Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Yunru]

But it did make it into the compendium. Page 8.

No, it didn't. If you actually read it, nothing about the Attack action being finished is mentioned. Why the change, one must ask.

 

[epithet]

Did you actually watch the video I've linked a few times now? He talks about his original (incorrect) tweet in some detail, and he makes it extremely clear that his original tweet was a mistake on his part. And, given that he's the lead rules designer, I think his more recent in-depth discussions about the intent of the Shield Master shove bonus action gives a better insight into the rules than a quick off-hand tweet that he made while standing in line at Trader Joe's or whatever it was.

As discussed in the video, if the intent was for Shield Master to just give you a bonus action shove, then it would've said exactly that (i.e. no timing restriction, you just get a bonus action). Similarly, if the intent was to grant permanent advantage on all attacks, it would've just said that. D&D is a co-op game and he goes to great lengths in the video to explain that it's meant to be a finishing move that helps your melee allies out. You can chose to ignore all of this of course, but I really think it's hard to deny what the intent of the rule is at this point.

For me, the only slightly grey area is whether or not you have to take all attacks granted by Extra Attack before the Attack action is considered "taken". As I linked above, JEC has tweeted that the intent is yes, it really is meant to be slice-slice-shove not slice-shove-slice. This isn't really spelled out in the PHB, but I'll take his word for it that this was the intent (given that, you know, he probably wrote the rule in the first place). If I was a DM and someone had taken this feat and really wanted to slice-shove-slice, I would let them, because after the first attack you have committed yourself to the Attack action and can't take any other actions on your turn (outside of Action Surge of course).

Yes, and I find the "I was drunk in line at Trader Joes, tweeting" hypothesis to be amusing enough, but the fact remains that he didn't change his mind for a couple of years after that. He might think of it as a "finishing move" now, but he didn't back then, and I personally think if it had been meant as a finishing move, "it would have just said that." I mean, he also talks about how this is somehow supposed to simplify and streamline combat, but he's just complicating things with extra timing restrictions and arbitrary limitations. I am not surprised when I disagree with Jeremy, but it is much less common when Jeremy disagrees with himself.

 

[Asgorath]

Yes, and I find the "I was drunk in line at Trader Joes, tweeting" hypothesis to be amusing enough, but the fact remains that he didn't change his mind for a couple of years after that. He might think of it as a "finishing move" now, but he didn't back then, and I personally think if it had been meant as a finishing move, "it would have just said that." I mean, he also talks about how this is somehow supposed to simplify and streamline combat, but he's just complicating things with extra timing restrictions and arbitrary limitations. I am not surprised when I disagree with Jeremy, but it is much less common when Jeremy disagrees with himself.

Well, he's made it pretty clear that he didn't even remember tweeting the original tweet, so it's not particularly surprising that it took a long time to resolve the issue. The wording of the feat makes it pretty clear that it's intended to be a finishing move. When you take the Attack action, you now have access to a bonus action shove. You don't have the bonus action until you've taken the Attack action. Given the lack of an action declaration phase, taking the Attack action means actually attacking a target. There's a reasonable debate to be had about whether you need to take all the attacks granted by Extra Attack or not (and JEC has made his thoughts on that matter quite clear at this point). We can all just agree to disagree and play the feat differently at our tables. JEC's best advice is to "follow your bliss" in my opinion.

 

[Yunru]

Well, he's made it pretty clear that he didn't even remember tweeting the original tweet, so it's not particularly surprising that it took a long time to resolve the issue. The wording of the feat makes it pretty clear that it's intended to be a finishing move. When you take the Attack action, you now have access to a bonus action shove. You don't have the bonus action until you've taken the Attack action. Given the lack of an action declaration phase, taking the Attack action means actually attacking a target. There's a reasonable debate to be had about whether you need to take all the attacks granted by Extra Attack or not (and JEC has made his thoughts on that matter quite clear at this point). We can all just agree to disagree and play the feat differently at our tables. JEC's best advice is to "follow your bliss" in my opinion.

You added a past tense there that isn't actually there in order to justify yourself. Next.

