I was right about Shield Master

[Ristamar]

Like I said upthread, there's nothing at stake for me in this ruling. I'm just intrigued by the discussion over interpretive method.

Page 69 gives me this relevant text 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 choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified . . .​

There is no mention there of scope, trigger or nesting. There is a description of the conditions that permit a bonus action, and the rule for when it can occur. The interpretive question around Shield Mastery is entirely about whether or not it's timing is specified - by an interpolated then as in If you take the attack action, then you can shove as a bonus action.

I think that the most natural reading is to take the "then" as implicit. But I also think that the most natural reading of taking the attack action is making an attack - not making all the attacks one is going to make in a turn.

Those interpretations are obviously open to dispute, but I don't see how brining in external notions of "trigger", "scope", "nesting" etc helps with that. Those notions aren't part of the rules and don't seem to be implied by them either.

Well, the closest thing in the rules I quoted to the idea of a "trigger" is that a game feature states that you can take a bonus action. And as far as Cunning Action is concerned, the game feature in question is being a 2nd level rogue who is taking a turn in combat. So if the notion of "trigger" is going to be deployed, it's hard for me to see that in this case it does not include taking a turn. Even accepting for the sake of discussion that you can't not take your turn, I don't see why that would debar it from being a "trigger", or as the rules put it, a game feature that permits a player to take a bonus action on his/her turn.

A Reaction trigger requires an observable condition. "Start of turn" is not an observable condition, though a Reaction could potentially be triggered with similar timing due to the manner in which it is worded, or a lenient DM may not give a damn and simply allow it.

I don't see how. Page 64 says that a bonus action is an additional action that you take on your turn. And taking the Attack Action - which is what enlivens the Shield Master bonus action - is something that happens on your turn. I don't see anything there that comes within cooee of implying that the bonus action is in fact a Reaction.

Whereas I'm prepared to accept that "taking the attack action" is open to being read as "having completed all your attacks from the attack action", although I myself don't think that's the most natural reading, I'm at a complete loss to see how anyone could read Shield Master as permitting a Reaction shove. And I don't see how settling on one rather than another reading of taking the attack action contributes to the avoidance of any such misreading.

• A trigger must be completed before a Reaction occurs, unless specified otherwise.
• Crawford made a similar ruling/clarification on Bonus action timing ("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").
• The bonus action granted via Shield Master, due to its specific wording with Attack Action, is affected by the clarification or else it could operate like a Reaction with "specified otherwise" timing (re: bonus actions and reactions that have triggers -- "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 really that simple. We can wax philosophical all day about natural language, poor wording, original intent, unforeseen consequences, or whether or not the tweets of the lead designer should be ignored, but the logic behind the clarification is not obtuse or unprecedented within the framework of the rules.

I wish I could provide a more thorough response, but I'm swamped at work.

 

[Gradine]

In this case, the guy that professionally wrote the rules went on to professionally interpret them one way, then professionally change his mind a couple of years later and professionally re-interpret the rule a different way.

I think that is definitive and incontrovertible proof that RAW, if you care a whit about such things, can be reasonably interpreted more than one way on this topic without getting into "house rules" territory. There is a significant difference between a DM's ruling and a house rule.

This is all fair, and I wouldn't dispute any of it. The argument unfortunately wasn't that Crawford interpreted it in a different way; the argument seems to be that Crawford's interpretation is, by RAW, wrong. The problem with that argument is that Crawford's interpretations of the rules being wrong are, by virtue of his position, technically impossible. At least, absent any proof beyond an extremely pedantic and circuitous argument over verb tense, anyway.

 

[epithet]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

Taking the attack action, or the dodge action, or the dash action... those aren't processes with beginnings and ends, man. Those are things which have immediate effects, and then they're done.

If you take the dash action, you get extra movement. Boom. You have the movement, use it or lose it. You can't move 10 feet and think you're "in the process of taking the dash action," because you've taken the dash action regardless of whether you've used your movement. Similarly, when you take the attack action you get to make one or more attacks. Use them or lose them, you get the attacks. Before you roll the d20 for your first attack, you must have already taken the attack action, just like if you've used all your regular movement you must take the dash action before moving another 5 feet.

To see a different, contrasting relationship between an action and an attack, regard the zombie's bash. The bash is an action, and it is an attack. The zombie does not take the attack action, and there is no distinction between the bash action and the bash melee weapon attack. The PC, on the other hand, takes the attack action, and only then can make a weapon attack.

Another contrasting example is the "cast a spell" action. When you take the action, you cast a spell. If you don't cast the spell, you haven't taken the action. The attack action is different, in that even if you don't make an attack, you can still have taken the attack action. The attack action simply gives the character the ability to make one or more weapon attacks.

