Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[5ekyu]

This is why there's a problem. If there wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have to invent an entirely new "phantom rule" that says you can divide one Cast a Spell Action(with multiple attacks), but not another Cast a Spell Action(resolves in one resolution). If you can divide the action, you can divide the action regardless of whether it's one resolution or multiple resolution. If you can split up Scorching Ray to use a completely different action with Action Surge, you can do it with Fireball as well. So if actions are naturally divisible like you say, you can take the Cast a Spell Action, and the split it up by casting fireball, then while it is traveling towards the enemy, stop it in mid air so that you can take your other action, then have the fireball resume its travel and detonate.

Huh?

The game rules provide already for the differences between how scorching ray plays vs fireball. One is a sequential series of attacks and damage the other is a single event. I dont have to invent a mystery rule there, it's already rule. I can point you to actual rules in the book that describe in detail how sequential attacks resolve. I can point you iirc to sage compendium follow-ups and clarifications as well. No "phantoms" here.

Contrast that to the phantom indivisible rule which has apparently got a lot of only here and not there filters in it's incredibly detailed non-write-up.

As for holding up fireball mid-air, before it detonates, cant really address that unless you give more info on the interruption. There are certainly more than a few interruption type events by rule that could occur.*

But by RAW fireball is one event/resolution and scorching ray is multiple sequential so that difference is not a phantom rule, it's just the rule by the books when they describe each.

*Most likely if you wanted a rule of thumb in a vacuum, I would say that its gonna be similar between fireball and scorching ray for "hold it in air" to fireball being similar to one ray shot of the scorching ray - in terms of kinds of interruptions. Obviously one is an "attack" the other an AoE so different features may trigger.

 

[Maxperson]

The game rules provide already for the differences between how scorching ray plays vs fireball.

Those differences only pertain to how they resolve, not whether the Cast a Spell Action is divisible for one, but not the other.

One is a sequential series of attacks and damage the other is a single event. I dont have to invent a mystery rule there, it's already rule. I can point you to actual rules in the book that describe in detail how sequential attacks resolve. I can point you iirc to sage compendium follow-ups and clarifications as well. No "phantoms" here.

As I point out above, you can point to rules that tell me how they resolve, but not a single rule that says that one is a divisible Cast a Spell action, but the other is not. In order to have your argument be correct you have to first create a "phantom action divisibility rule" as there are no rules that say you can divide actions, then create a second, "this instant Cast a Spell action is divisible like the first phantom rule says, but not this other instant Cast a Spell action." And that's hardly the only issue you are going to come across.

You are going to have to create more phantom rules in order to support your first phantom rule. We on the other hand only have to look for specific exceptions that allows actions to be divided, which is far simpler. We have to remember no phantom rules at all, while you are going to have to remember your first phantom divisibility rule and all the other phantom rules you come up with as issues crop up.

As for holding up fireball mid-air, before it detonates, cant really address that unless you give more info on the interruption. There are certainly more than a few interruption type events by rule that could occur.*

No. This is an evasion. You have more than enough information right now from what you have stated in your phantom "Actions are generally divisible" rule, and my pointing out that your general rule means that I can stop a Fireball in midair and then Action Surge. The ONLY ways that I would not be able to stop said Fireball is if you can point to a rule that explicity says I cannot divide that action, or if you create a phantom "Fireballs are not divisible rule."

*Most likely if you wanted a rule of thumb in a vacuum, I would say that its gonna be similar between fireball and scorching ray for "hold it in air" to fireball being similar to one ray shot of the scorching ray - in terms of kinds of interruptions. Obviously one is an "attack" the other an AoE so different features may trigger.

I get the reasoning for your second phantom rule, but the fact that you have to create the second phantom rule just makes your way more complicated and illustrates the problem with a phantom general action divisibility rule.

 

[5ekyu]

Yeah, I don't get the "phantom rule" argument line as it cuts just as well both ways. If an argument also applies against my position, I wouldn't use it as a clib against others. Every time I see it, it just tells me the response is more argumentative than reasoned.

It's fair to point it out, though, in the sense that we don't have a clear rule statement either way, but then you go to secondary reasons for support, you don't say, "and therefore neither of us has a leg to stand on so your wrong, legless guys! Haha!" It's just weird.

But, the "I can take bonus actions on my turn" has a clear rule.

"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified,..."

Is "between attacks of my extra attack" includes in and count as "on my turn"?

Yes.

So, no phantom rules. Just plain simple rules there. Black and white.

I can take my bonus actions (ones allowed by feature or circumstance) between attacks cuz that counts as "on my turn"

Same logic as dropping concentration.

Dropping concentration says it can happen "anytime."

"You can end concentration at any time (no action required)."

So I can drop my action between attacks I am making because that counts as anytime.

