Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

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.

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.

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.