Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[ad_hoc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.