, whatever the DM finds persuasive can influence his adjudication of the game.
> 
> There are all kinds of rulings, none of which are the rules. The only rules are the ones in the books, and the only rulings that matter are the ones made by the DM at the game you're playing. Everything else (including Sage Advice) is, to quote The Dude, "just like, your opinion, man."
> 
> The Dude Abides.



The statement that the DM is the final arbitrator of the rules also applies to the entirety of the printed books.  It really says nothing special about the official rulings.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> The "Official Rulings" designation serves only to deprecate all of his previous rulings on Twitter, and to designate any future tweets as a "preview," but that's really and truly meaningless. The same section goes on to emphasize that "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." That means that the "Official Ruling" in Sage Advice is in the same category as, for example, however Matt Mercer ruled on the way a certain spell worked in an episode of Critical Role that you saw. Sage Advice is carefully worded, internally consistent, thoughtful advice. Matt screws up the rules pretty often. Still, whatever the DM finds persuasive can influence his adjudication of the game.
> 
> There are all kinds of rulings, none of which are the rules. The only rules are the ones in the books, and the only rulings that matter are the ones made by the DM at the game you're playing. Everything else (including Sage Advice) is, to quote The Dude, "just like, your opinion, man."
> 
> The Dude Abides.




Of course the DM has final say on a rules question at their table.  That doesn't mean their ruling is a correct interpretation of the words in a rule, it's hopefully just what works best for their table.  The Sage Advice Compendium contains curated official responses to common rules questions, and so in my mind, settles any debate about the meaning or intent of a particular rule.  DMs are of course free to follow the advice or interpretation in the Compendium or not, but again, once a question has been answered in the Compendium then the debate about what the rule means is basically over.  While I'm free to ignore the contents as needed, I would absolutely put the Compendium at a higher level than Matt Mercer or any other DM, because they cannot make official rulings about the game while WOTC and Jeremy Crawford can.

As I keep saying, you're all free to run Shield Master however you like.  I'm just astounded that you're arguing your interpretations are actually correct and the Sage Advice Compendium (and by extension Crawford himself) are not.  The question about Shield Master is quite clear about how the rule works (modulo the interaction with Extra Attack), which you are free to ignore in your games of course, but it's amazing to me that there's still an argument about what the words in the feat actually mean when WOTC has already answered that question.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 26, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The game does not say, "If you are going to take the Attack action..."




I'm not sure what you think this signifies. Do you mean that the condition "If you take the Attack action on your turn" isn't referring to an event in the future? Surely, you haven't taken your turn yet, or there would be no "if" about whether you had taken the Attack action or not.



Maxperson said:


> The bolded part is against the rules.  You can't take a bonus action until after the trigger has happened. You can stretch "interpretation" mean simultaneous, which would trigger after the first attack, since you can't have taken or be taking the Attack action before the first attack.  Prior to the first attack it's only a declaration which is insufficient.




I'm not surprised that you're saying it's against the rules for a shield master to shove a creature as a bonus action before taking the Attack action. That's the main difference between our interpretations of the feat. My argument for why it's within the rules is that the condition the feat places on shoving a creature as a bonus action is that you take the Attack action on your turn. In my example, the player takes the Attack action on his/her turn, so s/he is able to shove a creature as a bonus action. Since the condition doesn't specify that you must shove as a bonus action *after* you take the Attack action, there's no rule against this.



Maxperson said:


> There is also no rule that allows you to take the bonus action they used and turn it into the Attack action should you be knocked out before the PC can take the Attack action.  If you think there is, please quote it in your response.




I don't need a rule for that because, in that situation, I'm not checking for the condition being met until the PC is knocked out and his/her turn is over. At that point there will be no further attacks, and a bonus action won't be used, so there's really no need to check for the condition being met at all.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Of course the DM has final say on a rules question at their table.  That doesn't mean their ruling is a correct interpretation of the words in a rule, it's hopefully just what works best for their table.  The Sage Advice Compendium contains curated official responses to common rules questions, and so in my mind, settles any debate about the meaning or intent of a particular rule.  DMs are of course free to follow the advice or interpretation in the Compendium or not, but again, once a question has been answered in the Compendium then the debate about what the rule means is basically over.  While I'm free to ignore the contents as needed, I would absolutely put the Compendium at a higher level than Matt Mercer or any other DM, because they cannot make official rulings about the game while WOTC and Jeremy Crawford can.
> 
> As I keep saying, you're all free to run Shield Master however you like.  I'm just astounded that you're arguing your interpretations are actually correct and the Sage Advice Compendium (and by extension Crawford himself) are not.  The question about Shield Master is quite clear about how the rule works (modulo the interaction with Extra Attack), which you are free to ignore in your games of course, but it's amazing to me that there's still an argument about what the words in the feat actually mean when WOTC has already answered that question.




The rule is ambiguous in its wording.

Crawford offers an "official" statement regarding his interpretation of the wording.

Crawford's interpretation is now clear, but the wording of the rule is still ambiguous.

The only thing that can change a rule or make it less ambiguous is published errata. That's literally the only thing. Jeremy can clarify his meaning, change his mind and re-clarify, and publish an "official" clarification, all without changing the rule itself. Once the rule is published in a book, Jeremy's intent become a topic of interest only--the rule is the rule, regardless of what he wants it to be. The argument here in this thread has to do with the fact that once the Player's Handbook was published, "what the words ... actually mean" is not a question WotC can answer. That question can only be answered by each reader of the book, and that reader might or might not be persuaded by the WotC interpretation. As I pointed out before, the "official" designation for the Sage Advice pdf means only that WotC intend for it to have priority over anything one of the D&D team says on Twitter, that's all. It certainly doesn't elevate the Sage Advice Compendium to the status of "rules."

When Crawford says "I intend for this thing to come after the other thing," it is perfectly legitimate for a reader of the text in question to say "I understand your intent, but that's not what the rule says, so I don't care." If WotC really wants to erase all ambiguity, it can change the rule itself via errata, to say "After you take the attack action on your turn and resolve your attack and any extra attacks that are part of the Attack Action, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield as a finishing move." Until that errata is issued, however, that is not what the rule says, and I am not persuaded to adopt Jeremy Crawford's new interpretation and parsing of the text of the actual rule to include a timing requirement.

The truth is, if WotC were to issue an errata for Shield Master, it is not at all clear that it would be a nerf as written above. It is entirely possible that it would be reworded to remove the possibility of a timing requirement altogether, which seems to me to be what the original intent of the feat was. I'm also not sure Jeremy is the one who wrote the feat--my impression was that while he certainly wrote the sections on combat and spellcasting, most of the classes, races, etc. were written by Mike and edited by Jeremy and others to try to make it all consistent. It strikes me as entirely possible that Mike wrote the feat with an opener in mind, and Jeremy edited it with a finishing move in mind.

My point is that after the final version of a rule is published, Jeremy can't tell you what the words mean. He can make a suggestion, and you can take it or leave it, but the rule is the rule.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 26, 2019)

HomegrownHydra said:


> Hriston, this is how I would adjudicate it. The "If...on your turn" tells me to check at the end of the turn to see if the trigger has been met. That statement says to me that timing does not matter, only that the Attack action occurred at some point. If it said "After" instead of "If" then timing would matter.




Right! A conditional statement doesn't necessarily indicate a sequential order of events!


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 26, 2019)

epithet said:


> When Crawford says "I intend for this thing to come after the other thing," it is perfectly legitimate for a reader of the text in question to say "I understand your intent, but that's not what the rule says, so I don't care." If WotC really wants to erase all ambiguity, it can change the rule itself via errata, to say "After you take the attack action on your turn and resolve your attack and any extra attacks that are part of the Attack Action, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield as a finishing move." Until that errata is issued, however, that is not what the rule says, and I am not persuaded to adopt Jeremy Crawford's new interpretation and parsing of the text of the actual rule to include a timing requirement.




So, what are some examples of bonus actions that do have timing requirements by your definition of a bonus action timing requirement?  And, what makes them different to Shield Master?

Let's consider the wording of the feat:

"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."

Some questions:

1) If the word "then" was inserted after the comma, would you consider that a timing requirement?

2) If the word "if" was replaced with "after", would you consider that a timing requirement?

3) How does this sentence differ from the 3rd bullet in the feat?  It follows the same "If X, Y" format.  Does that mean I get to "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" as long as at some point on my turn I end up being "subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage"?

I searched through the Classes and Combat chapters of the PHB on D&D Beyond, and found exactly zero instances where the word "then" came after the comma in a sentence with the form "If X, Y".  If we apply the logic that sentences that take this form have no timing restrictions between X and Y, specifically that Y can happen as long as X eventually happens, the rules start saying some very strange things.

Martial Arts: "if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn".  Why can't I do an unarmed strike when I Dash or take some other non-Attack action, because I declare that I'll take the Attack action on some future turn?

Natural Explorer: "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."  Why can't I move stealthily at normal pace when I'm traveling with my party, because I declare that I'll travel alone tomorrow?

Ranger's Companion: "If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself."  Why can't the beast act on its own when I'm conscious, because I declare that I'll knock myself unconscious later tonight?

Stroke of Luck: "if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20."  Why can't I treat any roll I like as a d20, because I declare that I'll fail an ability check in the future?

I could go on, but you get the idea.  The PHB is filled with sentences that take the form "If X, Y" with a clear (to me) implication that there is a timing requirement between X and Y and that X must happen before Y can happen.  Isn't it a natural conclusion that this "If X, Y" phrasing is the way the rules describe a trigger and its effect?  Yes, they could've used the word "after" in all cases instead of "if", or added the word "then" after the comma, but both of those simply take up more space on the page which might've meant the rules didn't fit in the book any more (assuming a strict page budget and the desire for as much art as they can get into the book).  As an editor, given the goal of fitting all the art into the book, then I think it's a reasonable choice to settle on the "If X, Y" phrasing as being the standard way of communicating a trigger throughout the rules because it's the most efficient use of letters.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I'm not surprised that you're saying it's against the rules for a shield master to shove a creature as a bonus action before taking the Attack action. That's the main difference between our interpretations of the feat. My argument for why it's within the rules is that the condition the feat places on shoving a creature as a bonus action is that you take the Attack action on your turn. In my example, the player takes the Attack action on his/her turn, so s/he is able to shove a creature as a bonus action. Since the condition doesn't specify that you must shove as a bonus action *after* you take the Attack action, there's no rule against this.
> 
> I don't need a rule for that because, in that situation, I'm not checking for the condition being met until the PC is knocked out and his/her turn is over. At that point there will be no further attacks, and a bonus action won't be used, so there's really no need to check for the condition being met at all.




It's not an interpretation.  It's out and out changing the rules.  The rules require the player to take the actions and bonus actions when they are used.  When a player shoves, he has to indicate whether he is using the bonus action(if it has already been triggered) or an action.  It doesn't get to change later on.  It's ridiculous that you are claiming not only that it can be done, but that it's an "interpretation" of the rules. 

Anyway, I'm done.  You will disagree, but when you engage the rules in that manner you are house ruling them.  Have a good day.


----------



## epithet (Feb 26, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...
> Some questions:
> 
> 1) If the word "then" was inserted after the comma, would you consider that a timing requirement?
> ...




Some answers:
1) Maybe, not necessarily.
2) Yes. "After" establishes a sequence.
3) It doesn't. It means that the triggered condition (take no damage) happens at the same time as the trigger (you are subjected to an effect.) See below.

Your examples are great, thank you. For each of these examples, the "If you ... you can" language is used to refer to a triggered benefit that happens concurrently with the trigger, neither before nor after. Looking at each example in turn shows the consistent concurrence of these circumstances.

Martial Arts: You know that the unarmed strike is concurrent with the Attack Action because the initial statement of the rule uses "when" (When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn,) meaning "at the same time as." Therefore, in the example text "if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action" it is clearly the case that your bonus action unarmed strike is resolved at the same time as, and therefore as a practical matter as part of, the Attack Action. This makes perfect sense, because we're talking about an attack that does not differ in any way from a regular attack save that it must be an unarmed strike. In other words, your bonus action is consumed to give you an additional Extra Attack.

Natural Explorer: Here is as clear an example as you could ever hope for. "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace." The ranger does not complete his travel before he gains the ability to move stealthily at a normal pace, it very obviously must happen at the same time. Trigger and triggered benefit cannot be sequential, they must be concurrent.

Ranger's Companion: This example is different from the others in that it lacks the "you can" language, but it is functionally the same. "If you are incapacitated or absent, your beast companion acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself." Clearly, as with the Natural Explorer example, you can't reasonably read this to require that you complete your incapacitation or your period of absence before the companion can act on its own. The companion's independent action must occur during the time that the ranger is incapacitated or gone, not before, not after. Here again, the triggered benefit is concurrent with the trigger.

Stroke of Luck: This rogue benefit must happen in an instant, with the trigger and benefit taking place at exactly the same time for either of the benefits or triggers described in the feature. "If your attack misses a target within range, you can turn the miss into a hit. Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20." Notably, though, while the trigger and benefit happen at the same time, the first benefit in particular requires the DM and player to, in essence, go back in time to resolve it. The attack happened, the dice betrayed the rogue, and the result indicated a miss, but the feature allows the rogue to go back and make it a hit, instead.

So, what do these examples tell us about how we should read and adjudicate the "if you ... you can" language of the Shield Master feat? Simply that the shove should be resolved as part of the Attack Action, because the benefit (the extra shove attack) must be resolved at the same time as the trigger (the Attack Action). Like the Martial Arts example, the shove should be treated as another Extra Attack which can only be used for a particular type of attack (in this case, a shove instead of an unarmed strike) which is otherwise exactly like a regular attack made as part of the attack action. The Stroke of Luck feature tells us that for benefits that are resolved concurrently with triggers, we can actually apply the benefit retroactively, so there should be no issue with determining which of the attacks was the "bonus action shove" after the attack itself has already been resolved.

Your excellent examples also demonstrate that Jeremy Crawford is simply incorrect when he suggests that "if you ... you can" always establishes a sequential timing requirement. Clearly no one will be telling the Ranger he needs to do a little hex crawling and finish his trip before he can sneak up behind a foe at a brisk pace. Perhaps the feature could have been called "Walkabout, then Pounce!"


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> Some answers:
> 1) Maybe, not necessarily.
> 2) Yes. "After" establishes a sequence.
> 3) It doesn't. It means that the triggered condition (take no damage) happens at the same time as the trigger (you are subjected to an effect.) See below.
> ...




Alternatively, what if we consider a simpler solution where there are no concurrent/nested actions because actions resolve instantly, and "if you ... you can" is a form of conditional or if-then statement that uses the standard rules of mathematical logic.  Simply put, "if you X, you can Y" means that in order for Y to happen, X must be true.

Martial Arts:

"When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn."

Here, the trigger is taking the Attack action and attacking with an unarmed strike or Monk weapon.  The Attack action resolves the instant you make that attack(*), and thus the trigger happens and you now have access to a bonus action for another unarmed strike.  You cannot take the bonus action until the trigger happens, i.e. you don't have the bonus action attack until you actually take the Attack action.

(*) Yes, Extra Attack complicates all of this.

Natural Explorer:

"If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."

Here, the trigger is traveling alone, which once again resolves the instant you start traveling alone.  Once you start doing that, the triggered effect is available and you can move stealthily at a normal pace.  You cannot move stealthily at normal pace until the trigger happens, i.e. you have to actually start traveling alone before this can happen.

Ranger's Companion:

"If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself."

Here, the trigger is you being incapacitated or absent.  The beast will not act on its own until that trigger takes place, which again resolves the instant you become incapacitated or absent.  If you are present and not incapacitated, the trigger has not happened and thus the beast will not act unless commanded to.

Stroke of Luck:

"Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20."

Here, the trigger is you failing an ability check.  This trigger resolves the instant you fail an ability check, and thus the triggered effect of treating the roll as a 20 takes place.  You cannot treat a d20 roll as a 20 until the trigger takes place.

So, back to Shield Master.  Following my simple logic, the trigger of taking the Attack action by making an attack (*) resolves instantly and you now have access to a bonus action shove.  This is nice and simple because there are no nested or simultaneous actions to keep track of.

(*) Yes, Extra Attack complicates all of this.

You suggest that Shield Master simply adds a shove to your Attack action.  I would disagree with this assessment, and use the Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher ability as an example of wording that would allow this:

"If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action."

This clearly states the additional attack is part of the Attack action itself, not a bonus action.  Here, the Ranger gets 3 attacks on their first turn, and 2 attacks on all subsequent turns in a combat encounter.  Shield Master does not use this wording, and thus the bonus action is separate and distinct from the Attack action itself.  Given that the trigger for the shove is the Attack action, surely that means you actually have to make an attack before you even have access to the bonus action shove?

Based on all of this, I'll respectfully disagree with your conclusions.  If we treat each element as a distinct unit that instantly resolves, we don't have to worry about nested actions.  The simple form of "if X, Y" establishes a clear logical relationship between X and Y, and using the standard rules of logic (or computer programming) then in order for Y to happen X must first be true.  Note that I did not say X must be completed, it must merely be true.  For example, Natural Explorer's trigger is "if you are traveling alone".  As soon as that trigger is true, the effect takes place (i.e. you can stealth at normal pace).  Similarly, when the trigger is the Attack action, in order for that trigger to happen you must actually make an attack.  This applies to Two-Weapon Fighting, Martial Arts, Shield Master and so on.  The game is full of these types of triggers, and in all cases, the rules use sentences of the from "if X, Y".  No then, no after, simply "if X, Y".

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but as I mentioned earlier, I think applying Occam's razor to all of this points us at the solution I described above.


----------



## epithet (Feb 27, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...
> Based on all of this, I'll respectfully disagree with your conclusions.  If we treat each element as a distinct unit that instantly resolves, we don't have to worry about nested actions.  The simple form of "if X, Y" establishes a clear logical relationship between X and Y, and using the standard rules of logic (or computer programming) then in order for Y to happen X must first be true.  Note that I did not say X must be completed, it must merely be true.  For example, Natural Explorer's trigger is "if you are traveling alone".  As soon as that trigger is true, the effect takes place (i.e. you can stealth at normal pace).  Similarly, when the trigger is the Attack action, in order for that trigger to happen you must actually make an attack.  This applies to Two-Weapon Fighting, Martial Arts, Shield Master and so on.  The game is full of these types of triggers, and in all cases, the rules use sentences of the from "if X, Y".  No then, no after, simply "if X, Y".
> 
> I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but as I mentioned earlier, I think applying to all of this points us at the solution I described above.




The problem with instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that, well... it doesn't work. For Natural Explorer, it isn't sufficient to have travelled alone, you must be actively travelling alone while the benefit of full speed stealth applies. If you stop travelling alone, you lose the benefit. For the Beast Master, you have to be knocked out or gone. If you wake up or return, you lose the benefit. The trigger isn't momentary, preceding the benefit, it must be concurrent with the benefit. For Stroke of Luck, applying the first benefit undoes the first condition at the instant it took place, there is no elapsed time. The second benefit is applied between the roll and the result of the role, which also involves no elapsed time in the game. These are necessarily simultaneous, because of their very nature. Yes, you gain the benefit after the trigger _arises_, but not before it is _resolved_. The trigger is still happening when you apply the benefit, and their resolution is concurrent and (for Stroke of Luck) mutual.

Occam's Razor, applied to Martial Arts, Shield Master shoves, and similar bonus action granted attacks that are linked to and triggered by an Attack Action, would in my opinion suggest simply adding an attack to the extant sequence of attacks and resolving them all the same because they are essentially identical attacks. The Martial Arts bonus unarmed attack is identical to an Attack Action unarmed attack. The Shield Master bonus action shove is identical to an Attack Action shove. Occam's Razor would suggest that you should not imply or apply more requirements and restrictions to those bonus attacks than are explicitly and unambiguously stipulated in the rule text.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> The problem with instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that, well... it doesn't work. For Natural Explorer, it isn't sufficient to have travelled alone, you must be actively travelling alone while the benefit of full speed stealth applies. If you stop travelling alone, you lose the benefit. For the Beast Master, you have to be knocked out or gone. If you wake up or return, you lose the benefit. The trigger isn't momentary, preceding the benefit, it must be concurrent with the benefit. For Stroke of Luck, applying the first benefit undoes the first condition at the instant it took place, there is no elapsed time. The second benefit is applied between the roll and the result of the role, which also involves no elapsed time in the game. These are necessarily simultaneous, because of their very nature. Yes, you gain the benefit after the trigger _arises_, but not before it is _resolved_. The trigger is still happening when you apply the benefit, and their resolution is concurrent and (for Stroke of Luck) mutual.
> 
> Occam's Razor, applied to Martial Arts, Shield Master shoves, and similar bonus action granted attacks that are linked to and triggered by an Attack Action, would in my opinion suggest simply adding an attack to the extant sequence of attacks and resolving them all the same because they are essentially identical attacks. The Martial Arts bonus unarmed attack is identical to an Attack Action unarmed attack. The Shield Master bonus action shove is identical to an Attack Action shove. Occam's Razor would suggest that you should not imply or apply more requirements and restrictions to those bonus attacks than are explicitly and unambiguously stipulated in the rule text.




It absolutely works.  Natural Explorer's trigger is you travelling alone.  While that trigger is true, the triggered effect happens.  As soon as the trigger is false, the triggered effect no longer happens.  Similarly, the trigger for Ranger's Companion is you being incapacitated or absent.  As soon as that trigger is no longer true, the triggered effect no longer happens and the beast stops until you spend an Action to give it an order.  Neither of these rules are talking about actions in combat, and so the best analogy is a simple boolean variable in a programming language.  While the variable is true, the effect happens.  As soon as the variable is false, the effect stops happening.  Or, if we don't want to use logic or programming languages, think of it as a light switch.  When you turn the light switch to the "on" position, the lights are illuminated.  When you turn the switch off, the lights are no longer illuminated.  This could be expressed in the 5E rules as "if you turn the switch on, the lights are illuminated" for example, in order to stick with the "if X, Y" style used throughout the rules to describe a trigger.

When applying the trigger concept to an action in combat, again this works in a very simple way.  Each action in combat is a distinct unit that (typically) instantly resolves.  The action may have a lasting effect, such as the Dash action giving you extra movement for the remainder of your turn.  There are rules that explicitly add extra attacks to the Attack action, and thus we cannot simply assume that a bonus action attack operates in the same way.  If they did, then surely they would use the same wording as the rules that add extra attacks to the Attack action, like Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher?

Separating these bonus actions that grant weapon attacks or shoves from the ones you take as part of the Attack action is kind of important, especially when it comes to the interaction of those rules with Extra Attack.  Similarly, the triggering attack for Shield Master might itself be a shove, and assuming you don't have Extra Attack, then you would not be able to make a weapon attack on your turn.  While I agree that the attacks granted by the Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Master (shove) and Martial Arts are fundamentally the same (i.e. you roll to hit or make an Athletics check etc), the rules absolutely do not say "if you take the Attack action ..., you get an additional attack/shove as part of your Attack action".  You have the Attack action as the trigger, and the bonus action as the triggered effect.  The rules for the Attack action are separate from the rules about bonus actions, and thus those two things are distinct units of combat.  Again, this is supported by the wording of the Dread Ambusher feature, which grants an extra attack as part of the Attack action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 27, 2019)

Hriston said:


> It is. The fictional events that happen in a character's turn happen in a sequence.
> 
> I doubt you're trying to see how it makes sense.




Of course event's for the character happen in sequence.  That's not what I'm asking.

In my games players sequentially declare and describe what they will have their character do.  The character performs those actions immediately as the player describes them and in the sequence he describes them.  That's why in my games I check right when a character is going to perform some action that he is actually capable of doing that.  So in my game a player declares bonus action shove and I check to see if he's met the condition it requires of taking the attack action on his turn and he hasn't yet and so his declaration is then disqualified.

If in your games the player can declare a bunch of things all at once like I'll bonus action shove and then attack that guy (i'd describe this as concurrent) and then you check to make sure all the conditions on those actions were met and since you are treating the declaration as current then it would be.  Then you have the character sequentially perform the described actions then I can understand the different of opinion.  

If that's what you are doing then that at least makes sense to me, although it still seems like a bit convoluted process to me but the logic behind the interactions at least make sense even if I don't understand the logic for why you would play that way in the first place.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> The problem with instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that, well... it doesn't work. For Natural Explorer, it isn't sufficient to have travelled alone, you must be actively travelling alone while the benefit of full speed stealth applies. If you stop travelling alone, you lose the benefit. For the Beast Master, you have to be knocked out or gone. If you wake up or return, you lose the benefit. The trigger isn't momentary, preceding the benefit, it must be concurrent with the benefit. For Stroke of Luck, applying the first benefit undoes the first condition at the instant it took place, there is no elapsed time. The second benefit is applied between the roll and the result of the role, which also involves no elapsed time in the game. These are necessarily simultaneous, because of their very nature. Yes, you gain the benefit after the trigger _arises_, but not before it is _resolved_. The trigger is still happening when you apply the benefit, and their resolution is concurrent and (for Stroke of Luck) mutual.
> 
> Occam's Razor, applied to Martial Arts, Shield Master shoves, and similar bonus action granted attacks that are linked to and triggered by an Attack Action, would in my opinion suggest simply adding an attack to the extant sequence of attacks and resolving them all the same because they are essentially identical attacks. The Martial Arts bonus unarmed attack is identical to an Attack Action unarmed attack. The Shield Master bonus action shove is identical to an Attack Action shove. Occam's Razor would suggest that you should not imply or apply more requirements and restrictions to those bonus attacks than are explicitly and unambiguously stipulated in the rule text.




But the problem with not instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that disengage completely fails to work.


----------



## epithet (Feb 27, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> But the problem with not instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that disengage completely fails to work.




I don't see the failure. You don't just disengage once and have done with it, you continually disengage for the rest of your turn. Whatever else you may do during that turn, you're also disengaging so that your movement doesn't provoke Oppos. That's _why _you don't provoke... you're _still _disengaging.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> I don't see the failure. You don't just disengage once and have done with it, you continually disengage for the rest of your turn. Whatever else you may do during that turn, you're also disengaging so that your movement doesn't provoke Oppos. That's _why _you don't provoke... you're _still _disengaging.




Your action for the turn is to disengage, which resolves instantly.  The effect of that action is that your movement no longer provokes OAs, because you're being careful and dodging and weaving as you move.  You could narrate this with as much flair as you like, but the underlying mechanic is still absolutely supported by an instant resolution of the action.


----------



## epithet (Feb 27, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> It absolutely works.  Natural Explorer's trigger is you travelling alone.  While that trigger is true, the triggered effect happens.  As soon as the trigger is false, the triggered effect no longer happens.  Similarly, the trigger for Ranger's Companion is you being incapacitated or absent.  As soon as that trigger is no longer true, the triggered effect no longer happens and the beast stops until you spend an Action to give it an order.  Neither of these rules are talking about actions in combat, and so the best analogy is a simple boolean variable in a programming language.  While the variable is true, the effect happens.  As soon as the variable is false, the effect stops happening.  Or, if we don't want to use logic or programming languages, think of it as a light switch.  When you turn the light switch to the "on" position, the lights are illuminated.  When you turn the switch off, the lights are no longer illuminated.  This could be expressed in the 5E rules as "if you turn the switch on, the lights are illuminated" for example, in order to stick with the "if X, Y" style used throughout the rules to describe a trigger.
> 
> When applying the trigger concept to an action in combat, again this works in a very simple way.  Each action in combat is a distinct unit that (typically) instantly resolves.  The action may have a lasting effect, such as the Dash action giving you extra movement for the remainder of your turn.  There are rules that explicitly add extra attacks to the Attack action, and thus we cannot simply assume that a bonus action attack operates in the same way.  If they did, then surely they would use the same wording as the rules that add extra attacks to the Attack action, like Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher?
> 
> Separating these bonus actions that grant weapon attacks or shoves from the ones you take as part of the Attack action is kind of important, especially when it comes to the interaction of those rules with Extra Attack.  Similarly, the triggering attack for Shield Master might itself be a shove, and assuming you don't have Extra Attack, then you would not be able to make a weapon attack on your turn.  While I agree that the attacks granted by the Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Master (shove) and Martial Arts are fundamentally the same (i.e. you roll to hit or make an Athletics check etc), the rules absolutely do not say "if you take the Attack action ..., you get an additional attack/shove as part of your Attack action".  You have the Attack action as the trigger, and the bonus action as the triggered effect.  The rules for the Attack action are separate from the rules about bonus actions, and thus those two things are distinct units of combat.  Again, this is supported by the wording of the Dread Ambusher feature, which grants an extra attack as part of the Attack action.




Dread Ambusher is not really comparable to Martial Arts or Shield Master, because the extra attack doesn't consume a bonus action. It is just like Extra Attack, but only on the first round of combat.

I think it is important to consider the role of Actions and Bonus Actions in 5e. Neither of them are discrete packets of activity that you queue up, though they might include activities like attacks or spells that are discrete packets of activity. Rather, an Action or Bonus action exist to limit the activity on your turn. When you take an Action, you can't take one of the other Actions. When something uses your Bonus Action, you cannot then do something else that uses your Bonus Action. They represent opportunity cost.

The only unit of time that matters for actions in combat is your turn. Your Action and Bonus Action (assuming you have one) both take place at the same time: on your turn. Individual activities, like actual movement, weapon attacks, spells, flourishes, interactions, etc. all take place in the order the player wants, but the distinction is that those things all have a narrative presence, a reality in the fiction of the game world. Your Action and Bonus Action do not--they are formal constructs of the game system with no objective reality in the narrative fiction of the game world. In other words, you may move 10 feet and make a melee attack, then disengage (as a cunning action) and move another 20 feet. Those are all activities that occur in a sequence, and the timing of them matters. Stepping back to the meta-game, however, you took the Attack Action and your Bonus Action on your turn.

Reactions are different. A Reaction happens in a single moment, triggered by an activity with objective reality in the game world's fiction, and involves the reactor doing an activity with similar objective reality.


----------



## epithet (Feb 27, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Your action for the turn is to disengage, which resolves instantly.  The effect of that action is that your movement no longer provokes OAs, *because you're being careful and dodging and weaving as you move*.  You could narrate this with as much flair as you like, but the underlying mechanic is still absolutely supported by an instant resolution of the action.




What you call the effect, I call the action.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> Dread Ambusher is not really comparable to Martial Arts or Shield Master, because the extra attack doesn't consume a bonus action. It is just like Extra Attack, but only on the first round of combat.
> 
> I think it is important to consider the role of Actions and Bonus Actions in 5e. Neither of them are discrete packets of activity that you queue up, though they might include activities like attacks or spells that are discrete packets of activity. Rather, an Action or Bonus action exist to limit the activity on your turn. When you take an Action, you can't take one of the other Actions. When something uses your Bonus Action, you cannot then do something else that uses your Bonus Action. They represent opportunity cost.
> 
> ...




But the language of Dread Ambusher is quite explicit that it's giving you an extra attack as part of your Attack action.  If bonus actions like Shield Master or TWF acted like this, shouldn't they use the same language?

On your turn, you have an action and your move.  The bonus action rules are quite clear that something has to grant you a bonus action before you take take it:

"You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. _You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take._"

Going back to my earlier question, what's an example of a bonus action that has a timing requirement using your definition of bonus action timing?  The examples I've been using have triggers that must be satisfied before you can even take the bonus action.  The Rogue's Cunning Action is an example of a bonus action with no timing requirement.  Shield Master and TWF are ones that have a trigger in the standard form of "If X, Y", and thus the trigger must be satisfied before you can even take the bonus action.  Using your "formal constructs" example, you might move 10 feet and make a melee attack, and since the trigger of the Attack action has occurred, move another 10 feet and use your Shield Master bonus action to shove someone with your shield.  As you pointed out, the sequence and timing of all of this is extremely important, because until you actually make an attack, you don't have a bonus action from the Shield Master feat.  Right?  I'm really not following your suggestion that you can just do extra stuff as part of your attack action from features like Shield Master, TWF, Martial Arts and so on.  We have examples of class features that do that (e.g. Dread Ambusher) and the language of those does not match the bonus actions granted by Shield Master, TWF or Martial Arts.  Fundamentally, 5E is a turn-based game, which pretty heavily implies the ordering of operations is important, right?

So yeah, let's take a step back: what's an example of a bonus action that has a timing requirement?  The bonus action rules talk about those, so they must exist in the rules somewhere.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> I don't see the failure. You don't just disengage once and have done with it, you continually disengage for the rest of your turn. Whatever else you may do during that turn, you're also disengaging so that your movement doesn't provoke Oppos. That's _why _you don't provoke... you're _still _disengaging.




You can’t mov during an action. Only before or after.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> You can’t mov during an action. Only before or after.




Right, this is what I was getting at above.  It seems to me like a turn-based game like 5E would use discrete elements for combat.  That certainly seems like the simplest solution.  There's a rule that you can split your move up on your turn, allowing you to move before another type of discrete operation (such as an action).  After all, the combat mechanics are simulating what's happening in a roughly-6-second round where everybody is acting at the same time, but that just doesn't translate well to the tabletop.  Discrete events removes any possibility of nested or simultaneous actions, which sounds really hard to keep track of.  The natural extension of this is that if you have abilities that rely on a trigger, some event must happen to satisfy that trigger's condition before you can use that ability.

So, in each round, everyone takes their turn in the order specified by initiative.  On your turn, you do discrete things: "I do X, then I do Y, then I do Z".  X might be move 10 feet, Y might be the Attack action, and Z might be move some more.  In the case of a triggered ability, Z might be to make the TWF off-hand attack, which is available on your turn after Y happens.

The language for reactions seems to support this, for example:

"If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."

This suggests to me that there are 3 distinct events here:

1) The event that triggers the reaction.
2) The reaction itself.
3) The next part of the original creature's turn.

And once again, this follows the simple "If X, Y" pattern where the X part must be true (note that I'm saying true here, not completed) before Y can happen.


----------



## epithet (Feb 27, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> You can’t mov during an action. Only before or after.



What? Where are you reading that?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> What? Where are you reading that?



The rules?  It's been quoted here a few times.  Try the SRD under combat, it's in the first bits.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 27, 2019)

Here it is:




			
				srd said:
			
		

> Breaking Up Your Move
> 
> You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Feb 27, 2019)

A perfect example is a rogue using Cunning action. Suppose my initiative comes up:


1. my character moves 10 feet to engage his target
2. uses his action to Attack
3. uses his Cunning Action to Disengage after the attack, and
4. then uses the remaining move to retreat 20 feet away without provoking the OA.


Now, suppose during my retreat I pass through a space controlled by another target. Normally, that would provoke an OA, but since my character took the Disengage action, which lasts until my turn is over, I would _NOT_ provoke an OA from the second target when passing through his controlled space.

I could also revise the order slightly. Suppose I use my bonus action to Disengage (I have no one around me), then move to my target, attack, and move away with my remaining speed left over. I could pass through anyone's space and not provoke an OA at all because I began my turn by Disengaging as my bonus action.

Additionally, this is why goblins and other with Nimble Escape can be so annoying. They can always use Disengage first, the move, attack, and move away; all without ever provoking OAs. Pesky little buggers!


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Here it is:




Right, so based on this:

"You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet."

Let's say your action here was to Disengage.  Your turn has 3 distinct elements:

1) You move 10 feet.
2) You take the Disengage action.
3) You move 20 feet.

The effect of the action lasts for the specified duration, which in this case is the rest of your turn.  Thus, the movement in (3) does not provoke OAs.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 27, 2019)

epithet said:


> What? Where are you reading that?




"You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet."

The only thing the game allows is moving before or after your action. The attack action with extra attacks is an explicit exception.  The disengage action has no such exception.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Feb 27, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The disengage action has no such exception.




It doesn't need one, does it? After all, you are only moving on your turn, and the Disengage benefits lasts until the end of your turn. I'm not even certain who is arguing which side anymore! LOL


----------



## Hriston (Feb 27, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Show me that rule.




“On your turn, you can... take one action.”



Maxperson said:


> Show me that rule, too.




“you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you.” The text says, “Using the Attack action,” but shoving a creature using a bonus action is resolved identically. I.e., "Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."



Maxperson said:


> And this is just blatantly false.  You know the moment you use something whether it's an action or a bonus action.  The ability you use tells you straight out.  Despite your claims, there is no Shrodinger's action in 5e.




I'm not sure what you mean by "use something". In the game, players describe what they want their characters to do, not what game-feature they use. They can, but it isn't required. You're assuming your preferred play-style is mandated by the rules, which isn't the case. 

What is the case is that for his/her character to shove a creature, all a player needs to do is describe his/her character shoving a creature. It's the DM's job to work out which game-elements come into play, and to resolve a shove, all that needs to happen is a contested roll.



Maxperson said:


> This is just sophistry.  You don't declare that you are going to use an action in the game at some point during the turn.  I'll go Yoda on you.  Use or use not, there is no declare.




Look, you're playing games with semantics. You said, "there is no such thing as declaring an action," and that just isn't so. Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, the players' entire third of the conversation, is declaring actions for their characters. "The players describe what they want to do." That's what an action-declaration is. In the case of shoving a creature, a player might say, "I move around the orc so the pit is behind it and try to push it into the pit." Then it's the DM's job to ask the player for a STR (Athletics) check, roll the orc's ability check to contest it, and narrate the result.



Maxperson said:


> This is not possible by RAW.  The Rules as Written tell you what type of action you are taking in the instant you take it.  The moment the PC takes a shove, it is either the action or the bonus action.   Either you take it as a Bonus Action, in which case the trigger already has to have happened, or  you take it as part of your Attack action, in which case you must say that as soon as you take it.  There is no limbo state that the shove waits in to see what it will become.
> 
> Edit: I left out Reactions since they are not a part of this discussion.  I added it in, because many people here have problems with context and/or will seize on the omission as an evasion.




What rule requires you to say whether you shove a creature as an action or a bonus action? I don't think there is one. All that's required of the player is to engage with the fiction and describe what fictional actions his/her character is taking. Again, you seem to be assuming your preferred play-style is mandated somewhere in the rules, but I don't think it is.



Maxperson said:


> 1. Magic Weapon: Is this contingent on something occurring later in the round?  Yes.
> 1. Shove: Is this contingent on something occurring later in the round?  Yes.
> 
> 2. Magic weapon: Am I using the ability before the trigger happens?  Yes.
> ...




Shoving a creature isn't contingent on anything occurring later in the round. As long as the creature is no more than one size larger than you and within your reach, you can describe your character trying to shove it when it's your turn.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 27, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> It doesn't need one, does it? After all, you are only moving on your turn, and the Disengage benefits lasts until the end of your turn. I'm not even certain who is arguing which side anymore! LOL




Argument by contradiction. I’m showing that there is a contradiction in the position that actions last as long as their effects and what necessarily results from that position:  that you won’t be able to move after taking the disengage action. This is such strong evidence that I’ve changed my position and no longer believe actions last as long as their effects.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Feb 27, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Argument by contradiction. I’m showing that there is a contradiction in the position that actions last as long as their effects and what necessarily results from that position:  that you won’t be able to move after taking the disengage action. This is such strong evidence that I’ve changed my position and no longer believe actions last as long as their effects.




Hmm... Ok, so let me see if I am understanding your position properly then:

You said that you won't be able to move after disengaging? Do you mean if you moved prior to disengaging, you stipulate you cannot move afterwards as well? That seems a direct contradiction to the rules allowing you to move before and after your action provided you have movement remaining.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Hmm... Ok, so let me see if I am understanding your position properly then:
> 
> You said that you won't be able to move after disengaging? Do you mean if you moved prior to disengaging, you stipulate you cannot move afterwards as well? That seems a direct contradiction to the rules allowing you to move before and after your action provided you have movement remaining.




If the game supports discrete events that effectively resolve instantly, then yes, you can move after disengaging.  The effect of the Disengage action lasts until the end of your turn.  The action itself is instantaneous, and thus there doesn't need to be a special rule that says "you can move while Disengaging" like there is to say "you can move between attacks in the Attack action".

If the Disengage action itself (not the effect, the action) lasted until the end of your turn, then you would need a special rule that says you can move while taking the Disengage action.  The lack of such a rule strongly suggests this is not how the game is supposed to work.

The Attack action with Extra Attack slightly complicates things, which is why there is a special rule that explicitly says you can move between attacks in that action.  It's also why some bonus action triggers contain language like TWF's "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand".  That trigger is resolved as soon as you actually make a single weapon attack, and thus the bonus action is granted.

Edit: To clarify, he's agreeing with you, based on his realization that actions resolve instantly while their effects persist for the stated duration (rather than the action itself persisting).


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

Hriston said:


> What rule requires you to say whether you shove a creature as an action or a bonus action? I don't think there is one. All that's required of the player is to engage with the fiction and describe what fictional actions his/her character is taking. Again, you seem to be assuming your preferred play-style is mandated somewhere in the rules, but I don't think it is.




This one:

"You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. *You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.*"

You start your turn with your move and your action.  If you say "I want to shove that Orc and then hit it with my sword" at level 4 with the Shield Master feat, then the DM should say "well you can't actually do that because the shove consumes your action".  Specifically, until you've taken the Attack action, you don't have a bonus action to shove someone.  That's the way bonus actions with triggers work, the trigger must be true or you simply don't have the bonus action yet.

At some point the player's description of what they'd like to do needs to be converted into actual game mechanics.  The bonus action rules are clear: you don't have a bonus action until something grants you one.  Shield Master doesn't say "you have a bonus action shove", it says that you get the shove when you take the Attack action on your turn.  All evidence points to actions being discrete entities, and thus you actually have to take the Attack action before the Shield Master's bonus action trigger condition is satisfied, and you can then use that bonus action to shove someone after you've attacked but before the end of your turn.  You could also move in between, which allows you to shove a different target, for example.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 27, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> So when the lead rules designer says that "if X, then Y" has special meaning within the rules of the game, and that Shield Master is an example of such a trigger, he's just wrong?




The question is whether the condition specifies a timing for the bonus action. I don't think it does. If you want to regard it as specifying a timing, i.e. _after_ the Attack action has been taken, there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it's the best reading for the game.



Asgorath said:


> Or is it because the PHB wording of Shield Master doesn't specifically contain the word "then" that he's wrong?




The word _then_ wouldn't add anything to the meaning, IMO. It's implicit in the structure of the sentence.



Asgorath said:


> Or that when he's been telling everyone on many different platforms that the intent of the feat is the shove happens after the Attack action, and that the feat's bonus action is intended to be a finishing move, he's just wrong?




Here's an interesting tweet from Jeremy in this regard: Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling​ This doesn't sound like someone who forgot about his original ruling or tweeted it in error. It sounds like someone who has changed his mind. If the RAI was for Shield Master to give you a finishing move, then why did he originally rule against that? Did he change his mind twice?



Asgorath said:


> Do you just flat-out ignore the entire Sage Advice compendium, or just the question about Shield Master?




Do you realize this is a loaded question? I'm obviously not ignoring what Jeremy Crawford said about Shield Master.


----------



## epithet (Feb 27, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> "You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet."
> 
> The only thing the game allows is moving before or after your action. The attack action with extra attacks is an explicit exception.  The disengage action has no such exception.




So, let me get this straight. The rules point out that, unlike some previous editions, you don’t have to use all your movement at once. You can break it up and essentially move whenever you want to, as long as your total movement doesn’t exceed your character’s maximum. Your take-away is that movement is limited to the exact examples described, anything else is prohibited. 

This is makes it necessary, in your opinion, to characterize Disengage as something you do once, in a single moment, which then gives you up to six seconds of movement with impunity. You don’t have to continue to duck and weave, no... casually strolling among the ogres is fine, you’re protected by that one little flinch you made a few seconds back.

Or—and hear me out on this—you _could_ say that if an interpretation of the rules leads inexorably to some kind of super-gamy ridiculous nonsense that takes a steaming dump on the verisimilitude of your fictional world, you should look for a different interpretation. That’s also a possibility.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

Hriston said:


> The question is whether the condition specifies a timing for the bonus action. I don't think it does. If you want to regard it as specifying a timing, i.e. _after_ the Attack action has been taken, there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it's the best reading for the game.




Would you mind providing an example of a bonus action that does have specific timing, and explaining how it differs from Shield Master?  I'd like to understand how you're interpreting that part of the bonus action rules.



Hriston said:


> Here's an interesting tweet from Jeremy in this regard: Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling​ This doesn't sound like someone who forgot about his original ruling or tweeted it in error. It sounds like someone who has changed his mind. If the RAI was for Shield Master to give you a finishing move, then why did he originally rule against that? Did he change his mind twice?




https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064841214676994

"Today's clarification makes it so that you can trust your book more than ever before, since I've now eliminated an illogical ruling that actually seeded doubt about the book's text."

I don't think there are any inconsistencies here.  JEC replies to a question on Twitter about Shield Master in 2015 and says "sure, you can shove whenever you like!" without actually reading the rules and then promptly forgets about it.  Years later, someone points out that this ruling is bad, so he clarifies how bonus action timing is supposed to work and reverses his previous bad ruling.



Hriston said:


> Do you realize this is a loaded question? I'm obviously not ignoring what Jeremy Crawford said about Shield Master.




I'm just trying to understand how you're reconciling the fact he's come out and said "hey that 2015 tweet was bad, I was wrong, here's how bonus action timing and Shield Master are supposed to work", including adding a question about Shield Master to the Sage Advice Compendium (the source of official rulings about rules questions).  It's one thing to just not use the rule as intended at your table, but you seem to be arguing that his ruling is simply incorrect and the 2015 tweet is how the rule is supposed to work.  Is that not the case?


----------



## epithet (Feb 27, 2019)

The more I think about it, the more it seems likely that Jeremy isn’t the one who wrote the feat. When he describes intention, he seems to be talking only about how he intends for people to interpret the text now, not the intent of the author when it was written. Not that it matters—it says what it says, regardless of the authors intent then or Jeremy’s intent now. It’s just interesting to contemplate.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 27, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Every last bonus action caused by a trigger has timing built in.  That timing is the trigger.  That's how language commonly works, so that's how it works in 5e.  Only bonus actions that have no trigger can be used at any time.




"If you take the Attack action on your turn," doesn't indicate a specific time. That can happen at any point during your turn, which just so happens to be the same period of time in which you could potentially use a bonus action.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

Hriston said:


> "If you take the Attack action on your turn," doesn't indicate a specific time. That can happen at any point during your turn, which just so happens to be the same period of time in which you could potentially use a bonus action.




Again, the rules are filled with sentences that have the structure "if X, Y", and often more specifically "If you X, you can Y".  This is the way the rules describe a trigger condition, and the condition must be true before Y can happen.  This is confirmed by the lead rules designer:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995043696251842561

"If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y."

This applies for every sentence in the rules that uses that structure.  Again, note that I did not say X must be completed -- the condition must simply be true before Y can happen.

If I follow your logic, then as a Ranger with Natural Explorer I can say that there's no timing requirement for me moving stealthily at full pace, the rule just says I can do that.  At some point in the future, the "if X" part of the rule will happen, and so that means I get the "Y" part whenever I like.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 27, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It's not an interpretation.  It's out and out changing the rules.  The rules require the player to take the actions and bonus actions when they are used.  When a player shoves, he has to indicate whether he is using the bonus action(if it has already been triggered) or an action.  It doesn't get to change later on.  It's ridiculous that you are claiming not only that it can be done, but that it's an "interpretation" of the rules.
> 
> Anyway, I'm done.  You will disagree, but when you engage the rules in that manner you are house ruling them.  Have a good day.




There's no rule that requires a player to state on what part of the action economy his/her action-declaration relies.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 27, 2019)

Hriston said:


> There's no rule that requires a player to state on what part of the action economy his/her action-declaration relies.




But someone has to translate from the natural language a player uses to describe what they'd like to do on their turn into actual game mechanics, right?  That could be the DM for an inexperienced player, or the player themselves.  Otherwise, we're not really playing D&D anymore, are we?  What happens when I say "I'd like to fly over there, stealthily at full speed, and punch that Ancient Red Dragon in the face and kill it with a single blow"?  The game's combat just doesn't work like that.

- What grants me a flying speed?  Without one, I can't fly.
- The rules say you have to move at a slow pace by default in order to use stealth.
- Punching the dragon involves making an attack roll, at the very least.
- My punch likely can't do enough damage to bring the dragon to 0 HP.

I'd say the DM has the final say in how the player's desires for what they do on their turn actually map to game mechanics, as part of the standard rule adjudication process.  I can think of plenty of unreasonable things a player might want to do on their turn that are simply not allowed by the rules, and so in cases like that, the DM should simply say "no you can't actually do all that stuff on your turn".


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Again, the rules are filled with sentences that have the structure "if X, Y", and often more specifically "If you X, you can Y".  This is the way the rules describe a trigger condition, and the condition must be true before Y can happen.  This is confirmed by the lead rules designer:
> 
> https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995043696251842561
> 
> ...




He's saying that for any turn on which he takes the Attack Action, the Shield Specialist character can use the bonus action shove at any point during that turn, as provided in the general rule of bonus actions, because the condition for using that bonus action is satisfied. The unit of time in question is the Shield Master's turn, and on that turn he is taking the Attack Action. The Attack Action is a game construction which takes 1 turn of game time, so you can assume the entire turn (as well as any activity within it) qualifies as contemporaneous with the Attack Action.

Following that logic, during any unit of game time during which the Ranger is travelling alone for that entire unit of time, the Ranger can move stealthily at his full pace. Moving stealthily at his full pace and travelling alone must happen concurrently, as you have wryly noted. Brisk sneaking cannot be done before the solo travel, nor can it be done after--it can only be done during the solo travel, just like the bonus action shove can only be done during a turn on which the Attack Action is taken.

You have expressed an opinion upthread that overlapping actions and bonus actions are somehow more complicated, but I submit that they are not complicated in the least. First of all, they are concurrent, not overlapping--both take place "on your turn." The individual (objective) activities that form or are granted by the action or bonus action are sequential, neatly ordered according to the stated actions of the character by its player. The (formal) game constructs, actions, bonus actions, etc. have no objective reality in the game world, so you can stack as many "on your turn" as the rules allow without over-complicating anything.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> He's saying that for any turn on which he takes the Attack Action, the Shield Specialist character can use the bonus action shove at any point during that turn, as provided in the general rule of bonus actions, because the condition for using that bonus action is satisfied. The unit of time in question is the Shield Master's turn, and on that turn he is taking the Attack Action. The Attack Action is a game construction which takes 1 turn of game time, so you can assume the entire turn (as well as any activity within it) qualifies as contemporaneous with the Attack Action.




Yes, but he's wrong.  That's why he had to invent time travel to go back and change the bonus action to an action if something prevents his PC from using the Attack action that turn.  If you have to invent time travel and Schrodinger's actions to justify your position, you're already wrong.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> But someone has to translate from the natural language a player uses to describe what they'd like to do on their turn into actual game mechanics, right?  That could be the DM for an inexperienced player, or the player themselves.  Otherwise, we're not really playing D&D anymore, are we?  What happens when I say "I'd like to fly over there, stealthily at full speed, and punch that Ancient Red Dragon in the face and kill it with a single blow"?  The game's combat just doesn't work like that.
> 
> - What grants me a flying speed?  Without one, I can't fly.
> - The rules say you have to move at a slow pace by default in order to use stealth.
> ...




This is where verisimilitude becomes so important. A player will (at least, _should_) learn very quickly what characters of his race, background, and class are capable of. If someone says "I'd like to fly over there, stealthily at full speed, and punch that Ancient Red Dragon in the face and kill it with a single blow" in your first session, you simply ask "Do you think that dwarves can fly?" If that character can, for some reason, fly, well... you have to decide whether flight is maybe quiet enough to let him sneak up quickly, and if not advise the player that, just like in 'the real world,' you can get there fast or you can get there quietly, but most of the time you can't do both. Then let him roll stealth and try not to laugh as you compare it to the dragon's passive perception, and prepare to deliver "The Dragon's Address to Lunch" in your dragon voice.

The key to all of that is that, in terms of the fantasy world, it all makes sense. You don't actually need to get deep into the game mechanics.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, but he's wrong.  That's why he had to invent time travel to go back and change the bonus action to an action if something prevents his PC from using the Attack action that turn.  If you have to invent time travel and Schrodinger's actions to justify your position, you're already wrong.




No, there is no need to go back in time for that, because the action and bonus action occur concurrently. They both occur "on your turn." Besides, time travel already exists in the D&D rules--see as an example the many features and feats that let you change the result of a die you've already rolled.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> No, there is no need to go back in time for that, because the action and bonus action occur concurrently.




No.  No they aren't happening concurrently if you are taking the bonus action BEFORE you take the action.  Imagine the following scenario.  The DM has an enemy with a Hold Person spell readied to cast on your fighter if your fighter moves.  On your turn you take the shove action and knock down the enemy in front of you, then you move 10 feet to take that Attack action, except the Hold Person spell goes off, you miss your save and cannot take the Attack action.  They would be concurrent if you actually took the Attack action and at least one attack first, since you aren't even in the process of taking your Attack action until that first attack happens.

According to Hriston, time travel occurs and the bonus action somehow becomes the action, or we have Schrodinger's action where we don't know if the shove is alive or dead until the end of the turn.



> Besides, time travel already exists in the D&D rules--see as an example the many features and feats that let you change the result of a die you've already rolled.




Those mostly aren't time travel.  Most of them make you use them before you know whether you've succeeded or failed, so no time travel is involved at all.  Shield is the only one I can think of that can turn a hit into a miss, basically being time travel, and I have an issue with that part of the spell


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> So, let me get this straight. The rules point out that, unlike some previous editions, you don’t have to use all your movement at once. You can break it up and essentially move whenever you want to, as long as your total movement doesn’t exceed your character’s maximum. Your take-away is that movement is limited to the exact examples described, anything else is prohibited.




My take-away is that movement is limited to being before or after an action as the rule I cited expresses.  Do you have a different rule that says you can move in the middle of an action?



> This is makes it necessary, in your opinion, to characterize Disengage as something you do once, in a single moment, which then gives you up to six seconds of movement with impunity. You don’t have to continue to duck and weave, no... casually strolling among the ogres is fine, you’re protected by that one little flinch you made a few seconds back.




Of course you continue to duck and weave.  It's just ducking and weaving is not concurrent with taking the disengage action.  You take the disengage action, then you duck and weave for the rest of your turn.  Ducking and weaving for the rest of your turn isn't mutually exclusive with the disengage action being instantaneous with it's effects following the taking of the action.



> Or—and hear me out on this—you _could_ say that if an interpretation of the rules leads inexorably to some kind of super-gamy ridiculous nonsense that takes a steaming dump on the verisimilitude of your fictional world, you should look for a different interpretation. That’s also a possibility.




Well that's precisely the argument I'm making against non-instantaneous actions.  That having actions be non-instantaneous leads inexorably to some kind of super-gamey ridiculous nonsense that takes a steaming dump on the verisimilitude of the fictional world and therefore I propose instantaneous actions as the different interpretation.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> He's saying that for any turn on which he takes the Attack Action, the Shield Specialist character can use the bonus action shove at any point during that turn, as provided in the general rule of bonus actions, because the condition for using that bonus action is satisfied. The unit of time in question is the Shield Master's turn, and on that turn he is taking the Attack Action. The Attack Action is a game construction which takes 1 turn of game time, so you can assume the entire turn (as well as any activity within it) qualifies as contemporaneous with the Attack Action.




If that's what he is saying I understand his interpretation.  But he explicitly told me that his turn activities were sequential and not concurrent.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  No they aren't happening concurrently if you are taking the bonus action BEFORE you take the action.  Imagine the following scenario.  The DM has an enemy with a Hold Person spell readied to cast on your fighter if your fighter moves.  On your turn you take the shove action and knock down the enemy in front of you, then you move 10 feet to take that Attack action, except the Hold Person spell goes off, you miss your save and cannot take the Attack action.  They would be concurrent if you actually took the Attack action and at least one attack first, since you aren't even in the process of taking your Attack action until that first attack happens.
> 
> According to Hriston, time travel occurs and the bonus action somehow becomes the action, or we have Schrodinger's action where we don't know if the shove is alive or dead until the end of the turn.
> 
> ...




Well, yeah, obviously in your scenario the character's shove should be considered an attack as part of the Attack Action if it somehow matters, but the only reason it would matter is if the character wanted to use a different bonus action, right? Otherwise, the character is _held_. Can't use bonus actions, can't use the rest of his movement, etc. I mean, you could rule that since he announced his sequence to include a bonus action shove, that he was committed for both his action and bonus action even though he was locked down, which is how I used to rule it. You, however, seem to place a lot of faith in Jeremy Crawford, and Jeremy has advised against a declaration having any weight, so you might not be inclined to adjudicate it that way.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If that's what he is saying I understand his interpretation.  But he explicitly told me that his turn activities were sequential and not concurrent.




Right, activities (what a character actually does, eg make a melee weapon attack) are sequential. Actions (the game constructions, eg the Attack Action) happen "on your turn."

I probably shouldn't speak for him, though--he's perfectly well able to explain himself.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 28, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No.  No they aren't happening concurrently if you are taking the bonus action BEFORE you take the action.  Imagine the following scenario.  The DM has an enemy with a Hold Person spell readied to cast on your fighter if your fighter moves.  On your turn you take the shove action and knock down the enemy in front of you, then you move 10 feet to take that Attack action, except the Hold Person spell goes off, you miss your save and cannot take the Attack action.  They would be concurrent if you actually took the Attack action and at least one attack first, since you aren't even in the process of taking your Attack action until that first attack happens.
> 
> According to Hriston, time travel occurs and the bonus action somehow becomes the action, or we have Schrodinger's action where we don't know if the shove is alive or dead until the end of the turn.
> 
> ...




meh - i dont get into time travel mechanics and nonsense - thats too easy letting someone else define the field.

Portent - declare before the roll
Bardic inspires - declare after roll but before result
Shield - declare after result 

To me those just represent differing levels of "reactiveness" and "accuracy". 
Portents are vague enough  and slow enough you only know how to get the one outcome, not what the other chances were. 

Bardics you have more skill or its quicker into effect so you can at least figure out enough to pin down the "wild misses" and "sure things" before you commit.

But Shield, hey man, shield is dead spot accurate - you can wait til that last nano-jiffy to then still kick it in when you get that final starting "umphhh". 

No time travel at all, just better more reactive and faster vs slower and less precise and mechanics that put that into play by giving you more or less info at the point you have to decide.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> No, there is no need to go back in time for that, because the action and bonus action occur concurrently. They both occur "on your turn." Besides, time travel already exists in the D&D rules--see as an example the many features and feats that let you change the result of a die you've already rolled.




In the concurrent bonus action and attack action concept what prevents a player from ignoring all timing requirements on a bonus action.  For example if you have an ability that said when you take the attack action on your turn and attack you can make a bonus action to do X.  If everything is concurrent then would you also be able to take that kind of bonus action before the attack action?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Right, activities (what a character actually does, eg make a melee weapon attack) are sequential. Actions (the game constructions, eg the Attack Action) happen "on your turn."
> 
> I probably shouldn't speak for him, though--he's perfectly well able to explain himself.




That's what I was asking when he replied that way.  So I dunno...


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> meh - i dont get into time travel mechanics and nonsense - thats too easy letting someone else define the field.
> 
> Portent - declare before the roll
> Bardic inspires - declare after roll but before result
> ...




Consider the monk, who you can hit with a ranged weapon attack and roll your damage, only to have him undo the whole thing. He might even throw your arrow back at you. Sure, in the fiction of the game world his reaction happened at the same moment as your attack because he's just that fast. In the game mechanics metagame, though, he went back in time and undid your attack for you to make you grind your molars a little bit.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Well, yeah, obviously in your scenario the character's shove should be considered an attack as part of the Attack Action if it somehow matters, but the only reason it would matter is if the character wanted to use a different bonus action, right? Otherwise, the character is _held_. Can't use bonus actions, can't use the rest of his movement, etc. I mean, you could rule that since he announced his sequence to include a bonus action shove, that he was committed for both his action and bonus action even though he was locked down, which is how I used to rule it. You, however, seem to place a lot of faith in Jeremy Crawford, and Jeremy has advised against a declaration having any weight, so you might not be inclined to adjudicate it that way.




Consider this sequence... say i have a cleric with shield master and bonus action healing spells - 

i rush up and shove someone with the shield trying to knock them prone.
Thats as far as i have chosen... because what i do next is dependent on what the result is...

if they fall, maybe i attack with my wonder mace with advantage and risk burning its expendables.
if they stay up, maybe i use healing word as bonus on my comrade or move away to strike or spell someone else or use my spiritual weapon and so on.

if, the "action type" of the shield bash is not set until *after* i do other stuff in my turn yet what i do in the turn is determined by the result of the shield bash - that is indeed some quantum schoedinger stuffing going on there.

I just go with take an attack action means make an attack and then let stuff flow from there.

leave the quantum actions for Hank and Janet.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> My take-away is that movement is limited to being before or after an action as the rule I cited expresses.  Do you have a different rule that says you can move in the middle of an action?
> 
> Of course you continue to duck and weave.  It's just ducking and weaving is not concurrent with taking the disengage action.  You take the disengage action, then you duck and weave for the rest of your turn.  Ducking and weaving for the rest of your turn isn't mutually exclusive with the disengage action being instantaneous with it's effects following the taking of the action.
> 
> Well that's precisely the argument I'm making against non-instantaneous actions.  That having actions be non-instantaneous leads inexorably to some kind of super-gamey ridiculous nonsense that takes a steaming dump on the verisimilitude of the fictional world and therefore I propose instantaneous actions as the different interpretation.




So, you're a regular human, and your movement is 30 feet for a 6 second turn, right? That means you jog along at 5 feet per second.

If you take the dash action, your movement doubles. Now you're running at 10 feet per second.

The dash action effects all of your movement for the entire round, regardless of when on the round you decide to take the dash action. The dash action doubles your speed "on your turn." It doesn't just add another 30 feet, it doubles your existing speed, so "If your speed of 30 feet is reduced to 15 feet, for instance, you can move up to 30 feet this turn if you dash." What that means is that if you decide to take the dash action after you've already moved on your turn, well... you've been running all along.

The argument you're making, though, is that you can't move during the dash action. You argue that you stop, dash, then move again, and the dash action just lets you move some more at the same pace you've been moving. That's nonsensical, and means in essence that the dash action adds another 6 seconds of magical time to your turn in which you can stroll about the place. There is no way that can have more verisimilitude than to simply say "you were running instead of jogging this turn." Similarly, you can't say on the one hand that you can take the Disengage Action in a single moment then duck and weave for the rest of the turn, while insisting that you cannot possibly take the Attack Action in a single moment then make your melee or range weapon attack across the rest of the turn. Either the activity associated with an Action in Combat is part of that Action and the Action continues until that activity is concluded, or it bloody isn't. If you can take the Disengage Action in an instant, you can take the Attack Action in an instant, too. That, of course, would trigger your shove bonus action before you took your first attack.

Jeremy has said that according to his interpretation and advice, you can't separate the Attack Action from the attacks (because there is no 'declaration phase.') To be consistent, you can't therefore separate the Dash Action from dashing movement, nor the Disengage Action from disengaging from each opponent you're selfishly refusing to grant an attack of opportunity to. It's one way, or the other.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> So, you're a regular human, and your movement is 30 feet for a 6 second turn, right? That means you jog along at 5 feet per second.
> 
> If you take the dash action, your movement doubles. Now you're running at 10 feet per second.
> 
> ...




Way to misconstrue my position.  Have fun role playing Don Quixote...


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Well, yeah, obviously in your scenario the character's shove should be considered an attack as part of the Attack Action if it somehow matters, but the only reason it would matter is if the character wanted to use a different bonus action, right?




That's not how the game works, though.  You very specifically use actions and bonus actions when you do something.  If you use shove as a bonus action before the action, then it was used as a bonus action and not an action, and vice versa.  The type you use it for doesn't change.  If you have a situation like I describe causing problems that you have to solve via time travel or Schrodinger's actions, either how you play it is wrong, or the game is broken, and I don't think the game is broken.  Especially given the Sage Advice.



> Otherwise, the character is _held_. Can't use bonus actions, can't use the rest of his movement, etc. I mean, you could rule that since he announced his sequence to include a bonus action shove, that he was committed for both his action and bonus action even though he was locked down, which is how I used to rule it. You, however, seem to place a lot of faith in Jeremy Crawford, and Jeremy has advised against a declaration having any weight, so you might not be inclined to adjudicate it that way.




Or I could rule it as it reads and how it was intended, which is that you have to take the Attack action in order to trigger the bonus action.  I will be allowing it after the first swing, since only at that point are you taking the Attack action.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> In the concurrent bonus action and attack action concept what prevents a player from ignoring all timing requirements on a bonus action.  For example if you have an ability that said when you take the attack action on your turn and attack you can make a bonus action to do X.  If everything is concurrent then would you also be able to take that kind of bonus action before the attack action?




If X is an attack that you could make as part of the attack action, it's pretty simple. If X is something completely different, like moving an extra 10 feet, I regard it as essentially becoming part of your attack action, meaning if you move the extra 10 feet you've taken the attack action even if you don't make any attacks. I know that doesn't synch with Jeremy's current advice, but it is the way that makes sense to me without getting all metagamy. It's a simple "that ability gives you an extra 10 feet of movement if you use it, but then all you can do is attack. That's all you'll have time for on your turn, unless you want to dig deep with an action surge."


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> meh - i dont get into time travel mechanics and nonsense - thats too easy letting someone else define the field.
> 
> Portent - declare before the roll
> Bardic inspires - declare after roll but before result
> ...




See, after the result of being hit, it's too late to stop it.  You already got hit.  You have to literally rewind things to change a hit to a miss, so it's not a matter of reactiveness.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Way to misconstrue my position.  Have fun role playing Don Quixote...




Fun fact, I role played Don Quixote and it was a blast.

I can't see how I misconstrued your position at all. Do you believe that you can move during the Dash Action? If you believe that you can take the Dash Action instantly and then dash the whole turn, and you can take the Disengage Action instantly and disengage the whole turn, why can't you take the Attack Action instantly and then make your attacks throughout the rest of your turn? Do you think the Actions in Combat should not be treated the same way?


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> That's not how the game works, though.  You very specifically use actions and bonus actions when you do something.  If you use shove as a bonus action before the action, then it was used as a bonus action and not an action, and vice versa.  The type you use it for doesn't change.  If you have a situation like I describe causing problems that you have to solve via time travel or Schrodinger's actions, either how you play it is wrong, or the game is broken, and I don't think the game is broken.  Especially given the Sage Advice.
> 
> Or I could rule it as it reads and how it was intended, which is that you have to take the Attack action in order to trigger the bonus action.  I will be allowing it after the first swing, since only at that point are you taking the Attack action.




I'm not seeing how that breaks the game. It works just fine. There are plenty of things that are undetermined in D&D until something else happens, case in point most reactions. It's one 6 second turn, it's not that hard to work out man.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

To offer a point by point knock down of your faulty logic.



epithet said:


> So, you're a regular human, and your movement is 30 feet for a 6 second turn, right? That means you jog along at 5 feet per second.




No it doesn't.  You could move 25 ft/s for 1 second.  Pause 4 seconds.  Move more slowly at 5 ft/s the remainder of the turn.  The only rule is that you can only move 30 ft in a turn and not that your maximum speed is 5ft/s.  In a turn we don't define the minutia of exactly how we are moving or precisely the second we attacked, just that we moved and attacked.



> If you take the dash action, your movement doubles. Now you're running at 10 feet per second.




No.  The Dash action doubles your movement.  All taking the dash action does is double your movement.  

For the sake of your verisimilitude what that precisely means in game terms is left undefined.  It potentially could be as you said, but there's a good number of people whose versimulitude is broken by retroactive actions and so I'm not sure that's actually strong argument for your case.  Instead I would tend to interpret what's happening as, you started moving more slowly and then drastically picked up the pace.



> The dash action effect all of your movement for the entire round, regardless of when on the round you decide to take the dash action.




That's a belief and not a rule.  It's just as easy to believe it only affects the movement after you've taken the action.  That taking the dash action means you are moving much faster than you previously were before taking it.



> The dash action doubles your speed "on your turn." It doesn't just add another 30 feet, it doubles your existing speed, so "If your speed of 30 feet is reduced to 15 feet, for instance, you can move up to 30 feet this turn if you dash." What that means is that if you decide to take the dash action after you've already moved on your turn, well... you've been running all along.




As noted above, that's really not what it shows.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> The argument you're making, though, is that you can't move during the dash action.




Correct.  The rules only give you the ability to move before or after an action.  I've cited the rule and you still haven't shown me a rule that says otherwise.  

Just a thought experiment for you.  If the dash action is instantaneous and you move immediately before and immediately after it then did you ever really stop moving?



> You argue that you stop, dash, then move again, and the dash action just lets you move some more at the same pace you've been moving.




You used some very faulty reasoning to derive the belief that my position means the dash action simply gives you more movement at the same speed.  I explained why in my previous post.



> That's nonsensical, and means in essence that the dash action adds another 6 seconds of magical time to your turn in which you can stroll about the place.




Of course that's nonsensical.  I don't believe that.  My position doesn't by necessity take me there.  You invented some flimsy argument to try to force me into that box but your argument for that is what was truly nonsensical.  



> There is no way that can have more verisimilitude than to simply say "you were running instead of jogging this turn."




Versimilitude is broken for a lot of people when an action at a later part of their turn defines a previous part of their turn.



> Similarly, you can't say on the one hand that you can take the Disengage Action in a single moment then duck and weave for the rest of the turn, while insisting that you cannot possibly take the Attack Action in a single moment then make your melee or range weapon attack across the rest of the turn.




Have you stopped to ask my belief about whether the attack action is instantaneous?



> Either the activity associated with an Action in Combat is part of that Action and the Action continues until that activity is concluded, or it bloody isn't




That would be the best case scenario but that isn't necessarily the case.  What if no matter which of those interpretations we use we can go find something that's nonsensical about it?  Would that mean the rules are broken or that some actions are instantaneous and others are not?



> If you can take the Disengage Action in an instant, you can take the Attack Action in an instant, too.




Ideally that's the case.  Is there some reason you see that the attack action can't be instantaneous?



> That, of course, would trigger your shove bonus action before you took your first attack.




Yes.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> ...You could move 25 ft/s for 1 second.  Pause 4 seconds.  ...




I really can't, and if somehow I did I'd need a lot more than 4 seconds to recover.

But fine, if supernatural wind sprints are easier for you to believe, have at it. Still, if you think you can take the Dash Action in a moment and then take your freakishly fast speed whenever you want it later on your turn, why can't you take your Attack Action in a moment and take your attack whenever you want it on your turn? Why are you treating those actions so very differently?

Edit: Never mind. I have gone back in time, as it were, to read your other replies.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Jeremy has said that according to his interpretation and advice, you can't separate the Attack Action from the attacks (because there is no 'declaration phase.') To be consistent, you can't therefore separate the Dash Action from dashing movement, nor the Disengage Action from disengaging from each opponent you're selfishly refusing to grant an attack of opportunity to. It's one way, or the other.




1.  If you can't separate the disengage action from the disengage movement and
2.  If you can only move before or after an action (as the rule I citied indicates) then
CONCLUSION: if you take the disengage action you can't move after taking the disengage action

See, I have reasoning for why I think JC is wrong about not being able to separate action from their effects.  In the case of the disengage action it's absolutely necessary for the action to be separated from it's effects because if you don't then given the above logical argument you literally can't move after taking it which is nonsensical as the whole purpose of taking it is to be able to move without taking OA's.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> I really can't, and if somehow I did I'd need a lot more than 4 seconds to recover.
> 
> But fine, if supernatural wind sprints are easier for you to believe, have at it. Still, if you think you can take the Dash Action in a moment and then take your freakishly fast speed whenever you want it later on your turn, why can't you take your Attack Action in a moment and take your attack whenever you want it on your turn? Why are you treating those actions so very differently?




Why do you think I am treating those differently?  See up until now I've thought you had some grand point that would prove attack actions can't be taken instantaneously.  Now I think you don't and that you somehow think I believe that the disengage action is instantaneous but the attack action isn't.  That would be a strange thing to believe without a good reason to do so.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> I really can't, and if somehow I did I'd need a lot more than 4 seconds to recover.




Fastest 40 m dash time is 4.42 seconds.  That's nearly 30 ft/s

I'm not saying I could do it either, but it's at least humanely possible and not supernaturally so.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> 1.  If you can't separate the disengage action from the disengage movement and
> 2.  If you can only move before or after an action (as the rule I citied indicates) then
> CONCLUSION: if you take the disengage action you can't move after taking the disengage action
> 
> See, I have reasoning for why I think JC is wrong about not being able to separate action from their effects.  In the case of the disengage action it's absolutely necessary for the action to be separated from it's effects because if you don't then given the above logical argument you literally can't move after taking it which is nonsensical as the whole purpose of taking it is to be able to move without taking OA's.




I see your reasoning, and it is consistent. While yours is not the only way to interpret the rules, your interpretation is probably the one that most adheres to the exact letter of the rules, and it is much more logical than Crawford's new Advice.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Why do you think I am treating those differently?  See up until now I've thought you had some grand point that would prove attack actions can't be taken instantaneously.  Now I think you don't and that you somehow think I believe that the disengage action is instantaneous but the attack action isn't.  That would be a strange thing to believe without a good reason to do so.




I have a very good reason indeed.

I was mistaken.

It happens.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> I'm not seeing how that breaks the game. It works just fine.




What you're really saying is that it is easy to fix the break by just altering which is the bonus action and which is the action.  It's very broken in that if you play by the rules, you end up with a bonus action used and no trigger for said bonus action, since the action was prevented by the hold spell.  The game doesn't let you switch bonus actions and actions.  That's your fix.



> There are plenty of things that are undetermined in D&D until something else happens, case in point most reactions. It's one 6 second turn, it's not that hard to work out man.




And there are vastly more that are not undetermined, with actions and bonus actions being among them.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Fastest 40 m dash time is 4.42 seconds.  That's nearly 30 ft/s
> 
> I'm not saying I could do it either, but it's at least humanely possible and not supernaturally so.




I think you meant _humanly_ unless while doing it you are being very kind and compassionate?

Who wants to hug the fluffy bunnies?  They are SO soft!


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> If X is an attack that you could make as part of the attack action, it's pretty simple. If X is something completely different, like moving an extra 10 feet, I regard it as essentially becoming part of your attack action, meaning if you move the extra 10 feet you've taken the attack action even if you don't make any attacks. I know that doesn't synch with Jeremy's current advice, but it is the way that makes sense to me without getting all metagamy. It's a simple "that ability gives you an extra 10 feet of movement if you use it, but then all you can do is attack. That's all you'll have time for on your turn, unless you want to dig deep with an action surge."




I agree that's a good way to do it.  But we are trying to iron out the actual game rules on this at the moment and I think your answer is actually an attempt at avoiding directly answering my question that was about how you view your interpretation of concurrent actions/bonus actions and the rules interacting in the scenario I described.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> I see your reasoning, and it is consistent. While yours is not the only way to interpret the rules, your interpretation is probably the one that most adheres to the exact letter of the rules, and it is much more logical than Crawford's new Advice.




The only thing I dislike about my current interpretation is that I fear it will also apply to other bonus actions that have an actual timing requirement and thus effectively eliminate the timing clause out of the bonus action rules.  That is why I am so interested in the concurrent explanation and how it handles other bonus actions that we normally agree have timing.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> In the concurrent bonus action and attack action concept what prevents a player from ignoring all timing requirements on a bonus action.  For example if you have an ability that said when you take the attack action on your turn and attack you can make a bonus action to do X.  If everything is concurrent then would you also be able to take that kind of bonus action before the attack action?






FrogReaver said:


> I agree that's a good way to do it.  But we are trying to iron out the actual game rules on this at the moment and I think your answer is actually an attempt at avoiding directly answering my question that was about how you view your interpretation of concurrent actions/bonus actions and the rules interacting in the scenario I described.




Sorry, if you want a simple and direct answer then it is: Yes, as long as you take the attack action on that turn. If your bonus action is something other than an attack, then you've taken the Attack Action when you do that other thing, even if you make no attacks.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The only thing I dislike about my current interpretation is that I fear it will also apply to other bonus actions that have an actual timing requirement and thus effectively eliminate the timing clause out of the bonus action rules.  That is why I am so interested in the concurrent explanation and how it handles other bonus actions that we normally agree have timing.




Well, if a bonus action has an actual timing requirement I think it would almost certainly be based on an objective activity, like making a melee weapon attack, rather than simply upon a formal Action, like taking the Attack Action on your turn. Even if you interpret Actions and Bonus Actions to be handled concurrently, the objective activities they grant will be sequential. Take the bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting as an example: it uses almost the exact same language as shield master, but adds "and make a melee weapon attack" to it. The Attack Action happens "on your turn," but the melee weapon attack happens at a distinct point in time within your turn, as part of a sequence of events.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Sorry, if you want a simple and direct answer then it is: Yes, as long as you take the attack action on that turn. If your bonus action is something other than an attack, then you've taken the Attack Action when you do that other thing, even if you make no attacks.




Thanks, then for me I have a preference for the sequential turn, both player and character side.  I think instantaneous actions solve a lot of the complicated problems, though its possible there may be an example of that I'm unaware of that also makes instantaneous actions not work.  If there is such an example then I'll revisit concurrent actions at that time, or worst case I'll determine the rules have no consistent interpretation which isn't a bad place to be either as it means I and my DM entirely get to decide how to handle the situation based on factors other than whatever the rule is.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Well, if a bonus action has an actual timing requirement I think it would almost certainly be based on an objective activity, like making a melee weapon attack, rather than simply upon a formal Action, like taking the Attack Action on your turn. Even if you interpret Actions and Bonus Actions to be handled concurrently, the objective activities they grant will be sequential. Take the bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting as an example: it uses almost the exact same language as shield master, but adds "and make a melee weapon attack" to it. The Attack Action happens "on your turn," but the melee weapon attack happens at a distinct point in time within your turn, as part of a sequence of events.




So basically as long as the activity described is an objective in character activity then timing contraints would still apply.  Interesting.  That actually works out for my instantaneous action interpretation as well.  Nice catch!


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

So I just wanted to say, this thread was worth it.  It's at least changed my opinion.  I used to be anti-instantaneous actions and now I'm for them.  Surprisingly that also means shield master can get triggered before the attacks from the attack action are taken which is completely different than my original position.  So for those that offered interesting insights instead of just back and forth arguments, thank you!


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Thanks, then for me I have a preference for the sequential turn, both player and character side.  I think instantaneous actions solve a lot of the complicated problems, though its possible there may be an example of that I'm unaware of that also makes instantaneous actions not work.  If there is such an example then I'll revisit concurrent actions at that time, or worst case I'll determine the rules have no consistent interpretation which isn't a bad place to be either as it means I and my DM entirely get to decide how to handle the situation based on factors other than whatever the rule is.




I see where you're coming from.

For me, as a DM, it comes down to the fact that I'm pretty indulgent when it comes to changing your mind as long as it doesn't involve undoing an attack, or un-casting a spell, or something objective like that. If someone want to change whether a shove was from Shield Master or from Extra Attack, and all that involves is re-construing the formal game constructions, I have no real objection to that (unless you're taking forever to figure out what you want to do.) For me, it's easiest to keep all the metagame stuff pretty loose until the end of the turn, then lock it down and move to the next initiative. As long as it's all kosher in retrospect, and you're not abusing my indulgence (which my players don't,) it's all good. I'm sure it would drive Max all the way around the bend.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Feb 28, 2019)

We've always played Shield Master can use his bonus action to Shove or Knock Prone before making his attack rolls. Without allies, it is nearly a pointless feature if you play it any other way. Imagine a fighter with Shield Master in a one-on-one contest. If you force him to make the attack rolls prior to his bonus action, he gains no benefit for knocking his opponent prone after the attacks are made since the foe can simple stand up for half his movement on his turn. By allowing the bonus action to occur prior, he can then make any attacks with advantage. This gives the feature purpose IMO. It is also much more cinematic and follows understandable tactical actions.

On a similar note, our DM allows the off-hand bonus action attack to also take place before the main-hand if the player so chooses, or if they have the extra attack feature at higher levels, the off-hand attack can happen between the two main-hand attacks. It is _illogical_ to assume every time the character attacks they MUST strike with the main-hand first. We are well aware that is not how the rules intend, but it makes more sense to allow the attacks to be more fluid. For instance, suppose you have a shortsword in one hand and dagger in the off-hand. You can throw the dagger in your off-hand as a bonus action at a target, then move to attack another target, and use your attack action against the second target. I will go further in stating an example that would really throw more "pure" rules players out of whack:

You throw a dagger from your off-hand as an attack, move and draw another dagger as part of the movement, strike with the dagger now in off-hand as your bonus action, and then conclude your attack action using "extra attack" to strike with your main-hand weapon! Crazy, huh!?! 

Of course, we DO play with declarations of actions because we believe a six-second round is simply too quick to not have declared intentions, but that is our preference and another can of worms.

P.S. The fluffy bunnies are still waiting for someone to pet them. Have a heart, pet a fluffy bunny today!


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> We've always played Shield Master can use his bonus action to Shove or Knock Prone before making his attack rolls. Without allies, it is nearly a pointless feature if you play it any other way. Imagine a fighter with Shield Master in a one-on-one contest. If you force him to make the attack rolls prior to his bonus action, he gains no benefit for knocking his opponent prone after the attacks are made since the foe can simple stand up for half his movement on his turn. By allowing the bonus action to occur prior, he can then make any attacks with advantage. This gives the feature purpose IMO. It is also much more cinematic and follows understandable tactical actions.




From a power perspective there are a lot of pointless feats.  I don't feel feats were well balanced in terms of power.  They feel more about flavor than power to me.  As such you get some utterly weak ones and some irreplaceably powerful ones.

That said knocking someone prone is still potentially beneficial to your allies and slows down the enemy from getting to your squishies.  So even in the worst case interpretation, shield master isn't a pointless feat.

By the way consider this strategy in a 1v1.

Fighter 1: Attack, attack, shield bash Knock prone. move 20 ft away, taking an OA at disadvantage.
Fighter 2: Stand up, dash 20 ft ends turn adjacent
Fighter 1: repeat.

There's plenty of benefit to shield master in 1v1 combat even when you can only shove after.  You just have to think tactically.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 28, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> We've always played Shield Master can use his bonus action to Shove or Knock Prone before making his attack rolls. Without allies, it is nearly a pointless feature if you play it any other way. Imagine a fighter with Shield Master in a one-on-one contest. If you force him to make the attack rolls prior to his bonus action, he gains no benefit for knocking his opponent prone after the attacks are made since the foe can simple stand up for half his movement on his turn. By allowing the bonus action to occur prior, he can then make any attacks with advantage. This gives the feature purpose IMO. It is also much more cinematic and follows understandable tactical actions.
> 
> On a similar note, our DM allows the off-hand bonus action attack to also take place before the main-hand if the player so chooses, or if they have the extra attack feature at higher levels, the off-hand attack can happen between the two main-hand attacks. It is _illogical_ to assume every time the character attacks they MUST strike with the main-hand first. We are well aware that is not how the rules intend, but it makes more sense to allow the attacks to be more fluid. For instance, suppose you have a shortsword in one hand and dagger in the off-hand. You can throw the dagger in your off-hand as a bonus action at a target, then move to attack another target, and use your attack action against the second target. I will go further in stating an example that would really throw more "pure" rules players out of whack:
> 
> ...



