Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
Yeah, once we got to any time not meaning any time we passed the "definition of is" stage.
You obviously haven't stopped to actually think if perhaps you're wrong. And I don't mean just "Hmmm. Nope! I'm right!"
Actually go back to the beginning. Think, if you had just been introduced to D&D, what would be the most obvious answer? What would a normal person on the street think? How would they run it if it had been explained to them in 5 minutes?
Because they didn't write the rules to prevent people from twisting the rules around. They wrote them on the assumption that most players just want to play the game and not argue over rules. People that are going to twist the rules are going to do it no matter what.
But let's face it, the vast majority of players are never going to even think about this. They are going to play the game and most people will just take the shove after the attack. Because the rules say, if you do this, you can do that. So they'll do the first thing first and the second thing second.
Of course eventually someone is going to say, "Hey! It would be so much better if I can knock them down first!" They will ask the DM and he will say yes or no and that will be the end of it. If they really want to know if they are doing it right they will find Jeremy's answer about it being a finishing move.
And that's it!
So there is a rule telling you that you can take one action a round. A rule that says you can take a bonus action if you get one. And a rule about moving between those actions. There is one big exception for moving between weapon attacks in an attack action, but there isn't a list of the thousands of things you can't do. Because they aren't going to bother.
If you think that a rule telling you that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn means you can do it in the middle of a different action, or that you can take it before the action that grants it, feel free to do so. You're wrong, but if you haven't been convinced that you are wrong by now, you are so deep you never will be.
It's mostly self evident from the text. I say mostly because the Attack Action ambiguity regarding Shield Master could have been avoided with better writing.
To be more specific, one only has to look at the rules for movement that you already quoted:
You move before and after your action. The Attack action is the obvious exception.
Last edited:
Markh3rd
Explorer
Just anecdotally, I found for my area, many people read "take a bonus action when you like" and " if you take the attack action you get a bonus shove" as I can shove anytime after I started attacking. This confusion led to people asking online, led to JC agreeing with that interpretation and then disagreed with it later, which confused people even more. If it was as clear as you make it sound we wouldn't be here at all, and videos wouldn't have been made trying to clarify things. It's not just a matter of you missed reading the rule correctly, if many people read the rule incorrectly, the fault is with the rule.
Such certainty thst bonus action cannot be taken inside an action but no rule.
Because we are all supposed to just know that is true in spite of...
Lots of cases of things that can happen during that action very clearly dpecified.
Other cases where "any time" drop concentration and things like dropping weapons are just assumed to be able to be done during that action without a specific call out to them doing so.
You ask what would be the most obvious answer? Well, the most obvious answer is the rule which tells me when I can use a bonus action I am entitled to means what it says.
The most obvious answer is that a bonus action **with no timing specified** (the chose when) can be used in as many or more places than one where the timing is specified.
It's also not obvious that a claim of "that's the rule is actually not referencing an actual tule but a belief or article of faith.
"I strike down the goblin guard, action surge to force the door then step thru and strike the next goblin with my extra attack" is not obviously forbidden.
It is obviously legal tho, unless one takes it on faith that actions cannot be violate by things you can do on your turn.
"I strike the goblin shaman, then misty strp bonus over to the worg and strike eith my extra attack." Is also not obviously illegal for a bonus action misty I can choose when to use on my turn. Nor does it seem unreasonable with the actual rule being do blasted clear.
It is not twisted to read "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, " and think it means what it says.
Twisted is assuming there is dome unwritten mystery 0hsntom that adds another "except in these cases" (beyond the timing one or losing ability to take actions) that only applies to a subset of bonus actions.
That is twisting.
Well, maybe not in one regard. Since it doesnt reference any actual rule I guess one might not see that as twisting a rule at all. A friend I know once made up all his references, sources and citation and quotes for a term paper. Just whole cloth. But the profs and faculty were on a plagiarism kick. So they nailed a bunch for plagiarism but hey got his solid B cuz they did not find any plagiarized stuff. So his just base it 9n non-stuff served him well.
I agree completely. Shield master and indeed most of the attack action timers should have gotten very clear language in the last eratta or compendium. These controversies have been going on for a while.
Trying to tell someone "yes you can run 30 feet between swings but you cannot teleport 30 feet between swings because "choose when" doesnt really mean that at all" when they just saw someone else do the "at any time" in that spot... that violates my stupid rule.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
Is your argument that 5e wasn't worded perfectly?
That is a given. The game would still be in editing if they were striving for perfection.
The rule is fine. The section on Bonus Actions could have been a bit clearer and there could be some clarification text on some abilities like Shield Master.
epithet
Explorer
I still remember when we were talking about 5e as a new system, looking at all the classes, feats, etc. and comparing them to what we were used to with Pathfinder. It was obvious at the time that Shield Master was designed to let you knock a target down before you hit him, because waiting until you were done with your damaging attacks to use the thing that would make the target easier to hit would be completely fornicating stupid. Since no timing is specified, the rule for bonus actions was that you could take it when you wanted. No problem, no argument.
It wasn’t until I read about it here that it even occurred to me that someone would read the conditional as a timing requirement, but then Crawford cleared that up by saying you could take the shove when you wanted to. No problem, no argument.
A couple of years later, Crawford decides he must have been tweeting while drunk in line at the store, changes his mind and his Advice. Now, fornicating stupid is the official Sage Advice on the Shield Master feat, and half the internet wants to explain how that was the right way all along, even when it wasn’t. Problems and argument abound.
I think that whenever you want means whenever you want. I also believe that trying to bind the loose fiction of an attack action within arbitrary constraints motivated by the belief that if the rules don’t expressly allow a thing it must be forbidden by implication is ridiculous. I believe Crawford has offered bad (revised) advice on Shield Master.
I am aware that you think those of us who hold some version of these views are wrong, but hey... that’s like, your opinion, man. Go ahead and tell me how deep I am.
So your argument is that it is more powerful if you can shield bash first, therefore it must be correct. That is a white room power gamer argument. The fact that you see no value in knocking down the opponent so other people get advantage is telling.
But this has turned into an endurance test. The same arguments are repeated over and over. I have already pointed out the relevant rules. Others in this thread have posted statements from the lead rule developer. There was the video where he said how it worked and why. Doing all of that over again will not accomplish anything.
So I am pretty comfortable that the weight of evidence is on my side. But that's like, my opinion, man.
Similar Threads
