Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Maxperson]

Er, the rule regarding the timing of bonus actions is exactly where you'd expect it to be: in the rules describing bonus actions. Here, it says in black and white that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn. There should be no expectation that this rule would be repeated in the rules for every other action in the game which has a non-instantaneous duration.

This is one of my complaints with the 5e rules. They often just list a rule once in some section of the game, but when you want to know if that rule is applied, the location of the rule is non-intuitive to the situation at hand. I and my players have had multiple moments(minutes actually) where we know we have seen a rule, but have to scour the PHB looking for where it was. They didn't do the best job organizing the rules with this edition.

 

[Asgorath]

The broader context of JC's ruling is that no bonus action can be done in between attacks granted by the attack action. That part of JC's ruling isn't specific to shield master. That broad ruling He and I both are basically calling out as terrible.

I don't follow that logic. There is one bonus action where the "if X" trigger is "when you take the attack action", and that's the Shield Master shove (i.e. the "then Y" part).

 

[Maxperson]

I still can't believe JC said this:

The rule JC apparently forgot about was:

Absolutely terrible ruling from JC!

Not if you understand that an action is one indivisible event as the game intended. Remember what I posted earlier in the thread. "At any time." is not really at any time. You can't do an "at any time" ability simultaneously with another action, reaction or bonus action. You have to do it before or after. He's saying that the attack action is an indivisible event unless the specific rule specifies it can interrupt, like movement, or when it's a bonus action that is triggered by an attack, like Two-Weapon Fighting.

You can't for example, cast a Magic Missile and then activate a bonus action before the spell completes. You have to resolve the MM and then you can activate the bonus action.

 

[5ekyu]

All this shows is that JC doesn't understand the consequences of 'instantaneous' either!

Since you started this most recent run with the following i think it helps to repeat it...

"One thing about how players seem to think 5e works just astonishes me, and I believe stems from 5e's lack of wording; something that players of 3e would not do... ...and that is: not realising the consequences of the 'instantaneous' duration!"

You then went on to make a lot of claims about what a duration of instantaneous means even in terms of in-game choices - and not one rule cite from 5e to support them?

Is it possible you are dragging 3e rules definitions into this - is that because thats something 3e players would do or how it worked in 3e?

As for your retort about JEC and whether he knows what instantaneous means... this is from the notion of 5e rules, 5e terms and what that means and he answered that clearly in the Sage Compendium. That was already quoted.

But what was not quoted as recently was this...

"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

So, the publishers establish an official source for 5e rulings.
So, that source provides a clear example and answer that directly contradicts your long run on about "how players seem to think 5e works" and then go about trying to show how it really works.

Maybe, just maybe, those 3e players should read what 5e rules and official rulings sources have to say about what instantaneous duration means before trying to tell those players what they know?

Maybe?



But maybe, just maybe, before going off on how many 5e players don't know this or

 

[Mistwell]

There is no express provision allowing you to use a bonus action during your movement, but I don't see anyone suggesting that you can only break up your movement with your extra attacks.

This seems like a very compelling point to me. But noteworthy, the Movement rule does call out:

Breaking Up Your Move: You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.

And

Moving Between Attacks: If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not if you understand that an action is one indivisible event as the game intended. Remember what I posted earlier in the thread. "At any time." is not really at any time. You can't do an "at any time" ability simultaneously with another action, reaction or bonus action. You have to do it before or after. He's saying that the attack action is an indivisible event unless the specific rule specifies it can interrupt, like movement, or when it's a bonus action that is triggered by an attack, like Two-Weapon Fighting.

You can't for example, cast a Magic Missile and then activate a bonus action before the spell completes. You have to resolve the MM and then you can activate the bonus action.

An Attack Action is divisible by movement. That is called out explicitly. Given that, we know an attack action is divisible by something. So then what's the basis for claiming it isn't divisible by bonus actions?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

An Attack Action is divisible by movement. That is called out explicitly. Given that, we know an attack action is divisible by something. So then what's the basis for claiming it isn't divisible by bonus actions?

An Attack Action is not divisible by anything if you only get a single attack. It only becomes potentially divisible once a character reaches the point where they get multiple attacks.

 

[Maxperson]

An Attack Action is divisible by movement. That is called out explicitly. Given that, we know an attack action is divisible by something. So then what's the basis for claiming it isn't divisible by bonus actions?

Yes, specific does beat general. So we know that movement is specifically allowed to divide the Attack Action. That's what is explicitly permitted. We also know from JC's official rulings that a bonus action that is triggered by an attack may also do it. That's it. I can't think of anything else that specifically says it can be used in the middle of the Attack action.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, specific does beat general. So we know that movement is specifically allowed to divide the Attack Action. That's what is explicitly permitted. We also know from JC's official rulings that a bonus action that is triggered by an attack may also do it. That's it. I can't think of anything else that specifically says it can be used in the middle of the Attack action.

So your belief is that to divide the attack action that must be specifically allowed in a specific beats general sort of way. Good! Then isn't the rule that a bonus action can be taken when you choose sufficient to establish a specific beats general case for bonus actions being able to divide the attack action attacks as well? If it's not then why isn't it?

 

[FrogReaver]

An Attack Action is not divisible by anything if you only get a single attack. It only becomes potentially divisible once a character reaches the point where they get multiple attacks.

It never hurts to be more precise!

Obviously the situation detailed above is the one I am referring to.