****

So to the other side of the coin you have folks saying that somewhere there is this rule that overrides these explicit permissions. One that says "between attacks" in an extra attack is discrete and indivisible - unless certain wording is there and only for certain sub-sets of sub-sets of things - but no actual rule is pointed to to be read.

That phantom rule sorts out non-actions like dropping weapons and ending concentration - to some.

But it's not there.

***

So, to me, you want to say a player cannot use Misty step (RAW) between one swing of their sword in an extra attack and the next cuz phantom menace rule #12 says the attack action may not be split by bonus actions of casting Misty Step, GREAT - just show me the rule.

I can show you the rule which supports it - its quoted above.

You want to say that rule is void here - isnt it fair yo say "show me your tule cuz I already showed you mine?"

That's an argument I am happy to make.

***

 

[Maxperson]

So to the other side of the coin you have folks saying that somewhere there is this rule that overrides these explicit permissions. One that says "between attacks" in an extra attack is discrete and indivisible - unless certain wording is there and only for certain sub-sets of sub-sets of things - but no actual rule is pointed to to be read.

This this is a blatant misstatement of our position. We are saying that the Shield Master feat has explicit timing built into the language used, which it does. At no time does it say, "When you are going to take an action at any time on your turn, you can shove with your shield as a bonus action." The language used limits it to when you actually take the attack action, and the action is not taken until it completes.

 

[5ekyu]

Edit for the wonky quote

There are plenty of cases in the rules that show divided actions.
There is no rule about indivisible actions so far put forth. If you have one, cute it.
There is a rule saying you can choose when to take your bonus actions on your turn if its restrictions/conditions are met.
Again **there is a rule**.

You wanna cite a rule that adds "except between attacks in an attsck action" or whatever, please do so.

As for fireball, without more info on what you mean by holding up etc and how it interacts there cannot be meaningful specificity. For the bonus action side we can discuss easily whether this bonus action is allowed or that bonus action is allowed or this non-action or that **because** we can look at the rules. But if you consider asking for the same from your test case an evasion, that says a lot.

If you have confusion as to how sequential attacks are resolved vs more one-event effects are - consult the rules.

Not much more to say.

 

[Hriston]

You're more than welcome to do that at your table obviously, but that's not RAW/RAI.

It most certainly is RAW! The condition is that you take the Attack action on your turn, so the appropriate question is whether the player/character takes the Attack action on their turn, and if they do, then they also get to use a bonus action to shove on their turn.

Whether it's RAI isn't something about which I've seen any sort of definitive statement. I take Jeremy Crawford's tweet of four years ago as evidence, however, that the RAI is that you get to decide when on your turn to use the bonus action shove.

JEC has been very clear that Shield Master's shove is intended to be a finishing move, and that 5E doesn't have an "action declaration phase".

Can you provide a citation for your first claim? If that was the intent, I don't think the feat does a very good job of expressing it.

As for your second claim, I think it's ridiculous. Players declare actions. It's Step 2 of the basic pattern of play: The players describe what they want to do.

Taking the Attack action means actually making one or more attacks. What happens if you say "hey I'm going to take the Attack action, so let me use my Shield Master shove first" but the enemy uses a reaction that incapacitates you, preventing you from actually making your attacks? You therefore haven't actually taken the Attack action, which means you shouldn't have had access to the Shield Master shove bonus action, as that has a trigger of "taking the Attack action".

Yes, you have! You took the Attack action when you shoved, because without taking the Attack action in some other way, you don't meet the condition for using your bonus action. Luckily the feat is written in such a way that this isn't a problem, since it's letting you do something as a bonus action that would normally require the action that you have to take to meet the condition for using it as a bonus action.

Again, the feat wasn't designed as a way to grant near-permanent advantage.

The feat was designed to do what it does, which is in part to give your character the ability to shove a creature using its bonus action.

If you want to play it that way at your table, then naturally you should feel free to do so.

I'm sorry, but I don't need your permission to play any particular way at my table.

All of this is making me really glad I stopped playing my Shield Master Paladin, so that I don't have to worry about that feat in my games.

And you think it's a good thing that this ruling made you want to stop playing your character?

 

[Asgorath]

It most certainly is RAW! The condition is that you take the Attack action on your turn, so the appropriate question is whether the player/character takes the Attack action on their turn, and if they do, then they also get to use a bonus action to shove on their turn.

Whether it's RAI isn't something about which I've seen any sort of definitive statement. I take Jeremy Crawford's tweet of four years ago as evidence, however, that the RAI is that you get to decide when on your turn to use the bonus action shove.

You mean the tweet that's since been deleted and corrected by many other tweets, videos and the Sage Advice Compendium itself?

Can you provide a citation for your first claim? If that was the intent, I don't think the feat does a very good job of expressing it.

As for your second claim, I think it's ridiculous. Players declare actions. It's Step 2 of the basic pattern of play: The players describe what they want to do.