5e system is built and designed around team play, do the assumption is there will be allies and elements are based on it. 

Have you looked at how effective bardic inspire dice are sat levrls 1-2 if you are solo? How effective Inspiring leader is solo? Or the help action entirely solo? 

Shield Master gives you three benefits, two of which are solo fine - they just affect you. It cannot have one with diminished capability while solo?

Now for your example, let's take two fighters at 5th level one-on-one.

Stan has Shield Master, Dave does not. Both are primarily sword xnd board types.

Stan takes two swings, 5th level then bonus shoves. 
Say Dave goes down. 
Stan steps away allowing Dave a disadvantaged AO. Moves 30 ft.
Dave can get up, but cannot close to melee this turn. Maybe he can juggle the interactions to throw something but that's hardly a match.

So one disadvantaged and one interaction juggled throw vs two normal melee swings. 

"nearly a pointless feature"?

Now swap Dave for any number of beasts/monsters with less than 50' movement and reach combined - now they likley dont have a "throw option." Now every round you can bonus shove and succeed at the end is an exchange where you gain the edge of taking your two melee attacks at full and all the opponent gets is one disadvantaged AO.

"nearly a pointless feature"?

As one-third of a feat?

Even after limiting it to solo fights and ignoring its team play potential? 

Gotcha. Sure thing.

As for your TWF run on...

" It is illogical to assume every time the character attacks they MUST strike with the main-hand first."

Yes, exactly, which is why "main hand" and off-hand are not in the 5e TWF rules. There is no limitation that requires either hand to start the sequence, just that the bonus action must be with a different light weapon in a different hand. That's all. Depending on styles and specifics, that bonus attsck may have no ability modifier but that's tied to its bonus action snd could apply to one hand on one turn and the other on the next.

Far as I can tell, your shortsword dagger whatever examples are all legal within std 5e rules and the only change your tule fir was allow a little different answer to "which attack loses the ability score bonus" **if** they lack the style that negates that. 

Not really mind blowing?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Fun fact, I role played Don Quixote and it was a blast.
> 
> I can't see how I misconstrued your position at all. Do you believe that you can move during the Dash Action? If you believe that you can take the Dash Action instantly and then dash the whole turn, and you can take the Disengage Action instantly and disengage the whole turn, why can't you take the Attack Action instantly and then make your attacks throughout the rest of your turn? Do you think the Actions in Combat should not be treated the same way?




The Dash action essentially gives you a buff for the rest of your turn: your movement speed doubles.  The action resolves instantly and provides this buff effect for the stated duration.

The Disengage action essentially gives you a buff for the rest of your turn: your movement no longer provokes OAs.  The action resolves instantly and provides the buff effect for the stated duration.

The Attack action resolves the instant you make an attack.  Extra Attack says your Attack action gives you multiple weapon attacks, and there's a special rule that allows you to move between attacks granted by Extra Attack.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So, once again, if you have 2 attacks and Shield Master, the rules say you can move, attack, move, attack, move, and then use your bonus action to shove.  The 2nd move is explicitly allowed by the movement rules.  The bonus action is allowed because the Shield Master's bonus action has the trigger of the Attack action, which happens to be 1 or 2 attacks, and must come after the Attack action.

Consider this: you move away from an enemy and forget to Disengage.  The enemy gets an OA and hits you.  You then decide to take the Disengage action to get away from the other 2 enemies you are engaged with.  The Disengage action applies to the 2nd and 3rd enemy only, but not the first, because you hadn't taken the Disengage action yet.

If I was designing a combat system for a TTRPG, and had the option between clearly defined events that happen in a specific order with rules describing trigger conditions that grant extra abilities, or a loosey-goosey system that had no timing or ordering and basically just threw everything into a big pot and stirred it around and hoped that the end result was valid and relied on you going back in time to fix things up when the results weren't consistent, then I know which one I'd pick.

I'll ask again: the rules talk about bonus actions with timing requirements, please provide an example of such a bonus action and why it's different to Shield Master.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> 1.  If you can't separate the disengage action from the disengage movement and
> 2.  If you can only move before or after an action (as the rule I citied indicates) then
> CONCLUSION: if you take the disengage action you can't move after taking the disengage action
> 
> See, I have reasoning for why I think JC is wrong about not being able to separate action from their effects.  In the case of the disengage action it's absolutely necessary for the action to be separated from it's effects because if you don't then given the above logical argument you literally can't move after taking it which is nonsensical as the whole purpose of taking it is to be able to move without taking OA's.




Where does JEC say this?

Disengage resolves instantly, and gives you the effect (or buff) that your movement for the rest of the turn no longer provokes OAs.  You don't need to keep taking the Disengage action, nor does the action itself need to last until the end of your turn.  How does this apply to the Dodge action, which lasts until the start of your next turn?  How do you take an action when it's not even your turn anymore?

These actions are different to the Attack action, because they are providing a short-term effect that persists for the duration.  You could compare them with an at-will spell that provides a buff that lasts until the end of your turn or the start of your next turn or whatever the specified duration is.  The Attack action is simple: you make an attack with your weapon.  Extra Attack grants you the ability to make multiple attacks as part of the action, and there's a special rule that allows you to move in between those attacks.

The TWF bonus action is granted when you make a single weapon attack, because that's what the trigger condition is.  The Shield Master bonus action is granted when you've taken the Attack action (as a whole), because that's what the trigger condition is.  If this is not true, then why can't I stealth at full speed all the time when I'm a Ranger with Natural Explorer?  If there's no connection between X and Y in sentences of the form "If you X, you can Y" then that rule and many others simply break down.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> 1.  If you can't separate the disengage action from the disengage movement and
> 2.  If you can only move before or after an action (as the rule I citied indicates) then
> CONCLUSION: if you take the disengage action you can't move after taking the disengage action
> 
> See, I have reasoning for why I think JC is wrong about not being able to separate action from their effects.  In the case of the disengage action it's absolutely necessary for the action to be separated from it's effects because if you don't then given the above logical argument you literally can't move after taking it which is nonsensical as the whole purpose of taking it is to be able to move without taking OA's.




Unless you read the Disengage action language as specific beats general and it allows you to continue moving.  Then he can be right and it isn't necessary for them to be separate.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Where does JEC say this?
> 
> Disengage resolves instantly, and gives you the effect (or buff) that your movement for the rest of the turn no longer provokes OAs.  You don't need to keep taking the Disengage action, nor does the action itself need to last until the end of your turn.  How does this apply to the Dodge action, which lasts until the start of your next turn?  How do you take an action when it's not even your turn anymore?
> 
> These actions are different to the Attack action, because they are providing a short-term effect that persists for the duration.  You could compare them with an at-will spell that provides a buff that lasts until the end of your turn or the start of your next turn or whatever the specified duration is.  The Attack action is simple: you make an attack with your weapon.  Extra Attack grants you the ability to make multiple attacks as part of the action, and there's a special rule that allows you to move in between those attacks.




Maybe, but I don't find that a very compelling case.  Unless there's something very important I'm missing, it would seem most likely IMO that all actions are either instantaneous or all actions last for their duration.  I've proven they can't all last for their duration.  Therefore my conclusion is that they are all instantaneous.  You can say what if, might and maybe all you want but at the end of the day I need more evidence than mights and maybe's to change my mind.



> The TWF bonus action is granted when you make a single weapon attack, because that's what the trigger condition is.  The Shield Master bonus action is granted when you've taken the Attack action (as a whole), because that's what the trigger condition is.  If this is not true, then why can't I stealth at full speed all the time when I'm a Ranger with Natural Explorer?  If there's no connection between X and Y in sentences of the form "If you X, you can Y" then that rule and many others simply break down.




So you posit Natural Explorer as a counter example for why actions can't all be instantaneous.  Let me take a look.  Oh I see.  It's not a capital Action like the attack Action or the dodge Action etc.  That makes my answer there pretty simple.  Since it's not an Action then it's not instantaneous.

You bring TWF in as well.  TWF also requires a trigger of an attack.  An attack is not an instantaneous event like an Action is.  So it can trigger off an attack just fine and not contradict my stance.

You bring up the notion that shield master bonus action shove must be taken after the attack action is completed.  I agree.  However, I don't believe the attacks are part of the Action itself but rather that the Attack Action is instantaneous and taking it grants you the ability to make attacks.

So I think I'm covered against all those counterexamples.  Got any thing else?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Unless you read the Disengage action language as specific beats general and it allows you to continue moving.  Then he can be right and it isn't necessary for them to be separate.




It doesn't grant you the ability to keep moving.  It only grants you the ability that IF you move then you don't provoke OA's.  There is a difference.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Feb 28, 2019)

*First, I said it was a "nearly pointless feature" [of the feat], not that the feat itself was pointless without this. That is an important distinction.* (bold added for emphasis)



FrogReaver said:


> From a power perspective there are a lot of pointless feats.  I don't feel feats were well balanced in terms of power.  They feel more about flavor than power to me.  As such you get some utterly weak ones and some irreplaceably powerful ones.
> 
> That said knocking someone prone is still potentially beneficial to your allies and slows down the enemy from getting to your squishies.  So even in the worst case interpretation, shield master isn't a pointless feat.
> 
> ...




As I said, unless you have allies who can take advantage of the knock down _you_ caused, the opponent can stand up on their turn before you benefit from the knock down. Now, if you want to keep allowing OA at disadvantage against you, I suppose that would be a way to deny them any real attack. There is nothing wrong with that and I hadn't thought of it, so it is more useful when used defensively. However, it offers you no benefit offensively otherwise and if you look at the rest of my post, it demonstrates a perfectly acceptable way to use it where it at least _can_ be used offensively by you without the need for having an ally there to hit the target.

So, thanks for the idea on how to use it defensively at least, that does give it some more merit even as currently ruled. 




5ekyu said:


> 5e system is built and designed around team play, do the assumption is there will be allies and elements are based on it.
> 
> Have you looked at how effective bardic inspire dice are sat levrls 1-2 if you are solo? How effective Inspiring leader is solo? Or the help action entirely solo?
> 
> ...




Except Dave doesn't move to engage. He gets up and readies his attack for when Stan moves into his reach. Now, when Stan moves to engage Dave again, Dave gets his attacks _before_ Stan.  Also, you can at best assume a 50-50 chance for the knock down. As well, you're ignoring any feat Dave might have that would assist him, perhaps Sentinel, so if he does his with the OA, Stan isn't moving any more. At any rate, as I expressed above, this is a useful "maneuvering" way to employ Shield Master, which I thanked FrogReaver for.



5ekyu said:


> As for your TWF run on...
> 
> " It is illogical to assume every time the character attacks they MUST strike with the main-hand first."
> 
> ...




Cool, then no worries, but you could be less of an ... about it.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe, but I don't find that a very compelling case.  Unless there's something very important I'm missing, it would seem most likely IMO that all actions are either instantaneous or all actions last for their duration.  I've proven they can't all last for their duration.  Therefore my conclusion is that they are all instantaneous.  You can say what if, might and maybe all you want but at the end of the day I need more evidence than mights and maybe's to change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let's be very clear: I am not arguing that actions last for their duration, I've been arguing the exact opposite this whole time.  I'm just really confused how you get from actions resolve instantly to "oh you can Shield Master shove any time you like on your turn".

The Attack action happens the instant you make an attack (i.e. there is no declaring you'll take one later on your turn).  This trigger condition is now true, and thus grants bonus actions from features like Shield Master, TWF, Martial Arts and so on.  I'm using the Natural Explorer language to drive home the point I've been making about the "If you X, you can Y" sentences that are throughout the rules, where these very clearly mean that X has to happen before Y can happen (i.e. Natural Explorer makes no sense if you just say "Oh yeah I'll do Y (move stealthily at full pace) now, because I'll do X (travel by myself) later").

So, it seems like the sticking point here is that you believe the Attack action is a declaration, at which point the DM hands you one or more tokens that say "you can make a weapon attack", and you can trade those in to actually make an attack.  The DM then takes the tokens back at the end of your turn.  I just don't believe the Attack action works that way.  The PHB says:



> *Attack*
> 
> The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
> 
> ...




Highlighted the part that I think is important.  Can you show me where in this text it says you can declare you're taking the action and make the attacks later?  I'm just not seeing any evidence to support this, and my reading is confirmed by JEC:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995319563523784704

"D&D combat is sequential, with no action-declaration phase at the beginning. Your turn can also be interrupted by someone’s reaction. Such an interruption could, among other things, incapacitate you, meaning your intention to take a certain action was never fulfilled."

The Attack action is different from Dash, Dodge, Disengage and so on.  Dash simply doubles the amount of movement you have on your turn.  Disengage can absolutely be read as the DM giving you a token that says "your movement no longer provokes OAs" which they take back at the end of your turn.  Dodge can absolutely be read as the DM giving you a token that says "attacks against you have disadvantage" that they take back at the start of your next turn.  These all have very clear timing in the text, specifically talking about when the effect ends.  The Attack action has no such language, so I'm not following how you think this lets you just take your attacks at some point in the future.

As always, Extra Attack complicates this, but there is a specific rule to deal with Attack actions that allow multiple attacks:



> *Moving Between Attacks*
> 
> 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. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.




This very clearly allows you to insert movement between attacks of the Attack action.  Some bonus actions have the trigger of "the Attack action and making a weapon attack" which means you have the bonus action after the very first attack, and don't have to wait until all attacks are taken.  Some bonus actions have the trigger of "the Attack action", which the movement rule strongly implies is all the attacks combined.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> Well, if a bonus action has an actual timing requirement I think it would almost certainly be based on an objective activity, like making a melee weapon attack, rather than simply upon a formal Action, like taking the Attack Action on your turn. Even if you interpret Actions and Bonus Actions to be handled concurrently, the objective activities they grant will be sequential. Take the bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting as an example: it uses almost the exact same language as shield master, but adds "and make a melee weapon attack" to it. The Attack Action happens "on your turn," but the melee weapon attack happens at a distinct point in time within your turn, as part of a sequence of events.




Please show me the text in the PHB that supports your first sentence here.

D&D is a turn-based game.  Your turn is sequential, and is made up of discrete elements.  The two main elements are movement and your action.  The PHB defines 10 standard actions you can take.  It provides rules that say you can break your movement up so that some happens before your action, and some happens after your action.  On your turn, you take these basic building blocks and put them together in order, and that defines what you do on your turn.  There are special rules for when your action consists of more than one event, such as moving between attacks from Extra Attack.  The rules are full of triggers, and these triggers rely on a condition.  Once that condition has been fulfilled, the triggered event can happen.

I see no evidence of hand-waving away what an action means, actions are the fundamental elements or building blocks of your turn.  The Attack action, by default, is making a single attack with your weapon.  So, by default, you might have 3 blocks: move, attack, move.  That ordering of blocks defines what you do on your turn.  You have an ability that grants you a bonus action when you take the attack action, allowing your turn to have 5 blocks: move, attack, move, bonus action, move (in that order).  Extra attack also allows 5 discrete blocks: move, 1st attack, move, 2nd attack, move.  The middle move is explicitly allowed in the rules text.  TWF's bonus action block has a trigger of the Attack action and making a single weapon attack, so you can do: move, 1st attack, move, TWF attack, move, 2nd attack, move.  The TWF block can come any time after the 1st attack block.  Shield Master's bonus action block has a trigger of the Attack action, and thus must come after the attack(s).  The only thing that can be inserted between the attacks is movement, per the rules, giving us: move, 1st attack, move, 2nd attack, move, Shield Master shove, move.  There is no other legal ordering of these basic building blocks.

This is all very simple and very logical.  There are no nested or concurrent actions, because the blocks must simply be arranged in order.  A triggered block must come after the block that triggers it.  No hand-waving away what actions mean, the actions are explicitly defined in the rules as the things you can do on your turn.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Of course event's for the character happen in sequence.  That's not what I'm asking.
> 
> In my games players sequentially declare and describe what they will have their character do.  The character performs those actions immediately as the player describes them and in the sequence he describes them.  That's why in my games I check right when a character is going to perform some action that he is actually capable of doing that.  So in my game a player declares bonus action shove and I check to see if he's met the condition it requires of taking the attack action on his turn and he hasn't yet and so his declaration is then disqualified.
> 
> ...




Let’s see if I understand your question this time. In your games, within each player’s turn, there’s a direct correlation between the chronological order in which action-declarations are made and resolved at the table, and the sequence corresponding events are considered to have occurred in the fiction, and you’re asking if the same kind of thing happens in my games. Do I have that right?

I’d say it mostly does. A player might plan out his/her entire turn ahead of time, but then each fictional event is resolved in the order it's considered to be  happening in the fiction, so I don’t think there’s too significant a difference between our games in that respect.

Where I think the difference lies is in how meeting a condition which must be met "on your turn" is handled. You seem to consider checking for character capability in respect to meeting such conditions to be part of resolving the player's action-declaration, and that if such conditions have not been met at the table at the time of declaration/resolution, then the action-declaration is ruled to be impermissible. Whereas, in my games, the fictional action of shoving a creature is considered on its own with respect to resolution and whether it's permissible as an action-declaration, and the question of whether a condition is met "on your turn" is left open until it can be determined whether, in fact, the condition was met "on your turn", which, at the latest, is at the end of your turn, after all actions for that turn have been declared. In that way, I suppose you could say there's a type of concurrency between the declared actions of a player's turn when regarded in this way, and that's because the condition applies over the period of time of the player's entire turn, so all actions are considered together. This is in contrast to the opposing view that the condition must be met at the time of action-declaration/resolution. Does that make sense to you?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Let’s see if I understand your question this time. In your games, within each player’s turn, there’s a direct correlation between the chronological order in which action-declarations are made and resolved at the table, and the sequence corresponding events are considered to have occurred in the fiction, and you’re asking if the same kind of thing happens in my games. Do I have that right?
> 
> I’d say it mostly does. A player might plan out his/her entire turn ahead of time, but then each fictional event is resolved in the order it's considered to be happening in the fiction, so I don’t think there’s too significant a difference between our games in that respect.
> 
> Where I think the difference lies is in how meeting a condition which must be met "on your turn" is handled. You seem to consider checking for character capability in respect to meeting such conditions to be part of resolving the player's action-declaration, and that if such conditions have not been met at the table at the time of declaration/resolution, then the action-declaration is ruled to be impermissible. Whereas, in my games, the fictional action of shoving a creature is considered on its own with respect to resolution and whether it's permissible as an action-declaration, and the question of whether a condition is met "on your turn" is left open until it can be determined whether, in fact, the condition was met "on your turn", which, at the latest, is at the end of your turn, after all actions for that turn have been declared. In that way, I suppose you could say there's a type of concurrency between the declared actions of a player's turn when regarded in this way, and that's because the condition applies over the period of time of the player's entire turn, so all actions are considered together. This is in contrast to the opposing view that the condition must be met at the time of action-declaration/resolution. Does that make sense to you?




Aside: there's an official ruling the Sage Advice Compendium that this isn't how the game is designed to work.

Can you apply this timey-wimey logic to the Ranger's Natural Explorer, specifically this sentence:

"If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."

This sentence has the same structure as Shield Master's bonus action, specifically "if you X, you can Y".  You're stating that you can Y, as long as X is eventually true, right?  So, why can't I use this rule to stealth at normal pace whenever I want, because I declare that I'll travel alone at some point in the future?

Or, let's use another example from Shield Master itself:

"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."

Let's say I get hit with a Cone of Cold, and make the CON saving throw.  Why can't I use the "Y" portion of this (use my reaction to halve the damage) because I declare that I'm going to get targeted by an effect that allows me to make a DEX save for half damage later on my turn (i.e. the "X" portion)?  If there's no strict timing requirement between X and Y like you're claiming, then I should be able to just put my shield in front of any effect that has me make a saving throw and take no damage when I succeed.  At the end of the turn, how do we resolve this Schrodinger's Reaction?  I can't just go back and turn a bonus action into an action here, like you're suggesting we do with the Shield Master shove case.


----------



## Hriston (Feb 28, 2019)

Hriston said:
			
		

> What rule requires you to say whether you shove a creature as an action or a bonus action?






Asgorath said:


> This one:
> 
> "You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. *You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.*"




I don't think that answers my question. I didn't ask what rule tells you whether you *can* shove a creature as an action or a bonus action.

Besides, the Shield Master feat states I can shove a creature as a bonus action. If I don't have the Shield Master feat, then I don't have that bonus action to take.



Asgorath said:


> You start your turn with your move and your action.  If you say "I want to shove that Orc and then hit it with my sword" at level 4 with the Shield Master feat, then the DM should say "well you can't actually do that because the shove consumes your action".




That's what the DM should say in _your_ game. In my game, the DM should say, "I assume you're trying to knock it prone? Roll a Strength (Athletics) check. <Rolls> Does that beat a 13?"



Asgorath said:


> Specifically, until you've taken the Attack action, you don't have a bonus action to shove someone.  That's the way bonus actions with triggers work, the trigger must be true or you simply don't have the bonus action yet.




Once the condition "you take the Attack action on your turn" becomes true, it is true of your whole turn, including the part of your turn that happened before you took the Attack action. You deal with this by verifying if it's true only at the time the shove is declared and resolved. I deal with it by verifying if it's true only when I know whether or not the Attack action will be taken. I can understand the reasons for doing it your way, but for a number of reasons I think my way is better.



Asgorath said:


> At some point the player's description of what they'd like to do needs to be converted into actual game mechanics.




Mechanics are needed only if it matters for resolution. All that's needed to resolve an attempt to shove a creature is a contested Strength check.


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Once the condition "you take the Attack action on your turn" becomes true, it is true of your whole turn, including the part of your turn that happened before you took the Attack action. You deal with this by verifying if it's true only at the time the shove is declared and resolved. I deal with it by verifying if it's true only when I know whether or not the Attack action will be taken. I can understand the reasons for doing it your way, but for a number of reasons I think my way is better.




That's not now conditions work.  The trigger condition is true from the point at which it becomes true until the end of your turn.  You can't go back in time and say the trigger was true before the triggering event happened.  D&D 5E is a sequential turn-based game, and as a result, timing and order of events matters.

Again, let's apply your logic to other triggered events.

Natural Explorer: "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."  3 in-game years from now, my character will travel alone for day.  Therefore, this trigger has been satisfied, and retroactively applies until the beginning of time because the rule doesn't explicitly say my turn.  Thus, this rule says my character can simply move stealthily at full pace, period.

Shield Master: "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."  I can use my shield to take zero damage any time I succeed on a saving throw, because at some point in the future I'll make a Dex save.  Because I'll make that Dex save at some point in the future, the triggering condition is true and thus I can retroactively get the benefit of this feature.

As you can see, this is nonsense, right?


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So I just wanted to say, this thread was worth it.  It's at least changed my opinion.  I used to be anti-instantaneous actions and now I'm for them.  Surprisingly that also means shield master can get triggered before the attacks from the attack action are taken which is completely different than my original position.  So for those that offered interesting insights instead of just back and forth arguments, thank you!




You're welcome! 

I've been catching up on reading the posts I've missed for a couple of days, and see a whole sequence of you and Epithet agreeing, while arguing with each other as if you _dis_agree! Glad it's sorted now.

Incidentally, it speaks very well of you that you were convinced by logic, especially when it sometimes seems that the Internet is full of those whose pride prevents them from admitting they were ever wrong. Well done!


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...
> Natural Explorer: "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."  3 in-game years from now, my character will travel alone for day.  Therefore, this trigger has been satisfied, and retroactively applies until the beginning of time because the rule doesn't explicitly say my turn.  Thus, this rule says my character can simply move stealthily at full pace, period.
> 
> Shield Master: "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." I can use my shield to take zero damage any time I succeed on a saving throw, because at some point in the future I'll make a Dex save. Because I'll make that Dex save at some point in the future, the triggering condition is true and thus I can retroactively get the benefit of this feature.
> ...




It is absolutely nonsense. You've tried the same nonsensical Natural Explorer example about a half dozen times now, and it just makes everything else you say in a post seem nonsensical by proximity. You should choose a better example, because this one doesn't help your argument at all.

Read the Natural Explorer feature again. Note the verb tense. It says, "If you *are travelling*..." there, doesn't it? It doesn't say "If you will travel" or "If you have travelled" or "If you have bought a ticket and plan to depart on Tuesday." The benefit of that feat must be concurrent with the trigger. Must happen at the same time as the trigger. I don't know how else to say it... you must, at the time that you "move stealthily at a normal pace," be actively travelling alone. What about this is difficult for you? It's in plain language, and is (as far as I can tell) unambiguous.

Regarding the saving throw benefit of Shield Master, being "subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw" is an objective event that takes place in the fictional world of the game, and as such it occupies a distinct place in the sequence of events on a turn. It is therefore unlike the Attack Action taking place "on your turn," which, as it says on the tin, occupies a unit of time consisting of "your turn." So, while the Shield Master shove must take place at a time concurrent with the Attack Action (ie, on your turn,) the saving throw benefit of the same feat must take place at a time concurrent with (or instantly and immediately following) being "subjected to an effect that allows you to make a saving throw," which is an instant or moment within your turn. The reason the saving throw benefit must be concurrent with or immediate to the trigger is that it is a Reaction, which "is an instant response to a trigger" as opposed to a Bonus Action, which you "choose when to take ... during your turn."


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Disengage can absolutely be read as the DM giving you a token that says "your movement no longer provokes OAs" which they take back at the end of your turn.  Dodge can absolutely be read as the DM giving you a token that says "attacks against you have disadvantage" that they take back at the start of your next turn.




And the Attack action can equally be read as the DM giving you a token that says "you may execute all your allowed weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn"!

The fallacy you're making is Special Pleading. Actions either are ALL 'instantaneous, with ongoing effects', OR they ALL 'have a duration'. Saying that some work one way and some work another, _without written rules_, is Special Pleading!



> These all have very clear timing in the text, specifically talking about when the effect ends.  The Attack action has no such language, so I'm not following how you think this lets you just take your attacks at some point in the future.




NONE of them have language that tell you whether _the Action itself_ lasts for its duration or is instantaneous with ongoing effects!

The rules are silent on this issue. This is indicative that 'when an Action ends', as opposed to 'when the _effects_ of an Action ends', was not considered to matter as far as the rules are concerned. This leads to the conclusion that 'Actions are indivisible' was NEVER part of the design when written, and has only become a thing _post hoc_ in order for JC to justify his change of heart.

Because, if it _did_ matter, _they would have made it an actual rule!_


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> And the Attack action can equally be read as the DM giving you a token that says "you may execute all your allowed weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn"!
> 
> The fallacy you're making is Special Pleading. Actions either are ALL 'instantaneous, with ongoing effects', OR they ALL 'have a duration'. Saying that some work one way and some work another, _without written rules_, is Special Pleading!
> 
> ...




The Attack action says: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."

The Dodge action says: "Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage."

One of these actions is an instantaneous event, the other action has a lasting effect.  The Attack action is the act of making a weapon attack.  The Dodge action provides a temporary effect that lasts until the start of your next turn.  The building blocks you assemble your turn out of have the action as a discrete event in both cases, but one explicitly grants a lasting effect and one does not.

I'll just stop at this point, as there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing to try and explain how the combat system works in a way that is consistent with official rulings on the matter.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ... there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing to try and explain how the combat system works in a way that is consistent with official rulings on the matter.




It may be helpful for you to keep in mind that the "official rulings" are only "official" in the sense that they supersede the now "unofficial" advice given on twitter. Nothing about the Sage Advice Compendium is intended to be, or could ever be, binding upon DMs. It remains Advice, not binding precedent.

Also, anyone with whom you do not completely agree in this thread has already evaluated Jeremy Crawford's stated opinion on this matter (what you're calling the "official ruling") and found it unpersuasive. It is unlikely that any _argumentum ad verecundiam_ will accrue to your advantage.


----------



## Arial Black (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> The Attack action says: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."
> 
> The Dodge action says: "Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage."
> 
> One of these actions is an instantaneous event, the other action has a lasting effect.




For a single weapon attack, I agree. But what about when you have Extra Attack which the rules say can be interspersed with movement? After all, no-one doubts that the rules allow us to attack orc A in the kitchen, then move 30 feet into the dining room and attack orc B.

Are you really saying that those *two* separate attacks are *one* single _instantaneous_ event?



> The Attack action is the act of making a weapon attack.  The Dodge action provides a temporary effect that lasts until the start of your next turn.  The building blocks you assemble your turn out of have the action as a discrete event in both cases, but one explicitly grants a lasting effect and one does not.




In the fiction, you dodge incoming attacks at the moments those attacks come in, and you make those attacks at the moments you make them. How can you view one as 'ongoing' and the other as 'instantaneous' in the case of Extra Attack?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> For a single weapon attack, I agree. But what about when you have Extra Attack which the rules say can be interspersed with movement? After all, no-one doubts that the rules allow us to attack orc A in the kitchen, then move 30 feet into the dining room and attack orc B.
> 
> Are you really saying that those *two* separate attacks are *one* single _instantaneous_ event?
> 
> ...




Per my previous post, my interpretation of all of this is that you assemble your turn with basic building blocks.  These are arranged sequentially.  There is text in the PHB that says you can split your movement with an action.  There is text in the PHB that says you can insert movement between attacks granted from Extra Attack and the like.  With this interpretation, there is no concept of "action duration".  There is no concept of "concurrent actions", or deferring the decision about whether a shove was an action or a bonus action, depending on what else happens on your turn.

There is a rule that says you can split your Attack action into effectively N blocks with movement blocks in between.  Resolving triggers is easy: you can insert the triggered block any time after the triggering block.  If the trigger is a single attack (TWF), then the bonus action block must come after that first attack but can come before other attacks granted by Extra Attack.  If the trigger is the Attack action, then the bonus action must come after all the attacks.  If you don't move, then your Attack action is still a single block in the timeline.

You might think of these blocks as Scrabble tiles or cards or tokens or whatever, and your turn is you basically laying these down one by one in order.  The DM or other players can also play their tiles/cards/tokens via reactions, which may alter what can happen on the rest of your turn.  Thus, if you intend to take the Attack action but get incapacitated, the Attack tile/card/token/block never gets played and your turn ends.  This trivially solves the question of whether you could play a tile/card/token/block that is triggered by the Attack action, specifically you cannot until that tile/card/token/block has actually been played.

This is the most logical interpretation of the rules for me, given the fact that 5E is a turn-based game.  I'm clearly not going to convince any of you otherwise, so I'll just stop now.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 28, 2019)

epithet said:


> It may be helpful for you to keep in mind that the "official rulings" are only "official" in the sense that they supersede the now "unofficial" advice given on twitter. Nothing about the Sage Advice Compendium is intended to be, or could ever be, binding upon DMs. It remains Advice, not binding precedent.
> 
> Also, anyone with whom you do not completely agree in this thread has already evaluated Jeremy Crawford's stated opinion on this matter (what you're calling the "official ruling") and found it unpersuasive. It is unlikely that any _argumentum ad verecundiam_ will accrue to your advantage.



It may be helpful for you to keep in mind that the Rules in the PHB, DMG etc are only "official" in the sense that they are in the rulebooks, to be used or not as you wish within your group. Nothing about the PHB, DMG etc is intended to be, or could ever be, binding upon DMs.


----------



## epithet (Feb 28, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> It may be helpful for you to keep in mind that the Rules in the PHB, DMG etc are only "official" in the sense that they are in the rulebooks, to be used or not as you wish within your group. Nothing about the PHB, DMG etc is intended to be, or could ever be, binding upon DMs.




While that's certainly true, they are "the rules" of D&D. No tweet nor "official" Advice from Crawford or anyone else constitutes a rule, and the only way the rules are modified is by published errata. There are those who make a reasonable effort to play "by the rules" or to follow the "rules as written," and for them the published rules are, in fact, binding: they have elected to be bound by them. There is therefore an important distinction to be made between the rules and the Advice, "official" or otherwise.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Per my previous post, my interpretation of all of this is that you assemble your turn with basic building blocks.  These are arranged sequentially.  There is text in the PHB that says you can split your movement with an action.  There is text in the PHB that says you can insert movement between attacks granted from Extra Attack and the like.  With this interpretation, there is no concept of "action duration".  There is no concept of "concurrent actions", or deferring the decision about whether a shove was an action or a bonus action, depending on what else happens on your turn.
> 
> There is a rule that says you can split your Attack action into effectively N blocks with movement blocks in between.  Resolving triggers is easy: you can insert the triggered block any time after the triggering block.  If the trigger is a single attack (TWF), then the bonus action block must come after that first attack but can come before other attacks granted by Extra Attack.  If the trigger is the Attack action, then the bonus action must come after all the attacks.  If you don't move, then your Attack action is still a single block in the timeline.
> 
> ...




I'm curious about what makes you think the attack action is instantaneous while disengage is not.  As [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] mentioned, you can attack, move around a bunch and then attack again.  How the heck do you construe that as instantaneous?


----------



## Asgorath (Feb 28, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm curious about what makes you think the attack action is instantaneous while disengage is not.  As @_*Arial Black*_ mentioned, you can attack, move around a bunch and then attack again.  How the heck do you construe that as instantaneous?




Per my post above, my interpretation says that actions don't have a duration.  I think my building block analogy is the best way to describe the point I've been trying to make this whole time.  If you assemble your turn as a sequence of basic building blocks, then there is never a question about "what's the duration of action X" -- a given action is just a discrete event in the sequence, and the sequence gets resolved in order from start to finish.

Edit: To be clear, I was trying to argue against the idea that actions last as long as their effects, because this doesn't make sense to me based on the Disengage and Dodge actions.  There are more than two options though, and so I've given up advocating that since actions cannot last as long as their effects the only explanation must be that actions are instantaneous -- it makes more sense to me that actions simply have no duration at all, and your turn is built up of discrete strictly-ordered events.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 28, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> *First, I said it was a "nearly pointless feature" [of the feat], not that the feat itself was pointless without this. That is an important distinction.* (bold added for emphasis)




I find all those benefits I listed far more than "nearly useless".  There are feats I would describe as nearly useless but shield master isn't one no matter how one rules it works.



> As I said, unless you have allies who can take advantage of the knock down _you_ caused, the opponent can stand up on their turn before you benefit from the knock down.




Even if you have no allies that can take advantage of the knock down it's still useful because it greatly reduces the amount of space the prone target can move and attack.  That's useful in keeping enemies off your squishier party members.  



> Now, if you want to keep allowing OA at disadvantage against you, I suppose that would be a way to deny them any real attack. There is nothing wrong with that and I hadn't thought of it, so it is more useful when used defensively.




You made the claim it offered you no benefit in a 1v1 fight.  The scenario I laid out actually shows it provides a great 1v1 benefit.  It is a defensive benefit but you didn't actually stipulate offensive or defensive in your post on the matter.



> However, it offers you no benefit offensively otherwise and if you look at the rest of my post, it demonstrates a perfectly acceptable way to use it where it at least _can_ be used offensively by you without the need for having an ally there to hit the target.




#1 you never said anything about the benefit needing to be offensive.



> So, thanks for the idea on how to use it defensively at least, that does give it some more merit even as currently ruled.




Your welcome


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 1, 2019)

> Except Dave doesn't move to engage. He gets up and readies his attack for when Stan moves into his reach. Now, when Stan moves to engage Dave again, Dave gets his attacks _before_ Stan.  Also, you can at best assume a 50-50 chance for the knock down. As well, you're ignoring any feat Dave might have that would assist him, perhaps Sentinel, so if he does his with the OA, Stan isn't moving any more. At any rate, as I expressed above, this is a useful "maneuvering" way to employ Shield Master, which I thanked FrogReaver for.




I want to talk about the above scenarios.  I'm not analyzing PVP.  It's a very pointless thing to do IMO.  Chances are any enemy you encounter doesn't have the sentinel feat or any other feat so bringing that up is pointless IMO.

The more interesting discussion is how the fighter with shield master can actively counter your ready action.  He simply moves just out of your reach and readies his own attack in response.  Now it's essentially a stalemate because whoever moves into the readied attack first is at a significant disadvantage.

Now consider if you are a shield master fighter fighting against another equal opponent and due to the nature of dice rolls after 2 turns you are at a significant disadvantage.  As a shield master you have a way to easily force a stalemate and so to prevent that from happening your opponent has to sacrifice some of his advantage which helps make the fight more winnable for you.  If the dice favor you after the first few turns the you just continue fighting it out as you have the advantage at that point.  That's the more nuanced version of what's going to happen and the actual advantages the feat brings against smart enemies.  Of course against dumber enemies you may easily rope them into a nearly endless cycle of almost never getting to actually attack you.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 1, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Per my post above, my interpretation says that actions don't have a duration.




No duration = instantaneous so we are in agreement there.  



> I think my building block analogy is the best way to describe the point I've been trying to make this whole time.  If you assemble your turn as a sequence of basic building blocks, then there is never a question about "what's the duration of action X" -- a given action is just a discrete event in the sequence, and the sequence gets resolved in order from start to finish.




The issue is the attack action with extra attack.  The attack action with extra attack is not a discrete event in the sequence you are referencing.  It would be 2 discrete events, attack #1 and then attack #2.  So then which of these discrete events do you assign the attack action to?  



> Edit: To be clear, I was trying to argue against the idea that actions last as long as their effects, because this doesn't make sense to me based on the Disengage and Dodge actions.  There are more than two options though, and so I've given up advocating that since actions cannot last as long as their effects the only explanation must be that actions are instantaneous -- it makes more sense to me that actions simply have no duration at all, and your turn is built up of discrete strictly-ordered events.




#1  instantaneous = no duration.  

#2  I agree that your turn can to some degree be described as being made up of a sequence of in gameworld events.  Consider the following sequence: You move, you attack, you move again, you attack, you move again, you bonus action shove and then you move again.  Each of those activities is a discrete event.  If an action is a discrete event in the sequence then which discrete event described above coorelates to the attack action?

#3  the events on your turn can be strictly ordered and actions still being instantaneous.  Consider the discrete event sequence:  Move, attack action, shield master bonus action, attack #1, move, attack #2, move again.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm curious about what makes you think the attack action is instantaneous while disengage is not.  As [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] mentioned, you can attack, move around a bunch and then attack again.  How the heck do you construe that as instantaneous?




For myself, I think the timing is built into each action.  I think the Attack action lasts from the instant you take the first swing to the moment you finish damage or miss on your last one, plus any movement in between attacks.  I think disengage lasts the rest of your turn or the rest of your movement, whichever comes first.  And so on.  

Now I know that the game doesn't explicitly say the above, but neither does it say that actions are instantaneous.  My opinion is that a more common and organic reading of these actions lends itself to turns having a duration, with built in exceptions to account for the length they last.  It takes a less intuitive reading to come up with them lasting only an instant, but the effects lasting the entire round, where the effects are the action you took, yet it's not the action.

This is very much a ruling situation, though, since the rules don't say either way.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 1, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> For myself, I think the timing is built into each action.  I think the Attack action lasts from the instant you take the first swing to the moment you finish damage or miss on your last one, plus any movement in between attacks.  I think disengage lasts the rest of your turn or the rest of your movement, whichever comes first.  And so on.




I know you think that.  What I don't understand is that I've presented proof that the disengage action cannot last till the end of your turn or till your movement ends and you still think that.  What about the proof doesn't convince you?



> Now I know that the game doesn't explicitly say the above, but neither does it say that actions are instantaneous.  My opinion is that a more common and organic reading of these actions lends itself to turns having a duration, with built in exceptions to account for the length they last.  It takes a less intuitive reading to come up with them lasting only an instant, but the effects lasting the entire round, where the effects are the action you took, yet it's not the action.




When presented with a well reasoned and logical argument that shows at least 1 action can't last it's duration then any common or organic reading of the rules which result in that action lasting it's duration are also logically discarded.  At that point it stops being about intuition or what you feel is the best reading and what you've proven the best and most coherent interpretation cannot be.



> This is very much a ruling situation, though, since the rules don't say either way.




There's parts of this discussion that are definitely rulings.  However, when presented with proof that an interpretation has unintended and silly consequences (like disengage action does with the interpretation that it lasts until the end of your turn) then it's reasonable to abandon that interpretation.  

So going back to the first question I asked, what is it about the proof I've offered about the disengage action that you don't find compelling?


----------



## Azzy (Mar 1, 2019)

Still no consensus?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 1, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Still no consensus?




There appears to be a consensus that we have no consensus....


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> There appears to be a consensus that we have no consensus....




I disagree!  Oh, wait.  Never mind.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I know you think that.  What I don't understand is that I've presented proof that the disengage action cannot last till the end of your turn or till your movement ends and you still think that.  What about the proof doesn't convince you?
> 
> When presented with a well reasoned and logical argument that shows at least 1 action can't last it's duration then any common or organic reading of the rules which result in that action lasting it's duration are also logically discarded.  At that point it stops being about intuition or what you feel is the best reading and what you've proven the best and most coherent interpretation cannot be.




Your "proof" was based on a False Dichotomy.  I presented another way to read the rules other than the two you proposed.  You then dismissed it, saying that the actions don't explicitly say what they imply.  Sure.  That's true.  It's also true that they don't say that they are instantaneous.  they also do not say that you cannot split an action, or that you cannot move in the middle of an action.  Those are assumptions you are making.  

You're pretty free with being okay with assumptions when they support you, but apparently you're the only one that can do that sort of thing.



> There's parts of this discussion that are definitely rulings.  However, when presented with proof that an interpretation has unintended and silly consequences (like disengage action does with the interpretation that it lasts until the end of your turn) then it's reasonable to abandon that interpretation.




But again, it only has that silly an unintended consequence if you don't accept the implied ability to move during the actions that have duration and involve movement.  



> So going back to the first question I asked, what is it about the proof I've offered about the disengage action that you don't find compelling?




It ignored other options.  I don't know that you are wrong, but as you are ignoring other options and also using some assumptions in your "proof," I can't say that you are right, either.  Your proof isn't as iron clad as you think it is.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 1, 2019)

epithet said:


> While that's certainly true, they are "the rules" of D&D. No tweet nor "official" Advice from Crawford or anyone else constitutes a rule, and the only way the rules are modified is by published errata. There are those who make a reasonable effort to play "by the rules" or to follow the "rules as written," and for them the published rules are, in fact, binding: they have elected to be bound by them. There is therefore an important distinction to be made between the rules and the Advice, "official" or otherwise.



That important distinction however is entirely in the eye of the beholder. So, same as someone can have "elected to be bound" by the PHB and some or all or none of its optional rules - so someone can have  "elected to be bound" by those books and/or the designated official errata and/or the designated other official source - sage advice compendium. 

So, you know, dismissing one group position because it chooses to be bound by a different set of the non-binding official content than you do seems rather much like saying "I like it this way" rather than an argument about what the official way to do it is or is not in any objective sense doesnt it?


----------



## epithet (Mar 1, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> That important distinction however is entirely in the eye of the beholder. So, same as someone can have "elected to be bound" by the PHB and some or all or none of its optional rules - so someone can have  "elected to be bound" by those books and/or the designated official errata and/or the designated other official source - sage advice compendium.
> 
> So, you know, dismissing one group position because it chooses to be bound by a different set of the non-binding official content than you do seems rather much like saying "I like it this way" rather than an argument about what the official way to do it is or is not in any objective sense doesnt it?




Well, I make use of house rules, so it isn't really my way we're talking about. This discussion, however, has been focussed on interpreting the "rules as written" in the context of the Shield Master feat, so it is important to note that the Sage Advice isn't rules, it is only advised rulings. Rulings vs. rules is a distinction worth making.

As an example, a dungeon master running a game at an Adventurer's League event is directed to use "the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.)," but "Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is at the discretion of each individual DM."

If you want to know how I personally run my game we can get into that, but I've been operating on the assumption that no one really gives a crap.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 1, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Your "proof" was based on a False Dichotomy.  I presented another way to read the rules other than the two you proposed.  You then dismissed it, saying that the actions don't explicitly say what they imply.  Sure.  That's true.  It's also true that they don't say that they are instantaneous.  they also do not say that you cannot split an action, or that you cannot move in the middle of an action.  Those are assumptions you are making.
> 
> You're pretty free with being okay with assumptions when they support you, but apparently you're the only one that can do that sort of thing.
> 
> ...




The Disengage action doesn't imply anything.  It's explicit.  "If you move you don't provoke OA's.  There is no guarantee in that action that you are able to move after taking it, just that if you do move then you don't provoke OA's.  My logical argument relies on the presumption/RAI that after taking the disengage action you should be able to move and not provoke OA's.  I think we all agree there. 

I don't think you understand how arguments by contradiction work.  You start with premises and show that those premises lead to a contradiction.

In this case I have 3 premises
1)  You should be able to move after taking the disengage action (the RAI that we all know)
2)  You can only move before or after an action except with an explicit exception (the RAW in the PHB)
3)  Actions are indivisible (your interpretation)

It's obvious those premises lead to a contradiction.  You agree there I'm sure.  However, what you are trying to say is that premise #2 is wrong because premise #1.  The issue with that is that premise #1 only has to do with the intentions/implications and premise #2 only has to do with what is explicitly written.  #2 cannot be altered by intentions/implications/RAI because the premise itself is independent of those things.  That's why I find it baffling that you keep presenting that as evidence that the argument I'm presenting isn't true.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 1, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> No duration = instantaneous so we are in agreement there.




I did not say that.  The duration of an action has no meaning (please show me the text in the PHB that talks about the duration of an action).  An action is merely one of the building blocks that you assemble your turn out of.



FrogReaver said:


> The issue is the attack action with extra attack.  The attack action with extra attack is not a discrete event in the sequence you are referencing.  It would be 2 discrete events, attack #1 and then attack #2.  So then which of these discrete events do you assign the attack action to?




There are explicit rules that allow dividing the Attack action in to separate pieces.

- There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between attacks of an Attack action.  This effectively splits the original Attack action into multiple distinct elements for each attack (or groups of attacks that aren't subdivided by movement).  This rule allows for nothing other than inserting movement between attacks of the Attack action, as I described in one of my earlier posts.

- There are triggers that have the condition of a single weapon attack.  Thus, the triggered element can be placed any time after the first weapon attack.  Move, attack #1, move, triggered bonus action (e.g. TWF), move, attack #2, move.  These discrete elements are played and resolved in order.

- There are triggers that have the condition of the Attack action.  This triggered element must be placed after all the individual attacks of the Attack action.  If you do not insert movement in between these attacks, then the Attack action is still a single discrete element in the timeline.  Move, Attack action (attacks #1 - #N), move, triggered bonus action, move.

- There are bonus actions that have no trigger, and those can be placed anywhere in the timeline.  Move, attack #1, move, Healing Word, move, attack #2, move.



FrogReaver said:


> #1  instantaneous = no duration.
> 
> #2  I agree that your turn can to some degree be described as being made up of a sequence of in gameworld events.  Consider the following sequence: You move, you attack, you move again, you attack, you move again, you bonus action shove and then you move again.  Each of those activities is a discrete event.  If an action is a discrete event in the sequence then which discrete event described above coorelates to the attack action?




The Attack action can explicitly be split into multiple discrete pieces, with movement between individual attacks.  There's clearly text in the PHB that allows this.  Why is this a problem?  An action in and of itself has no concept of duration, it's merely an entry in the ordered list of elements of your turn.  Given that the PHB says you can split your Attack action with movement, then the Attack action can be multiple distinct elements.  Once all attacks are resolved, the Attack action is complete.  AFAIK there is no language in the PHB that talks about the duration (or lack thereof) of actions, so a logical conclusion is that actions themselves have no concept of duration.  In my opinion, this does not imply the actions themselves are all necessarily instantaneous, just that duration is orthogonal to the strictly ordered list of discrete elements that make up your turn.  It's not like 20 feet of movement happens instantaneously, right?  It's just that the game rules simply do not care, it's just a discrete element that happens on your turn.

Again, this is why I'm no longer trying to explain this as "all actions are instantaneous".  Each discrete element in the ordered list gets resolved separately.  Triggered elements simply must come after their triggering element(s), nothing more, nothing less.



FrogReaver said:


> #3  the events on your turn can be strictly ordered and actions still being instantaneous.  Consider the discrete event sequence:  Move, attack action, shield master bonus action, attack #1, move, attack #2, move again.




There is no action declaration phase, so the Attack action is not separate from making an attack.  If this is incorrect, please cite the PHB language that allows you to declare your Attack action in advance.  There are rules about splitting your Attack action into discrete elements and inserting movement between those elements, which allows you to move, attack #1, move, attack #2.  At that point, assuming you have 2 attacks, your Attack action is now complete and things that trigger off the Attack action can now be added to the ordered list.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The Disengage action doesn't imply anything.  It's explicit.  "If you move you don't provoke OA's.  There is no guarantee in that action that you are able to move after taking it, just that if you do move then you don't provoke OA's.  My logical argument relies on the presumption/RAI that after taking the disengage action you should be able to move and not provoke OA's.  I think we all agree there.
> 
> I don't think you understand how arguments by contradiction work.  You start with premises and show that those premises lead to a contradiction.
> 
> ...




There should be at least 4 premises, because some people in this thread hold that actions are divisible.  And if you are including the various arguments in your analysis, there are some here who think take is something happening in the present, so for them being able to move after you take an action means moving during said action.  We have a lot of different ideas floating around this thread.  Yours is one of them, but its hardly unassailable proof of which one is correct.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 1, 2019)

epithet said:


> Well, I make use of house rules, so it isn't really my way we're talking about. This discussion, however, has been focussed on interpreting the "rules as written" in the context of the Shield Master feat, so it is important to note that the Sage Advice isn't rules, it is only advised rulings. Rulings vs. rules is a distinction worth making.
> 
> As an example, a dungeon master running a game at an Adventurer's League event is directed to use "the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.)," but "Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is at the discretion of each individual DM."
> 
> If you want to know how I personally run my game we can get into that, but I've been operating on the assumption that no one really gives a crap.



I also use house rules. Have in every campaign I have ever run. 

Also, I would disagree slightly with your characterization of the discussion. 

This discussion is not about RAW if you choose to define RAW in a way that excludes Sage advice. I mean, the actual title is "Sage Advice Compendium Update" not "RAW without counting Sage" or something like that. That makes it odd to declare the discussion is about RAW only not counting Sage.

Then even more oddly you bring up AL.

For someone who elects to play AL they are electing to play by the official books and have the option of adding the official Sage or not, presumably also of using any other source for their rulings at the table they want as long as it's not in direct conflict with RAW. Sounds a lot like what we have already established - folks can elect to use the book as is, or with Sage (both fine in AL) or to not (elect yo play non-AL) - none of it is binding on any GM.

But that just means we have another official source saying it's fine to use Sage for adjudication, so it adds to the odd sense that being dismissive of rulings that do just that because Sage advice isnt official enough for you to choose to use it is... dubious.

At the very least, it seems that the AL info **you** brought up puts "ruling based on Sage" on equal footing to "rulings not using Sage" (where adjudicatiins are made based on whatever the GM prefers to use -barring contradiction) not inferior to them.

So that makes using the "non-binding" nature of Sage Compendium as a point or platform to dismiss rulings based on it - as a response to someone referring to ruling "in a way that is consistent official rulings" - perhaps itself inconsistent with using the AL- which sets that up as an acceptable practice.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 1, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> There should be at least 4 premises, because some people in this thread hold that actions are divisible.  And if you are including the various arguments in your analysis, there are some here who think take is something happening in the present, so for them being able to move after you take an action means moving during said action.  We have a lot of different ideas floating around this thread.  Yours is one of them, but its hardly unassailable proof of which one is correct.




I didn't say this was proof that my whole interpretations was iron clad proven correct, (instead it's evidence of that, as it proves the fundamental premise of my interpretation, that some actions don't last as long as their effects.  I then take that starting point and build upon it and ultimately reach the conclusion that actions are instantaneous.  I've never said that conclusion is iron clad but the fundamental premise that starts me down that path is).  

What i'm saying is that we have proof that at least one action can be divided, otherwise the RAW + your interpretation (no division of actions) contradict the RAI and being that there are other interpretations where this doesn't occur then we should always use the interpretation that doesn't force RAW to contradict RAI.

I don't understand how that's not a persuasive argument.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 1, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I did not say that.  The duration of an action has no meaning (please show me the text in the PHB that talks about the duration of an action).  An action is merely one of the building blocks that you assemble your turn out of.




It doesn't have to reference the concept by name for it to be meaningful.  The movement rule only allows movement before or after an action.  So whether actions have or don't have a duration is at least meaningful in that context.



> There are explicit rules that allow dividing the Attack action in to separate pieces.




Exactly and because the attack action can be divided into separate pieces then the attack action is no longer a sequential building block of a turn.  The pieces that make it up are, the individual attacks, but the attack action can't be because nesting movement or a bonus action inside the attack action breaks the sequential building block theory.  That was the whole point of my post.



> - There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between attacks of an Attack action.  This effectively splits the original Attack action into multiple distinct elements for each attack (or groups of attacks that aren't subdivided by movement).  This rule allows for nothing other than inserting movement between attacks of the Attack action, as I described in one of my earlier posts.




Being able to split the attack action into multiple distinct SEQUENTIAL elements proves that the attack action is not a sequential building block of a turn.



> - There are triggers that have the condition of a single weapon attack.  Thus, the triggered element can be placed any time after the first weapon attack.  Move, attack #1, move, triggered action (e.g. TWF), move, attack #2, move.  These discrete elements are played and resolved in order.




Agreed.



> - There are triggers that have the condition of the Attack action.  This triggered element must be placed after all the individual attacks of the Attack action.




Why?  1)  The attack action has no duration (your own words).  2)  If it has no duration and you place it in your sequential chain either at the same moment as the 2nd attack or immediately after that attack then how did you take the first attack without taking the attack action?

Of course if you've already taken your no duration attack action by the time the first attack is completed then how do you explain being able to make the 2nd attack? 

So we can establish
1)  The no duration attack action needs made either before or concurrently with the first attack
2)  The 2nd attack cannot be part of that no duration attack action as it's already completed by the time the 2nd attack begins.  As such the attack action in your interpretation has at least 1 effect that carries over beyond it's no duration timeframe, the ability to make a 2nd attack.



> If you do not insert movement in between these attacks, then the Attack action is still a single discrete element in the timeline.  Move, Attack action (attacks #1 - #N), move, triggered bonus action, move.




It's still not a discrete element in the timeline.  Whether you have attack, attack or attack, move, attack, each of those attacks are discrete elements and since you described the attack action as no duration it can't possibly overlap 2 discrete events in the sequence.  



> - There are bonus actions that have no trigger, and those can be placed anywhere in the timeline.  Move, attack #1, move, Healing Word, move, attack #2, move.




Agreed



> The Attack action can explicitly be split into multiple discrete pieces, with movement between individual attacks.  There's clearly text in the PHB that allows this.  Why is this a problem?




Because as noted above, there are a number of implications for no duration and sequential elements on the turn.  What happens is that those premises together force the conclusion that the attack action isn't a discrete sequential action on your turn.  Abilities like shield master trigger off the attack action.  So if the attack action isn't a discrete sequential element then we have no idea where to place shield master in the sequence.  That's the problem.



> An action in and of itself has no concept of duration, it's merely an entry in the ordered list of elements of your turn.




This doesn't work for the attack action, see above.



> Given that the PHB says you can split your Attack action with movement, then the Attack action can be multiple distinct elements.  Once all attacks are resolved, the Attack action is complete.




This doesn't work with your no duration premise.



> AFAIK there is no language in the PHB that talks about the duration (or lack thereof) of actions, so a logical conclusion is that actions themselves have no concept of duration.




We have just spent this whole part here talking about their duration or lack thereof.  The concept isn't directly important to the RAW and thus it's not mentioned.  However it is an important concept when interpreting the RAW as it allows us to establish facts that would otherwise be unestablishable.



> In my opinion, this does not imply the actions themselves are all necessarily instantaneous, just that duration is orthogonal to the strictly ordered list of discrete elements that make up your turn.




I'm confused, are actions not part of the list of discrete elements that make up your turn?  I thought you were arguing the opposite?



> It's not like 20 feet of movement happens instantaneously, right?  It's just that the game rules simply do not care, it's just a discrete element that happens on your turn.




Sure, and because I can place that element into a sequence then triggers that happen based off that movement and everything else work out just fine.  With your interpretation the attack action in particular can't be placed into that sequence.  The attacks it grants are elements that can be.  So when something triggers off the attack action how do we know when the trigger occurs?  IMO that means the attack action must be part of the sequential elements of a turn.  So then if we have to place a no duration attack action into the list of sequential turn elements where are you placing it?



> Again, this is why I'm no longer trying to explain this as "all actions are instantaneous".  Each discrete element in the ordered list gets resolved separately.  Triggered elements simply must come after their triggering element(s), nothing more, nothing less.




So where in the sequence does the discrete element of the attack action get placed?  If it's not a discrete element that can be placed in the sequence then how can things like shield master trigger off it?



> There is no action declaration phase, so the Attack action is not separate from making an attack.  If this is incorrect, please cite the PHB language that allows you to declare your Attack action in advance.  There are rules about splitting your Attack action into discrete elements and inserting movement between those elements, which allows you to move, attack #1, move, attack #2.  At that point, assuming you have 2 attacks, your Attack action is now complete and things that trigger off the Attack action can now be added to the ordered list.




There's no rules on when the attack action is made one way or the other.  But what we know is that 

1)  The attack action has no duration (your interpretation)
2)  The turn is made up of discrete sequential elements (your interpretation)
3)  Each attack of the attack action is a discrete sequential element (your interpretation)
4)  The attack action (with extra attack) requires more than 1 discrete sequential element to complete (direct implication of having an attack action made up of 2 discrete sequential attacks)

Contradiction: 1 and 4 = A single discrete sequential element could have a no duration action essentially overlapping it.  It's impossible for a no duration action to overlap 2 discrete sequential elements.

That shows that one of your premises is incorrect.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 1, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Exactly and because the attack action can be divided into separate pieces then the attack action is no longer a sequential building block of a turn.  The pieces that make it up are, the individual attacks, but the attack action can't be because nesting movement or a bonus action inside the attack action breaks the sequential building block theory.  That was the whole point of my post.




Okay, I'll extend the definition of an action to be one _or more_ discrete elements on the timeline to avoid confusion.  I thought that was obvious from the rest of my post, I apologize.

We all agree that the Attack action can be split into multiple pieces.  However, I do not see any text in the PHB that says you can declare the Attack action, and then make the attacks later.  There's a rule that says you can insert movement in between attacks.  There are triggers that are based off a single attack.  There are triggers that are based on the action as a whole.  All of this is consistent with the idea of a discretely ordered list of elements, the triggered element must simply come after all the triggering elements.  In the case of the Attack action, this is simply all of the attacks.  Evaluating the condition is very straight forward: are all the attacks in the ordered list?  If yes, you can add the triggered element.  At this point, if you still had attacks from Extra Attack left, you simply cannot add those to the ordered list, because that invalidates the triggered bonus action that is already in the list.



FrogReaver said:


> Being able to split the attack action into multiple distinct SEQUENTIAL elements proves that the attack action is not a sequential building block of a turn.




It's the starting point for my analogy, that's all.  Why can't the Attack action be made up of N discrete elements?  The rules text clearly indicate that this is allowed.



FrogReaver said:


> Why?  1)  The attack action has no duration (your own words).  2)  If it has no duration and you place it in your sequential chain either at the same moment as the 2nd attack or immediately after that attack then how did you take the first attack without taking the attack action?
> 
> Of course if you've already taken your no duration attack action by the time the first attack is completed then how do you explain being able to make the 2nd attack?
> 
> ...




Again, no duration does not imply instantaneous.  There is no language in the PHB that talks about the duration of an action, and so I'm suggesting that the concept of duration (or lack thereof) simply does not apply to actions in general.

Your turn is an ordered list of elements.  The Attack action is not separate from the attacks.  If you split your Attack action with movement, the Attack action is now two discrete elements in the ordered list.  You can think of the ordered list as literally a sequence of labelled blocks that you arrange in order.

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove
7) Move

The 2nd block is played when you make your first attack.  The 4th block is played when you make your second attack.  Assuming you only have 2 attacks from Extra Attack, the Attack action is now complete and anything that triggers from the Attack action can be played and added to the strictly ordered list that defines your turn.

This only starts to get complicated and/or not make sense when you try and fit the concept of duration to each individual element on the list.  My interpretation is that duration has no meaning here, the turn is simply an ordered list of elements and that triggered elements must come after triggering elements.



FrogReaver said:


> It's still not a discrete element in the timeline.  Whether you have attack, attack or attack, move, attack, each of those attacks are discrete elements and since you described the attack action as no duration it can't possibly overlap 2 discrete events in the sequence.




Right, per above, an action is one or more elements in the timeline.  The PHB clearly says you can split the Attack action into separate pieces, which implies it is now multiple distinct events on your turn (with rules about what can come between those events).



FrogReaver said:


> Because as noted above, there are a number of implications for no duration and sequential elements on the turn.  What happens is that those premises together force the conclusion that the attack action isn't a discrete sequential action on your turn.  Abilities like shield master trigger off the attack action.  So if the attack action isn't a discrete sequential element then we have no idea where to place shield master in the sequence.  That's the problem.




It's only a problem because you're trying to define a duration for the elements.  The Attack action can be split by movement.  The Attack action is complete when all of these individual elements have been added to the list.  Consider a simple case where you don't move between attacks:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Shield Master shove

The exception to the general rule is that you can move between attacks.  Thus:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove

In both cases, it's an ordered list of elements.  The rules state when triggered elements can be added, which is that they come after the triggering elements.  If you X, you can Y simply means that all the X elements have to come before the Y element(s).



FrogReaver said:


> This doesn't work with your no duration premise.




I disagree.



FrogReaver said:


> We have just spent this whole part here talking about their duration or lack thereof.  The concept isn't directly important to the RAW and thus it's not mentioned.  However it is an important concept when interpreting the RAW as it allows us to establish facts that would otherwise be unestablishable.




I'm not the one arguing that there is no sequence of events on your turn and you can go back in time and change a shove from a bonus action to an action.  I'm not the one arguing that actions last as long as their effects.  I'm no longer arguing that actions are instantaneous.  I'm suggesting that action duration is irrelevant, and that the RAW fully supports your turn being a simple ordered list of elements.



FrogReaver said:


> I'm confused, are actions not part of the list of discrete elements that make up your turn?  I thought you were arguing the opposite?




Again, I'm suggesting that we should simply stop trying to think about this in terms of action duration (even if the duration is zero).  My analogy of an ordered list of events does not imply anything about the in-game duration of any particular entry in that list, nor does it require any concept of duration at all.  It's just an ordered list.  "If you X, you can Y" simply means Y elements must come after all X elements.



FrogReaver said:


> Sure, and because I can place that element into a sequence then triggers that happen based off that movement and everything else work out just fine.  With your interpretation the attack action in particular can't be placed into that sequence.  The attacks it grants are elements that can be.  So when something triggers off the attack action how do we know when the trigger occurs?  IMO that means the attack action must be part of the sequential elements of a turn.  So then if we have to place a no duration attack action into the list of sequential turn elements where are you placing it?




The rules say you can split your Attack action with movement.  If you do so, your Attack action is now two discrete elements in the list.  This is still perfectly consistent in my opinion.  The wording of the Attack action suggests it is not separate from the attacks themselves, and does not mention a declaration phase.



FrogReaver said:


> So where in the sequence does the discrete element of the attack action get placed?  If it's not a discrete element that can be placed in the sequence then how can things like shield master trigger off it?




Right, if we're going to get into the nitty-gritty details here, the Attack action can be made up of N discrete elements.  There are clear rules about what can come between those elements in the ordered list, namely:

- Movement
- Bonus actions that are triggered from a single weapon attack
- Bonus actions that have no trigger

Why is this a problem?

"I move over there.  I attack that Orc.  I move over to the other Orc and attack it.  I move to the third Orc and use my Shield Master shove to knock it prone."

That's an ordered list of discrete elements that do not rely on us imposing a definition of action duration that isn't in the PHB.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 1, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I didn't say this was proof that my whole interpretations was iron clad proven correct, (instead it's evidence of that, as it proves the fundamental premise of my interpretation, that some actions don't last as long as their effects.  I then take that starting point and build upon it and ultimately reach the conclusion that actions are instantaneous.  I've never said that conclusion is iron clad but the fundamental premise that starts me down that path is).




While I'm not of the opinion that actions can just be divided, there is an interpretation that says that they can.  If they are divisible, then your conclusion is inherently flawed, and your method of reaching your conclusion doesn't disprove the divisibility theory.  

It's okay to hold the position that in your opinion actions work like X, Y and Z, but that doesn't mean that you've shown proof that other theories are wrong.  It just means that if the assumptions you make are true, then those other theories are wrong, so for your game since you are going to treat those assumptions as true, actions work like you are stating. 



> What i'm saying is that we have proof that at least one action can be divided, otherwise the RAW + your interpretation (no division of actions) contradict the RAI and being that there are other interpretations where this doesn't occur then we should always use the interpretation that doesn't force RAW to contradict RAI.




Yes, we have proof that the Attack action can be divided by movement.  We also have a statement by JEC seeming to say that untimed bonus actions can be used during any action, making them divisible.  We have a prior statement, though, saying that actions cannot be nested within one another unless there is a specific rule allowing it.  I asked for clarity, but he hasn't responded.  Until then, it seems actions are divisible and you can nest actions within one another provided they are untimed(Misty Step), or specifically work within another action(Two-Weapon Fighting).  

Given the above, there's no reason to assume that an action that includes movement as a part of it, like Disengage and Dash do, do not also allow for that movement to occur during the action. That would be the reasonable assumption.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Would you mind providing an example of a bonus action that does have specific timing, and explaining how it differs from Shield Master?  I'd like to understand how you're interpreting that part of the bonus action rules.




I wouldn't mind at all:
Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.​The difference between Flurry of Blows and the first bullet of Shield Master are the words _Immediately after_. That gives you a specific time in which the unarmed strikes must take place.



Asgorath said:


> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064841214676994
> 
> "Today's clarification makes it so that you can trust your book more than ever before, since I've now eliminated an illogical ruling that actually seeded doubt about the book's text."
> 
> I don't think there are any inconsistencies here.  JEC replies to a question on Twitter about Shield Master in 2015 and says "sure, you can shove whenever you like!" without actually reading the rules and then promptly forgets about it.  Years later, someone points out that this ruling is bad, so he clarifies how bonus action timing is supposed to work and reverses his previous bad ruling.




Frankly, I find this narrative that has emerged to be somewhat revisionist. Here's the original question asked on December 30, 2014:
Timing of Shield Master bonus shove. Does "take attack action" mean make 1 or all att rolls 1st? or can shove then attack?​Jeremy Crawford didn't need to look up any rules. The question laid everything out for him to consider, i.e. the condition, and whether it needs to be satisfied before shoving. Here's how he answered on January 21, 2015:
As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.​He refers to the general rule for bonus actions and the condition of taking the Attack action, confirming that the Shield Master shove,* like most bonus actions,* has no timing specification. There isn't a single relevant rule he's missing here. He simply later changed his mind about how he wanted to interpret those rules. The plea of incompetence is just a cover story.



Asgorath said:


> I'm just trying to understand how you're reconciling the fact he's come out and said "hey that 2015 tweet was bad, I was wrong, here's how bonus action timing and Shield Master are supposed to work", including adding a question about Shield Master to the Sage Advice Compendium (the source of official rulings about rules questions).  It's one thing to just not use the rule as intended at your table, but you seem to be arguing that his ruling is simply incorrect and the 2015 tweet is how the rule is supposed to work.  Is that not the case?




I think his ruling is okay. Maybe it's correct for him and his table. Maybe it's correct for Hasbro. But I think it's an inferior use of the rules because it prioritizes a literalistic interpretation over the spirit of what a bonus action is supposed to be, something extra you can do on your turn at a time of your choosing. I'm pretty sure this is why Mike Mearls said that bonus actions were "fairly hacky".


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

I can't believe 752 posts later Shield Master is still in debate (sure, not all of them are about the feat, but it began on #17 as I see it).

I love it!


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Okay, I'll extend the definition of an action to be one _or more_ discrete elements on the timeline to avoid confusion.  I thought that was obvious from the rest of my post, I apologize.
> 
> We all agree that the Attack action can be split into multiple pieces.  However, I do not see any text in the PHB that says you can declare the Attack action, and then make the attacks later.  There's a rule that says you can insert movement in between attacks.  There are triggers that are based off a single attack.  There are triggers that are based on the action as a whole.  All of this is consistent with the idea of a discretely ordered list of elements, the triggered element must simply come after all the triggering elements.  In the case of the Attack action, this is simply all of the attacks.  Evaluating the condition is very straight forward: are all the attacks in the ordered list?  If yes, you can add the triggered element.  At this point, if you still had attacks from Extra Attack left, you simply cannot add those to the ordered list, because that invalidates the triggered bonus action that is already in the list.
> 
> ...




And if the attack action is made up of N discrete elements then it must have a duration...  

In other words changing your claim to the attack action being made up of N discrete elements logically implies that it has a duration which contradicts your original premise that actions have no duration.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> And if the attack action is made up of N discrete elements then it must have a duration...
> 
> In other words changing your claim to the attack action being made up of N discrete elements logically implies that it has a duration which contradicts your original premise that actions have no duration.




As I've said, your turn is made up of discrete elements in an ordered list.  Duration has no relevance.  There's an explicit rule that says your Attack action can be split by movement.  There are also bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack in the Attack action.  Why do you insist on applying a duration to any of this?  It simply has no bearing on the order of the elements in your turn.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> As I've said, your turn is made up of discrete elements in an ordered list.  Duration has no relevance.  There's an explicit rule that says your Attack action can be split by movement.  There are also bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack in the Attack action.  Why do you insist on applying a duration to any of this?  It simply has no bearing on the order of the elements in your turn.




So your dropping your claim about the attack action having no duration and changing it to duration doesn't matter.  I wish you would make up your mind.  I'm getting tired of fighting against an opinion that's more amoprhpous than an ooze.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So your dropping your claim about the attack action having no duration and changing it to duration doesn't matter.  I wish you would make up your mind.  I'm getting tired of fighting against an opinion that's more amoprhpous than an ooze.




I thought I was quite clear in my previous post.  I was objecting to the notion that actions last as long as their effects, as this makes no sense for the Dodge and Disengage actions.  I think I've explained in a large amount of detail why I think that actions simply have no implicit duration, or why duration even matters here.  Please show me the text in the PHB that talks about action duration, and I'd be happy to discuss further.  Otherwise, I'm sticking with my interpretation that your turn is simply made up of a strictly ordered list of discrete elements, as this avoids all problems of action duration, nested actions, concurrent actions, Schrodinger's Shove and so on.

As I said yesterday, I've given up trying to convince all the folks who think you can Shield Master shove before attacking.  You're all very clearly set in your ways in respect to that feat.  I just think it's completely nonsensical, but we can agree to disagree.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I thought I was quite clear in my previous post.  I was objecting to the notion that actions last as long as their effects, as this makes no sense for the Dodge and Disengage actions.  I think I've explained in a large amount of detail why I think that actions simply have no implicit duration, or why duration even matters here.  Please show me the text in the PHB that talks about action duration, and I'd be happy to discuss further.  Otherwise, I'm sticking with my interpretation that your turn is simply made up of a strictly ordered list of discrete elements, as this avoids all problems of action duration, nested actions, concurrent actions, Schrodinger's Shove and so on.




Let me make the case to you for why action duration is important.  The movement rules in the PHB only allow you to move before or after an action.  There is one exception for the attack action.  If we can't answer the question of how long certain actions like disengage last then we can't say when we can move again after attempting to take that action.  So whether the PHB talks about duration, it's still an important concept when it comes to understanding the rules.  

To prove this I want to ask you, when you disengage, can you move again before the end of your turn?  If yes, then whether or not you want to admit it, you have a belief about the duration of the disengage action, that belief being it's duration doesn't last till the end of your turn (because you know that if it does then by RAW you wouldn't be able to move after taking the action).



> As I said yesterday, I've given up trying to convince all the folks who think you can Shield Master shove before attacking.  You're all very clearly set in your ways in respect to that feat.  I just think it's completely nonsensical, but we can agree to disagree.




In case you missed the memo, I just recently changed to this position.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I thought I was quite clear in my previous post.  I was objecting to the notion that actions last as long as their effects, as this makes no sense for the Dodge and Disengage actions.  I think I've explained in a large amount of detail why I think that actions simply have no implicit duration, or why duration even matters here.  Please show me the text in the PHB that talks about action duration, and I'd be happy to discuss further.  Otherwise, I'm sticking with my interpretation that your turn is simply made up of a strictly ordered list of discrete elements, as this avoids all problems of action duration, nested actions, concurrent actions, Schrodinger's Shove and so on.
> 
> As I said yesterday, I've given up trying to convince all the folks who think you can Shield Master shove before attacking.  You're all very clearly set in your ways in respect to that feat.  I just think it's completely nonsensical, but we can agree to disagree.




While the word _duration_ isn't used, Dodge clearly has a duration: 6 seconds. Once you take in on your turn, it lasts until the start of your next turn. Assuming one uses the standard initiative rules (i.e. roll once and repeat), you are "dodging" for the entire 6 seconds that makes up the round. So, hopefully the idea that you are dodging the entire time (whether you are moving during that time or not) does, in fact, make sense. You do not dodge only once. Now, the effects (attacks made against you at disadvantage and Dex saves with advantage) are discrete as those effect occur at the moment the triggering action takes place (the enemy's attack, the spell completing, etc.).

Additionally, while I agree SA made it quite clear you must actually attack (not just declaring, but making an attack roll to hit a target) before employing the bonus action of Shield Master (I don't personally agree with this, but that is my view, not the rules), there is nothing specifying the timing beyond that requirement. Since bonus actions can be taken as soon as their requirements are met, it is a perfectly valid interpretation that a Shield Master character with Extra Attack could attack, shove, and then attack again. Adding movement to the mix, your character could: attack, move, shove, attack, move if speed remains.

If none of this agrees to you, then fine: agree to disagree.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Let me make the case to you for why action duration is important.  The movement rules in the PHB only allow you to move before or after an action.  There is one exception for the attack action.  If we can't answer the question of how long certain actions like disengage last then we can't say when we can move again after attempting to take that action.  So whether the PHB talks about duration, it's still an important concept when it comes to understanding the rules.
> 
> To prove this I want to ask you, when you disengage, can you move again before the end of your turn?  If yes, then whether or not you want to admit it, you have a belief about the duration of the disengage action, that belief being it's duration doesn't last till the end of your turn (because you know that if it does then by RAW you wouldn't be able to move after taking the action).




As I've said, the rules say you can insert movement into the Attack action.  That might give you an ordered list of this for your turn:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move

Duration of an action has no bearing on the *effect* of that action.  Let's say that when you take the Disengage action, your DM hands you a card that says "your movement doesn't provoke OAs".  They take it back at the end of your turn.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move (this does not provoke OAs)

This mirrors what happens when you cast the Shield spell, where the DM hands you a card that says "you get +5 to AC" which they take back at the start of your next turn.  Similarly, the DM gives you a card that says "attacks against you have disadvantage" for the Dodge action, which they take back at the start of your next turn.

Duration of the *effect* is important.  Duration of the element that triggered said effect is irrelevant, in my opinion.  You process the element, and you move on to process the next element in the list.  The only thing that matters is the order.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> As I've said, the rules say you can insert movement into the Attack action.  That might give you an ordered list of this for your turn:
> 
> 1) Move
> 2) Attack
> ...




Obviously for disengage the duration of the effect it provides lasts until the end of your turn.  My question isn't about the effect it provides.  My question is can you move after taking the disengage action.  If you answer yes then you believe as I do that the disengage action doesn't last until the end of your turn (because you know that if it did then you wouldn't be able to move until after that turn was over).


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Obviously for disengage the duration of the effect it provides lasts until the end of your turn.  My question isn't about the effect it provides.  My question is can you move after taking the disengage action.  If you answer yes then you believe as I do that the disengage action doesn't last until the end of your turn (because you know that if it did then you wouldn't be able to move until after that turn was over).




I absolutely agree with you, because the Disengage action in and of itself has no concept of duration.  The effect of that action lasts until the end of your turn, which means any movement elements in the ordered list that is your turn after the Disengage element do not provoke OAs.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I absolutely agree with you, because the Disengage action in and of itself has no concept of duration.  The effect of that action lasts until the end of your turn, which means any movement elements in the ordered list that is your turn after the Disengage element do not provoke OAs.




How about answering my question.  Can you move after taking the disengage action?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> How about answering my question.  Can you move after taking the disengage action?




I answered this 2 posts ago.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move (this does not provoke OAs)

Yes, you can move after you Disengage.  The effect of that action lasts for the duration, which in this case is the end of your turn.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I answered this 2 posts ago.
> 
> 1) Move
> 2) Disengage
> ...




Do you believe the rules state that you can only move before or after an action (except for the attack action which the rules give a clear exception for)?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I can't believe 752 posts later Shield Master is still in debate (sure, not all of them are about the feat, but it began on #17 as I see it).
> 
> I love it!




Someone gave it a shove early on and the action hasn't stopped.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> While I'm not of the opinion that actions can just be divided, there is an interpretation that says that they can.  If they are divisible, then your conclusion is inherently flawed, and your method of reaching your conclusion doesn't disprove the divisibility theory.




My conclusion only depends on 2 premises.  1) you can move after taking the disengage action (RAI) and 2) you can only move before or after an action (RAW).  

The part you are complaining about being an assumption is how arguments by contradiction work.  They assume one something (along with other statements that are facts and not assumptions) in order to show the assumption false and thus prove that the opposite of that assumption is true.  You literally can't have an argument by contradiction without an assumption, it's part of how that mode of argumentation works.  It's a mathematically valid mode of proof as well.  Some fascinating things have been proven by contradiction proofs.

I don't have to worry about whether actions are inherently divisible or indivisible, just whether movement can divide them.  



> It's okay to hold the position that in your opinion actions work like X, Y and Z, but that doesn't mean that you've shown proof that other theories are wrong.  It just means that if the assumptions you make are true, then those other theories are wrong, so for your game since you are going to treat those assumptions as true, actions work like you are stating.




They aren't assumptions they are premises and those premises are come explicitly from the RAI and RAW.  The only assumption is the one required for the valid mode of proof by contradiction to work.  



> Yes, we have proof that the Attack action can be divided by movement.  We also have a statement by JEC seeming to say that untimed bonus actions can be used during any action, making them divisible.  We have a prior statement, though, saying that actions cannot be nested within one another unless there is a specific rule allowing it.  I asked for clarity, but he hasn't responded.  Until then, it seems actions are divisible and you can nest actions within one another provided they are untimed(Misty Step), or specifically work within another action(Two-Weapon Fighting).




I'm only worried about whether movement can be used during an action, not whether bonus actions can.



> Given the above, there's no reason to assume that an action that includes movement as a part of it, like Disengage and Dash do, do not also allow for that movement to occur during the action. That would be the reasonable assumption.




You mean besides the explicit rule that says: You can move before or after your action (as opposed to you can move anytime)… yea that rule kind of throws a monkey wrench in it for the move anytime position.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Do you believe the rules state that you can only move before or after an action (except for the attack action which the rules give a clear exception for)?




Movement is a discrete element in the ordered list that makes up your turn.  Elements in that list can be movement, your action, bonus action, reaction, whatever.  Example:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove
7) Move

Here's the relevant text from the PHB:



> *Breaking Up Your Move*
> You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.
> 
> *Moving Between Attacks*
> 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. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.




This strongly implies to me that each section of movement is a discrete element in the ordered list of your turn, just like actions and bonus actions.  So, I think the answer to your question is yes, you cannot move concurrently with taking an action -- the movement either comes before or after your action (or other discrete element on your turn).  Each element in the list gets resolved in order, one at a time.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Someone gave it a shove early on and the action hasn't stopped.




Our turn isn't over, so we haven't been able to determine if the shove was a bonus action or an action yet.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Movement is a discrete element in the ordered list that makes up your turn.  Elements in that list can be movement, your action, bonus action, reaction, whatever.  Example:
> 
> 1) Move
> 2) Attack
> ...




So if you believe those 2 things,
1) That you can only move before or after an action and
2) That you can move after taking the disengage action

Then doesn't that mean that the disengage action began on your turn and ended sometime on your turn before it was over?  Isn't that the definition of duration?  If it's not then what definition are you using?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> My conclusion only depends on 2 premises.  1) you can move after taking the disengage action (RAI) and 2) you can only move before or after an action (RAW).
> 
> The part you are complaining about being an assumption is how arguments by contradiction work.  They assume one something (along with other statements that are facts and not assumptions) in order to show the assumption false and thus prove that the opposite of that assumption is true.  You literally can't have an argument by contradiction without an assumption, it's part of how that mode of argumentation works.  It's a mathematically valid mode of proof as well.  Some fascinating things have been proven by contradiction proofs.
> 
> I don't have to worry about whether actions are inherently divisible or indivisible, just whether movement can divide them.




You didn't actually prove anything about actions though, since you ignore other theories that would defeat your proof.   You are also trying to tie a mathematical proof(which not all schools of mathematical thought even accept) to a non-mathematical situation.

I'm not accepting your proof, because it doesn't actually prove anything here.  After all is said and done, there are still other ways to look at the situation that don't require only your two premises, and which don't need to result in your conclusion.



> You mean besides the explicit rule that says: You can move before or after your action (as opposed to you can move anytime)… yea that rule kind of throws a monkey wrench in it for the move anytime position.




So this is a Strawman.  I did not say anything about moving any time.  I said very clearly "an action that includes movement as a part of it,..."  That is explicitly not "any time," and since only specific actions include movement, they are specific over the general rule about actions.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So if you believe those 2 things,
> 1) That you can only move before or after an action and
> 2) That you can move after taking the disengage action
> 
> Then doesn't that mean that the disengage action began on your turn and ended sometime on your turn before it was over?  Isn't that the definition of duration?  If it's not then what definition are you using?