 

[Maxperson]

The sanctuary spell stops you from targeting. You have performed no part of an attack. Nothing at all has happened, so you have not (in the new Crawfordverse) taken the attack action. Remember the whole "declarations don't count" thing?

This is false. As you note, you cannot declare something to happen before you get to that step of the game. That means that in order to get to step one of the attack, which is targeting, you MUST begin the Attack action first. Since you have begun the attack action and Sanctuary's specific rules prevent you from targeting that PC, you must immediately target a new target or lose that attack or spell. Note that you only lose one of the attacks on a failed save, so clearly the attack action must have started since you cannot lose both attacks if you have Extra Attack.

 

[epithet]

... JEC's best advice is to "follow your bliss" in my opinion.

I completely agree with you there.

 

[5ekyu]

"Any time" does not in fact mean "any time," though. You can't do things simultaneously, so there are limits on when you can do things, even when the rules say any time. For instance, if you are taking an action and you have a bonus action that can happen at "any time," you must still choose to use it before or after the action, or if you believe in action divisibility, in the middle of two attacks when there is an amount of time not being taken by the first attack.

If you believe in the phantom action divisibility rule, then you can use those bonus actions during the action as I lay out above. If you believe in the phantom action indivisibility rule, then you wont be able to without a specific exception such as Two-Weapon Fighting lays out. It just depends on how you view action divisibility.

let me quote you from above

"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."

That was in response to my saying this...
"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."

So, amazingly when i claimed some folks on this thread were claiming indivisibility and discrete rules and restrictions you go all "blatant misrep" but in fact here you are just a few posts down on the same page no less waxing on about indivisible and discrete and not between attacks and so forth.

I have never disputed that Shield master has timing restrictions.
Whether that timing restriction requires you to complete all your attacks - that i dispute.

But the main gist that i have been arguing here is against the phantom indivisible or now the phantom "any time does not mean any time" rule you seem to believe in.

But, hey, the comparison of your claims on this very pager makes it obvious there is no point to continuing that point with you.

EDIT - change reference to "this page" to "that very page". Forgot to account for where this post might land.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it's too difficult to say when actions end. Consider the following questions:

If you have extra attack and take the attack action and make one attack, when does your attack action end?
If you take the dodge action when does that action end?
If you take the disengage action when does that action end?
If you take the ready action when does that action end?

So then if actions are meant to be atomic units that can't be subdivided then are you capable of doing anything after you start taking them? And how come no one has asked about when they end before?

Further consider the movement rule:

You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

Does that mean that once you disengage you literally can't move because your action doesn't finish till the end of the turn?

IMO, Crawford's ruling about you not having taken an action until it's finished was an even more egregious error than his previous ruling about taking the shield master shove before the attack action. It makes us have to think about when actions end and 5erules were never set up around the end of an action being an important event.

IMO, if Crawford was right about not being able to do things during an action then the rules would more clearly specify when actions end.

 

[Ristamar]

I think it's too difficult to say when actions end. Consider the following questions:

If you have extra attack and take the attack action and make one attack, when does your attack action end?
If you take the dodge action when does that action end? Instantaneous
If you take the disengage action when does that action end?
If you take the ready action when does that action end?

So then if actions are meant to be atomic units that can't be subdivided then are you capable of doing anything after you start taking them? And how come no one has asked about when they end before?

Further consider the movement rule:

Does that mean that once you disengage you literally can't move because your action doesn't finish till the end of the turn?

• The Attack action ends after you make your last attack or choose to forfeit any extra attacks in order to do something else (e.g. Shield Master bonus Shove attack, cast a spell, etc.)
• The Dodge action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the start of your next turn.
• The Disengage action is instantaneous, the effect lasts until the end of your turn (you can move freely given you have movement to spend).
• The Ready action is instantaneous, the potential effect (one reaction keyed off a trigger) may last until the start of your next turn.

 

[Maxperson]

So, amazingly when i claimed some folks on this thread were claiming indivisibility and discrete rules and restrictions you go all "blatant misrep" but in fact here you are just a few posts down on the same page no less waxing on about indivisible and discrete and not between attacks and so forth.

Er, I didn't wax on about anything. Or wax off for that matter. No Karate Kid for me. Maybe you should re-read that post.