Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[epithet]

... 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]

...
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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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."

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]

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.