My point is that the "duration of the Disengage action" is irrelevant and has no meaning or value.  This is supported by the fact that there is zero language in the PHB about the "duration of an action", because in my opinion it simply does not matter.  The only thing that matters is the order of the elements that make up your turn.  The Disengage action, like other actions, is a discrete element in the ordered list.  You process these elements in order, one at a time.  Once you've processed the Disengage element, you have taken the action and any event that has that as a trigger can now be added to the ordered list.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move

The movement element (3) does not provoke OAs.  The movement element (1) does provoke OAs.  Why do you care how long (2) took?  We simply resolve each entry in the list in order, and apply the effects of the entry as needed.  So, movement might be moving your miniature on the map.  Disengage means applying the temporary "your movement doesn't provoke OAs" buff, similar to the buff you'd get from the Shield spell for example.  Any movement that happens after this element is resolved does not provoke an OA, nothing more, nothing less.  The "duration" of the Disengage action itself has no relevance to this, in my opinion -- it's simple one of the discrete elements on your turn that gets processed in order.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You are also trying to tie a mathematical proof(which not all schools of mathematical thought even accept)




Wait WHAT?????  

This is more important than all the other topics.  You seriously believe that mathematics exist where proof by contradiction isn't accepted?

Have you ever taken a mathematical logic class?  A mathematical proofs class?  Do you know what a truth table is?  Are you just talking out of your A double S?

Can you prove the irrationality of the square root of 2 without a proof by contradiction?  Can you prove that the halting problem is unsolvable without a proof by contradiction?  

I'm in absolute shock that you could say something like that


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> My point is that the "duration of the Disengage action" is irrelevant and has no meaning or value.  This is supported by the fact that there is zero language in the PHB about the "duration of an action", because in my opinion it simply does not matter.  The only thing that matters is the order of the elements that make up your turn.  The Disengage action, like other actions, is a discrete element in the ordered list.  You process these elements in order, one at a time.  Once you've processed the Disengage element, you have taken the action and any event that has that as a trigger can now be added to the ordered list.
> 
> 1) Move
> 2) Disengage
> ...




So you don't disagree that I've proven that the disengage action has a duration that is less than the duration of it's effects.  You just think that it's a meaningless piece of information to have?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So you don't disagree that I've proven that the disengage action has a duration that is less than the duration of it's effects.  You just think that it's a meaningless piece of information to have?




Exactly.  The rules say you can move before and after your action.  The Disengage action provides an effect that lasts until the end of your turn, which in my opinion means the effect is separate from the action itself.  Thus, the duration of the Disengage action is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the order of that discrete element in relation to other discrete elements in the ordered list.  Movement before the Disengage action provokes an OA, movement after does not.  The duration of any of those elements does not change those simple facts.

Edit: And to be clear, trying to impose a duration means that you can have a hard time wrapping your head around what it means to split an Attack action with movement or other discrete elements like a TWF bonus action that is triggered by a single weapon attack.  Thus, we can simply ignore duration of each discrete element in the ordered list, and process them one at a time in order.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Exactly.  The rules say you can move before and after your action.  The Disengage action provides an effect that lasts until the end of your turn, which in my opinion means the effect is separate from the action itself.  Thus, the duration of the Disengage action is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the order of that discrete element in relation to other discrete elements in the ordered list.  Movement before the Disengage action provokes an OA, movement after does not.  The duration of any of those elements does not change those simple facts.
> 
> Edit: And to be clear, trying to impose a duration means that you can have a hard time wrapping your head around what it means to split an Attack action with movement or other discrete elements like a TWF bonus action that is triggered by a single weapon attack.  Thus, we can simply ignore duration of each discrete element in the ordered list, and process them one at a time in order.




But because it's true I could potentially use that "meaningless" piece of information to derive meaningful conclusions right?  Isn't that precisely what I've been doing?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> But because it's true I could potentially use that "meaningless" piece of information to derive meaningful conclusions right?  Isn't that precisely what I've been doing?




Sure, what conclusions are you trying to derive exactly?  And, why aren’t they addressed by simply treating your turn like an ordered list of discrete elements?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Sure, what conclusions are you trying to derive exactly?  And, why aren’t they addressed by simply treating your turn like an ordered list of discrete elements?




Because even when treating your turn as a sequential set of discrete elements there is no proof of whether the attack action should be considered a discrete sequential element separate from the attacks it provides or whether it should be view as the combination of N discrete elements (N attacks).  

So instead of worrying about that meaningless question.  I instead focus on something I've already derived some truth about, the duration of actions.  I then attempt to build up from my simple truth more complex truths and ultimately will be able to answer the question about whether the bonus action shove can be used after the attack action but before it's attacks.  (The concept is similar to how I was easily able to postulate about the attack action being it's own sequential discrete event independent of attacks).


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 2, 2019)

Has anyone changed anyone else's mind about the core issues involved with this thread yet?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

[MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] in your formulation is the disengage action a sequential discrete element?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Has anyone changed anyone else's mind about the core issues involved with this thread yet?




Yes.  I changed my mind about them.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Because even when treating your turn as a sequential set of discrete elements there is no proof of whether the attack action should be considered a discrete sequential element separate from the attacks it provides or whether it should be view as the combination of N discrete elements (N attacks).
> 
> So instead of worrying about that meaningless question.  I instead focus on something I've already derived some truth about, the duration of actions.  I then attempt to build up from my simple truth more complex truths and ultimately will be able to answer the question about whether the bonus action shove can be used after the attack action but before it's attacks.  (The concept is similar to how I was easily able to postulate about the attack action being it's own sequential discrete event independent of attacks).




Well, as I’ve said, I think the answer is really simple.  The PHB says the Attack action means making an attack.  There is no mention of a declaration phase.  There are exceptions to the general rules that allow for splitting your Attack action with movement, implying that your Attack action now has two or more discrete elements, assuming you have multiple attacks from Extra Attack.

Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?  Like all other actions, the Attack action starts as one discrete element, and can be split by specific things as documented in the rules (e.g. movement, bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack, bonus actions with no trigger, etc).  If the Attack action said something about being able to make one or more weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn, then I would agree that the duration or effect of the Attack action matters.  It doesn’t say that, though, which points at the Attack action being all your individual attacks (unless you split the action via the specific rules allowing that).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Well, as I’ve said, I think the answer is really simple.  The PHB says the Attack action means making an attack.  There is no mention of a declaration phase.  There are exceptions to the general rules that allow for splitting your Attack action with movement, implying that your Attack action now has two or more discrete elements, assuming you have multiple attacks from Extra Attack.
> 
> Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?  Like all other actions, the Attack action starts as one discrete element, and can be split by specific things as documented in the rules (e.g. movement, bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack, bonus actions with no trigger, etc).  If the Attack action said something about being able to make one or more weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn, then I would agree that the duration or effect of the Attack action matters.  It doesn’t say that, though, which points at the Attack action being all your individual attacks (unless you split the action via the specific rules allowing that).




Is there a declaration phase for the disengage action?  If not what do you consider the discrete sequential event to be for the disengage action?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Our turn isn't over, so we haven't been able to determine if the shove was a bonus action or an action yet.




Shove is obviously a bonus action, it is right in the text of the Shield Master feat (since the feat is what began all this), unless you are doing it in place of your attack, in which case it is an action. Or was that a rhetorical question...? 



Mistwell said:


> Has anyone changed anyone else's mind about the core issues involved with this thread yet?




Well, it convinced me the ruling is the shove takes place after an attack takes place, not just the declaration. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand that is the ruling.



FrogReaver said:


> Is there a declaration phase for the disengage action?  If not what do you consider the discrete sequential event to be for the disengage action?




There is never a declaration phase in 5E unless you play that way (which our group does because we roll Initiative each round). In the normal rules, when you turn comes you do what you tell the DM you do. So I would say there isn't a phase, it is simply the beginning of your turn IMO.

Anyway, how about this for weird:

You are a Ranger (Hunter - Horde Breaker) 3/Barbarian (Berserker) 3.
You are raging already.
You are being attacked by two targets.
But, you see two targets attacking an ally only 15 feet away and he _really_ needs your help!
What do you do?
What _do_ you do...?

You: Tell the DM you are Disengaging!!! LOL 

Effect:
1. Disengage (no movement provokes OA)
2. Move 10 feet to engage opponents.
3. Use Frenzy (bonus action) to attack one target (no attack action needed)
4. Use Horde Breaker to attack an adjacent target (for no cost).
5. Move 20 feet away without OA from your targets.

Repeat each turn until all foes are dead.

Nice huh? You get two weapon attacks against two targets after moving and they don't get to try to attack you in return.

EDIT: Another option is to Dodge instead of Disengage. True, you provoke OAs now, but _they are with disadvantage_, and even better is that when an enemy moves to engage and attack you on their turn, _their attacks are still with disadvantage_. Oh, and you gain advantage on Dex saves as well!

Come to think of it, Dodging is probably even better in most cases.   I think just found my next character concept! LOL


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Well, as I’ve said, I think the answer is really simple.  The PHB says the Attack action means making an attack.  There is no mention of a declaration phase.  There are exceptions to the general rules that allow for splitting your Attack action with movement, implying that your Attack action now has two or more discrete elements, assuming you have multiple attacks from Extra Attack.
> 
> Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?  Like all other actions, the Attack action starts as one discrete element, and can be split by specific things as documented in the rules (e.g. movement, bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack, bonus actions with no trigger, etc).  If the Attack action said something about being able to make one or more weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn, then I would agree that the duration or effect of the Attack action matters.  It doesn’t say that, though, which points at the Attack action being all your individual attacks (unless you split the action via the specific rules allowing that).




This.  You do what the rules say, you don't add things because they're not needed.  Duration of actions is a pointless argument -- nothing in how you adjudicate the game requires actions to have a duration.  When you take your action, you do the thing it says until you're done with it and that's it.

Frex:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Dodge*
> When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any Attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity Saving Throws with advantage. You lose this benefit if you are Incapacitated (as explained in Conditions ) or if your speed drops to 0.



You take the dodge action.  Do what it says on the tin.  Done, move on with the rest of your turn (if anything is left).  Same with attack, or cast a spell.  Duration is adding a mechanic that is not present in the rules at all.  It's like playing poker and then smugly saying that your 8 of spades trumps four 7s because it's the highest trump card played.  It doesn't make sense to add mechanics not present.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Is there a declaration phase for the disengage action?  If not what do you consider the discrete sequential event to be for the disengage action?




You process the elements in order.  Processing the Disengage action means applying the temporary buff, which lasts until the end of your turn.  There is no declaration phase, you simply process the element by doing what the action says.  There is no duration of the element, nor does there need to be in order to do what the action says:

"If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn."

So, if your turn is made up of the following elements:

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move
4) Healing Word
5) Move

Each of those 5 elements is processed as a discrete operation in the order they appear (or really, in the order you play them).  (1) might be moving your miniature 5 feet.  (2) applies an effect that lasts the duration. (3) might be moving your miniature 10 more feet, away from an enemy with no OA due to Disengage.  (4) heals someone.  (5) moves your miniature 10 more feet, also with no OAs.

Let's go back to the Attack action.  The rules say you can break up your movement, and move between attacks in the Attack action.  We can treat this as simply splitting the Attack element in half, and inserting a movement element in between the two halves.

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack

The Attack action now has two elements, processed in order as normal.  (2) might be attacking one target twice, and (4) might be attacking a different target once.  The Attack action is complete when all its subdivided elements have been processed.  We don't have to jump through hoops and invent rules for simultaneously moving while taking the Attack action, the text states you get to break these into separate pieces and order them how you like.

The general trigger rules for "If you X, you can Y" could be summarized like this:

- In order for a Y element to be added to the end of the ordered list, there must be at least one X element already in the list.
- Once a Y element has been added to the end of the ordered list, no more X elements can be added.

So, given that the PHB says you can break apart your movement and Attack action, anything that is triggered by the Attack action must be after one of the Attack action's elements in the list, and no Attack action element can come after it.

Legal: Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move, Triggered Bonus Action
Not Legal: Move, Attack, Move, Triggered Bonus Action, Move, Attack, Move
Even Less Legal: Move, Triggered Bonus Action, Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move

The second example is obviously legal if the trigger was making a single attack from the Attack action.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] in your formulation is the disengage action a sequential discrete element?




It absolutely is, there is nothing special about the Disengage action in my interpretation.  As you assemble your turn, the Disengage action is just one more discrete element in the ordered list.  It gets processed in that order.  So, movement elements before the Disengage action provoke OAs, movement elements after it do not.  No element in the list needs to have a duration applied for the effect of Disengage to happen.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move

(1) provokes OAs, (3) does not provoke OAs as expected.  The duration of any entry on this list has no bearing on that outcome, and my contention is that duration is the wrong way to be thinking about all of this.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Wait WHAT?????
> 
> This is more important than all the other topics.  You seriously believe that mathematics exist where proof by contradiction isn't accepted?
> 
> ...




So I misspoke slightly.  Not all schools of mathematical thought hold that the proof is *universally valid*.  You are also using the proof incorrectly incorrectly here.

"Proof by contradiction is valid only under certain conditions. The main conditions are:
- The problem can be described as a set of (usually two) mutually exclusive propositions;
- *These cases are demonstrably exhaustive, in the sense that no other possible proposition exists.*
Under these circumstances, if all but one of the cases are proven to be false, the remaining case must be true."

I've shown you other propositions that exist and you keep dismissing them saying basically that you don't care about them, you only care about your two propositions.  That makes your proof invalid.  And of course you are trying to use a math proof in a non-mathematical situation where things can alter what happens.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Is there a declaration phase for the disengage action?  If not what do you consider the discrete sequential event to be for the disengage action?




There is no declaration phase.  Period.  The player tells you that he is doing X, not that he is going to do X.  If he does tell you what he is going to do, it's an informal declaration that has no game impact whatsoever.  Nothing can trigger off of it.  Only at the moment that he engages an action is the action happening and can things trigger off of taking the action.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> You take the dodge action.  Do what it says on the tin.  Done, move on with the rest of your turn (if anything is left).  Same with attack, or cast a spell.  Duration is adding a mechanic that is not present in the rules at all.  It's like playing poker and then smugly saying that your 8 of spades trumps four 7s because it's the highest trump card played.  It doesn't make sense to add mechanics not present.




Except that we know that the Cast a Spell Action is not instantaneous.  It can't be and still have spells cast as bonus actions which the game goes out of its way to describe as "exceptionally swift."  You can't get any swifter than instant.  

The Cast a Spell Action is actually the strongest proof of action duration not being instant.  It talks about the length of casting times and says that some spells take minutes or hours and therefore casting a spell is not necessarily an action.  However, it goes on to point out that most spells have a casting time of 1 action.  Those spells are by rule, longer than spells with a casting time of a bonus action.  We also know that as part of a 1 action spell, which by definition takes 1 action LONG to cast, you have to have time to pull out components, wave your hands around in a very specific manner, and speak the words of the spell.  That cannot happen in an instantaneous manner.

So now we have two actions Attack and Cast a Spell that are both explicitly not instant and in fact have durations. We also have the movement actions that imply that the movement granted is a part of the action, and therefore that the actions have duration.  It's counter intuitive to think that actions are instant, and the effects are actions.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So I misspoke slightly.  Not all schools of mathematical thought hold that the proof is *universally valid*.  You are also using the proof incorrectly incorrectly here.
> 
> "Proof by contradiction is valid only under certain conditions. The main conditions are:
> - The problem can be described as a set of (usually two) mutually exclusive propositions;
> ...




So 2nd most important thing.....  

The logical non-mathematical argument is called reducto ad adsurdum.  It's based on the law of excluded middle (that something must either be true or it must be false).  The mathematical concept of proof by contradiction is the same thing.  It's like you talk about things you don't understand and it's obvious you don't have the faintest clue.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> There is no declaration phase.  Period.  The player tells you that he is doing X, not that he is going to do X.  If he does tell you what he is going to do, it's an informal declaration that has no game impact whatsoever.  Nothing can trigger off of it.  Only at the moment that he engages an action is the action happening and can things trigger off of taking the action.




If the player tells you he is doing X that is a declaration that you are doing X.  

You assume that a declaration of action can only exist in a phase that occurs before the action is taken.  That simply isn't the case.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Except that we know that the Cast a Spell Action is not instantaneous.  It can't be and still have spells cast as bonus actions which the game goes out of its way to describe as "exceptionally swift."  You can't get any swifter than instant.
> 
> The Cast a Spell Action is actually the strongest proof of action duration not being instant.  It talks about the length of casting times and says that some spells take minutes or hours and therefore casting a spell is not necessarily an action.  However, it goes on to point out that most spells have a casting time of 1 action.  Those spells are by rule, longer than spells with a casting time of a bonus action.  We also know that as part of a 1 action spell, which by definition takes 1 action LONG to cast, you have to have time to pull out components, wave your hands around in a very specific manner, and speak the words of the spell.  That cannot happen in an instantaneous manner.
> 
> So now we have two actions Attack and Cast a Spell that are both explicitly not instant and in fact have durations. We also have the movement actions that imply that the movement granted is a part of the action, and therefore that the actions have duration.  It's counter intuitive to think that actions are instant, and the effects are actions.




And it's also why I'm advocating that we simply stop thinking about this in terms of "the duration of an action".  There is no rule that allows you to move while taking the Cast a Spell action, implying you have to stand there and perform the V/S/M components as needed.  You can move before this action, and you can move after this action.  The only thing that matters here is that the spell's casting time is 1 action.

By default, you start your turn with your movement and your action.  You might also have a bonus action, or you might do something on your turn that triggers a bonus action.  You might move, Cast a Spell, then move some more.  The only thing that matters here is that you no longer have an action this turn, why do we care how many seconds the "Cast a Spell" action took?  That action is simply resolved in the correct order, relative to the rest of the things you do on your turn.  Your turn might be move, cast Healing Word, move, cast Sacred Flame, move.  Why does it matter how long Healing Word or Sacred Flame took to cast?  The rules say that if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can only use your action to cast a cantrip:

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> You process the elements in order. * Processing the Disengage action means applying the temporary buff*, which lasts until the end of your turn.  There is no declaration phase, you simply process the element by doing what the action says.  There is no duration of the element, nor does there need to be in order to do what the action says:
> 
> "If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn."
> 
> ...




So then to use the buff all you as a player do is simply "declare you re taking the disengage action and you've taken it".  So then the discrete sequential event that is the disengage action is simply a player declaration is it not?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> It absolutely is, there is nothing special about the Disengage action in my interpretation.  As you assemble your turn, the Disengage action is just one more discrete element in the ordered list.  It gets processed in that order.  So, movement elements before the Disengage action provoke OAs, movement elements after it do not.  No element in the list needs to have a duration applied for the effect of Disengage to happen.
> 
> 1) Move
> 2) Disengage
> ...




Very good that's my opinion of the disengage action as well.  It's a single sequential discrete event.  The dodge action is as well.  The ready action is as well.  It seems to me that your saying that all actions except the attack action are sequential discrete events.  Do you have a good reason to believe the attack action is different than all the other actions in that regard?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Well, as I’ve said, I think the answer is really simple.  The PHB says the Attack action means making an attack.  There is no mention of a declaration phase.  There are exceptions to the general rules that allow for splitting your Attack action with movement, implying that your Attack action now has two or more discrete elements, assuming you have multiple attacks from Extra Attack.
> 
> Why does it need to be any more complicated than that?  Like all other actions, the Attack action starts as one discrete element, and can be split by specific things as documented in the rules (e.g. movement, bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack, bonus actions with no trigger, etc).  If the Attack action said something about being able to make one or more weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn, then I would agree that the duration or effect of the Attack action matters.  It doesn’t say that, though, which points at the Attack action being all your individual attacks (unless you split the action via the specific rules allowing that).




The duration of the attack action matters because we need to know how long it lasts in order to determine when we have met the condition to bonus action shove.  Hasn't that always been the obvious reason to care about duration in this conversation?

What your saying isn't simple.  The same arguments about duration can be made in your system, its just duration is now duration is concerned with a single sequential element vs multiple sequential elements.  Instead of talking of duration as number of seconds we can talk of it as number of discrete elements.  So there's no escaping the concept of duration.  It's just as present in your formulation as in the other, whether or not you want to talk about it.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So 2nd most important thing.....
> 
> The logical non-mathematical argument is called reducto ad adsurdum.  It's based on the law of excluded middle (that something must either be true or it must be false).  The mathematical concept of proof by contradiction is the same thing.  It's like you talk about things you don't understand and it's obvious you don't have the faintest clue.




Keep ignoring it if you like, but it's not going to make your proof valid.  Another possible true or false proposition exists, that being that actions are divisible.  That invalidates your proof.  You don't get to just say you are ignoring it, so it doesn't affect you and your proof.  That's not how it works.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So then to use the buff all you as a player do is simply "declare you re taking the disengage action and you've taken it".  So then the discrete sequential event that is the disengage action is simply a player declaration is it not?




There is no declaration needed, you just take the action.  It's a discrete operation, ordered with other discrete operations in your turn.  If the action applies a lasting effect, then the effect applies for the duration.  So, if your turn is "move, Disengage, move" then the movement before the action provokes OAs while the movement after the action does not.  There are many other effects in the game, most of them from spells, that work in a similar manner.  We're not arguing about how Bless works, or that you have to declare that you're going to cast the spell, you just use the Cast a Spell action and then the effect applies for the duration, right?



FrogReaver said:


> Very good that's my opinion of the disengage action as well.  It's a single sequential discrete event.  The dodge action is as well.  The ready action is as well.  It seems to me that your saying that all actions except the attack action are sequential discrete events.  Do you have a good reason to believe the attack action is different than all the other actions in that regard?




Yes, because there are explicit rules that say you can break your Attack action into smaller pieces (of one or more attacks each) and insert movement between those pieces.  The individual pieces still make up the Attack action as a whole.  There are also bonus actions like TWF that trigger off an individual piece of the Attack action.  That doesn't turn the Attack action into a declaration and effect with a lasting duration, it just means your Attack can be multiple discrete elements, with rules about what can go between those elements.  Again, there are several examples of actions that effectively say "if you take this action, then X happens until the end of your turn" (e.g. Disengage, Dodge).  The Attack action does not say that, so it must not work like that.  If the rules wanted the Attack action to work in this manner, then surely it would use the same kind of language that the Disengage and Dodge action use, right?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If the player tells you he is doing X that is a declaration that you are doing X.




Okay, but so what.  It has no game validity whatsoever.  A player declaring to you that he is making an attack when his turn comes up has the same game validity as that same player declaring that he is pulling a Black Hawk Helicopter out of his pocket, flying into the air inside it, and shooting missiles at the bad guy.  Nothing can trigger off of either declaration, and neither declaration can be forced on the player without a house rule, because there is no game validity to either one.



> You assume that a declaration of action can only exist in a phase that occurs before the action is taken.  That simply isn't the case.




I'm not assuming anything.  It's a fact that declarations are completely informal and have no game validity.  Declare any action you like.  Declare it any time you like.  Declare it months in advance, or months after the fact.  It's all the same to the game.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The duration of the attack action matters because we need to know how long it lasts in order to determine when we have met the condition to bonus action shove.  Hasn't that always been the obvious reason to care about duration in this conversation?
> 
> What your saying isn't simple.  The same arguments about duration can be made in your system, its just duration is now duration is concerned with a single sequential element vs multiple sequential elements.  Instead of talking of duration as number of seconds we can talk of it as number of discrete elements.  So there's no escaping the concept of duration.  It's just as present in your formulation as in the other, whether or not you want to talk about it.




The Attack action starts as one discrete element.  The rules say you can break this action into separate pieces and insert other (edit: specific types of) discrete elements in between.  The Attack action is still just those N pieces, and is complete once those N pieces have been processed or resolved.

Example: Move, Attack, Move.  If you have 3 attacks from Extra Attack, then your turn might be moving your miniature, making 3 attack rolls against your target, and then moving again after you kill it.  The Attack action is clearly over once you've made those 3 attacks.

Example: Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move.  If you have 3 attacks from Extra Attack, then your turn might be moving your miniature, making 2 attack rolls against a target, moving to a new target since you killed that one, making 1 attack roll against a new target, and then moving some more after you kill that one as well.  The Attack action is clearly over once you've made those 3 attacks.  We don't care that you moved in between, your Attack action is still those 3 attacks in 2 discrete elements on your turn.

The "If you X, you can Y" triggering translates to this concept in a very straight forward manner.  Before you add a Y element to the list, X must be completed.  If X is the Attack action and you split your Attack action into 2 discrete elements so you could move between attacks, then Y must come after those 2 Attack action elements in the list.  Example: Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move, Shield Master Shove.  In a nutshell, if something triggers from the Attack action, then you just don't get to do the Attack action (or pieces thereof) after you've done the triggered bonus action.

Or, if we want to really simplify this: No part of the triggering condition can come after the triggered event.  If the trigger is the Attack action, then it makes no sense that you can perform parts of the Attack action after the triggered bonus action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Keep ignoring it if you like, but it's not going to make your proof valid.  Another possible true or false proposition exists, that being that actions are divisible.  That invalidates your proof.  You don't get to just say you are ignoring it, so it doesn't affect you and your proof.  That's not how it works.




I have a rule that shows actions are not divisible by movement.  Therefore your proposition doesn't disprove my proof.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> And it's also why I'm advocating that we simply stop thinking about this in terms of "the duration of an action".  There is no rule that allows you to move while taking the Cast a Spell action, implying you have to stand there and perform the V/S/M components as needed.  You can move before this action, and you can move after this action.  The only thing that matters here is that the spell's casting time is 1 action.




Actually, I think it's important.  This discussion has moved yet another opinion!!  I now believe that actions are divisible.  They are just not all divisible by all things.  They are divisible, because of the duration is longer than instant, which makes the duration important.  How long the actions last helps me figure out what might or might not be able to be used inside of it.



> By default, you start your turn with your movement and your action.  You might also have a bonus action, or you might do something on your turn that triggers a bonus action.  You might move, Cast a Spell, then move some more.  The only thing that matters here is that you no longer have an action this turn, why do we care how many seconds the "Cast a Spell" action took?  That action is simply resolved in the correct order, relative to the rest of the things you do on your turn.




The length of an action is not important to you at this point in the discussion.  It is, however, greater than instant.  The Cast a Spell action and Bonus Action spells prove that, as does the Attack action.  



> Your turn might be move, cast Healing Word, move, cast Sacred Flame, move.  Why does it matter how long Healing Word or Sacred Flame took to cast?  The rules say that if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can only use your action to cast a cantrip:
> 
> "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."




That cantrip has a casting time just as long as the Wish spell.  I think that the reason you can't cast anything other than a cantrip in a round that you use a bonus action spell is game balance.  It's certainly not a function of time since as far as time is concerned, Action(cantrip) + Bonus Action(spell) = Action(Wish) + Bonus Action(spell).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> The Attack action starts as one discrete element.  The rules say you can break this action into separate pieces and insert other (edit: specific types of) discrete elements in between.  The Attack action is still just those N pieces, and is complete once those N pieces have been processed or resolved.
> 
> Example: Move, Attack, Move.  If you have 3 attacks from Extra Attack, then your turn might be moving your miniature, making 3 attack rolls against your target, and then moving again after you kill it.  The Attack action is clearly over once you've made those 3 attacks.




It's clearly over by the time you've made 3 attacks, it's not clearly over because you made 3 attacks.  There is an important distinction there.



> Example: Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move.  If you have 3 attacks from Extra Attack, then your turn might be moving your miniature, making 2 attack rolls against a target, moving to a new target since you killed that one, making 1 attack roll against a new target, and then moving some more after you kill that one as well.  The Attack action is clearly over once you've made those 3 attacks.  We don't care that you moved in between, your Attack action is still those 3 attacks in 2 discrete elements on your turn.




As previously stated, I agree with you that we know the attack action has at least ended by the time you've made those 3 attacks.  That doesn't mean it didn't end before though.  It just means we have 100% certainity no matter our disagreement that it's at least ended by then.



> The "If you X, you can Y" triggering translates to this concept in a very straight forward manner.  Before you add a Y element to the list, X must be completed.  If X is the Attack action and you split your Attack action into 2 discrete elements so you could move between attacks, then Y must come after those 2 Attack action elements in the list.  Example: Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move, Shield Master Shove.  In a nutshell, if something triggers from the Attack action, then you just don't get to do the Attack action (or pieces thereof) after you've done the triggered bonus action.




There are 2 possibilities for the attack action
Possibility 1: the action consists of N discrete sequential elements
Possibility 2: the action itself is a discrete sequential element and provides the ability to perform an additional N discrete elements.  

My evidence for possibility 2 is that other actions are a single discrete sequential element that provide an effect that last through N discrete sequential events.  Why should the attack action be any different?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> There is no declaration needed, you just take the action.  It's a discrete operation, ordered with other discrete operations in your turn.  If the action applies a lasting effect, then the effect applies for the duration.  So, if your turn is "move, Disengage, move" then the movement before the action provokes OAs while the movement after the action does not.  There are many other effects in the game, most of them from spells, that work in a similar manner.  We're not arguing about how Bless works, or that you have to declare that you're going to cast the spell, you just use the Cast a Spell action and then the effect applies for the duration, right?




How does anyone know you are taking the disengage action if you don't declare you are taking it?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> There are 2 possibilities for the attack action
> Possibility 1: the action consists of N discrete sequential elements
> Possibility 2: the action itself is a discrete sequential element and provides the ability to perform an additional N discrete elements.
> 
> My evidence for possibility 2 is that other actions are a single discrete sequential element that provide an effect that last through N discrete sequential events.  Why should the attack action be any different?




Possibility 3: The action consists of 1 discrete element, with rules about splitting this into up to N pieces, where N is the number of attacks granted by Extra Attack.  You can only insert specific things between elements of the Attack action.

Maybe that's close enough to (1) that it doesn't really matter.

Actions like Dodge and Disengage specifically talk about an effect that applies for a duration.  The Attack action does not.  Therefore, the Attack action does not apply an effect that lasts for an unspecified duration.  The PHB talks about being able to break apart the Attack action and insert movement between attacks.  Those pieces, taken together, still form your Attack action.  I'm not aware of any language that says the Attack action applies a buff that lasts until the end of your turn that allows you to make N weapon attacks.  Therefore, the Attack action is not an instantaneous declaration, and is the actual attacks themselves.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I have a rule that shows actions are not divisible by movement.  Therefore your proposition doesn't disprove my proof.




My proposition allows for actions to be be divisible by movement.

"...using some of your speed before and after your action." does not exclude movement during the action.  It just points out permissions for those other two situations.  So that rule does not show that actions are not divisible by movement.

Moving between attacks is not intuitive.  Many will think you can, and many will think you can't, so it needed a rule to make clear that the game does allow it for sure in that situation.  The existence this rule does not mean that this is the only time you may move in the middle of an action, so it is not a rule that shows that actions are not divisible by movement.

The Dash action adds to movement, so it makes crystal clear sense that you should be able to move during that action, so there was no need to create an extra rule for it like they did with Attack, and which is not excluded by "...using some of your speed before and after your action."

Now, I've argued before, and still believe, that just because something is not excluded by the rules, does not automatically make it included in the rules.  However, the natural reading Dash and other movement actions, as well as the apparent reasoning behind why Attack is called out separately, and the fact that actions being divisible by movement is not excluded, strongly indicates to me that actions are divisible, and movement is one of those things that many actions are divisible by.  

Other actions like Help have no need for such divisibility.  You move if necessary, engage the Help, and move on if you want.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> How does anyone know you are taking the disengage action if you don't declare you are taking it?




There's a big difference between saying "I'm going to Disengage and then move over there", and "I declare that I will Disengage later in my turn, then use my bonus action X that is triggered from Disengage to do Y now, then I'll move a bit, actually Disengage, and then move some more".  I'm suggesting you take the Disengage action by just taking the Disengage action, I'm avoiding the word declare here because it's been so frequently used to suggest you can declare that you'll Attack later on your turn so that you can start by Shield Master shoving first, which I believe is not how bonus action triggers work.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Except that we know that the Cast a Spell Action is not instantaneous.  It can't be and still have spells cast as bonus actions which the game goes out of its way to describe as "exceptionally swift."  You can't get any swifter than instant.
> 
> The Cast a Spell Action is actually the strongest proof of action duration not being instant.  It talks about the length of casting times and says that some spells take minutes or hours and therefore casting a spell is not necessarily an action.  However, it goes on to point out that most spells have a casting time of 1 action.  Those spells are by rule, longer than spells with a casting time of a bonus action.  We also know that as part of a 1 action spell, which by definition takes 1 action LONG to cast, you have to have time to pull out components, wave your hands around in a very specific manner, and speak the words of the spell.  That cannot happen in an instantaneous manner.




Now this is more persuasive.  You have found an action that seems, at least on the surface, to be non-instantaneous.  If there's at least 1 other action that is demonstrably non-instantaneous then that's much better evidence that the attack action is also.  

That said, is there anything preventing the cast a spell action from occurring before the actual spell is cast?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> How does anyone know you are taking the disengage action if you don't declare you are taking it?




You take it.

Player: "DM, I am taking the disengage action."   That's not a declaration of intent, but rather a statement of action.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Now this is more persuasive.  You have found an action that seems, at least on the surface, to be non-instantaneous.  If there's at least 1 other action that is demonstrably non-instantaneous then that's much better evidence that the attack action is also.
> 
> That said, is there anything preventing the cast a spell action from occurring before the actual spell is cast?




The casting time of the spell is 1 action and is not instantaneous.  I don't think it makes sense for the comnbat action to be instant, but the casting time of 1 action not to be.  What does 1 action mean if not the duration of an action in combat?  Actions as a game mechanic only appear in combat.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> There's a big difference between saying "I'm going to Disengage and then move over there", and "I declare that I will Disengage later in my turn, then use my bonus action X that is triggered from Disengage to do Y now, then I'll move a bit, actually Disengage, and then move some more".  I'm suggesting you take the Disengage action by just taking the Disengage action, I'm avoiding the word declare here because it's been so frequently used to suggest you can declare that you'll Attack later on your turn so that you can start by Shield Master shoving first, which I believe is not how bonus action triggers work.




I think the word Now does a nice job of differentiating those ideas.  You declare the action NOW.  Or you declare the action for later.  In your concept the action must be declared now.  So then even if the attack action is a discrete sequential event separate from the attacks it grants then it must immediately precede them and doing anything else between the attack action and the attacks would mean that you didn't actually follow through with your declaration and so you didn't actually take the attack action.

I might could get behind that concept.  Actions are discrete events that must be declared immediately as you are using them.  Then their effects immediately follow.  This interpretation would allow any bonus action to be used inbetween extra attacks.  It would allow movement to be used after taking the disengage action.  *It would allow the shield master shove attack to be used after the first attack but not before it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You take it.
> 
> Player: "DM, I am taking the disengage action."   That's not a declaration of intent, but rather a statement of action.




A declaration = a statement of action.  Apparently your not using the natural meaning of the word declaration here and instead have let some gamey interpretation of the word usurp it's actual definition.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> A declaration = a statement of action.  Apparently your not using the natural meaning of the word declaration here and instead have let some gamey interpretation of the word usurp it's actual definition.




A declaration in the common usage in D&D, how JC is using it, and how we are using it here, is a statement of future intent.

Player: "DM, on my turn I am going to move 5 feet, then cast misty step, then use my Attack action, then move 25 feet."  That would be declaring what your action will be.  

When you are informing the DM of what you are doing at this moment, it's a statement of action.  Yes, it's technically a declaration, but it is not the kind of declaration that we are discussing.  At no time, though, whether using the kind of declaration everyone else is talking about, or the kind of declaration you using on this technicality, is the declaration valid within the game rules.  Being entirely informal, it has no mechanical game validity whatsoever.  Nothing can trigger off of a declaration of any kind.  Only when you are actually engaging the action does anything begin to trigger off of it.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

True. We follow the older style where players have to announce (i.e. declare) intentions for the round before initiative is rolled. You can't change your mind after the roll except to default to Dodge on your turn if you want. But in 5E, you just tell the DM what you do on your turn.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I think the word Now does a nice job of differentiating those ideas.  You declare the action NOW.  Or you declare the action for later.  In your concept the action must be declared now.  So then even if the attack action is a discrete sequential event separate from the attacks it grants then it must immediately precede them and doing anything else between the attack action and the attacks would mean that you didn't actually follow through with your declaration and so you didn't actually take the attack action.
> 
> I might could get behind that concept.  Actions are discrete events that must be declared immediately as you are using them.  Then their effects immediately follow.  This interpretation would allow any bonus action to be used inbetween extra attacks.  It would allow movement to be used after taking the disengage action.  *It would allow the shield master shove attack to be used after the first attack but not before it.




I agree with everything here except the final sentence.  The trigger for Shield Master’s bonus action is the Attack action, not part of the Attack action.  If you split the Attack action and perform other legal activities between attacks such as movement, you must still complete the Attack action before you can do something that is triggered by it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> My proposition allows for actions to be be divisible by movement.
> 
> "...using some of your speed before and after your action." does not exclude movement during the action.  It just points out permissions for those other two situations.  So that rule does not show that actions are not divisible by movement.
> 
> Moving between attacks is not intuitive.  Many will think you can, and many will think you can't, so it needed a rule to make clear that the game does allow it for sure in that situation.  The existence this rule does not mean that this is the only time you may move in the middle of an action, so it is not a rule that shows that actions are not divisible by movement.




Okay, but the existence of the rule is strong evidence that you cannot move during an action.  I prefer not to rely an interpretation that makes me disregard strong evidence provided by the rules.



> The Dash action adds to movement, so it makes crystal clear sense that you should be able to move during that action, so there was no need to create an extra rule for it like they did with Attack, and which is not excluded by "...using some of your speed before and after your action."




RAI you are absolutely correct,  RAW is a different story though.  The contradiction I keep pointing to is a contradiction about what your interpretation forces upon RAW compared to what we all know the RAI is.



> Now, I've argued before, and still believe, that just because something is not excluded by the rules, does not automatically make it included in the rules.  However, the natural reading Dash and other movement actions, as well as the apparent reasoning behind why Attack is called out separately, and the fact that actions being divisible by movement is not excluded, strongly indicates to me that actions are divisible, and movement is one of those things that many actions are divisible by.




Your argument is:
1.  The disengage action gives you a benefit if you move (raw)
2.  The action lasts till the end of your turn (your interpretation)
3.  The RAI is that you can get a benefit to your movement (rai)
4.  Conclusion  Therefore RAW must be that the disengage action is divisible by movement.

You do realize that what you are saying is only true if the action lasts till the end of your turn.  I've offered proof that it cannot.  So your argument here doesn't have any bearing on mine unless you can show the disengage action must last till the end of the turn.  If you can't do that then your argument doesn't invalidate my proof.  In fact, my proof would invalidate your argument, because my conclusion would result in one of your premises being incorrect.  By all means, provide an argument that one of my premises is incorrect.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I agree with everything here except the final sentence.  The trigger for Shield Master’s bonus action is the Attack action, not part of the Attack action.  If you split the Attack action and perform other legal activities between attacks such as movement, you must still complete the Attack action before you can do something that is triggered by it.




If the attack action is a discrete sequential event then it must occur somewhere within our sequence.  Is there anywhere in the chain of discrete sequential events that the attack action can be placed such that you must take the shield master shove after both your discrete sequential attacks?  I don't think that's possible.

Your position is actually that the attack action isn't a discrete sequential event but rather that it is composed of discrete sequential events.  My argument is that it's better to consider the attack action and all other actions as discrete sequential events that are declared NOW.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> A declaration in the common usage in D&D, how JC is using it, and how we are using it here, is a statement of future intent.
> 
> Player: "DM, on my turn I am going to move 5 feet, then cast misty step, then use my Attack action, then move 25 feet."  That would be declaring what your action will be.
> 
> When you are informing the DM of what you are doing at this moment, it's a statement of action.  Yes, it's technically a declaration, but it is not the kind of declaration that we are discussing.  At no time, though, whether using the kind of declaration everyone else is talking about, or the kind of declaration you using on this technicality, is the declaration valid within the game rules.  Being entirely informal, it has no mechanical game validity whatsoever.  Nothing can trigger off of a declaration of any kind.  Only when you are actually engaging the action does anything begin to trigger off of it.




It's the kind of declaration I've been discussing.  I've made that abundantly clear.  Why do you keep talking to me about this other type of declaration when it's not what I'm talking about?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Your argument is:
> 1.  The disengage action gives you a benefit if you move (raw)
> 2.  The action lasts till the end of your turn (your interpretation)
> 3.  The RAI is that you can get a benefit to your movement (rai)
> ...




First, it doesn't need to last until the end of the turn.  It only needs to last until the end of movement, which is a different.  Second, on #2, I've already shown how Attack and Cast a Spell are both non-instant actions.  They do in fact have a duration.  Others seem to as well.

"When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding."  This is clearly not an instant effect.  You don't just take the hide action and then the effect is X.  It says that when you take the hide action, you make the dex check in the attempt to hide.  It takes time to get behind something to hide as you don't just instantly vanish behind an object.  Help is an aid to the action of another, including Attacking which we know takes time.  To help with an attack, you have to feint or act in some other credible manner with your weapon to make the enemy believe you are attacking and give your ally advantage.  That would take time similar to the Attack action.

I don't see why we should just assume that Dash, Disengage and Doge are somehow instantaneous when the other actions are not.  1 action is a length of time in combat per RAW, so it would seem to me that the actions would all also have a 1 action length of time associated with them.  Unless you can show where 1 action has a length of time here, but a time of instant there.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> It's the kind of declaration I've been discussing.  I've made that abundantly clear.  Why do you keep talking to me about this other type of declaration when it's not what I'm talking about?




Okay, but what you are talking about has no mechanical game validity at all.  No declaration does.  A declaration of any sort cannot trigger any abilities.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> First, it doesn't need to last until the end of the turn.  It only needs to last until the end of movement, which is a different.




For precision that's fine but it's uncessarily wordy and not of much importance to this discussion.  All I would have had to do was add the caveat "as long as you still have movement" and there would be no objection from you.  So let's not get distracted by this as there are actual important points to discuss.



> Second, on #2, I've already shown how Attack and Cast a Spell are both non-instant actions.  They do in fact have a duration.  Others seem to as well.




Well, you got half way there.  There's a notion that the action happens and then it's effects.  You haven't offered anything to show that notion is incorrect.  As such the cast a spell action may occur and then the casting of the spell may occur.  I'm not saying that's the case just that such a possibility hasn't been ruled out.



> "When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide, following the rules in chapter 7 for hiding."  This is clearly not an instant effect.  You don't just take the hide action and then the effect is X.  It says that when you take the hide action, you make the dex check in the attempt to hide.  It takes time to get behind something to hide as you don't just instantly vanish behind an object.  Help is an aid to the action of another, including Attacking which we know takes time.  To help with an attack, you have to feint or act in some other credible manner with your weapon to make the enemy believe you are attacking and give your ally advantage.  That would take time similar to the Attack action.




When is not an indicator that an action and it's effects last together in tandem.  Otherwise the shield master shove that says "when you take the attack action", would definitely allow you to shove between the attacks.  In fact it wouldn't allow you to shove any other time...



> I don't see why we should just assume that Dash, Disengage and Doge are somehow instantaneous when the other actions are not.  1 action is a length of time in combat per RAW, so it would seem to me that the actions would all also have a 1 action length of time associated with them.  Unless you can show where 1 action has a length of time here, but a time of instant there.




Because RAI fails to work by RAW when you interpret them as lasting the effect duration.  It all comes back to my proof.  Which isn't a proof of instantaneousness, it's a proof that actions and their effects have different durations.  That premise then leads to the belief that the disengage action is instantaneous but it's a separate conclusion from what I prove.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Okay, but what you are talking about has no mechanical game validity at all.  No declaration does.  A declaration of any sort cannot trigger any abilities.




Of course it's mechanically valid to the game.  Try to play the game without declaring the disengage action and see how far you get.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If the attack action is a discrete sequential event then it must occur somewhere within our sequence.  Is there anywhere in the chain of discrete sequential events that the attack action can be placed such that you must take the shield master shove after both your discrete sequential attacks?  I don't think that's possible.
> 
> Your position is actually that the attack action isn't a discrete sequential event but rather that it is composed of discrete sequential events.  My argument is that it's better to consider the attack action and all other actions as discrete sequential events that are declared NOW.




Why is it not possible?

1) Move
2) Attack (1/2)
3) Move
4) Attack (2/2)
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove

You can place the shove anywhere after 4, because that's the point where your Attack action is complete.  The Attack action is unique in that there are rules exceptions that allow the action to be broken into smaller pieces, with things like movement in between.  Those pieces must all still be processed before the action can trigger something else like Shield Master's shove.  I'm not sure why the concept of "are you done attacking or not" is that hard to figure out?  If you are still making attacks from the Attack action, you haven't finished the Attack action yet.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Why is it not possible?
> 
> 1) Move
> 2) Attack (1/2)
> ...




Because for the bonus action for Shield Master their is no specified timing, only the condition that you take the attack action. My interpretation is you can shove anytime after 2 since you have used your attack action. Flurry of blows is a different example because it specifies immediately _after_ you take the attack action. Does that mean it has to be complete if you have Extra Attack? Maybe, maybe not, that is up to the table's interpretation.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

Let me try explaining this in a slightly different way.  I've been talking about your turn as an ordered list of discrete elements.  However, the part I probably should've emphasized more is that you play and resolve each element one at a time, i.e. you don't declare the full list at the start of your turn and then work through it (you can certainly declare what your intent or plan for your turn is in advance, but it has no in-game meaning).  This makes questions like "am I done with my Attack action" fairly trivial to answer as you go.

1) Move.  You process your movement as a discrete element.  You and your DM agree where your character is now positioned.

2) Attack.  You make one or more attacks against one or more targets in range.  You roll to hit, DM tells you if you hit, and you roll damage if needed.

3) Move.  Turns out you killed the target(s), so you move over towards some other targets and get into melee range with them.

4) Attack.  You still have an attack left from Extra Attack, so you make another attack roll against the new target.  DM tells you if you hit, and you roll damage if needed.

5) Move.  You still have some movement left and just killed another target, so you move over to a 3rd target in preparation for your next turn.

6) Shield Master shove.  At this point, there should be zero confusion about the fact your Attack action is complete, and thus the Shield Master bonus action has been triggered, and you can shove it prone for your Rogue buddy who's already standing next to it.

My underlying point is that each of these is treated as a discrete element that gets resolved independently of everything else.  At no stage were you doing two things at once, each element is processed separately.  Given that the round lasts roughly 6 seconds, each element has an in-game duration, but the specific duration is not really important.  You assemble your turn out of these discrete elements as you go, and each element is adjudicated before moving onto the next one.

So, the question might be, what happens if you really want to shove someone and still have attacks left from Extra Attack?  You have two choices:

1) Use one of your attacks to shove them, using the normal shoving rules.
2) Your Attack action is done and you shove them with your bonus action.

Given that (2) basically means you lose attacks from Extra Attack, it doesn't make much sense to use your bonus action to shove while you still have attacks from Extra Attack left, right?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Because for the bonus action for Shield Master their is no specified timing, only the condition that you take the attack action. My interpretation is you can shove anytime after 2 since you have used your attack action. Flurry of blows is a different example because it specifies immediately _after_ you take the attack action. Does that mean it has to be complete if you have Extra Attack? Maybe, maybe not, that is up to the table's interpretation.




Again, that's not how bonus action timing works.  Shield Master absolutely has a trigger (the Attack action) which must be completed before you even have the bonus action to take.  Flurry of Blows is addressed in the Sage Advice video, for reference.



> Flurry of Blows
> Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.




In this case, the discrete element of "Flurry of Blows" must be directly after the final Attack action element.  Thus: move, attack (1/2), move, attack (2/2), Flurry of Blows, move is legal.  The intent is that you cannot move before using Flurry of Blows, it must immediately follow your final attack from Extra Attack.  Shield Master does not have this restriction, allowing you to move in between your final attack and the bonus action shove.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/910564240888520704

"Flurry of Blows happens after the Attack action, not after attacks within that action."

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/632225244846002177

"That's correct." in response to "so FoB must be after the Attack action is fully resolved, while Unarmed Strike acts like any other bonus action then?".

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/910560028070879232

"Flurry of Blows can be used right after you take the Attack action, no matter what you did with that action."

Edit: And as we've discussed in the past, here's where Shield Master shove first breaks down.

1) Move.  "I move over to that monster", easy enough.

2) Shield Master shove.  "I use my bonus action from Shield Master to shove that monster prone", you succeed on the roll.  Cool.

2a) Someone uses a reaction to cast Hold Person on you, and you fail your saving throw, and you're now incapacitated and your turn is over.

You never took the Attack action on your turn, and thus you never had the bonus action from Shield Master, and so your turn is not valid.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> When is not an indicator that an action and it's effects last together in tandem.




If taking an action is instantaneous and then everything after is effect, then you have literally taken no action at all.  In order to take an action, you have to act.  That's what action means.  The effect of taking the attack action is not getting an attack.  The attack and in applicable cases extra attack are the action, and the miss or hit with all that goes with those is the effect.  When you take the Cast a Spell action, the effect is not casting the spell.  That's the action.  The effect is what comes once the spell is cast.  When you take the disengage action, movement is not the effect.  Movement is the action. The only effect is that you do not provoke opportunity attacks.  With Dash the action and the effect are one and the same.  You move up to 30 extra feet.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Of course it's mechanically valid to the game.  Try to play the game without declaring the disengage action and see how far you get.




The declaration has no mechanical validity.  It does not have mechanics tied to it in any way.  Only the act of disengaging has mechanical validity.  I can disengage by declaring disengage, or by declaring I like green eggs and ham, then informing the DM that my movement provokes no opportunity attacks this round.  Either way only the act of disengaging got me any mechanical benefit.

In fact.  I'm going to to that next time I play.  I'm going to tell the DM, "Green eggs and ham." and then say that my attacks do not provoke as I move.  He's going to know that I am using disengage despite not having declared that I am disengaging, I guarantee it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The declaration has no mechanical validity.  It does not have mechanics tied to it in any way.  Only the act of disengaging has mechanical validity.  I can disengage by declaring disengage, or by declaring I like green eggs and ham, then informing the DM that my movement provokes no opportunity attacks this round.  Either way only the act of disengaging got me any mechanical benefit.
> 
> In fact.  I'm going to to that next time I play.  I'm going to tell the DM, "Green eggs and ham." and then say that my attacks do not provoke as I move.  He's going to know that I am using disengage despite not having declared that I am disengaging, I guarantee it.




That would be an implicit declaration, just not an explicit one.  It's still a declaration either way.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> That would be an implicit declaration, just not an explicit one.  It's still a declaration either way.




It's only a declaration of green eggs and ham.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  For that matter, I don't have to declare anything at all.  I can just inform the DM of what effects I am under with no declaration and let him figure out what action is being taken.  Declarations are simply not necessary for game mechanics.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It's only a declaration of green eggs and ham.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  For that matter, I don't have to declare anything at all.  I can just inform the DM of what effects I am under with no declaration and let him figure out what action is being taken.  Declarations are simply not necessary for game mechanics.




No, you declared "then say that my attacks do not provoke as I move".  That is an implicit declaration of the disengage action.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Let me try explaining this in a slightly different way.  I've been talking about your turn as an ordered list of discrete elements.  However, the part I probably should've emphasized more is that you play and resolve each element one at a time, i.e. you don't declare the full list at the start of your turn and then work through it (you can certainly declare what your intent or plan for your turn is in advance, but it has no in-game meaning).  This makes questions like "am I done with my Attack action" fairly trivial to answer as you go.




Just so we're clear: I am not arguing about the SA ruling. I understand from SA specifies the Shove can only come "after" the Attack action. Not after an attack, but the Attack action. I simply don't agree with that. I do agree that at least ONE attack of the Attack action must be rolled before the Shove can be attempted.

The SA logic, however, does leave other things open to interpretation as well. Take TWF for instance, do you play you can only take the Bonus action to attack after resolving all other attacks granted by the Attack action? Because its wording is the same line as the Shield Master feat....


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> No, you declared "then say that my attacks do not provoke as I move".  That is an implicit declaration of the disengage action.




Information is not a declaration.  Informing the DM of the effect is not the same as declaring that I am going to do it.  It just facilitates game play to give the DM a bit of *INFORMAL* advanced warning.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Information is not a declaration.  Informing the DM of the effect is not the same as declaring that I am going to do it.  It just facilitates game play to give the DM a bit of *INFORMAL* advanced warning.




The method you provide that information is a declaration.  Seriously, you're now arguing that saying "my movement doesn't provoke OA's" is not a declaration?  I'm done.  You take the most outlandish positions on the most basic concepts.  We are never going to be able to talk about anything because of that.  I'm sorry I don't have the option to just ignore you.  If I did I would.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Why is it not possible?
> 
> 1) Move
> 2) Attack (1/2)
> ...



Even if you accept that an Action occupies the position of a discrete point in time during your turn (rather than simply taking place "on your turn" generally,) there is nothing other than Crawford's dubious recent additions to his Sage Advice that would equate "take" with "finish." Even if you have the Extra Attack feature, you have absolutely and definitively taken the Attack Action once you have made a single melee or ranged weapon attack. For one thing, making your extra attack is optional, and perhaps more importantly you cannot (unless you use an Action Surge, Cunning Action, or are effected by a spell like _haste_,) take a different action on that turn.

Is there anything you can point to other than the recent statements by Jeremy Crawford that would suggest that "take the Attack Action" necessarily requires completing any and all attacks which it allows? Because as far as I can tell, that is a new and preposterous interpretation that Jeremy produced from his backside only recently, and one which does not bear up under scrutiny. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the rules that requires making an attack before allowing the bonus action shove. I don't share that interpretation, but I certainly acknowledge that it is one that a reasonable and thoughtful person might reach. I cannot agree that interpreting the rule to require a Shield Master to complete all attacks granted by the Attack Action before considering the bonus shove to have been triggered is reasonable.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> Even if you accept that an Action occupies the position of a discrete point in time during your turn (rather than simply taking place "on your turn" generally,) there is nothing other than Crawford's dubious recent additions to his Sage Advice that would equate "take" with "finish." Even if you have the Extra Attack feature, you have absolutely and definitively taken the Attack Action once you have made a single melee or ranged weapon attack. For one thing, making your extra attack is optional, and perhaps more importantly you cannot (unless you use an Action Surge, Cunning Action, or are effected by a spell like _haste_,) take a different action on that turn.
> 
> Is there anything you can point to other than the recent statements by Jeremy Crawford that would suggest that "take the Attack Action" necessarily requires completing any and all attacks which it allows? Because as far as I can tell, that is a new and preposterous interpretation that Jeremy produced from his backside only recently, and one which does not bear up under scrutiny. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the rules that required making an attack before allowing the bonus action shove. I don't share that interpretation, but I certainly acknowledge that it is one that a reasonable and thoughtful person might reach. I cannot agree that interpreting the rule to require a Shield Master to complete all attacks granted by the Attack Action before considering the bonus shove to have been trigger is reasonable.




I guess the counterpoint would be, if you have already completed your attack action by the end of the first attack, how are you making the 2nd attack?


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I guess the counterpoint would be, if you have already completed your attack action by the end of the first attack, how are you making the 2nd attack?




It doesn't matter, because nothing is triggered by completing the Attack Action. My point is that while you may or may not have completed the Action, you have inarguably taken it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Except that we know that the Cast a Spell Action is not instantaneous. It can't be and still have spells cast as bonus actions which the game goes out of its way to describe as "exceptionally swift."  You can't get any swifter than instant.



I'm not sure you read my post.  Instantaneous is a duration that spells have.  The Cast a Spell action has no duration at all, because duration isn't a concept that's applied to it at all.  You take the action "Cast a Spell" and you do what the action says, then you do anything else you have left for your turn.  Duration is trumping cards in poker.



> The Cast a Spell Action is actually the strongest proof of action duration not being instant.  It talks about the length of casting times and says that some spells take minutes or hours and therefore casting a spell is not necessarily an action.  However, it goes on to point out that most spells have a casting time of 1 action.  Those spells are by rule, longer than spells with a casting time of a bonus action.  We also know that as part of a 1 action spell, which by definition takes 1 action LONG to cast, you have to have time to pull out components, wave your hands around in a very specific manner, and speak the words of the spell.  That cannot happen in an instantaneous manner.



You should read the "Longer Casting Times" bit in the rules.  It deals with this.  When you cast spells with a casting time of longer than "one action" you have to spell each of your actions on your turns taking the "Cast a Spell" action and maintain concentration.  Since the casting of the spell requires multiple "Cast a Spell" actions, one per turn, then we're back to "Cast a Spell" not having anything at all to do with duration or time.  

Again, actions do not have duration.  Insisting they do is trying to trump hands in poker.  It's nonsense.



> So now we have two actions Attack and Cast a Spell that are both explicitly not instant and in fact have durations. We also have the movement actions that imply that the movement granted is a part of the action, and therefore that the actions have duration.  It's counter intuitive to think that actions are instant, and the effects are actions.




Nope, you haven't shown either have a duration.  Or that duration is even a concept that applies to actions at all.  Find the rule about how long actions take.  We'll wait.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> Even if you accept that an Action occupies the position of a discrete point in time during your turn (rather than simply taking place "on your turn" generally,) there is nothing other than Crawford's dubious recent additions to his Sage Advice that would equate "take" with "finish." Even if you have the Extra Attack feature, you have absolutely and definitively taken the Attack Action once you have made a single melee or ranged weapon attack.




That's not true.  "Taken" is past tense.  You haven't taken the Attack action until it ends.  You have, though, absolutely and definitively started "taking" your Attack action once you have made a single melee attack and have the extra attack feature.



> For one thing, making your extra attack is optional, and perhaps more importantly you cannot (unless you use an Action Surge, Cunning Action, or are effected by a spell like _haste_,) take a different action on that turn.




This is true.  You are not compelled to complete all of your attacks.  You can end the Attack action after a single swing if you like.  Until you choose to take that extra attack or end the Attack action early, you are still "taking" your Attack action.



> Is there anything you can point to other than the recent statements by Jeremy Crawford that would suggest that "take the Attack Action" necessarily requires completing any and all attacks which it allows?




Anything other than the official position and ruling of the guy who created the game?  The common usage of take I would think.



> Because as far as I can tell, that is a new and preposterous interpretation that Jeremy produced from his backside only recently, and one which does not bear up under scrutiny. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the rules that requires making an attack before allowing the bonus action shove. I don't share that interpretation, but I certainly acknowledge that it is one that a reasonable and thoughtful person might reach. I cannot agree that interpreting the rule to require a Shield Master to complete all attacks granted by the Attack Action before considering the bonus shove to have been triggered is reasonable.




The most common usage of take is past tense.  There have been some contortionists here who have tried to show how take = taking, but those have all failed when examined closely.

I also don't agree with his ruling.  Not from the standpoint of it doesn't make sense as written, but rather that it just doesn't make sense to have to wait until all attacks have been taken.  If you could shove after one attack last week, why can you suddenly not do so today after you improved and can attack twice?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Here is an interesting comparison:

Two fighters. "Shield Master" Sam is a sword and board with Shield Master. "Two-Weapon Fighting" Todd is a Dual-Wielding sword savant (with Two-Weapon Fighting Style). Both are Level 5.

Sam can attack, attack, shove;
Todd can shove, attack, attack.

Sam's breakdown. Attack action (sword) with Extra Attack (sword) and then bonus action to Shove.

Todd's breakdown: Attack action to Shove (as "special melee attack" using one of his attacks from the attack action),  Extra attack (sword), and then bonus action (sword) from TWF.

Both have two attacks, both can shove.

However, Todd could _never_ shove last since his bonus action comes _after_ completing his Attack action, and TWF only allows you "to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand." In other words, it has to be a weapon attack, not the "special melee attack" of the shove action.

Does that bother anyone else? One can only shove last, the other can only shove first. Why? It seems a silly distinction to me.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> That's not true.  "Taken" is past tense.  You haven't taken the Attack action until it ends.  You have, though, absolutely and definitively started "taking" your Attack action once you have made a single melee attack and have the extra attack feature.
> 
> This is true.  You are not compelled to complete all of your attacks.  You can end the Attack action after a single swing if you like.  Until you choose to take that extra attack or end the Attack action early, you are still "taking" your Attack action.
> 
> ...




The feat doesn't require you to "have taken" anything, it just says "if you take." I submit to you that the condition is definitely satisfied if you "are taking" the Attack Action, especially given the fact that after you make your first attack your other option for Actions on that turn are foreclosed. Why can't you disengage after your first attack? Because you only get one Action on your turn, and you took the Attack Action.

Nothing in the rules can be reasonably interpreted to require you to end your Attack Action before the bonus shove, only to take it. Taking an Action in the context of the 5e rules is not the same as completing, finishing, or ending the action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> It doesn't matter, because nothing is triggered by completing the Attack Action. My point is that while you may or may not have completed the Action, you have inarguably taken it.




If you take the attack action on your turn, you can do X.  In that context take can equally mean complete or start the process of taking.  

If you take the ethical hacking course you will be learning from a great professor.
VS.  
If you take the ethical hacking course you will gain some valuable real world counter hacking knowledge.

In the first statement take assumes you are in the process of taking the course.  In the 2nd take assumes you have completed the course.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Here is an interesting comparison:
> 
> Two fighters. "Shield Master" Sam is a sword and board with Shield Master. "Two-Weapon Fighting" Todd is a Dual-Wielding sword savant (with Two-Weapon Fighting Style). Both are Level 5.
> 
> ...




Especially since Sam took a feat to get the special ability.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not sure you read my post.  Instantaneous is a duration that spells have.  The Cast a Spell action has no duration at all, because duration isn't a concept that's applied to it at all.  You take the action "Cast a Spell" and you do what the action says, then you do anything else you have left for your turn.  Duration is trumping cards in poker.




By RAW actions have a duration.  That duration is 1 action.  A duration of 1 action is a length of time that is greater than instantaneous, because we know that spells that are bonus actions are exceptionally swift.

You've just declared that the Cast a Spell action, which takes 1 action worth of time, takes zero time and that bonus spells take even less than zero.



> You should read the "Longer Casting Times" bit in the rules.  It deals with this.  When you cast spells with a casting time of longer than "one action" you have to spell each of your actions on your turns taking the "Cast a Spell" action and maintain concentration.  Since the casting of the spell requires multiple "Cast a Spell" actions, one per turn, then we're back to "Cast a Spell" not having anything at all to do with duration or time.




That makes no sense.  Each action has a duration of 1 action.  If it takes more rounds to do it, it just means that you have to use multiple Cast Actions on multiple turns, each taking 1 action in length, in order to complete the spell.



> Again, actions do not have duration.  Insisting they do is trying to trump hands in poker.  It's nonsense.




It's RAW.  1 action is in fact a unit of time in combat.  Actions take 1 action to complete.  That's the rules.



> Nope, you haven't shown either have a duration.  Or that duration is even a concept that applies to actions at all.  Find the rule about how long actions take.  We'll wait.



They take 1 action.  Bonus actions are swifter than that.  They didn't write in that actions are 2.4 seconds and bonus actions are .6, if that's what you are looking for.  But they absolutely write actions as taking time and bonus actions as taking much less time.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Here is an interesting comparison:
> 
> Two fighters. "Shield Master" Sam is a sword and board with Shield Master. "Two-Weapon Fighting" Todd is a Dual-Wielding sword savant (with Two-Weapon Fighting Style). Both are Level 5.
> 
> ...




Todd can shove last if he wants.  This is the two-weapon fighting rule, "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."

The bonus action doesn't have to be used immediately, so assuming Todd has extra attack, he can attack, shove, bonus action attack.  Or attack, bonus action attack, shove.  Or shove, attack, bonus action attack.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> The feat doesn't require you to "have taken" anything, it just says "if you take." I submit to you that the condition is definitely satisfied if you "are taking" the Attack Action, especially given the fact that after you make your first attack your other option for Actions on that turn are foreclosed. Why can't you disengage after your first attack? Because you only get one Action on your turn, and you took the Attack Action.




Taking is not a synonym of take.



> Nothing in the rules can be reasonably interpreted to require you to end your Attack Action before the bonus shove, only to take it. Taking an Action in the context of the 5e rules is not the same as completing, finishing, or ending the action.




I disagree, but that's hardly a surprise at this point I don't think.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Todd can shove last if he wants.  This is the two-weapon fighting rule, "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."
> 
> The bonus action doesn't have to be used immediately, so assuming Todd has extra attack, he can attack, shove, bonus action attack.  Or attack, bonus action attack, shove.  Or shove, attack, bonus action attack.




Actually, if you follow the SA that the triggering condition must be completed (i.e. the Attack action) before Todd can use his bonus action, he cannot shove last. His last act, granted as a bonus action by TWF, is to "attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."

True, he could attack, then shove, and then attack since the shove in position one or two is done through an attack granted by the Attack action (and Extra Attack).


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Actually, if you follow the SA that the triggering condition must be completed (i.e. the Attack action) before Todd can use his bonus action, he cannot shove last. His last act, granted as a bonus action by TWF, is to "attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."
> 
> True, he could attack, then shove, and then attack since the shove in position one or two is done through an attack granted by the Attack action (and Extra Attack).




He doesn't have to complete the action with two-weapon fighting, though.  The trigger goes the extra specific beats general step and specifies that you get it after you make an attack.  As soon as the first attack ends, the trigger is complete and you gain the bonus action.  Shield Master doesn't add this extra more defined trigger, so it waits until all attacks are done.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If you take the attack action on your turn, you can do X.  In that context take can equally mean complete or start the process of taking.
> 
> If you take the ethical hacking course you will be learning from a great professor.
> VS.
> ...




There is no doubt that you can find any number of real-world examples that offer a context in which "take" means something different, but in the context of a hyper-literal analysis of the rules of D&D, to take an Action on your turn is an abstract thing that has certain benefits and costs. If the costs apply, then so too should the benefits, right? 

In this case the most obvious cost of an action is the opportunity cost of taking different Action. If you take the Dodge Action, you can't take the Disengage Action. Once you have made a single weapon attack as part of the Attack Action, you have incurred the opportunity cost and cannot take any other Action, so in the that sense you have taken the Attack Action, even if you have not finished making all of the attacks granted by your Extra Attack feature. Nothing in the rules requires you to complete these extra attacks before the Shield Master shove, because the feat doesn't say "complete" or "finish" or "view clearly in the rear-view mirror." It says only "if you take," and once you have incurred the opportunity cost and can't take another action, you cannot be said to have "not taken" the Attack Action. 

We're talking about a binary here, aren't we? "If you take the Attack Action on your turn" is, according to Max and Asgorath and many other here in this thread, a knowable binary true-or-false trigger at any give discrete moment during your turn. Following that logic, if "has taken an Action in combat" is true in the sense that you cannot take another Action on your turn, and your Action on that turn is the Attack Action, then "If you take the Attack Action on your turn" must return a value of "true" and you can choose when to take a bonus action (shove) during your turn at any point thereafter, including before your Extra Attack(s).


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> He doesn't have to complete the action with two-weapon fighting, though.  The trigger goes the extra specific beats general step and specifies that you get it after you make an attack.  As soon as the first attack ends, the trigger is complete and you gain the bonus action.  Shield Master doesn't add this extra more defined trigger, so it waits until all attacks are done.




Two Weapon Fighting adds the "melee weapon attack" as an additional condition, so it has the condition of the Shield Master shove _plus _the light weapon attack condition.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> He doesn't have to complete the action with two-weapon fighting, though.  The trigger goes the extra specific beats general step and specifies that you get it after you make an attack.  As soon as the first attack ends, the trigger is complete and you gain the bonus action.  Shield Master doesn't add this extra more defined trigger, so it waits until all attacks are done.




Actually, your hyper-literal interpretation of the Rules as Written should, to be consistent, mean that the two-weapon fighting bonus action attack is almost impossible without an action surge or _haste _effect.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand," when parsed and interpreted with your usual rigorous and unforgiving analysis of syntax, would mean that a character would have to take the Attack Action, complete the Attack Action including any Extra Attacks for the turn, and then make an additional attack with a light melee weapon before triggering the bonus action attack.

No?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> He doesn't have to complete the action with two-weapon fighting, though.  The trigger goes the extra specific beats general step and specifies that you get it after you make an attack.  As soon as the first attack ends, the trigger is complete and you gain the bonus action.  Shield Master doesn't add this extra more defined trigger, so it waits until all attacks are done.




Just so you know, I agree with you. My point was that using the SA response about Shield Master and further about how the completing Attack actions (including Extra Attack) before bonus actions are done was what prompted this scenario.

But think about what this means?

Sam took a FEAT (a valuable commodity, I think we can agree!) for Shield Master, as where Todd could be any one wielding two weapons with the Extra attack feature (he doesn't need Two-Weapon Fighting Style _or_ Dual Wielder...).

If you think a single attack from TWF triggers the bonus action to be available and don't believe all the attacks granted by the attack action need be resolved before another action is taken (many argue they have to be), then Todd can:

Shove (attack), Sword (attack), Dagger (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Shove (attack), Dagger (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Dagger (bonus TWF), Shove (attack)

I'm fine with that personally. But in that light I think it is ridiculous that the ability granted by Shield Master can only be done by Sam after both attacks.

Finally, consider a Fighter like Sam but without Shield Master. Using the Shield as an improvised weapon (you would need Dual Wielder for this as the Shield is not a Light weapon) and TWF:

Shove (attack), Sword (attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Shove (attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Shield punch (bonsu TWF), Shove (attack)

So a Fighter with Dual Wielder feat is more versatile in how he employs a shield in combat towards shoving a target than a Fighter who has Shield Master... Again, I think that isn't quite right. Oh, well...


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Just so we're clear: I am not arguing about the SA ruling. I understand from SA specifies the Shove can only come "after" the Attack action. Not after an attack, but the Attack action. I simply don't agree with that. I do agree that at least ONE attack of the Attack action must be rolled before the Shove can be attempted.
> 
> The SA logic, however, does leave other things open to interpretation as well. Take TWF for instance, do you play you can only take the Bonus action to attack after resolving all other attacks granted by the Attack action? Because its wording is the same line as the Shield Master feat....




No it's not?

Shield Master: "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."

Two-Weapon Fighting: "When you take the Attack action *and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand*, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

Critical difference in bold.  TWF explicitly says the bonus action is granted after making a single weapon attack, Shield Master does not.  Thus, Shield Master's trigger is the entire Attack action.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> Even if you accept that an Action occupies the position of a discrete point in time during your turn (rather than simply taking place "on your turn" generally,) there is nothing other than Crawford's dubious recent additions to his Sage Advice that would equate "take" with "finish." Even if you have the Extra Attack feature, you have absolutely and definitively taken the Attack Action once you have made a single melee or ranged weapon attack. For one thing, making your extra attack is optional, and perhaps more importantly you cannot (unless you use an Action Surge, Cunning Action, or are effected by a spell like _haste_,) take a different action on that turn.
> 
> Is there anything you can point to other than the recent statements by Jeremy Crawford that would suggest that "take the Attack Action" necessarily requires completing any and all attacks which it allows? Because as far as I can tell, that is a new and preposterous interpretation that Jeremy produced from his backside only recently, and one which does not bear up under scrutiny. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the rules that requires making an attack before allowing the bonus action shove. I don't share that interpretation, but I certainly acknowledge that it is one that a reasonable and thoughtful person might reach. I cannot agree that interpreting the rule to require a Shield Master to complete all attacks granted by the Attack Action before considering the bonus shove to have been triggered is reasonable.




If this is true, why is the wording of TWF fighting different than Shield Master?  TWF is triggered by making an attack with a light weapon, and thus can come between attacks in the Attack action.  If Shield Master said "If you take the Attack action on your turn and make an attack with a weapon you hold in one hand, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield" then I'd agree with your interpretation of the trigger.

Edit: Sorry, didn't realize how far behind I was.  To be fair, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to allow attack-shove-attack, because at that point you have at least committed yourself to the Attack action.  The official ruling doesn't talk about Extra Attack, but once you've made the first attack it's not like you can suddenly switch to a different action.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> No it's not?
> 
> Shield Master: "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."
> 
> ...




I swear, I feel like people aren't reading my entire posts... You quote me but the very first sentence you quoted is "*Just so we're clear: I am not arguing about the SA ruling.*"

I know how SA rules Shield Master works. I am showing scenarios on why I think it should be changed. Also, part of the ruling on Shield Master resolves around other posts about triggering actions (using the Attack action, which you didn't bold BTW) must be completed before the bonus action is activated.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> No it's not?
> 
> Shield Master: "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."
> 
> ...



No. If "take the Attack Action plus this other thing" doesn't require you to "finish" the Attack Action by making all your Extra Attacks, then "take the attack action" doesn't either. That "and" between "action" and "attack" in your quoted text cannot be read as an "or."


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I swear, I feel like people aren't reading my entire posts... You quote me but the very first sentence you quoted is "*Just so we're clear: I am not arguing about the SA ruling.*"
> 
> I know how SA rules Shield Master works. I am showing scenarios on why I think it should be changed. Also, part of the ruling on Shield Master resolves around other posts about triggering actions (using the Attack action, which you didn't bold BTW) must be completed before the bonus action is activated.




I was replying to your last sentence, where you claimed the wording of TWF and Shield Master's bonus actions was the same.  The triggering part of the TWF bonus action (i.e. the "if you X" part of "if you X, you can Y") has very different language, that's all I'm saying.

Edit: And again, I'm basing my interpretation on things like this:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/997183256679268352

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

JEC discussed TWF in the Sage Advice video on bonus action timing as well, where he made the intent very clear.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> If this is true, why is the wording of TWF fighting different than Shield Master?  TWF is triggered by making an attack with a light weapon, and thus can come between attacks in the Attack action.  If Shield Master said "If you take the Attack action on your turn and make an attack with a weapon you hold in one hand, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield" then I'd agree with your interpretation of the trigger.
> 
> Edit: Sorry, didn't realize how far behind I was.  To be fair, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to allow attack-shove-attack, because at that point you have at least committed yourself to the Attack action.  The official ruling doesn't talk about Extra Attack, but once you've made the first attack it's not like you can suddenly switch to a different action.




I do not see how "If Action + attack" can be true after 1 attack, while "If Action" requires all extra attacks as well. Two weapon fighting just adds an additional requirement.

Anyone who thinks that TWF gives a bonus action attack after the first attack with a light weapon, and that bonus action can come before the Extra Attack strikes, disagrees with Jeremy Crawford (just like I do.)

Edit: the tweet linked above proves that Jeremy Crawford also disagrees with Jeremy Crawford.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> I do not see how "If Action + attack" can be true after 1 attack, while "If Action" requires all extra attacks as well. Two weapon fighting just adds an additional requirement.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that TWF gives a bonus action attack after the first attack with a light weapon, and that bonus action can come before the Extra Attack strikes, disagrees with Jeremy Crawford (just like I do.)




To be clear, the only thing I object to is the notion that you can declare you'll take the Attack action later on your turn, then use your Shield Master bonus action to shove first and give yourself near-permanent advantage if you have good Athletics.  JEC has described the intent of the TWF bonus action on several different platforms, so I'm using his guidance as to the specific timing of that bonus action.  I completely agree that a valid reading of TWF would be that the bonus action has to come after the Attack action is done, and you have to have used a light weapon for all the attacks in the Attack action.  I would completely disagree with a reading that said TWF lets you do the bonus action attack first, because you declare that you'll take the Attack action later on your turn.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I was replying to your last sentence, where you claimed the wording of TWF and Shield Master's bonus actions was the same.  The triggering part of the TWF bonus action (i.e. the "if you X" part of "if you X, you can Y") has very different language, that's all I'm saying.
> 
> Edit: And again, I'm basing my interpretation on things like this:
> 
> ...




Sorry for the confusion then. I just feel like sometimes people are responding without realizing what I am actually writing about! I understand the confusion, since what I wrote was:

"_Because its wording is the same line as the Shield Master feat...._"

I meant to write "is _in_ the same line". Typing fast and I skipped a word.

At any rate, though, that just reinforces my point. A fighter with extra attack (not even needing a shield I suppose) using TWF (sword/dagger) can in effect attack twice and shove in any order they choose:

Shove (attack), Sword (attack), Dagger (TWF bonus)
Sword (attack), Shove (attack), Dagger (TWF bonus)
Sword (attack), Dagger (TWF bonus), Shove (attack)

With no feats and no fight style needed, just Extra Attack, this character can shove in a better fashion that a character who took the Shield Master feat and expressly is granted the Shove ability as a feature of it using their bonus action.

It becomes a moot point and a useless feature of the feat. A character with Dual Wielder could Shield punch as the TWF bonus action instead of the Dagger and be more effective at it.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Just so you know, I agree with you. My point was that using the SA response about Shield Master and further about how the completing Attack actions (including Extra Attack) before bonus actions are done was what prompted this scenario.
> 
> But think about what this means?
> 
> ...




There's more, though.  That valuable feat also gives the 3e equivalent of evasion AND a boost to the dex save on top of it.  What's more, Sam can get two shoves in the round and still attack, since he can shove as an attack, attack and then bonus action shove.   If the shove were the only part of the feat, I would agree with you that it's way too restrictive as written and not at all worth it.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> There's more, though.  That valuable feat also gives the 3e equivalent of evasion AND a boost to the dex save on top of it.  What's more, Sam can get two shoves in the round and still attack, since he can shove as an attack, attack and then bonus action shove.   If the shove were the only part of the feat, I would agree with you that it's way too restrictive as written and not at all worth it.




I am not saying the feat is otherwise worthless, but it makes that feature practically so since you can gain the shove capability better through different methods.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> To be clear, the only thing I object to is the notion that you can declare you'll take the Attack action later on your turn, then use your Shield Master bonus action to shove first and give yourself near-permanent advantage if you have good Athletics.  JEC has described the intent of the TWF bonus action on several different platforms, so I'm using his guidance as to the specific timing of that bonus action.  I completely agree that a valid reading of TWF would be that the bonus action has to come after the Attack action is done, and you have to have used a light weapon for all the attacks in the Attack action.  I would completely disagree with a reading that said TWF lets you do the bonus action attack first, because you declare that you'll take the Attack action later on your turn.




The thing about the bonus actions from Shield Master and TWF is that they're just attacks. You can make a shove, or a weapon attack without your stat bonus to damage, as part of the Attack Action. (I think most of us would let a player nerf his own attack if he wanted to.) That means that it doesn't matter, at the time the dice are rolled, whether it is a bonus action or not.

There are so very many ways to get advantage in 5e, having almost permanent advantage from a high athletics is not overpowered. It eats your bonus action for the turn, and your dice can (and will) betray you. It isn't guaranteed or free... you took a feat for it, after all. Anyone can shove, the shield master can just burn a bonus action instead of an attack to do it. No big deal.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> By RAW actions have a duration.  That duration is 1 action.  A duration of 1 action is a length of time that is greater than instantaneous, because we know that spells that are bonus actions are exceptionally swift.



Okay, I'll go with the duration of an action is an action.  Instantaneous isn't the same as an action, though, so actions and instantaneous aren't even in the same category.

Actions do not have a duration.  I'm really not sure how else I can say this.  You (well, lots of others as well) have decided to add duration to actions when they have none.  Not have a duration doesn't mean not taking some fictional time, it just means that a defined duration isn't part of actions at all.  Discussing the duration of actions is declaring that you've trumped four sevens with your eight of spades while playing poker.  It's nonsense.



> You've just declared that the Cast a Spell action, which takes 1 action worth of time, takes zero time and that bonus spells take even less than zero.



Nope, you're not listening.  You're hearing me say "actions have no duration" and hearing "the duration of an action is zero."  These are not the same thing, at all.  I'm saying that actions do not have the quality duration.  I don't care what length duration because actions do not even have this quality.




> That makes no sense.  Each action has a duration of 1 action.  If it takes more rounds to do it, it just means that you have to use multiple Cast Actions on multiple turns, each taking 1 action in length, in order to complete the spell.



Exactly right.  I wonder if you'll get it, though.




> It's RAW.  1 action is in fact a unit of time in combat.  Actions take 1 action to complete.  That's the rules.



Exactly right.  I wonder if you'll get it, though.  Hint, this time:  instantaneous is completely nonsense when talking about actions.  The have a duration of themselves.  This is a tautology, which is why the rules do not actually say, anywhere, that the duration of an action is an action.  They just talk about actions.  You've come up with "actions take 1 action to complete" and declared it RAW.  Trivially, it is, because it's a tautology.



> They take 1 action.  Bonus actions are swifter than that. They didn't write in that actions are 2.4 seconds and bonus actions are .6, if that's what you are looking for.  But they absolutely write actions as taking time and bonus actions as taking much less time




Are they?  Are all bonus actions swifter?  You can, for instance, use the Dash action as a bonus action if you are a rogue with the Cunning Action class ability.  Dash take exactly Dash long to complete (another tautology), whether it's an Action or a Bonus Action.

Some spells are listed as swift and so are bonus actions, but this doesn't travel, or really mean much.  Bonus actions take 1 bonus action to complete, to reuse the tautology.

How long an action takes isn't anything the rules actually discuss or even care about.  On your turn you have an action and a move, and maybe a bonus action.  It all fits in your turn, regardless of which specific ones you pick, and your turn always takes up the same amount of time.  Actions just do not even care about duration -- it's utterly nonsensical to discuss duration with regard to actions.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> The thing about the bonus actions from Shield Master and TWF is that they're just attacks. You can make a shove, or a weapon attack without your stat bonus to damage, as part of the Attack Action. (I think most of us would let a player nerf his own attack if he wanted to.) That means that it doesn't matter, at the time the dice are rolled, whether it is a bonus action or not.
> 
> There are so very many ways to get advantage in 5e, having almost permanent advantage from a high athletics is not overpowered. It eats your bonus action for the turn, and your dice can (and will) betray you. It isn't guaranteed or free... you took a feat for it, after all. Anyone can shove, the shield master can just burn a bonus action instead of an attack to do it. No big deal.




This discussion is not one about whether it's overpowered.  Why even bring that up?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I am not saying the feat is otherwise worthless, but it makes that feature practically so since you can gain the shove capability better through different methods.




If you want to use a shield and shove there aren't better methods of shoving than shield master.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> This discussion is not one about whether it's overpowered.  Why even bring that up?




Because it was brought up that JEC doesn't intend for the feat to give near-permanent advantage to characters with high athletics. My response was an overly verbose version of "who cares?"


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If you want to use a shield and shove there aren't better methods of shoving than shield master.




That's true as long as you reject Jeremy Crawford's guidance.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> Because it was brought up that JEC doesn't intend for the feat to give near-permanent advantage to characters with high athletics. My response was an overly verbose version of "who cares?"




One of the biggest arguments had about shield master was to just allow it because it's not overpowered.  It'd be good to skip anything of semblance to that in a discussion about what the rules actually allow and how to best interpret them.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If you want to use a shield and shove there aren't better methods of shoving than shield master.




LOL of course there are! Have you read this thread? Hmm...? *confuse

TWF with sword/shield using Dual Wielder can:

*Shove *(attack), Sword (attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), *Shove *(attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF), *Shove *(attack)

He can shove at any point during his turn. Shield Master can only shove at the end.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> That's true as long as you reject Jeremy Crawford's guidance.