This isn't 4e, where your weapon attack had a time measure associated with it. A weapon attack in 5e can be made as part of an action, a bonus action, or a reaction, because that action, bonus action, or reaction grants the character an attack. To be super specific and pedantic, the attack action grants a character an attack, the Extra Attack feature grants one or more additional attacks, and the Shield Master feat grants another attack, which can only be used to make a shove against a creature within 5 feet. All of these are granted at the moment the character takes the attack action, which is not a process but (like most things in 5e that aren't rituals or things that require concentration) simply a declaration that has an immediate effect.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

But that's what the internet is for! Hooray, we can get an agreed upon common usage (which is what the parents would be using).
"In common usage, "going to college" simply means attending school for an undergraduate degree, whether it's from an institution recognized as a college or a university."

Now then, after the first day, do you get the car? You've not got a degree or dropped out, so you've not finished attending college.

I mean, the answers obviously yes, but that puts you in a tricky spot when we switch "attending college" for "taking the Attack action" and "the car" for "the bonus action shove"

We didn’t agree. You totally glossed over the point about the student going back to college. He can only go back if he went and left.

Going to college both can mean physically going to your classes on campus on a particular day
It can also mean the ongoing your still going to college if you haven’t received your degree or dropped out.

When you are promised a car for going to college it’s onviously with the expectation you will go and seriously try.

But the promise is for starting college IMO and that is why it’s given to you when you begin.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

Taking the attack action, or the dodge action, or the dash action... those aren't processes with beginnings and ends, man. Those are things which have immediate effects, and then they're done.

If you take the dash action, you get extra movement. Boom. You have the movement, use it or lose it. You can't move 10 feet and think you're "in the process of taking the dash action," because you've taken the dash action regardless of whether you've used your movement. Similarly, when you take the attack action you get to make one or more attacks. Use them or lose them, you get the attacks. Before you roll the d20 for your first attack, you must have already taken the attack action, just like if you've used all your regular movement you must take the dash action before moving another 5 feet.

To see a different, contrasting relationship between an action and an attack, regard the zombie's bash. The bash is an action, and it is an attack. The zombie does not take the attack action, and there is no distinction between the bash action and the bash melee weapon attack. The PC, on the other hand, takes the attack action, and only then can make a weapon attack.

Another contrasting example is the "cast a spell" action. When you take the action, you cast a spell. If you don't cast the spell, you haven't taken the action. The attack action is different, in that even if you don't make an attack, you can still have taken the attack action. The attack action simply gives the character the ability to make one or more weapon attacks.

This isn't 4e, where your weapon attack had a time measure associated with it. A weapon attack in 5e can be made as part of an action, a bonus action, or a reaction, because that action, bonus action, or reaction grants the character an attack. To be super specific and pedantic, the attack action grants a character an attack, the Extra Attack feature grants one or more additional attacks, and the Shield Master feat grants another attack, which can only be used to make a shove against a creature within 5 feet. All of these are granted at the moment the character takes the attack action, which is not a process but (like most things in 5e that aren't rituals or things that require concentration) simply a declaration that has an immediate effect.

Your declaration with an immediate effect is equivalent to my process of taking the attack action. It’s a matter of perspective

 

[Yunru]

But the promise is for starting college IMO and that is why it’s given to you when you begin.

And bingo. "When you [take action to] go to college" means "when you start".
So why are you arguing otherwise for Shield Master?
When you take the Attack action means "when you start to take the attack action", not "when you finish the attack action".

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

And bingo. "When you [take action to] go to college" means "when you start".
So why are you arguing otherwise for Shield Master?
When you take the Attack action means "when you start to take the attack action", not "when you finish the attack action".

Because shield master doesn’t say when you go to take the attack action...

 

[epithet]

This is all fair, and I wouldn't dispute any of it. The argument unfortunately wasn't that Crawford interpreted it in a different way; the argument seems to be that Crawford's interpretation is, by RAW, wrong. The problem with that argument is that Crawford's interpretations of the rules being wrong are, by virtue of his position, technically impossible. At least, absent any proof beyond an extremely pedantic and circuitous argument over verb tense, anyway.

This statement is at odds, however, with the fact that Crawford said in 2017 that he had been wrong in 2015. It is therefore the case that at one point or another, Crawford was wrong. Either he was wrong in 2015, or he was wrong in 2017. His position might make it technically impossible, but reality makes it absolutely certain.

Any system of rules must accommodate the possibility of mistake or error on the part of the arbiter, or the entire system becomes vulnerable to one demonstrable instance where that arbiter was wrong. That why, in this instance, Crawford's interpretation of the rule is just a very knowledgeable guy giving his opinion on Twitter--neither of his contradictory Twitter opinions have been codified in errata, and neither should be considered to be in the same category as an at-the-table ruling. These opinions, as implied by the name "Sage Advice," are only advisory. They do not themselves constitute rules of the game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yunru are you trying to understand my position or just trying your best to find something you can pretend is a logical inconsistency?

 

[epithet]

Your declaration with an immediate effect is equivalent to my process of taking the attack action. It’s a matter of perspective

It's really not. My "declaration with an immediate effect" leaves a character, having taken the attack action, with several weapon attacks he can make, one of which must be a shield bash. Your "process of taking action" would require the character to first make the attack granted by the attack action, then make the attacks granted by the extra attack feature, then make the (shove) attack granted by the Shield Master feat. Your perspective is procedural and sequential in a way that mine is not.