Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take Your Turn.

You can also interact with one object or feature of The Environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack.

If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some Magic Items and other Special Objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.

The GM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs Special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the GM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.

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.

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

5ekyu

Hero

epithet

Explorer

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

5ekyu

Hero

Hussar

Legend

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

epithet

Explorer

5ekyu

Hero

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Similar Threads

Related Articles