Even if you don't how else do you propose to shove while using a shield?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> LOL of course there are! Have you read this thread? Hmm...? *confuse
> 
> TWF with sword/shield using Dual Wielder can:
> 
> ...




But the TWF guy isn't using a shield.  He's losing out on that nice +2 AC.  Seriously after complaining people don't read what you say, you read a 1 line sentence and miss the part that said "IF YOU WANT TO USE A SHIELD".  I don't get people.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> But the TWF guy isn't using a shield.  He's losing out on that nice +2 AC.  Seriously after complaining people don't read what you say, you read a 1 line sentence and miss the part that said "IF YOU ARE USING A SHIELD".  I don't get people.




Um.. it looks like he is to me...since I wrote Shield Punch.

Didn't I specify TWF with sword/shield???

And you can use the shield as an improvised weapon without losing the +2 AC bonus.

Did you read my post, by the way?


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> One of the biggest arguments had about shield master was to just allow it because it's not overpowered.  It'd be good to skip anything of semblance to that in a discussion about what the rules actually allow and how to best interpret them.




I don't disagree with you, but I think "how best to interpret them," in the case of an ambiguous rule, is in the way that most closely resembles what the player actually wants, provided it isn't overpowered.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

epithet said:


> I don't disagree with you, but I think "how best to interpret them," in the case of an ambiguous rule, is in the way that most closely resembles what the player actually wants, provided it isn't overpowered.




I don't think that's a valid consideration when it comes to interpreting rules.  It's a great consideration to make a ruling to play that way though


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Um.. it looks like he is to me...since I wrote Shield Punch.
> 
> Didn't I specify TWF with sword/shield???
> 
> ...




Trying to justify your position with even more controversial rulings isn't a wise thing to do.  Now we are going to spend another 70+ pages arguing about those controversial rules 

Hand crossbows were eventually ruled to require a hand to load them despite the rules not originally stating so.  They did this because you have to be able to load the bow to fire it.  

Consider this:  Suppose a PC keeps his shield raised above his head and not deflecting any blows with it during a fight as a matter of honor to show that he doesn't need the shield to defeat said opponent.  Does he gain the +2 Bonus to AC?  I would say no.  So a character can have a shield equipped and not gain the AC bonus IMO.  Does attacking with the shield cause that to happen.  That to me is the DM's decision.  One logical decision is that attacking with the shield means you aren't defending with it and so it essentially is the same as holding it above your head.  

So I don't think you've provided a good example of what you are saying.  

By the way, speaking of this, if you can just bonus action with the shield constantly then why even bother with shield master?  The obvious answer is that they didn't write the rules with the expectation that TWF would work with shields in any way that would provide the AC bonus, the dueling bonus and the TWF bonus.


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Trying to justify your position with even more controversial rulings isn't a wise thing to do.  Now we are going to spend another 70+ pages arguing about those controversial rules
> 
> Hand crossbows were eventually ruled to require a hand to load them despite the rules not originally stating so.  They did this because you have to be able to load the bow to fire it.
> 
> ...




TWF and dueling are mutually exclusive, but there's no reason I'm aware of to think you can't use a shield as a defense and as an improvised weapon at the same time. It is a thing that was done, historically speaking.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Trying to justify your position with even more controversial rulings isn't a wise thing to do.  Now we are going to spend another 70+ pages arguing about those controversial rules
> 
> Hand crossbows were eventually ruled to require a hand to load them despite the rules not originally stating so.  They did this because you have to be able to load the bow to fire it.
> 
> ...




I get all that, but the SA ruling at least is you keep the +2 AC bonus. One of the previous players in our group found it because he was attacking with his warhammer and shield punching every round using the TWF-style and Dual Wielder feat. For anyone reading this, in case you haven't read it:

*If you attack with a shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?*
_Attacking with a shield doesn’t deprive you of the shield’s bonus to AC._

As a DM you can rule it otherwise of course, but I believe that is the "official" ruling.

And _that_ was my point entirely! Ruling Shield Master the way it currently is does make it "why even bother with shield master?" Granted, of course Shield Master has other benefits, but if you primary concern is shoving--_it is not the way to go_... more's the pity.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I am not saying the feat is otherwise worthless, but it makes that feature practically so since you can gain the shove capability better through different methods.




I don't agree with you that it's a practically worthless feature as JC is ruling it.  A free shove is great, even if it comes at the end of the Attack action.  It just means that you are setting the enemy up to be mauled by other party members that come after you, making it more of a tactical feat ability than a personal "I'm bad ass." feat ability.  Or cutting down the enemy's mobility.  That may not be as satisfying to some people, but tactical advantage is still a huge bonus when used properly.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> LOL of course there are! Have you read this thread? Hmm...? *confuse
> 
> TWF with sword/shield using Dual Wielder can:
> 
> ...




The shove is free for the Shield Master.  What's more, he gets to use his full ability modifier to both of his attacks, where the two-weapon fighter cannot add his, unless it's a penalty, to his off hand swing.  That's a pretty nice bonus for the Shield Master, since this edition is about damage dealing.  Also, advantage is nice, but it's pretty easy to hit most things without using it.

Lastly, ditch the two-weapon fighter and go with a Great Weapon Master.  

Shove, attack at -5 with advantage and +10 damage, BAM!


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Um.. it looks like he is to me...since I wrote Shield Punch.
> 
> Didn't I specify TWF with sword/shield???
> 
> ...




I noticed that, but does a shield count as a light melee weapon?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 2, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I don't agree with you that it's a practically worthless feature as JC is ruling it.  A free shove is great, even if it comes at the end of the Attack action.  It just means that you are setting the enemy up to be mauled by other party members that come after you, making it more of a tactical feat ability than a personal "I'm bad ass." feat ability.  Or cutting down the enemy's mobility.  That may not be as satisfying to some people, but tactical advantage is still a huge bonus when used properly.




Well, it isn't free. It still costs you your Bonus action, same as TWF does. It is still useful even as currently ruled. Earlier someone pointed out how great it could be used defensively. So, I don't have much of a problem with it as is except its use to shove an opponent down and attack is overshadowed by TWF with Dual Wielder.



Maxperson said:


> The shove is free for the Shield Master.  What's more, he gets to use his full ability modifier to both of his attacks, where the two-weapon fighter cannot add his, unless it's a penalty, to his off hand swing.  That's a pretty nice bonus for the Shield Master, since this edition is about damage dealing.  Also, advantage is nice, but it's pretty easy to hit most things without using it.
> 
> Lastly, ditch the two-weapon fighter and go with a Great Weapon Master.
> 
> Shove, attack at -5 with advantage and +10 damage, BAM!




As said, it isn't free. If it was free like Horde Breaker that would be awesome. He does get to use full abilities with both attacks, but so does the TWF guy with TWF-style. We, literally, had a dwarf warhammer/shield guy built this way with TWF-style and Dual Wielder, whacking with the warhammer and shield every round. It was impressive even without him shoving...



Maxperson said:


> I noticed that, but does a shield count as a light melee weapon?




No, which is why, at the very least, you need the Dual Wielder feat. TWF-style isn't necessary, but allows for full ability score bonus with the bonus attack from TWF.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Well, it isn't free. It still costs you your Bonus action, same as TWF does. It is still useful even as currently ruled. Earlier someone pointed out how great it could be used defensively. So, I don't have much of a problem with it as is except its use to shove an opponent down and attack is overshadowed by TWF with Dual Wielder.




Okay.  Free was the wrong word.  



> As said, it isn't free. If it was free like Horde Breaker that would be awesome. He does get to use full abilities with both attacks, but so does the TWF guy with TWF-style. We, literally, had a dwarf warhammer/shield guy built this way with TWF-style and Dual Wielder, whacking with the warhammer and shield every round. It was impressive even without him shoving...




That sounds really interesting.  I may steal that to use some day.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 2, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I get all that, but the SA ruling at least is you keep the +2 AC bonus. One of the previous players in our group found it because he was attacking with his warhammer and shield punching every round using the TWF-style and Dual Wielder feat. For anyone reading this, in case you haven't read it:
> 
> *If you attack with a shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?*
> _Attacking with a shield doesn’t deprive you of the shield’s bonus to AC._
> ...




When we are in a thread that disagrees with official rulings then citing another official ruling that people will disagree with isn't wise.

Shield Master serves as the best option to shove for a shield using character.  Mentioning controversial TWF shield shenanigans doesn't change that.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 2, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Again, the rules are filled with sentences that have the structure "if X, Y", and often more specifically "If you X, you can Y".  This is the way the rules describe a trigger condition, and the condition must be true *before *Y can happen.  This is confirmed by the lead rules designer:
> 
> https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995043696251842561
> 
> ...




I’ve bolded above uses of the word _before_ with which I disagree. Conditional statements (if X, then Y) are *not* statements of causality, so no specific temporal order between X and Y is required or even implied. Jeremy Crawford admitted as much when he tweeted, “My rulings, and the logic they rely on, are entirely within the context of D&D’s rules.” Needless to say, I don’t find this sort of circular reasoning to be very convincing. It isn’t necessary for “you take the Attack action” to be true_ before _“you can use a bonus action to shove a creature...” It just needs to be true on your turn. 



Asgorath said:


> If I follow your logic, then as a Ranger with Natural Explorer I can say that there's no timing requirement for me moving stealthily at full pace, the rule just says I can do that.  At some point in the future, the "if X" part of the rule will happen, and so that means I get the "Y" part whenever I like.




There is a timing requirement of gaining that benefit, though. It must coincide with “traveling for an hour or more in your favored terrain,” and if during that time it’s true that “you are traveling alone,” then it’s also true that “you can move stealthily at a normal pace.” You don’t have to travel alone _before_ you move stealthily. It is sufficient that you travel alone at the same time.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 3, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Okay.  Free was the wrong word.
> 
> That sounds really interesting.  I may steal that to use some day.




Take it. Use the Cavalier archetype. We liked it for some of its features, but I am sure you could do cool things with others as well. 



FrogReaver said:


> When we are in a thread that disagrees with official rulings then citing another official ruling that people will disagree with isn't wise.
> 
> Shield Master serves as the best option to shove for a shield using character.  Mentioning controversial TWF shield shenanigans doesn't change that.




I haven't heard many people other than you disagree with the ruling of keeping the AC bonus. However, in all fairness, if you don't like it one option we considered was reducing the AC bonus to +1 when the character used the shield to attack with as well as for defense.

LOL controversial shenanigans? Really? Ok, well, you can be stubborn about it if you want, but I think I've shown it to be a more versatile option with TWF/Dual Wielding than Shield Master. Believe me, I wish Shield Master did work more akin to TWF, so that after any melee attack you could shove as the bonus action. I'm sure many people have house-ruled it that way and someday maybe we will as well, but alas it is ultimately up to the DM for our table.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 3, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Even if you don't how else do you propose to shove while using a shield?




You don’t need a free hand to shove a creature. All you need to do it without the feat is make an attack.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 3, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I haven't heard many people other than you disagree with the ruling of keeping the AC bonus. However, in all fairness, if you don't like it one option we considered was reducing the AC bonus to +1 when the character used the shield to attack with as well as for defense.




Before you brought up the feat, I was thinking that I would just create a buckler option in the shield category.  It would have +1 AC and the light property.  Before this discussion, I hadn't even noticed that there was no buckler/small shield.



> LOL controversial shenanigans? Really? Ok, well, you can be stubborn about it if you want, but I think I've shown it to be a more versatile option with TWF/Dual Wielding than Shield Master. Believe me, I wish Shield Master did work more akin to TWF, so that after any melee attack you could shove as the bonus action. I'm sure many people have house-ruled it that way and someday maybe we will as well, but alas it is ultimately up to the DM for our table.




If you show him that he's wrong too much, he'll block and the thread will shorten by several pages.  He has trouble with people challenging his "rightness."


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 3, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Before you brought up the feat, I was thinking that I would just create a buckler option in the shield category.  It would have +1 AC and the light property.  Before this discussion, I hadn't even noticed that there was no buckler/small shield.




Yeah, I don't know why it was never included with the armors to have a buckler/small shield item. They were used a lot historically. We have a house-ruled buckler for +1 AC bonus that is Light I think. I would have to ask the DM, but the other character used a regular shield for his stuff, doing 1d4 as an improvised weapon (plus Str mod with TWF-style).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I’ve bolded above uses of the word _before_ with which I disagree. Conditional statements (if X, then Y) are *not* statements of causality, so no specific temporal order between X and Y is required or even implied. Jeremy Crawford admitted as much when he tweeted, “My rulings, and the logic they rely on, are entirely within the context of D&D’s rules.” Needless to say, I don’t find this sort of circular reasoning to be very convincing. It isn’t necessary for “you take the Attack action” to be true_ before _“you can use a bonus action to shove a creature...” It just needs to be true on your turn.



You're right about "if X, Y" not implying causality, but wrong about timing.  There's a very strong timing involved.  But, first, we have to show why the statement isn't just "if X, Y" in the case of Shield Master, but "If and only if X, Y."

This is simple.  You do not have a bonus action until some ability gives you one.  In this case, when discussing the bonus action associated with Shield Master, there is only one way to get it, take the Attack action on your turn.  If you do not do this, you do not get the bonus action to shove.  Therefore, the correct structure, formally, is "if and only if", or IFF.  So, the structure is, "IFF you take the attack action on your turn, you..." get the shove.

IFF statement require that X be true for Y to be true.  So, timing-wise, if X is not true at a given moment, then Y is not true.  Timing does exist.  X may or may not cause Y, so no implied causality, but Y only exists when X does.

To move a bit forward, you've already acknowledged that there are points within your turn where it can be considered "before your action" and "after your action."  You did this when you offered the Monk Flurry of Blow as an example of a bonus action with timing.  When means, you acknowledge there is a point in your turn where you may not have taken your action.  Since actions are discrete things (there is no declaration of actions step, there's no smearing of actions in the rules, the rules treat actions discretely, etc.), then there must be possible a state on your turn where "you take the Attack action on your turn" is not true.  Therefore, you must first take the Attack action before you get the bonus shove.

And, yes, I understand you have a preference to treat actions as smeared and fungible in time, but that doesn't jive with your own offering of flurry of blows.  If declaring an attack action is suitable for Shield Master because declaring is the same as taking, then so it must be for Flurry of Blows, only you're left having to explain where "after" your Attack action really occurs.  Further to this, the rules clearly state that you may split your move up how you wish before your action and after your action, again showing that there is a before and after state available.  Finally, "If you take the Attack action on your turn..." may initially appear English imprecise enough to read as "If you take the Attack action _at any time_ during your turn..." this is counter-indicated by the complete lack of acknowledgement of this very imprecise interpretation.  That you can choose to interpret it this way is you adding into the rules the "at any time" reading.  You're welcome to it (I just remove the timing from Shield Master rather than redefine the way the rules are intended to work), but it's not RAW.  The "at any time" conflicts with other timings in the game.  Frex, if a creature has a Readied action to attack back if you attack, when does this resolve?  Accordingly, if you declare the Attack action such that it's sufficient for the Shield Master feat bonus action trigger, then is that sufficient for the Readied action trigger?  You've declared you will attack on your turn, you've earned the benefits of your feat's conditional bonus action, do you suffer the consequences of the Readied action?


----------



## Hriston (Mar 3, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> But someone has to translate from the natural language a player uses to describe what they'd like to do on their turn into actual game mechanics, right?




It’s the DM’s job to decide how the player’s action-declaration is going to be resolved. That’s where game-mechanics come in. If the action-declaration is to shove a creature, the relevant mechanic for resolution is a contested Strength check, not whether the shove uses an action or a bonus action. That actually doesn’t resolve anything. 



Asgorath said:


> That could be the DM for an inexperienced player, or the player themselves.  Otherwise, we're not really playing D&D anymore, are we?




I'm not too keen on the idea that shoving a creature without specifying whether it uses an action or a bonus action is not D&D. I think that assumes your priorities of play are the only correct ones. 



Asgorath said:


> What happens when I say "I'd like to fly over there, stealthily at full speed, and punch that Ancient Red Dragon in the face and kill it with a single blow"?  The game's combat just doesn't work like that.




I agree, but I think we have different reasons for thinking this. My reason is I'm having a difficult time imagining the game where this is a genre-appropriate action-declaration. In other words, I think the problem you’re bringing up here is about a player having mismatched expectations. This is ideally addressed out of game, in a session 0. 



Asgorath said:


> - What grants me a flying speed?  Without one, I can't fly.
> - The rules say you have to move at a slow pace by default in order to use stealth.
> - Punching the dragon involves making an attack roll, at the very least.
> - My punch likely can't do enough damage to bring the dragon to 0 HP.
> ...




On the other hand, given the proper context, I’d consider your action-declarations to be permissible. There are many sources in the game of the ability to fly, there’s no rule that prohibits sneaking at full speed in combat, and a player can certainly declare his/her character’s intention to hit and kill an opponent with an attack. As I’ve said, it’s the DM’s job to resolve the player’s action-declarations.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 3, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> By RAW actions have a duration.  That duration is 1 action.  A duration of 1 action is a length of time that is greater than instantaneous, because we know that spells that are bonus actions are exceptionally swift.
> 
> You've just declared that the Cast a Spell action, which takes 1 action worth of time, takes zero time and that bonus spells take even less than zero.
> 
> ...




The game does not define action types in terms of duration, and I don't think it's a good idea to start reasoning in such terms: it only leads players to ask for things that sound apparently reasonable but are not supposed to be done in the game such as taking 2 bonus actions instead of 1 bonus +1 action because "1 bonus action is swifter than 1 action".

The text which mentions bonus actions being "swift" is unfortunate, but really doesn't have any rule implications. 

Everything works better in 5e if you stick to the only defined rules about action types which is about their _scarcity_, not their duration. 

And then it also helps to think that everything in combat is more or less _simultaneous _, and sequentiality (of turns in a round, and of actions in a turn) is not a model for reality but only a tool for adjudicating the resolution of such actions without going mad in complexity.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 3, 2019)

Question: Is it known who wrote the Shield Master feat? And if so what the intent was for the bonus shove?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 3, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> Question: Is it known who wrote the Shield Master feat? And if so what the intent was for the bonus shove?




I don't know who precisely wrote it, but from the SA/twitter stuff JC commented it was supposed to be a "finishing move" and increases dynamics with allies to act in concert or something.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 3, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Aside: there's an official ruling the Sage Advice Compendium that this isn't how the game is designed to work.




Oh, really? Which ruling is that? I didn’t know there was one about how the whole game was designed to work. Btw, did you know this thread is about the recent update to the Sage Advice Compendium?



Asgorath said:


> Can you apply this timey-wimey logic to the Ranger's Natural Explorer, specifically this sentence:
> 
> "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."
> 
> This sentence has the same structure as Shield Master's bonus action, specifically "if you X, you can Y".  You're stating that you can Y, as long as X is eventually true, right?




Take out the word _eventually_, and you’ve got it, X for the Shield Master shove being “you take the Attack action on your turn”. If you do, then you can (on your turn). 



Asgorath said:


> So, why can't I use this rule to stealth at normal pace whenever I want, because I declare that I'll travel alone at some point in the future?




Because the condition isn’t “you will travel alone at some point in the future”. It’s “you *are traveling* alone,” which implies that the action is ongoing and concurrent with the benefit being gained. Verb tense matters.



Asgorath said:


> Or, let's use another example from Shield Master itself:
> 
> "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."
> 
> Let's say I get hit with a Cone of Cold, and make the CON saving throw.  Why can't I use the "Y" portion of this (use my reaction to halve the damage) because I declare that I'm going to get targeted by an effect that allows me to make a DEX save for half damage later on my turn (i.e. the "X" portion)?




There are a few reasons why I don’t think you can do that. First, “the saving throw” obviously refers back to the DEX saving throw in the condition, so you wouldn’t be eligible to receive this benefit on a CON saving throw. Second, a reaction, by definition, "is an instant response to a trigger of some kind," and in this case the trigger is the situation described in the condition. You can't respond to something that hasn't happened yet. Also, the verb tense used doesn't agree with your reading. I.e., "are subjected to" is not "will be subjected to".



Asgorath said:


> If there's no strict timing requirement between X and Y like you're claiming, then I should be able to just put my shield in front of any effect that has me make a saving throw and take no damage when I succeed.




It's a conditional statement. X must be true for Y to be true. Any effect that allows a saving throw is not sufficient. It must be an effect that allows a DEX saving throw, and you must be subjected to it.



Asgorath said:


> At the end of the turn, how do we resolve this Schrodinger's Reaction?  I can't just go back and turn a bonus action into an action here, like you're suggesting we do with the Shield Master shove case.




For the umpteenth time, that's a blatant mischaracterization of what I'm suggesting, and in this case, taking no damage instead of half damage isn't something you can normally do, whereas shoving a creature is.



Asgorath said:


> That's not now conditions work.  The trigger condition is true from the point at which it becomes true until the end of your turn.  You can't go back in time and say the trigger was true before the triggering event happened.  D&D 5E is a sequential turn-based game, and as a result, timing and order of events matters.




If "you take the Attack action on your turn" is true, then that's something that's true of your turn in its entirety. It can't be both true of your turn and not true of the same turn. You either take the Attack action on your turn, or you don't take the Attack action on your turn. If I have a turn in which I take the Attack action, then I can use a bonus action to shove a creature on that turn.



Asgorath said:


> Again, let's apply your logic to other triggered events.
> 
> Natural Explorer: "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."  3 in-game years from now, my character will travel alone for day.  Therefore, this trigger has been satisfied, and retroactively applies until the beginning of time because the rule doesn't explicitly say my turn.  Thus, this rule says my character can simply move stealthily at full pace, period.




No, it doesn't because traveling alone three years from now doesn't make "you are traveling alone" true.



Asgorath said:


> Shield Master: "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."  I can use my shield to take zero damage any time I succeed on a saving throw, because at some point in the future I'll make a Dex save.  Because I'll make that Dex save at some point in the future, the triggering condition is true and thus I can retroactively get the benefit of this feature.




No, you can't because being subjected to an effect that allows you to make a DEX save for half damage at some future time doesn't make "you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage" true.



Asgorath said:


> As you can see, this is nonsense, right?




Your examples are nonsense that needlessly bogs down the conversation. It is not nonsense, however, that taking the Attack action at any time on your turn makes "you take the Attack action on your turn" true.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 3, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I don't know who precisely wrote it, but from the SA/twitter stuff JC commented it was supposed to be a "finishing move" and increases dynamics with allies to act in concert or something.





I'd rather hear from who wrote it.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 3, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> I'd rather hear from who wrote it.




Fair enough, but as far as I suspect JC was involved in the writing most likely.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 3, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Oh, really? Which ruling is that? I didn’t know there was one about how the whole game was designed to work. Btw, did you know this thread is about the recent update to the Sage Advice Compendium?




This language in the Sage Advice Compendium is quite clear that the phrasing of the condition applies to the entire game, not just Shield Master:

"This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play."



Hriston said:


> If "you take the Attack action on your turn" is true, then that's something that's true of your turn in its entirety. It can't be both true of your turn and not true of the same turn. You either take the Attack action on your turn, or you don't take the Attack action on your turn. If I have a turn in which I take the Attack action, then I can use a bonus action to shove a creature on that turn.




I'll refer you to @_*Ovinomancer*_'s excellent post above where they talk about "if and only if" or IFF, as they did a much better job of explaining why these "if you X, you can Y" sentences have a strict timing requirement.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 3, 2019)

The trouble with having a life is that, when I finally get a chance to peruse this thread again, I have to read through 150 posts before I can reply, and by that time there is so much I want to write!

However, it has given me some perspective. The main takeaway is that there really is only ONE problem with the Shield Master feat, and that problem is called Jeremy Crawford!

His pulling a ret-conned "Actions are indivisible" from his backside has all sorts of destructive and non-sensicle consequences.

The cure for all this is simple: look at his 'advice' with a critical eye, and only adopt those which make sense. Since we have shown that "Actions are indivisible" does not make sense, do not adopt it.

An aside: you cannot use a shield, or any other improvised weapon, in TWF. This is because TWF requires a _weapon_ for both the triggering attack and the bonus action attack. '_Improvised_ weapons' are, by definition, *not* 'weapons'.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 3, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> The trouble with having a life is that, when I finally get a chance to peruse this thread again, I have to read through 150 posts before I can reply, and by that time there is so much I want to write!
> 
> However, it has given me some perspective. The main takeaway is that there really is only ONE problem with the Shield Master feat, and that problem is called Jeremy Crawford!
> 
> ...




It is a lot to digest if you have been absent from following it for a day or more!

You aside, however, is your interpretation. You are the first to mention not viewing it that way despite my posting repeatedly about it. That's cool if you don't want to view it that way, but our group does and our DM sees an improvised weapon for what it is... a weapon (part of the wording of it, after all). However, he did require the player to also take the Dual Wielder feat since a shield, certainly, can hardly be considered to have the Light property even if used as a weapon. Also, I should mention he informed the player that unless he took Tavern Brawler or Weapon Master, he would not be able to use his proficiency bonus on the attack roll with it. The player eventually took Tavern Brawler as it fit the character well. 

Either way, since it is a matter of interpretation, there is no use debating it since we are both, in fact, correct in our own way.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 4, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> The trouble with having a life is that, when I finally get a chance to peruse this thread again, I have to read through 150 posts before I can reply, and by that time there is so much I want to write!
> 
> However, it has given me some perspective. The main takeaway is that there really is only ONE problem with the Shield Master feat, and that problem is called Jeremy Crawford!
> 
> ...



As an aside to your aside, I would as gm be very hesitant to rule that items i allowed as "improvised weapons" were not in fact weapons for all purposes. The rule constantly refers to them as "improvised weapons" not as say "make weapon attacks with objects." 

If I wont allow something to be used as a weapon, I wont sllow it to be used as a weapon. If I will, I will. I dont need to start micro-parsing that ruling of my own into weapons for this and not weapons for that.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 4, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> An aside: you cannot use a shield, or any other improvised weapon, in TWF. This is because TWF requires a _weapon_ for both the triggering attack and the bonus action attack. '_Improvised_ weapons' are, by definition, *not* 'weapons'.




My opinion is that you are emphasizing the wrong part of that.  Improvised *weapons* are by definition weapons.  Last I checked weapons = weapons. "Improvised" is an adjective that modifies the subject, which is weapon.  It's also a weapon that is used in melee, so I don't see an issue with using a shield in two-weapon fighting.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 4, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> My opinion is that you are emphasizing the wrong part of that.  Improvised *weapons* are by definition weapons.  Last I checked weapons = weapons. "Improvised" is an adjective that modifies the subject, which is weapon.  It's also a weapon that is used in melee, so I don't see an issue with using a shield in two-weapon fighting.



Iirc there were a series of (now unofficial) sage tweets from 2015 and 2016 which came down to improvised weapons are weapons but that their use with feats (I think dual was mentioned) was up to the GM. Shield was specifically mentioned in this regard. 

Like I said in an earlier post - if I am as GM gonna allow something as an improvised weapon, I am going to count it as a weapon when it is being used that way and not treat it as a weapon on one hand and not a weapon on another.

As an example of this, if a character wanted to use his shield as a weapon on his turn, I would treat it as a weapon in that hand, for that turn, which would impact feats or styles that require that hand not have a weapon in it.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 4, 2019)

PHB p147:-

"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an *actual* weapon."

Meaning, first, it is *not* an _actual_ weapon, and second, in many cases an improvised weapon is _not_ similar to an _actual_ weapon.

Weapon = weapon.

Improvised weapon = _not_ weapon, used as if it _were_ a weapon.

'Weapon' is an object designed to be a weapon. The improvised weapon rules provide a way to use objects in combat that are *not* weapons, and ways to use things that are weapons in a way they were not designed, like hitting someone upside the head with a crossbow.

Things are what they are, even if you use them in inappropriate ways. You can get a piggy-back from a friend, but that doesn't allow him to benefit from the rules for mounts.

The spell _magic weapon_ says, "You touch a nonmagical weapon." Can I cast it on a magical weapon? After all, I could _use_ a magical weapon as if it were not magical? No, no more than you can cast the spell on a painting or a viking longship. The fact that the rules provide a way to adjudicate a PC hitting someone over the head with a painting (or a longship) does not make either a valid target for the spell.

_Hold person_ says, "Choose a _humanoid_ you can see..." Can you cast it on a vampire? After all, they conform to the natural language meaning of 'humanoid': two arms, two legs, one head, one body? No, because the term 'humanoid' is a game term with a specific meaning, and that meaning excludes creatures that are not (game term) humanoids, like undead.

And 'weapon' is also a game term, meaning 'an object designed to be a weapon'. Weapons are simple or martial, melee or ranged. The term does *not* mean, "anything you pick up and hit people with". If it did, there would be no section on '_improvised_ weapons', it would just be 'weapons' and include objects like paintings and toasters and....every object in the world!


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 4, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> PHB p147:-
> 
> "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an *actual* weapon."
> 
> ...




Bolding points doesn't make them more meaningful, it only seems like you're arguing now.

And as I said before:



dnd4vr said:


> Either way, since it is a matter of interpretation, there is no use debating it since we are both, in fact, correct in our own way.




This will never be a "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, but please, continue if you must...


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 4, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> PHB p147:-
> 
> "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an *actual* weapon."
> 
> ...



Ok, I will call at least a foul here.

Specifically on your (mis) quote of the rule which cuts short the **actual** quote, gives bogus punctuation and isolates it from its context which alters its meaning.

Your (mis)quote was this:
"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an *actual* weapon."

Putting that as a period ended single sentence makes it look like what you ascribe, but if taken as it actually is its meaning is clear in context. 

The statement is talking about how to assign values of damage and damage type etc to the improvised weapon and tie-in proficiencies. Here is the exact quote - unedited.

"Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."

The paragraph that follows covers the other case, which helps show you the context again,  and shows that even that case can apply to weapons themselves.

"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."

So, sure, you can edit a cute to cut it short and hide its context to build your rulings on, thats your call. But to me that effort just spotlights the degree of confidence you seem to have in that decision. 

But hey, its GM call.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 4, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> You're right about "if X, Y" not implying causality, but wrong about timing.  There's a very strong timing involved.  But, first, we have to show why the statement isn't just "if X, Y" in the case of Shield Master, but "If and only if X, Y."
> 
> This is simple.  You do not have a bonus action until some ability gives you one.  In this case, when discussing the bonus action associated with Shield Master, there is only one way to get it, take the Attack action on your turn.  If you do not do this, you do not get the bonus action to shove.  Therefore, the correct structure, formally, is "if and only if", or IFF.  So, the structure is, "IFF you take the attack action on your turn, you..." get the shove.
> 
> ...




Before you've taken your action or end your turn without taking one, though, it may or may not be true that you take the Attack action on your turn. Therefore, you may or may not be able to use a bonus action to shove a creature.



Ovinomancer said:


> And, yes, I understand you have a preference to treat actions as smeared and fungible in time, but that doesn't jive with your own offering of flurry of blows.  If declaring an attack action is suitable for Shield Master because declaring is the same as taking, then so it must be for Flurry of Blows, only you're left having to explain where "after" your Attack action really occurs.  Further to this, the rules clearly state that you may split your move up how you wish before your action and after your action, again showing that there is a before and after state available.  Finally, "If you take the Attack action on your turn..." may initially appear English imprecise enough to read as "If you take the Attack action _at any time_ during your turn..." this is counter-indicated by the complete lack of acknowledgement of this very imprecise interpretation.  That you can choose to interpret it this way is you adding into the rules the "at any time" reading.  You're welcome to it (I just remove the timing from Shield Master rather than redefine the way the rules are intended to work), but it's not RAW.  The "at any time" conflicts with other timings in the game.  Frex, if a creature has a Readied action to attack back if you attack, when does this resolve?




It resolves right after the perceivable circumstance that triggers it, so if I attempt to shove the creature, it attacks back right after my shove attempt.



Ovinomancer said:


> Accordingly, if you declare the Attack action such that it's sufficient for the Shield Master feat bonus action trigger, then is that sufficient for the Readied action trigger?  You've declared you will attack on your turn, you've earned the benefits of your feat's conditional bonus action, do you suffer the consequences of the Readied action?




My interpretation of the first bullet of Shield Master doesn't rely on pre-declaring the Attack action.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 4, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Before you've taken your action or end your turn without taking one, though, it may or may not be true that you take the Attack action on your turn. Therefore, you may or may not be able to use a bonus action to shove a creature.




If I saw this in the rules text of a TTRPG game, I would put the book down and never even consider playing it.

There's a pretty clear precedent for sections of your turn that happen before and after your action, for example the movement rules specifically say:

"You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet."

For that first 10-foot section of movement, you clearly haven't taken your action yet.  If a reaction happens that interrupts your turn, you might never actually get to take your action, which means you shouldn't be taking a bonus action that is triggered by the action you were planning.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 4, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> This language in the Sage Advice Compendium is quite clear that the phrasing of the condition applies to the entire game, not just Shield Master:
> 
> "This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play."




There’s a lot more to the game than conditional statements, and there’s no reason to think it’s designed around this particular interpretation of them.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 4, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> If I saw this in the rules text of a TTRPG game, I would put the book down and never even consider playing it.




Well, that says something about the type of games you like to play, but I don’t know what bearing it’s supposed to have on this discussion. 



Asgorath said:


> There's a pretty clear precedent for sections of your turn that happen before and after your action, for example the movement rules specifically say:
> 
> "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet."
> 
> For that first 10-foot section of movement, you clearly haven't taken your action yet.  If a reaction happens that interrupts your turn, you might never actually get to take your action, which means you shouldn't be taking a bonus action that is triggered by the action you were planning.




When have I said there can’t be a part of your turn before you take your action? And if I haven’t taken my action yet, why shouldn’t I shove a creature?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 4, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Well, that says something about the type of games you like to play, but I don’t know what bearing it’s supposed to have on this discussion.




My point is that basically everything else about the 5E rules screams simplicity and ease of play.  This strongly implies (to me) that you shouldn't have to run a Schrodinger's Action thought experiment on every round of combat.



Hriston said:


> When have I said there can’t be a part of your turn before you take your action? And if I haven’t taken my action yet, why shouldn’t I shove a creature?




You can shove a creature with your action, because you don't have a bonus action shove from Shield Master until you actually take the Attack action.  That is, before your action you don't have this bonus action.  After the action, you do.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Before you've taken your action or end your turn without taking one, though, it may or may not be true that you take the Attack action on your turn. Therefore, you may or may not be able to use a bonus action to shove a creature.



True, but only after your turn is over is it true.  For instance, at the start of your turn, you have not taken the attack action on your turn.  If you move first, you still have not taken the attack action on your turn.  If you then take the attack action, you've now taken the attack action on your turn and earned the bonus action.  You're skipping to the end of the turn and making the assumption that an attack action was taken, and then jumping back to the beginning.

IFF X, Y isn't future looking, it's a conditional statement that says if X is true, then Y is true.  What you're doing is looking ahead and assuming X and then allowing Y.  IFF X, Y does not entail looking towards the future.  You can only check the validity of conditional statements in the present and past.  If anything, a conditional statement is a model of what we assume the future to be, but you have to get there to check.  You're making an assumption, which is no part of the conditional.

Even if you read the Shield Master feat as "If you take the attack action at any time during your turn, you..." the above applies, because it's still a conditional that X must be true before Y.  What you want is a statement that says, "If you plan to take the attack action on your turn, you get a bonus action and are now required to take the attack action during your turn."






> It resolves right after the perceivable circumstance that triggers it, so if I attempt to shove the creature, it attacks back right after my shove attempt.



Yup.




> My interpretation of the first bullet of Shield Master doesn't rely on pre-declaring the Attack action.



Good, so declarations of actions isn't part of this and we're only evaluating the conditional.  Which means my above is on point.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 5, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> My point is that basically everything else about the 5E rules screams simplicity and ease of play.  This strongly implies (to me) that you shouldn't have to run a Schrodinger's Action thought experiment on every round of combat.




My interpretation doesn’t require me to do that at all. All I have to do is resolve the shove attempt. There’s no immediate need to assign a bonus action or one of the attacks of your Attack action to the shove. Doing so is actually more complex because you still have to resolve the attempt to shove. You’re adding an extra step with no benefit of which I’m aware. 



Asgorath said:


> You can shove a creature with your action, because you don't have a bonus action shove from Shield Master until you actually take the Attack action.  That is, before your action you don't have this bonus action.  After the action, you do.




This is precisely what I dislike about this ruling. It takes a character’s fictional action (shoving a creature) and gives it a designation within the action-economy that itself corresponds to absolutely nothing in the fiction, but which has a fictional consequence. What reason _in the fiction_ is there that if a shield master with Extra Attack shoves a creature first, s/he can only make one weapon attack on his/her turn, but if s/he makes his/her weapon attacks before shoving, s/he can make two? Sure, I can come up with reasons, but I don't think I should have to. What narrative is this serving? Without a causal process in the fiction that makes sense of this, it just seems like a literalistic attempt to deprive the character of the intended benefit of his/her feat, which is the ability to shove a creature as a bonus action.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 5, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> True, but only after your turn is over is it true.  For instance, at the start of your turn, you have not taken the attack action on your turn.  If you move first, you still have not taken the attack action on your turn.  If you then take the attack action, you've now taken the attack action on your turn and earned the bonus action.




The condition is not "you _have taken_ the Attack action on your turn". It's "you _take_ the Attack action on your turn," and at the start of your turn, before you've done anything, it may be true that "you take the Attack action on your turn"!



Ovinomancer said:


> You're skipping to the end of the turn and making the assumption that an attack action was taken, and then jumping back to the beginning.




No, _you're_ skipping to the end and making the assumption the Attack action _won't_ be taken. I'm deferring that determination until it's either taken or it isn't.



Ovinomancer said:


> IFF X, Y isn't future looking, it's a conditional statement that says if X is true, then Y is true.  What you're doing is looking ahead and assuming X and then allowing Y.  IFF X, Y does not entail looking towards the future.  You can only check the validity of conditional statements in the present and past.  If anything, a conditional statement is a model of what we assume the future to be, but you have to get there to check.




Right, I'm not making the assumption that you can't use a bonus action to shove. I'm waiting to check until I get there.



Ovinomancer said:


> You're making an assumption, which is no part of the conditional.
> 
> Even if you read the Shield Master feat as "If you take the attack action at any time during your turn, you..." the above applies, because it's still a conditional that X must be true before Y.  What you want is a statement that says, "If you plan to take the attack action on your turn, you get a bonus action and are now required to take the attack action during your turn."
> 
> ...




It is except for all your assumptions that I'm evaluating whether "you take the Attack action on your turn" is true beforehand, based on an action-declaration.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 5, 2019)

Hriston said:


> The condition is not "you _have taken_ the Attack action on your turn". It's "you _take_ the Attack action on your turn," and at the start of your turn, before you've done anything, it may be true that "you take the Attack action on your turn"!




I see your point on this, but while it _may_ be true, it isn't yet. And, unfortunately, until it _is_ true, you haven't gained the bonus action effect yet.

Now, I don't agree with it either from the point of view that the shove can only come after the attacks. We are going to house-rule it that you can shove before your attacks simply because our group _does_ use declarations and rolls initiative each round after they are made. But, that is us.

Regardless, it is a good feat to have and can be used defensively after your attacks as written officially, but allowing the shove to come first makes using it offensively easier.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 5, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I see your point on this, but while it _may_ be true, it isn't yet. And, unfortunately, until it _is_ true, you haven't gained the bonus action effect yet.




You also haven't _not_ gained it yet. 

Seriously, this goes back to what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said up-thread. I.e., you have to get to the future before you can check if the condition has been satisfied. Since the question is whether you take the Attack action on your turn, you may potentially have to wait until the end of your turn before it's known one way or the other.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 5, 2019)

Hriston said:


> You also haven't _not_ gained it yet.
> 
> Seriously, this goes back to what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said up-thread. I.e., you have to get to the future before you can check if the condition has been satisfied. Since the question is whether you take the Attack action on your turn, you may potentially have to wait until the end of your turn before it's known one way or the other.




Exactly, so if you haven't gained it yet, how can you use it? You have to satisfy the condition (take the Attack action) before you gain the benefit.

Think of it like this:

If you take _money out of the ATM_ ("the Attack action") today ("on your turn"), you can use a bonus action _to go to the bookstore to buy the book you wanted_ ("to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield").

Without getting the money out of the ATM, you can't buy the book you wanted. (Please, no jokes about using your credit card or ordering it on-line.)

Without taking the Attack action, you have no bonus action to shove with.

As for the time-travel part, that is unnecessary. If you have reached the end of your turn without taking the Attack action, you never satisfied the conditions needed to gain the bonus action so you could not have used it, either.

On a personal note, I think JC's official ruling on this is silly. With TWF you can shove first with your attack and then if you have the Extra Attack feature, potentially make two attacks with advantage. You don't even need a feat to do this. There are many ways they could have worded Shield Master to avoid this issue and personally should have simple by removing the condition of attacking at all. The FEAT is what should give you the bonus shove action using your shield. Just make the first benefit of the feat this:

"You can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

Nice. Simple. Use it anytime during your turn you want so it can be offensive, defensive, or whatever. For instance, an Eldritch Knight could use the shove to push someone away and then cast a spell as their action.

This feature never needed to be tied into the Attack action to begin with...


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 5, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> This feature never needed to be tied into the Attack action to begin with...




Except, you know, if it was never intended to grant you near-permanent advantage (assuming decent Athletics) and was more of an "assist your melee allies" move?


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 5, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Ok, I will call at least a foul here.
> 
> Specifically on your (mis) quote of the rule which cuts short the **actual** quote, gives bogus punctuation and isolates it from its context which alters its meaning.
> 
> ...




Sure I quoted the relevant part instead of the whole thing, and doing that _could_ be a 'foul', _if_ the entire quote would show that it would lead to the opposite conclusion.

But here, the whole rule has the same implications as the part I quoted; that '_improvised_ weapons' are _not_ 'weapons'.

"Things that are true, are true."
"Things that are not true, are not true."
"Things cannot be both true and not true at the same time."

Objects are what they are. Even if you _use_ an object _as if_ it were a different object, it doesn't change what the object actually _is_.

"*Dueling.* When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other *weapons*, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

Now, the original version said, "...no other weapon _or shield_...". I hated that they took the 'or shield' away. For me, I liked that there were styles for the four basic combat styles: single weapon, two-handed weapon, two weapons, and weapon + shield. This change, allowing the style intended for 'single weapon' to be used when using a shield, especially when shield-users got their own Fighting Style thing, takes away that 'single weapon' niche.

So I houserule the 'or shield' back into the Dueling style in games I DM.

But, if 'improvised weapons' _were_ 'weapons', then I wouldn't need a houserule! Literally _anything_ in my off hand would _be_ a 'weapon', and would prevent Dueling style!

Got a shield? No +2 damage for you, because shields are weapons now!

Wearing a glove? Wearing a ring? Tough, no +2 damage for you, because they _are_ 'weapons' now!

An object is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. It cannot be both at the same time.

A shield either _is_ a 'weapon', or it isn't. Which is it?

If we were playing 3e, the answer is definitely 'yes'. Shields are on the Weapons table, as light or medium melee weapons, and can be used in TWF.

But in 5e, shields are _not_ 'weapons'. They are not on the Weapons table, do not prevent you getting +2 damage from the Dueling style (unfortunately!) _on the grounds that they are *not* 'weapons'!_, and although you can hit someone with a shield via the Improvised Weapons rules (which allow objects that are _not_ 'weapons' to be used to make an attack), they therefore cannot be used in TWF because TWF specifies 'weapons'.

As an aside (despite seeing the results of my last aside!), shields are not armour either.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 5, 2019)

So the claim is that 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack. Of course, this falls down as soon as you get Extra Attack, because then Attack action IS a single thing and two attacks IS two things,

So, if you 'take the Attack action' and execute the first of these attacks but not the second, have you met the condition, "If you take the Attack action on your turn...".

If the answer is 'yes', then you now have a bonus action shield shove which you can now take anywhere you want, including before your second attack.

If the answer is 'no', then you can, after you executed that first attack, use the Cast A Spell action.

Further, even if you only have one attack, is 'taking the Attack action' and executing that attack the same thing?

_Sanctuary_ says that if you target a warded creature with an attack and fail your save against the warded creature's _sanctuary_ spell, then you must choose a new target or lose the attack.

If you are fighting a single foe that is warded with _sanctuary_, and on your turn 'take the Attack action' and target the creature, then fail your save against _sanctuary_ and lose your attack (because there are no other targets), then have you 'taken the Attack action'?

If 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack, and you don't take the attack, then you logically have *not* 'taken the Attack action'!

If you say that you _have_ 'taken the Attack action' even if you did not make the attack, then you literally *have* 'taken the Attack action' _before_ you execute the attack.

And if that is the case, then you can 'take the Attack action' and can now shield shove as a bonus action _before_ you execute your first attack.

It's one way or the other. Either we can shield shove before the first attack, or when failing our save against _sanctuary_ we can take the Cast A Spell action to cast _fireball_ even though we already took the Attack action, because it turns out that 'Attack action = attack', therefore if there was no attack there can have been no Attack action.

Which is it?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 5, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So the claim is that 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack. Of course, this falls down as soon as you get Extra Attack, because then Attack action IS a single thing and two attacks IS two things,
> 
> So, if you 'take the Attack action' and execute the first of these attacks but not the second, have you met the condition, "If you take the Attack action on your turn...".
> 
> ...




Since you didn't ask anyone in particular, I'll take a whack at it.  This is my interpretation anyway...

Yes. Take the Attack action = making an attack roll (or at least attempting to) since that would constitute you choosing Attack action as your action for your turn. If you have Extra Attack and make an attack roll against a target, you gain the bonus action to Shove. However, you still cannot Shove until you complete the Extra attack because _IT_ is part of the Attack action. With the exception of movement, which expressly is allowed between attacks, you must complete one action before you can begin another (reactions are another exception, but that is the nature of reactions). This is why the idea that the Attack action must be concluded before it can have been taken was stated.

In the case of Sanctuary, if you have no other target, you _lose_ the attack or spell on the failed save, but the action WAS taken (even if foiled) because in order to roll the Wisdom save you must be using the Attack action to attack. If you have extra attack and want to use that on the warded caster, it would require another Wisdom save, because the text of Sanctuary is for each attack (not Attack action). After any Extra Attack is resolved (or lost on the failed save), you could still execute the Shove with Shield Master as a bonus action. However, since this is also an attack, it too would require a Wisdom save before you could execute it. This is an example of specific beating general.

Even if you failed all the Wisdom saves, you still took your actions (Attack and Bonus) because without you taking them, you never would have needed to make the saving throws. So, no, you could not take another action, you already took them.

I see a lot of debating this point, but it really isn't that hard to understand IMO. You might not want to accept the official ruling (our table certainly is not), and you can debate it to your heart's content, but it isn't going to change it for now.

Now, I'll leave it to someone else to take their turn at your post if they so desire. Cheers.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 5, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Now, I'll leave it to someone else to take their turn at your post if they so desire. Cheers.




Right, I don't see what the big deal is here.  By default, Actions are a discrete element on your turn.  There's a specific rule that lets you split the Attack action with movement if you have more than one attack (e.g. Extra Attack), but the Attack action is still the sum total of all those discrete pieces.  You resolve the elements in order.  If you attempt to attack a creature protected by Sanctuary, you either have to pick a new target or the attack fizzles.  This doesn't change the fact that there's a period of time on your turn before you've taken an action, and a period of time after the action has been taken.  If you don't move in between attacks, then your Attack action is just making all the attacks against the target(s) in range.  Extra Attack can basically result in your turn having three phases: before, during, and after your action.  Once you've started the Attack action, you cannot take another action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 6, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Even if you failed all the Wisdom saves, you still took your actions (Attack and Bonus) because without you taking them, you never would have needed to make the saving throws. So, no, you could not take another action, you already took them.




So you agree that the Attack Action came before the attack?

And 

That you can take the attack action without ever making an attack?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 6, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Right, I don't see what the big deal is here.  By default, Actions are a discrete element on your turn.  There's a specific rule that lets you split the Attack action with movement if you have more than one attack (e.g. Extra Attack), but the Attack action is still the sum total of all those discrete pieces.




If your attack action isn't taken until you've made both of your attacks, then how did you make the first attack without taking the attack action?



> You resolve the elements in order.  If you attempt to attack a creature protected by Sanctuary, you either have to pick a new target or the attack fizzles.




Since you made no attacks and making attacks is what makes up the attack action then you didn't take the attack action right?



> Once you've started the Attack action, you cannot take another action.




Does this mean you can start the attack action without having to actually attack?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 6, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If your attack action isn't taken until you've made both of your attacks, then how did you make the first attack without taking the attack action?
> 
> Since you made no attacks and making attacks is what makes up the attack action then you didn't take the attack action right?
> 
> Does this mean you can start the attack action without having to actually attack?




Please see any one of my dozen or more posts that talk about splitting the Attack action with movement or other legal elements (such as bonus actions with no timing requirement like Healing Word or Misty Step).  If you agree to the "if and only if you X, you can Y" model, then the sum total of all your attacks must be resolved before you even have access to the Shield Master bonus action.  Inserting movement in between your attacks, which is explicitly allowed by the rules, does not change that simple fact.  If you don't agree with that premise, then we've beaten that horse to death already.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 6, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I'm deferring that determination until it's either taken or it isn't.




The rules don't allow this.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 6, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> So the claim is that 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack. Of course, this falls down as soon as you get Extra Attack, because then Attack action IS a single thing and two attacks IS two things,
> 
> So, if you 'take the Attack action' and execute the first of these attacks but not the second, have you met the condition, "If you take the Attack action on your turn...".
> 
> ...




To be taking the Attack action, you have to at least get to step 1 of the attack sequence on your first attack.  Sanctuary stops you there, so your action is done at that point.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 6, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Please see any one of my dozen or more posts that talk about splitting the Attack action with movement or other legal elements (such as bonus actions with no timing requirement like Healing Word or Misty Step).




None of those posts addressed the 3 questions I just asked.



> If you agree to the "if and only if you X, you can Y" model, then the sum total of all your attacks must be resolved before you even have access to the Shield Master bonus action.




No.  All that must take place is the attack action needs to be taken.  So your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.  If you consider the attack action to only be taken after all it's attacks are made then that would follow.  But then I want to know how you made your first attack without having taken the attack action.  



> Inserting movement in between your attacks, which is explicitly allowed by the rules, does not change that simple fact.  If you don't agree with that premise, then we've beaten that horse to death already.




No one is talking about splitting your attacks with movement.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 6, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So you agree that the Attack Action came before the attack?
> 
> And
> 
> That you can take the attack action without ever making an attack?




Just to clarify so there won't be any confusion:

Action: *Attack (PHB, p.192, paragraphs 2 & 3)*
_With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action._

*Making an Attack (PHB, p. 194)*
_*Step 1. Choose a target.* Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
*Step 2. Determine modifiers.* The DM determines... (sorry, not typing the rest up)
*Step 3. Resolve the attack.* You make the attack roll. On a hit... (again, you can look it up)_

There, now to the meat of it...

The Attack action is what allows you to make your attack, following steps 1-3.

*To answer the first question*: Yes, the Attack action comes before the attack (with notable exceptions due to spells, etc.)

It must since without it you cannot Make the Attack (Steps 1-3). Certain exceptions exist of course, such as Green-Flame Blade, _"As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails."_, which allow you to make an attack without taking the Attack action, but these are specific cases and they trump the general action needed to make an attack (i.e. the Attack action). As we all know, specific beats general.

In the a case of Sanctuary: you _ARE_ making your attack, however you might be prevented from making your attack _roll_ (Step 3). You begin with Step 1, choosing your target. The Sanctuary spell is then handled by the DM in step 2. Excerpt taken from the Sanctuary spell: _Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell *must first make a Wisdom saving throw.* On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell._ The DM informs you that since you targeted a creature (Step 1) that is warded you must first make a Wisdom saving throw. If you fail, you must return to Step 1 and choose a new target. If you cannot choose a new target, you _lose the attack_ as per the description of the Sanctuary spell. Step 3 is completed because your attack was resolved--you lost it, or you choose a new target and completed the steps with that target instead, resolved by making your attack roll.

If you can only make one attack (no Extra Attack yet, etc.), and fail the Wisdom saving throw, you have taken the Attack action, made your attack, and lost the opportunity to make the attack roll due to the interference of the Sanctuary spell. By failing the save, the resolution (Step 3) is that the attack is lost instead of you being allowed to make the attack roll.

*To answer the second question*: No, you cannot take the Attack action without making an attack.

You can, however, take the Attack action without ever making an attack _ROLL_. To say you are going to take the Attack action, and then never choose a target for your attack (Step 1), you are in fact, doing nothing, therefore NOT taking the Attack action. To take the Attack action _demands_ that you follow Steps 1-3: choose target, DM determines modifiers/situation, resolve attack. By not choosing a target, you are violating Step 1 and you are not taking the Attack action. If, after the DM finishes determining what is needed in Step 2, you then choose not to resolve the attack by making the roll (if the DM determines you can), you are not taking the Attack action because you are in violation of Step 3. By not choosing a target or by not resolving a viable attack roll, you are breaking the steps needed to take the Attack action. Until the results of the attack are resolved (Step 3), i.e. a hit, a miss, a lost attack, or whatever else the DM determines constitutes resolution of the attack, you have not taking the Attack action.

Once you have completed steps 1-3 for each available attack you are granted by the Attack action (including more attacks gained through the Extra Attack feature), you have completed your Attack action. Until then, you are taking your Attack action. The official rules at this point are that until your Attack action is finished, you have not satisfied the requirements needed to gain the bonus action to Shove granted by the Shield Master feat.

I hope for the people who really do understand this, please don't be argumentative just for the sake of it. If you honestly still have confusion, I am happy to offer further explanation (at least as far as I understand it...).


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 6, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Just to clarify so there won't be any confusion:
> 
> Action: *Attack (PHB, p.192, paragraphs 2 & 3)*
> _With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
> ...




Agreed to here.



> *To answer the second question*: No, you cannot take the Attack action without making an attack.
> 
> You can, however, take the Attack action without ever making an attack _ROLL_. To say you are going to take the Attack action, and then never choose a target for your attack (Step 1), you are in fact, doing nothing, therefore NOT taking the Attack action. To take the Attack action _demands_ that you follow Steps 1-3: choose target, DM determines modifiers/situation, resolve attack. By not choosing a target, you are violating Step 1 and you are not taking the Attack action. If, after the DM finishes determining what is needed in Step 2, you then choose not to resolve the attack by making the roll (if the DM determines you can), you are not taking the Attack action because you are in violation of Step 3. By not choosing a target or by not resolving a viable attack roll, you are breaking the steps needed to take the Attack action. Until the results of the attack are resolved (Step 3), i.e. a hit, a miss, a lost attack, or whatever else the DM determines constitutes resolution of the attack, you have not taking the Attack action.
> 
> ...




Sanctuary states: "On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack".  I don't see how you can say the attack was taken when the rules explicitly call it a lost attack?

You did start to make an attack.  You did attempt to make an attack.  However, you couldn't and you lost that attack.  If you lose the attack how did you make an attack?


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 6, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Agreed to here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Because the attack was resolved (Step 3), when the DM tells you that you have lost it due to the specifics of the spell. Normally, yes, resolving an attack results in either a hit or a miss, but it can also be result in a hit turned into a miss due to an effect like from the Shield spell, or a miss turned into an additional attack via Gloom Stalker's _Stalker's Flurry_ feature, or a lost attack (from Sanctuary), etc.

At any rate, at that point in the Sanctuary example, unless you have additional attacks to make due to Extra Attack, the Attack action is finished. You could then utilize the Shove bonus action, but if you tried it on the same target, another Wisdom saving throw would be required and you run the risk of it, too, resolved as being "lost" due to Sanctuary.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 6, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Because the attack was resolved (Step 3), when the DM tells you that you have lost it due to the specifics of the spell. Normally, yes, resolving an attack results in either a hit or a miss, but it can also be result in a hit turned into a miss due to an effect like from the Shield spell, or a miss turned into an additional attack via Gloom Stalker's _Stalker's Flurry_ feature, or a lost attack (from Sanctuary), etc.




Sanctuary doesn't cause a miss.  It causes the attack to be lost.  There is a difference.  Losing an attack doesn't fall under step 3 Resolving an Attack under the rules.  In fact it doesn't even make it past step 1.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 6, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Sanctuary doesn't cause a miss.  It causes the attack to be lost.  There is a difference.  Losing an attack doesn't fall under step 3 Resolving an Attack under the rules.  In fact it doesn't even make it past step 1.




Can you quote the text from the PHB that says this?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 6, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Can you quote the text from the PHB that says this?




If I can will you confess your ignorance?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 6, 2019)

Taking the attack action means doing what it says under Attack action.  No more, no less.  There is no "action comes first." 

If you take the attack action with one attack, it is:

[Begin Attack action]
--[Conduct attack]
[End attack action]

For more than one (say 3)it's:

[Begin Attack action]
--[Conduct attack]
----[Use movement]
--[Conduct attack]
----[Use movement]
--[Conduct attack]
[End attack action]

This is what the attack action is.  It requires no inference of anything else; it ehat it says on the tin.  If you go, "but what about duration," you've asked about something not on the tin that isn't part of the actions on combat rules.  If you ask "Does the Attack action come before the attack," you've not grasped that the attack is part of the Attack action; the attack comes during the Attack action.

Just do what it says on the tin.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 6, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Sanctuary doesn't cause a miss.  It causes the attack to be lost.  There is a difference.  Losing an attack doesn't fall under step 3 Resolving an Attack under the rules.  In fact it doesn't even make it past step 1.




For my understanding/interpretation it does. You actually get to Step 2 when the DM notifies you that you are required to make a Wisdom saving throw to resist the effects of the spell. You are, at this point, _past Step 1_ because you have chosen a target. So, it does make it past Step 1.

Due to the effects of the Sanctuary spell, if you fail the saving throw you must return to Step 1 if possible (i.e. you have another target to choose) or proceed to Step 3 and resolve the attack, in which case it is lost because of the spell and no attack roll is made.

I understand your point. You are claiming that since no attack roll is made, the attack is never resolved since that is what generally is involved in Step 3. However, this is the case of Specific beats General. Due to the Sanctuary spell resulting in the attack being lost, it was resolved and is finished. There are no further steps to take. There is nothing further for you to do and the next action (or attack if you have Extra Attack) is taken. Once all your attacks are resolved, your Attack action is complete.

Of course you can interpret it otherwise, but then perhaps you are more comfortable ending the process at Step 2. "... In addition, spells... can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll." Because of the failed Wisdom saving throw, the penalty enforced by the DM is that your attack is lost and you will not be making an attack roll for Step 3. Regardless, your attack is ended and you either move on to the next attack if you have one or the next Action (or movement if you have speed left on your turn). You have taken the Attack action because to try to return to the beginning and argue otherwise would negate the fact that you choose a target and had to resist the effects of Sanctuary. At that point, you would have to undo what has already been done. Personally, I might involve time-travel _within_ my game, but not _in the playing of_ my game. 

Sanctuary could have been worded differently to avoid the confusion as well. Instead of the attack being lost, if no other target is available it could have simply stated the attack results in an automatic miss on the attack roll. Then Step 3 would have been satisfied, I believe, to your logic. Also, Step 3 could have been worded to include the concept the Specific situations will arise that beat the General process of making an attack.

The intent of the rules is pretty clear IMO and you can debate the semantics if you like but the PHB is not a legal, written contract where every possibility has so be spelled out in black-and-white. If you want to get caught in the logic-loop be my guest, but you are ignoring Specific beats General at that point as far as I am concerned. I am fairly certain you are intelligent enough to understand that to go beyond this point is simply to be argumentative, and that is a waste of my time. Play in your logic-loopy world if you must.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 6, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> If I can will you confess your ignorance?




I was genuinely curious how you reached that conclusion, there is no need to be rude about it.  I'll just defer to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] again, as they have once again made an excellent post on this subject.

Do you let your players take a different action after their spells get Counterspelled?  If not, how is that different to what you're proposing with Sanctuary and the Attack action?


----------



## Hriston (Mar 6, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Exactly, so if you haven't gained it yet, how can you use it?




If you haven't _not_ gained it yet, how can you be denied the ability to use it? In practice though, you just shove the creature and worry about the action economy later. You don’t know if you can use a bonus action yet, so you’ll just have to wait and see. 



dnd4vr said:


> You have to satisfy the condition (take the Attack action) before you gain the benefit.




The condition is that you take the Attack action _on your turn_, so later, on your turn, when you do, you’ll be able to use a bonus action, which you can choose to take at any time during your turn because its timing isn’t specified by the feat. Therefore, you can apply it to the shove attempt you made. 



dnd4vr said:


> Think of it like this:
> 
> If you take _money out of the ATM_ ("the Attack action") today ("on your turn"), you can use a bonus action _to go to the bookstore to buy the book you wanted_ ("to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield").
> 
> Without getting the money out of the ATM, you can't buy the book you wanted. (Please, no jokes about using your credit card or ordering it on-line.)




I understand how your interpretation works. But even this sentence you've written can be interpreted to mean you can buy the book first as long as you end up getting the money later. Maybe there's a certain amount of cash that needs to be kept on hand for some other purpose, so the cost of the book will need to be replaced.



dnd4vr said:


> Without taking the Attack action, you have no bonus action to shove with.




I'm not suggesting you use a bonus action to shove a creature without also taking the Attack action on your turn.



dnd4vr said:


> As for the time-travel part, that is unnecessary. If you have reached the end of your turn without taking the Attack action, you never satisfied the conditions needed to gain the bonus action so you could not have used it, either.




I'm not sure what you mean by "time-travel". I'm certainly not advocating for either players or characters to travel through time. If all you did on your turn was to shove a creature, then you took the Attack action when you did so. In the case of Shield Master, "taking the Attack action" doesn't correspond to anything in the fiction different from "taking a bonus action" as long as at least one of your attacks is a shove.



dnd4vr said:


> On a personal note, I think JC's official ruling on this is silly.




Personally, I don't like it, but I'd still play with a DM who made such a ruling even though I think it's a bit misguided. It's a valid interpretation of the rules-text.



dnd4vr said:


> With TWF you can shove first with your attack and then if you have the Extra Attack feature, potentially make two attacks with advantage. You don't even need a feat to do this.




I think you're saying if you have Extra Attack, you can shove a creature with your first attack then get two more attacks (possibly with advantage) using TWF. Without Extra Attack, I don't think shoving a creature counts as making an attack with a light weapon, but I suppose that's up for debate.



dnd4vr said:


> There are many ways they could have worded Shield Master to avoid this issue and personally should have simple by removing the condition of attacking at all. The FEAT is what should give you the bonus shove action using your shield. Just make the first benefit of the feat this:
> 
> "You can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."
> 
> ...




It isn't just Shield Master. It's the way many bonus actions were designed. I actually think it was quite ingenious that they attached the Shield Master shove to the Attack action because a shove is a melee attack, so it's potentially very flexible, given the right interpretation. Where they ran into trouble, however, is with the eldritch knight's War Magic feature because a weapon attack isn't part of the Cast a Spell action, which is from where Jeremy Crawford's revised ruling comes.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 6, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The rules don't allow this.




"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first."


----------



## Hriston (Mar 6, 2019)

"Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take."

Many in this thread have referred to this passage as if it says, "You can take a bonus action only when you've met any conditions for doing something as a bonus action laid out by a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game." They've used this to support the claim that taking the Attack action is what allows you to take the Shield Master shove as a bonus action. I just want to clearly state that the Attack action is not a class feature, spell, special ability, or other feature or ability of the game, and that the game-feature that allows you to shove a creature as a bonus action is the Shield Master feat itself.

Edit to add: My paraphrase of the above cited rules-text in terms of the Shield Master feat would be, "You can take the Shield Master shove only when you have the Shield Master feat."


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 6, 2019)

Hriston said:


> "Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take."
> 
> Many in this thread have referred to this passage as if it says, "You can take a bonus action only when you've met any conditions for doing something as a bonus action laid out by a special ability, spell, or *other feature* of the game." They've used this to support the claim that taking the Attack action is what allows you to take the Shield Master shove as a bonus action. I just want to clearly state that the Attack action is not a class feature, spell, special ability, or other feature or ability of the game, and that the game-feature that allows you to shove a creature as a bonus action is the Shield Master feat itself.
> 
> Edit to add: My paraphrase of the above cited rules-text in terms of the Shield Master feat would be, "You can take the Shield Master shove only when you have the Shield Master feat."




It says it right there: other feature of the game.  Actions in combat are a feature of the game.  The Attack action is a specific example of that.  The language of the Shield Master bonus action clearly indicates that it's tied to the Attack action, and it follows the standard "if you X, you can Y" logic that is found throughout the rules to indicate a relationship between X and Y (specifically that X is required before you get the feature Y).


----------



## Hriston (Mar 6, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> It says it right there: other feature of the game.  Actions in combat are a feature of the game.  The Attack action is a specific example of that.  The language of the Shield Master bonus action clearly indicates that it's tied to the Attack action, and it follows the standard "if you X, you can Y" logic that is found throughout the rules to indicate a relationship between X and Y (specifically that X is required before you get the feature Y).




Please cite the rules-text that directly refers to an action in combat as a game-feature. To me, it's fairly clear that the word _feature_ is used for class features, racial traits, feats, special monster abilities, and things of that nature. Combat actions are a mechanic having to do with the action economy, not a game-feature.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 6, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Please cite the rules-text that directly refers to an action in combat as a game-feature. To me, it's fairly clear that the word _feature_ is used for class features, racial traits, feats, special monster abilities, and things of that nature. Combat actions are a mechanic having to do with the action economy, not a game-feature.




Sure.



> *Your Turn*
> On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
> 
> The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.






> *Actions in Combat*
> When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
> 
> When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.




This is the foundation of the combat system in 5E.  Claiming that this isn't a feature of the game to justify your position that Shield Master's bonus action has no relation to the Attack action feels like a huge stretch.  The text you quoted specifically said "other feature".  It did not say "class feature" or "other class feature", it simply says that some part of the game must grant you a bonus action or else you don't have one.

Edit again: Sorry, misread part of your post on my second time through it, removing irrelevant portion.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 6, 2019)

@_*Asgorath*_, neither of your quoted passages refer to actions in combat as game-features. However, I find this semantics debate to be somewhat ridiculous. If you want to think that the game-feature that grants you the ability to use a bonus action to shove a creature is the Attack action, when nothing in the Attack action says anything about that, then feel free to do so.

Edit to add: Also, I just noticed the "rules-text" you quoted at the end of your post was of my invention, meant to characterize your position. It is not, itself, evidence of anything, since I made it up. I thought that was obvious from the context, and it wasn't my intent to cause any confusion about what the actual text states.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 6, 2019)

Hriston said:


> @_*Asgorath*_, neither of your quoted passages refer to actions in combat as game-features. However, I find this semantics debate to be somewhat ridiculous. If you want to think that the game-feature that grants you the ability to use a bonus action to shove a creature is the Attack action, when nothing in the Attack action says anything about that, then feel free to do so.




Fair enough, I'll just stop discussing this with you.  I think it's pretty ridiculous that you're claiming foundational rules of the game aren't "features" because that word is specifically used in discussion what grants you a bonus action, and therefore you can shove any time you like with Shield Master.  As I've said many times, the game basically tells you to change the rules if you don't like them, and to do what's best for your table.  If you want Shield Master to mean you can shove any time you like, then just house rule it that way.  You don't need to bend the meaning of the words in the PHB to extract the outcome you want, just ignore that part of the rules and move on.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 6, 2019)

Hriston said:


> If you haven't _not_ gained it yet, how can you be denied the ability to use it? In practice though, you just shove the creature and worry about the action economy later. You don’t know if you can use a bonus action yet, so you’ll just have to wait and see.



I see how you're doing this, and that's great, I'm glad it works for you, but it's not how the rules read.  You don't get to "you haven't not gained it yet" when you can't get a bonus action until given one.  That's not how the rules work, although I see no serious issue to you ruling that way for your table.



> The condition is that you take the Attack action _on your turn_, so later, on your turn, when you do, you’ll be able to use a bonus action, which you can choose to take at any time during your turn because its timing isn’t specified by the feat. Therefore, you can apply it to the shove attempt you made.



No, because you're then skipping to the end to check the condition to apply the result to the beginning.  Not how conditionals work.  If X, Y requires X to be true either before or at the same time as Y, not that Y can exist so long as X eventually does.



> I understand how your interpretation works. But even this sentence you've written can be interpreted to mean you can buy the book first as long as you end up getting the money later. Maybe there's a certain amount of cash that needs to be kept on hand for some other purpose, so the cost of the book will need to be replaced.



Possibly, except we have another rule, the one that says you do not have a bonus action until given one.  In that case, you cannot go to the bookstore (bonus action) because the bookstore doesn't exist until you take money out of the ATM.  Okay, that example got weird, but still, that's how it works.




> I'm not suggesting you use a bonus action to shove a creature without also taking the Attack action on your turn.




You cannot take a bonus action to shove until you've taken the Attack action on your turn.  If X, Y means X cannot be a future event if Y occurs, it must be a current event.



> I'm not sure what you mean by "time-travel". I'm certainly not advocating for either players or characters to travel through time. If all you did on your turn was to shove a creature, then you took the Attack action when you did so. In the case of Shield Master, "taking the Attack action" doesn't correspond to anything in the fiction different from "taking a bonus action" as long as at least one of your attacks is a shove.




The fact your interpretation jumps to the end of the turn to check if the Attack action has occurred and then goes back to earlier to allow the bonus action prior to the Attack action.  Since you've been clear that declaration isn't how you do this, then you have to be allowing a end-of-turn check to justify the bonus action.



> It isn't just Shield Master. It's the way many bonus actions were designed. I actually think it was quite ingenious that they attached the Shield Master shove to the Attack action because a shove is a melee attack, so it's potentially very flexible, given the right interpretation. Where they ran into trouble, however, is with the eldritch knight's War Magic feature because a weapon attack isn't part of the Cast a Spell action, which is from where Jeremy Crawford's revised ruling comes.



Did I miss something?  What trouble did War Magic run into?



Hriston said:


> "Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take."
> 
> Many in this thread have referred to this passage as if it says, "You can take a bonus action only when you've met any conditions for doing something as a bonus action laid out by a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game." They've used this to support the claim that taking the Attack action is what allows you to take the Shield Master shove as a bonus action. I just want to clearly state that the Attack action is not a class feature, spell, special ability, or other feature or ability of the game, and that the game-feature that allows you to shove a creature as a bonus action is the Shield Master feat itself.
> 
> Edit to add: My paraphrase of the above cited rules-text in terms of the Shield Master feat would be, "You can take the Shield Master shove only when you have the Shield Master feat."




Okay, this is a pretty clear version of your reading, but it runs into a few problems.  One, the Attack action does NOT grant the Shield Master shove, so whether or not it's a game feature is completely irrelevant.  The conditional is built into the Shield Master feat, which is a class (or racial, for variant humans) feature.  That conditional says that you only get the bonus action if you take that Attack action on your turn.  So, you paraphrase is eliding very important information -- namely the conditional nature of the bonus action.  You can't delete information and claim to be reading RAW, or RAI, for that matter.  This entire tangent doesn't advance your case.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 7, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Fair enough, I'll just stop discussing this with you.  I think it's pretty ridiculous that you're claiming foundational rules of the game aren't "features" because that word is specifically used in discussion what grants you a bonus action, and therefore you can shove any time you like with Shield Master.




That’s a blatant mischaracterization of my position, which is that the other/special ability or other feature of the game that lets you take the Shield Master shove is the Shield Master feat and not, as some have implied, taking the Attack action. You can use a bonus action to shove a creature within 5 feet when Shield Master says you can, which is on any turn in which you also take the Attack action. 



Asgorath said:


> As I've said many times, the game basically tells you to change the rules if you don't like them, and to do what's best for your table.  If you want Shield Master to mean you can shove any time you like, then just house rule it that way.  You don't need to bend the meaning of the words in the PHB to extract the outcome you want, just ignore that part of the rules and move on.




I have nothing against making house-rules and have done so in my games when I’ve wanted to change a rule. But as I’ve said many times now in this conversation, this isn’t a situation where I need to change anything. You just don’t seem to be able to imagine that someone would have a different interpretation of this rule than you do.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 7, 2019)

Hriston said:


> That’s a blatant mischaracterization of my position, which is that the other/special ability or other feature of the game that lets you take the Shield Master shove is the Shield Master feat and not, as some have implied, taking the Attack action. You can use a bonus action to shove a creature within 5 feet when Shield Master says you can, which is on any turn in which you also take the Attack action.



I don't think anyone has said you get the bonus action shove because of the Attack action.  That's... odd.  You get the bonus action shove from the Shield Master feat, which conditions that bonus action on the Attack action.  The Attack action isn't doing the granting work, the feat is, but the Attack action is the condition specified by the feat before granting the bonus action.



> I have nothing against making house-rules and have done so in my games when I’ve wanted to change a rule. But as I’ve said many times now in this conversation, this isn’t a situation where I need to change anything. You just don’t seem to be able to imagine that someone would have a different interpretation of this rule than you do.



Well, I certainly can, but I can't justify your interpretation with the rules because it allows for future state conditions to be considered true or that the action economy on a turn doesn't work as the book explains it (discrete steps) but instead as an amorphous blob that can only be disentangled into discrete components once it's completed.  The former breaks understanding of how conditionals work in general, much less the rules, and the latter isn't indicated at all and is, instead, counter-indicated by thee many references to before and after for many rule components for actions in combat.

I see that you want to read 'take the attack action on your turn' as a holistic statement that treats turns as zen koans, being both comprised of individual parts but also indivisible and able to be considered as a whole.  But conditionals don't work like that, and the rule clearly show choosing what you do as ordered events.  Your own example of a bonus action with timing says that you accept there is a possible 'after the attack action' portion of a turn for which that ability, monk's flurry of blows, operates off of, but you revert back to Attack actions only being discoverable at the end of the turn for Shield Master.  You can't have it both ways, either the Attack action is at a point in your turn, and flurry of blows operates immediately after it, or it is not a point but something you assign after the turn is done to actions performed during the turn, in which can your example fails despite the fact that this is how your work Shield Master.  

And, I get you're applying the maxim of player declares, GM assigns mechanics, but that doesn't alleviate the need to assign mechanics according to the rules -- ie, this line of argument is orthogonal to the issue of timing of feats because, accepted as 100% true, it doesn't change how the rules work.  If you let the players have control over combat actions, it has to work the same was as the GM using those rules in response to player declarations.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 7, 2019)

Hriston said:


> That’s a blatant mischaracterization of my position, which is that the other/special ability or other feature of the game that lets you take the Shield Master shove is the Shield Master feat and not, as some have implied, taking the Attack action. You can use a bonus action to shove a creature within 5 feet when Shield Master says you can, which is on any turn in which you also take the Attack action.
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against making house-rules and have done so in my games when I’ve wanted to change a rule. But as I’ve said many times now in this conversation, this isn’t a situation where I need to change anything. You just don’t seem to be able to imagine that someone would have a different interpretation of this rule than you do.




The dude cited you the rule that all but connected the dots for you and you just dug in your position further.  If you had an open mind his quote would have been persuasive.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 7, 2019)

Hriston said:


> "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first."




I'm not sure what the point of showing me that rule was.  I stated the rules don't allow you to defer the determination of what your action is.  Showing me a rule that says you can move before or after the action as determined at the time you take it isn't even remotely close.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 7, 2019)

Hriston said:


> *#1* If you haven't _not_ gained it yet, how can you be denied the ability to use it? In practice though, you just shove the creature and worry about the action economy later. You don’t know if you can use a bonus action yet, so you’ll just have to wait and see.
> 
> *#2*The condition is that you take the Attack action _on your turn_, so later, on your turn, when you do, you’ll be able to use a bonus action, which you can choose to take at any time during your turn because its timing isn’t specified by the feat. Therefore, you can apply it to the shove attempt you made.
> 
> ...




Sorry for the late reply today (busy) and I know others have brought up some points, but I don't have time to digest it all before I hit the sack. So, please forgive any redundancies. I've also added the numbering to address your points.

#1. You are denied the ability to use it because you have not satisfied the requirements to gain the Bonus action feature. If you argue you can take the Shove first and not worry because you'll have to wait and see, think about what you are doing. What if you use your Bonus action to shove, and then are denied your Action afterwards and cannot take the Attack action? Does the Shove have to be unresolved now because you certainly didn't take the Attack action on your turn! Here is a perfect scenario where this could happen.

You are badly injured and have only 5 hit points remaining. You are fighting two foes and decide to use your Bonus Action to shove one and your Attack action on him with advantage. However, you use your Bonus action and succeed, the opponent is knocked prone! Wait! Unknown to you, the other foe has the Sentinel Feat! Since you Shoved, which is a special attack but an attack nonetheless, he uses his reaction to make a melee weapon attack against you! He hits! A crit! You take 10 damage and fall unconscious. However, the universe is askew, how can this be? Don't you have to take the Attack action on your turn since you used the Bonus action granted by Shield Master to Shove earlier?

This is why your reasoning falls apart IMO. You cannot benefit from a conditional feature before you satisfy the condition to gain it. In the scenario you Shoved before you took the Attack action and were unable to take the Attack action, therefore you never should have been able to Shove.

#2. This of course ties into the next point. As you say, "...so later, on your turn, when you do [take the Attack action], you'll be able to use a bonus action, ..." Notice what you wrote: "you'll be able" as in "you will be able", _will_, as in future tense, which follows you writing "so later, on your turn". You have just written that later you will be able to use a bonus action. Later, as in after the Attack action has been made.

#3. You have no other cash, this is why you must go to the ATM to get cash in order to buy the book.

#4. But you are, inadvertently, when you use a bonus action to Shove before taking the Attack action. The scenario I pointed out in response to #1 shows how this could happen.

#5. I meant time-travel because of the paradox potentially created and demonstrated in the scenario for #1. I do notice, however, you seem to think: _"If all you did on your turn was to shove a creature, then you took the Attack action when you did so. In the case of Shield Master, "taking the Attack action" doesn't correspond to anything in the fiction different from "taking a bonus action" as long as at least one of your attacks is a shove."_ Shoving a creature, in and of itself, does not constitute taking the Attack action. Your statement seems to reflect (correct me if I am mistaken) that by using the Bonus action to Shove, you in fact took the Attack action when you did so? If that is your reasoning, IMO your logic is flawed because taking a bonus action is not the same thing as taking the Attack action, even if both actions are used to resolve a Shove. The first is a bonus action where you are permitted to try to shove a creature, while an Attack action can be used to shove or make other forms of attacks.

#6. Well, I am glad we seem to agree that even in our disagreements we could still play a game together.  As I have stated in other posts, I prefer the idea that the Shield Master feat would confer a Bonus action without the Attack action having to precede it, but unfortunately for us that is not the official ruling as I understand it. I hope my DM will house-rule it the other way, but I'll continue to play in his game as well, even if he doesn't. Since you agree it is a valid interpretation, I won't try to persuade you otherwise except to finish this post unless you wish to continue?

#7. You are correct in both points here. I am saying, if you have Extra Attack and TWF, you could use the Attack action and your first attack to Shove, knocking your opponent prone. At which point you still have your second attack via Extra Attack _AND_ your bonus action granting you another attack via TWF. Both of these attack would be made with advantage. Without Extra Attack, shoving a creature _WOULD NOT_ constitute making an attack with a Light melee weapon, so you would not gain the bonus action attack from TWF. To me there is no debate on this because shoving a creature is not a melee weapon attack at all and I would have to dig, but I remember reading that either in one of the core books or maybe SA.

#8. This seems to return to #5 in that your wording indicates you understand that the bonus action Shove from Shield Master counts as its own satisfying condition because it is a melee attack. In the X,Y logic, that would be like arguing this: "If X, then Y" becomes "Since Y, then Y." You are trying to equate Y to X, but they are not the same (again, see #5 above).

Maybe that clears things up or not? If you are stuck in your own understanding, I don't know if anything more I have to say can convince you otherwise. I think the scenario in #1 shows it best how you must first take the Attack action before you can Shove (at least as the official ruling is concerned). I agree I like it better the other way since it adds an offensive element to Shield Master without having to rely on allies to benefit instead of you. But, I am not JC and I don't make the rules, I can only encourage my DM to house-rule otherwise.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 7, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> However, you still cannot Shove until you *complete* the Extra attack because _IT_ is part of the Attack action. With the exception of movement, which expressly is allowed between attacks, you must *complete* one action before you can begin another




Others have repeated this since your post.

And, like you, they have no rules support for this.

There is no rule in the PHB which says that "you must *complete* one action before you can begin another". If there is, please quote it.

Yet there _is_ a written rule that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn.

So that just leaves the issue of whether or not you actually _have_ the bonus action shield shove between or before the attacks allowed by taking the Attack action.

The existence of that bonus action is conditional, *not* the condition of, "when you _complete_ your Attack action", but on the condition of, "If you _take_ the Attack action".

Since the replies from the other side of the debate regarding _sanctuary_ have indeed revealed that 'taking the Attack action' does come _before_ that first attack, then there exists a time _after_ 'taking the Attack action' but _before_ executing, or attempting to execute, your first attack.

Which makes sense re: cause and effect. In the physical laws of our universe-and we have no evidence of any other universe where it would be otherwise-cause *must* come _before_ effect. Therefore, if 'taking the Attack action' is the cause, and 'bonus action shield shove' is the effect, then one is before the other; i.e. they are *not* simultaneous.

The upshot of this is that as soon as you 'take the Attack action', which we know is _before_ your first actual attack, you have 'caused' the bonus action shield shove, and now that you have it you can use it whenever you want in your turn.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 7, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Others have repeated this since your post.
> 
> And, like you, they have no rules support for this.
> 
> ...



Of course theres no rule, the question doesn't make sense.

When you take an action, you do what it says.  Why waste space listing all the things you can't do when clearly stating what you actually do?  

On your turn, you may move and take an action.  Actions are self contained and self explanatory.  If you have a bonus action, you can take it any time on your turn.  Not in the middle of actions because there is no middle of actions.  You're introducing rules concepts like duration or splitting of actions that have no meaning within the 5e combat rules.  If you stop doing that and just read the rules without bringing baggage, it lays out very simply.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 7, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Others have repeated this since your post.
> 
> And, like you, they have no rules support for this.
> 
> ...




It is not in the PHB, it is a from a JC comment. As I said earlier, I am not going to waste my time finding it just to satisfy you. Instead I will simply direct you to the latest SA on the Shield Master feat:

*Shield Master*
[NEW] *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. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.

The text "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action." clearly indicates you can decide when to take the bonus action _AFTER_ you've taken the Attack action. *The timing has now been specified: after you've taken the Attack action.* You are no longer free to take it whenever you want.