Sage Advice on Shield Master bonus action:

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=1392

It's a finishing move:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864

No action declaration phase in 5E:

http://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1000164214588112896

It's worth watching the video if nothing else, the section on Shield Master ends at around 30:45 or so.

Yes, you have! You took the Attack action when you shoved, because without taking the Attack action in some other way, you don't meet the condition for using your bonus action. Luckily the feat is written in such a way that this isn't a problem, since it's letting you do something as a bonus action that would normally require the action that you have to take to meet the condition for using it as a bonus action.

Taking the Attack action means the action as a whole:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/994997096829804549

Shield Master uses the "if X then Y" timing restrictions:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995112448477749248

The feat was designed to do what it does, which is in part to give your character the ability to shove a creature using its bonus action.

Right, but the important part is that you shove after your attacks, because it's intended to be a finishing move to help the rest of your party.

I'm sorry, but I don't need your permission to play any particular way at my table.

I'm merely pointing out what the rules say, and what JEC has been saying/clarifying about those rules for a long time now. You can obviously do whatever you want, but at this point, I don't think you can claim that the intent of the Shield Master slam is that it's an opening move.

And you think it's a good thing that this ruling made you want to stop playing your character?

This particular ruling didn't make me stop playing my character. However, every time I used it as an opening move, I thought it was kind of dumb and overpowered and detracted from my other abilities like Vow of Enmity.

 

[Hriston]

Sorry, the English teacher in me has to stop you there. Your sentence is grammatically wrong. It should be:

If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast will be wrong.​

IOW, it must rain first, THEN the forecast is shown to be wrong.

This just proves George Bernard Shaw's maxim, "those who can't, teach." The sentence you've written here is nonsense. The forecast doesn't become wrong when it rains. It was either right or wrong from the moment it was made. If using the past tense here bothers you, I suggest using the future perfect tense, "will have been", which actually makes sense. As a teacher of English, however, you should know that while a first conditional sentence usually uses the simple future in the consequence, other variations are also possible, including making a deduction about past time using the past tense, as in the example I posted.

This really highlights the problem of interpretation with treating conditional sentences as if the condition must always precede the consequence, when in truth, conditional sentences that express an implication, like the first bullet of Shield Master, state both the condition and the consequence in whatever grammatical tense is appropriate to them. In the case of Shield Master, they are both in the present tense, so both are true at the same time, i.e. "on your turn".

There are two problems with this interpretation:

1. Complexity. If you can "nest" actions like this, you can very easily make actions very, very complicated. In the case of a fighter, with Action Surge, you could wind up having to resolve three or four actions in a single turn and track which are which within the loop:

For example, the 5th level fighter takes an Attack Action, makes a single attack, then takes a bonus action to knock an opponent prone with his shield, then takes an action surge to make two more attacks, then concludes with a single attack from his initial Attack action. Add in things like Superiority dice and possibly Oppotunity Attacks plus movement, and that round can get really, really complicated.

It's far simpler to rule that Actions (as in the rules defined items) are discrete.

2. Balance issues. A Way of the Hand Monk uses Ki to flurry - can he take his second attack (from being 5th level) after he has knocked an enemy prone from a bonus flurry attack? After all, why wouldn't you do it every time, if you can? Or dropping a bonus action spell into the middle of an attack. There are a number of knock on effects if you allow Actions to be divided whenever the player wishes.

I'm not sure how you got this idea, but none of my arguments have anything to do with nesting actions.

 

[Asgorath]

This this is a blatant misstatement of our position. We are saying that the Shield Master feat has explicit timing built into the language used, which it does. At no time does it say, "When you are going to take an action at any time on your turn, you can shove with your shield as a bonus action." The language used limits it to when you actually take the attack action, and the action is not taken until it completes.

I think we're in violent agreement about Shield Master, since that bonus action has timing requirements that must be met before you even have access to the bonus action.

However, there are plenty of bonus actions without timing requirements, and those can be taken at any time on your turn (as clearly stated by the rules). The example we keep using is Misty Step, which does not say "if you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to teleport up to 30 feet...". It's just a spell with a casting time of 1 bonus action. The bonus action rules say you get to decide when to take the bonus action, unless it specifies timing. Thus, between attacks granted by Extra Attack while taking the Attack action counts as any point on your turn, and thus you can Misty Step or cast Healing Word and so on (i.e. any bonus action that doesn't have a timing requirement to actually trigger the bonus action).

Or, in other words, just because Shield Master requires the Attack action to be taken and completed, doesn't mean that rule applies to all other bonus actions.

 

[Yunru]

Shield Master requires the Attack action to be taken and completed, doesn't mean that rule applies to all other bonus actions.

You do know repeatedly saying something doesn't automatically make it true, right?

There are zero rules on the action having to be taken and completed. None.

Of all the official text, it is mentioned exactly nowhere.