> So that just leaves the issue of whether or not you actually _have_ the bonus action shield shove between or before the attacks allowed by taking the Attack action.
> 
> The existence of that bonus action is conditional, *not* the condition of, "when you _complete_ your Attack action", but on the condition of, "If you _take_ the Attack action".
> 
> Since the replies from the other side of the debate regarding _sanctuary_ have indeed revealed that 'taking the Attack action' does come _before_ that first attack, then there exists a time _after_ 'taking the Attack action' but _before_ executing, or attempting to execute, your first attack.




You don't. How can you have taken the Attack action without Making an Attack and proceeding to the Steps to do so? To say you are taking the Attack action and then ignore what needs to follow to constitute taking the Attack action is nonsensical.



> Which makes sense re: cause and effect. In the physical laws of our universe-and we have no evidence of any other universe where it would be otherwise-cause *must* come _before_ effect. Therefore, if 'taking the Attack action' is the cause, and 'bonus action shield shove' is the effect, then one is before the other; i.e. they are *not* simultaneous.
> 
> The upshot of this is that as soon as you 'take the Attack action', which we know is _before_ your first actual attack, you have 'caused' the bonus action shield shove, and now that you have it you can use it whenever you want in your turn.




No, cause and effect are not simultaneous. Of course they are not. No one ever said they were, did they? But to satisfy the cause of taking the attack action you must make an attack, otherwise you have not taken the Attack action. You have not taken the Attack action until you choose a target for your attack (Step 1 from Making an Attack). There is no time in-between taking the Attack action and making your attack. If you say you are taking the Attack action, then Shove before Making an Attack, you are setting yourself up for paradox as in the scenario I proposed in post #952.

What I don't understand is the point of all this at this stage. Can you simply not accept how this works? Do you feel you need to debate it to justify the fact that you want to be able to utilize the Shove bonus action before making your attacks on your turn? It is simply enough to just house-rule it. As JC states, the bonus action comes AFTER the Attack action. How can you be after the Attack action if you have not taken it. To start to take it, is not to have taken it.

For our group we'll probably just house-rule it to allow the Shove after you have made at least one attack. I'm done debating it. If you want to rule it your way feel free. If I have the time and find the JC quote, I WILL POST IT just to satisfy you and others like you.  Until then have a great game!


----------



## epithet (Mar 7, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> It is not in the PHB, it is a from a JC comment. As I said earlier, I am not going to waste my time finding it just to satisfy you. Instead I will simply direct you to the latest SA on the Shield Master feat:
> ...
> If I have the time and find the JC quote, I WILL POST IT just to satisfy you and others like you. ...




I think you perhaps misunderstand. We all know what Crawford said, we've all read the new Sage Advice and most of us have probably watched the videos on YouTube. The point is that some of us are of the opinion that Jeremy is wrong, that his new "ruling" goes beyond simply interpreting the rules of the game and is making up new and unnecessary restrictions, and is Bad Advice.

When Arial Black is asking you to cite the rule in the PHB, I suspect it is because he knows that there isn't one. He's probably trying to underscore the point that your argument is based on some malarky that Jeremy Crawford recently made up when he changed his mind regarding Shield Master. I don't think any of us are arguing about what the latest revisions to Sage Advice _are_, we are debating whether or not they're garbage.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 8, 2019)

Is it me or does anyone else feel that Sage Advice flies in the face of rulings over rules?   They stress this as design intent but then hand down rulings that, to me, are minutiae.  I feel it causes more debate than it settles.  This board is ripe with people who take Sage Advice with a grain of salt.  If there’s a serious issue with mechanics, fix it with an errata and move on but otherwise, let people make rulings. 

But maybe that’s just me seeing an issue??


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> It is not in the PHB, it is a from a JC comment. As I said earlier, I am not going to waste my time finding it just to satisfy you. Instead I will simply direct you to the latest SA on the Shield Master feat:
> 
> *Shield Master*
> [NEW] *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. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.




As long as the attack action is comes before the actually attacking (as the sanctuary example helped reveal) then you can take the attack action, shield master shove, attack then attack again.  Nothing in our interpretation goes against this quote.



> The text "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action." clearly indicates you can decide when to take the bonus action _AFTER_ you've taken the Attack action. *The timing has now been specified: after you've taken the Attack action.* You are no longer free to take it whenever you want.




I agree.  But the attack action happens before your actual attacks.  That's the key to piecing it back together.



> You don't. How can you have taken the Attack action without Making an Attack and proceeding to the Steps to do so? To say you are taking the Attack action and then ignore what needs to follow to constitute taking the Attack action is nonsensical.




Because the sanctuary discussion revealed that you can take the attack action and never actually attack.
Because the disengage discussion revealed that you must take the disengage action and have it end before you can move again.

The individual evidences may not be wholly convincing.  I get that.  But the evidences all considered as a whole together definitely make a strong case that the actions in general and more importantly, the attack action all happen before the attacks it provides.



> No, cause and effect are not simultaneous. Of course they are not. No one ever said they were, did they? But to satisfy the cause of taking the attack action you must make an attack, otherwise you have not taken the Attack action.




Sanctuary proves otherwise.  You don't make an attack with sanctuary, you lose your attack.  



> You have not taken the Attack action until you choose a target for your attack (Step 1 from Making an Attack).




Okay, then I'll just shield master shove after choosing the target for my attack.  You agree I can take the shove anytime on my turn after I've taken the attack action right?  And since I've taken the attack action after choosing my target then I should be able to shield bash before determining modifiers and resolving the attack right?



> There is no time in-between taking the Attack action and making your attack.




Do you have a rule or any evidence for this?  Our side has provided evidence that actions come before their effects, including the attack action.  What supports your belief that it doesn't?



> If you say you are taking the Attack action, then Shove before Making an Attack, you are setting yourself up for paradox as in the scenario I proposed in post #952.




No.  As long as you have taken the attack action then whether you actually can attack or not is irrelevant.  In our scenario it would be take attack action.  shield master shove.  get stunned.  SHOOT I lost my attacks.  DM reviews situation and finds nothing that broke the rules as the attack action was taken before the shield master shove.



> What I don't understand is the point of all this at this stage. Can you simply not accept how this works? Do you feel you need to debate it to justify the fact that you want to be able to utilize the Shove bonus action before making your attacks on your turn?




I can't answer for Arial but I don't want to be able to use it on my turn.  I wanted to be right.  My original belief had always been that the rules only allow the shield master shove after the attacks.  I was thrilled when JC joined my side.  So no, I don't want to use shield master after the attack action.  I would much rather have been right.

However, I have found compelling evidence in this thread that I was wrong.



> It is simply enough to just house-rule it. As JC states, the bonus action comes AFTER the Attack action. How can you be after the Attack action if you have not taken it. To start to take it, is not to have taken it.




Bad arguments deserve that response.  The argument in this case is very persuasive.



> For our group we'll probably just house-rule it to allow the Shove after you have made at least one attack. I'm done debating it. If you want to rule it your way feel free. If I have the time and find the JC quote, I WILL POST IT just to satisfy you and others like you.  Until then have a great game!




Yep, even if JC had been right in this case then I would have houserulled it.  But my reason was that I'd played it by his original ruling for so long that I wasn't changing it now.  It is nice knowing I don't have to houserule it though.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 8, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Is it me or does anyone else feel that Sage Advice flies in the face of rulings over rules?   They stress this as design intent but then hand down rulings that, to me, are minutiae.  I feel it causes more debate than it settles.  This board is ripe with people who take Sage Advice with a grain of salt.  If there’s a serious issue with mechanics, fix it with an errata and move on but otherwise, let people make rulings.
> 
> But maybe that’s just me seeing an issue??



Iirc the literal first question addressed of the current Sage Advice is

"Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM 
can just make a ruling? "


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 8, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Iirc the literal first question addressed of the current Sage Advice is
> 
> "Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM
> can just make a ruling? "




For once, I _COMPLETELY _agree with you. That being said, I feel like to continue this pointless back-and-forth with others would just be banging my head against the wall. I feel no need to try to convince someone of my understanding when I am not even playing with them!

I'll wait for another topic before chiming in again.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Sanctuary proves otherwise.  You don't make an attack with sanctuary, you lose your attack.




Sanctuary is a specific exception that applies to that spell only, not a general rule that applies to the entire game.  It also doesn't say in the spell's text that the attacker gets their action back and can do something else instead of their failed attack, much like Counterspell doesn't say that the target gets their action back to do something else after you cause their spell to fail.  It's pretty clear that Sanctuary is applied in step 3 of the "Making an Attack", which is to resolve the attack.  The resolution of your attack against a creature that is protected by Sanctuary when you fail your Wisdom save is that the attack fizzles.  Once any other attacks granted by Extra Attack are resolved, your Attack action is over.  There's no rewinding time to decide you'll take a different action instead, much like there is zero mention in the rules about an action declaration phase.  Just do what it says on the tin.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 8, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> For once, I _COMPLETELY _agree with you. That being said, I feel like to continue this pointless back-and-forth with others would just be banging my head against the wall. I feel no need to try to convince someone of my understanding when I am not even playing with them!
> 
> I'll wait for another topic before chiming in again.



Not surprising in the least. I figured a "no comment" was imminent.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Sanctuary is a specific exception that applies to that spell only, not a general rule that applies to the entire game.  It also doesn't say in the spell's text that the attacker gets their action back and can do something else instead of their failed attack, much like Counterspell doesn't say that the target gets their action back to do something else after you cause their spell to fail.  It's pretty clear that Sanctuary is applied in step 3 of the "Making an Attack", which is to resolve the attack.  The resolution of your attack against a creature that is protected by Sanctuary when you fail your Wisdom save is that the attack fizzles.  Once any other attacks granted by Extra Attack are resolved, your Attack action is over.  There's no rewinding time to decide you'll take a different action instead, much like there is zero mention in the rules about an action declaration phase.  Just do what it says on the tin.




How about responding to the rest of my post


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Logical Inferences are integral to being about to understand complex topics.  The Rules don't have to spell absolutely everything out as we can reason.  If reasoning is applied to a given interpretation and it results in something you disagree with you can not reasonably use the notion that the rules would have to state that.  What's being provided is a logical deduction from your stated interpretation (the facts you've presented about your interprestion) and what the rules actually say.  The whole idea is that given your truths and the truth of the rules we will be able to reason out other facts.  If your arguing against that reasoning based on your interpretation "facts" and raw that leads to some conclusion you don't agree with then at least present a reasonable argument as to why the reasoning fails.  Saying there's no rule doesn't cut it in such a situation.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> How about responding to the rest of my post




What's the point?  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and I have been responding to this using the words in the PHB.  There is no text that says "due to the way Sanctuary works, the Attack action is separate from the actual attacks".  There is no text that talks about the duration of an action.  You can perform the Cast a Spell action and not actually cast a spell, due to it being Counterspelled.  You seem to have latched onto Sanctuary as the proof that your interpretation is correct, but I fundamentally disagree and have posted at length about how I believe the Attack action and actions in general work (i.e. the Attack action is making an attack, Extra Attack gives you multiple attacks, it's all part of the action, there's a specific rule that says you can insert movement between attacks, etc etc etc).

JEC has talked at length about how spells in 5E work, specifically that all you need to know about a particular spell is the words in that spell alone.  You don't need to refer to other spells or other features of the game, you simply do what the spell says.  Sanctuary says that if you try and attack a creature protected by the spell and fail your Wisdom save, that attack is lost.  It does not say you get to go back in time and choose a different action, or that you can Shield Master shove any time you like, it simply says that if you try and attack a creature protected by this spell and fail your save, you can't attack the target.  We don't need to read anything more from the text of the spell, the effect is quite simple and quite clear: if you fail your save, you can't attack the target protected by the spell.  Just do what it says.  No need to take these words and infer that some other portion of the game must behave in a way that is not in the text of those rules, this spell simply provides an exception to the general rules of the game.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> What's the point?  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and I have been responding to this using the words in the PHB.  There is no text that says "due to the way Sanctuary works, the Attack action is separate from the actual attacks".  There is no text that talks about the duration of an action.  You can perform the Cast a Spell action and not actually cast a spell, due to it being Counterspelled.  You seem to have latched onto Sanctuary as the proof that your interpretation is correct, but I fundamentally disagree and have posted at length about how I believe the Attack action and actions in general work (i.e. the Attack action is making an attack, Extra Attack gives you multiple attacks, it's all part of the action, there's a specific rule that says you can insert movement between attacks, etc etc etc).
> 
> JEC has talked at length about how spells in 5E work, specifically that all you need to know about a particular spell is the words in that spell alone.  You don't need to refer to other spells or other features of the game, you simply do what the spell says.  Sanctuary says that if you try and attack a creature protected by the spell and fail your Wisdom save, that attack is lost.  It does not say you get to go back in time and choose a different action, or that you can Shield Master shove any time you like, it simply says that if you try and attack a creature protected by this spell and fail your save, you can't attack the target.  We don't need to read anything more from the text of the spell, the effect is quite simple and quite clear: if you fail your save, you can't attack the target protected by the spell.  Just do what it says.  No need to take these words and infer that some other portion of the game must behave in a way that is not in the text of those rules, this spell simply provides an exception to the general rules of the game.




How about actually responding to my post?  See I can repeat myself too....


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Logical Inferences are integral to being about to understand complex topics.  The Rules don't have to spell absolutely everything out as we can reason.  If reasoning is applied to a given interpretation and it results in something you disagree with you can not reasonably use the notion that the rules would have to state that.  What's being provided is a logical deduction from your stated interpretation (the facts you've presented about your interprestion) and what the rules actually say.  The whole idea is that given your truths and the truth of the rules we will be able to reason out other facts.  If your arguing against that reasoning based on your interpretation "facts" and raw that leads to some conclusion you don't agree with then at least present a reasonable argument as to why the reasoning fails.  Saying there's no rule doesn't cut it in such a situation.




Or, perhaps the rules of the game are designed to be simple and straight forward, and not require a ton of reasoning and interpretation.  As [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] so eloquently put it, just do what it says on the tin.

Occam's razor: the Attack action means making attacks.  Sanctuary means the attack fails if you fail your saving throw.  "If you X, you can Y" means you have to actually do X before you can do Y.  There's a rule that says you can split your movement before and after your action, as well as between attacks in the Attack action.

If I was a game designer and trying to build a rule system that was easy for new players to understand, then I'd lean towards my previous paragraph and not something that relies on knowledge of every single word in the PHB and that the text of the Sanctuary spell radically changes the way the entire action system works (with no words about this in the actual text of that action system itself) and thousands of other obscure rules interactions.  There's a really simple solution here, and my position is that this is the correct one.  Which also just happens to be confirmed by the Sage Advice Compendium.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> As long as the attack action is comes before the actually attacking (as the sanctuary example helped reveal) then you can take the attack action, shield master shove, attack then attack again.  Nothing in our interpretation goes against this quote.




Your interpretation is wrong, because the action is not separate from the attacks.  The PHB says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."  If you disagree with this, please quote the PHB text that says the Attack action is separate from the attacks.



FrogReaver said:


> I agree.  But the attack action happens before your actual attacks.  That's the key to piecing it back together.




No it doesn't, per the PHB text I just quoted above.



FrogReaver said:


> Because the sanctuary discussion revealed that you can take the attack action and never actually attack.
> Because the disengage discussion revealed that you must take the disengage action and have it end before you can move again.
> 
> The individual evidences may not be wholly convincing.  I get that.  But the evidences all considered as a whole together definitely make a strong case that the actions in general and more importantly, the attack action all happen before the attacks it provides.




The Disengage action provides a temporary buff, much like the Shield spell.  Once you have taken the action, your movement no longer provokes OAs.  Nowhere in the PHB does it say the Disengage action lasts for the same duration as the effect it applies, in fact the PHB does not talk about action duration at all.  Thus, the logical conclusion is that action duration isn't a thing and has no meaning or relevance.



FrogReaver said:


> Sanctuary proves otherwise.  You don't make an attack with sanctuary, you lose your attack.




It really doesn't prove this, though.  Sanctuary simply means you either have to make your saving throw, or you fail to attack the target.  This is very similar to the Cast a Spell action and Counterspell, if you lose your spell from Counterspell you still took the Cast a Spell action.



FrogReaver said:


> Okay, then I'll just shield master shove after choosing the target for my attack.  You agree I can take the shove anytime on my turn after I've taken the attack action right?  And since I've taken the attack action after choosing my target then I should be able to shield bash before determining modifiers and resolving the attack right?




The PHB says the Attack action is "with this action, you make one melee or ranged attack".  The rules for making an attack list 3 steps which must be followed.  There is nothing in the PHB about splitting an action and taking a bonus action in between these 3 steps.  We shouldn't have to list out every single thing that you aren't allowed to do, we simply just do what the PHB says we can do.  Nothing more, nothing less.



FrogReaver said:


> Do you have a rule or any evidence for this?  Our side has provided evidence that actions come before their effects, including the attack action.  What supports your belief that it doesn't?




There are actions that provide buffs that last for a duration.  The length of the effect is explicitly listed in the action itself.  The Attack action has no such language, and thus it does not work like those other actions (e.g. Disengage, Dodge).



FrogReaver said:


> No.  As long as you have taken the attack action then whether you actually can attack or not is irrelevant.  In our scenario it would be take attack action.  shield master shove.  get stunned.  SHOOT I lost my attacks.  DM reviews situation and finds nothing that broke the rules as the attack action was taken before the shield master shove.




Taking the Attack action is making the attack(s), per the text in the PHB.



FrogReaver said:


> I can't answer for Arial but I don't want to be able to use it on my turn.  I wanted to be right.  My original belief had always been that the rules only allow the shield master shove after the attacks.  I was thrilled when JC joined my side.  So no, I don't want to use shield master after the attack action.  I would much rather have been right.
> 
> However, I have found compelling evidence in this thread that I was wrong.




You seem to have latched onto the words of one spell and using this to prove your interpretation, but that has just meant you've drawn the wrong conclusion.



FrogReaver said:


> Bad arguments deserve that response.  The argument in this case is very persuasive.




It's really not persuasive, though.



FrogReaver said:


> Yep, even if JC had been right in this case then I would have houserulled it.  But my reason was that I'd played it by his original ruling for so long that I wasn't changing it now.  It is nice knowing I don't have to houserule it though.




The Sage Advice Compendium is very clear about how this feat is supposed to work.  You can obviously play it however you like, but it's a real stretch to claim that JEC is simply wrong and that obscure words from other portions of the game radically change the action system.

Did we really learn anything new here?  Did I change your mind?  I doubt it, which is why I wasn't really planning on replying to your entire post again.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 8, 2019)

Okay, so I am about to go to bed and I will make one final attempt to clarify this so Asgorath isn't doing all the work (good job, btw!). From tweets posted by JC and others on May 11, 2018:

#1. *Jonathan Ellis*
_What was it supposed to be? How is using a bonus action to knock someone prone and then attack cheesy?_

#2. *Jeremy Crawford*
_It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move._

Please note two things in JC's reponse to Mr Ellis's questions.

1. "a way to knock someone prone after your attack." Not after your Attack action, after your _attack_. If you have not attacked, you have not satisfied the condition. Taking the Attack action means you are attacking. Until you have resolved the attack, you are not "after" it.

2. "It's essentially a finishing move." _A finishing move_. Not a in-the-middle-of-my-attacks move, finishing move.

A later tweet also from May 11, 2018:

#3. *Jeremy Crawford*
_If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise. The action as a whole is the condition._

We all agree (I believe) with the interpretation of the first part, "If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise." The rule for Shield Master is "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature..." We all agree you must take the Attack action in order to gain the benefit of the bonus action--there is no doubt about that.

Now, the case is being argued that you _are_ taking the Attack action, just not making your attacks yet. This is the point where we deviate so I will continue with the next sentence:

"The action as a whole is the condition."

Since the action as a whole _is_ the condition, you must take it in its entirety, not piece by piece, in order to satisfy the condition. Trying to take it piece-by-piece as some have reasoned violates that _"The action as a whole is the condition_." ruling. Therefore, you _cannot_: take the Attack action, bonus action Shove, attack. If you try to do so, you are _not_ taking the action as a whole,  which _is_ the condition, thus denying yourself the Bonus action with which to Shove.

Therefore you must do the following:
1. Take the Attack action since that is required for the Bonus action as its condition. (No arguments here.)
2. Since the action as a whole is the condition, you must take it and complete it, not break it apart, before you have satisfied the condition.

Once you take the Attack action as a whole (that's the condition from #3 above), you then gain the benefit of the bonus action to Shove. If you don't take the Attack action as a whole, you don't get the bonus action to Shove.

You don't agree with JC's rulings, fine, as always it is up to the DM and the table to play how they see fit. If you do so, however, hopefully you will now understand why it is against the official rules and a house-rule. I don't see why anyone has an issue with that, since many of us play with at least _some_ house-rules, after all.

Good night!


----------



## epithet (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Or, perhaps the rules of the game are designed to be simple and straight forward, and not require a ton of reasoning and interpretation.  As [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] so eloquently put it, just do what it says on the tin.
> 
> Occam's razor: the Attack action means making attacks.  Sanctuary means the attack fails if you fail your saving throw.  "If you X, you can Y" means you have to actually do X before you can do Y.  There's a rule that says you can split your movement before and after your action, as well as between attacks in the Attack action.
> 
> If I was a game designer and trying to build a rule system that was easy for new players to understand, then I'd lean towards my previous paragraph and not something that relies on knowledge of every single word in the PHB and that the text of the Sanctuary spell radically changes the way the entire action system works (with no words about this in the actual text of that action system itself) and thousands of other obscure rules interactions.  There's a really simple solution here, and my position is that this is the correct one.  Which also just happens to be confirmed by the Sage Advice Compendium.




I think most designers building rules that are easy for new players to understand try to keep in mind that while the game might not be emulating a fantasy world, it is modelling it. Thus, trying to have your rules make sense and carry a level of verisimilitude helps the new player get into character and understand the range of what's possible in the game.

If this new player plays a champion, for example, he'll pick up Extra Attack at level 5, and might have taken the Shield Master feat at level 4. It's totally straightforward to understand that "so if you attack this turn, you get to make two attacks plus a bonus shield shove." Even the newest player can understand that. What doesn't make any sense at all is "yeah, you can't make that shove until after the other two attacks. I mean, you can totally shove as one of those attacks, but then you still have the shove at the end." It doesn't make any sense, it wrecks immersion because you have to get out of the moment to parse the text in nit-picking gamist terms which are obviously ambiguous.

To me, one of the obvious clues that Jeremy is just pulling this out of his posterior is the whole "finishing move" assertion. This is pretty clearly not intended to be a finishing move, because you don't have to shove someone you've already attacked. Even according to Jeremy's new and not-at-all-improved advice on the feat, you can cut down an enemy before you move across the room, open a door, find a new target, and shove it with your shield without doing any damage. The only way that's a finishing move is that it finishes your turn. Either Jeremy has not idea what a finishing move is (not likely,) or he's just throwing turds at the wall to see which ones stick. Obviously the "finishing move" fewmet found a couple of people willing to repeat it (apparently with sincerity and not ironically) in this thread, but it is a ridiculous claim on its face.

Wizards has gotten its messaging under control, so we shall apparently never again see Mike or Chris give opinions on rules interpretations. That's unfortunate in this instance, because I seriously doubt that Jeremy's revised Advice on Shield Master matches the original intention for the feat when it was written. Could I be wrong? Of course, it happens all the time, but it seems very unlikely to me that Jeremy simply forgot that he imagined that if means after, and that there was supposed to be a timing requirement. For two years!

The issue here isn't really the Shield Master feat and its bonus action shove. That's easily fixed with either a different interpretation of the rules or a house rule like mine that eliminates the need for the Attack Action altogether. "Bash and dash," I call it. The real issue for me is the direction that this change in the Sage Advice represents, specifically a willingness to sacrifice modeling believable action in the service of gamist overspecificity and hyper-literal parsing. I don't want to see the playability of future content compromised by the attitude this type of "official ruling" represents, an attitude that moves away from the improvisation and in-the-moment inspiration that makes D&D immeasurably superior to board games or computer RPGs.

A hundred pages of discussion in this thread alone make it abundantly clear that there are several ways to read the Shield Master feat and the rules with which it interacts. Many of you seem to hold the belief that (despite the fact that he insists that he was wrong before) Jeremy Crawford's statements regarding the interpretation of this rule are The One True Way. As I see it, he's either wrong now or he was wrong before, and I'll take whichever one makes more sense to me. When you have more than one way to reasonably interpret a rule of D&D, the way that leads to arbitrarily locking a player character into an invariable pattern and restricting a player's ability to determine what his character can do on its turn is the wrong damn interpretation.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 8, 2019)

epithet said:


> I think most designers building rules that are easy for new players to understand try to keep in mind that while the game might not be emulating a fantasy world, it is modelling it. Thus, trying to have your rules make sense and carry a level of verisimilitude helps the new player get into character and understand the range of what's possible in the game.
> 
> If this new player plays a champion, for example, he'll pick up Extra Attack at level 5, and might have taken the Shield Master feat at level 4. It's totally straightforward to understand that "so if you attack this turn, you get to make two attacks plus a bonus shield shove." Even the newest player can understand that. What doesn't make any sense at all is "yeah, you can't make that shove until after the other two attacks. I mean, you can totally shove as one of those attacks, but then you still have the shove at the end." It doesn't make any sense, it wrecks immersion because you have to get out of the moment to parse the text in nit-picking gamist terms which are obviously ambiguous.
> 
> ...



Dude, lower your voice; hitpoints are _right there._

More seriously, your opinions about what constitutes fictional fidelity with actions is your opinion.  It's not the design basis for the game designers (who will be using thier own).  D&D is chock full of mechanics that require resolution before being described in the fiction; you're just used to them and no longer notice.

Personally, I don't have any problem with narrating the shield bash after the attack.  The attack sets up the foe by unbalancing them enough for a skilled warrior to take advantage with a well-timed shield bash that sends the foe staggering or knocks them down.  Ta-da!  

I think the problem here is that you already have a fiction in mind and want the gane to model that instead of seeing what the gane models and then narrating that.


In another ongoing thread, I made the observation that there are players that want the fictional state to drive the mechanics, ie they consider all of the fictional inputs going into the action and choose the appropriate mechanical test that fits those inputs.  Call this resolution at the end.  This method tends toward identifying the outcome and then resolving if that happens or not.

On the other side, if there's a question mechanics are used and the results determine what some of the fictional inputs must have been to generate that outcome.  Call this resolution in the middle. This method leaves outcomes more open ended to accommodate fiction.

D&D cribs from both.  Ability checks are endian because the current situation  determines the check type and DC.  Hitpoints are middlish because the fictional outcome adapts to the resolution.  Shield Master is between these two ends.  It's inputs are not based on the fiction, but it's outputs are fixed in the fiction.  This causes issues with players that prefer the first path.

4e is chock full of this kind of middlish resolution, and that was/is one of the major fronts of the edition war.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 8, 2019)

epithet said:


> I think most designers building rules that are easy for new players to understand try to keep in mind that while the game might not be emulating a fantasy world, it is modelling it. Thus, trying to have your rules make sense and carry a level of verisimilitude helps the new player get into character and understand the range of what's possible in the game.
> 
> If this new player plays a champion, for example, he'll pick up Extra Attack at level 5, and might have taken the Shield Master feat at level 4. It's totally straightforward to understand that "so if you attack this turn, you get to make two attacks plus a bonus shield shove." Even the newest player can understand that. What doesn't make any sense at all is "yeah, you can't make that shove until after the other two attacks. I mean, you can totally shove as one of those attacks, but then you still have the shove at the end." It doesn't make any sense, it wrecks immersion because you have to get out of the moment to parse the text in nit-picking gamist terms which are obviously ambiguous.
> 
> ...




Well said! Of course, I don't know so much about the reference to Jeremy pulling something out of his posterior...

Otherwise, I think you are right. While my posts have been vehemently in favor of understanding the official stance, I don't agree with it either. Like you I agree the Shove attack works narratively coming first, in the middle, or last. It makes no difference to me personally and I would play with a DM who runs it either way without any qualms. I feel it is more useful allowing the Shove to happen first, but not essential. Other aspects of the feat are still very good given the proper situations.

Writing Shield Master as "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you may take an additional attack that you can use to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

Now, this doesn't cost action economy since you aren't spending your Bonus action, but it shouldn't be OP even given that and further testing would prove it out either way. It could be worded that making the additional attack to shove deprives you of taking any bonus action on that turn.

Another option would be this (or along similar lines)

"If you use one of your attacks to shove a creature on your turn, you gain advantage on the Strength (Athletics) check for that attack by using your shield."

Again, word to deprive bonus action or not.

In SA Jeremy comments that the Eldritch Knight ability, War Magic, "That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack."

Does it break anything by allowing the shove prior to the attack? Probably not. However, apparently enough issues came up that the powers that be felt it was important to reverse his prior ruling. And so now we are stuck with the shove coming after you've completed the Attack action as a whole. People can house-rule it or ignore the reversal if it suits their game, or just play without Feats and then they don't have to worry about it at all!


----------



## Hriston (Mar 8, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I see how you're doing this, and that's great, I'm glad it works for you, but it's not how the rules read.  You don't get to "you haven't not gained it yet" when you can't get a bonus action until given one.  That's not how the rules work, although I see no serious issue to you ruling that way for your table.




But you _are_ given one by virtue of having the feat. That's my point. Saying, "you can't get a bonus action until given one", is a paraphrase of the section I quoted, which is about "class features, spells, and other abilities" letting you take one. It's a clarification that bonus action is not a default part of the action economy that a player should be thinking about filling on every turn, like similar things are in previous editions. If you have Shield Master, then you _do_ have a bonus action to take. And sure, the condition needs to be satisfied, but that's not what this passage is about.



Ovinomancer said:


> No, because you're then skipping to the end to check the condition to apply the result to the beginning. Not how conditionals work. If X, Y requires X to be true either before or at the same time as Y, not that Y can exist so long as X eventually does.




But X _is_ true at the same time as Y because it's true of your entire turn. You can't both take the Attack action on your turn and not take the Attack action on your turn. It's one or the other.



Ovinomancer said:


> Possibly, except we have another rule, the one that says you do not have a bonus action until given one.  In that case, you cannot go to the bookstore (bonus action) because the bookstore doesn't exist until you take money out of the ATM.  Okay, that example got weird, but still, that's how it works.




Okay, I was ignoring the bonus action part of the example because of the weirdness, but what I've been saying about Shield Master still holds. The rule you're citing says you don't have a bonus action to take unless "a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action." Shield Master states (with conditions) that you can shove a creature as a bonus action. Alternatively, [MENTION=6987520]dnd4vr[/MENTION]'s example states (with conditions) that you can go to the bookstore and buy a book as a bonus action.



Ovinomancer said:


> You cannot take a bonus action to shove until you've taken the Attack action on your turn. If X, Y means X cannot be a future event if Y occurs, it must be a current event.




Right, and my argument is that it's current because of the "on your turn" language. Perhaps an interpolation would help: If you [_do_] take the Attack action on your turn, you can use...



Ovinomancer said:


> The fact your interpretation jumps to the end of the turn to check if the Attack action has occurred and then goes back to earlier to allow the bonus action prior to the Attack action.  Since you've been clear that declaration isn't how you do this, then you have to be allowing a end-of-turn check to justify the bonus action.




It's different than that, though. Until satisfaction of the condition can be checked for (which, _at the latest,_ is at the end of your turn), all that has happened is a shove-attempt. Once the moment of your turn is reached in which you take the Attack action, then the condition for using a bonus action is met, and the bonus action is assigned to the shove-attempt. Now, that may seem like a retcon, or "going back in time", but to me it isn't because it doesn't change any established events in the fiction.



Ovinomancer said:


> Did I miss something?  What trouble did War Magic run into?




I’m really glad you asked me this. Here’s the story as far as I can reconstruct it. On July 6, 2015, Jeremy Crawford answered this question on twitter:

*Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before?*​
This response, an expansion of his earlier tweeted response, appears in the "RULES ANSWERS: JUNE 2016" Sage Advice article:

The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​
I want to stop right there to note that here we have the statement of RAI for bonus actions like the War Magic weapon attack, of which the Shield Master shove is one. I’d also like to note how highly unlikely it is that Crawford was drunk and in line at Trader Joe’s when he tweeted both this response as well as the one he tweeted on January 21, 2015 about the Shield Master shove. 

In the August, 2017 Sage Advice Compendium, however, Jeremy Crawford changed his answer to that question from his previous RAI answer to the following RAW interpretation: 

The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.​
After that, on May 11, 2018, someone asked him on Twitter if the same principle applied to his 2015 ruling on Shield Master, which led to him changing that ruling as well. 

So the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic is really what kicked this all off, and I suspect the reason Crawford decided to abandon his RAI ruling had something to do with the fact that while Shield Master, Two-Weapon Fighting, Polearm Master, etc. all grant bonus action attacks conditioned on taking the Attack action (with possible additional conditions), War Magic grants a weapon attack conditioned on casting a cantrip (presumably by taking the Cast a Spell action). And while Crawford acknowledges in his revised War Magic ruling that it breaks nothing to reverse the order established by his ruling, it does bring up the issue that if you make the weapon attack first and are then prevented from casting your cantrip, it changes your action from Cast a Spell to Attack. That isn't necessarily a problem either, but it might have been something that swayed him.



Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, this is a pretty clear version of your reading, but it runs into a few problems.  One, the Attack action does NOT grant the Shield Master shove, so whether or not it's a game feature is completely irrelevant.  The conditional is built into the Shield Master feat, which is a class (or racial, for variant humans) feature.  That conditional says that you only get the bonus action if you take that Attack action on your turn.  So, you paraphrase is eliding very important information -- namely the conditional nature of the bonus action.  You can't delete information and claim to be reading RAW, or RAI, for that matter.  This entire tangent doesn't advance your case.




I agree with your three points above. This post wasn't so much meant to advance my general position, however, as it was to call into question the particular reading of this passage that I've seen come up in this thread to support the idea that "you do not have a bonus action until given one." You yourself have used this argument several times in the post to which I'm responding. The case I'm making in this respect is that Shield Master is the game-feature that lets you use a bonus action (with conditions) according to this passage, so if you have the Shield Master feat, you do have a bonus action to use, and that taking the Attack action on your turn is merely concomitant with using your bonus action.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Personally, I don't have any problem with narrating the shield bash after the attack.  The attack sets up the foe by unbalancing them enough for a skilled warrior to take advantage with a well-timed shield bash that sends the foe staggering or knocks them down.  Ta-da!




This is a brilliant point.  If you want to shove a target who is in a defensive stance ready for your attack, then it takes part or all of your full Attack action because it's harder to do.  Once you've made your attack(s), the target could be off-balance enough that the extra juice from the Shield Master feat allows you to slip in a well-timed shove to knock them off their feet.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 8, 2019)

epithet said:


> I think you perhaps misunderstand. We all know what Crawford said, we've all read the new Sage Advice and most of us have probably watched the videos on YouTube. The point is that some of us are of the opinion that Jeremy is wrong, that his new "ruling" goes beyond simply interpreting the rules of the game and is making up new and unnecessary restrictions, and is Bad Advice.




This is essentially the same as when I look at the rule in the PHB that says that after you reduce a creature to 0, you can retroactively decide that you were knocking it out.  I think it's wrong and a bunch of malarky, so I created a house rule and changed it.  

You don't like what he said, so create a house rule that ignores it and move on.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

epithet said:


> I think most designers building rules that are easy for new players to understand try to keep in mind that while the game might not be emulating a fantasy world, it is modelling it. Thus, trying to have your rules make sense and carry a level of verisimilitude helps the new player get into character and understand the range of what's possible in the game.
> 
> If this new player plays a champion, for example, he'll pick up Extra Attack at level 5, and might have taken the Shield Master feat at level 4. It's totally straightforward to understand that "so if you attack this turn, you get to make two attacks plus a bonus shield shove." Even the newest player can understand that. What doesn't make any sense at all is "yeah, you can't make that shove until after the other two attacks. I mean, you can totally shove as one of those attacks, but then you still have the shove at the end." It doesn't make any sense, it wrecks immersion because you have to get out of the moment to parse the text in nit-picking gamist terms which are obviously ambiguous.




I think it's just as easy for a new player to understand shield master shove is a finishing move and go on about their business.



> To me, one of the obvious clues that Jeremy is just pulling this out of his posterior is the whole "finishing move" assertion. This is pretty clearly not intended to be a finishing move, because you don't have to shove someone you've already attacked. Even according to Jeremy's new and not-at-all-improved advice on the feat, you can cut down an enemy before you move across the room, open a door, find a new target, and shove it with your shield without doing any damage. The only way that's a finishing move is that it finishes your turn. Either Jeremy has not idea what a finishing move is (not likely,) or he's just throwing turds at the wall to see which ones stick. Obviously the "finishing move" fewmet found a couple of people willing to repeat it (apparently with sincerity and not ironically) in this thread, but it is a ridiculous claim on its face.




This is a great point.  Shield Master doesn't make sense as a finishing move because it doesn't actually require you to use it as a finishing move.  So if you are not always using it as a finishing move then there is no in fiction reason you couldn't use it at another time.  Very good point!



> Wizards has gotten its messaging under control, so we shall apparently never again see Mike or Chris give opinions on rules interpretations. That's unfortunate in this instance, because I seriously doubt that Jeremy's revised Advice on Shield Master matches the original intention for the feat when it was written. Could I be wrong? Of course, it happens all the time, but it seems very unlikely to me that Jeremy simply forgot that he imagined that if means after, and that there was supposed to be a timing requirement. For two years!




I think JC just got muddled in the details.  He wanted to make clear the X must come before Y thing which I still agree with (It's why I will argue with Hriston so strongly about his position being wrong).  But In so doing JC inadvertently lumped attacks as part of the attack action.



> The issue here isn't really the Shield Master feat and its bonus action shove. That's easily fixed with either a different interpretation of the rules or a house rule like mine that eliminates the need for the Attack Action altogether. "Bash and dash," I call it. The real issue for me is the direction that this change in the Sage Advice represents, specifically a willingness to sacrifice modeling believable action in the service of gamist overspecificity and hyper-literal parsing. I don't want to see the playability of future content compromised by the attitude this type of "official ruling" represents, an attitude that moves away from the improvisation and in-the-moment inspiration that makes D&D immeasurably superior to board games or computer RPGs.




As long as it's shield master shove is viewed as a finishing move then it's not a gamist over specific construction.  It makes sense if that were the case.  But reading shield master rules  there is nothing that forces it to be a finishing move.  So even though it may be in most situations it needs to be 100% or it does start to feel a bit gamist.



> A hundred pages of discussion in this thread alone make it abundantly clear that there are several ways to read the Shield Master feat and the rules with which it interacts. Many of you seem to hold the belief that (despite the fact that he insists that he was wrong before) Jeremy Crawford's statements regarding the interpretation of this rule are The One True Way. As I see it, he's either wrong now or he was wrong before, and I'll take whichever one makes more sense to me. When you have more than one way to reasonably interpret a rule of D&D, the way that leads to arbitrarily locking a player character into an invariable pattern and restricting a player's ability to determine what his character can do on its turn is the wrong damn interpretation.




I think there's only 1 way to read shield master, that it must come after your attack action.  I think there are multiple ways to interpret the relationship between attack actions and attacks, but when it comes to that I think one interpretation stands heads and shoulders above the rest.


----------



## Lolek Bolinky (Mar 8, 2019)

This is great content, keep it coming!


----------



## epithet (Mar 8, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> ...
> Personally, I don't have any problem with narrating the shield bash after the attack.  The attack sets up the foe by unbalancing them enough for a skilled warrior to take advantage with a well-timed shield bash that sends the foe staggering or knocks them down.  Ta-da!
> ...




You raise some valid points, but the statement I quoted above seems only valid if you restrict the shield shove to a target you've already hit (or missed) with an attack on that round. That restriction doesn't exist. As I pointed out in the post to which you replied, you can (even according to Crawford's new and different Advice on the matter) shove someone in a completely different room from where you made your attack(s) to trigger the shove. Nothing is set up, no one is unbalanced--the shoved target need not even be aware of the triggering attack. The "finishing move" construction is just some BS he made up several years after the feat was originally published.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 8, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't think anyone has said you get the bonus action shove because of the Attack action.  That's... odd.  You get the bonus action shove from the Shield Master feat, which conditions that bonus action on the Attack action.  The Attack action isn't doing the granting work, the feat is, but the Attack action is the condition specified by the feat before granting the bonus action.




I think it might help to differentiate between having a bonus action to take and actually taking it. Comments along the lines of "you don't have a bonus action until [taking the Attack action] gives it to you" seem to be confusing the two things.



Ovinomancer said:


> Well, I certainly can, but I can't justify your interpretation with the rules because it allows for future state conditions to be considered true or that the action economy on a turn doesn't work as the book explains it (discrete steps) but instead as an amorphous blob that can only be disentangled into discrete components once it's completed.  The former breaks understanding of how conditionals work in general, much less the rules, and the latter isn't indicated at all and is, instead, counter-indicated by thee many references to before and after for many rule components for actions in combat.




Fair enough. None of this is a problem for me because, to me, "on your turn" can be read without bias as referring to your entire turn, and it can't be both true and false that "you take the Attack action on your turn," so the question is if you do or not.



Ovinomancer said:


> I see that you want to read 'take the attack action on your turn' as a holistic statement that treats turns as zen koans, being both comprised of individual parts but also indivisible and able to be considered as a whole.  But conditionals don't work like that, and the rule clearly show choosing what you do as ordered events.  Your own example of a bonus action with timing says that you accept there is a possible 'after the attack action' portion of a turn for which that ability, monk's flurry of blows, operates off of, but you revert back to Attack actions only being discoverable at the end of the turn for Shield Master.  You can't have it both ways, either the Attack action is at a point in your turn, and flurry of blows operates immediately after it, or it is not a point but something you assign after the turn is done to actions performed during the turn, in which can your example fails despite the fact that this is how your work Shield Master.




Flurry of Blows has additional language specifying when the bonus action must take place relative to the Attack action. Shield Master doesn't have that language. It would have been trivial to write, "After you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action...", if that was the intent. But, as the original ruling on the War Magic bonus action shows, it wasn't, unless the argument is made that Jeremy Crawford was wrong about the intent at that time, and only remembered or was reminded of what the original intent was later.



Ovinomancer said:


> And, I get you're applying the maxim of player declares, GM assigns mechanics, but that doesn't alleviate the need to assign mechanics according to the rules -- ie, this line of argument is orthogonal to the issue of timing of feats because, accepted as 100% true, it doesn't change how the rules work.  If you let the players have control over combat actions, it has to work the same was as the GM using those rules in response to player declarations.




Up thread, I brought up Step 2 of the basic pattern of play in response to [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION]'s statement that "the rules provide a framework for your character to act in combat." I don't subscribe to the idea that the rules are proscriptive with regard to players' action-declarations. They tell you what you _can_ do, not what you can't. There's even a sidebar under Actions in Combat about "Improvising an Action". It states:
Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in the Using Ability Scores section for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.​I agree that it's orthogonal to bonus action timing, and I'm not arguing for any inconsistency in interpretation between a player-facing vs a DM-facing reading of the rules. In my game, a shield master player is free to declare an attempt to shove a creature and then go on to take a full compliment of attacks afterwards by virtue of having the feat, and the DM is expected to rule in accordance with that reading of the feat and the bonus action rules in general. I was simply taking issue with the statement that a player needs a rule that says they can make this series of action-declarations in the first place.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I think it might help to differentiate between having a bonus action to take and actually taking it. Comments along the lines of "you don't have a bonus action until [taking the Attack action] gives it to you" seem to be confusing the two things.




The RAW says that you only have a bonus action to take if something provides one.  Shield Master only provides a bonus action to take if you take the attack action on your turn.  So until you've taken the attack action on your turn how do you have a bonus action to take?


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> This is a brilliant point.  If you want to shove a target who is in a defensive stance ready for your attack, then it takes part or all of your full Attack action because it's harder to do.  Once you've made your attack(s), the target could be off-balance enough that the extra juice from the Shield Master feat allows you to slip in a well-timed shove to knock them off their feet.




Except that point does not take into account that you can attack one enemy, move, then bonus action shield master shove another enemy.


----------



## epithet (Mar 8, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Dude, lower your voice; hitpoints are _right there._
> 
> More seriously, your opinions about what constitutes fictional fidelity with actions is your opinion.  It's not the design basis for the game designers (who will be using thier own).  D&D is chock full of mechanics that require resolution before being described in the fiction; you're just used to them and no longer notice.
> ...



Having thought about this a little more, it strikes me that it is true that D&D has some gamist elements that are there just because we're used to them. Hit points, however, are an example of something a bit different. Hit points are gamist and bad, but there's not really anything better that has emerged to replace it. I think the same cannot be said of Vancian casting--the spell point variant rule in the DMG is a lot less gamist, and I'd switch to it in a heartbeat if it was supported by Fantasy Grounds. Some bad gamist elements remain in the game because they're the least-worst alternative. This is a game, after all, and some gamist elements are to be expected.

I guess the issue really comes down to unnecessary and arbitrary gamist interruptions. Hit points serve the arguably necessary function of tracking the wear-and-tear an adventurer sustains, and of representing the increased toughness of a veteran campaigner. They aren't arbitrary, but are assigned or generated based on a system that makes a real effort at being consistent and predictable for almost everything in the fictional world that can be damaged. What function does the timing requirement of Shield Master serve? It cannot be, as has been urged a few times in this thread, to prevent "near-permanent advantage" for characters with high athletics bonuses, because that circumstance is already granted by two-weapon fighting without a feat. With a fighting style and a feat, the bonus action attack applies full damage and the character has half the defensive benefit of equipping a shield! If the master of two-weapon fighting doesn't require a nerf for having the possibility of "near-permanent advantage" from high athletics, then why is it necessary to restrict the shield master? If it is not necessary, and if that consideration is not consistently applied, then the restriction becomes completely arbitrary.

Hriston's background on the War Magic feature above, in addition to Crawford's recent tweets regarding two-weapon fighting, provide some valuable context. It really appears that Crawford is just making stuff up in an effort to create a set of consistent and universal rulings, but the example of two-weapon fighting demonstrates that he's not likely to accomplish that. He would, in my opinion, be better served by returning to his older approach and advising rulings on individual rules that makes sense for those rules, without feeling overly pressured to create a Grand Unified Theory of rules interpretation.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

epithet said:


> Having thought about this a little more, it strikes me that it is true that D&D has some gamist elements that are there just because we're used to them. Hit points, however, are an example of something a bit different. Hit points are gamist and bad, but there's not really anything better that has emerged to replace it. I think the same cannot be said of Vancian casting--the spell point variant rule in the DMG is a lot less gamist, and I'd switch to it in a heartbeat if it was supported by Fantasy Grounds. Some bad gamist elements remain in the game because they're the least-worst alternative. This is a game, after all, and some gamist elements are to be expected.
> 
> I guess the issue really comes down to unnecessary and arbitrary gamist interruptions. Hit points serve the arguably necessary function of tracking the wear-and-tear an adventurer sustains, and of representing the increased toughness of a veteran campaigner. They aren't arbitrary, but are assigned or generated based on a system that makes a real effort at being consistent and predictable for almost everything in the fictional world that can be damaged. What function does the timing requirement of Shield Master serve? It cannot be, as has been urged a few times in this thread, to prevent "near-permanent advantage" for characters with high athletics bonuses, because that circumstance is already granted by two-weapon fighting without a feat. With a fighting style and a feat, the bonus action attack applies full damage and the character has half the defensive benefit of equipping a shield! If the master of two-weapon fighting doesn't require a nerf for having the possibility of "near-permanent advantage" from high athletics, then why is it necessary to restrict the shield master? If it is not necessary, and if that consideration is not consistently applied, then the restriction becomes completely arbitrary.
> 
> Hriston's background on the War Magic feature above, in addition to Crawford's recent tweets regarding two-weapon fighting, provide some valuable context. It really appears that Crawford is just making stuff up in an effort to create a set of consistent and universal rulings, but the example of two-weapon fighting demonstrates that he's not likely to accomplish that. He would, in my opinion, be better served by returning to his older approach and advising rulings on individual rules that makes sense for those rules, without feeling overly pressured to create a Grand Unified Theory of rules interpretation.




Or adopt the action comes first and then the attacks/effect... that's a Grand Unified Theory that makes everything in the game function as it should.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The dude cited you the rule that all but connected the dots for you and you just dug in your position further.  If you had an open mind his quote would have been persuasive.




 @_*Asgorath*_'s quotes don't back up the claim that combat actions are game-features. They say that a class or special feature, or other ability can provide options for your action _in addition_ to the actions listed under Actions in Combat, like the Attack action, but there are no dots here for me to connect that say that a combat action is a feature of the game.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

Hriston said:


> @_*Asgorath*_'s quotes don't back up the claim that combat actions are game-features. They say that a class or special feature, or other ability can provide options for your action _in addition_ to the actions listed under Actions in Combat, like the Attack action, but there are no dots here for me to connect that say that a combat action is a feature of the game.




To be super pedantic, the thing that grants you the bonus action is the Shield Master feat, based on the condition that you take the Attack action first.  Are you going to claim the feat itself isn't a "special ability, spell, or other feature of the game" as well?  This feels like the weakest argument made so far, and by a huge margin.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Except that point does not take into account that you can attack one enemy, move, then bonus action shield master shove another enemy.




Fair enough, I wasn't the one trying to advocate that the RAW means you can shove any time you like because that's what makes sense in all narratives.  You could also explain this as the momentum from making your attack(s) is harnessed by an expert shield bearer into the shove, or something similar.  There are lots of things that would break down if we started applying "but if I can describe my character doing it in a combat round, why don't the rules let me?" such as taking two bonus actions on your turn instead of an action and a bonus action (assuming you have one to take) and so on.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 8, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure what the point of showing me that rule was.  I stated the rules don't allow you to defer the determination of what your action is.  Showing me a rule that says you can move before or after the action as determined at the time you take it isn't even remotely close.




Well, no. The determination is whether you take the Attack action on your turn or not. You said the rules don't allow me to wait until the action is taken (or not taken) to make that determination. I posted that rule to show that the rules allow you to take your action at a time during your turn of your choosing. No matter when during your turn you take the Attack action, you've still taken the Attack action on your turn.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

I saw a really interesting tweet in the thread discussing the stat block change from Ed Greenwood:

https://twitter.com/TheEdVerse/status/1099179445997527040

"And we did that purely to save wordcount! We got somewhere between a quarter to a third more lore into the same pages by doing that. (The same reason I cam up with "hin" for halflings...see how many letters it saves, each time?)"

This touches on something I had brought up a couple hundred posts ago about the use of "if" instead of "after" or "when" (or even more verbose language) in the rules, and that the editors have to be very economical about their use of the language to make sure the book fits into the page budget and they have enough room for the art they want to include and so on.  So, while it would be great if there were several paragraphs explaining the Shield Master bonus action shove, including the designer's intent, the exact timing restrictions, why Sanctuary has nothing to do with it and so on, there's just not enough room in the book to do all of that.  It's sort of unfortunate that this economical use of the language leads people to read or infer things that simply aren't in the rules text, but that's why they have things like the Sage Advice Compendium to address common rules questions or issues.  They simply don't have room in the book to expand on all of these rules with an errata for future printings.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Or adopt the action comes first and then the attacks/effect... that's a Grand Unified Theory that makes everything in the game function as it should.




Please cite the text in the PHB that explains how the attacks are separate from the Attack action.  I don't see any language that supports the action and the attacks being separate:



> *Attack*
> The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
> 
> With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
> ...




There is no mention of duration or expiration of the effect, like there is with the Disengage ("... for the rest of the turn") or Dodge ("Until the start of your next turn, ...") actions.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 8, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Except that point does not take into account that you can attack one enemy, move, then bonus action shield master shove another enemy.




There's nothing that prevents the fiction from being that the sword swing caused the other enemy to move away off balance, allowing you to shield push as the bonus action.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 8, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Well, no. The determination is whether you take the Attack action on your turn or not. You said the rules don't allow me to wait until the action is taken (or not taken) to make that determination. I posted that rule to show that the rules allow you to take your action at a time during your turn of your choosing. No matter when during your turn you take the Attack action, you've still taken the Attack action on your turn.




The rule you quoted does not say what you wish it said.  

During your turn there are two states of actionhood.

1.  You have not taken your action this turn.

2.  You have taken your action this turn.

If you wait until 2/3 of your turn is done before taking your action, up until that moment, you are in state 1.  You have not taken your action this turn.  At that moment when you take your Attack action, the state your character is in switches from "Has not taken the Attack action this turn." to "Has taken the Attack action this turn," and remains that way for the last 1/3 of the turn, allowing you to use your Shield Master bonus action.

The rule allowing you to move before and after your action does not change that fact.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 8, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> There's nothing that prevents the fiction from being that the sword swing caused the other enemy to move away off balance, allowing you to shield push as the bonus action.




Yes, but do you think the other enemy, 25 feet away from you, would really be put off balance by your sword swing?  I mean, anything is possible in "the fiction", but my point is you don't really need any justification for why the shove works to knock a creature prone regardless of its timing.  It's just Strength v Strength (or Dex).  I mean, when you think of it that way, a shove can work if you open your attack with it - but some folks just don't seem to like that in their "fiction" if it is labeled "bonus action" instead of "action".

Anyway, I didn't come here to go around and around on the beat-down carousel of dead horses - really I just wanted to help get this thread to 1K posts!


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> This is a brilliant point.  If you want to shove a target who is in a defensive stance ready for your attack, then it takes part or all of your full Attack action because it's harder to do.  Once you've made your attack(s), the target could be off-balance enough that the extra juice from the Shield Master feat allows you to slip in a well-timed shove to knock them off their feet.




Maybe its just me but this sounds backward. 

What makes more since to me is that you shield bash, knocking back or down your opponent, and opening them up for your weapon attacks.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Please cite the text in the PHB that explains how the attacks are separate from the Attack action.  I don't see any language that supports the action and the attacks being separate:




We used our human ability to reason to establish that.



> There is no mention of duration or expiration of the effect, like there is with the Disengage ("... for the rest of the turn") or Dodge ("Until the start of your next turn, ...") actions.




Doesn't matter.  1)  Disengage establishes the general case that some actions come before their effects.  2)  Sanctuary provides the specific case that the attack action comes before the attack.  3)  There is no weird effects caused to other rules because of this interpretation.  4)  There are very weird effects caused by other rules with the attack action doesn't happen till the attack ruling.  

In short, I have all this evidence that the attack action comes before the attacks.  You have there's no rule saying whether the attack action comes before the attack or not.  Do you have any other evidence than that?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> Maybe its just me but this sounds backward.
> 
> What makes more since to me is that you shield bash, knocking back or down your opponent, and opening them up for your weapon attacks.




Sure, and if this was the intent, then the feat would make no reference to the Attack action.  It would simply say "you can take a bonus action to shove someone with your shield" or words to that effect.  That would be a bonus action with no timing requirement/restriction, and thus you'd be free to do that bonus action any time you like.  Given the fact that the feat does not use this wording, then it's clear that this is not how the feat is supposed to work.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Sure, and if this was the intent, then the feat would make no reference to the Attack action.  It would simply say "you can take a bonus action to shove someone with your shield" or words to that effect.  That would be a bonus action with no timing requirement/restriction, and thus you'd be free to do that bonus action any time you like.  Given the fact that the feat does not use this wording, then it's clear that this is not how the feat is supposed to work.




That would allow it to be used with the cast a spell action.  So the attack action mention is required in the feat.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> We used our human ability to reason to establish that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Please show the relevant sections in the PHB to back up this "evidence".  You are reading things that simply aren't in the text of the rules, as far as I can tell.  My evidence is simple: the words in the PHB say that the Attack action is making your attack(s).  There is no mention of the duration of an action, because this is not a concept the game uses.  If there are words in the PHB that disproves my point, please quote them.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Please show the relevant sections in the PHB to back up this "evidence".  You are reading things that simply aren't in the text of the rules, as far as I can tell.  My evidence is simple: the words in the PHB say that the Attack action is making your attack(s).  There is no mention of the duration of an action, because this is not a concept the game uses.  If there are words in the PHB that disproves my point, please quote them.




I can ask the same of you.  What page details the attack action comes at the same time as the attack and not before it?  The rules are silent on whether the action is taken at the same time or before the attacks.

But more importantly, what I've provided lots of evidence for why I think it comes before.  What evidence do you have for why it comes at the same time?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> That would allow it to be used with the cast a spell action.  So the attack action mention is required in the feat.




So, what's wrong with that?  If the designers wanted you to be able to shove any time you like, why does it need to be tied to the Attack action at all?  I'm not following why this means the wording of the feat allows you to bonus action shove then attack.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I can ask the same of you.  What page details the attack action comes at the same time as the attack and not before it?  The rules are silent on whether the action is taken at the same time or before the attacks.
> 
> But more importantly, what I've provided lots of evidence for why I think it comes before.  What evidence do you have for why it comes at the same time?




Please explain which words in this rule say that the action is separate from the attacks, or that you can take or declare the action separately from the attacks:



> *Attack*
> The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
> 
> *With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack*. See the "*Making an Attack*" section for the rules that govern attacks.
> ...




My evidence is simple: the words in the PHB say that the Attack action is making an attack.  It's right there, I've even bolded it for you.

If the action system was based on you declaring or taking actions ahead of doing the thing the action lets you do, surely the PHB would have a section that talks about how that works?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> So, what's wrong with that?  If the designers wanted you to be able to shove any time you like, why does it need to be tied to the Attack action at all?  I'm not following why this means the wording of the feat allows you to bonus action shove then attack.




Because that’s not when they wanted to allow it.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Because that’s not when they wanted to allow it.




Great, so you agree this wasn’t the intent and the shove comes after the Attack action.


----------



## epithet (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...  My evidence is simple: the words in the PHB say that the Attack action is making your attack(s).  ...




Actually, the PHB says that _with_ the Attack Action, you make an attack. We can argue about the meaning of the word “with“ but “with _x_ comes _y_” does not mean that they’re the same thing. If my burger comes with cheese, I expect it on the burger. If my burger comes with fries and a drink, I expect them to be in their own containers.  This language could support any conclusion that you wish to reach.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2019)

Over 1000 posts. And people are still basically where they were with post #1 on this topic.  Same arguments are being made.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Great, so you agree this wasn’t the intent and the shove comes after the Attack action.




Yes.  My interpretation holds to that belief just as strongly as yours.

What you are attempting to do is say, they could have left off the attack action requirement and then you could have done it anytime.  But in my interpretation they can't do the shove anytime.  They can't do it if they cast magic missile for example.  So them removing any mention of the attack action wouldn't keep things the same as my interpretation.  Thus they have to mention the attack action.  

Try this: word the feat in such a way that it would allow the shove attack to come before the attacks but only if you took or were going to take the attack action on your turn.  After you figure that out then post it and let's see what ya got.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Yes.  My interpretation holds to that belief just as strongly as yours.
> 
> What you are attempting to do is say, they could have left off the attack action requirement and then you could have done it anytime.  But in my interpretation they can't do the shove anytime.  They can't do it if they cast magic missile for example.  So them removing any mention of the attack action wouldn't keep things the same as my interpretation.  Thus they have to mention the attack action.
> 
> Try this: word the feat in such a way that it would allow the shove attack to come before the attacks but only if you took or were going to take the attack action on your turn.  After you figure that out then post it and let's see what ya got.




The game has reactions, which can interrupt your turn.  Thus, your intention or plan for what you'd like to do later on your turn has no meaning in the rules.  Again, JEC explains all of this in detail in the Dragon Talk video on YouTube.  As a result, there are no rules like this in the game.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> The game has reactions, which can interrupt your turn.  Thus, your intention or plan for what you'd like to do later on your turn has no meaning in the rules.  Again, JEC explains all of this in detail in the Dragon Talk video on YouTube.  As a result, there are no rules like this in the game.




So under your interpretation it's not possible for them to word a feat that would require the attack action be taken on your turn but allow the shove to come before or after it?

That's a major limitation of your interpretation if true.


----------



## epithet (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> The game has reactions, which can interrupt your turn.  Thus, your intention or plan for what you'd like to do later on your turn has no meaning in the rules.  Again, JEC explains all of this in detail in the Dragon Talk video on YouTube.  As a result, there are no rules like this in the game.




I think you have no further to look than the War Magic feature of the eldrich Knight.  Jeremy stated that the intention of that feature (which has similar language to the shield master feat) was to allow the bonus action attack to come before or after the spellcast. It seems that if the intent were to enable the default timing of bonus actions, that is the language that would be used.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

[MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] I can easily write a rule that follows my interpretations but ends up with the same current shield master functionality you believe is in the rules.

If you take the attack action and attack you can bonus action shove.  You may not make any extra attacks as part of your attack action after taking this bonus action.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> So under your interpretation it's not possible for them to word a feat that would require the attack action be taken on your turn but allow the shove to come before or after it?
> 
> That's a major limitation of your interpretation if true.




There's a really simple way to achieve the goal you want, which has nothing to do with planning on taking the Attack action later on your turn.  You simply grant an extra attack as part of the Attack action, just like Dread Ambusher:



> *Dread Ambusher*
> At 3rd level, you master the art of the ambush. You can give yourself a bonus to your initiative rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier.
> 
> At the start of your first turn of each combat, your walking speed increases by 10 feet, which lasts until the end of that turn. *If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action.* If that attack hits, the target takes an extra 1d8 damage of the weapon’s damage type.




You could simply word this as requiring the extra attack granted by this feature be used on a shove with your shield.  Hey presto, you can now order the shove and all attacks from Extra Attack in any way you please.

Shield Master is not worded like this, and thus that's not now it works.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> There's a really simple way to achieve the goal you want, which has nothing to do with planning on taking the Attack action later on your turn.  You simply grant an extra attack as part of the Attack action, just like Dread Ambusher:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Or someone at WOTC got smart about how to word things after the shield master debacle and started writing the rules like Dread Ambusher.  There's multiple ways to view the origin of the different wording in books that are years apart.

By the way, there is still a major difference in the Dread Ambusher version and shield master.  One requires a bonus action and one does not.  Can you make a version that requires a bonus action?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

epithet said:


> I think you have no further to look than the War Magic feature of the eldrich Knight.  Jeremy stated that the intention of that feature (which has similar language to the shield master feat) was to allow the bonus action attack to come before or after the spellcast. It seems that if the intent were to enable the default timing of bonus actions, that is the language that would be used.




That's not what the Sage Advice Compendium says, though.



> Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before?
> 
> The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.




The weapon attack isn't granting you advantage on the attack roll of the cantrip, which is why this answer says that nothing would be broken if the DM let the attack come first.  However, it's still confirming that the "if you X, you can Y" wording means X has to come before Y in strict RAW, just like the Shield Master answer says.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Or someone at WOTC got smart about how to word things after the shield master debacle and started writing the rules like Dread Ambusher.  There's multiple ways to view the origin of the different wording in books that are years apart.
> 
> By the way, there is still a major difference in the Dread Ambusher version and shield master.  One requires a bonus action and one does not.  Can you make a version that requires a bonus action?




So if I can't come up with a wording, my position is wrong.  When I do come up with a wording, I'm still wrong.  Why am I still debating this with you exactly?

You asked for a version of the rule that lets you get an extra shove on your turn.  Why does this have to be a bonus action exactly?  There's a precedent in the rules for giving you extra attacks as part of your Attack action, for example the Extra Attack feature.  Dread Ambusher also works in this way.  If the intent was that you've become so good with your shield that you just get a free extra shove on your turn with no timing restrictions, why not word it that you get an additional attack as part of the Attack action that must be used on a shove?  That way we wouldn't have to spend another thousand posts arguing about the duration of actions or how to correctly declare your action ahead of time so the reaction rules don't put you in an inconsistent state and all that.


----------



## epithet (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> That's not what the Sage Advice Compendium says, though.
> 
> The weapon attack isn't granting you advantage on the attack roll of the cantrip, which is why this answer says that nothing would be broken if the DM let the attack come first.  However, it's still confirming that the "if you X, you can Y" wording means X has to come before Y in strict RAW, just like the Shield Master answer says.




Oh, I know. This is another example of how Jeremy chose semantics over gameplay and reversed an earlier answer regarding the 5e rules. As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, Crawford's initial take on the matter was quite different.


			
				Sage Advice by Jeremy Crawford - 06/30/2016 said:
			
		

> The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).



The question wasn't about how Jeremy wants to interpret the rules in 2019, but rather how the rule would have been written when the Player's Handbook was published if the intent were to allow a bonus action to come before or after the triggering event, enabling the default timing of bonus actions. Since we have here a statement of _that exact intent_ for a bonus action written into the Player's Handbook, it appears we have our answer, no?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] I can easily write a rule that follows my interpretations but ends up with the same current shield master functionality you believe is in the rules.
> 
> If you take the attack action and attack you can bonus action shove.  You may not make any extra attacks as part of your attack action after taking this bonus action.




Cool.  Then the editor comes to you and says "we have to cut the text by 25% in order to fit all the art in, can you please trim this down?  The second sentence is redundant, why don't you just stick with the standard wording of 'If you X, you can Y' that we use everywhere else in the books, per the style guide?".  As I said, they could write a paragraph on every single rule in the game if they wanted to, but then the book would be unusable and they would've missed their goal of making it accessible to new players.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> So if I can't come up with a wording, my position is wrong.  When I do come up with a wording, I'm still wrong.  Why am I still debating this with you exactly?
> 
> You asked for a version of the rule that lets you get an extra shove on your turn.  Why does this have to be a bonus action exactly?  There's a precedent in the rules for giving you extra attacks as part of your Attack action, for example the Extra Attack feature.  Dread Ambusher also works in this way.  If the intent was that you've become so good with your shield that you just get a free extra shove on your turn with no timing restrictions, why not word it that you get an additional attack as part of the Attack action that must be used on a shove?  That way we wouldn't have to spend another thousand posts arguing about the duration of actions or how to correctly declare your action ahead of time so the reaction rules don't put you in an inconsistent state and all that.




The goal remember is for you to write a rule that would make shield master function like it does under my interpretation.  My interpretation requires a bonus action to be used.  Not including a bonus action fundamentally changes the rule.  

That said, if I were you I would answer something like:  you may bonus action shove on your turn provided that you haven't already taken an action other than the attack action.  If you bonus action shove and haven't yet taken an action then the only action you may take is the attack action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 8, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Cool.  Then the editor comes to you and says "we have to cut the text by 25% in order to fit all the art in, can you please trim this down?  The second sentence is redundant, why don't you just stick with the standard wording of 'If you X, you can Y' that we use everywhere else in the books, per the style guide?".  As I said, they could write a paragraph on every single rule in the game if they wanted to, but then the book would be unusable and they would've missed their goal of making it accessible to new players.




In my interpretation the second sentence is not redundant.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 8, 2019)

epithet said:


> Oh, I know. This is another example of how Jeremy chose semantics over gameplay and reversed an earlier answer regarding the 5e rules. As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, Crawford's initial take on the matter was quite different.
> 
> The question wasn't about how Jeremy wants to interpret the rules in 2019, but rather how the rule would have been written when the Player's Handbook was published if the intent were to allow a bonus action to come before or after the triggering event, enabling the default timing of bonus actions. Since we have here a statement of _that exact intent_ for a bonus action written into the Player's Handbook, it appears we have our answer, no?




Okay, we'll have this discussion again.  In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y".  His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it.  I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Okay, we'll have this discussion again.  In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y".  His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it.  I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.




I think in 2021 he's going to be coming out and saying I F'd things up again.  

I think he had the right ruling early on but the wrong explanation.  The original ruling was spot on but his justification for it was terrible IMO.  He definitely needed to go back and correct his faulty justification.  The If X then Y talk by JC proves the anytime bonus action justification was terrible.  But a bad justification doesn't invalidate a correct ruling.

The issue is that now he's using the "attack action happens at the same time as your attacks" as his justification.  That to is going to ultimately prove to be a faulty justification that he's going to have to go back and correct.  For example, it's already inadvertently changed TWF rules and he's already dug in so far he refuses to acknowledge that.  

Eventually he's going to come out with the correct ruling and valid justification combination.  It's just by the time he does no one is going to listen to him because his credibility is shot.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The goal remember is for you to write a rule that would make shield master function like it does under my interpretation.  My interpretation requires a bonus action to be used.  Not including a bonus action fundamentally changes the rule.
> 
> That said, if I were you I would answer something like:  you may bonus action shove on your turn provided that you haven't already taken an action other than the attack action.  If you bonus action shove and haven't yet taken an action then the only action you may take is the attack action.




I had to read the second paragraph 5 or 6 times, and my brain still hurts.

Why are you forcing unnecessary restrictions here?  If the end goal is to shove whenever you like when you take the Attack action, then there's a simple wording that anyone can understand:

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can make one additional shove attack with your shield."

This succinctly explains that the extra attack can only be used to shove the target.



FrogReaver said:


> In my interpretation the second sentence is not redundant.




The Sage Advice Compendium disagrees with you, as do I.  Maybe the fact that it's so hard to simply explain your interpretation is an indication that it's not correct?


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Okay, we'll have this discussion again.  In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y".  His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it.  I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.




While I disagree with you that the earlier rulings were nonsensical, and that these abilities have timing requirements... none of that matters. As you say, we've had that discussion already. This discussion is specifically about how the 5e designers would have written a rule in the PHB to give a character access to a bonus action that was dependant upon an Action but was not intended to have a timing requirement. As the earlier Sage Advice I quoted demonstrates, they would have written it just like they wrote it. You can get deep into the semantics of what this or that term or phrase actually means, and whether a trigger equals timing, or whatever. What you can't do is claim that at the time these rules were written they were _intended_ to have a timing requirement. The evidence points to the contrary.

Now, as you know by now I don't place a great deal of importance on the intent. The rule is the rule, until and unless it is changed via errata. Still, in the case of an ambiguous rule (which this obviously is, 100 pages into the thread) it is worth considering what the designers meant to say when considering what whatever they said means.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Okay, we'll have this discussion again.  In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y".  His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it.  I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.




People act as if JC can't make mistakes and then correct them later.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I had to read the second paragraph 5 or 6 times, and my brain still hurts.
> 
> Why are you forcing unnecessary restrictions here?  If the end goal is to shove whenever you like when you take the Attack action, then there's a simple wording that anyone can understand:
> 
> ...




That doesn't require a bonus action.  Thus its not a valid example for what we are asking for.  You have a hard time of following a simple conversation...



> The Sage Advice Compendium disagrees with you, as do I.



The sage advice has never commented on how such a rule would be written under my interpretation.  By default it can't disagree with me.  Do you even understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?



> Maybe the fact that it's so hard to simply explain your interpretation is an indication that it's not correct?




My interpretation is simple to explain.  You use an action and then after you have used the action you get some benefit.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> While I disagree with you that the earlier rulings were nonsensical, and that these abilities have timing requirements... none of that matters. As you say, we've had that discussion already. This discussion is specifically about how the 5e designers would have written a rule in the PHB to give a character access to a bonus action that was dependant upon an Action but was not intended to have a timing requirement. As the earlier Sage Advice I quoted demonstrates, they would have written it just like they wrote it. You can get deep into the semantics of what this or that term or phrase actually means, and whether a trigger equals timing, or whatever. What you can't do is claim that at the time these rules were written they were _intended_ to have a timing requirement. The evidence points to the contrary.




When an interpretation requires Schrodinger's actions and/or time travel in order to work correctly, it's the wrong interpretation.



> Now, as you know by now I don't place a great deal of importance on the intent. The rule is the rule, until and unless it is changed via errata.




I'm curious if that means that you'd kill a wild shaped druid PC with a disintegrate spell as soon as the wild shape form hits 0.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> That doesn't require a bonus action.  Thus its not a valid example for what we are asking for.  You have a hard time of following a simple conversation...




Well, it's not we, it's you that's asking for it, and I'm suggesting the premise of your question (assuming you're asking it to prove your interpretation that the Attack action is separate from the attacks themselves) is flawed.



FrogReaver said:


> My interpretation is simple to explain.  You use an action and then after you have used the action you get some benefit.




Oh, this is easy then.

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to do Y."

Nice and simple.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Well, it's not we, it's you that's asking for it, and I'm suggesting the premise of your question (assuming you're asking it to prove your interpretation that the Attack action is separate from the attacks themselves) is flawed.




I'm happy to discuss that AFTER you have provided an actual valid example seeing I've been trying to pry from you for the past 2 pages...



> Oh, this is easy then.
> 
> "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to do Y."
> 
> Nice and simple.




Did you forget what you are trying to show?  You are trying to write a rule that will provide the same outcome under your interpretation that the current rule does when it's read using my interpretation.  

What you just wrote is not a rule that will provide the same outcome under your interpretation as the current rule does under my interpretation.  Serious question, are you intentionally trying to be this dense?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm happy to discuss that AFTER you have provided an actual valid example seeing I've been trying to pry from you for the past 2 pages...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for the homework assignments, but I’m done.  I’ve tried showing you the words in the PHB, and the words that are not in the PHB.  There are ways Shield Master could’ve been written to allow any of the incorrect interpretations, and the simple fact that it doesn’t use those wordings strongly implies that those interpretations are indeed incorrect.


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> When an interpretation requires Schrodinger's actions and/or time travel in order to work correctly, it's the wrong interpretation.
> 
> I'm curious if that means that you'd kill a wild shaped druid PC with a disintegrate spell as soon as the wild shape form hits 0.




Of course not, that would be stupid. Even if the wild shape form hits zero, the druid has not. We had this discussion already, across a couple of different threads, didn't we?

Regardless, it raises in interesting distinction. Jeremy fixed that stupid hyper-literal semantic problem with an errata to preserve the reasonable and intended meaning of the rule after he felt compelled to Sage Advice it the other way, because he seems to be powerless against semantic attacks. Now we have another situation where he's described the intent and then reversed himself in the face of a semantic crisis. I have to wonder if an errata correction will follow, once he finally decides how he thinks the rule _should _be written.


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Thanks for the homework assignments, but I’m done.  I’ve tried showing you the words in the PHB, and the words that are not in the PHB.  There are ways Shield Master could’ve been written to allow any of the incorrect interpretations, and the simple fact that it doesn’t use those wordings strongly implies that those interpretations are indeed incorrect.




After Jeremy reversed his Advice and I-don't-know-how-many people have spent a hundred pages arguing at least 4 different interpretations, surely you're not suggesting that the wording of the rule is unambiguous... are you?


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Thanks for the homework assignments, but I’m done.  I’ve tried showing you the words in the PHB, and the words that are not in the PHB.




 [MENTION=6796566]epithet[/MENTION] answered that sufficiently.  The rule you cited is so ambiguous in relation to whether the attack action happens at the same time as the attacks or before them that it didn't prove anything.  The correct conclusion is that the rules are silent on both sides of that issue.



> There are ways Shield Master could’ve been written to allow any of the incorrect interpretations, and the simple fact that it doesn’t use those wordings strongly implies that those interpretations are indeed incorrect.




I don't know how to respond to this.  It's apparent that you don't even understand what an interpretation is.  Nor does it appear that you are capable of even reading or understanding a statement using an interpretation other than your own.  Nor can even make a coherent argument.  That shield master wasn't written another way is not evidence that your interpretation is correct or that mine is incorrect.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> Of course not, that would be stupid. Even if the wild shape form hits zero, the druid has not. We had this discussion already, across a couple of different threads, didn't we?



RAW says the druid hits 0 in wild shape before heading to the other pool  RAW says dusting happens at 0.  RAW(confirmed by JC) is that the druid dies.



> Regardless, it raises in interesting distinction. Jeremy fixed that stupid hyper-literal semantic problem with an errata to preserve the reasonable and intended meaning of the rule after he felt compelled to Sage Advice it the other way, because he seems to be powerless against semantic attacks.




You are assuming motives that he hasn't stated.  He confirmed what RAW was, and then provided the intent for the interaction.  If the rule is the rule and you don't put much stock behind intent, you should be dusting the druid as soon as he hits 0 in wild shape, per RAW.



> Now we have another situation where he's described the intent and then reversed himself in the face of a semantic crisis. I have to wonder if an errata correction will follow, once he finally decides how he thinks the rule _should _be written.




It shows a pattern.  He is telling us what the RAW is with both Shield Master and Disintegrate/Wild Shape, and then letting us know what the intent is if different from RAW.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> After Jeremy reversed his Advice and I-don't-know-how-many people have spent a hundred pages arguing at least 4 different interpretations, surely you're not suggesting that the wording of the rule is unambiguous... are you?




It's actually really easy to understand as I pointed out above.  There are two states of having taken the Attack action on your turn.  You haven't taken it, and you have taken it.  Until you actually take it, you are in the "You haven't taken it" state.  Once you do take it, you switch states.


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> RAW says the druid hits 0 in wild shape before heading to the other pool  RAW says dusting happens at 0.  RAW(confirmed by JC) is that the druid dies.
> 
> You are assuming motives that he hasn't stated.  He confirmed what RAW was, and then provided the intent for the interaction.  If the rule is the rule and you don't put much stock behind intent, you should be dusting the druid as soon as he hits 0 in wild shape, per RAW.
> 
> It shows a pattern.  He is telling us what the RAW is with both Shield Master and Disintegrate/Wild Shape, and then letting us know what the intent is if different from RAW.




Where you and I differ is that I have no aversion to ambiguous rules. When a rule is ambiguous in its meaning, I simply decide based on the context what it should mean, and play accordingly. You, apparently, need to parse out the exact semantics of the terminology and take that as the meaning of the rule, no matter how ridiculous that meaning might be (case in point, disintegrate a perfectly healthy druid.) It often appears to me, as I view or participate in these conversations, that if a rule can be read in more than one way, you will pick the worst possible interpretation and then argue vigorously that it is the only correct way to read the rule. If Jeremy agrees with you, so much the better.

Disintegrate vs wild shape was an ambiguous rule, as demonstrated by hundreds or thousands of posts disputing the "correct" interpretation of the rule. Clearly, the "correct" interpretation of Shield Master's bonus action is also ambiguous. It will be interesting to see whether or not Jeremy amends it with errata, and if he does so, how. I'm tempted toward the suspicion that he will leave it ambiguous, just so that people can continue to interpret it how they feel is appropriate, but that's probably me projecting my own peevishness onto him. He probably regards ambiguity as his own personal kryptonite.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> After Jeremy reversed his Advice and I-don't-know-how-many people have spent a hundred pages arguing at least 4 different interpretations, surely you're not suggesting that the wording of the rule is unambiguous... are you?




You should have seen how many pages were spent arguing about this both before and after his first advice


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 9, 2019)

When I read the Shield Master feat this is what I see when you talk about taking the Attack Action.


'If you take the Attack action on your turn', you can make a melee or ranged attack. If your 5th level or higher you can also make an extra attack.

'If you take the Attack action on your turn and have the Shield Master feat', you can make a melee or ranged attack and a shove using a bonus action. If your 5th level or higher you can also make an extra attack.

This is how it has always read to me.


Shield Master feat
'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.'


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> Where you and I differ is that I have no aversion to ambiguous rules. When a rule is ambiguous in its meaning, I simply decide based on the context what it should mean, and play accordingly. You, apparently, need to parse out the exact semantics of the terminology and take that as the meaning of the rule, no matter how ridiculous that meaning might be (case in point, disintegrate a perfectly healthy druid.) It often appears to me, as I view or participate in these conversations, that if a rule can be read in more than one way, you will pick the worst possible interpretation and then argue vigorously that it is the only correct way to read the rule. If Jeremy agrees with you, so much the better.
> 
> Disintegrate vs wild shape was an ambiguous rule, as demonstrated by hundreds or thousands of posts disputing the "correct" interpretation of the rule. Clearly, the "correct" interpretation of Shield Master's bonus action is also ambiguous. It will be interesting to see whether or not Jeremy amends it with errata, and if he does so, how. I'm tempted toward the suspicion that he will leave it ambiguous, just so that people can continue to interpret it how they feel is appropriate, but that's probably me projecting my own peevishness onto him. He probably regards ambiguity as his own personal kryptonite.




A lot of the arguments in the past thousand posts have read as "I really want to shove first, so let me warp the meaning of the words to support my position".  The PHB doesn't talk about the duration of an action.  The PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves.  The PHB doesn't talk about just doing stuff and resolving what was an action and what was a bonus action when your turn is over.  The PHB does use standard phrasing across multiple rules, and tends to be very economical in its use of the language.

As I've said many times, I can absolutely agree that attack-shove-attack is a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the feat, because once you've taken the first attack you have committed yourself to the Attack action.  My only real issue with that is that there is a condition on the Shield Master bonus action, and so we can go off into the weeds whether "take" means "taken" or "taking".  However, we haven't been debating that for the last couple of hundred posts, unless I'm missing something.  I'm simply advocating for taking the simple approach and not reading things that aren't in the words in the PHB.  If the PHB doesn't talk about action duration, then action duration isn't a thing.  If the PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves, then that's not a thing.  Just do what it says on the tin.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> When I read the Shield Master feat this is what I see when you talk about taking the Attack Action.
> 
> 
> 'If you take the Attack action on your turn', you can make a melee or ranged attack. If your 5th level or higher you can also make an extra attack.
> ...




And as I've pointed out several times in the last few pages, if they intended the feat to simply grant you another shove attack as part of the Attack action, then they could've worded it exactly like Extra Attack or Dread Ambusher where you literally just get another attack in the Attack action that must be used to shove.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 9, 2019)

In the PHB, except for "extra attack" class feature, how many things grant another attack like action that isn't a bonus action?








Edit: On a side note, which developer was it who said they never liked the 'bonus action'?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> Where you and I differ is that I have no aversion to ambiguous rules. When a rule is ambiguous in its meaning, I simply decide based on the context what it should mean, and play accordingly. You, apparently, need to parse out the exact semantics of the terminology and take that as the meaning of the rule, no matter how ridiculous that meaning might be (case in point, disintegrate a perfectly healthy druid.) It often appears to me, as I view or participate in these conversations, that if a rule can be read in more than one way, you will pick the worst possible interpretation and then argue vigorously that it is the only correct way to read the rule. If Jeremy agrees with you, so much the better.




There is nothing ambiguous with the rule.  It says you don't get the bonus action unless you take the attack action.  There is no state of having taken the attack action on your turn until you actually take it.  There is no semantics or parsing on my end of things.  I am taking them as they are written.  Where we differ is that I have no aversion to admitting when I house rule something.  

If I disagree with Jeremy, I will make a house rule.  If I agree with him, I'm already running it that way so no biggie. 



> Disintegrate vs wild shape was an ambiguous rule, as demonstrated by hundreds or thousands of posts disputing the "correct" interpretation of the rule. Clearly, the "correct" interpretation of Shield Master's bonus action is also ambiguous. It will be interesting to see whether or not Jeremy amends it with errata, and if he does so, how. I'm tempted toward the suspicion that he will leave it ambiguous, just so that people can continue to interpret it how they feel is appropriate, but that's probably me projecting my own peevishness onto him. He probably regards ambiguity as his own personal kryptonite.




No.  This was another unambiguous rule that people wanted to find ways to twist in order to keep the druid alive or to match what they wished it would be saying.  Wild Shape unequivocally says that the druid hits 0 hit points prior to changing back.  Disintegrate unequivocally says that if the target hits 0, it is turned to dust.  End of story.


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...If the PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves, then that's not a thing.  Just do what it says on the tin.




But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB reinforces the fact that a lowercase attack and the uppercase Attack (Action) are not the same thing. I find the argument that the Attack Action is entirely inseparable from the attack it grants you to be unpersuasive.

Before any of this Advice or clarification, I read the Shield Master bonus action as expanding your Attack Action, much the same as Extra Attack does. It was the simplest interpretation and implementation, and it seemed to fit the purpose the bonus action was meant to serve. Having now picked every word of this damn thing apart now, I still think that if you have an Action "on your turn" and a bonus action "during your turn" and each gives you an attack, you have two attacks--just handle them together. Everything else just seems like gamist semantic shenanigans.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> A lot of the arguments in the past thousand posts have read as "I really want to shove first, so let me warp the meaning of the words to support my position".




You are projecting.



> The PHB doesn't talk about the duration of an action.




That doesn't mean it's not an important concept.



> The PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves.




The PHB doesn't talk about the attack action being part of the attacks themselves



> The PHB doesn't talk about just doing stuff and resolving what was an action and what was a bonus action when your turn is over.




Not my position so no comment.



> The PHB does use standard phrasing across multiple rules, and tends to be very economical in its use of the language.




Typically yes.



> As I've said many times, I can absolutely agree that attack-shove-attack is a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the feat, because once you've taken the first attack you have committed yourself to the Attack action.




Sure, but you do realize that is opposed to the JC ruling you adore so much?



> My only real issue with that is that there is a condition on the Shield Master bonus action, and so we can go off into the weeds whether "take" means "taken" or "taking".




Those aren't weeds.  That's an integral part of the discussion, especially in regards to whether just 1 or both attacks need to be taken.



> However, we haven't been debating that for the last couple of hundred posts, unless I'm missing something.  I'm simply advocating for taking the simple approach and not reading things that aren't in the words in the PHB.




On things the PHB is silent about we are left to our reasoning.  My approach is no more complex than yours.  It's just different.  My approach is very simple.  My justifications for my approach are complex because this is a complex subject and one where the PHB gave no direct rules for.  

On the other hand your justification for your approach has boiled down to, "the PHB doesn't explicitly state Frogreaver's interpretation and therefore mine is right".  Well no.  Unless it explicitly states yours too then we are in the same boat so to speak.  The difference is that I'm using my reasoning to derive a conclusion and you just keep coming back to "the PHB doesn't explicitly state Frogreaver's interpretation and therefore mine is right".



> If the PHB doesn't talk about action duration, then action duration isn't a thing.




That's nonsensical.  We can derive truths from other truths.  That's the basis of complex reasoning in general.  We take truths and combine them together and reason about them in such a way that we discover more truths.  Action duration itself is an axiom.  Either actions are instantaneous or they have a duration.  There is no other option.  We use logic and reasoning based on the truths we already know to discover that truth as well.

So you can try to argue it's not an important truth, but you can't conflate it's importance with it's existence as you continue to attempt to do.



> If the PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves, then that's not a thing.  Just do what it says on the tin.




The PHB doesn't talk about the action being non-separate from the attacks themselves.  Then that's not a thing either.  Does that mean the Attack Action is neither separate nor non-separate from the attacks themselves....  opps that's a contradiction.  I just proved your reasoning incorrect AGAIN!


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> Edit: On a side note, which developer was it who said they never liked the 'bonus action'?




I think it was Mike Mearls who lamented about the bonus action.


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> There is nothing ambiguous with the rule.  It says you don't get the bonus action unless you take the attack action.  There is no state of having taken the attack action on your turn until you actually take it.  There is no semantics or parsing on my end of things.  I am taking them as they are written.  Where we differ is that I have no aversion to admitting when I house rule something.
> 
> If I disagree with Jeremy, I will make a house rule.  If I agree with him, I'm already running it that way so no biggie.
> 
> No.  This was another unambiguous rule that people wanted to find ways to twist in order to keep the druid alive or to match what they wished it would be saying.  Wild Shape unequivocally says that the druid hits 0 hit points prior to changing back.  Disintegrate unequivocally says that if the target hits 0, it is turned to dust.  End of story.




See what I mean?

By the way, you do know that _disintegrate _was changed in the last round of errata, don't you? It's just that you keep talking about what disintegrate "unequivocally says" and, in your earlier post, "RAW says that..." when you're actually talking about what it _used to _say.

If it was unambiguous, there wouldn't have been a difference between what was written and what was intended, would there? Fixing the rule in errata would have been unnecessary. Instead, ambiguity in the rule lead to some people finding an interpretation that led to a ridiculous result, and (of course) loudly proclaiming that it was the only correct way to read the rule. Jeremy Crawford, who as I mentioned has a serious weakness for a silly semantic argument, was powerless to resist until he actually changed the wording of _disintegrate_ in the latest errata, bringing that chapter finally to a close... or so I thought.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB reinforces the fact that a lowercase attack and the uppercase Attack (Action) are not the same thing. I find the argument that the Attack Action is entirely inseparable from the attack it grants you to be unpersuasive.
> 
> Before any of this Advice or clarification, I read the Shield Master bonus action as expanding your Attack Action, much the same as Extra Attack does. It was the simplest interpretation and implementation, and it seemed to fit the purpose the bonus action was meant to serve. Having now picked every word of this damn thing apart now, I still think that if you have an Action "on your turn" and a bonus action "during your turn" and each gives you an attack, you have two attacks--just handle them together. Everything else just seems like gamist semantic shenanigans.




In all those cases, the attack(s) are part of a well-defined thing in the rules, though.  Your Cast a Spell action might involve you casting a spell that involves a weapon attack.  That doesn't mean you get to declare you'll cast a spell, make a weapon attack for... reasons, and then later in your turn actually resolve the spell itself.   You start your turn with movement and an action.  If some feature gives you a bonus action with no timing requirement, cool, you have a bonus action as well (e.g. Rogue's Cunning Action).  You don't also get free weapon attacks you can make at any point you like, those attacks come from some part of the combat rules.  I'm not suggesting the only way you get to make an attack is with the Attack action, I am suggesting that you have to actually take an action to be able to do something on your turn (*aside from bonus actions with no timing requirement).

You start your turn having not taken an action.  You then take your action, which might be the Attack action.  Extra Attacks allows for multiple attacks as part of that action.  There's an explicit rule that lets you move between attacks from Extra Attack.  Once those attacks are resolved, you have now taken your action.  Why are we trying to do more than that, like insert triggered bonus actions before or during the triggering event?  The fact that Shield Master is a bonus action and not part of the Attack action itself suggests that they are in fact two completely separate things, and must be resolved independently.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> In the PHB, except for "extra attack" class feature, how many things grant another attack like action that isn't a bonus action?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hunter level 3 ability grants an extra attack.  It's free though.  I think that's all.


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I think it was Mike Mearls who lamented about the bonus action.




Mike Mearls said that if he had it to do over again, he would have just made the bonus actions part of your action instead, presumably like the Extra Attack feature. When he thought about it some more, as I recall, conceded that the bonus action structure served as a useful limitation. It's been a while since I saw that Happy Fun Hour, so I might be misremembering certain details. He had mentioned it initially, I think, in a tweet, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> Mike Mearls said that if he had it to do over again, he would have just made the bonus actions part of your action instead, presumably like the Extra Attack feature. When he thought about it some more, as I recall, conceded that the bonus action structure served as a useful limitation. It's been a while since I saw that Happy Fun Hour, so I might be misremembering certain details. He had mentioned it initially, I think, in a tweet, but I'm not sure.




This is correct, he said that after thinking and talking about it more, he really just didn’t like the way they did TWF.  Bonus actions as a whole were fine, but he felt that TWF probably should’ve just been part of the Attack action.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> In all those cases, the attack(s) are part of a well-defined thing in the rules, though.  Your Cast a Spell action might involve you casting a spell that involves a weapon attack.  That doesn't mean you get to declare you'll cast a spell, make a weapon attack for... reasons, and then later in your turn actually resolve the spell itself.   You start your turn with movement and an action.  If some feature gives you a bonus action with no timing requirement, cool, you have a bonus action as well (e.g. Rogue's Cunning Action).  You don't also get free weapon attacks you can make at any point you like, those attacks come from some part of the combat rules.  I'm not suggesting the only way you get to make an attack is with the Attack action, I am suggesting that you have to actually take an action to be able to do something on your turn (*aside from bonus actions with no timing requirement).




Finally a maybe good point.  I don't have the books in front of me.  What is the actual wording of say booming blade?


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Finally a maybe good point.  I don't have the books in front of me.  What is the actual wording of say booming blade?




The actual wording is "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon..."

That's not the same as "With this action, you make a..."


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

[MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION]

Booming Blade


> As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails....




So booming blade in our interpretation wouldn't allow you to use the cast a spell action and then attack and then finish the spell.  It explicitly places the attack within the action used to cast this spell.

However you inadvertently found a decent piece of evidence to show actions aren't always instantaneous.  The action required to cast the booming blade spell has a duration that's long enough to make an attack.  I would say good job but I doubt you realize the importance of this finding.  You'll just come back and say "duration" isn't important...


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

So thinking on the booming blade example.  It also shows attacks are possible to be included as parts of actions.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> See what I mean?
> 
> By the way, you do know that _disintegrate _was changed in the last round of errata, don't you? It's just that you keep talking about what disintegrate "unequivocally says" and, in your earlier post, "RAW says that..." when you're actually talking about what it _used to _say.




What's the new PHB language?

And it's not really relevant if it changed.  My point about RAW being clear, but people wanting to twist it still remains.  It's crystal clear in my PHB.



> If it was unambiguous, there wouldn't have been a difference between what was written and what was intended, would there?




Sure there would.  Just because you get what you wanted to say wrong, doesn't mean that it doesn't clearly say the wrong thing.



> Instead, ambiguity in the rule lead to some people finding an interpretation that led to a ridiculous result, and (of course) loudly proclaiming that it was the only correct way to read the rule. Jeremy Crawford, who as I mentioned has a serious weakness for a silly semantic argument, was powerless to resist until he actually changed the wording of _disintegrate_ in the latest errata, bringing that chapter finally to a close... or so I thought.




The change had nothing to do with people twisting RAW and claiming ambiguity in order to save the druids, and it had everything to do with RAW saying in a crystal clear manner something that the designers didn't intend.  RAW very clearly killed wild shaped druids with disintegrate and that wasn't what they intended, so they changed it.


----------



## epithet (Mar 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> What's the new PHB language?
> ...




The errata is:

*[New]* *Disintegrate (p. 233).* The last
sentence of the second paragraph now
reads, “The target is disintegrated if
this damage leaves it with 0 hit points.”


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

I'm persuaded to change my opinion one more time.  The rules are incomplete and/or inconsistent.  So play it however is most fun because any interpretation you try to choose leads to a great big helping of inconsistency, misleading rules and contradiction.

Have fun everyone, I now realize the futility of 5e rules discussions!


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm persuaded to change my opinion one more time.  The rules are incomplete and/or inconsistent.  So play it however is most fun because any interpretation you try to choose leads to a great big helping of inconsistency, misleading rules and contradiction.
> 
> Have fun everyone, I now realize the futility of 5e rules discussions!




The rules may appear incomplete or inconsistent to you, but that's simply a result of you stretching the meaning of the words beyond their breaking point and adding things that aren't there or ignoring the words that are there.  The rules have always seemed very consistent and coherent to me in general, because I always try and just do the simplest thing based on the words in the book.  In the past, there have been some official rulings that made no sense to me, but those have now been addressed.  If I ever have questions about how a particular rule is supposed to work, there's inevitably a section on it in the Sage Advice Compendium already.

In any case, as I said, I'm done debating this with you either way.  Follow your bliss and play the feat however you think is best for your table.


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> The rules may appear incomplete or inconsistent to you, but that's simply a result of you stretching the meaning of the words beyond their breaking point and adding things that aren't there or ignoring the words that are there.  The rules have always seemed very consistent and coherent to me in general, because I always try and just do the simplest thing based on the words in the book.  In the past, there have been some official rulings that made no sense to me, but those have now been addressed.  If I ever have questions about how a particular rule is supposed to work, there's inevitably a section on it in the Sage Advice Compendium already.
> 
> In any case, as I said, I'm done debating this with you either way.  Follow your bliss and play the feat however you think is best for your table.




I've pointed out the inconsistencies in your interpretation.  If you don't see them by now you never will.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 9, 2019)

epithet said:


> But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB reinforces the fact that a lowercase attack and the uppercase Attack (Action) are not the same thing. I find the argument that the Attack Action is entirely inseparable from the attack it grants you to be unpersuasive.




Attacks are not tied to the Attack action, but the Attack action is tied to attacks.  Showing examples of attacks that are not tied to the attack action doesn't alter that the rules say that, "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."  Not after you take the Attack action.  Not before you take the Attack action.  WITH the Attack action.  They are simultaneous, and therefore inseparable.  The Attack action does not begin until you are in step 1 of the attack.



> Before any of this Advice or clarification, I read the Shield Master bonus action as expanding your Attack Action, much the same as Extra Attack does. It was the simplest interpretation and implementation, and it seemed to fit the purpose the bonus action was meant to serve.




That's basically how I'm going to run it.  After your first attack the bonus action becomes available to you.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> When an interpretation requires Schrodinger's actions and/or time travel in order to work correctly, it's the wrong interpretation.




Really? On page 98 of this thread you gave a rules example that works this way:-



			
				Maxperson said:
			
		

> This is essentially the same as when I look at the rule in the PHB that says that after you reduce a creature to 0, you can retroactively decide that you were knocking it out. I think it's wrong and a bunch of malarky, so I created a house rule and changed it.




Whether you (or I) _like_ it or not doesn't alter the fact that many D&D rules _do_ work that way!

Other examples include:-

* various abilities (orcs, barbarians, zombies, etc.) where if you get reduced to 0 hp, you have 1 hp instead

* druids being _disintegrated_, then _re_integrated

* the _shield_ spell triggering on _actually being hit_, and then _changing_ that to _not_ being hit

All these things _seem_ like 'Schrodinger's Actions' or like time travel. But, crucially, only at the table, *not* in the game world!

Sure, at the _table_ it seems like:-

* you attack a creature with deadly force, killing it, then decide you want to keep it alive, then go back in time to deliver a knockout blow instead

* an orc/barbarian/zombie gets killed, then _heals(!)_

* a wildshaped druid gets turned to dust and then the dust turns into a druid

* a javelin goes through a wizards head with enough force to kill him. He _then_ casts a spell and time rewinds, and _this_ time the javelin misses

But there is no time travel ret-con _in the game world_ at all:-

* you knock out a foe, just like you meant to all along

* a blow that _should_ kill an orc/barbarian/zombie fails to, because it is so darn tough!

* a wildshaped druids animal form takes enough damage to that form that he is forced back into human form, as is normal, but he was never actually _disintegrated_ 

* a wizard gets a javelin thrown at his head, but casts _shield_ just in time!

So, with Shield Master and the "If you take the Attack action on your turn" condition, and take the bonus action shield shove first, at the _table_ it might seem that you 'take the Action' and then go back in time to take the bonus action (although that is a flawed interpretation of that condition, which I'll analyse in my next post), but _in the game world_ you do as you have been trained, which is to deliver a combination of weapon attacks and a shield shove, by using the shield to knock a foe off balance (depending on the result of an opposed roll) to give you advantage on the follow up attacks.

Nothing has gone wrong. There is no time travel malarky _in the game world_, only the game mechanics at the _table_ which work this way, a way that is common in the 5e rules.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I've pointed out the inconsistencies in your interpretation.  If you don't see them by now you never will.




I could say the same about you, which is why I’m not going to bother discussing this with you any more.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 9, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> "If you X, you can Y" means you have to actually do X before you can do Y.




No, it doesn't mean that!

Last night I was on Wikipedia researching Causality to answer the Kalam Cosmological Argument (yes, I _know_ the correct term _should_ be 'cosmogonical') whose major premise is, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause".

It notes that 'cause' and 'effect' are time-dependant, and that 'effect' *cannot* come _before_ 'cause'.

But what about conditions, in the form of, "If...then"?

The article says this:-



			
				Wikipedia: Causality: Contrasted with conditionals said:
			
		

> Conditional statements are *not* statements of causality. An important distinction is that statements of *causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time*, whereas *conditional statements do not require this temporal order.* Confusion commonly arises since many different statements in English may be presented using "If ..., then ..." form (and, arguably, because this form is far more commonly used to make a statement of causality). The two types of statements are distinct, however.




So JC is 'confused' when he assets, incorrectly, that "If...then" means that you *must* do X before you can do Y.

All that is required, RAW, is that you 'take the Attack action' on the same turn as you take the bonus action shield shove. The condition does *not* require a particular order.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 9, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Attacks are not tied to the Attack action, but the Attack action is tied to attacks.  Showing examples of attacks that are not tied to the attack action doesn't alter that the rules say that, "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."  Not after you take the Attack action.  Not before you take the Attack action.  WITH the Attack action.  *They are simultaneous*, and therefore inseparable.  The Attack action does not begin until you are in step 1 of the attack.




When you only have one attack, it is perfectly possible (though not mandatory) that your attack and your 'Attack action' to be literally one and the same thing.

But with Extra Attack, it is literally _impossible_ to attack once, move into another room, then execute your second attack, and that both attacks are simultaneous!

Since these attacks cannot be simultaneous, they *must* be separated in time!

This means that there certainly *is* a 'duration' for the Attack action when you move between attacks (even if we don't know how many seconds), and that provides easy access to using a bonus action shield shove between those attacks.

So, is 'taking the Attack action' simultaneous with the first attack or the second? It cannot be both, as those attacks are _not_ simultaneous!

The condition is, "If you take the Attack action on your turn". If you 'take the Attack action' and execute your first attack, you *have* met that condition!


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 9, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I'm persuaded to change my opinion one more time.  The rules are incomplete and/or inconsistent.  So play it however is most fun because any interpretation you try to choose leads to a great big helping of inconsistency, misleading rules and contradiction.
> 
> Have fun everyone, I now realize the futility of 5e rules discussions!




Welcome to the Dark Fun Side. We all float down here.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> No, it doesn't mean that!
> 
> Last night I was on Wikipedia researching Causality to answer the Kalam Cosmological Argument (yes, I _know_ the correct term _should_ be 'cosmogonical') whose major premise is, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause".
> 
> ...




We’ve discussed this already, but sure.  You take you bonus action shove first.  An enemy then uses their reaction to incapacitate you, ending your turn.  You never took the Attack action, and so how were you allowed to use the Shield Master bonus action?
 [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] made an excellent post about “if and only if” or IFF, which I’d recommend reading again.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 9, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> When you only have one attack, it is perfectly possible (though not mandatory) that your attack and your 'Attack action' to be literally one and the same thing.
> 
> But with Extra Attack, it is literally _impossible_ to attack once, move into another room, then execute your second attack, and that both attacks are simultaneous!
> 
> ...




They didn't say the attacks themselves are simultaneous. They said the attacks happen as part of the Attack action, and that they are inseparable from that action.  That is, the attacks occur at the same period of time that you are taking the Attack action, or, that they are simultaneous with that action.  Does it matter if your Attack action takes 1.6 or 3.2 or 5.1 seconds?  No, that has no bearing on the rules, and does not change the outcome of the action itself.  The rules explicitly say that you're allowed to move between attacks in the Attack action.  This specific post was arguing against the notion that the Attack action happens before and independently of the attacks themselves, which has no basis in the words in the PHB.

If you want to interpret "take the Attack action" as "starting the Attack action" as the trigger for Shield Master's shove, that's certainly a reasonable reading of the words.  I would disagree with that interpretation, as would the Sage Advice Compendium, but by making the first Attack you have certainly committed yourself to the Attack action for your turn and thus avoid any problems of taking the bonus action and then not actually taking the Attack action later on your turn like you originally intended.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 10, 2019)

If something interrupts your turn that should matter what actions you were taking.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 10, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> You take you bonus action shove first.  An enemy then uses their reaction to incapacitate you, ending your turn.  You never took the Attack action, and so how were you allowed to use the Shield Master bonus action?





This example is wrong. The person had already taken that attack action he just hadn't finished.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 10, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> This example is wrong. The person had already taken that attack action he just hadn't finished.




Please show me the text in the PHB that says the Attack action is separate from the attack(s) it grants.  All I see is this:

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."

and:

"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

So, if you haven't made an attack, you haven't taken the Attack action.  If you don't take the Attack action on your turn, how do you have the Shield Master bonus action?  That's the part I don't follow.  I could understand this interpretation if the Attack action said something like "you can make one melee or ranged attack until the end of your turn", as that explicitly lists a duration of the effect (much like the Disengage action).  It doesn't say that, it says you make one or more attacks, which brings us back to the point [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] was making about the Attack action being inseparable from the attacks it grants.

If this is not correct, please show me the words in the PHB that explains how this really works.  Otherwise, it seems like you're just adding things that aren't in the rules.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 10, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> If you don't take the Attack action on your turn, how do you have the Shield Master bonus action?  That's the part I don't follow.




I can help you out here. 

If you take the bonus action shield shove _before_ you take the Attack action, then _because_ you only have the shield shove because you get it when you take the Attack action, then at the very same moment you took that shield shove then you _also_ took the Attack action; it's just that you are _resolving_ the shove first.

This means that if you are somehow prevented from executing your attacks, tough! You _already_ 'took the Attack action' because you took the bonus action shield shove granted by it. This is no harder to grasp than the fact that if the spell _sanctuary_ forces you to lose your attack, you have still taken that Attack action! If you can grasp that about _sanctuary_, there can be no excuse for failing to grasp the same thing here!

As mentioned, I don't believe that 'taking the Attack action' and 'executing the attacks granted to me by the Attack action' are the same thing, because of reasons I laid out earlier. However, IF you believe that 'taking the Attack action' IS 'executing those attacks' (because of a Tweet JC pulled out of his backside saying so), THEN you *must also* believe that 'taking the bonus action shield shove' IS 'executing that shield shove!

And even IF you choose to ignore the fact that , "if...then..." statements are _not_ statements of causality (making the same Error as James '@$$-pull' Crawford), and choose to interpret "if...then..." statements as if they _are_ statements of causality, then remember this fact about causality:-



			
				Wikipedia: Causality: Contrasted with conditionals said:
			
		

> Conditional statements are not statements of causality. An important distinction is that *statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time*, whereas conditional statements do not require this temporal order. Confusion commonly arises since many different statements in English may be presented using "If ..., then ..." form (and, arguably, because this form is far more commonly used to make a statement of causality). The two types of statements are distinct, however.




Read that bit again: "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time". This means that the 'effect' cannot come _before_ the 'cause'. But it CAN come either _after_ the cause, or it can *coincide* with the cause!

This means that _at the *same time* as I 'take the Attack action'_ I _also_ can 'take the bonus action shield shove' if I want!

And since you are choosing to interpret 'take the Attack action' as the same thing as 'execute those attacks', and are forced to therefore interpret 'take the bonus action shield shove' as 'executing that shield shove', if you 'take the Attack action' at the same time as you 'take the bonus action shield shove', you *must*, according to that (your) definition, be actually 'executing those attacks' at the very same time as you actually 'execute that shield shove'!

So the attacks and the shield shove can certainly be simultaneous under that interpretation. And if they are simultaneous, who gets to decide in which order they are resolved?

That's right! The acting character's player gets to choose the order in which to resolve their simultaneous actions. And you can bet that we are choosing to resolve that shield shove first, thank-you-very-much!

So, however you interpret the relationship between 'taking the Attack action' and 'executing those attacks', BOTH ways lead to the conclusion that you CAN resolve the shield shove _before_ you resolve your first attack.

Q. E. And indeed, D.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> I can help you out here.
> 
> If you take the bonus action shield shove _before_ you take the Attack action, then _because_ you only have the shield shove because you get it when you take the Attack action, then at the very same moment you took that shield shove then you _also_ took the Attack action; it's just that you are _resolving_ the shove first.
> 
> ...



This is an interesting argument.  You say there's no causality in "If X, Y" but then say that if Y occurs, it causes X to occur simultaneously, if X has not already occurred on its own.  Interesting, but not consistent with itself.

You are correct that "If X, Y" does not strictly imply causality, but you've gone further than that to claim it cannot be a casaul relatioshop, and this is wrong.  Especially in this  case.  For "If X, Y" to be non-causal, X and Y must be independent of each other, or, at worst, both caused by some other Z.  This is observed in that "If X, Y" does not imply Y cannot exist without X, ie, you can have a Y without an X, but if you have X, you will also have Y.

But, that's not the case with Shield Master because you cannot ever have the bonus action shove without the condition being true.  This extra requirement is part of the general bonus action rule -- you don't have one unless something gives it to you -- which is a causal statement.  This must be considered with Shield Master.

Further, while duration of actions is meaningless within the 5e action structure (actions have no assigned duration), the turn structure does have a clear _order_.  Therefore, since there is an order, and since actions a discrete elements (you pick from a menu of actions with unique results and can't mix and match results), and since the Shield Master bonus action's very existence is predicated on taking the Attack action, you _must_ take the Attack action before you can use the bonus action shove.

Now, you maybe can get a bit smeary about timing and take your shove between Extra Attacks, but you cannot say that the conditional existence of the bonus action means that its existence can cause its conditional to be true.  It's the other way around because the "If X, Y" in Shield Master is a casual statement due to the nature if bonus actions being explicitly caused by other game elements. 

This also addresses the timing question.  Since the bonus action shove is caused by taking the Attack action and since combat turns are ordered sequences, the Shield Master conditional is therefore a statement of timing.


[Edited to fix some spelling errors, but probably not all soellibg errors.]


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> As mentioned, I don't believe that 'taking the Attack action' and 'executing the attacks granted to me by the Attack action' are the same thing, because of reasons I laid out earlier. However, IF you believe that 'taking the Attack action' IS 'executing those attacks' (because of a Tweet JC pulled out of his backside saying so), THEN you *must also* believe that 'taking the bonus action shield shove' IS 'executing that shield shove!




Once again, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] has addressed the timing aspect, but I'd like to focus on this part in particular.  What part of the wording of the Attack action makes you believe that the action is separate from the attacks it grants?  Here's the entire action:



> *Attack*
> The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
> 
> With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
> ...




That says quite clearly that with the action, you make an attack.  Extra Attack turns that one attack into multiple attacks, but at no point is there any mention of you being able to take the action first and the attacks later on in your turn.  Surely if the attacks were separate, this action would include language like the Disengage action where it provides an effect for a duration, in both of these cases until the end of your turn?  As it says above, the Attack action is the most common action taken in combat, so if it was supposed to work in the way you are describing, then I don't understand why the rules don't explicitly say that's how it works.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You don't like what he said, so create a house rule that ignores it and move on.




Right on!



Mistwell said:


> Over 1000 posts. And people are still basically where they were with post #1 on this topic.  Same arguments are being made.




Yep, pretty much.



FrogReaver said:


> You use an action and then after you have used the action you get some benefit.




Wasn't your position that you gain the benefit of the bonus action after taking the action, but before actually had to use it the action to attack?

Here you wrote "after you have used the action you get some benefit." That's all past tense and seems to imply you are supporting the Attack action must be used, not simply taken, in order to gain the bonus action from Shield Master.

I thought that was contradictory to your stance. I could be wrong, however, there was a lot to digest after playing D&D for two days. 



Maxperson said:


> That's basically how I'm going to run it.  After your first attack the bonus action becomes available to you.




That's the way we played it for the last two days. It worked ok. One of the new characters was a Paladin/Rogue. He would move, attack, shove, attack with advantage gaining sneak attack. We discussed that the bonus action shouldn't come between, but after the extra attack. In the end, we decided to try allowing it in between. After both days, the DM asked us about it and every one agreed it was fine. It was a way he could get his sneak attack in without having to have an ally fighting along side. The only down side was how easy it was for him to shove. Granted he had +8, but most of the creatures didn't have Athletics or Acrobatics, so only got their Str mods. He probably succeeded on the shove 80% of the time...

But, in comparison, his potential damage output was no worse than the TWF-Horde Breaker Ranger with four attacks nearly every round. The Paladin/Rogue would do about 27 points (avg 8 first attack, 19 second w/ sneak attack) while the Ranger would average 36 (9 per attack) if all four attacks hit. Our raging/frenzying also averaged 36 if all three of his attacks hit.

So, it really isn't a big deal to play it this way and still satisfies the idea of the feat IMO. The Paladin/Rogue simply took three attacks, his average damage would be 24, so the benefit of the shove/sneak attack, for now at least, is only a slight improvement. Of course, it does jump up quite a bit when the other battlers gained the benefit of the prone opponent as they definitely hit more often.

Finally, I don't recall who it was who wanted a rewording of the feat, but here you go (I think this is what you wanted...):

"After you have taken an attack on your turn using the Attack action, you can use your bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield. If you have additional attacks granted by Extra attack or any other feature, you can continue to finish your Attack action and any remaining attacks after resolving your shove."

A bit wordy, but I think it works.


----------



## epithet (Mar 10, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Once again, @_*Ovinomancer*_ has addressed the timing aspect, but I'd like to focus on this part in particular.  What part of the wording of the Attack action makes you believe that the action is separate from the attacks it grants?  Here's the entire action:
> 
> 
> 
> That says quite clearly that with the action, you make an attack.  Extra Attack turns that one attack into multiple attacks, but at no point is there any mention of you being able to take the action first and the attacks later on in your turn.  Surely if the attacks were separate, this action would include language like the Disengage action where it provides an effect for a duration, in both of these cases until the end of your turn?  As it says above, the Attack action is the most common action taken in combat, so if it was supposed to work in the way you are describing, then I don't understand why the rules don't explicitly say that's how it works.




I don't think arguments about what language the rules would include support your side of the argument. We have, in the example of the War Magic feat and the history of Crawford's statements thereupon, clear and unequivocal proof that the same language and construction used in the Shield Master bonus action was intended to enable the use of a bonus action before or after the action upon which its use was conditioned. The fact that Crawford later changed his mind does not change the original intention that his published Sage Advice article revealed. At the time that these rules were written and the Player's Handbook was published, the language in question was not intended to impose a timing requirement.

I am puzzled and somewhat amused by the rigid mindset some folks seem to have about D&D. This whole issue of timing has never been a problem for me, even after getting into the semantic minutia on this topic. If the Attack Action happens "on your turn" you get to choose when to take the bonus shove "during your turn." The first thing just has to happen on your turn, while the second happens at a point of your choosing within that turn. It's as simple as it can be. Your turn is 6 seconds long, with a very limited range and number of individual activities you can do, so this cannot be very complicated.

You know that you can start with a shove, whether that attack comes from the Attack action or from a bonus action. The shove is exactly the same in resolution and effect regardless of how the attack is granted. Is it really so terribly mind-bending to determine which of the two formal game constructions, neither of which have an impact on the objective "reality" of the game's fictional world, granted that attack until after the dice are rolled? Is concurrent resolution of an action and a bonus action really such a heavy lift? Reading posts from Max, it sounds like every turn of every combat in his game is handled like an aircraft pre-flight safety checklist. I don't think that's the best way to play D&D, but hey... that's just, like, my opinion, man.

Also, I'll repeat what I said earlier about the Attack action. "With this action" doesn't support anyone's position in this argument. If you get lettuce and tomato "with this burger," it comes on the burger as part of it. If you get fries and a drink "with this burger," they are separate items. I think it is a safe bet that when the 5e PHB was written, the Wizards were not really prepared for the kind of hyper-literal, super-gamist analysis those rules recieve. It probably never occurred to them at the time that guys like Max would insist, apparently in earnest, that a healthy druid would be turned to dust by nit-picking the rule syntax, or that people would get confused by simply taking an action with an associated bonus action which together give your character a certain total number of attacks, and taking those attacks in whatever order the player wants.

I think the most puzzling and amusing element of this whole long discussion is the assertion that burdening the simple execution of this action-bonus action combo with extra verisimilitude-smashing  timing requirements based on a particular interpretation of the syntax of the trigger for that bonus action, in the context of another particular interpretation of the syntax of the action that forms that trigger, all of which contravene the confessed original intent of the writers of the language in question, somehow adds simplicity and ease of use to the game. That's like adding another page to your tax forms in order to make it faster to prepare your return.

I suppose there are some DMs who value the comfort of having a rigid system, no matter how gamist, for procedurally adjudicating each turn in an inflexible step-by-step manner. Hey, if that's what makes you happy, dude, follow your bliss.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Really? On page 98 of this thread you gave a rules example that works this way:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what you are trying to show here.  This is a game where specific beats general, so yes, specific abilities and spells can override the general rules.  There is no such time travel built into actions.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> When you only have one attack, it is perfectly possible (though not mandatory) that your attack and your 'Attack action' to be literally one and the same thing.
> 
> But with Extra Attack, it is literally _impossible_ to attack once, move into another room, then execute your second attack, and that both attacks are simultaneous!




So again, specific beats general.  The Attack action and your first attack are simultaneous per RAW.  That's what "with" means.  When you get a specific ability that attaches itself to the general rule via extra attack, it gets tacked on AFTER that first attack and then you get duration and divisibility, but only divisibility after the first attack.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 10, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> This example is wrong. The person had already taken that attack action he just hadn't finished.




This is objectively and provably false.  The shove is by RAW a BONUS ACTION, not an ATTACK ACTION.  You cannot take the bonus action and declare that it is the attack action. If you take the bonus action first as a shove and then cannot take the Attack action, you have cheated.  You took a bonus action that you never got, because the trigger never happened.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 10, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> If you take the bonus action shield shove _before_ you take the Attack action, then _because_ you only have the shield shove because you get it when you take the Attack action, then at the very same moment you took that shield shove then you _also_ took the Attack action; it's just that you are _resolving_ the shove first.




This is a house rule.  There is nothing in RAW that even hints at the ability to declare a bonus action an attack action, or that a bonus action somehow triggers the attack action.  They are two completely separate types of actions.  It's also bass ackwards.  You get the bonus action FROM the attack action.  You do not get the attack action FROM the bonus action as you are describing above.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> I don't think arguments about what language the rules would include support your side of the argument. We have, in the example of the War Magic feat and the history of Crawford's statements thereupon, clear and unequivocal proof that the same language and construction used in the Shield Master bonus action was intended to enable the use of a bonus action before or after the action upon which its use was conditioned. The fact that Crawford later changed his mind does not change the original intention that his published Sage Advice article revealed. At the time that these rules were written and the Player's Handbook was published, the language in question was not intended to impose a timing requirement.
> 
> I am puzzled and somewhat amused by the rigid mindset some folks seem to have about D&D. This whole issue of timing has never been a problem for me, even after getting into the semantic minutia on this topic. If the Attack Action happens "on your turn" you get to choose when to take the bonus shove "during your turn." The first thing just has to happen on your turn, while the second happens at a point of your choosing within that turn. It's as simple as it can be. Your turn is 6 seconds long, with a very limited range and number of individual activities you can do, so this cannot be very complicated.
> 
> ...



We actually have conflicting statements about both RAW and RAI, you've just selected one and assigned import to it.  It's a weird mix of appealing to authority while also doing a bit of special pleading because you're claiming what JC says is authoritative, but only selectively.  It's not persuasive unless you already agree.

 It's also why I haven't referred to Sage Advice for any of my arguments.


----------



## epithet (Mar 10, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> We actually have conflicting statements about both RAW and RAI, you've just selected one and assigned import to it.  It's a weird mix of appealing to authority while also doing a bit of special pleading because you're claiming what JC says is authoritative, but only selectively.  It's not persuasive unless you already agree.
> 
> It's also why I haven't referred to Sage Advice for any of my arguments.




With regard to the War Magic feature, the intention was stated in Sage Advice first, then the Advice was changed to reflect the new policy on timing. I’m sorry that it seemed like an appeal to authority, because I expressly and emphatically reject the notion that there is any authority over the rules other than the DM. I raised the issue of the stated intent only to refute the assertion that if the rules were meant to accommodate a triggered bonus action that did not have a timing requirement, they would have been written differently.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> With regard to the War Magic feature, the intention was stated in Sage Advice first, then the Advice was changed to reflect the new policy on timing. I’m sorry that it seemed like an appeal to authority, because I expressly and emphatically reject the notion that there is any authority over the rules other than the DM. I raised the issue of the stated intent only to refute the assertion that if the rules were meant to accommodate a triggered bonus action that did not have a timing requirement, they would have been written differently.



If you reject any authority, why have your last few posts been so emphatic on knowing what RAI was from the earlier SA tweet?  That seems incongruous, at best.  Even making RAI claims are an appeal to authority because you're pointing out what was intended by the designers.

Now, I'm not a fallacy nazi, expecting to win because I know the name of an informal fallacy.  But it does seem very odd that you keep pointing out the earlier tweet as definitive, despite the later tweet being accompanied by a clear thought process and an omission of error.  You can claim SA as a useful authority for RAI (and it most certainly is), but you can't then disavow later corrections as not-authorative.  

It's even odder now that you say you don't think SA is authoritative at all.  I mean, you're murdering your own arguments, here.

Whatever, it's really no big.  Nothing really breaks if you do SM either way.  Go for it.  It doesn't really matter.  I've houseruled it, so I'm clearly not hung up on my way of playing being validated by RAW.  Why are you?


----------



## epithet (Mar 10, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> This is objectively and provably false.  The shove is by RAW a BONUS ACTION, not an ATTACK ACTION.  You cannot take the bonus action and declare that it is the attack action. If you take the bonus action first as a shove and then cannot take the Attack action, you have cheated.  You took a bonus action that you never got, because the trigger never happened.



You do know that you can shove as an attack granted by the Attack action, right?

Just checking.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 10, 2019)

I'm changing how Bonus Action is looked at.

A bonus action is a BONUS to your actions taken on your turn.

Think about it.


----------



## epithet (Mar 10, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> If you reject any authority, why have your last few posts been so emphatic on knowing what RAI was from the earlier SA tweet?  That seems incongruous, at best.  Even making RAI claims are an appeal to authority because you're pointing out what was intended by the designers.
> 
> Now, I'm not a fallacy nazi, expecting to win because I know the name of an informal fallacy.  But it does seem very odd that you keep pointing out the earlier tweet as definitive, despite the later tweet being accompanied by a clear thought process and an omission of error.  You can claim SA as a useful authority for RAI (and it most certainly is), but you can't then disavow later corrections as not-authorative.
> 
> ...




Again, I am not urging SA in support of any ruling on Shield Master. Nor am I making any reference to the “drunk at Trader Joe’s” tweet on Shield Master. I am referring specifically to the published Sage Advice on the War Magic feature of the eldrich knight, which uses a similar conditional. At no point did Crawford withdraw, retract, or change his statement of the intent of the feature, although he did change his Advice to reflect his new position on the existence of a timing requirement for triggered bonus actions.

That said, I do think earlier expressions of intent are more credible than years-later “corrections.”

Like you, I used a house rule to render the point moot in my game. I suspect I’m debating the issue here for the same reason that you are: I enjoy it.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> You do know that you can shove as an attack granted by the Attack action, right?
> 
> Just checking.




What do apples have to do with oranges?  We're discussing the bonus action granted by the Attack action via Shield Master.  If you were not talking about using Shield Master at all, and are just using one of your attacks to shove, why are you even here in this discussion?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 10, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> I'm changing how Bonus Action is looked at.
> 
> A bonus action is a BONUS to your actions taken on your turn.
> 
> Think about it.




Bonus actions are not a bonus to your action, though.  It's an additional action on your turns as a bonus.  That's why they can be used separately and are not generally tied to being used as a part of your action.  Even Shield Master's bonus shove can be used after your Attack action is complete and you have moved again.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 10, 2019)

epithet said:


> Again, I am not urging SA in support of any ruling on Shield Master. Nor am I making any reference to the “drunk at Trader Joe’s” tweet on Shield Master. I am referring specifically to the published Sage Advice on the War Magic feature of the eldrich knight, which uses a similar conditional. At no point did Crawford withdraw, retract, or change his statement of the intent of the feature, although he did change his Advice to reflect his new position on the existence of a timing requirement for triggered bonus actions.
> 
> That said, I do think earlier expressions of intent are more credible than years-later “corrections.”
> 
> Like you, I used a house rule to render the point moot in my game. I suspect I’m debating the issue here for the same reason that you are: I enjoy it.




So the problem is that the latest SAC doesn’t use the word “intent” in either the War Magic or Shield Master answers?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

[MENTION=6789021]Yardiff[/MENTION]   You can't refute what I say, so you abuse the laugh button instead?  Classy.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 11, 2019)

The way I have always read the Shield Master feat from the PHB has been that the feat gives you an attack that must be a shove during your attack action and doing this uses your bonus action.

I believe my interpretation of the PHB makes more since, helps players more, then what the so called 'officials' say.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> @_*Yardiff*_   You can't refute what I say, so you abuse the laugh button instead?  Classy.




I laugh because you ignored the first line of my post to continue to talk about RAW, which my post wasn't talking about.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 11, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> The way I have always read the Shield Master feat from the PHB has been that the feat gives you an attack that must be a shove during your attack action and doing this uses your bonus action.
> 
> I believe my interpretation of the PHB makes more since, helps players more, then what the so called 'officials' say.




That might be how you play it at your table, but... that's absolutely not what the words in the PHB say.  If it was worded like Extra Attack or Dread Ambusher, then sure, this would be a valid RAW interpretation.  Fundamentally, bonus actions are separate and distinct from actions themselves, and you can't just change one to the other as you like (JEC talks about this in the recent Sage Advice video for example).

I think we're all in violent agreement that people will play this feat in many different ways, in fact I think all the folks arguing that the most recent Sage Advice ruling is actually the one that makes the most sense based on the words in the PHB don't actually use that particular strict RAW version.  We're discussing the RAW of things like the Attack action and the Shield Master bonus action.  At my table, I'd be okay with either attack-attack-shove or attack-shove-attack, even though the latter is not strictly correct.  I absolutely do not think shove-attack-attack is a correct interpretation of the RAW, based on all the evidence we've been presenting in the last couple of hundred posts (and yes I thought this even when JEC tweeted about it back in 2015).

You should probably just stop calling this your "interpretation" and call it what it is: your house ruling on this.  There's nothing wrong with you playing it this way, but it's also not at all what the PHB says.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> I laugh because you ignored the first line of my post to continue to talk about RAW, which my post wasn't talking about.




So two things.  First, if a post isn't intended to be humor, laughing at it is an abuse of the laugh button on this site.  Second, when you said you were changing how bonus actions are viewed, I thought you were talking about trying to change people perceptions.  Your last line "think about it" seemed to go in that direction.  My bad for not understanding exactly what you were saying.  Had you just posted a response like this one instead of abusing the laugh button, though, I could have let you know this a few posts ago.

So, since you are changing bonus actions to be a part of the action process for your game, does that mean that there are no ways to get bonus actions for use outside of an action in your game?


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So two things.  First, if a post isn't intended to be humor, laughing at it is an abuse of the laugh button on this site.  Second, when you said you were changing how bonus actions are viewed, I thought you were talking about trying to change people perceptions.  Your last line "think about it" seemed to go in that direction.  My bad for not understanding exactly what you were saying.  Had you just posted a response like this one instead of abusing the laugh button, though, I could have let you know this a few posts ago.
> 
> So, since you are changing bonus actions to be a part of the action process for your game, does that mean that there are no ways to get bonus actions for use outside of an action in your game?





They CAN be discreet actions on their own but don't HAVE to be.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> The way I have always read the Shield Master feat from the PHB has been that the feat gives you an attack that must be a shove during your attack action and doing this uses your bonus action.
> 
> I believe my interpretation of the PHB makes more since, helps players more, then what the so called 'officials' say.




So bonus actions by RAW are allowed at any time on your turn, excepting simultaneous action with something else, and when timing is specified.  The PHB makes it clear that you get to make a push as a bonus action once you use the Attack action.  It doesn't specify during the Attack action, so the timing doesn't require the Attack action.

As far as it making more sense, I agree with you.  It does make more sense to happen during the Attack action, and even more sense to have to be used against the target you attacked, but that's not what RAW says.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 11, 2019)

Yardiff said:


> They CAN be discreet actions on their own but don't HAVE to be.




Please cite the text in the PHB that supports this idea.  You can do what you like at your table, but this stuff isn’t really adding anything to the discussions about RAW.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Please cite the text in the PHB that supports this idea.  You can do what you like at your table, but this stuff isn’t really adding anything to the discussions about RAW.




To be fair, I did ask him how it would work in his game.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> To be fair, I did ask him how it would work in his game.




Sorry, I thought that was a reply to my post.  I’ve asked them for the words supporting their “interpretation” so many times now, and haven’t ever gotten a straight answer.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 11, 2019)

While I think it would be great to have precise text in the PHB to support either position, IME so far the text is simply not there. If it was, people would have been using it by now.

Even if someone finds text they believe supports their position well, 9 times out of 10 the wording is likely ambiguous enough to still allow for different interpretations. Often this was done purposefully to allow the tables to run as they wanted to make the game the most fun for them, other times it was honest mistakes or oversights which are addressed in errata.

Resorting to other sources such as SA is fine, but even that is taken with a grain of salt by many and official only in the loosest of terms.

It is ironic that a couple days ago when we began our last session and a player was making his Paladin/Rogue, I brought up the text of Shield Master and of the other two players (I'd already discussed it at length with our DM), one felt the shove had to come at the end, the other believed you could do it at the beginning if you wanted to (but then you had to use the Attack action afterwards, no other actions were permissible).

Isn't that funny? Two uninformed opinions in our group and one chooses the attack then shove and the other the shove when you want but must attack at some point?

When I told them about this thread and we had our discussion, we compromised on the attack, shove, and maybe more attacks if you have them model.

Sorry about wandering a bit, but my point is that since the text we have available isn't definitive unless you choose to follow SA and JC's ruling, this thread will never end...

Maybe that is the point, though, huh?


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 11, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> This is an interesting argument.




Huzzah! At last! 



> You say there's no causality in "If X, Y" but then say that if Y occurs, it causes X to occur simultaneously, if X has not already occurred on its own.  Interesting, but not consistent with itself.




I agree! That's because I only hold one of these positions (the correct one!), that "if...then.." statements are _not_ statements of causality. I mentioned this in a previous post, citing Wikipedia's essay on Causality and contrasting with conditionals. This means that the 'effect' _can_ come before the 'cause', depending on what the condition actually is, and since the conditional here is , "on your turn", then the "if...then..." form does not require the shield shove to come _after_ the attack; the only requirement is that both take place on your turn.

However, I anticipated that some posters would continue to assert, erroneously, that this particular "if...then..." statement _should_ be adjudicated _as if it were_ a statement of causality. Boy, was my anticipation correct!

What I then showed was that, _even with that interpretation_, it *still* results in being able to resolve the shield shove _before_ you resolve the attack.

So, _either way_, the shield shove _can_ go _before_ the first attack.



> You are correct that "If X, Y" does not strictly imply causality, but you've gone further than that to claim it cannot be a casaul relatioshop, and this is wrong.  Especially in this  case.  For "If X, Y" to be non-causal, X and Y must be independent of each other, or, at worst, both caused by some other Z.  This is observed in that "If X, Y" does not imply Y cannot exist without X, ie, you can have a Y without an X, but if you have X, you will also have Y.
> 
> But, that's not the case with Shield Master because you cannot ever have the bonus action shove without the condition being true.  This extra requirement is part of the general bonus action rule -- you don't have one unless something gives it to you -- which is a causal statement.  This must be considered with Shield Master.




I'm not implying that it _cannot_ be a causal relationship. I'm saying that _because_ of the "if...then..." form, the relationship is _not_ bound by Time's Arrow, while straight causal relationships must be. And in this case, the condition itself, freed from having to occur in a set _order_, instead merely needs to obey the condition! And the condition is merely that they both take place "on your turn".



> Further, while duration of actions is meaningless within the 5e action structure (actions have no assigned duration), the turn structure does have a clear _order_.  Therefore, since there is an order, and since actions a discrete elements (you pick from a menu of actions with unique results and can't mix and match results), and since the Shield Master bonus action's very existence is predicated on taking the Attack action, you _must_ take the Attack action before you can use the bonus action shove.




No!

First, 'no' from the perspective that "if...then..." statements are not bound it time, just bound by the particular condition.

Second, 'no' from a perspective which tries to claim that _this particular_ "if...then..." statement _should_ be treated as if it _were_ a straight statement of causality, _if that claim were true_ then it *must* obey the requirements for a temporal order, and I _know_ you agree that it should obey that temporal order!

But the crucial part is this: "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time".

So _even if_ you think that the 'effect' (the bonus action shield shove) *cannot* occur _before_ the 'cause' (the attack), _the two certainly *can* coincide!_

Even in this interpretation, the _very same moment_ you 'take the Attack action on your turn' you have _simultaneously_ generated that bonus action shield shove. And because of the _actual written rule_ stating that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn as long as you have one to take, and you get this one at the very moment you 'take the Attack action', then, sure, under this interpretation you cannot take the bonus action before you get it, you certainly *can* take it at the very moment you get it! Because, "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time".

Although you are free to choose to take the bonus action _after_ the attack, and (under this interpretation) you cannot take the bonus action _before_ the attack which 'caused' it, you are certainly free to take that bonus action _at the same time_ as the attack which 'caused' it!



> This also addresses the timing question.  Since the bonus action shove is caused by taking the Attack action and since *combat turns are ordered sequences*, the Shield Master conditional is therefore a statement of timing.




Not quite.

It's not that "combat turns are ordered sequences", it's that the _resolution_ of events is 'ordered', meaning 'resolved' one after the other.

So the two actions are certainly allowed to happen simultaneously. Actions like Dash, Dodge and Disengage could not function as we use them if two actions could not occur simultaneously!

However, things must be _resolved_ sequentially!

In 5e, when things happen simultaneously on a creature's turn, they must be _resolved_ sequentially even if they _occur_ at the same time.

But who decides the order in which simultaneous things get resolved?

That's right! The player of the acting creature gets to decide the order in which they are resolved!

Here, you 'take the Attack action on your turn', which 'causes' the bonus action. That bonus action is generated at the same time as you take the Attack action.

Because 'cause' and 'effect' *can* coincide, and the rules say you *can* take your bonus action when you want, you *can* 'take that bonus action' at the same time you get it, which is at the same time as you 'take the Attack action'.

Since you chose to have the two things occur at the same time, you get to choose the order in which they are resolved. Therefore, you *can* choose to _resolve_ the shield bash first, even though both the shield bash and the attack coincide.  



> [Edited to fix some spelling errors, but probably not all soellibg errors.]


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 11, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> ...
> 
> Because 'cause' and 'effect' *can* coincide, and the rules say you *can* take your bonus action when you want, you *can* 'take that bonus action' at the same time you get it, which is at the same time as you 'take the Attack action'.
> 
> Since you chose to have the two things occur at the same time, you get to choose the order in which they are resolved. Therefore, you *can* choose to _resolve_ the shield bash first, even though both the shield bash and the attack coincide.




Again, can you please show me the words in the Attack action definition that explain where the attacks happen after or separately from the action itself?  Or the rule that says two things can happen at the exact same time?  Or that performing an action or bonus action is independent of the resolution of that event?  It's a turn-based game and all the language I've seen points to a strict ordered sequence of events that get resolved one at a time.

Example: You Shield Master shove first, an enemy uses their reaction to incapacitate you.  You never made any attacks and thus never took the Attack action.  How did you have the Shield Master bonus action on your menu of available options?  If there's text in the PHB that says the attacks are separate from the action, or anything else you said, please quote it here.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 11, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> What part of the wording of the Attack action makes you believe that the action is separate from the attacks it grants?




I'm not suggesting that the ability to execute those attacks is totally divorced from the Attack action which granted them, I'm suggesting that there is a _difference_ between 'taking an action' and 'executing the stuff granted by that action', countering the claim that 'taking an Action' IS THE SAME THING as 'the effect of that Action'. 

The rules for Extra Attack and the rules for Moving Between Attacks make it clear that you certainly can use your first attack to stab the goblin in the kitchen, then move into the dining room, then slash at the orc.

This means that, even though we don't know how many seconds go by between attacks, we _do_ know that these attacks *cannot* have been simultaneous _with each other_.

IF we accept that 'taking an action' is _the same thing_ as the stuff allowed by taking that action, that means that both of those attacks ARE the Attack action. Since those attacks were certainly not occurring simultaneously with each other, this means that the Attack action, with Extra Attack, is not necessarily a single, instantaneous event.

So, _after_ the first attack on the goblin but _before_ the attack on the orc, there is a gap in time into which one can 'take a bonus action', because there *is* a written rule which says you can take your bonus action when you like on your turn, and *no* written rule saying anything to the effect of, "...except during another action". 



> That says quite clearly that with the action, you make an attack.  Extra Attack turns that one attack into multiple attacks, but at no point is there any mention of you being able to take the action first and the attacks later on in your turn.




The goblin and the orc say otherwise!

_After_ you attack the goblin but _before_ you attack the orc, have you met the condition, 'take the Attack action on your turn'? It's binary; it's either 'yes' or 'no'.

If it's, "yes you have met the condition", then you have met that condition _before_ the second attack took place. This also means that the second attack cannot have been 'take the Attack action' itself, because if it was then you could not have satisfied the condition!

If it's, "no, you have not met the condition", then you did *not* 'take the Attack action', and are free to take whatever Action you want because you have an unspent action!

Which is it?

If you are tempted to wriggle on the hook by claiming that executing that first attack commits you to taking the Attack action, then by the same logic, taking the bonus action shield shove first also commits you to taking the Attack action! If you have no problem with the former, you can have no problem with the latter! 



> Surely if the attacks were separate, this action would include language like the Disengage action where it provides an effect for a duration, in both of these cases until the end of your turn?  As it says above, the Attack action is the most common action taken in combat, so if it was supposed to work in the way you are describing, then I don't understand why the rules don't explicitly say that's how it works.




Either 'Actions are indivisible', or they are divisible! This applies to ALL Actions In Combat. It is the fallacy of Special Pleading to assert that all the OTHER Actions are "effects with a duration", but *not* the Attack action! There is no rules justification to treat them differently!

Either ALL Actions are 'effects with a duration' (so the Attack action allows you to execute your allowed attacks until you either run out of attacks or your turn ends, whichever comes first), i.e. 'actions are instantaneous declarations at the gaming table, with lasting effects', *or* ALL actions ARE their effects, and in that case if 'Actions are indivisible', then ALL actions are indivisible, rendering Dash, Dodge and Disengage all but unusable.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to show here.  This is a game where specific beats general, so yes, specific abilities and spells can override the general rules.  There is no such time travel built into actions.




My point is that although there is no time travel _in the game world_ going on with shield-bashing first, the fact that the game mechanic there seems to be time travel _at the gaming table_ is completely fine, given that 5e has many such game mechanics that seem to work that way, and none of those involve time travel _in the game world_ either.

It means that there is no valid 'time travel' objection to this game mechanic of shield-bashing first.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So again, specific beats general.  The Attack action and your first attack are simultaneous per RAW.  That's what "with" means.  When you get a specific ability that attaches itself to the general rule via extra attack, it gets tacked on AFTER that first attack and then you get duration and divisibility, but only divisibility after the first attack.




I'm pleased that you agree that Actions are divisible. I am arguing against the 'Actions are indivisible' phantom rule which is being used to justify denying the shield shove between attacks.

I'm also arguing against other related things too.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> There is nothing in RAW that even hints at the ability to declare a bonus action an attack action...




And I never wrote or thought such a thing.



> ...or that a bonus action somehow triggers the attack action.




Never thought that either. The Attack action 'causes' the bonus action, but because of the "if...then..." conditional, cause and effect are not fixed to a particular order, only to the condition 'on your turn'.

And even if you treat this trigger as if it were a statement of causality, you certainly can have cause and effect coincide, and choose to _resolve_ the shield shove first.

So, _either way_, shield shove can come first.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> My point is that although there is no time travel _in the game world_ going on with shield-bashing first, the fact that the game mechanic there seems to be time travel _at the gaming table_ is completely fine, given that 5e has many such game mechanics that seem to work that way, and none of those involve time travel _in the game world_ either.
> 
> It means that there is no valid 'time travel' objection to this game mechanic of shield-bashing first.




The "time travel" comes in with the claim that if you use the bonus action first and then are prevented from ever taking the action, that somehow the action was taken before hand or during the bonus action anyway OR that the bonus action then becomes an action.  The first is time travel, the second is Schrodinger's action, both of which are 100% unsupported in RAW.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> I'm pleased that you agree that Actions are divisible. I am arguing against the 'Actions are indivisible' phantom rule which is being used to justify denying the shield shove between attacks.
> 
> I'm also arguing against other related things too.




Okay.  I had already changed my position on the divisibility of action.  They are divisible.  What is  not divisible is the the point between the start of the Attack action and the first attack.  They come into being simultaneously.  Once you add in the extra attack, the space in-between is open for things to happen.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Never thought that either. The Attack action 'causes' the bonus action, but because of the "if...then..." conditional, cause and effect are not fixed to a particular order, only to the condition 'on your turn'.
> 
> And even if you treat this trigger as if it were a statement of causality, you certainly can have cause and effect coincide, and choose to _resolve_ the shield shove first.
> 
> So, _either way_, shield shove can come first.




Except that there is nothing to coincide with until after the first attack concludes.  The Attack action does not begin until you hit step one of your first attack.  Before step 1 of that first attack, no Attack action has even begun, let alone been taken.  Once you have begun that first attack, you must resolve it before you do anything else, unless a special rule such as Sanctuary prevents you from doing so.  Since no Attack action has even begun until the first attack starts and completes, there is no trigger for the bonus shove until that first attack completes.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 11, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Huzzah! At last!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, I see where you've gone off the rails.  Okay, let's get a bit technical.

Technically, a material conditional is an if, then statement that does not imply causality.  They're related truth statements of the form "if X is true, then Y is also true."  The examples in the wiki article you reference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) is:



			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> If Barack Obama is president of the United States in 2011, then Germany is in Europe.
> 
> If George Washington is president of the United States in 2011, then .




As you can see, these examples show that conditionals are just related truth statements.  In the first, the X being true means that Y is also true, despite the fact that X has nothing to do with Y.  This statement just associates truth values.  The problem with this is shown in the second example, where X is not true, so it diesn't matter what Y is.  Y can be anything, a true statement or false one, because there is only a trivial relationship between X and Y.

Applying the above to Shield Master and taking the if X, Y statement as a material  conditional, I know that if it is true that I take the Attack action on my turn, it is also true that I may shove as a bonus action.  There's a few problems with this.  Firstly, if I don't take the Attack action on my turn, then I don't know if I can shove as a bonus action.  X being true means Y is also true, but X being NOT true means I have no statement about the truth of Y.  Secondly, all that conditional says is that If X is true at any time, then Y is also true.  I can take the Attack action once, on a once or future turn, and the conditional is true -- I can shove as a bonus action any turn I want.  Neither of these make any sense for game rules, so it's pretty clear it's not a material conditional but a causal statement.

We don't just have to rely on the above analysis to determine the Shield Master if X, Y is causal -- the rules tell us it is.  We have the rule that bonus actions do not exist unless given by a game element.  That's a causal relationship, not a related truth statement.  And, since it is causal, X must precede or coincide with Y (refer to above Wiki article).

I've so far avoided the argument that, in normative English, "if, then" statements are almost always causal statements. It's only when you're in certain branches of formal logic that they aren't.  I saved this for last because it's a weaker argument.  Nevertheless, since the game rules are written in normative English, it's another point against reading "if, then" as a material conditional.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 11, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Either 'Actions are indivisible', or they are divisible! This applies to ALL Actions In Combat. It is the fallacy of Special Pleading to assert that all the OTHER Actions are "effects with a duration", but *not* the Attack action! There is no rules justification to treat them differently!




This isn't what's claimed.  What's claimed is tgat actions do what they say they do.  Some has an effect with a soecified duration, some have a thing or things you do.  It's you that is insisting that an action that has an effect with a duration also has that duration.  This isn't true.  Cast a Spell is an action that always results in an effect with a duration, but we aren't talking about how Cast a Spell lasts until it's effects are over.  Why do you do this for Disengage?

I take the Disengage action, I get the effect listed for the duration listed. That action is now done, even if the effect persists.  You surely don't argue that an attack that causes and ongoing condition also continues as long as the condition does, do you?

You keep bringing up special pleading, as if knowing the nane of an informal ligical fallacy wins the argument, but you're doing so by strawmanning to cram the duscussion into a false dichotomy.  Do I win, now?



> Either ALL Actions are 'effects with a duration' (so the Attack action allows you to execute your allowed attacks until you either run out of attacks or your turn ends, whichever comes first), i.e. 'actions are instantaneous declarations at the gaming table, with lasting effects', *or* ALL actions ARE their effects, and in that case if 'Actions are indivisible', then ALL actions are indivisible, rendering Dash, Dodge and Disengage all but unusable.




I'll take "do what it says on the tin and don't invent new things," for $100.  

Seriously, you're dragging in things that aren't in the rules.  Just read the rules without the baggage, I promise they work really well that way.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So two things.  First, if a post isn't intended to be humor, laughing at it is an abuse of the laugh button on this site. ...



Wait, you were doing this to my posts in the Mother May I thread and you actually have the audacity to complain about it when done to you?  Man.  That's chutzpah.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> This isn't what's claimed.  What's claimed is tgat actions do what they say they do.  Some has an effect with a soecified duration, some have a thing or things you do.  It's you that is insisting that an action that has an effect with a duration also has that duration.  This isn't true.  Cast a Spell is an action that always results in an effect with a duration, but we aren't talking about how Cast a Spell lasts until it's effects are over.  Why do you do this for Disengage?
> 
> I take the Disengage action, I get the effect listed for the duration listed. That action is now done, even if the effect persists.  You surely don't argue that an attack that causes and ongoing condition also continues as long as the condition does, do you?




The word action implies it.  If you take an "action," but do no action, such as take the Disengage "action" where you haven't moved yet, then you have not taken an action at all.  Actions are about, you know, action.  What you are arguing by saying that the action is over and done with having taken no time, but gives you an effect that has duration, is arguing that an "action" is not really an action, but rather the effect is the action, but not the "action."  That's silly.  

The action lasts as long as it takes for it's effect to be over.  For the Attack action, the effect is hit or miss.  For Disengage, the action lasts until your movement is done.  And so on.



> You keep bringing up special pleading, as if knowing the nane of an informal ligical fallacy wins the argument, but you're doing so by strawmanning to cram the duscussion into a false dichotomy.  Do I win, now?




Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 11, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Wait, you were doing this to my posts in the Mother May I thread and you actually have the audacity to complain about it when done to you?  Man.  That's chutzpah.




There were things you were saying that were so absurd they had to be intended for humor.  Otherwise...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The word action implies it.  If you take an "action," but do no action, such as take the Disengage "action" where you haven't moved yet, then you have not taken an action at all.  Actions are about, you know, action.  What you are arguing by saying that the action is over and done with having taken no time, but gives you an effect that has duration, is arguing that an "action" is not really an action, but rather the effect is the action, but not the "action."  That's silly.
> 
> The action lasts as long as it takes for it's effect to be over.  For the Attack action, the effect is hit or miss.  For Disengage, the action lasts until your movement is done.  And so on.



Nope, the Disengage Action does not last until you finish moving, the effect created by the Disengage Action does.  It's simple, you do what it says on the tin.



> Pot, meet kettle.



Sigh, yes, Max, that was the joke.  You know, for someone really concerned about others properly acknowledging humor, this and your other post aren't great showings of example.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 11, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> I'm not suggesting that the ability to execute those attacks is totally divorced from the Attack action which granted them, I'm suggesting that there is a _difference_ between 'taking an action' and 'executing the stuff granted by that action', countering the claim that 'taking an Action' IS THE SAME THING as 'the effect of that Action'.
> 
> The rules for Extra Attack and the rules for Moving Between Attacks make it clear that you certainly can use your first attack to stab the goblin in the kitchen, then move into the dining room, then slash at the orc.
> 
> ...




Why must it be A or B here?  There's a third option C, which is simply this: the PHB defines what each action is.  They are specific rules that apply to the action they are defining alone, and not general rules that apply to the whole game.  I really think that this is where you've gone off the rails and it's forcing you to make conclusions that are not supported by the words in the PHB.  I apologize in advance as this post will likely be long, but I will make one more attempt to explain why it doesn't have to be A or B as you defined them here.  I'm going to start with some basic assumptions, in particular that in order for you to actually be able to do something during combat, there must be a rule that says you can do that thing.  Similarly, I'm going to assume that the simplest outcome for a given rule is the correct one, as this helps to ensure that turns in combat are generally quick and easy (as apparently this was one of the goals of the 5E combat system, unlike previous editions).

5E is an exceptions-based game, where specific rules can override general ones.  This is defined at the start of the PHB:



> This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.




To be clear, this does not mean that if one spell says the game works in a particular way, that this has created a general rule and that's how the game works in all cases.  Some people have argued that spells like Sanctuary or Shield imply that the Attack action or actions in general must work in a certain way, but this is not correct: the spells provide exceptions to the rules governing those actions, and apply to those spells only.

Here are some general rules for combat:



> On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first.






> You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.




This is the foundation on which we build everything else, and it sets up the precedent that there is an order to the individual elements of your turn.  That is, there are clearly-defined portions of your turn "before your action" and "after your action".  This suggests that the elements of your turn are played and resolved sequentially, and that order matters.

At this point, I think it's worth talking about one of the most important features of the combat system, namely reactions.



> *Reactions*
> Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction.
> 
> When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.




The Ready action, which sets up a reaction, also says:



> When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.




Why do I suggest that discrete elements must be resolved sequentially and that order matters?  The answer is simple: there might be a reaction waiting to happen, with a trigger of any individual element on your turn. Going forward, let's imagine that one of the enemies you are fighting is Bob, who has the Sentinel and War Caster feats and access to the Banishment spell.

So, on your turn, you have movement and an action.  The rules state you can move before or after your action, or split your movement so you move first, take the action, and then move again.  Each of these discrete elements must be played and resolved independently, because Bob could be waiting to banish you at any point.  For example, the trigger of his Ready action of casting the Banishment spell might be "if an enemy moves within 15' of my friend Jim".  In order for this to work, the state of the game must advance forward in discrete steps as you perform each element of your turn.  If my turn starts with using some of my movement to get into melee range of Jim and then take my action, the movement must be resolved first and independently of the action, so that the reaction trigger can also be resolved as soon as it becomes true.

Perhaps Bob did not actually have a Ready action waiting for me, so now I'm in melee range of his friend Jim and can take my action.  The PHB lists 10 standard actions, with rules for each specific action.  Again, as I said earlier, the rule for one action is a specific rule for that action alone, not a general rule for the whole game.  When adjudicating a specific action, we must simply look at the text for that action alone.  There are actions that provide a temporary buff for a specified duration, for example the Disengage or Dodge actions.  These actions clearly list the effect and duration in the words of the rules themselves:



> If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn.






> When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage.




Just because these two actions "resolve instantly" and provide an effect for a duration, does not mean that this is how all actions work.  Each action is defined separately.  When taking a particular action, all we need to do is look at the text for that specific action, because it defines how the action works.  If we are taking action A, then the fact action B behaves differently is irrelevant, as B is a specific rule that applies to the B action alone.

Okay, so I'm standing next to Jim, and have some of my movement left as well as my action, per the general rules I listed above.  I decide I want to take the Attack action.  I have the Extra Attack class feature that says:



> Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.




and the Attack action itself says:



> With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.




Making an Attack lists 3 steps: 1) Choose a target.  2) Determine modifiers.  3) Resolve the attack.  I choose Jim as the target of my attack, determine the modifiers, and then make the first attack roll.  This first attack must happen as a discrete step, because Bob is standing next to Jim and thus might want to take his Sentinel attack against me.  Once the first attack is resolved, we move onto the next attack, and work through the same 3 steps to resolve that attack.

In previous editions, movement and actions were completely separate.  That is, as soon as you stopped moving, you were done and couldn't move again until your next turn.  5E changed that by allowing you to move before and after your action, and it also added another specific rule, which is to allow movement between weapon attacks:



> 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. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.




This is not a general "all actions are divisible" rule, this is a specific rule that allows for exactly one thing to happen: movement between weapon attacks.  It doesn't specify which action must provide the weapon attacks.  It does explicitly says weapon attacks, which means it does not apply to spells like Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

So, let's say I've made one attack against Jim, but then decide that maybe it'd be better to attack his wizard friend Sally.  As I just described, there's a rule that lets me use some of my movement in between weapon attacks, so I move over next to Sally.  This must be resolved as a discrete element, because Bob might use his reaction to make an opportunity attack against me and cast Banishment.  Assuming he either does not do that or I make my saving throw, I'm now standing in melee range of Sally and can make an attack against her, using the standard 3-step rule.  Again, this attack must be resolved as a discrete step, because Bob might have a Ready action trigger of "if someone attacks Sally".

My 2nd attack is complete, which also means my action is complete.  I'm now standing next to Sally, but have some movement left.  The general rule says I can move before and after my action, so I'm free to move away from Sally if I want to.  I do that, which of course means she can attempt an opportunity attack against me.  Bob might also have a reaction waiting to go, with a trigger of "if someone moves away from Sally", which means that movement must be a discrete element and resolved before I can do anything else.

Reactions demand that my turn be made up of discrete elements, and that those discrete elements be played and resolved in order.  The order matters, because each individual element might trigger a reaction, which can drastically alter the state of the game.  To use our previous example, Bob might be waiting to cast Banishment on me depending on exactly what I do on my turn, and the only way this works is that each element of my turn is played one at a time.  Once an element has been resolved, we move onto the next one, and the state of the game advances (i.e. positioning, what's on my menu of things I can do next, and so on).

Let's imagine I have the Shield Master feat.  Here are the specific rules that apply:



> 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.






> 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.




We've already determined that there are well-defined periods of time on your turn that are "before your action" and "after your action", based on the movement rules.  So, when can I use the Shield Master bonus action on the turn I described above?

1) At the start of my turn, my menu of available options is "move, action".  I have not taken the Attack action, so I do not have access to the bonus action shove yet.

2) I use some of my movement, and my menu of available options is still "move, action" because I have movement left.

3) I take the Attack action and make a weapon attack against Jim, and my menu becomes "move, weapon attack" because there's an explicit rule that lets me move between weapon attacks, and the Extra Attack feature grants me a second attack when I take the Attack action.

4) I move over to Sally, and my menu is still "move, weapon attack" because I have movement left.

5) I make my second weapon attack against Sally, and my menu becomes "move, Shield Master shove".  This is the point where the condition "take the Attack action" is true and I can actually do something about it.  Again, there's an exception to the rules that says I can move between weapon attacks, which means this is the only thing I can do between weapon attacks.

6) Let's say I do actually shove Sally prone before moving away, now her OA has disadvantage.  My menu becomes "move" because I have used my action and the bonus action I was granted by the Attack action.

7) I move away, my menu becomes empty because I have used all of my available options.  My turn ends.

Again, my turn is constructed of elements that are explicitly allowed by rules in the PHB.  At no point do I have to guess or infer something, I'm using the actual words in the PHB.  These elements must be played and resolved in order, because Bob might be waiting to cast Banishment at any stage of my turn.  This is why the duration of the Attack action is completely irrelevant to how the attacks get resolved, and why the duration of an action has no relevance in general (which is why the PHB does not talk about it).  It's also why the condition in the Shield Master bonus action is a timing requirement.  The condition must be true before I can use the bonus action, because at any stage in my turn I might trigger Bob's reaction and he ends my turn.  The game cannot be in an inconsistent state where I've used a bonus action that is granted by an action, and never actually take that action on my turn.  At no point does the PHB specify that the Attack action is separate from the attacks it grants, if we just do what it says in that rule, we take the Attack action by making an attack.  Extra Attack grants us a second attack, which gets added to our menu of available options after the first attack has been made.  There is an explicit rule that lets us move between weapon attacks, so if we have movement left it's also on our menu of options.  Once all the attacks have been made, the Attack action has been taken, and anything that is triggered by that action now comes into play.

Why can't you shove between attacks?  The Shield Master feat is triggered by the Attack action, not by making a weapon attack.  The PHB says the Attack action with Extra Attack is 2 weapon attacks, and the PHB says you can move between weapon attacks.  That's all you're allowed to do.  Attack and move.  Once you've made those 2 attacks, the action is done.  Once the action is done, the bonus action's condition is true, and thus the bonus action becomes available for use until the end of your turn.

To summarize: The PHB says what you can do on your turn, starting with movement and an action.  Your turn must be a series of discrete elements, because those elements might trigger a reaction.  That reaction might have to occur after the triggering element is finished, but before the next one starts.  If there is a conditional element, the condition therefore must be true before it can be played, because a reaction may prevent you from actually performing the condition in the future as you originally intended.  Specific rules are not general rules, just because one action works in a particular way does not mean every action must also work in exactly the same way.

I'm sure I haven't convinced anyone of anything, but I really think it's worth actually going back and reading the words that are in the book.  Someone complained that the rules are full of inconsistencies, but I believe the rules are generally very consistent if you simply do what the words say and not add extra things on top of that.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 11, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Sorry for the late reply today (busy) and I know others have brought up some points, but I don't have time to digest it all before I hit the sack. So, please forgive any redundancies. I've also added the numbering to address your points.
> 
> #1. You are denied the ability to use it because you have not satisfied the requirements to gain the Bonus action feature.




But I may satisfy it later on my turn. If I take the Attack action later on my turn, then I took the Attack action on my turn but you didn't allow me to use a bonus action to shove a creature. That isn't following the rule.



dnd4vr said:


> If you argue you can take the Shove first and not worry because you'll have to wait and see, think about what you are doing. What if you use your Bonus action to shove, and then are denied your Action afterwards and cannot take the Attack action?




Then you only shoved on your turn. How is that a problem? It isn't breaking anything.



dnd4vr said:


> Does the Shove have to be unresolved now because you certainly didn't take the Attack action on your turn!




Of course not! The shove attempt is always resolved the same way whether you use a bonus action to do it or not. 



dnd4vr said:


> Here is a perfect scenario where this could happen.
> 
> You are badly injured and have only 5 hit points remaining. You are fighting two foes and decide to use your Bonus Action to shove one and your Attack action on him with advantage. However, you use your Bonus action and succeed, the opponent is knocked prone! Wait! Unknown to you, the other foe has the Sentinel Feat! Since you Shoved, which is a special attack but an attack nonetheless, he uses his reaction to make a melee weapon attack against you! He hits! A crit! You take 10 damage and fall unconscious. However, the universe is askew, how can this be? Don't you have to take the Attack action on your turn since you used the Bonus action granted by Shield Master to Shove earlier?
> 
> This is why your reasoning falls apart IMO. You cannot benefit from a conditional feature before you satisfy the condition to gain it. In the scenario you Shoved before you took the Attack action and were unable to take the Attack action, therefore you never should have been able to Shove.




You can shove a creature without using a bonus action any time you like, though. The benefit of the feat is it lets you shove a creature AND take the Attack action on your turn. It's an added benefit!



dnd4vr said:


> #2. This of course ties into the next point. As you say, "...so later, on your turn, when you do [take the Attack action], you'll be able to use a bonus action, ..." Notice what you wrote: "you'll be able" as in "you will be able", _will_, as in future tense, which follows you writing "so later, on your turn". You have just written that later you will be able to use a bonus action. Later, as in after the Attack action has been made.




Right, which invokes the general rule for bonus actions. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified," so following the RAI established by Jeremy Crawford's original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature, you choose when during your turn to take the bonus action shove because its timing isn't specified.



dnd4vr said:


> #3. You have no other cash, this is why you must go to the ATM to get cash in order to buy the book.




This is just you adding things to the example. It's also like saying you can't shove a creature without using a bonus action, which you obviously can.



dnd4vr said:


> #4. But you are, inadvertently, when you use a bonus action to Shove before taking the Attack action. The scenario I pointed out in response to #1 shows how this could happen.




No, you'd still need to take the Attack action on your turn for your shove-attempt to use a bonus action.



dnd4vr said:


> #5. I meant time-travel because of the paradox potentially created and demonstrated in the scenario for #1. I do notice, however, you seem to think: _"If all you did on your turn was to shove a creature, then you took the Attack action when you did so. In the case of Shield Master, "taking the Attack action" doesn't correspond to anything in the fiction different from "taking a bonus action" as long as at least one of your attacks is a shove."_ Shoving a creature, in and of itself, does not constitute taking the Attack action. Your statement seems to reflect (correct me if I am mistaken) that by using the Bonus action to Shove, you in fact took the Attack action when you did so? If that is your reasoning, IMO your logic is flawed because taking a bonus action is not the same thing as taking the Attack action, even if both actions are used to resolve a Shove. The first is a bonus action where you are permitted to try to shove a creature, while an Attack action can be used to shove or make other forms of attacks.




No, that isn't my reasoning at all. My reasoning is that the conditional language of the feat requires that the shield master's total activity for his/her turn is considered when fitting it into the action economy. This doesn't create a paradox because all that happens in a shove-first scenario is either that the shield master attempts to shove a creature, or that the shield master attempts to shove a creature and also takes the Attack action. There's nothing paradoxical about either of those situations. 



dnd4vr said:


> #6. Well, I am glad we seem to agree that even in our disagreements we could still play a game together.  As I have stated in other posts, I prefer the idea that the Shield Master feat would confer a Bonus action without the Attack action having to precede it, but unfortunately for us that is not the official ruling as I understand it. I hope my DM will house-rule it the other way, but I'll continue to play in his game as well, even if he doesn't. Since you agree it is a valid interpretation, I won't try to persuade you otherwise except to finish this post unless you wish to continue?




My point is that although the official interpretation is one of at least two valid interpretations, it goes against the stated RAI for bonus actions of this sort, and when given a choice, I'll take playing the game as it was intended to be played, rather than go with an unintended interpretation just because it's considered to be more literal. I can see why Jeremy Crawford might express such an interpretation, but I don't quite understand why anyone would want to play that way. On the other hand, as I said, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker.



dnd4vr said:


> #7. You are correct in both points here. I am saying, if you have Extra Attack and TWF, you could use the Attack action and your first attack to Shove, knocking your opponent prone. At which point you still have your second attack via Extra Attack _AND_ your bonus action granting you another attack via TWF. Both of these attack would be made with advantage. Without Extra Attack, shoving a creature _WOULD NOT_ constitute making an attack with a Light melee weapon, so you would not gain the bonus action attack from TWF. To me there is no debate on this because shoving a creature is not a melee weapon attack at all and I would have to dig, but I remember reading that either in one of the core books or maybe SA.




I found this tweet from Jeremy dated March 10, 2016: *Does Shove qualify you to use the bonus attack in Two Weapon Fighting or Martial Arts?* The shove and grapple options don't involve an attack with a weapon or an unarmed strike, so no.​


dnd4vr said:


> #8. This seems to return to #5 in that your wording indicates you understand that the bonus action Shove from Shield Master counts as its own satisfying condition because it is a melee attack. In the X,Y logic, that would be like arguing this: "If X, then Y" becomes "Since Y, then Y." You are trying to equate Y to X, but they are not the same (again, see #5 above).




Well, a shove-attempt _could_ satisfy the condition for using a bonus action to make another shove-attempt, but the point I was making is only tangentially related. The point I was making has to do with the idea of being _committed_ to taking the Attack action. If you shove a creature, then you're either taking the Attack action to make that shove-attempt, or you're using a bonus action conditioned on taking the Attack action, so either way you're committed to taking the Attack action. The Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature doesn't have this quality because making a weapon attack in no way commits you to casting a cantrip.



dnd4vr said:


> Maybe that clears things up or not? If you are stuck in your own understanding, I don't know if anything more I have to say can convince you otherwise. I think the scenario in #1 shows it best how you must first take the Attack action before you can Shove (at least as the official ruling is concerned). I agree I like it better the other way since it adds an offensive element to Shield Master without having to rely on allies to benefit instead of you. But, I am not JC and I don't make the rules, I can only encourage my DM to house-rule otherwise.




I'm sorry, but if your goal here is to clear things up, you're barking up the wrong tree. I already understand the official ruling, and I disagree with it. No amount of explaining it to me is going to change that. I also disagree that it requires a house-rule to play out of accordance with the official ruling.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 11, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The RAW says that you only have a bonus action to take if something provides one.  Shield Master only provides a bonus action to take if you take the attack action on your turn.  So until you've taken the attack action on your turn how do you have a bonus action to take?




That's not what Shield Master says it does, though. Shield Master lets you _use_ a bonus action if you take the Attack action on your turn. Having the bonus action to take just seems to be a matter of having the feat. Actually using or taking it is what's conditioned on taking the Attack action on your turn.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 11, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> To be super pedantic, the thing that grants you the bonus action is the Shield Master feat, based on the condition that you take the Attack action first.  Are you going to claim the feat itself isn't a "special ability, spell, or other feature of the game" as well?  This feels like the weakest argument made so far, and by a huge margin.




Of course not! That's actually the point I was making. I'm glad you agree!


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 11, 2019)

The key issue Arial Black and other supporting that position have is this: because the Attack action and bonus action shove can be simultaneous, only the order of resolving them needs to be determined. He stated this ordering is determined by the player, which is slightly incorrect as it is the DM who controls the narrative, but since the DM often defers to the player's wishes, this is a very  minor oversight really.

The problem with even allowing the shove to be resolved first, assuming the Attack action is simultaneous but the DM allows it to be resolved second, is scenarios where after you resolve the shove you cannot attack anything and thus never take the Attack action. If you never take the Attack action, you never satisfied the condition of Shield Master which allowed you to shove. This leads to paradox and how do you handle that?

Example. You party has been engaged in a battle with an archmage. Everyone else is unconscious or dead, so it is just you and him now. On your turn, you employ your bonus action to shove, deciding to resolve it before resolving your attack from your Attack action. Unknown to you, the archmage's contingency was if he is knocked prone by an enemy, he teleports to his hideout. So, the DM says as soon as you knock the archmage prone, he disappears. *But, you have no target to attack with your Attack action, so how can you take it on your turn???*

Now, you might argue that since your actions were simultaneous, you should be able to resolve your attack before he teleports away. The DM agrees, thinking this will avoid the paradox, so you make your attack roll and do so with advantage (after all, you shoved the target, right?). The DM puts his hand up before you roll, telling you that you don't have advantage because the actions are simultaneous, since even though he is allowing you to resolve one and then the other you agreed they occur at the same time. So, since they are simultaneous you cannot benefit from the effect gained by shove until the simultaneous actions are _both_ resolved. If you argue against this, you are not in fact doing the actions simultaneously. If you try to benefit from the prone target via Shield Master, it in fact came _first_ and the attack followed _second_. If one is first and the other is second, they aren't _simultaneous_.

The DM could tell you to roll two d20's at the same time since the actions are simultaneous. One d20 is for the Strength (Athletics) check versus the archmage's Dexterity (Acrobatics) check for the shove, and the other d20 is for your attack roll versus his AC. Since they happen together, you don't have advantage on the attack roll.

_If you claim they are simultaneous_, the order of resolution is not important because you cannot benefit from the shove (advantage on attack) since the opponent is not prone when you simultaneously make the attack roll. At best, you could resolve it as "shove, attack (no advantage because the shove is simultaneous), attack (with advantage since the shove is now complete)". This is no different from "attack, shove, attack (with advantage due to shove)". In short, it is easier to resolve the order as: "attack (no advantage), shove, attack (with advantage)", since this makes it more obvious when you can attack with advantage than resolving them as "shove, attack (no advantage), attack (with advantage)". You have the exact same actions with the exact same benefits, only the order changes between the shove and first attack.

This is actually pretty important in another way if you think about this: suppose you only have one attack for your Attack action (no Extra Attack)?

By the argument of simultaneous actions, that the shove and attack must occur together, you can never gain the benefit from the prone target because the actions _are_ simultaneous! It becomes irrelevant if you shove then attack or attack and then shove when the actions are simultaneous.

I hope at this point no one is still arguing you can use the bonus action and THEN use the Attack action, that they need not be simultaneous or that the Attack action must come first. The only two logical interpretations IMO are:

1. The bonus action Shove can be taken simultaneously to the Attack action.
2. The bonus action Shove must be taken after the Attack action.

Either way, unless you have the Extra Attack feature, you can never benefit from the shove on the first attack made on your turn. Of course, as I have shown in other posts, this goes against JC's official stance from SA and tweets, but that is only of concern to your table if you value his position.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 11, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The rule you quoted does not say what you wish it said.
> 
> During your turn there are two states of actionhood.
> 
> ...




I don't need a rule to change that because it's irrelevant to the condition set up by the feat. The condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature is *not* that "you _have taken_ the Attack action on your turn," so it doesn't matter which of these two states prevail when you use the bonus action the feat gives you.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 11, 2019)

Hriston said:


> But I may satisfy it later on my turn. If I take the Attack action later on my turn, then I took the Attack action on my turn but you didn't allow me to use a bonus action to shove a creature. That isn't following the rule.




Then again, you may not, which leads to paradox since the condition required to gain the bonus action was that you take the Attack action on your turn.



Hriston said:


> Then you only shoved on your turn. How is that a problem? It isn't breaking anything.




Again, the problem is you are employing a bonus action granted by a feature and didn't satisfy the requirements of the feat to gain the bonus action. That is breaking the rule of gaining bonus actions allowed by satisfying conditions to gain them.



Hriston said:


> Of course not! The shove attempt is always resolved the same way whether you use a bonus action to do it or not.




I never said it wasn't and that is immaterial to the argument.



Hriston said:


> You can shove a creature without using a bonus action any time you like, though. The benefit of the feat is it lets you shove a creature AND take the Attack action on your turn. It's an added benefit!




Accept that to gain the bonus action shove you must take the Action. I have shown numerous examples of how it leads to paradox if you use your bonus action to shove before you attack because you can be denied the attack later on.



Hriston said:


> Right, which invokes the general rule for bonus actions. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified," so following the RAI established by Jeremy Crawford's original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature, you choose when during your turn to take the bonus action shove because its timing isn't specified.




And if you look at the SA response, he states that allowing you to make the attack before casting the cantrip would probably not break anything. Clearly he felt it could break things if you allow the shove to precede the Attack action via Shield Master.



Hriston said:


> No, you'd still need to take the Attack action on your turn for your shove-attempt to use a bonus action.




And what if you can't? Then what? You have benefited from a bonus action granted by a feat and never met the requirements to gain said bonus action.



Hriston said:


> No, that isn't my reasoning at all. My reasoning is that the conditional language of the feat requires that the shield master's total activity for his/her turn is considered when fitting it into the action economy. This doesn't create a paradox because all that happens in a shove-first scenario is either that the shield master attempts to shove a creature, or that the shield master attempts to shove a creature and also takes the Attack action. There's nothing paradoxical about either of those situations.




Again, you are either not understanding that bonus actions require you to satisfy the conditions needed to have them or there are none. In this case, the requirement is the Attack action, if you never attack, you should NOT have gained the bonus action. You continue to believe you can use the bonus action first even though you could be denied your Attack action later on. If you want to ignore the requirements for Shield Master in situations when you have NO Attack action, that is up to you. Play on!



Hriston said:


> My point is that although the official interpretation is one of at least two valid interpretations, it goes against the stated RAI for bonus actions of this sort, and when given a choice, I'll take playing the game as it was intended to be played, rather than go with an unintended interpretation just because it's considered to be more literal. I can see why Jeremy Crawford might express such an interpretation, but I don't quite understand why anyone would want to play that way. On the other hand, as I said, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker.




Well, we disagree on that obviously. It is your opinion as to what was intended on how play was suppose to be, but obviously the lead game designer feels otherwise. Ignore him if you want.



Hriston said:


> I found this tweet from Jeremy dated March 10, 2016:*Does Shove qualify you to use the bonus attack in Two Weapon Fighting or Martial Arts?* The shove and grapple options don't involve an attack with a weapon or an unarmed strike, so no.​
> Well, a shove-attempt _could_ satisfy the condition for using a bonus action to make another shove-attempt, but the point I was making is only tangentially related. The point I was making has to do with the idea of being _committed_ to taking the Attack action. If you shove a creature, then you're either taking the Attack action to make that shove-attempt, or you're using a bonus action conditioned on taking the Attack action, so either way you're committed to taking the Attack action. The Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature doesn't have this quality because making a weapon attack in no way commits you to casting a cantrip.




Sure, but if you use your Attack action and your attack granted by that action to attempt to shove, that is using the Attack action and allows the bonus action to Shove from Shield Master. But notice you are in fact using your Attack action before you gain the bonus action. But you can't use the bonus action shove first to attempt to shove unless it is preceded by the Attack action.



Hriston said:


> I'm sorry, but if your goal here is to clear things up, you're barking up the wrong tree. I already understand the official ruling, and I disagree with it. No amount of explaining it to me is going to change that. I also disagree that it requires a house-rule to play out of accordance with the official ruling.




LOL from everything you say you obviously do NOT understand the official ruling, whether you agree with it or not. However we agree, no amount of me explaining that to you will change your understanding if you refuse to change it. Perhaps face-to-face we would be more successful at meeting a mutual resolution, but it obvious though posts the only resolution is agreeing to disagree. Play on!


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 11, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> ...
> 
> I hope at this point no one is still arguing you can use the bonus action and THEN use the Attack action, that they need not be simultaneous or that the Attack action must come first. The only two logical interpretations IMO are:
> 
> ...




And we can simply let the PHB guide us to the correct answer here.  The PHB talks about before and after.  Movement can come before or after your action.  Movement can come between weapon attacks, implying the attacks happen before and after the movement.  The Ready action talks about the reaction happening after the trigger.  At no point does the PHB talk about these elements happening simultaneously.  Thus, the game elements themselves must be resolved discretely and in order.

The DM and players can turn this discrete sequence of game elements into a narrative as part of the ongoing story, but that doesn't change the fact that the underlying elements of the combat system must happen in a sequence.  For example, the DM might narrate your attack doing no damage because the Wizard cast Shield as a reaction, and the blade of your weapon was stopped an inch short of their flesh by a magical barrier of force energy.  That doesn't change the fact the attacker had to actually make an attack by performing the 3 steps listed in the PHB, the Wizard taking a reaction when the condition of "which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" became true, and the temporary effect of +5 AC turned the hit into a miss.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 12, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Then again, you may not, which leads to paradox since the condition required to gain the bonus action was that you take the Attack action on your turn.




What paradox? If I take the Attack action on my turn, I have satisfied the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature. If I don't take the Attack action, then I have merely shoved a creature (which consumes my action). What's paradoxical about that?



dnd4vr said:


> Again, the problem is you are employing a bonus action granted by a feature and didn't satisfy the requirements of the feat to gain the bonus action. That is breaking the rule of gaining bonus actions allowed by satisfying conditions to gain them.




Let's say I shove a creature. There's no reason to think I must necessarily use a bonus action to do so. So I'm not breaking any rules by shoving a creature. If I then go on to take the Attack action, well then I have satisfied the condition for making the shove-attempt using a bonus action. Otherwise, I didn't use a bonus action at all!



dnd4vr said:


> I never said it wasn't and that is immaterial to the argument.




You asked if the shove-attempt should remain unresolved because you can't use a bonus action to do it. That's a stark difference from how a shove-attempt is resolved, whether you use a bonus action or not.



dnd4vr said:


> Accept that to gain the bonus action shove you must take the Action. I have shown numerous examples of how it leads to paradox if you use your bonus action to shove before you attack because you can be denied the attack later on.




There's nothing paradoxical about being denied the ability to attack. It happens all the time in the game without anyone thinking it's paradoxical. The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one. I would recommend not doing that.



dnd4vr said:


> And if you look at the SA response, he states that allowing you to make the attack before casting the cantrip would probably not break anything. Clearly he felt it could break things if you allow the shove to precede the Attack action via Shield Master.




They're both SA, but only the original ruling expressed RAI. What evidence do you have for how Jeremy Crawford thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first affects game-balance? In the Sage Advice segment of the 2/1/19 Dragon Talk, he said decisions on the timing of bonus actions were made not for balance reasons, but for smooth game-play. Besides, considering how the Eldritch Knight's War Magic could potentially interact with Eldritch Strike if allowing the bonus action weapon attack to come first, I doubt he thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first is game-breaking if he doesn't think the same thing about War Magic.



dnd4vr said:


> And what if you can't? Then what? You have benefited from a bonus action granted by a feat and never met the requirements to gain said bonus action.




How exactly have you benefited, though? Without the feat, you can shove a creature, so that in itself isn't a benefit. No, the benefit of the feat is that you can shove a creature AND take the Attack action on the same turn, and if you can't take the Attack action for whatever reason, then you haven't benefited.



dnd4vr said:


> Again, you are either not understanding that bonus actions require you to satisfy the conditions needed to have them or there are none. In this case, the requirement is the Attack action, if you never attack, you should NOT have gained the bonus action. You continue to believe you can use the bonus action first even though you could be denied your Attack action later on. If you want to ignore the requirements for Shield Master in situations when you have NO Attack action, that is up to you. Play on!




I agree that if you never take the Attack action, then you can never use a bonus action to shove a creature. You can still shove a creature without using a bonus action, though, so there's that.



dnd4vr said:


> Well, we disagree on that obviously. It is your opinion as to what was intended on how play was suppose to be, but obviously the lead game designer feels otherwise. Ignore him if you want.




No, what was intended (RAI) has been stated by the very person you say feels otherwise. On July 6, 2015, he said, "The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip." That's a clear statement of the intent with which the game was designed. The more recent change in the official interpretation is motivated not by a desire to reveal the RAI, but rather to elevate a literalistic interpretation of the RAW over the RAI. A RAI interpretation is still possible with the existing language, though, so I can understand the decision not to issue errata for this. What I don’t like, however, is WotC’s tendency to then defend their uncorrected, ambiguous text by doubling down on the most literalistic interpretation possible. 



dnd4vr said:


> Sure, but if you use your Attack action and your attack granted by that action to attempt to shove, that is using the Attack action and allows the bonus action to Shove from Shield Master. But notice you are in fact using your Attack action before you gain the bonus action. But you can't use the bonus action shove first to attempt to shove unless it is preceded by the Attack action.




That’s your interpretation. My interpretation accords with the feat’s intended lack of a timing specification. 



dnd4vr said:


> LOL from everything you say you obviously do NOT understand the official ruling, whether you agree with it or not. However we agree, no amount of me explaining that to you will change your understanding if you refuse to change it. Perhaps face-to-face we would be more successful at meeting a mutual resolution, but it obvious though posts the only resolution is agreeing to disagree. Play on!




I’m curious what part of the official ruling you think I don’t understand? You seem to think that understanding it makes it impossible to disagree with.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Hriston said:


> What paradox? If I take the Attack action on my turn, I have satisfied the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature. If I don't take the Attack action, then I have merely shoved a creature (which consumes my action). What's paradoxical about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say I shove a creature. There's no reason to think I must necessarily use a bonus action to do so. So I'm not breaking any rules by shoving a creature. If I then go on to take the Attack action, well then I have satisfied the condition for making the shove-attempt using a bonus action. Otherwise, I didn't use a bonus action at all!




Can you show me where it says you can just shove a creature on the list of valid actions in the "Actions in Combat" section of the Combat chapter of the PHB?  That section provides the rules for what you can do on your turn, I've read it a bunch of times and I haven't seen anything that says you can just shove someone.  The rules do quite clearly say that you start your turn with movement and an action, and that a valid choice for an action would be the Attack action, and you can make a special melee attack to shove someone.  Can you show me where it says you get to defer the decision about how you did something until the end of your turn?


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2019)




----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The "time travel" comes in with the claim that if you use the bonus action first and then are prevented from ever taking the action, that somehow the action was taken before hand or during the bonus action anyway OR that the bonus action then becomes an action.  The first is time travel, the second is Schrodinger's action, both of which are 100% unsupported in RAW.




As the examples of 'time-travel'-like rules show, seeming to time travel _at the gaming table_ is not an issue at all! What matters is that no time travel occurs _in the game world_.

Actions, bonus actions, reactions, the Attack action, the Dash action, 6-second turns....all these are things the _player_ does; the game mechanics _at the gaming table_.

But in the game world? There are no such things as 'bonus actions', or any other perception of the 5e game mechanics in play. The creatures in the game can have no idea that they are merely our avatars in a game.

In the game world, there are no such things as 'the Attack action' or 'bonus action shove'. No, in the game world there are just attacks, shoves, ripostes, shield bashes...

There are no 6-second turns _in the game world_. No 'indivisible Extra Attack actions', just a series of attacks and shield bashes. The world doesn't care in what order those two sword slashes and shield shove occurs in terms of where the shield shove is 'allowed' to be.

And, really, neither do the game mechanics. All the game mechanics require is that those attacks and that shield shove occur on the same turn.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I don't need a rule to change that because it's irrelevant to the condition set up by the feat. The condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature is *not* that "you _have taken_ the Attack action on your turn," so it doesn't matter which of these two states prevail when you use the bonus action the feat gives you.




You do need a rule to change it.  Why?  Because there is no ability to declare actions in any way that has any mechanical meaning whatsoever.  It simply does not exist by RAW.  If the player tells you, "I am going to take an attack action n my turn," that statement is 100% informal and cannot trigger anything mechanical at all.  The only way to know for the purposes of triggering the shove whether or not an Attack action is going to be taken, is to take it.  Until then, because you cannot mechanically declare that you will be taking one, the trigger cannot happen.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Except that there is nothing to coincide with until after the first attack concludes.  The Attack action does not begin until you hit step one of your first attack.  Before step 1 of that first attack, no Attack action has even begun, let alone been taken.  Once you have begun that first attack, you must resolve it before you do anything else, unless a special rule such as Sanctuary prevents you from doing so.  Since no Attack action has even begun until the first attack starts and completes, there is no trigger for the bonus shove until that first attack completes.




IF the Attack action does not begin until you hit step 1 of your first attack, then it would perforce also be true that the bonus action shield shove does not begin until you hit step 1 of the shield bash.

But since they _can_ be simultaneous (because "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time") then _neither_ begins until you hit step 1.

Fortunately, the rules provide for this possibility: if two things occur simultaneously, the acting creature chooses the order in which those things are _resolved_.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> As the examples of 'time-travel'-like rules show, seeming to time travel _at the gaming table_ is not an issue at all! What matters is that no time travel occurs _in the game world_.
> 
> Actions, bonus actions, reactions, the Attack action, the Dash action, 6-second turns....all these are things the _player_ does; the game mechanics _at the gaming table_.
> 
> ...




Mechanically, when you hit with an attack, you hit also your opponent in the game world and deal your damage.  When the target THEN casts Shield in the game world, that hit has to be rewound and turned retroactively into a miss.  That's time travel.  This hit has already occurred in the game world and is being unwound through time so that it never happens.



> And, really, neither do the game mechanics. All the game mechanics require is that those attacks and that shield shove occur on the same turn.




Except the mechanics do care.  Since there is no mechanical ability to declare an Attack action, the only way to mechanically know if an Attack action is taken during your turn, is to actually take it.  That means that there is no mechanical way to trigger the bonus shove prior to taking the Attack action.  The mechanics as written don't care if the shove comes after the first attack or later attacks, though.  It can't come before, though, as the Attack action doesn't begin until you are taking your first attack.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> IF the Attack action does not begin until you hit step 1 of your first attack, then it would perforce also be true that the bonus action shield shove does not begin until you hit step 1 of the shield bash.
> 
> But since they _can_ be simultaneous (because "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time") then _neither_ begins until you hit step 1.
> 
> Fortunately, the rules provide for this possibility: if two things occur simultaneously, the acting creature chooses the order in which those things are _resolved_.




I’m not familiar with that rule, can you list the PHB text or provide a reference to it?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> IF the Attack action does not begin until you hit step 1 of your first attack, then it would perforce also be true that the bonus action shield shove does not begin until you hit step 1 of the shield bash.




What do you mean?  

What I am saying is that since the Attack action doesn't start until step 1 of the first attack(whether it's a swing, shove or other action that an attack can be), you have already begun the attack by targeting your opponent, which moves you on to step 2, and then step 3.  That portion is not divisible.  You cannot target your attack, then stop and do something else, then pick the attack back up.  



> But since they _can_ be simultaneous (because "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time") then _neither_ begins until you hit step 1.
> 
> Fortunately, the rules provide for this possibility: if two things occur simultaneously, the acting creature chooses the order in which those things are _resolved_.




There is nothing happening simultaneously.  You are resolving the attack that started in step one, triggering the bonus action after that attack concludes, and then using the bonus action at some point during your turn after it triggers.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Ah, I see where you've gone off the rails.  Okay, let's get a bit technical.
> 
> Technically, a material conditional is an if, then statement that does not imply causality.  They're related truth statements of the form "if X is true, then Y is also true."  The examples in the wiki article you reference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) is:
> 
> ...




This is a _really_ long way to say that you believe that this situation is, in fact, a straight statement of causality! 

Fair enough. In that case, because "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time", and because you generate the bonus action shield shove at the same time as you "take the Attack action on your turn", and because you can take a bonus action you have anytime you like on your turn, you can take the bonus action at the same time as you take the action which grants it.

Then, doing two simultaneous things on your turn, they _must_ be _resolved_ one-at-a-time, and since the acting creature chooses the order in which they are resolved, it can choose to resolve the shield shove first.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 12, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Can you show me where it says you can just shove a creature on the list of valid actions in the "Actions in Combat" section of the Combat chapter of the PHB?  That section provides the rules for what you can do on your turn, I've read it a bunch of times and I haven't seen anything that says you can just shove someone.  The rules do quite clearly say that you start your turn with movement and an action, and that a valid choice for an action would be the Attack action, and you can make a special melee attack to shove someone.  Can you show me where it says you get to defer the decision about how you did something until the end of your turn?




Just shoving a creature and nothing else? That would be the Attack action. The intended benefit of the Shield Master feat is that you can shove a creature AND take the Attack action. Depriving a shield master player of that benefit based on an overly literalistic interpretation of the rules would seem to go against that intent. Maybe you can show me what rule dictates that a player must state as part of his/her action-declaration what part of the action economy s/he is using.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> This isn't what's claimed.  What's claimed is tgat actions do what they say they do.  Some has an effect with a soecified duration, some have a thing or things you do.  It's you that is insisting that an action that has an effect with a duration also has that duration.  This isn't true.  Cast a Spell is an action that always results in an effect with a duration, but we aren't talking about how Cast a Spell lasts until it's effects are over.  Why do you do this for Disengage?
> 
> I take the Disengage action, I get the effect listed for the duration listed. That action is now done, even if the effect persists.  You surely don't argue that an attack that causes and ongoing condition also continues as long as the condition does, do you?




Yeah, Maxperson is right on this one; this is silly.

It is silly to imagine that you dodge/dash/disengage for an instant but you are _not_ dodging/dashing/disengaging at the moments when your PC is actually doing those things!

Meanwhile, you do _not_ apply that same 'logic' to the Action which allows you to execute multiple attacks!

Yeah, I know the term 'special pleading'. Just because I know it doesn't automatically invalidate the case. You are treating the Attack action differently than the others with no justification.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, the Disengage Action does not last until you finish moving, the effect created by the Disengage Action does.




Not by the logic of "the Attack action IS the attack(s)"! By that logic, the Disengage action IS disengaging, the Dodge action IS dodging, the Dash action IS dashing.

And if Dash/Dodge/Disengage are NOT dashing/dodging/disengaging, there is no justification in claiming otherwise for the Attack action.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Not by the logic of "the Attack action IS the attack(s)"! By that logic, the Disengage action IS disengaging, the Dodge action IS dodging, the Dash action IS dashing.
> 
> And if Dash/Dodge/Disengage are NOT dashing/dodging/disengaging, there is no justification in claiming otherwise for the Attack action.




Please read my long post from earlier today, these are not general rules that apply to all actions.  Each action is a self-contained rule, everything you need for each action is in the text of the action itself.  Disengage has no bearing on how the Attack action works.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> This is a _really_ long way to say that you believe that this situation is, in fact, a straight statement of causality!



I tried really hard to make it a bit less than half as long as your post it was answering, but, okay.



> Fair enough. In that case, because "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time", and because you generate the bonus action shield shove at the same time as you "take the Attack action on your turn", and because you can take a bonus action you have anytime you like on your turn, you can take the bonus action at the same time as you take the action which grants it.
> 
> Then, doing two simultaneous things on your turn, they _must_ be _resolved_ one-at-a-time, and since the acting creature chooses the order in which they are resolved, it can choose to resolve the shield shove first.




Nope, sorry, you can't go "simultaneous!" and then not, you know, _do it simultaneously_.  You're admitting the flaw in your argument, here, that simultaneity doesn't exist in the 5e ruleset -- we have no way to resolve simultaneous actions.  Your proposal that it's simultaneous is unsupported by the rules and your presented method of resolving these unsupported events is similarly unsupported.  It's a nice theory, though, just lacking in any evidence in the rules.

On the other hand, if I say that you have to take the Attack actions before you get the bonus action shove, I can point to the rules that support this reading, start to finish.  I just read what it says on the tin for each and do that.  No simultaneity introduced, no baggage, just the text.  Try it, it's quite liberating, because then you fully understand how the rules work and can change them in just the right ways to avoid potholes and achieve your design goals.  Like I did, when I removed the If part of Shield Master.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> You do need a rule to change it.  Why?  Because there is no ability to declare actions in any way that has any mechanical meaning whatsoever.  It simply does not exist by RAW.  If the player tells you, "I am going to take an attack action n my turn," that statement is 100% informal and cannot trigger anything mechanical at all.




This is a little hard to follow because in my parlance declaring actions is the entirety of what a player does in this game. How else is a player supposed to interact with the game-world than by declaring what it is their character does (his/her actions)? I can accept that you have an idiosyncratic definition of what it is to declare an action, but the example you give doesn’t seem like much of an action-declaration at all. It seems more like what one player might say to another when planning out his/her turn. Stated as an action-declaration, this would go something like, “I strike the kobold with my mace.” I think you’d agree that this type of statement has all kinds of mechanical implications. 



Maxperson said:


> The only way to know for the purposes of triggering the shove whether or not an Attack action is going to be taken, is to take it.  Until then, because you cannot mechanically declare that you will be taking one, the trigger cannot happen.




Right, that’s why I wait until the Attack action has been taken before I say the shove-attempt was done using a bonus action.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Yeah, Maxperson is right on this one; this is silly.
> 
> It is silly to imagine that you dodge/dash/disengage for an instant but you are _not_ dodging/dashing/disengaging at the moments when your PC is actually doing those things!
> 
> ...




Nope, my logic is absolutely the same for all actions -- do what it says on the tin.

Let's say I take the Dodge action under your thinking, namely that actions last as long as their effects.  When does my turn end?  I haven't finished taking my action, because it lasts until the start of my next turn, but I have to take my action on my turn -- I cannot take or continue my action into other's turns, right?  So, right there you're either saying that I'm still taking my action when it's someone else's turn or you've shot your argument in the foot.

Whereas, if we go with my thinking, I just do what it says on the tin.  I take the Dodge actions.  It reads:



> *Dodge*
> 
> When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any Attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity Saving Throws with advantage. You lose this benefit if you are Incapacitated (as explained in Conditions ) or if your speed drops to 0.




Cool.  This says that when I take this action, I'm focused entirely on avoiding attacks.  Attacks against me have disadvantage (provided I can see them coming) and I get advantage on DEX saving throws (even if I can't see it coming).  I lose this if my speed drops to 0 or I'm incapacitated (which drops my speed to 0) or until the start of my next turn.  Okay, done reading, action over, effects in place.  Done.

Simple.  I do what it says on the tin.  When I've done that, my action is finished.  There may be an ongoing effect caused my that action, much like using the Cast a Spell action to cast Bless results in an ongoing effect after my Cast a Spell action is done.  Neat.

I really cannot stress this enough:  you're bringing in baggage of old rules and old ways of thinking about rules.  Don't.  Just do what it says on the tin.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Not by the logic of "the Attack action IS the attack(s)"! By that logic, the Disengage action IS disengaging, the Dodge action IS dodging, the Dash action IS dashing.
> 
> And if Dash/Dodge/Disengage are NOT dashing/dodging/disengaging, there is no justification in claiming otherwise for the Attack action.




Who's claiming that the Attack action is the attack?  I know [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] isn't, and I haven't.  That's silly.  The Attack action allows an attack.  Here, let's read the tin:



> *Attack*
> 
> The most Common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
> With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.
> ...




Okay, most common actions, uhuh, oh, here we are, "With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack.  See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks."  Cool.  I do this when I take the Attack action -- I make an attack! 

See, not the same thing, Attack action is an action, attacks are attacks.  If I take the Attack action, I make an attack using the rules in the Making an Attack section.  Simple and easy-peasy.  You just read the tin and do what it says.  When you're done doing what it says, your action is over!  I mean, could it be _any_ simpler?


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Why must it be A or B here?  There's a third option C, which is simply this: the PHB defines what each action is.  They are specific rules that apply to the action they are defining alone, and not general rules that apply to the whole game.




And yet your case relies on 'rules' _that are not rules_ that _you_ choose to apply to one Action-the Attack action-but not to the others. You don't even realise that you're doing this! 



> I really think that this is where you've gone off the rails and it's forcing you to make conclusions that are not supported by the words in the PHB.




Wait! _I_ was going to say that to _you!_



> I apologize in advance as this post will likely be long




I don't mind if a post is long, as long as it is interesting. Yours is interesting. Incorrect, but interesting.  



> but I will make one more attempt to explain why it doesn't have to be A or B as you defined them here.  I'm going to start with some basic assumptions, in particular that in order for you to actually be able to do something during combat, there must be a rule that says you can do that thing...




...and no rule that says you _can't_ do that thing, agreed.

Like the rules say you _can_ take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn, and *no* rule saying you _can't_ take it _during_ an action.



> Similarly, I'm going to assume that the simplest outcome for a given rule is the correct one, as this helps to ensure that turns in combat are generally quick and easy (as apparently this was one of the goals of the 5E combat system, unlike previous editions).




A tempting assumption, but unfounded. This cannot be relied upon in any way.



> Some people have argued that spells like Sanctuary or Shield imply that the Attack action or actions in general must work in a certain way, but this is not correct: the spells provide exceptions to the rules governing those actions, and apply to those spells only.




While I agree that specific spells do not count as general rules in and of themselves, it is the case that the wording of some spells reveal how some general rules work.



> This is the foundation on which we build everything else, and it sets up the precedent that there is an order to the individual elements of your turn.  That is, there are clearly-defined portions of your turn "before your action" and "after your action".  This suggests that the elements of your turn are played and resolved sequentially, and that order matters.
> 
> Why do I suggest that discrete elements must be resolved sequentially and that order matters?  The answer is simple: there might be a reaction waiting to happen, with a trigger of any individual element on your turn.




What you've done here, with many correct examples, is draw the wrong conclusion.

Yes, the elements must be discrete, and must be in a definite order, and must be resolved sequentially. I agree.

But, no, Actions In Combat are not necessarily discrete elements themselves!

With Extra Attack for example, it's not the Attack _action_ that is a single discrete element, it's _each individual attack_ which is a discrete element!

Yes, you must have each 5 feet of movement, each attack, each shield bash, each opportunity attack, in a definite order and resolved sequentially. Even if two discrete elements _occur_ simultaneously, the rules require us to _resolve_ them sequentially.

But no, the Attack _action_, with Extra Attack, is *not* a discrete element in and of itself! I really think that _this_ is where _you've_ gone off the rails and it's forcing you to make conclusions that are not supported by the words in the PHB.   



> We've already determined that there are well-defined periods of time on your turn that are "before your action" and "after your action", based on the movement rules.




Agreed. And there are _also_ periods of time on your turn that are "during your action", when you have Extra Attack. The passage you quote regards a single attack, which IS a discrete element, so there is no 'during' in that case for that paragraph to mention.

But that paragraph is *not* a rule that forbids you from doing anything _between_ elements that _are_ discrete, nor addresses how Extra Attack _changes_ the situation, because although there is no 'during' when there is only one element, there IS a 'during' when you have two or more discrete elements in one Action In Combat.



> So, when can I use the Shield Master bonus action on the turn I described above?
> 
> 1) At the start of my turn, my menu of available options is "move, action".  I have not taken the Attack action, so I do not have access to the bonus action shove yet.
> 
> ...




*FIFY.*

Again, my turn is constructed of elements that are explicitly allowed by rules in the PHB.  At no point do I have to guess or infer something, I'm using the actual words in the PHB.  These elements must be played and resolved in order.

The rules say I _can_ take the Attack action, they say I _can_ take a bonus action shield shove if I take the Attack action on my turn, the rules say I _can_ take my bonus action whenever I want as soon as I have it, and if the relationship between this Action and this bonus action is one of 'cause and effect', then I _can_ let them coincide, and because they coincide then I _can_ choose the order in which those individual elements are resolved.

I have limited myself only to those things the rules say I _can_ do, and I have nowhere done anything the rules say I _can't_ do!


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> And yet your case relies on 'rules' _that are not rules_ that _you_ choose to apply to one Action-the Attack action-but not to the others. You don't even realise that you're doing this!




What "rules that are not rules" did I quote in my post?  My starting assumption was simple: in order for you to be able to do something in combat, there must be a rule that says you can do that thing.  If we can't agree on that, then there isn't much point in continuing this debate really.



Arial Black said:


> ...and no rule that says you _can't_ do that thing, agreed.
> 
> Like the rules say you _can_ take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn, and *no* rule saying you _can't_ take it _during_ an action.




The lack of an explicit rule that says you can take a bonus action with a timing requirement during the action that triggers it means you cannot do that.  Otherwise, what's the point of the rules?  Please see my foundational assumption: there must be a rule that says you can do something, or else you cannot do it.  We do not need rules describing all the things you cannot do, the simple lack of a rule allowing it is all that is needed.



Arial Black said:


> While I agree that specific spells do not count as general rules in and of themselves, it is the case that the wording of some spells reveal how some general rules work.




Surely, the text of the general rule is what reveals how those rules work?  Why are you adding things on top of what the rule says?  Just do what the rule says, nothing more, nothing less.



Arial Black said:


> What you've done here, with many correct examples, is draw the wrong conclusion.
> 
> Yes, the elements must be discrete, and must be in a definite order, and must be resolved sequentially. I agree.
> 
> ...




- There's a rule that says the Attack action means making a weapon attack.
- There's a rule that says Extra Attack means the Attack action gives you 2 (or more) attacks.
- There's a rule that says you can move between weapon attacks.

Where's the rule that says you can inject a bonus action that is triggered from the Attack action in between weapon attacks?  The lack of explicit permission to do that means you cannot do that.  I listed out the order of discrete operations for an Attack action with multiple attacks and movement, and the point at which the rules allow you to perform the bonus action shove.  Again, the rule says you can move between attacks.  That's the only thing you can do in between attacks of the attack action.



Arial Black said:


> Agreed. And there are _also_ periods of time on your turn that are "during your action", when you have Extra Attack. The passage you quote regards a single attack, which IS a discrete element, so there is no 'during' in that case for that paragraph to mention.
> 
> But that paragraph is *not* a rule that forbids you from doing anything _between_ elements that _are_ discrete, nor addresses how Extra Attack _changes_ the situation, because although there is no 'during' when there is only one element, there IS a 'during' when you have two or more discrete elements in one Action In Combat.




The explicit rule that allows for movement between attacks does result in the Attack action as a whole being split into several discrete elements, as I've explained many times in this thread already.  However, that rule is the only rule that says you can do something between the attacks in the Attack action.  The rules need to give you permission to do something, or else you can't do it.  Once you've completed your attacks, the Attack action is over, and the available choices of things you can do on your turn becomes:

1) Move (assuming you have movement left).
2) Shield Master bonus action shove.

That is, the Attack action must be complete for the game state to be logically consistent when you perform the bonus action shove, because your turn could be interrupted and ended at any point in time before that.



Arial Black said:


> *FIFY.*
> 
> Again, my turn is constructed of elements that are explicitly allowed by rules in the PHB.  At no point do I have to guess or infer something, I'm using the actual words in the PHB.  These elements must be played and resolved in order.
> 
> ...




Please quote the rule(s) that allow you to insert a bonus action that is triggered by the Attack action in between attacks of that action, then.  I've been very clear about the rules text I used for my example.  I've seen no rules that talk about things coinciding or happening simultaneously, or that you can choose the order that individual elements are resolved (outside of the order that you play them, per my example).  Can you just quote the specific PHB text that you're talking about?  If it's as clear as you suggest, then you should be able to just list the specific rule that talks about simultaneous events or actions/bonus actions and deciding which order to resolve them in.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> The key issue Arial Black and other supporting that position have is this: because the Attack action and bonus action shove can be simultaneous, only the order of resolving them needs to be determined. He stated this ordering is determined by the player, which is slightly incorrect as it is the DM who controls the narrative, but since the DM often defers to the player's wishes, this is a very  minor oversight really.




Do us all a favour someone! My search-fu is rubbish, and even though it's been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are over a 1000 posts!

Please can someone post/cite/quote the rule regarding simultaneous elements and who gets to choose the order in which they are resolved? It would help us all to see the exact wording.

Thanks in advance.  



> The problem with even allowing the shove to be resolved first, assuming the Attack action is simultaneous but the DM allows it to be resolved second, is scenarios where after you resolve the shove you cannot attack anything and thus never take the Attack action. If you never take the Attack action, you never satisfied the condition of Shield Master which allowed you to shove. This leads to paradox and how do you handle that?




But you already _did_ take the Attack action! You took it, and the bonus action it 'caused', at the same time!

Just because something happens to you which prevents you executing the _attacks_ granted by taking the Attack action, this doesn't mean you didn't take the Attack action!



> Example. You party has been engaged in a battle with an archmage. Everyone else is unconscious or dead, so it is just you and him now. On your turn, you employ your bonus action to shove, deciding to resolve it before resolving your attack from your Attack action. Unknown to you, the archmage's contingency was if he is knocked prone by an enemy, he teleports to his hideout. So, the DM says as soon as you knock the archmage prone, he disappears. *But, you have no target to attack with your Attack action, so how can you take it on your turn???*




Note: you don't target a creature with your Attack _action_, you target a creature with each individual _attack!_

On my turn, I took the Attack action, and took the bonus action it 'caused' _at the same time_. I decide to _resolve_ the shield shove first (although rules-wise I'm taking both _actions_ at the same time), knocking the archmage prone.

Unbeknownst to me, the archmage's _contingency_ was if he is knocked prone by an enemy, he _teleports_ to his hideout. He disappears! I now have two attacks to take (because I already took the Attack action), but no target to attack. Sucks to be me! Well played, archmage, well played...!

No problem at all! Well, it's a minor problem for my Shield Master (but since the archmage ran away...), but in no way is it a problem for the DM to adjudicate.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Do us all a favour someone! My search-fu is rubbish, and even though it's been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are over a 1000 posts!
> 
> Please can someone post/cite/quote the rule regarding simultaneous elements and who gets to choose the order in which they are resolved? It would help us all to see the exact wording.
> 
> Thanks in advance.




I searched the PHB on the D&D Beyond mobile app, and there are zero instances of "simultaneous" or "resolved".  There are a couple of instances of "resolve", but they're all in things like Inspiring Leader:

"You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight."

I keep asking for the specific rules text that you're talking about, and I haven't seen it quoted yet.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Okay, I just found this in XGTE:



> *Simultaneous Effects*
> 
> Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.




You'll note that it specifically says "effects".  This means the effect of spells.  Here's an example:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/931243403127406592

Q: Vampire Regeneration vs. Spirit Guardians? What is the order of operations for "at start of turn" spells/abilities such as Vampire's Regeneration starting his/her turn inside a Spirit Guardian's of an enemy?

A: Xanathar's Guide contains a rule on simultaneous effects. Short form: you decide the order of simultaneous effects on the turn of a character/monster you play.

So, this is specifically talking about the effect of spells, in particular when you have multiple effects that apply at the start or end of your turn.  If you have multiple of these effects on you, you can decide the order in which they happen.

This is a specific rule that talks about spell effects.  It has no bearing on the action system as a whole.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Mechanically, when you hit with an attack, you hit also your opponent in the game world and deal your damage.  When the target THEN casts Shield in the game world, that hit has to be rewound and turned retroactively into a miss.  That's time travel.  This hit has already occurred in the game world and is being unwound through time so that it never happens.




No! The _shield_ spell is *not* a time-rewinding spell!

All the game mechanics _at the table_ do is _represent_ the situation _in the game world_ that the wizard managed to get the _shield_ up just before it _would_ have hit him!

If the spell worked as you suggest (absurdly!), then the javelin would go through the wizards head, killing him. THEN the wizard would cast _shield_ and rewind time, raising him from the dead!

How did a dead wizard cast a spell!!!

Weren't _you_ the one claiming that the 5e rules do not include time travel malarky?



> Except the mechanics do care.  Since there is no mechanical ability to declare an Attack action, the only way to mechanically know if an Attack action is taken during your turn, is to actually take it.  That means that there is no mechanical way to trigger the bonus shove prior to taking the Attack action.  The mechanics as written don't care if the shove comes after the first attack or later attacks, though.  It can't come before, though, as the Attack action doesn't begin until you are taking your first attack.




Right.

The bonus action shield shove is taken _at the same time_ as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both _actions_ are simultaneous, each discrete game _element_ must be _resolved_ sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements.

Simples.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Right.
> 
> The bonus action shield shove is taken _at the same time_ as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both _actions_ are simultaneous, each discrete game _element_ must be _resolved_ sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements.
> 
> Simples.




This is just not true, though.  If the Attack action and Shield Master bonus action were spells that provided effects that lasted for a duration, and both explicitly said they happen at the start or end of your turn for example, then the XGTE rule would apply.  They are not spells, they do not provide effects, they are things you do on your turn in combat and thus the XGTE rule does not apply.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Hriston said:


> This is a little hard to follow because in my parlance declaring actions is the entirety of what a player does in this game. How else is a player supposed to interact with the game-world than by declaring what it is their character does (his/her actions)? I can accept that you have an idiosyncratic definition of what it is to declare an action, but the example you give doesn’t seem like much of an action-declaration at all.




Of course it's important.  But it's informal and has no mechanical value at all.  If a player declares his PC is going to look for secret doors on the south wall, there is nothing mechanical there.  His PC goes over to the south wall and looks around.  Until I call for the roll to try and find something, mechanics don't play any part.  Combat is the same.  He can tell me he is going to attack the kobold, but there's nothing mechanical there at all until he actually rolls to hit.  It's just an informal declaration that lets me and the other players know what is happening.



> Stated as an action-declaration, this would go something like, “I strike the kobold with my mace.” I think you’d agree that this type of statement has all kinds of mechanical implications.




It has no mechanics associated with it whatsoever.  Only the actual attack roll when the Attack action is taken has mechanics associated with it.  Until then, it's just a non-mechanical statement.



> Right, that’s why I wait until the Attack action has been taken before I say the shove-attempt was done using a bonus action.




Sure, but the Attack action has not been taken until the first attack has begun, and the attack must be finished before anything else can be done.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> What do you mean?
> 
> What I am saying is that since the Attack action doesn't start until step 1 of the first attack(whether it's a swing, shove or other action that an attack can be), you have already begun the attack by targeting your opponent, which moves you on to step 2, and then step 3.  That portion is not divisible.  You cannot target your attack, then stop and do something else, then pick the attack back up.




Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously! At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must _resolve_ them sequentially.  



> There is nothing happening simultaneously.  You are resolving the attack that started in step one, triggering the bonus action after that attack concludes, and then using the bonus action at some point during your turn after it triggers.




There is absolutely no rules requirement to _complete_ an action before you are allowed to take a bonus action! Not for Shield Bash, not as a general rule.

This is a made-up rule.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously! At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must _resolve_ them sequentially.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You cannot take an action and a bonus action simultaneously, there is no wording in the PHB that allows this.  You've confused the rule about simultaneous effects (from spells and the like) that specify something happens at a particular point in time, such as the start of your turn (e.g. Spirit Guardians), with the action system as a whole.

As I described above, reactions force each element on your turn to be adjudicated and resolved in a discrete sequence.  You take your action, then you take your bonus action.  If the bonus action has no timing requirement, you can take it first, and then take your action.  There is no rule that says you can take them simultaneously and then pick which one happens first.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> No! The _shield_ spell is *not* a time-rewinding spell!
> 
> All the game mechanics _at the table_ do is _represent_ the situation _in the game world_ that the wizard managed to get the _shield_ up just before it _would_ have hit him!
> 
> ...




I said the Attack action doesn't.  Then I pointed out the Shield malarky and the knock out rule malarky.  



> The bonus action shield shove is taken _at the same time_ as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both _actions_ are simultaneous, each discrete game _element_ must be _resolved_ sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements.




It can't be taken at the same time.  It is triggered/caused by the action being taken, which does not occur until AFTER the first attack finishes.  Until that first attack finishes, nothing has triggered the shove bonus action.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously!




You can't as it has not been triggered yet.



> At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must _resolve_ them sequentially.




If you house rule your game so that it triggers simultaneously this would be true.  Without such a house rule, the bonus action is not triggered until the Attack action has been taken.  The Attack action has not been taken until the first attack is done.



> There is absolutely no rules requirement to _complete_ an action before you are allowed to take a bonus action! Not for Shield Bash, not as a general rule.




Gimme a break.  I didn't say you had to complete the action.  I said you had to complete the attack.  Once you begin step 1 of the attack and choose a target, you then determine modifiers and make the roll.  It's all part of the same motion.  There is no divisibility there.  Divisibility comes once you get an extra attack and can do things in-between attacks.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Please read my long post from earlier today, these are not general rules that apply to all actions.  Each action is a self-contained rule, everything you need for each action is in the text of the action itself.  Disengage has no bearing on how the Attack action works.




The _implied_ general rule, which does not exist BTW, is the idea that Actions In Combat literally ARE the things that the action allows. This is the spurious justification for "the Attack action IS the attack".

There is no such rule, for the Attack action or any other action. Yet this is the phantom rule people use to claim that you cannot shield bash before the first attack, because "the Attack action IS the attack".

The Disengage Action In Combat is NOT the 'disengaging' itself, and you agree. There is no rule that says so.

And yet there is no rule that says that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself, but you are making rules calls as if those words were written in the book! They are not! There is no excuse to treat the Attack action that way, because there are no words saying that.

And if you decide that this is how Actions In Combat work, then it must apply to ALL actions because there is nothing in the book which says so for ANY of the Actions, and if you are deciding to pretend that such a rule exists but only for the Attack action, this is Special Pleading. It is not RAW. Don't expect the rest of us to simply swallow your made-up 'rule'.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, sorry, you can't go "simultaneous!" and then not, you know, _do it simultaneously_.  You're admitting the flaw in your argument, here, that simultaneity doesn't exist in the 5e ruleset -- *we have no way to resolve simultaneous actions.*




Yes we have! We resolve simultaneous elements one-at-a-time, in the order chosen by the acting creature.



> Your proposal that it's simultaneous is unsupported by the rules and your presented method of resolving these unsupported events is similarly unsupported.  It's a nice theory, though, just lacking in any evidence in the rules.




Of course, the existence of a rule which says that IF you are doing two elements simultaneously you resolve them one-at-a-time would show that:-

* the rules recognise that two game elements CAN be simultaneous

* we know what to do when they are



> On the other hand, if I say that you have to take the Attack actions before you get the bonus action shove, I can point to the rules that support this reading, start to finish.  I just read what it says on the tin for each and do that.  No simultaneity introduced, no baggage, just the text.




No problem! You are certainly _allowed_ to take your bonus action well after your attack action if you want, because the rules say you can take your bonus action whenever you want.

This is the very same rule that lets me take my bonus action at the same time!



> Try it, it's quite liberating, because then you fully understand how the rules work and can change them in just the right ways to avoid potholes and achieve your design goals.  Like I did, when I removed the If part of Shield Master.




Wait, you mean you _changed_ the rule! Fine! But that houserule has no place in a rules debate about what the rule ACTUALLY IS!


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> The _implied_ general rule, which does not exist BTW, is the idea that Actions In Combat literally ARE the things that the action allows. This is the spurious justification for "the Attack action IS the attack".
> 
> There is no such rule, for the Attack action or any other action. Yet this is the phantom rule people use to claim that you cannot shield bash before the first attack, because "the Attack action IS the attack".
> 
> ...




The Attack action is the words in the PHB:

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks."  Cool, when I take the Attack action, I make an attack following the 3 steps in the "Making an Attack" section.  Easy.

With Extra Attack, it can be multiple weapon attacks:

"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."  Cool, when I take the Attack action, I can now make 2 attacks!  Easy.

With the rule exception that allows you to move between weapon attacks, it might also include a discrete movement element:

"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."  Great, now I can attack different targets as needed.  Easy.

That's it.  That's all there is to the Attack action.  All discrete individual elements of that must be resolved before the action as a whole is complete.  When this action is the trigger for something else, such as the Shield Master bonus action, then the action must come first or else you end up with paradoxes due to reactions ending your turn early.  We can break the Attack action into smaller discrete elements precisely because there are explicit rules that let us do so.  These specific rules are exactly that: specific.  They are not general rules that suddenly say "all actions are divisible!" or "actions last as long as their effects!".  Stop trying to mix and match the rules from one action to the rest, and just do what each action says.  The specifics of the Dodge action have no impact on how you take the Attack action on your turn.  They are two completely independent rules.  Just because Dodge provides an effect (that might qualify for the XGTE rules about simultaneous effects) does not mean the Attack action or the Use an Object actions do.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Yes we have! We resolve simultaneous elements one-at-a-time, in the order chosen by the acting creature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Please go and re-read the rule from XGTE.  It's talking about effects.  It is not talking about actions.  Actions and effects are two separate concepts.  Some actions, such as Dodge and Disengage, provide effects with a duration.  Not all actions do this, as each action is a specific rule that applies to itself only.

The wording of the XGTE rule is very specific:



> Most *effects* in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In *rare cases*, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, *if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn*, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.




For example, you might need to adjudicate a Vampire standing in a Spirit Guardians AoE.



> Regeneration. The vampire regains 20 hit points *at the start of its turn* if it has at least 1 hit point and isn't in sunlight or running water. If the vampire takes radiant damage or damage from holy water, this trait doesn't function at the start of the vampire's next turn.






> An affected creature's speed is halved in the area, and when the creature enters the area *for the first time on a turn* or *starts its turn there*, it must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 3d8 radiant damage (if you are good or neutral) or 3d8 necrotic damage (if you are evil). On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage.




The XGTE rule says the person controlling the creature gets to decide which order these two effects happen at the start of their turn.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope, my logic is absolutely the same for all actions -- do what it says on the tin.




You don't even realise you're doing it, do you? You don't even realise that at the same time as you are insisting that you treat ALL actions the same-by doing what that action says on that tin-you THEN go on to treat the Attack action *as if* it said that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself. But it doesn't!

That's why it's special pleading! There is *no* wording under the entry for the Attack action, or anywhere else in the PHB, which says that! But you are insisting that you are just doing what it says on the tin!

But it does *not* say that, on that tin or anywhere else!

If it does, quote it!



> Let's say I take the Dodge action under your thinking, namely that actions last as long as their effects.  When does my turn end?  I haven't finished taking my action, because it lasts until the start of my next turn, but I have to take my action on my turn -- I cannot take or continue my action into other's turns, right?  So, right there you're either saying that I'm still taking my action when it's someone else's turn or you've shot your argument in the foot.




Since my position is that Actions In Combat are NOT the same thing as the elements they allow-for the Attack action, the Dodge action, or for any other Action In Combat-it's not the Action that lasts, but the game element which lasts.

I am consistent. This is true for both the Dodge action AND the Attack action, and all the others, because there is nothing written on any of their tins which says otherwise!

IF you were to rule that ALL actions ARE their game elements, then you would shoot yourself in the foot, because the Dodge, Dash and Disengage actions would not work.

IF you treat ONLY the Attack action as if it were the attack(s), then _you are adding those words to the tin yourself!_



> This says that when I take this action, I'm focused entirely on avoiding attacks.




So...if you are focused _entirely_ on avoiding attacks, that means if you Dodge as a bonus action you cannot take any other action until your next turn....right? Just what it says on the tin?  



> Simple.  I do what it says on the tin.




You're doing what _you_ wrote on the tin! The rules don't actually say what you claim!

I really can't stress this enough.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 12, 2019)

Hriston said:


> What paradox? If I take the Attack action on my turn, I have satisfied the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature. If I don't take the Attack action, then I have merely shoved a creature (which consumes my action). What's paradoxical about that?




Those examples show the paradox. If you don't take the Attack action, you are not satisfying the requirement in Shield Master which allows the bonus action to begin with. In order to gain the bonus action, you must take the Attack action on your turn. I am showing you exactly how you can be denied your Attack action, thus you have no granted Bonus action. But, oh, wait, you already used it! How can that be since you didn't meet the requirements for it??? THAT is the paradox you seem oblivious to...



Hriston said:


> Let's say I shove a creature. There's no reason to think I must necessarily use a bonus action to do so. So I'm not breaking any rules by shoving a creature. If I then go on to take the Attack action, well then I have satisfied the condition for making the shove-attempt using a bonus action. Otherwise, I didn't use a bonus action at all!




This is getting laughable. You are basically arguing this: you shove, and if that shove is followed by the Attack action, then you must have used a bonus action to do it because you are using the Attack action now. But, if for some reason, you are denied your Attack action after the shove, then you are just saying your Attack action is what was used for the shove. I'm sorry, but that is pretty bad logic there. You have to decide the source of the ability that allows you to take an action before you use it, not afterwards. You cannot exchange bonus actions for actions and vice versa.



Hriston said:


> There's nothing paradoxical about being denied the ability to attack. It happens all the time in the game without anyone thinking it's paradoxical. The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one. I would recommend not doing that.




The paradox is that you used a bonus action granted by a feat and then did not satisfy the condition required to earn that bonus action. "The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one." Exactly, THAT is precisely what you ARE doing!

If you want to shove, how are you doing it? Are you using your Attack action to shove? Ok, go ahead. Are you using the bonus action from Shield Master? Sure, but only if you take the Attack action. No problem I suppose--UNLESS you are denied the ability to take the Attack action. Again, paradox.

Suppose you have 1 hit point left and you are facing an orc and a goblin. The orc is going first and the DM decides to Ready the orc's action to Attack if you shove the goblin and knock him prone. You turn comes and you knock the goblin prone using your bonus shove from Shield Master. Since the triggering event occured, the DM has the orc use its reaction to attack you and it hits, knocking you to 0 hit points. You are now unconscious. You used the bonus action from Shield Master, but never used the Attack action that would grant it. Again, paradox. You can't switch what action caused you to shove after the fact.



Hriston said:


> They're both SA, but only the original ruling expressed RAI. What evidence do you have for how Jeremy Crawford thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first affects game-balance? In the Sage Advice segment of the 2/1/19 Dragon Talk, he said decisions on the timing of bonus actions were made not for balance reasons, but for smooth game-play. Besides, considering how the Eldritch Knight's War Magic could potentially interact with Eldritch Strike if allowing the bonus action weapon attack to come first, I doubt he thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first is game-breaking if he doesn't think the same thing about War Magic.




Except for the fact that he reversed his original ruling on how Shield Master works, so you can doubt it all you want but the evidence of his reversal suggests otherwise.



Hriston said:


> How exactly have you benefited, though? Without the feat, you can shove a creature, so that in itself isn't a benefit. No, the benefit of the feat is that you can shove a creature AND take the Attack action on the same turn, and if you can't take the Attack action for whatever reason, then you haven't benefited.




Except you have. You gained the shove. What benefit is that to you without your Attack action to follow it? Maybe not much, except if you have allies nearby who can still benefit from it. What benefit the bonus action Shove is without your own personal Attack action is situational.



Hriston said:


> I agree that if you never take the Attack action, then you can never use a bonus action to shove a creature. You can still shove a creature without using a bonus action, though, so there's that.




Good, we are making progress at least. We agree you can always shove if you have another means of making an attack, such as through the Attack action.



Hriston said:


> No, what was intended (RAI) has been stated by the very person you say feels otherwise. On July 6, 2015, he said, "The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip." That's a clear statement of the intent with which the game was designed. The more recent change in the official interpretation is motivated not by a desire to reveal the RAI, but rather to elevate a literalistic interpretation of the RAW over the RAI. A RAI interpretation is still possible with the existing language, though, so I can understand the decision not to issue errata for this. What I don’t like, however, is WotC’s tendency to then defend their uncorrected, ambiguous text by doubling down on the most literalistic interpretation possible.




You keep bringing War Magic into this. Maybe that was my fault and I did a while back, I honestly don't remember, but can we agree to keep War Magic out of it? It is a needless complication which cannot prove your point, however much you like to think possible RAI can.



Hriston said:


> That’s your interpretation. My interpretation accords with the feat’s intended lack of a timing specification.




There is no lack of timing. It is very explicit in the SA for Shield Master. In case you missed this from an earlier post of mine, I will paste it here:

_Shield Master_
[NEW] *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. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play."

The text "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action." clearly indicates you can decide when to take the bonus action AFTER you've taken the Attack action. The timing has now been specified: after you've taken the Attack action. You are no longer free to take it whenever you want. Also note the use of the word "precondition", pre-, as in before, as in the Attack action. Not after, not simultaneous, before. The Attack action must come before the bonus action shove because it is a precondition *(**** #1 ****)*.

For further thought, I am pasting yet another post (which I will note, no one refuted in any way):



dnd4vr said:


> Okay, so I am about to go to bed and I will make one final attempt to clarify this so Asgorath isn't doing all the work (good job, btw!). From tweets posted by JC and others on May 11, 2018:
> 
> #1. *Jonathan Ellis*
> _"What was it supposed to be? How is using a bonus action to knock someone prone and then attack cheesy?"_
> ...




All the evidence is right there above.
*(**** #1 ****)*. The Attack action must come first, it is the precondition to gaining the bonus action to shove.
*(**** #2 ****)*. The Attack action must be taken in its entirety before you gain the bonus action to shove



Hriston said:


> I’m curious what part of the official ruling you think I don’t understand? You seem to think that understanding it makes it impossible to disagree with.




The point above indicates you don't understand the official ruling on the timing element of Shield Master, which of course is the entire basis for the point that the shove comes after you've taken the Attack action.

You can disagree with it all you want. Heck, _I don't agree with it_, and if that is all this boils down to then what are we wasting all this time for? Just say you house-rule it and be done with it. Is there some reason you don't want to say that? Do you think house-rules are a bad thing?

We've house-ruled it. I can freely say that. Our table doesn't like the official ruling so we allow the attack-shove-extra attack variant that we like. It sort of follows the official rule... you did take the Attack action first, but we just don't follow part 2 that the Attack action must be completed in its entirety. Works for us.

Now, it is late. I've had a long day at work and the next few days will also be long days. If you reply and I don't have time to respond before the weekend, please be patient and accept my apologies.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Who's claiming that the Attack action is the attack?  I know [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] isn't, and I haven't.  That's silly.




Well, I'm glad that neither of you is claiming anything so silly! Others have though; it's partly why I keep mentioning it.

The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round.

Nothing in the rules says that the first attack has some special restriction regarding when in your round you resolve it.



> Okay, most common actions, uhuh, oh, here we are, "With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack.  See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks."  Cool.  I do this when I take the Attack action -- I make an attack!




And, when I get two or more attacks I make those attacks 'when I take the Attack action', by which you mean 'at the same _time_ as you take the Attack action', right?

But we know for a fact that is not the case. You can take your attacks whenever you want in your round, as long as you take the Attack action! What rule says that the first attack is tied to any particular time! 



> See, not the same thing, Attack action is an action, attacks are attacks.  If I take the Attack action, I make an attack using the rules in the Making an Attack section.  Simple and easy-peasy.  You just read the tin and do what it says.  When you're done doing what it says, your action is over!  I mean, could it be _any_ simpler?




I totally Agree.

I take the Attack action, I then make my attacks whenever I want on my turn, using the rules for Making An Attack (AN attack, not ALL your attacks!) for each individual attack.

I'm doing what it says on the tin.

From what you say, someone has used a crayon to scribe words to the effect that "the first attack must be executed as soon as you 'take the Attack action' (a different thing, remember?) on that tin. Also, the crayon wielder has added to the rule, "you can take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn)", the words "except between 'taking the Attack action' and the execution of the first attack".

You should be more discerning when you read those tins. The crayon is a dead giveaway!


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 12, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> What "rules that are not rules" did I quote in my post?  My starting assumption was simple: in order for you to be able to do something in combat, there must be a rule that says you can do that thing.  If we can't agree on that, then there isn't much point in continuing this debate really.




We do agree on that.

Where we disagree is on the 'rule' you made up restricting when on my turn I can take my bonus action.

On p189 of the PHB, in the section entitled Bonus Actions, it tells you the rules for...bonus actions! There was a clue in the name!

It says, "*You* choose *when* to take a bonus during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified".

It says nothing like, "...except during another action", or, "...except between taking the Attack action and executing your first attack".

The only 'timing' regarding Shield Master is that you only get it "If you take the Attack action on your turn". _Even if_ you regard this as a straight statement of causality, that results in you being able to choose to take the bonus action shield bash at the same time as you take the Attack action that 'caused' it.

There is no rule forbidding simultaneous Actions In Combat, only rules which mean that each separate game _element_ must be _resolved_ sequentially.



> The lack of an explicit rule that says you can take a bonus action with a timing requirement during the action that triggers it means you cannot do that.




The _presence_ of a rule that says you CAN take it when you want during your turn, and the complete _absence_ of a rule forbidding it, means you CAN do that!

There is absolutely no burden upon the Bonus Action rules to spell out every single occasion you CAN use it! All it needs is to say you CAN use it when you want, and that is enough. It is 'what it says on the tin'!



> Otherwise, what's the point of the rules?  Please see my foundational assumption: there must be a rule that says you can do something, or else you cannot do it.  We do not need rules describing all the things you cannot do, the simple lack of a rule allowing it is all that is needed.




That's what I just said! We DO have a rule which says you can, on p189 of the PHB!



> Surely, the text of the general rule is what reveals how those rules work?  Why are you adding things on top of what the rule says?  Just do what the rule says, nothing more, nothing less.




I am! I'm doing what is says on the tin, which is "You choose when to take a bonus action on your turn"! It's _you_ who's inventing unwritten extra restrictions in crayon!



> - There's a rule that says the Attack action means making a weapon attack.
> - There's a rule that says Extra Attack means the Attack action gives you 2 (or more) attacks.
> - There's a rule that says you can move between weapon attacks.




And the rule which says you can move between attacks is true.

And the rule which says you can take your bonus action when you want in your turn is also true.

They are not mutually exclusive! The rule allowing you to move between attacks is *not* a rule _disallowing_ anything else between attacks, and this unwritten 'rule' cannot trump the written rule which says that you choose when to take your bonus action.



> Where's the rule that says you can inject a bonus action that is triggered from the Attack action in between weapon attacks?




PHB, p189.



> The lack of explicit permission to do that means you cannot do that.




The presence of the rule on p189 means I can. That, combined with no rule forbidding it, means I can.

It is absurd to assume that the general rule regarding when you can take your bonus action must include every single specific exception! That's not how the rules work and you know it!

IF there were a written rule (not in crayon!) that says that 'during' the Attack action is an exception to the general rule on the timing of bonus actions, then you'd be right. There is not, so you're wrong. 



> I listed out the order of discrete operations for an Attack action with multiple attacks and movement, and the point at which the rules allow you to perform the bonus action shove.  Again, the rule says you can move between attacks.  That's the only thing you can do in between attacks of the attack action.




Not so. There IS a rule which says you CAN on p189, and no rule which forbids it. The permission to _move_ between attacks does not trump other rules which say you CAN do those things whenever they say they can be used.



> The explicit rule that allows for movement between attacks does result in the Attack action as a whole being split into several discrete elements, as I've explained many times in this thread already.  However, that rule is the only rule that says you can do something between the attacks in the Attack action.




PHB p189 disagrees.



> The rules need to give you permission to do something, or else you can't do it.




I do have permission. It's on p189.



> That is, the Attack action must be complete for the game state to be logically consistent when you perform the bonus action shove, because your turn could be interrupted and ended at any point in time before that.




There is nothing illogical about doing things between attacks!

The fact that you may lose the opportunity to _execute_ those attacks is already an element of the game (_sanctuary_, Readied actions, _contingency_) and does not present a problem whatsoever. You took both the action and the bonus action at the same time, and chose the order of resolution.



> Please quote the rule(s) that allow you to insert a bonus action that is triggered by the Attack action in between attacks of that action, then.




It's on p189. It says I can choose when to take my bonus action during my turn.



> I've been very clear about the rules text I used for my example.




I've quoted the rule; it's on p189.

Meanwhile, you've added crayon rules to add restrictions. Fine at your table, but we are discussing RAW. 



> I've seen no rules that talk about things coinciding or happening simultaneously, or that you can choose the order that individual elements are resolved (outside of the order that you play them, per my example).  Can you just quote the specific PHB text that you're talking about?  If it's as clear as you suggest, then you should be able to just list the specific rule that talks about simultaneous events or actions/bonus actions and deciding which order to resolve them in.




True.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 12, 2019)

Wow, I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned Crawford's tweets from earlier today (Monday) where he basically confirms what some of us here said that bonus actions that are triggered by an attack can occur in between the attacks provided by Extra Attacks. Here are a couple of relevant comments:

"Summary: the trigger is the attack that's part of the Attack action, not the entire action."

"As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> Well, I'm glad that neither of you is claiming anything so silly! Others have though; it's partly why I keep mentioning it.



Well, I'm glad you've decided to stop beating up that strawman of "you said the Attack action is the attack!" strawman with valiant shouts of "special pleading!!"  It was getting old.  At this point, you're 0 for 2 on fallacy yelling.  Maybe lay off a bit?  Try talking? 


> The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round.



Well, in order, I do, and I don't, exactly.

When I chose an action, I do what that action says.  For the Attack action, it says I make an attack.  There aren't extra decision steps, here, so if I take the Attack action the only thing that happens  is that I make an attack.  This is what "doing what it says on the tin" means.  Actions are self contained units of doing things, not open ended decision trees.

Does the Attack action get more complicated with Extra Attack? Yes, a bit.  Now, when I take the Attack action, I make more than one attack (up to my EA limit).  The rules are pretty clear that this is what changes.  Extra Attack doesn't have any language that changes or adds other things to the Attack action or how it works.  The Attack action otherwise works exactly the same for one attack as it does for two.

But, wait, you say, what about the moving between attacks!  Glad you asked.  We have one more rule that isn't Extra Attack but is triggered by it, and it says that if you do make more than one attack with the Attack action, you can use your Move between attacks.  Neato!  But, afain, this otherwuse doesn't alter how the Attack action works, and it doesn't add other options.

So, to your questions, my reasoning is unaltered by your confusion about it.  The Attack action does what it says, no more and no less.  Yes, if you have EA, you truvially make attacks later in your turn from the first, but all you're allowed to do between attacks is move.


> Nothing in the rules says that the first attack has some special restriction regarding when in your round you resolve it.



You resolve it when you take the Attack action, because taking that action limits you to what that action says to do.




> And, when I get two or more attacks I make those attacks 'when I take the Attack action', by which you mean 'at the same _time_ as you take the Attack action', right?



The Attack action enables the attacks, but it doesn't have any "time" itself.  You say "Bob the Fighter takes the Attack action with Ecmxtra Attack!" Cool.  We read Attack action.  It says to make attacks, so Bob's player that until Bob runs out of allowed attacks.  Between thise attacks, Bob can move up to the limit if his Move.  That's it, because that's all that the Attack action says on the tin.


> But we know for a fact that is not the case. You can take your attacks whenever you want in your round, as long as you take the Attack action! What rule says that the first attack is tied to any particular time!



Um, no.  Show me that rule text.



> I totally Agree.
> 
> I take the Attack action, I then make my attacks *whenever I want on my turn,* using the rules for Making An Attack (AN attack, not ALL your attacks!) for each individual attack.
> 
> I'm doing what it says on the tin.



The bolded part is not on the tin.  You brought that with you.  That's the problem you keep having, you bring baggage.


> From what you say, someone has used a crayon to scribe words to the effect that "the first attack must be executed as soon as you 'take the Attack action' (a different thing, remember?) on that tin. Also, the crayon wielder has added to the rule, "you can take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn)", the words "except between 'taking the Attack action' and the execution of the first attack".



Nope.  When I take the Attack action, I do what it says.  That's make an attack.  If you wanted to do something else, you shouldn't pick the Attack action.

What you're doing here is bringing in baggage.  That baggage is some complicated timing stack like MtG where there's phases and action declarations ho on a stack to be resolved LIFO, but this doesn't exist in 5e.  It's nowhere in the rules, so you're adding it to imagined blank spaces.  

The 5e rules work super well if read cleanly, without baggage.  Unfortunately, that means that Shield Master bonus action shoves come after the Attack action resolves.  Fortunately, you can talk with your table and fashion a house rule to make it more to your taste.  This is super awesome, and exactly what I've done.


> You should be more discerning when you read those tins. The crayon is a dead giveaway!



Only one of us is writing in things.  Protip: it's you.  The reason you think I'm adding things is because I'm wiping off what you've crayoned in.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 12, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Wow, I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned Crawford's tweets from earlier today (Monday) where he basically confirms what some of us here said that bonus actions that are triggered by an attack can occur in between the attacks provided by Extra Attacks. Here are a couple of relevant comments:
> 
> "Summary: the trigger is the attack that's part of the Attack action, not the entire action."
> 
> "As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows."



Crawford needs to not to.  Seriously, the rule says Attack action, not attack, but here he subs in attack for Attack action.  Sigh.

I mean, if you _wanted_ to make this issue worse, I'm struggling to think of how you could do it better than Crawford.  His rulings on timings have been all over the place.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Crawford needs to not to.  Seriously, the rule says Attack action, not attack, but here he subs in attack for Attack action.  Sigh.
> 
> I mean, if you _wanted_ to make this issue worse, I'm struggling to think of how you could do it better than Crawford.  His rulings on timings have been all over the place.




Well, let's look at what he actually said.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248

"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls.

My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929

"The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.

Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105201861819158529

"The action doesn't exist if you haven't done it. The Attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction; it means an actual attack has occurred."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105200842347405312

"To be clear, the clarification was that the bonus action couldn't come before you made any attacks, since you have to actually take the Attack action for the feat to work."

So, non-official rulings that confirm what we've been saying: basic RAW means the Attack action as a whole, RAI means at least one attack since you've committed to the Attack action and can't take any other actions that turn.  I think we all agree that we'd play it attack-shove-attack at our tables, which is all Jeremy is saying here (i.e. that meets the basic requirements that the Attack action has been started).


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> We do agree on that.
> 
> Where we disagree is on the 'rule' you made up restricting when on my turn I can take my bonus action.
> 
> ...




Please go back and read the earlier posts from [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and me that talk about why the condition in the Shield Master feat is a timing requirement, and thus this bonus action does not qualify for "you can take it any time you like".  I'd be happy to go into it again if needed, but I feel like we've already explained this.

At no point do the rules say you get to decide to do multiple things at the same time.  Thus, you cannot just do that.  There is a rule in XGTE that says if two effects happen simultaneously, you get to decide the order in which they are resolved.  The rule very explicitly says effects, not actions, and it very explicitly says that the effects have to already be happening simultaneously before the rule applies.  For example, you might be standing in the AoE of Spirit Guardians and Healing Spirit.  One does damage at the start of your turn, one heals you at the start of your turn.  You can decide to be healed first as that might prevent you from dropping to 0 HP and thus falling prone.  This rule doesn't turn into a general rule that says you can just do stuff simultaneously, we just do what the words of the rule say.



Arial Black said:


> The _presence_ of a rule that says you CAN take it when you want during your turn, and the complete _absence_ of a rule forbidding it, means you CAN do that!
> 
> There is absolutely no burden upon the Bonus Action rules to spell out every single occasion you CAN use it! All it needs is to say you CAN use it when you want, and that is enough. It is 'what it says on the tin'!
> 
> ...




The Shield Master bonus action has a condition, which means the timing of the bonus action is specified, which means you don't get to just take it whenever you like.  The condition must be true before you get to take the bonus action.



Arial Black said:


> And the rule which says you can move between attacks is true.
> 
> And the rule which says you can take your bonus action when you want in your turn is also true.
> 
> They are not mutually exclusive! The rule allowing you to move between attacks is *not* a rule _disallowing_ anything else between attacks, and this unwritten 'rule' cannot trump the written rule which says that you choose when to take your bonus action.




Right, this applies to bonus actions with no condition, such as Healing Word or Misty Step.  It does not apply to bonus actions with conditions like Shield Master, because the condition itself is a timing requirement.  Before your action, the condition is false, and thus you cannot take the bonus action.  After your action, the condition is true, and you can.



Arial Black said:


> There is nothing illogical about doing things between attacks!
> 
> The fact that you may lose the opportunity to _execute_ those attacks is already an element of the game (_sanctuary_, Readied actions, _contingency_) and does not present a problem whatsoever. You took both the action and the bonus action at the same time, and chose the order of resolution.




Please quote the PHB text that says you get to do those two things "at the same time", because I haven't seen it.  The XGTE rule on Simultaneous Effects does not apply, because that only deals with effects (e.g. spells) not actions themselves.  If the rules don't give you permission to do two things at the same time, then you can't just do that.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round.




That's just wrong, as I've shown you repeatedly.  The wording of Attack action is "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack."  WITH, not after.  The action and the first attack are not the same, but they must occur simultaneously.  There is no Attack action being taken prior to the first attack occurring.  The Attack action is being taken after the first attack occurs.



> But we know for a fact that is not the case. You can take your attacks whenever you want in your round, as long as you take the Attack action! What rule says that the first attack is tied to any particular time!




Er, the Attack action says it.  The first attack is tied to when you take the Attack action.  They by RAW occur simultaneously.  



> I take the Attack action, I then make my attacks whenever I want on my turn, using the rules for Making An Attack (AN attack, not ALL your attacks!) for each individual attack.




Not quite.  You take the Attack action and the first attack simultaneously.  You don't get to take the attack whenever you want on your turn, because that implies that you could take the attack before you even take the Attack action, which is against the rules.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> There is no rule forbidding simultaneous Actions In Combat, only rules which mean that each separate game _element_ must be _resolved_ sequentially.




You keep saying this as if it means something.  It really doesn't.  A failure to forbid does not equate to approval.  The game also fails to forbid my longsword from detonating a nuclear explosion when I strike something.  Am I to believe that because the game doesn't forbid it, I can do it?  That's not how games and rules work.  If it's not forbidden by a rule, you still can't do it unless you can show a rule that does allow you to do it.  There is no rule allowing simultaneous actions in combat.  The closest you will find is the rule on Attack actions which says through it's use of "with" that the first attack happens simultaneously with the Attack action being taken.



> The _presence_ of a rule that says you CAN take it when you want during your turn, and the complete _absence_ of a rule forbidding it, means you CAN do that!




As I pointed out above, this is just wrong.  I mean, there's also a complete absence of a rule forbidding my fighter from teleporting at will, or engaging a special ability to give him a billion extra hit points.  According to your statement above that means he can do those things.  



> That's what I just said! We DO have a rule which says you can, on p189 of the PHB!




Except that Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action first, which is provided timing. So no, you can't take the shove when you want on your turn.  It can only happen after the trigger gives it to you.




> That, combined with no rule forbidding it, means I can.




Again, no.  Lack of forbiddance does not mean you can do it.  That's not how rules and games work.  If the game doesn't forbid something and you think it should be allowed, you have to create a house rule to allow it.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Crawford needs to not to.  Seriously, the rule says Attack action, not attack, but here he subs in attack for Attack action.  Sigh.
> 
> I mean, if you _wanted_ to make this issue worse, I'm struggling to think of how you could do it better than Crawford.  His rulings on timings have been all over the place.




"@JeremyECrawford

More Jeremy Crawford Retweeted Draconis
*The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.*

Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form."

Here he is saying that the action is not instantaneous.  It doesn't end until you finish the whole action. That's RAW.  You are in error with your interpretation.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> "@JeremyECrawford
> 
> More Jeremy Crawford Retweeted Draconis
> *The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.*
> ...



You do realize that that has been my argument all along, yeah?  How am I in error?  You should actually read posts and stop kneejerking responses to usernames.  This is the second time in a row in this thread you've told me I'm wrong while repeating my position back to me as right.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 12, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> You do realize that that has been my argument all along, yeah?  How am I in error?  You should actually read posts and stop kneejerking responses to usernames.  This is the second time in a row in this thread you've told me I'm wrong while repeating my position back to me as right.




No it hasn't.  Your argument is that the action is done with instantly and the effect lasts until it is over.  That's very different than the action lasting until it's over.  Nice try at covering up, though.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 12, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Wow, I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned Crawford's tweets from earlier today (Monday) where he basically confirms what some of us here said that bonus actions that are triggered by an attack can occur in between the attacks provided by Extra Attacks. Here are a couple of relevant comments:
> 
> "Summary: the trigger is the attack that's part of the Attack action, not the entire action."
> 
> "As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows."




Cool, that is exactly what our group has been doing all along. You attack, bonus shove, and continue attacking if you have them.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> No it hasn't.  Your argument is that the action is done with instantly and the effect lasts until it is over.  That's very different than the action lasting until it's over.  Nice try at covering up, though.



Oh, right, you're back to that, which is both wrong about my position (protip: instantly has nothing at all to do with my argument) and also fails to resolve the Dodge issue of continued actions.

I'll ask you directly:  under your theory, when does the Dodge action end?

For me, it ends when I note the effects, because that's what it says.  The effect then ends at the beginning of my next turn or if my speed is reduced to 0.  Much like the Attack action isn't the attack, the Didge action isn't the effect.  The Attack action includes making an attack, and is finished when that attack is executed.  The Dodge action includes instantiating an effect, and is finished when that effect is instantiated.  The effect can persist after the action has comcluded what it does.  There is no "the action is the effect; the effect is the action."


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2019)

Gentlemen, please take a moment to consider why you are arguing.  Please ask yourself if it is worth the acrimony.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> "@JeremyECrawford
> 
> More Jeremy Crawford Retweeted Draconis
> *The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.*
> ...




Actually, according to Sage Advice Compendium, the JEC tweets are now considered unofficial rulings and only the stuff in the SAC are official at all.

What he is describing as the intent in that and the other tweets from yesterday is exacly yhow we have ran it since before that older of the older tweets etc... but his tweets are not RAW or official anymore. (That was how they buried all those old contradictory tweets on this subject.)


----------



## Hriston (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Of course it's important.  But it's informal and has no mechanical value at all.  If a player declares his PC is going to look for secret doors on the south wall, there is nothing mechanical there.  His PC goes over to the south wall and looks around.  Until I call for the roll to try and find something, mechanics don't play any part.  Combat is the same.  He can tell me he is going to attack the kobold, but there's nothing mechanical there at all until he actually rolls to hit.  It's just an informal declaration that lets me and the other players know what is happening.




This is basically what I was saying up-thread about 5E's basic pattern of game-play. Players declare actions for their characters. The DM resolves those actions, using the rules and mechanics as tools to do so when appropriate. 



Maxperson said:


> It has no mechanics associated with it whatsoever.  Only the actual attack roll when the Attack action is taken has mechanics associated with it.  Until then, it's just a non-mechanical statement.




This doesn't seem right to me. Surely, the player, when declaring that his/her character attempts to smash the kobold with a mace, has a certain expectation about which mechanics are going to be involved in the resolution. An attack roll will be made and compared to the kobold's AC, followed by a damage roll if a hit is scored. Now, unexpected things sometimes happen in the game, and there's no guarantee that the action's resolution will follow those steps, but I think it's a stretch to say there's no association whatsoever between the player's action declaration and the mechanics that are typically used to resolve it.



Maxperson said:


> Sure, but the Attack action has not been taken until the first attack has begun, and the attack must be finished before anything else can be done.




Is that what this is about? I think we agree that taking the Attack action typically involves making one or more attacks, and that you haven't taken the Attack action until the attack(s) you're making with it has/have at least been attempted. That isn't in contention, at least not for my part.

Where I think we disagree is that you look at "you take the Attack action on your turn" as an event which must occur before the bonus action which is conditioned upon it, whereas I look at it as a statement about what you do on your turn which, if true about your turn, allows you to also use a bonus action to shove at a time of your choosing during your turn.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 12, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Those examples show the paradox. If you don't take the Attack action, you are not satisfying the requirement in Shield Master which allows the bonus action to begin with. In order to gain the bonus action, you must take the Attack action on your turn. I am showing you exactly how you can be denied your Attack action, thus you have no granted Bonus action. But, oh, wait, you already used it! How can that be since you didn't meet the requirements for it??? THAT is the paradox you seem oblivious to...




But that "paradox" is of your own creation and is easily solved! Don't allocate a bonus action to the shove-attempt until the condition for it has been met. See how easy that is?



dnd4vr said:


> This is getting laughable. You are basically arguing this: you shove, and if that shove is followed by the Attack action, then you must have used a bonus action to do it because you are using the Attack action now. But, if for some reason, you are denied your Attack action after the shove, then you are just saying your Attack action is what was used for the shove. I'm sorry, but that is pretty bad logic there. You have to decide the source of the ability that allows you to take an action before you use it, not afterwards.




Why?



dnd4vr said:


> You cannot exchange bonus actions for actions and vice versa.




I'm not doing that.



dnd4vr said:


> The paradox is that you used a bonus action granted by a feat and then did not satisfy the condition required to earn that bonus action. "The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one." Exactly, THAT is precisely what you ARE doing!




No, it isn't. That's precisely what I'm recommending you not do to avoid creating the paradox you keep creating.



dnd4vr said:


> If you want to shove, how are you doing it? Are you using your Attack action to shove? Ok, go ahead. Are you using the bonus action from Shield Master? Sure, but only if you take the Attack action. No problem I suppose--UNLESS you are denied the ability to take the Attack action. Again, paradox.
> 
> Suppose you have 1 hit point left and you are facing an orc and a goblin. The orc is going first and the DM decides to Ready the orc's action to Attack if you shove the goblin and knock him prone. You turn comes and you knock the goblin prone using your bonus shove from Shield Master. Since the triggering event occured, the DM has the orc use its reaction to attack you and it hits, knocking you to 0 hit points. You are now unconscious. You used the bonus action from Shield Master, but never used the Attack action that would grant it. Again, paradox. You can't switch what action caused you to shove after the fact.




This is a very odd view of the rules which keeps coming up in this conversation. It's the idea that my character needs explicit permission from the rule-books to do something entirely mundane that anyone in the real world can do. In the real world, if I want to shove someone, I don't need to "use an action" to do so. I can just extend my arm, or whatever, and apply the physical force that I wish to. That's all that's required of my action-declaration in the game as well. All I need to express at the table is that my character shoves a creature within 5 feet, and that my character's goal is to push the creature back or to knock it prone. It isn't an action or a bonus action that causes my character to shove a creature. It's my action-declaration that causes it.



dnd4vr said:


> Except for the fact that he reversed his original ruling on how Shield Master works, so you can doubt it all you want but the evidence of his reversal suggests otherwise.




No, it doesn't. He also reversed his ruling on War Magic. I think the reason for his reversal should be taken at face-value: he decided that the conditions for both the War Magic and Shield Master bonus actions (among others) do indeed constitute a timing specification. I'll repeat that he has gone on record that the decisions made in development about bonus action timing weren't made for balance reasons, but rather to keep the game moving.



dnd4vr said:


> Except you have. You gained the shove. What benefit is that to you without your Attack action to follow it? Maybe not much, except if you have allies nearby who can still benefit from it. What benefit the bonus action Shove is without your own personal Attack action is situational.




But I could have shoved a creature anyway. Therefore, gaining the ability to shove a creature is of no additional benefit.



dnd4vr said:


> Good, we are making progress at least. We agree you can always shove if you have another means of making an attack, such as through the Attack action.




I don't see how this is progress. I've never held or expressed any other opinion. Have we overcome some assumption you were making about me?



dnd4vr said:


> You keep bringing War Magic into this. Maybe that was my fault and I did a while back, I honestly don't remember, but can we agree to keep War Magic out of it? It is a needless complication which cannot prove your point, however much you like to think possible RAI can.




No, I won't agree to that. Here's the full tweet of the ruling dated July 6, 2015: *Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before?* The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip.​This unequivocally establishes RAI for bonus action timing of "conditioned" bonus actions like the shield master shove, i.e. there is no specified timing. You may remember that the RAI of Shield Master was a contentious issue up-thread in my conversation with [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION], and I'm somewhat surprised they haven't conceded the point in light of this overwhelming evidence.



dnd4vr said:


> There is no lack of timing. It is very explicit in the SA for Shield Master.




I said, "_intended_ lack of a timing specification." The timing specification that Jeremy Crawford has added to the game since he revised the War Magic ruling in the 2017 Sage Advice Compendium is the unintended result of a hyper-literalistic reading of rules-text which failed to reliably convey its intended meaning to enough people. It's a terrible reason for a ruling, IMO. What they should have done instead is issue errata to make the text in question conform more closely to its intended meaning.



dnd4vr said:


> The point above indicates you don't understand the official ruling on the timing element of Shield Master, which of course is the entire basis for the point that the shove comes after you've taken the Attack action.




I'm sorry, but I'm not following what point you think indicates this. I'm pretty confident that I understand Crawford's reasoning, though. I just don't agree that his is the only valid interpretation.



dnd4vr said:


> You can disagree with it all you want. Heck, _I don't agree with it_, and if that is all this boils down to then what are we wasting all this time for? Just say you house-rule it and be done with it. Is there some reason you don't want to say that? Do you think house-rules are a bad thing?
> 
> We've house-ruled it. I can freely say that. Our table doesn't like the official ruling so we allow the attack-shove-extra attack variant that we like. It sort of follows the official rule... you did take the Attack action first, but we just don't follow part 2 that the Attack action must be completed in its entirety. Works for us.




I find it odd how much you conflate the official ruling with the rules (RAW). They aren't the same thing, and not following Crawford's ruling doesn't require a house-rule, which I have nothing against, but in this case it isn't necessary.



dnd4vr said:


> Now, it is late. I've had a long day at work and the next few days will also be long days. If you reply and I don't have time to respond before the weekend, please be patient and accept my apologies.




No worries!


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 12, 2019)

Hriston said:


> No, I won't agree to that. Here's the full tweet of the ruling dated July 6, 2015:*Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before?* The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip.​This unequivocally establishes RAI for bonus action timing of "conditioned" bonus actions like the shield master shove, i.e. there is no specified timing. You may remember that the RAI of Shield Master was a contentious issue up-thread in my conversation with @_*Asgorath*_, and I'm somewhat surprised they haven't conceded the point in light of this overwhelming evidence.




JEC has come out and said that tweet was incorrect.  Here's a tweet from this week with the word "intent" in it, just so there's no confusion:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929

"The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.

Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form."

This unequivocally establishes RAI for bonus actions with conditions as having a timing requirement, and that the action must come before the bonus action.  I could list the dozens of other tweets from JEC recently where he corrects his earlier mistake, if you like.

Edit: And here's the reasoning behind the correction:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105200842347405312

"To be clear, the clarification was that the bonus action couldn't come before you made any attacks, since you have to actually take the Attack action for the feat to work."

And, just for fun, the Attack action means actually making one or more attacks:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105201861819158529

"The action doesn't exist if you haven't done it. The Attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction; it means an actual attack has occurred."

Thus, you cannot shove until you have made at least one weapon attack from the Attack action.  Strict RAW is all the attacks, RAI is at least one.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Wow, I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned Crawford's tweets from earlier today (Monday) where he basically confirms what some of us here said that bonus actions that are triggered by an attack can occur in between the attacks provided by Extra Attacks. Here are a couple of relevant comments:
> 
> "Summary: the trigger is the attack that's part of the Attack action, not the entire action."
> 
> "As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows."




I laughed. I am not laughing at you. I am laughing that Crawford tweeted that, and the chaos that's about to happen from it. Thank you for posting it.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> "@JeremyECrawford
> 
> More Jeremy Crawford Retweeted Draconis
> *The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.*
> ...




"[M]aking one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows." contradicts that however. 

Again, this is silly. It's a DM call. When the guy who wrote the rule is running it and explaining it one way, and stating the rule was written another way (sort of, since 1176 posts says it's not clear) then its a friggen DM call and none of this matters.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 13, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'll ask you directly:  under your theory, when does the Dodge action end?




Consistent with the PHB and JC, you take it on your turn and it ends when you start your next turn.  There is no rule preventing actions you take on your turn from carrying over past your turn.



> For me, it ends when I note the effects, because that's what it says.




No it doesn't say any such thing.  The rules do not say it ends when you note the effects.  There is no such language.



> Much like the Attack action isn't the attack, the Didge action isn't the effect.




While the Attack action is not the attack, it does last until all attacks are done.  This is consistent with the rules as written and JC's tweet.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> This is basically what I was saying up-thread about 5E's basic pattern of game-play. Players declare actions for their characters. The DM resolves those actions, using the rules and mechanics as tools to do so when appropriate.
> 
> This doesn't seem right to me. Surely, the player, when declaring that his/her character attempts to smash the kobold with a mace, has a certain expectation about which mechanics are going to be involved in the resolution. An attack roll will be made and compared to the kobold's AC, followed by a damage roll if a hit is scored. Now, unexpected things sometimes happen in the game, and there's no guarantee that the action's resolution will follow those steps, but I think it's a stretch to say there's no association whatsoever between the player's action declaration and the mechanics that are typically used to resolve it.




The declarations are completely informal and have no mechanics attached to them.  When a player declares that his PC attempts to smash the kobold, it has no mechanical meaning.  When he actually says, I am targeting the kobold with the mace, then the mechanics start.  He's not bound in any way by his informal declaration, either.  He can tell you he's going to smash the kobold, then change his mind and say he's targeting the orc next to it instead.  



> Is that what this is about? I think we agree that taking the Attack action typically involves making one or more attacks, and that you haven't taken the Attack action until the attack(s) you're making with it has/have at least been attempted. That isn't in contention, at least not for my part.
> 
> Where I think we disagree is that you look at "you take the Attack action on your turn" as an event which must occur before the bonus action which is conditioned upon it, whereas I look at it as a statement about what you do on your turn which, if true about your turn, allows you to also use a bonus action to shove at a time of your choosing during your turn.




RAW does not let you make a statement about what you will do on your turn and have it trigger a bonus action.  No mechanical declaration phase exists, so no declaration about the future has any mechanical meaning whatsoever.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 13, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> "[M]aking one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows." contradicts that however.




How does specific beats general contradict the general attack rule?  It simply overrides the basic attack rules and adds in some other stuff, which allows you to take bonus actions after the first attack.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> How does specific beats general contradict the general attack rule?  It simply overrides the basic attack rules and adds in some other stuff, which allows you to take bonus actions after the first attack.




The most important part of what I wrote, the entire thesis of my statement, you cut. And my thesis refutes what you just wrote. That being, that this entire debate is incredibly silly and it's obviously, blatantly, screamingly a DM call. The very author of it says the way it's written, which itself is very vague and subject to interpretation, ended up different than both his intent and how he runs it. 

Bottom line - I don't care about the minutia of your silly argument. It's meaningless. This one is a DMs call. Even if you think you're passionately correct in the most technical sense, I still think you're involved in a meaningless dispute over nothing. DMs are going to have to make the call on this one, no matter how much you advocate otherwise.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Consistent with the PHB and JC, you take it on your turn and it ends when you start your next turn.  There is no rule preventing actions you take on your turn from carrying over past your turn.



You realize that, with this interpretation, you can take the Attack action and just not make one of your Extra Attacks, so your Attack action then lasts until some later turn when you can then take that attack?  If not, explain why it works this way for one action, but not another.




> No it doesn't say any such thing.  The rules do not say it ends when you note the effects.  There is no such language.



Well, the rules also don't say when your turn actually ends, so I guess, by this logic, it doesn't?

The rules say that on your Turn, you can take your Move and one Action.  This language defines what your Turn consists of, a Move and one Action.  There are other things that may be added, but that's the core definition of a Turn.  If a Move and one Action define a turn, then the completion (or forgoing) of those ends your turn.  It makes no sense to have your Turn be defined by taking one Action if that Action instead could possibly extend until your next Turn.  There's zero evidence that this is intended.  Instead, taking an Action is defined entirely within the entry for that Action. The Dodge action, for example, says what it does when you take it.  Extending the Dodge action until the effect it has ends conflicts with the definition of a Turn, and requires assuming things not in evidence.  

Further, there's no reason I can see for extending actions in this manner.  What's the benefit of doing it this way vice, say, my way?



> While the Attack action is not the attack, it does last until all attacks are done.  This is consistent with the rules as written and JC's tweet.



So is my interpretation.  There's a wealth of things consistent with JC's latest, non-rules authoritative tweet.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> No worries!




Appreciated! I have a few minutes before I hit the sack, so... short and sweet.

Since Crawford's tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248) where he states the following:

_"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls.

My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say."_

There is no further point in debating this since the DM has the final say (as always) and there is no rule in the PHB or DMG that exists that will concretely clarify the position of Shield Master and the bonus attack and its timing. No matter who says what, there will always be someone who will feel otherwise.  Until an actual errata comes out addressing this, we have no where to turn.

If the time comes where this is in the errata, perhaps I will revisit it with a concrete and definite ruling. Until then... I am moving on to other things on the forum.

So, my compatriots in the d20 realms, all I can leave you with is a "Well met!" and PLAY ON!


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 13, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> The most important part of what I wrote, the entire thesis of my statement, you cut. And my thesis refutes what you just wrote. That being, that this entire debate is incredibly silly and it's obviously, blatantly, screamingly a DM call. The very author of it says the way it's written, which itself is very vague and subject to interpretation, ended up different than both his intent and how he runs it.




It doesn't refute what I wrote.  It's just an observation that applies to quite literally every rule in the game.  If we are going to eliminate discussion on things that are the DM's call, there's nothing to discuss, and this is a forum to discuss things.  If you don't want to discuss with us, don't.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 13, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> You realize that, with this interpretation, you can take the Attack action and just not make one of your Extra Attacks, so your Attack action then lasts until some later turn when you can then take that attack?  If not, explain why it works this way for one action, but not another.




::looks over the rules for the Attack action::  Yeah, no.  There's nothing there that says the action continues on to the next turn like Dodge does, so it doesn't.



> The rules say that on your Turn, you can take your Move and one Action.  This language defines what your Turn consists of, a Move and one Action.  There are other things that may be added, but that's the core definition of a Turn.  If a Move and one Action define a turn, then the completion (or forgoing) of those ends your turn.  It makes no sense to have your Turn be defined by taking one Action if that Action instead could possibly extend until your next Turn.  There's zero evidence that this is intended.  Instead, taking an Action is defined entirely within the entry for that Action. The Dodge action, for example, says what it does when you take it.  Extending the Dodge action until the effect it has ends conflicts with the definition of a Turn, and requires assuming things not in evidence.




You're trying to apply a specific exception to the Dodge action to all the other actions in order to prove me wrong.  That tactic fails on its face.  If an action doesn't say it continues on to the next turn like Dodge does, then it doesn't.



> So is my interpretation.  There's a wealth of things consistent with JC's latest, non-rules authoritative tweet.




It was a non-official tweet.  He remains an authority, official or not.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't refute what I wrote.  It's just an observation that applies to quite literally every rule in the game.  If we are going to eliminate discussion on things that are the DM's call, there's nothing to discuss, and this is a forum to discuss things.  If you don't want to discuss with us, don't.




Show me 10 rules where the author said it's written different than his intent or how he plays it. I'll wait.

Right. Now that we're done with that silliness, it's not like all the other rules in the game. It's pretty unique. If you don't want to discuss that aspect that's fine, you can stop replying to me. But that's the point I am making, no matter how much you want to drag this back to the minutiae.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 13, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Show me 10 rules where the author said it's written different than his intent or how he plays it. I'll wait.
> 
> Right. Now that we're done with that silliness, it's not like all the other rules in the game. It's pretty unique. If you don't want to discuss that aspect that's fine, you can stop replying to me. But that's the point I am making, no matter how much you want to drag this back to the minutiae.




So you waltzed into the thread with nothing to add except to poo poo on the people having the discussion.  There's a word for people who do that on the internet.  If only I could remember it.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> So you waltzed into the thread with nothing to add except to poo poo on the people having the discussion.  There's a word for people who do that on the internet.  If only I could remember it.




Oh no, I participated for over a week. This is an old thread now though, being continuously discussed for a month and a half now with no meaningful progress since that first week. Nothing new has been said for ages. It's just the same people repeating the same points over and over at each other, and not really addressing anyone else's point anymore other than to be dismissive and play whack a mole with each other, 

It is in fact an addition to the discussion to say, "This rule in particular, due to the nature of the rule and what the author's specifically said about it, results in it being specially more of a a DMs call than most other rules."

To which you appear to have no reply. Instead, for multiple posts now, you've distracted from that point. Your current distraction is to whine and pretend that point isn't part of a discussion. Which just reinforces my point.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 13, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Oh no, I participated for over a week. This is an old thread now though, being continuously discussed for a month and a half now with no meaningful progress since that first week. Nothing new has been said for ages. It's just the same people repeating the same points over and over at each other, and not really addressing anyone else's point anymore other than to be dismissive and play whack a mole with each other.




Well, I didn't see the thread for a while, and wasn't participating actively at the start.  I've been fascinated by some other people's interpretations of basic things like how the action system works, and have enjoyed digging into why they believe what they believe.  I haven't been trying to convert anyone or change their mind, so apologies if it's come across that way.  The discussion certainly seems to have died down after the most recent round of tweets, so maybe we can all just move on and keep playing the feat the same way JEC does.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 13, 2019)

Nope.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 13, 2019)

I think the more common response will be to keep playing the same way that the DM/table agrees to. Some will play with JC's interpretation (the new one, that is), others will continue to use the old, and others will do whatever else they want. Heck, some will keep playing without feats at all!

Maybe they're the smart ones?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 13, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Your current distraction is to whine and pretend that point isn't part of a discussion.




It's whinge. If you're going to insult someone, you could at least get it right.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It's whinge. If you're going to insult someone, you could at least get it right.




"Whinge" vs. "Whine"

Ah... British/Australian English versus American. Love it!


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> JEC has come out and said that tweet was incorrect.




When? Please provide a citation. 



Asgorath said:


> Here's a tweet from this week with the word "intent" in it, just so there's no confusion:
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929
> 
> ...




No, it doesn't. It establishes that RAI for "completing" the Attack action is to make at least one attack with it. It says nothing about the intent behind conditioned bonus actions.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> When? Please provide a citation.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It establishes that RAI for "completing" the Attack action is to make at least one attack with it. It says nothing about the intent behind conditioned bonus actions.




Take your pick:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736

"Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995016512497840134

"Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling"

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064126866010113

"In 2017, I clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium how timing works for a bonus action. The query there is about the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature, but as I've stated today, the answer applies universally to bonus actions with triggers. See https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf ..."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064841214676994

"Today's clarification makes it so that you can trust your book more than ever before, since I've now eliminated an illogical ruling that actually seeded doubt about the book's text."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216

"In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight."

He originally used the word "intent" in his ruling.  He then realized he was wrong, and corrected that ruling.  He's even used the word "intent" in describing the corrected ruling as of this week.  Thus, I don't think you can say "well his 2015 tweet is still the correct one because that's the only time he described RAI".

If you don't believe me, here he is describing what the feature is supposed to be, i.e. the intent of the feature:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864

"It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move."


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> The declarations are completely informal and have no mechanics attached to them.  When a player declares that his PC attempts to smash the kobold, it has no mechanical meaning.  When he actually says, I am targeting the kobold with the mace, then the mechanics start.  He's not bound in any way by his informal declaration, either.  He can tell you he's going to smash the kobold, then change his mind and say he's targeting the orc next to it instead.




Wait, because he uses the word _targeting_ in one declaration and not the other, it's more mechanically binding? Is that your position? Because, to me, "I try to smash the kobold with my mace." and, "I target the kobold with my mace." are equivalent statements.



Maxperson said:


> RAW does not let you make a statement about what you will do on your turn and have it trigger a bonus action.  No mechanical declaration phase exists, so no declaration about the future has any mechanical meaning whatsoever.




I didn't say it did. I said the condition (i.e. "you take the Attack action on your turn"), the way I look at it, is a statement about what you do on your turn. If it's a true statement, then use of a bonus action to shove a creature is also a valid option for that turn.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Appreciated! I have a few minutes before I hit the sack, so... short and sweet.
> 
> Since Crawford's tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248) where he states the following:
> 
> ...




Let me get this straight, you've only been debating this because you hadn't bothered to read the document this thread's about? Well, I'm glad you've finally come around to my position that there are multiple valid interpretations of the rules-text.  Have a good one!


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 13, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Oh no, I participated for over a week. This is an old thread now though, being continuously discussed for a month and a half now with no meaningful progress since that first week. Nothing new has been said for ages. It's just the same people repeating the same points over and over at each other, and not really addressing anyone else's point anymore other than to be dismissive and play whack a mole with each other,
> 
> It is in fact an addition to the discussion to say, "This rule in particular, due to the nature of the rule and what the author's specifically said about it, results in it being specially more of a a DMs call than most other rules."
> 
> To which you appear to have no reply. Instead, for multiple posts now, you've distracted from that point. Your current distraction is to whine and pretend that point isn't part of a discussion. Which just reinforces my point.




The disengage action, the sanctuary spell and booming blade were all new points that added to the discussion


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I didn't say it did. I said the condition (i.e. "you take the Attack action on your turn"), the way I look at it, is a statement about what you do on your turn. If it's a true statement, then use of a bonus action to shove a creature is also a valid option for that turn.




And just to be clear, JEC disagrees with you, but I'm sure you knew that already.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995319563523784704

"D&D combat is sequential, with no action-declaration phase at the beginning. Your turn can also be interrupted by someone’s reaction. Such an interruption could, among other things, incapacitate you, meaning your intention to take a certain action was never fulfilled."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105201861819158529

"The action doesn't exist if you haven't done it. The Attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction; it means an actual attack has occurred."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105210379444006912

"In D&D, the way you take an action in combat is to actually take the action. There is no action-declaration phase.

Flurry of Blows happens after the Attack action, which means the action itself, not a declaration that you will take the action. "

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105249860121329664

"In D&D combat, many things can prevent your intentions from manifesting. Your foes can take reactions that incapacitate you or otherwise derail a plan. Or a trap might suddenly make your intended action impossible.

What you do is what matters, not what you intend to do."


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Take your pick:
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736
> 
> ...




Okay, so you don't actually have any proof to back up your claim that Jeremy Crawford said he was incorrect about the RAI for the Eldritch Knight's War Magic (and, by extension, other bonus actions with conditions) when he said the *intent* was that the bonus action could come before or after its condition. Got it. 

As I said up-thread, RAI doesn't change like a ruling can. It only matters what the designer's intent was _when they wrote the rules_. Jeremy Crawford changing his mind later about what he thinks the rules say has no bearing on that.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> And just to be clear, JEC disagrees with you, but I'm sure you knew that already.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995319563523784704
> 
> ...




I don't understand what any of this has to do with what I said.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Okay, so you don't actually have any proof to back up your claim that Jeremy Crawford said he was incorrect about the RAI for the Eldritch Knight's War Magic (and, by extension, other bonus actions with conditions) when he said the *intent* was that the bonus action could come before or after its condition. Got it.
> 
> As I said up-thread, RAI doesn't change like a ruling can. It only matters what the designer's intent was _when they wrote the rules_. Jeremy Crawford changing his mind later about what he thinks the rules say has no bearing on that.




Let me quote it again, as you seem to be ignoring what JEC is saying.

Original question:

https://twitter.com/DerynDraconis/status/1105201798837608448

"Great Master JeremyECrawford I don't understand, lot of confusion to me! RAW with Extra Attack can I use the Shield Master bonus action after the first attack or I must before complete the whole Attack action (resolve all the attacks)?"

Answer:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929

"The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.

Yet you fulfill our *design intent (RAI)* with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form."

I've bolded the relevant section for you.  JEC is saying the intent of the Shield Master feat is that it must come after at least one attack of the Attack action that triggers it, and this applies to all features that are triggered by the Attack action.  That's why I quoted you a selection of his recent tweets on the subject, to show that he's talking about bonus action triggers in general.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I don't understand what any of this has to do with what I said.




JEC is saying the bonus action isn't a valid option until you actually do the Attack action.  Simply intending to do it is not sufficient, you have to actually do it.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 13, 2019)

How thoroughly this dead horse has been flogged. Can we go another 20 pages?


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Let me quote it again, as you seem to be ignoring what JEC is saying.
> 
> Original question:
> 
> ...




No, he isn't, and I've already explained what he _is_ saying, so you're ignoring both what I'm saying _and_ what he's saying. I'll try again. Jeremy Crawford specifically uses the phrase "our design intent (RAI) *with the Attack action*" (bolding added for emphasis), so this isn't an expression of the intent with which bonus actions with conditions were designed. It's an expression of the intent for what counts as the Attack action for the purpose of taking it. For me this has no relevance to the discussion on bonus action timing because I too require that you take the Attack action on your turn to qualify for using the bonus action Shield Master gives you. The question is if you can take that bonus action before or after the Attack action as you choose, and this tweet doesn't contradict the tweet that says the intent is that you can.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 13, 2019)

Hriston said:


> No, he isn't, and I've already explained what he _is_ saying, so you're ignoring both what I'm saying _and_ what he's saying. I'll try again. Jeremy Crawford specifically uses the phrase "our design intent (RAI) *with the Attack action*" (bolding added for emphasis), so this isn't an expression of the intent with which bonus actions with conditions were designed. It's an expression of the intent for what counts as the Attack action for the purpose of taking it. For me this has no relevance to the discussion on bonus action timing because I too require that you take the Attack action on your turn to qualify for using the bonus action Shield Master gives you. The question is if you can take that bonus action before or after the Attack action as you choose, and this tweet doesn't contradict the tweet that says the intent is that you can.




Yeah, I give up.  He's directly responding to a question about the Shield Master bonus action, specifically whether you have to complete all attacks from Extra Attack or if the bonus action's condition (i.e. timing requirement) "if you take the Attack action on your turn" is satisfied after the first attack.  Answer: the latter.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> JEC is saying the bonus action isn't a valid option until you actually do the Attack action.  Simply intending to do it is not sufficient, you have to actually do it.




That's what I mean. Nothing I said has anything to do with what you're intending to do.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 13, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Yeah, I give up.  He's directly responding to a question about the Shield Master bonus action, specifically whether you have to complete all attacks from Extra Attack or if the bonus action's condition (i.e. timing requirement) "if you take the Attack action on your turn" is satisfied after the first attack.  Answer: the latter.




Right, and he gives a RAW interpretation-based response to that question (which is what was asked for). What he doesn't do is pull back the curtain on the design process of bonus actions with conditions and say how they were supposed to work. Fortunately, he already did that with the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 14, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Wait, because he uses the word _targeting_ in one declaration and not the other, it's more mechanically binding? Is that your position? Because, to me, "I try to smash the kobold with my mace." and, "I target the kobold with my mace." are equivalent statements.




By RAW they are not.  One statement has no mechanics attached to it at all.  It's simply an informal declaration of intent.  The other statement is part of the Attack action as step 1 of Making an Attack and does have mechanics attached to it.  The declaration is completely unbinding by the way.  I can declare to you that I am going to smash the kobold, then change my mind and do literally anything else allowed to my PC.  Once I have begun targeting, though, I am committed to the attack as there are no rules for backing out of an attack once you begin it.



> I didn't say it did. I said the condition (i.e. "you take the Attack action on your turn"), the way I look at it, is a statement about what you do on your turn.




There is no such mechanical condition.  It doesn't exist in 5e.  Go look at Appendix A in the PHB.  It's not there.



> If it's a true statement, then use of a bonus action to shove a creature is also a valid option for that turn.




If you house rule it to be so, sure.  There is no mechanical condition of "you take the Attack action on your turn" that allows you to trigger the bonus action by RAW, though.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 14, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Right, and he gives a RAW interpretation-based response to that question (which is what was asked for). What he doesn't do is pull back the curtain on the design process of bonus actions with conditions and say how they were supposed to work. Fortunately, he already did that with the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic.




Dude.  The RAI portion immediately after is still in the context of the Shield Master bonus action.  He does in fact pull back the curtain on the design intent(RAI) for how Shield Master works with the Attack action.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 14, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Let me get this straight, you've only been debating this because you hadn't bothered to read the document this thread's about? Well, I'm glad you've finally come around to my position that there are multiple valid interpretations of the rules-text.  Have a good one!




What does anything you said here have to do with my post? The thread is about SA, which obviously I've read since I've quoted it numerous times. Watch! I'm about to do it again in a bit! Also, I do _not_ come to your understanding in the case of Shield Master that there are "multiple valid interpretations", only that DMs are free to change the rules to meet the desires of their tables through house-rules. Which, incidentally, is what you are doing.

I will post this one more time, and maybe this time you will actually address my points in it. You have yet to do so about this part of prior posts.

Read this _carefully_! (Now, you might be tempted to not read it, thinking "Oh, I've read it before." but don't. Read it.)

_Shield Master_
[NEW] *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. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.​
That's it. Right there. Do you see it? 

First part: Simple question: Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? Simple answer: *NO*.

*NO.* Can that be any plainer? Yet you continue to argue you can take the bonus action first. Why? He is answering the question right there in SA. And while his tweets aren't official rules, SA is. I'll quote it for you, "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford."

Next part: *Precondition*. Definition: _precondition_ - something that must come before or is necessary to a subsequent result. The Attack action must come before the subsequent result of gaining the bonus action.

Next part: the text "Intending to that that action isn't sufficient; *you must actually take it [the Attack action] before you can take the bonus action*." Again, you must take the Attack action before you can take the bonus action. By your logic you are not in fact taking the Attack action first, you are trying to take it after the bonus action.

Last part: the text "you do get to decide when to take the bonus action *after you’ve taken the Attack action*." after you've taken = after you have taken. This is past tense. _PAST_. The Attack action must have been taken before you get to decide when to take the bonus action. You are deciding to take it before you have even taken the Attack action. You are not following the official ruling on Shield Master. You are house-ruling it.

Will you address these points? They are all contained in the SA, released by WotC and the D&D team, and official content and rulings on how to interpret rules. But you continue to interpret them otherwise...

Obviously, you don't agree with JC's interpretation. That's not what I am posting about. Of course you are free to change a rule anyway your group wants. But if you deviate from the official ruling you are making a house-rule--which (and I could be wrong about this, but I don't ever recall you admitting it) you have yet to admit you are doing.

I will _not_ reply to any post you make unless you are specifically addressing the points I have made here. If you do not address them, I must believe you do understand the intent of Shield Master, the official ruling from SA, and are simply being argumentative.



Azzy said:


> How thoroughly this dead horse has been flogged. Can we go another 20 pages?




Sure can! 20 pages is nothing, we'll be there by next week!


----------



## epithet (Mar 14, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> ...
> 
> Will you address these points? They are all contained in the SA, released by WotC and the D&D team, and official content and rulings on how to interpret rules. But you continue to interpret them otherwise...
> 
> ...




Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's.

Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 14, 2019)

epithet said:


> Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's.
> 
> Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place.



I think you are overstating the case. 

As of January the defined role of SAC is official rulings on the rules for D&D. 

So, it is a set of official [insert synonym de jour] clarifications to the rules of D&D.

Of course SAC, like every rule in the PHB, is subject to the overall "DM decides the rules for their game". 

That said, honestly, the difference between *house rule* and *gm ruling*  seems just to be one of importance aesthetically. I try and divide them in my game only as a *highlight* - so that things which change directly the printed rules are house rules and called out (spending HD when healing, removing massive damage death, multi-saves added to many effects). This is different from  cases where I have specific rulings and "ways I will rule" that are likely to not be as overtly impactful. (Obviously anything chargen is highest priority.)

You may choose to see SAC as just some advice, like it's a guy at the hobby store waxing on about how stealth and climbing should interact... but its given a better defined (now) place and more official status than that in very many cases.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 14, 2019)

epithet said:


> Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's.
> 
> Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place.




Did you read the part where I quoted that SA is, in fact, official rulings now? It is new, so maybe you missed it. Here, I'll show you:




Of course, as the bottom says and has been pointed out, a DM can always ignore them, just as a DM can choose to not use any rule or change them. Nothing new there.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> By RAW they are not.  One statement has no mechanics attached to it at all.  It's simply an informal declaration of intent.  The other statement is part of the Attack action as step 1 of Making an Attack and does have mechanics attached to it.  The declaration is completely unbinding by the way.  I can declare to you that I am going to smash the kobold, then change my mind and do literally anything else allowed to my PC.  Once I have begun targeting, though, I am committed to the attack as there are no rules for backing out of an attack once you begin it.




I think the idea that there's a different mechanical implication between saying, "I try to hit the kobold," and, "I target the kobold," is silly in the extreme. What possible justification in the RAW do you have for saying this?



Maxperson said:


> There is no such mechanical condition.  It doesn't exist in 5e.  Go look at Appendix A in the PHB.  It's not there.
> 
> 
> 
> If you house rule it to be so, sure.  There is no mechanical condition of "you take the Attack action on your turn" that allows you to trigger the bonus action by RAW, though.




The condition to which I'm referring is right there in the feat we've been discussing. It's the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 14, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Dude.  The RAI portion immediately after is still in the context of the Shield Master bonus action.  He does in fact pull back the curtain on the design intent(RAI) for how Shield Master works with the Attack action.




The tweet is about how you can tell if you've completed an action. RAW you have to finish the whole action to complete it. RAI for the Attack action, though, is that one attack completes it. This has implications for Shield Master of course, but does not itself address the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 14, 2019)

Hriston said:


> The tweet is about how you can tell if you've completed an action. RAW you have to finish the whole action to complete it. RAI for the Attack action, though, is that one attack completes it. This has implications for Shield Master of course, but does not itself address the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions.




To each their own, but it's just astounding to me that you can look at the sum total of JEC's tweets (and Sage Advice videos etc) on this subject since 2017 and conclude that the intent is bonus actions with conditions can happen any time you like.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864

"It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995043696251842561

"If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216

"In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight."

Did he just need to use the word "intent" in one of those tweets or something?


----------



## epithet (Mar 14, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Did you read the part where I quoted that SA is, in fact, official rulings now? It is new, so maybe you missed it. Here, I'll show you:
> ...
> Of course, as the bottom says and has been pointed out, a DM can always ignore them, just as a DM can choose to not use any rule or change them. Nothing new there.




Do you know what "official rulings" means? It means that whatever is in the Sage Advice Compendium supersedes any advice offered on Twitter. That's it. That's the only significance--the SAC should be taken as the definitive recommendation, as opposed to "public statements of the D&D team." It does NOT mean that the Sage Advice is elevated to the level of rules, or that Jeremy's suggested ruling applies to anyone's game. It is still nothing but a suggestion, and if you follow the Sage Advice in your game, it is YOUR ruling, because the only one who can make a ruling in your game is YOU (assuming you are the DM.) Jeremy cannot rule on your game, that's not how it works.

If a DM makes a different ruling on a published rule than what Jeremy suggests in his advice, that is not a house rule. A house rule only happens when a DM implements a new rule, or strikes a published rule from his game. As an example, the statement that "_if x, you can y_ does not impose a timing requirement and therefore the bonus action _y_ can be executed whenever the player chooses during his character's turn" is a ruling on applying the  published rule. By contrast, the statement that "the Shield Master shove doesn't require the Attack action in my game" is a house rule, because it is changing the rules of the game, not interpreting them.

Here's an easy way to know which is which: if it is something that Jeremy can change his mind about, it is a ruling and not a rule. The only way to change the rule is with errata, that changes the actual words of the text and not just what you think those words mean.

Every single item in the Sage Advice Compendium refers to a rule that can be interpreted more than one way. That is why JEC has offered advice on that item--to tell people which of those possible interpretations he suggests adopting. If there is zero ambiguity in a rule, there is no need to offer advice on how to interpret it.

The "official rulings" designation serves only to try to address any possible confusion that might arise when a DM is looking for advice on how to rule on a situation and finds conflicting statements from Jeremy. Should I follow this tweet, or the the other tweet? Whatever is in the pdf is "officially" Jeremy's current recommendation for interpreting the rules in question.

Jeremy Crawford is not trying to make an "official ruling" for your game, that's your job. He can't do it! Every game and every group is different, and you'll note that Jeremy never says that everyone should follow his advice and implement his rulings. What he's trying to do with Sage Advice is to offer an internally consistent set of guidelines for people who need guidance. He can't tell you what's best for your game, he can only try to provide a generally applicable and consistent baseline. That's why, for example, even in the Adventurer's League, where the game is tightly constrained to the published rules and a DM's house rules are not permitted, the DM is expressly _not _required to follow the rulings in Sage Advice.

The bottom of your clipping from the Sage Advice Compendium, by the way, does not say that "a DM can choose to not use any rule or change them." Obviously the DM does have that ability, but that's not what the Sage Advice Compendium says. It say the DM "determines whether to use an official ruling," not a rule. Rulings and rules are not the same. A ruling is an interpretation of a rule, not a change to the rule itself, and an interpretation of the published rule, regardless of whether Jeremy Crawford, you, Max, or Joe Pesci agree with it, is not a house rule.


----------



## epithet (Mar 14, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I think you are overstating the case.
> 
> As of January the defined role of SAC is official rulings on the rules for D&D.
> 
> ...




Honestly, you're not wrong for my game or for me as a DM. I have no hesitation to take a rule from a different edition or a different game and adapt it to my 5e campaign, or to house rule something to work better for my group. There are other DMs for whom it seems to be a big deal, though, and I think the distinction needs to be preserved. Some DMs, especially new ones who haven't played other editions or other TTRPGs, really seem to feel as though they should cleave to the rules and not go off the reservation, and others (perhaps those involved in the Adventurer's League) are constrained by the terms of their particular game groups.

Another problem I see, and the thing that has kept me active in this "flogging a dead griffin" thread, is the emergence of an attitude that Jeremy's Sage Advice represents the "right way" to interpret the rules and play the game. There is no one right way that works for everyone, and I really think Jeremy's use of the "official" designation will cause more harm than good, creating the sort of confusion we're seeing in the post to which I was responding in the text you quoted.

Edit: Also, it is important to note that the SAC is not at all like "every rule in the PHB," because it doesn't contain any rules at all. It's all rulings, which we've clearly seen are subject to Jeremy changing his mind about.


----------



## epithet (Mar 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> To each their own, but it's just astounding to me that you can look at the sum total of JEC's tweets (and Sage Advice videos etc) on this subject since 2017 and conclude that the intent is bonus actions with conditions can happen any time you like.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864
> 
> ...




It appears you are talking about the way Jeremy Crawford intends for people to interpret the rule today, whereas Hriston seems to be talking about what the rules in question were meant to do when they were written. Those are not the same thing. Perhaps if you were to use more specific terms, such as "original intent" and "current intended use" you wouldn't talk past one another so much.


----------



## jasper (Mar 14, 2019)

Azzy said:


> How thoroughly this dead horse has been flogged. Can we go another 20 pages?



Neigh!
Um
Hay!


----------



## Hriston (Mar 14, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> What does anything you said here have to do with my post? The thread is about SA, which obviously I've read since I've quoted it numerous times. Watch! I'm about to do it again in a bit! Also, I do _not_ come to your understanding in the case of Shield Master that there are "multiple valid interpretations", only that DMs are free to change the rules to meet the desires of their tables through house-rules. Which, incidentally, is what you are doing.




No, I really haven't house-ruled this. 

What it has to do with what you posted is that the tweet you quoted in that post added no new information that wasn't already included in the Sage Advice Compendium itself, and yet you seemed to think it suddenly made debate on the issue pointless. Granted, I thought you were reacting more to the revelation that Jeremy's tweets are no longer considered official, but I can see now that it was about how the DM has final say about rules interpretations at his/her table. I think you have a misconception about what this means, though. The DM's _rulings_, i.e. rules interpretations, are the last word on how the rules will be implemented at his/her table. This statement, while it covers the addition of any house-rules the DM may wish to add to his/her game, isn't directly about house-rules. It's about the DM's ultimate right and authority to interpret the RAW. And if the DM interprets a rule differently from how it's interpreted in the Sage Advice Compendium, that doesn't make the DM's ruling a house-rule. The DM is interpreting the same rule that Sage Advice is.



dnd4vr said:


> I will post this one more time, and maybe this time you will actually address my points in it. You have yet to do so about this part of prior posts.
> 
> Read this _carefully_! (Now, you might be tempted to not read it, thinking "Oh, I've read it before." but don't. Read it.)
> 
> ...




Because I disagree with his _interpretation_. I'm not arguing that _my_ interpretation is the official one. I understand that the ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium is official, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.



dnd4vr said:


> He is answering the question right there in SA. And while his tweets aren't official rules, SA is. I'll quote it for you, "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford."




Rulings ARE NOT rules. I think this is the root of the communication problem you seem to be having with me. You seem to think that by making these rulings that Jeremy Crawford is writing a bunch of new rules for the game. He is not, and his rulings do not become part of the RAW. They are merely the official advice on how to interpret the rules, take it or leave it. I can't stress this enough.



dnd4vr said:


> Next part: *Precondition*. Definition: _precondition_ - something that must come before or is necessary to a subsequent result. The Attack action must come before the subsequent result of gaining the bonus action.
> 
> Next part: the text "Intending to that that action isn't sufficient; *you must actually take it [the Attack action] before you can take the bonus action*." Again, you must take the Attack action before you can take the bonus action. By your logic you are not in fact taking the Attack action first, you are trying to take it after the bonus action.
> 
> Last part: the text "you do get to decide when to take the bonus action *after you’ve taken the Attack action*." after you've taken = after you have taken. This is past tense. _PAST_. The Attack action must have been taken before you get to decide when to take the bonus action. You are deciding to take it before you have even taken the Attack action. You are not following the official ruling on Shield Master. You are house-ruling it.




Not following the official ruling IS NOT house-ruling. House-ruling is making up a new rule or changing an existing rule. As far as this feat goes, my ruling is based on the RAW, not a house-rule. 



dnd4vr said:


> Will you address these points? They are all contained in the SA, released by WotC and the D&D team, and official content and rulings on how to interpret rules. But you continue to interpret them otherwise...
> 
> Obviously, you don't agree with JC's interpretation. That's not what I am posting about. Of course you are free to change a rule anyway your group wants. But if you deviate from the official ruling you are making a house-rule--which (and I could be wrong about this, but I don't ever recall you admitting it) you have yet to admit you are doing.
> 
> I will _not_ reply to any post you make unless you are specifically addressing the points I have made here. If you do not address them, I must believe you do understand the intent of Shield Master, the official ruling from SA, and are simply being argumentative.




Deviating from the official ruling IS NOT making a house-rule. You have to stop saying this. Also, the current official ruling on Shield Master does nothing to establish the RAI for the timing of the Shield Master bonus action, which had already been revealed in the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 14, 2019)

epithet said:


> It appears you are talking about the way Jeremy Crawford intends for people to interpret the rule today, whereas Hriston seems to be talking about what the rules in question were meant to do when they were written. Those are not the same thing. Perhaps if you were to use more specific terms, such as "original intent" and "current intended use" you wouldn't talk past one another so much.




War Magic:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/618267732098715648

"The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip."

Shield Master:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."

The first tweet specifically says intent, I'll grant you that.  The SAC has been corrected to state that there is a difference between RAW and RAI for this feature, and that the intent is you can do them in any order.  Hopefully we're all in agreement on that.

The second tweet does not talk about intent, though.  JEC has explained that he made that tweet when he did not have the books in front of him, and he appears to have forgotten about the bit in the bonus action timing rules that says "unless the bonus action's timing is specified" and that these conditions are in fact a form of timing.  With all the information we have today, this original 2015 tweet reads as JEC simply saying "yeah you can do bonus actions whenever you like!" without actually remembering what the rules say (because he didn't actually read the PHB before replying, like he does now).  Fast forward a few years, and he's been yelling from the rooftops that this 2015 tweet was illogical and incorrect and people should ignore it.  How can you then claim that the 2015 tweet was actually the real intent of the words in the PHB?  He made a bad ruling, and has since corrected that ruling.  Am I missing a tweet that talks about the intent of Shield Master from back in the day?  What makes the 2015 tweet the correct insight into the intent of the rule, and later tweets not the actual intent?  Especially when JEC has said that it's supposed to be (i.e. intended to be) a finishing move?


----------



## Hriston (Mar 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> To each their own, but it's just astounding to me that you can look at the sum total of JEC's tweets (and Sage Advice videos etc) on this subject since 2017 and conclude that the intent is bonus actions with conditions can happen any time you like.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864
> 
> ...




That's a bizarre question. Obviously, it would take more than just using the word _intent_. It would take a statement to the effect that he had been incorrect about or had mis-remembered the intent of the rule at the time he wrote that tweet, and that later he had reconstructed or somehow been reminded of what the intent was when it was written. The reason I don't regard the tweet about what the first bullet of Shield Master is "supposed to be" as a statement of intent (even though that's obviously what the person who tweeted the question was asking about) is the way Jeremy Crawford shifted the tense of his answer to be about what it _is_ supposed to be, rather than what it _was_ supposed to be. To me, this comes off as evasive on Jeremy's part, and nothing more than an assertion that his interpretation is the only correct one.


----------



## Yardiff (Mar 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> To each their own, but it's just astounding to me that you can look at the sum total of JEC's tweets (and Sage Advice videos etc) on this subject since 2017 and conclude that the intent is bonus actions with conditions can happen any time you like.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864
> 
> ...




Why would anyone care about what "The Waffleman" JEC has to say?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 14, 2019)

Hriston said:


> That's a bizarre question. Obviously, it would take more than just using the word _intent_. It would take a statement to the effect that he had been incorrect about or had mis-remembered the intent of the rule at the time he wrote that tweet, and that later he had reconstructed or somehow been reminded of what the intent was when it was written. The reason I don't regard the tweet about what the first bullet of Shield Master is "supposed to be" as a statement of intent (even though that's obviously what the person who tweeted the question was asking about) is the way Jeremy Crawford shifted the tense of his answer to be about what it _is_ supposed to be, rather than what it _was_ supposed to be. To me, this comes off as evasive on Jeremy's part, and nothing more than an assertion that his interpretation is the only correct one.




https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216

"In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The *original ruling failed to account* for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that *oversight*."

Isn't this saying exactly what you're asking for, which is that he forgot the intent of the rules (that conditions are timing) when he made his original tweet?


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 14, 2019)

epithet said:


> Honestly, you're not wrong for my game or for me as a DM. I have no hesitation to take a rule from a different edition or a different game and adapt it to my 5e campaign, or to house rule something to work better for my group. There are other DMs for whom it seems to be a big deal, though, and I think the distinction needs to be preserved. Some DMs, especially new ones who haven't played other editions or other TTRPGs, really seem to feel as though they should cleave to the rules and not go off the reservation, and others (perhaps those involved in the Adventurer's League) are constrained by the terms of their particular game groups.
> 
> Another problem I see, and the thing that has kept me active in this "flogging a dead griffin" thread, is the emergence of an attitude that Jeremy's Sage Advice represents the "right way" to interpret the rules and play the game. There is no one right way that works for everyone, and I really think Jeremy's use of the "official" designation will cause more harm than good, creating the sort of confusion we're seeing in the post to which I was responding in the text you quoted.
> 
> Edit: Also, it is important to note that the SAC is not at all like "every rule in the PHB," because it doesn't contain any rules at all. It's all rulings, which we've clearly seen are subject to Jeremy changing his mind about.



Re the last bit...

A key thing for me is the not in a vacuum pov.

Sure, rulings by tweet by JEC have changed. So have actual rules by eratta. I sm not sure an SAC element tho has bern changed, but maybe so.

But the key is this... The tweet storms have on a few edge cases swapped around a bit - SM most notably. 

But the SAC has not seen that much (if any) flippy floppy stuff. Thats seems to be cuz by the timrle it hits SAC its gone thru more review. 

With the January 2019 SAC they changed it from JEC tweets official to only once it makes SAC is it official. Also, most all of the SM garbage was thrown out, no indivisible action, just timing. And the Hew official on official threw all those old tweets under a wagon.

They even have a section describing why have Sage Advice that kinda touches on your pointbof what benefit they think it will serve even in a rulings by gm world.

But, to me, your fervor is a bit far out in your insistance that SAC is so much to be just treated as advice and the thread line you keep skirting around for ruling vs rule etc.

For such narrow distinctions/divisions on status, it seems much stronger an invaldation than that narrow a division warrants.

I find it quite easy to see the SAC as the "finished" official rulings and the tweets by JEC as the wip previews, as they describe it more or less.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 14, 2019)

We tend to treat the rulebook as if it were holy writ, handed down from on high. The RAW is what it is, even if the guy who actually wrote those words wishes it were different.

We occasionally doubt what JC has to say via Sage Advice or (especially) Tweet, not merely because we disagree with it and want to ignore what he says if we disagree and leap upon what he says if it backs us up (although this does happen).

We can disagree with his Tweet/SA because when he reveals his _reasons_ for his advice, we can see for himself that he is occasionally factually _wrong_ about a thing!

Not always wrong, but often enough that we learn to analyse his advice to see if it makes sense, rather than just follow it blindly, as we do when discussing RAW.

As an example, the rulebook clearly sets out the difference between 'the damage dice of an _attack_' and 'the damage dice of the _weapon_'.

Savage Attacker uses 'the damage dice of the _weapon_', while critical hits use 'the damage dice of the _attack_'.

So, it is a simple matter to analyse the Great Weapon fighting style, to see if the re-roll of 1s and 2s applies only the the damage dice of the _weapon_, or to ALL the damage dice of the _attack_: simply read GWF and see which it says!

BTW, it says, "when you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an _attack_...." So, job done, the re-rolls apply to Smite, Sneak Attack...every damage die for that _attack_.

JC then Tweets that it only applies to the _weapon_ damage dice.

That seems...._strange_, JC! Why do you say this, when it contradicts the RAW?

JC says it's because it's too complicated to re-roll lots of dice, and that's the reason.

Is it? Is it though? Is it really enough to make a ruling that is _the exact opposite_ of RAW?

The 'complexity' of the damage roll, without GWF, is that you roll the dice that the attack has, whether that's a single weapon damage die, or 2d6 (greatsword) + 4d8 radiant (Smite) + 2d6 fire (Flame Tongue).

The way GWF works is to add a single step: re-roll any die that came up 1 or 2. This one single added step remains one single added step whether the damage dice for the attack is a single die or 10 dice! It is simply not the case that more damage dice re-rolled makes the process more 'complicated'; certainly not enough to impact RAW.

So we can analyse the _reasoning_ JC himself gives for whatever Tweet, and decide for ourselves how credible it is.

To the present topic, JC tweets, "If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y."

X comes _before_ Y? Are you sure, JC?

Because Wikipedia says, "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide* with the consequent in time".

JC is wrong. He made his judgement based on an error, erroneously believing that the antecedent ('taking that Attack action') must _precede_ the consequent (taking the bonus action it 'caused'). He ignore the fact that the two are allowed to coincide.

JC is even more wrong. He assumes, wrongly, that conditional statements ARE statements of causality. What does Wikipedia say? "Conditional statements are NOT statements of causality", and, "conditional statements do NOT require this temporal order". The conditional, RAW, was never 'after you _finish_ taking the Attack action', or even 'after you _start_ taking the Attack action'. The condition is, "If you take the Attack action _on your turn_". There is no required temporal order. The only requirement is to meet the condition, and this condition is satisfied by taking the Attack action on the same turn as you take the bonus action shield shove.

Since JC is simply wrong about causality. His rulings on it are fruits of a poisoned tree. _That's_ why it has so little credibility! Not because it agrees or disagrees with our own opinion, but because we can see where he's wrong, and that the mistake caused the erroneous ruling.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 14, 2019)

Arial Black said:


> ...
> 
> JC is wrong. He made his judgement based on an error, erroneously believing that the antecedent ('taking that Attack action') must _precede_ the consequent (taking the bonus action it 'caused'). He ignore the fact that the two are allowed to coincide.
> 
> ...




Or, you know, he's in charge of a rules system that has, you know, its own rules.  It's a turn based game with reactions, which means each turn has to be played one step at a time.  You can keep quoting Wikipedia all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that in the 5E rule system, conditions are a timing requirement because a reaction might prevent you from completing your turn.  In a rules system for a game, you start with nothing and then add rules to allow you to do things.  Sure, they could've used very formal logical language and statements like "if and only if you take the Attack action on your turn, after that action is fully resolved and until the end of your turn you can do Y" but the book would be bordering on unreadable.  It certainly wouldn't cater to a more casual or newer player.

Let's imagine that Extra Attack doesn't exist.  Let's imagine the Attack action means making an attack.  Let's imagine that the Shield Master bonus action has the condition of taking the attack action.  Let's imagine that reactions are a thing.  It's quite logical that with these constraints, you have to actually make an attack before you can use the Shield Master bonus action, because if you do the bonus action first and someone uses a reaction to end your turn, you never make an attack on your turn.  If you never took the Attack action on your turn, then why were you allowed to use the bonus action?  Turns out that's exactly what JEC is saying, i.e. within the constraints of the 5E system these conditions do enforce a timing requirement or else the game can be left in an inconsistent state.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 14, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216
> 
> "In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The *original ruling failed to account* for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that *oversight*."
> 
> Isn't this saying exactly what you're asking for, which is that he forgot the intent of the rules (that conditions are timing) when he made his original tweet?




I would say that’s a highly biased reading of the tweet. You’re saying that “X relying on Y is a form of timing” _is_ the intent, so that when he says the old ruling had failed to account for that, then he’s saying it failed to account for the intent. You’re reading your own bias back into the tweet. 

An unbiased reading would suggest this tweet isn’t about intent at all. He doesn’t say he suddenly realized his ruling had failed to account for the intent. That isn’t the reason he gives for changing his ruling. The reason he gives for changing his old ruling, the ruling that following the intent had led him to make, is that it was illogical. That’s the reason he gives. He abandoned intent for logic, and the funny thing is that when pressed by another Twitter user for what the logic was that told him that a conditional statement implies a sequence of events, he said it was the internal logic of D&D.

So no, that isn’t going to convince me that the design intent wasn’t what he said it was.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I would say that’s a highly biased reading of the tweet. You’re saying that “X relying on Y is a form of timing” _is_ the intent, so that when he says the old ruling had failed to account for that, then he’s saying it failed to account for the intent. You’re reading your own bias back into the tweet.
> 
> An unbiased reading would suggest this tweet isn’t about intent at all. He doesn’t say he suddenly realized his ruling had failed to account for the intent. That isn’t the reason he gives for changing his ruling. The reason he gives for changing his old ruling, the ruling that following the intent had led him to make, is that it was illogical. That’s the reason he gives. He abandoned intent for logic, and the funny thing is that when pressed by another Twitter user for what the logic was that told him that a conditional statement implies a sequence of events, he said it was the internal logic of D&D.
> 
> So no, that isn’t going to convince me that the design intent wasn’t what he said it was.




https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action"

So you're claiming that this is a statement of the original intent, and not a mistaken ruling made without referencing the actual text of the PHB?  And that it's impossible for JEC to have forgotten about aspects of the rules and saw someone asking about bonus actions and so answered with the general rule for bonus actions which is "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn" without really thinking about the finer details?

I guess I just don't really follow how this particular tweet does show the design intent, while none of the dozens or hundreds of other tweets he's made about Shield Master do.  This doesn't read like a statement of intent, in particular one where there's a clear distinction between RAW and RAI, it just reads like all his other rulings.

Here are some other instances from the SAC that specifically talk about intent:



> *Can a Circle of the Moon druid speak the languages it knows while in the form of an elemental?*
> 
> Yes, since the elementals listed in Elemental Wild Shape can speak. A literal interpretation (RAW) of Wild Shape could reasonably lead you to think that transformed druids can speak only languages that appear in an elemental’s stat block, but the intent (RAI) is that druids retain their knowledge, including of languages, when they transform and can speak the languages they know if an adopted form can speak.






> *Does the Tough feat have an effect for a druid while in beast form?*
> 
> The intent is no. The Tough feat affects a druid’s hit points, which are replaced by the beast’s hit points while using Wild Shape.




Can you explain why you think the 2015 tweet on Shield Master is the one true source of intent?


----------



## epithet (Mar 15, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> ...
> For such narrow distinctions/divisions on status, it seems much stronger an invaldation than that narrow a division warrants.
> 
> I find it quite easy to see the SAC as the "finished" official rulings and the tweets by JEC as the wip previews, as they describe it more or less.




The distinction is significant: the rules are fact, rulings are opinion. Among games following the "rules as written," the rules are the same, while the rulings are different.

The Sage Advice has evolved in format over the life of the 5th Edition. At first, Jeremy, Mike, and sometimes (if I remember correctly) Chris would answer questions about how to interpret the rules when someone asked, most often on Twitter. Then, Jeremy began to write articles for the D&D web site that were compilations of the advice he had given and the questions he had answered on Twitter. These were called "Sage Advice" like the old series of articles from Dragon magazine. Around this time, a website sprang up that indexed the questions and answers, mostly from Twitter, from Mike, Jeremy, and Chris. This website also called these responses "sage advice."

The next step was for the WotC staff to decide that no one but Jeremy would answer rules questions, because the webpage showed that conflicting answers were being given. Everyone else would refer people who asked questions to Jeremy.

As time went on, Jeremy began to compile the articles themselves into a pdf that he would update every time he published a new Sage Advice article. This was the genesis of the Sage Advice Compendium. While it originally was just a compilation of answers Jeremy had given, his recent reversals on certain previous rulings created the problem of answers from Jeremy that conflicted with one another. Jeremy's solution was to declare that the answers in the Sage Advice Compendium pdf were the "official" rulings, meaning that they superseded any advice from a tweet or from a previous Sage Advice article on the D&D website. Presumably it is also intended to mean that if he tweets any conflicting answers in the future, they won't be "official" until the pdf is updated.

It seems as though Jeremy might not have thought this through, though, because what he's done (as shown here in this thread) by describing the advice in his pdf as "official" is to cause some people to confuse his suggested rulings with actual updates to the rules, which they are not. As I've pointed out before, updates to rules are only made via errata, not in the Sage Advice articles or the Compendium pdf.

It seems remarkable to me that people who argue so vigorously about the meaning of the words "if" and "with" (and get deep into the semantic weeds arguing that a conditional must also be a timing requirement because "if" should be read to include "and only if") would be quite dismissive of the difference between rules and rulings, and would blur the line between changes to the rules via errata and suggested interpretations of the rules. I would have thought that anyone who argues that a character can only do what a rule expressly and specifically says the character can do would also apply that "what it says on the tin" standard to the Sage Advice Compendium, which has the word "advice" in the bloody title of the thing. "Advice" is literally what it says "on the tin."


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 15, 2019)

epithet said:


> The distinction is significant: the rules are fact, rulings are opinion. Among games following the "rules as written," the rules are the same, while the rulings are different.
> 
> The Sage Advice has evolved in format over the life of the 5th Edition. At first, Jeremy, Mike, and sometimes (if I remember correctly) Chris would answer questions about how to interpret the rules when someone asked, most often on Twitter. Then, Jeremy began to write articles for the D&D web site that were compilations of the advice he had given and the questions he had answered on Twitter. These were called "Sage Advice" like the old series of articles from Dragon magazine. Around this time, a website sprang up that indexed the questions and answers, mostly from Twitter, from Mike, Jeremy, and Chris. This website also called these responses "sage advice."
> 
> ...



You are correct that for 5e Sage Advice has evolved. And it's current official status is that it is the only source for "official rulings". 

Sure, you can decide that for your games it works differently, that's fine, some as you can for every rule even RAW.

As for what you find so remarkable, specifically about what others think of how they think, men. As I stated on this a long long time ago, I ran SM as "after the first attack" before the sucky 2015 "any order, even before" tweet, after that tweet, after the 2018(?) " Indivisible action tweet-aster, after the 2019 SAC and after this week's new set of tweets which seem to have finally came round to "ok after one attack" intent.

I was very, very glad they finally chose to separate JEC tweets from SAC status-wise and think that's a very good idea going forward.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 15, 2019)

epithet said:


> It seems remarkable to me that people who argue so vigorously about the meaning of the words "if" and "with" (and get deep into the semantic weeds arguing that a conditional must also be a timing requirement because "if" should be read to include "and only if") would be quite dismissive of the difference between rules and rulings, and would blur the line between changes to the rules via errata and suggested interpretations of the rules. I would have thought that anyone who argues that a character can only do what a rule expressly and specifically says the character can do would also apply that "what it says on the tin" standard to the Sage Advice Compendium, which has the word "advice" in the bloody title of the thing. "Advice" is literally what it says "on the tin."




I'm with you on everything here.  The SAC has an official ruling on how Shield Master works.  It's advice, the DM can ignore it.  No argument there, I've said many times that I am playing it as attack-shove-attack in my games.

The part that I don't understand is how people are latching onto a previous ruling as the one true gospel of design intent, when the tweet says absolutely nothing about intent.  What makes that tweet different from the current ruling in terms of intent?  I'm pretty sure you've said that you think this tweet showed the real intent of the words in the PHB, right?  Why do some rulings show intent, while others do not?  Is it ever possible for JEC to be wrong about the intent, and then correct himself when he discovers the mistake?  And if so, what about the Shield Master situation makes it not fall into that category?

To be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind here, I'm just genuinely curious how you've reached your conclusions.


----------



## epithet (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I'm with you on everything here.  The SAC has an official ruling on how Shield Master works.  It's advice, the DM can ignore it.  No argument there, I've said many times that I am playing it as attack-shove-attack in my games.
> 
> The part that I don't understand is how people are latching onto a previous ruling as the one true gospel of design intent, when the tweet says absolutely nothing about intent.  What makes that tweet different from the current ruling in terms of intent?  I'm pretty sure you've said that you think this tweet showed the real intent of the words in the PHB, right?  Why do some rulings show intent, while others do not?  Is it ever possible for JEC to be wrong about the intent, and then correct himself when he discovers the mistake?  And if so, what about the Shield Master situation makes it not fall into that category?
> 
> To be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind here, I'm just genuinely curious how you've reached your conclusions.




I just think that the first advice on a given rule is probably the one closest to what was intended when the rule was written. In the case of Shield Master, the War Magic feature has similar language and a clear statement of intent that agrees with that first advice, so it certainly seems that that was, at the time, the way the thing was meant to work.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> I think the idea that there's a different mechanical implication between saying, "I try to hit the kobold," and, "I target the kobold," is silly in the extreme. What possible justification in the RAW do you have for saying this?




that RAW has no action declaration phase.  That declaring an action has no binding influence on the player who can change it at will.  That nothing in the game triggers off of a declaration that has no meaning since there are no mechanical declarations in RAW.  On the other hand, targeting is mechanical and involves the attack.



> The tweet is about how you can tell if you've completed an action. RAW you have to finish the whole action to complete it. RAI for the Attack action, though, is that one attack completes it. This has implications for Shield Master of course, but does not itself address the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions.




The tweet is in direct response to asking about the Shield Master bonus action. Therefore, every part of that answer pertains to it.  Context is your friend.  You will do better in discussions when you can recognize context and understand its use.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 15, 2019)

epithet said:


> Do you know what "official rulings" means? It means that whatever is in the Sage Advice Compendium supersedes any advice offered on Twitter. That's it. That's the only significance--the SAC should be taken as the definitive recommendation, as opposed to "public statements of the D&D team." It does NOT mean that the Sage Advice is elevated to the level of rules, or that Jeremy's suggested ruling applies to anyone's game. It is still nothing but a suggestion, and if you follow the Sage Advice in your game, it is YOUR ruling, because the only one who can make a ruling in your game is YOU (assuming you are the DM.) Jeremy cannot rule on your game, that's not how it works.
> 
> If a DM makes a different ruling on a published rule than what Jeremy suggests in his advice, that is not a house rule. A house rule only happens when a DM implements a new rule, or strikes a published rule from his game. As an example, the statement that "_if x, you can y_ does not impose a timing requirement and therefore the bonus action _y_ can be executed whenever the player chooses during his character's turn" is a ruling on applying the  published rule. By contrast, the statement that "the Shield Master shove doesn't require the Attack action in my game" is a house rule, because it is changing the rules of the game, not interpreting them.




That's not true.  The official rulings are now game rules.  From the Sage Advice link.

"We gather your D&D rules questions and occasionally provide official answers to them in the Sage Advice Compendium. As we headed into 2019, I went through the compendium and *updated it to reflect the current state of the game’s rules.* This update resulted in some old answers being cut, others being revised, and a few being added."

There you have it.  His Sage Advice rulings reflect the current state of the game's rules.  It takes a house rule to change them.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 15, 2019)

epithet said:


> I just think that the first advice on a given rule is probably the one closest to what was intended when the rule was written. In the case of Shield Master, the War Magic feature has similar language and a clear statement of intent that agrees with that first advice, so it certainly seems that that was, at the time, the way the thing was meant to work.




Okay, fair enough.  There is a pretty big difference between the two features though, because I'm not aware of any mechanical advantage from doing a weapon attack before casting a cantrip, while there is absolutely a mechanical advantage (quite literally) to shoving someone prone before all your attacks.  The original design intent for War Magic may have been that the order doesn't matter, even if the words in the PHB suggest an ordering to me, and that may have been why JEC specifically called out the intent for that particular feature.  It's probably also why the latest SAC answer makes it clear that the ordering for War Magic really just doesn't matter, even if you can end up in a situation where you've taken the bonus action attack and never actually cast the cantrip.

And the end of the day, I believe JEC when he says that he got it wrong, because the new ruling makes a lot more sense to me and is consistent with my understanding of the rest of the combat mechanics.  I'm glad he's willing to admit it when he made a mistake, it makes me trust the whole SAC process more (even though I may not apply every official ruling at my table).


----------



## epithet (Mar 15, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> That's not true.  The official rulings are now game rules.  From the Sage Advice link.
> 
> "We gather your D&D rules questions and occasionally provide official answers to them in the Sage Advice Compendium. As we headed into 2019, I went through the compendium and *updated it to reflect the current state of the game’s rules.* This update resulted in some old answers being cut, others being revised, and a few being added."
> 
> There you have it.  His Sage Advice rulings reflect the current state of the game's rules.  It takes a house rule to change them.




Come on, Max. He updated the Advice to reflect some things (like disintegrate vs wild shape) that had been changed in errata. Reflecting the current rules doesn't make it the current rules.

Here's another hint that the Advice isn't rules: you (the DM) can change the rules for your game. You can't change Jeremy's Sage Advice. Regardless of what your rulings are, Jeremy's Advice is his, regardless of what any of us think about it. I can house rule any change to the PHB, but the SAC isn't mine to change.


----------



## epithet (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> ...
> And the end of the day, I believe JEC when he says that he got it wrong, because the new ruling makes a lot more sense to me and is consistent with my understanding of the rest of the combat mechanics.  I'm glad he's willing to admit it when he made a mistake, it makes me trust the whole SAC process more (even though I may not apply every official ruling at my table).




It's certainly courageous. The easy thing to do would have been to double down on his previous statement, but he took a brave step in contradicting himself. Some agree with his new position, meaning they think he was wrong before. Others thing he was right before, and disagree with his new Advice. Everyone thinks he is or was wrong at some point. Admitting your own fallibility is laudable.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> No, I really haven't house-ruled this.




You know, I had a nice long post on this, and I am deleting it. This simply isn't worth my time and effort. At some point in the future, with all the stuff people have debated about this feat, I am positive it will be in the errata and then settled. Until then, I can wait and do things more worth my while.

I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is nonsensical. Anyone who looks at a conditional statement and tries to apply the consequence before the condition clearly has a misguided view of the English language. Not to say that reversing it, like with the other feat, would break anything, but who knows?

I'm sure you all will add another 20 pages in no time. Enjoy.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 15, 2019)

(deleted)


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 15, 2019)

epithet said:


> Come on, Max. He updated the Advice to reflect some things (like disintegrate vs wild shape) that had been changed in errata. Reflecting the current rules doesn't make it the current rules.
> 
> Here's another hint that the Advice isn't rules: you (the DM) can change the rules for your game. You can't change Jeremy's Sage Advice. Regardless of what your rulings are, Jeremy's Advice is his, regardless of what any of us think about it. I can house rule any change to the PHB, but the SAC isn't mine to change.




It's no more or less advice than any other rule in the book.  All the books are entirely advice from cover to cover.  And here's the thing.  He's the lead designer for the company that owns the game.  If he says the Sage Advice Compendium consists of rules, then they are rules whether you like or not, or agree with it or not.  He's the one that gets to decide that.  Not you.  

Personally, I'm not going to be giving the Sage Advice Compendium more weight than I would give any other rule in the books, which is to say that they are very easily mutable into what I and my players desire for the game.  And yes, I can in fact change his Sage Advice just as easily as I would any other rule.  He made them rules, so they are now mine to change.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 15, 2019)

epithet said:


> Come on, Max. He updated the Advice to reflect some things (like disintegrate vs wild shape) that had been changed in errata. Reflecting the current rules doesn't make it the current rules.
> 
> Here's another hint that the Advice isn't rules: you (the DM) can change the rules for your game. You can't change Jeremy's Sage Advice. Regardless of what your rulings are, Jeremy's Advice is his, regardless of what any of us think about it. I can house rule any change to the PHB, but the SAC isn't mine to change.



What?

I can as GM decide to change how a tuleceorks or if I use it  for my game. That doesn't ever change them in the book or anyone else game.

I can do the same as that with Sage Advice rulings. It doesn't change that SAC doc or what JEC or anyone else does.

So, in both cases, I cannot change the source but I can change what I use and how it works in my gsme.

But, if somehow you see house rules actually changing sources, nothing more to say.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 15, 2019)

The thread that refuses to die. I'm all for a good old rules discussion, but this subject? Since it has absolutely zero actual game impact and since Crawford is best ignored completely, I am absolutely fascinated THIS is the subject you choose for your WWI-style trench warfare. Cheers


----------



## Hriston (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329
> 
> "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action"
> 
> So you're claiming that this is a statement of the original intent, and not a mistaken ruling made without referencing the actual text of the PHB?




I've already talked about this up-thread, and @_*epithet*_ has beat me to it this time around, but I'll give it another go and see if you can understand my position this time. This tweet makes no mention of intent. My claim with respect to this tweet is that it's an interpretation of the RAW that is in accordance with the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions as expressed in the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature that was made in July, 2015. As far as Jeremy's story about not referencing the text, what part of the PHB that wasn't already paraphrased in the question to which he was responding do you think would have caused him to make a different ruling?



Asgorath said:


> And that it's impossible for JEC to have forgotten about aspects of the rules and saw someone asking about bonus actions and so answered with the general rule for bonus actions which is "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn" without really thinking about the finer details?




What aspect of the rules do you think Jeremy Crawford forgot? Both question and answer refer to the Attack action and the timing of the bonus action. Also, the fact that Jeremy's response agrees with what he said was the intent in another tweet six months later indicates that, in this case, he was ruling in accordance with what he believed was the intent at that time, and what he still believed as late as June, 2016 when his statement of intent was expanded and included in a Sage Advice article. So my conclusion is that this isn't something that happened while he was away from his books during one drunken evening in-line at Trader Joe's. It's a period of nearly a year-and-a-half during which he is documented as ruling consistently on the timing of bonus actions with conditions in accordance with his stated intent. 



Asgorath said:


> I guess I just don't really follow how this particular tweet does show the design intent, while none of the dozens or hundreds of other tweets he's made about Shield Master do.  This doesn't read like a statement of intent, in particular one where there's a clear distinction between RAW and RAI, it just reads like all his other rulings.




That's because that's what it is. It's a ruling on the RAW of the shield master shove's timing. The tweet that shows the design intent behind bonus actions with conditions is this one: *Does the "when" in war magic mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can get it come before? *The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip.​


Asgorath said:


> Here are some other instances from the SAC that specifically talk about intent:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, because I don't think that. What I think is the source for the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions is the July 6, 2015 tweet on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature in which he said what the intent of that feature was. When he says what the intent is of some element of the game, as he does in that and the other tweets you linked, it indicates an acknowledgement that the text is ambiguous but that, when it was written, the designers had a particular interpretation in mind.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 15, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> that RAW has no action declaration phase.  That declaring an action has no binding influence on the player who can change it at will.  That nothing in the game triggers off of a declaration that has no meaning since there are no mechanical declarations in RAW.  On the other hand, targeting is mechanical and involves the attack.




Okay, but on that note, declaring that you are targeting a creature is not binding. You would actually have to target it. 

The thing is, since the creature only exists in the fiction and you don't, I don't see how you get around making a declaration that you target it. The absence of a specific phase of combat doesn't abrogate the need to make action-declarations in order to play the game.



Maxperson said:


> The tweet is in direct response to asking about the Shield Master bonus action. Therefore, every part of that answer pertains to it.  Context is your friend.  You will do better in discussions when you can recognize context and understand its use.




Don't patronize me. The tweet is in response to a question about how Jeremy Crawford's RAW interpretation of Shield Master interacts with Extra Attack, namely that Crawford has said that "take the Attack action" means you need to complete the entire Attack action before you can take the bonus action. His response is that, by the RAW, "take the Attack action" means "finish the whole [Attack] action." He then says that, by the RAI, "take the Attack action" means "make at least one attack with [the Attack action]". The response has nothing to do with whether "take the Attack action" is something that has to happen _before_ the bonus action can be taken, which would actually address the issue of timing.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 15, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Anyone who looks at a conditional statement and tries to apply the consequence *before* the condition clearly has a misguided view of the *English language*.




Well, it is a point of pride that 5e is written in 'natural language'. So, in normal language as opposed to 5e jargon, are conditional statements causal? Is the order required?



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> *Conditional statements are not statements of causality*. An important distinction is that statements of causality require the antecedent to precede *or coincide with* the consequent in time, whereas *conditional statements do not require this temporal order*. Confusion commonly arises since many different statements in English may be presented using "If ..., then ..." form (and, arguably, because this form is far more commonly used to make a statement of causality). The two types of statements are distinct, however.




Yeah, I feel sorry for anyone who has a misguided view of the English language.

Poor James. : (


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> The response has nothing to do with whether "take the Attack action" is something that has to happen _before_ the bonus action can be taken, which would actually address the issue of timing.




That's a pretty biased interpretation of the tweet, to use your terminology.  What about all the other tweets where he explicitly says that the bonus action has to happen after the condition, and provides the reasons why that's the case?  That is, that this is the only logical answer based on the rest of the rules?


----------



## Sadras (Mar 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> The thread that refuses to die.





Well the posters did fail their Thread Lore check so they have not discovered that this particular Thread has resistance versus logic and invulnerability to agreement (EDIT: like many others).
Personally I'm of the opinion that the Moderator should have give them an insight check at least, if not a passive check against their score, to figure this all out.

There are some, from another Thread, that might call this style of moderation Mother-May-I, but that is too much of a pejorative for me.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 15, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> At some point in the future, with all the stuff people have debated about this feat, I am positive it will be in the errata and then settled.




I don't think any errata will be issued for Shield Master, and here's why: Corrections are made when the text fails to convey its intended meaning, and that seems to have happened to some extent in this case, but sometimes a decision is made to let the text stand because the required changes would be too far reaching, or because the intended meaning can be gleaned as one of several alternatives. When that happens, it seems the official response is to declare the most literalistic interpretation as the sole correct one. The fact that this has happened indicates that errata will not be forthcoming.



dnd4vr said:


> I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is nonsensical. Anyone who looks at a conditional statement and tries to apply the consequence before the condition clearly has a misguided view of the English language.




What would you make of this sentence?: _If you go to the store today, you can stop by the bank on your way there._ Clearly, you're not meant by this to stop by the bank _after_ you go to the store! I think the English language is more flexible than you imagine it is.


----------



## Arial Black (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> You can keep quoting Wikipedia all you like




Thanks! Natural Language FTW!



> In a rules system for a game, you start with nothing and then add rules to allow you to do things.




Yes. One consequence of that is that a rule which says something has no power to prevent other rules from making exceptions. If it did then the whole 'specific beats general' would be impossible.

So, the rule which allows movement between attacks in no way _forbids_ another rule that allows something else to happen between attacks!

That other rule is the rule that lets you take your bonus action when you like on your turn.

To imagine that the rule that _allows_ movement between attacks somehow _forbids_ other rules from allowing other things to _also_ happen between attacks-the things that the new rule specifically allows-goes against the whole 'specific beats general' game system.



> Sure, they could've used very formal logical language and statements like "if and only if you take the Attack action on your turn, after that action is fully resolved and until the end of your turn you can do Y" but the book would be bordering on unreadable.  It certainly wouldn't cater to a more casual or newer player.
> 
> Let's imagine that Extra Attack doesn't exist.  Let's imagine the Attack action means making an attack.  Let's imagine that the Shield Master bonus action has the condition of taking the attack action.  Let's imagine that reactions are a thing.  It's quite logical that with these constraints, you have to actually make an attack before you can use the Shield Master bonus action, because if you do the bonus action first and someone uses a reaction to end your turn, you never make an attack on your turn.  If you never took the Attack action on your turn, then why were you allowed to use the bonus action?  Turns out that's exactly what JEC is saying, i.e. within the constraints of the 5E system these conditions do enforce a timing requirement or else the game can be left in an inconsistent state.




Let's imagine that the intent of Shield Master was that the bonus action shield shove had to be paired with the Attack action, but that you could freely choose the order of attack(s)/shield shove. How would they write this, in 'natural language', without making it unreadable or increasing the page count?

You want the bonus action shield shove to be freely taken whenever you want during your turn, just like the other bonus actions. But you want to make sure that it can only be taken in the same round that you also take the Attack action.

Hmmm. How about this: "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."

Yes, that does it perfectly! 

It tells us that we can take a bonus action shield shove, but only if you _also_ take the Attack action on your turn.

We know from understanding the English language that an 'if...then...' statement is not a statement of causality requiring a temporal order. It says what it needs to in as short a sentence as possible.

Job done!

What could possibly go wrong...?


----------



## Hriston (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> That's a pretty biased interpretation of the tweet, to use your terminology.




Why?



Asgorath said:


> What about all the other tweets where he explicitly says that the bonus action has to happen after the condition, and provides the reasons why that's the case?  That is, that this is the only logical answer based on the rest of the rules?




Those tweets don't talk about what was intended.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Those tweets don't talk about what was intended.




Neither did the original Shield Master tweet from 2015, which is kind of my point.  That tweet was a ruling.  JEC has since said that ruling was incorrect, and has provided a new ruling with a more detailed explanation of why the original ruling was incorrect.  War Magic is a completely independent feature with its own intent, so why are you applying the intent from War Magic to Shield Master?


----------



## Hriston (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Neither did the original Shield Master tweet from 2015, which is kind of my point.  That tweet was a ruling.  JEC has since said that ruling was incorrect, and has provided a new ruling with a more detailed explanation of why the original ruling was incorrect.  War Magic is a completely independent feature with its own intent, so why are you applying the intent from War Magic to Shield Master?




Here's the easy answer, the full rules answer from the June, 2016 Sage Advice:
*Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before?* The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​Clearly, the reasoning given applies to all bonus actions that don't have specified timing, and that he considers the war magic bonus attack to be one of these.

But what about the shield master shove? Doesn't it have a specified timing? Let's compare the first bullet of Shield Master with War Magic and see if there's some difference.

*Shield Master*
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.​
*War Magic*
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.​
The language here is fairly parallel. If/when you take/use [your] action, you can use/make a bonus action. If the war magic bonus attack doesn't have a timing specification, then neither does the shield master shove.


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Here's the easy answer, the full rules answer from the June, 2016 Sage Advice:
> *Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before?* The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​Clearly, the reasoning given applies to all bonus actions that don't have specified timing, and that he considers the war magic bonus attack to be one of these.
> 
> But what about the shield master shove? Doesn't it have a specified timing? Let's compare the first bullet of Shield Master with War Magic and see if there's some difference.
> ...




So the fact that this earlier Sage Advice Compendium answer uses the word "intent" overrides the fact that JEC has come out and said "these previous rulings were bad, and here are the reasons why" in your opinion?  You don't mind that the old rulings are illogical and ignore the way reactions work, and were thus inconsistent with the rest of the rules?


----------



## Hriston (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> So the fact that this earlier Sage Advice Compendium answer uses the word "intent" overrides the fact that JEC has come out and said "these previous rulings were bad, and here are the reasons why" in your opinion?  You don't mind that the old rulings are illogical and ignore the way reactions work, and were thus inconsistent with the rest of the rules?




Okay, I feel like you're just trolling me now. I wrote a clear response to your last post, and instead of addressing anything I said in it, you're asking me these loaded questions. You have yet to prove that Jeremy Crawford has said anything about his original ruling on War Magic other than to revise his ruling. I've already addressed your bizarre idea that this is just about using the word _intent_, when clearly it's about the substance of what's being said. And I disagree that the older rulings are illogical, ignore the way reactions work, and are inconsistent. None of that is true.


----------



## epithet (Mar 15, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> It's no more or less advice than any other rule in the book.  All the books are entirely advice from cover to cover.  And here's the thing.  He's the lead designer for the company that owns the game.  If he says the Sage Advice Compendium consists of rules, then they are rules whether you like or not, or agree with it or not.  He's the one that gets to decide that.  Not you.
> 
> Personally, I'm not going to be giving the Sage Advice Compendium more weight than I would give any other rule in the books, which is to say that they are very easily mutable into what I and my players desire for the game.  And yes, I can in fact change his Sage Advice just as easily as I would any other rule.  He made them rules, so they are now mine to change.




Jeremy Crawford never at any point describes the Sage Advice as "rules." The articles and the pdf consist of "rulings," and no--you can't change his advice. You can ignore it, follow it, or print it to line your cat's litter box, but it remains his advice. Whether you use it in your game or not, it is his advice. The rules, on the other hand, you can change. Not the source material (you can't change the Player's Handbook) but certainly the rules in your game are subject to DM fiat. You can't really play the game contrary to the rules, because by deciding to play the game that way you are changing the rules as they apply to your game. You absolutely can play the game in a way that is contrary to Jeremy's advice, because the way your group decides to play the game doesn't change that at all.


----------



## epithet (Mar 15, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> What?
> 
> I can as GM decide to change how a tuleceorks or if I use it  for my game. That doesn't ever change them in the book or anyone else game.
> 
> ...




No, you are misunderstanding.

Your group can decide to change the rules of the game. For example, you can adopt a house rule that only Tiefling characters can be Bladesingers. You have then changed the rules of the game you are playing.

Your group can ignore Jeremy's Sage Advice. You can, for example, say that while an elf character only needs 4 hours of trance instead of sleeping it still needs 8 hours to complete the long rest, because that's what you think the rules say and your group is following the published rules as you understand them. That's fine, but you haven't changed the Sage Advice--Jeremy is still suggesting that a meditating elf only needs 4 hours to complete a long rest, even if your group follows a different ruling.

You can change a rule, you can make your own ruling, but you can't change Jeremy's ruling. Get it?


----------



## Asgorath (Mar 15, 2019)

Hriston said:


> Okay, I feel like you're just trolling me now. I wrote a clear response to your last post, and instead of addressing anything I said in it, you're asking me these loaded questions. You have yet to prove that Jeremy Crawford has said anything about his original ruling on War Magic other than to revise his ruling. I've already addressed your bizarre idea that this is just about using the word _intent_, when clearly it's about the substance of what's being said. And I disagree that the older rulings are illogical, ignore the way reactions work, and are inconsistent. None of that is true.




Fair enough, we can just agree to disagree.  I've never said that the intent of War Magic has changed, and the latest Sage Advice Compendium confirms a difference between RAW and RAI for that feature.  War Magic is not Shield Master, and JEC has gone out of his way to make that clear, which is why I disagree with your assessment that you can apply the intent for War Magic to all bonus actions with conditions.  I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind, so let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Hriston (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> Fair enough, we can just agree to disagree.  I've never said that the intent of War Magic has changed, and the latest Sage Advice Compendium confirms a difference between RAW and RAI for that feature.  War Magic is not Shield Master, and JEC has gone out of his way to make that clear, which is why I disagree with your assessment that you can apply the intent for War Magic to all bonus actions with conditions.




I know that War Magic is not Shield Master, but what do you mean that JC went out of his way to draw a clear distinction between them? I seem to have missed that. On the contrary, the fact that he revised his ruling on War Magic and then applied that revised ruling to Shield Master’s bonus action shove suggests to me that he associates them, as does the similarity in language I pointed out. 



Asgorath said:


> I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind, so let's just leave it at that.




Fair enough. Happy Gaming!


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 15, 2019)

epithet said:


> No, you are misunderstanding.
> 
> Your group can decide to change the rules of the game. For example, you can adopt a house rule that only Tiefling characters can be Bladesingers. You have then changed the rules of the game you are playing.
> 
> ...



"You can change a rule, you can make your own ruling, but you can't change Jeremy's ruling. Get it?"

Rule in PHB
I can do the following and more
Use it as us.
Ignore it.
House rule different for my game.
I cannot change the rule as it is presented in the PHB

Official Ruling SAC 
I can do the following (and more)
Use it as us.
Ignore it.
House rule different for my game.
I cannot change the official ruling as it is presented in the SAC

That same list can apply to JEC tweets, Mearls tweets, stray tweets from a man called Jayne on the interwebs...

So, no, i do not see whatever difference you are trying to highlight between the PHB and the errata and the SAC.

But thats fine.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> The thread that refuses to die. I'm all for a good old rules discussion, but this subject? Since it has absolutely zero actual game impact and since Crawford is best ignored completely, I am absolutely fascinated THIS is the subject you choose for your WWI-style trench warfare. Cheers




See what you people did? You made me agree with CapnZapp wholeheartedly. 

Shame on all of you. Shame!


----------



## Azzy (Mar 15, 2019)

Asgorath said:


> I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind, so let's just leave it at that.



I realized that no minds would be changed at least 800 posts ago. I'm glad you guys are finally at the point of realizing it. To quote Neon Genesis Evangellion, "Congratulations!".


----------



## FrogReaver (Mar 16, 2019)

Azzy said:


> I realized that no minds would be changed at least 800 posts ago. I'm glad you guys are finally at the point of realizing it. To quote Neon Genesis Evangellion, "Congratulations!".




Yet my mind was changed twice. So...


----------



## Azzy (Mar 16, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Yet my mind was changed twice. So...




Cogratulations!


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 16, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Cogratulations!




I had my opinion changed here as well.  It does happen!!


----------



## Azzy (Mar 16, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I had my opinion changed here as well.  It does happen!!




Color me surprised! Especially considering that the same things keep being repeated in subtle variations for a large part this thread. I'm happy somebody got something (other than mild amusment) out of all this.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 17, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Color me surprised! Especially considering that the same things keep being repeated in subtle variations for a large part this thread. I'm happy somebody got something (other than mild amusment) out of all this.




I got a lot of headaches and frustration from banging my head against the wall. Does that count?


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 17, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I got a lot of headaches and frustration from banging my head against the wall. Does that count?




I would have pushed the wall over after the first time I banged my head against it.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> I would have pushed the wall over after the first time I banged my head against it.




I wish I could have, but it sort of holds up my house.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 17, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I wish I could have, but it sort of holds up my house.




Surely you have a non-load bearing wall somewhere.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Mar 17, 2019)

Maxperson said:


> Surely you have a non-load bearing wall somewhere.




Oh, sure, throw some logic and thinking around... This is the Shield-Master-Mega-Thread, it doesn't belong here! How DARE you!?! LOL


----------

