Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

In the context of this conversation, it means the same thing as the word condition. If the condition for using your bonus action on your turn is that you take the Attack action on your turn, then the condition has been met if you take the Attack action on your turn.

Wouldn’t you say that the condition has not been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn?

 

[Arial Black]

Shouldn't the bold portion be "does extend over the full period of time that its effects occur."? The rule is as follows, "If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn." That's it. It simply allows all of your movement, which is not an action, to not provoke an opportunity attack. It clearly lasts until your movement is done.

What you can do on your turn when you use the disengage action is use part of your movement, use the Disengage action, then finish your move with the rest of that move not provoking attacks. Or you can use the action, then use all or part of your movement on your turn without provoking an attack. Lastly, you can move fully, use the Disengage action, not move any further and be done. In the first and second examples the Disengage action lasts from the moment you take it until the moment your movement ends or turn ends if you still have movement. In the third example it's instantaneous and does nothing except make you feel foolish for wasting your action.

So here, you're taking the view that 'taking the action' is the same thing as the effects of the action, and that the duration of the action is identical to the duration of its effect. You are also taking the view that 'actions are indivisible'. I can tell that because if you thought either that 'actions are instantaneous but with longer-lasting effects', and/or 'actions ARE divisible', then you would have no objections to dividing actions and no reason to defend that point of view.

You also seem to be of the view that you cannot move during an action, unless you have a rule saying you can.

If I've misunderstood your positions then by all means clarify.

If this is the case, then a rogue could use Cunning Action to disengage as a bonus action, and until the rogue has used up ALL of his movement, he absolutely cannot take the Attack action, because 'actions are indivisible'.

Is this the way 5e works or is intended to work?

 

[Hriston]

By RAW you do take the attack action to get the attacks.

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action."

With the action you make an attack, not you make an attack and you get the action. Extra attack allows you to make more than one attack with the action, not making two attacks gives you the action.

Is it your position, then, that "taking the Attack action" is the trigger for making your attacks? According to that line of reasoning, if you're a shield master, "taking the Attack action" will give you not only your attacks but also a bonus action shove, and you can then decide what order to do them in.

For clarity, I haven't made this claim you're attributing to me. What I said was, "You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks." Another way to say this is that making one or more attacks with the Attack action is taking the Attack action.

I do see the difference. I'm discussing RAW and you are not.

All you seem prepared to discuss is slavish adherence to the official interpretation. As another poster recently pointed out to me, Crawford’s rulings, even the official ones, do not constitute RAW. RAW is just what is written. It requires interpretation to have meaning.

Why is it so hard for you to just admit that you are changing the rules and you enjoy playing in a way that is different from RAW?

Because I haven’t changed any rules.

RAW does not allow it to take a Bonus Action as the Attack action. Actions and Bonus Actions are defined and different in the rules. One is not the other and a Bonus Action cannot be converted into an Action short of a house rule.

Good thing that isn’t what I’ve suggested then!

If you use the Bonus Action to shove, you did not take an action if you are knocked out. What you did is cheat and take a Bonus Action that you were not allowed to take because the trigger never happened.

No, what you did is take the Attack action. There’s no way you could’ve used your bonus action without taking the Attack action on your turn.

 

[Maxperson]

So here, you're taking the view that 'taking the action' is the same thing as the effects of the action, and that the duration of the action is identical to the duration of its effect. You are also taking the view that 'actions are indivisible'. I can tell that because if you thought either that 'actions are instantaneous but with longer-lasting effects', and/or 'actions ARE divisible', then you would have no objections to dividing actions and no reason to defend that point of view.

You're over generalizing me just a bit. What I'm saying is that each action has a time frame, and also spells out which specific rules exist for it. So no, they don't have to be divisible for their effects to last until the effect ends. Attack specifies that you can move in-between attacks. Dash specifies that your move speed doubles, so the duration for it is the duration of your movement. Disengage specifies that you can move and that such moves do not provoke attacks. And so on.

If we say that the actions are all instantaneous, but the effects last longer, then you end up with the ridiculous situation I described above. You can take the Disengage action, do a 1 second jig, and then stand stock still. A monster who was nowhere near you when you began your jig can rush up to you, attack you while you are standing stock still, and get disadvantage to the attack. That's just silly, but it's the result of treating all actions as being instantaneous.

Now, this is my reading of how RAW works. How I personally would run things would be to allow bonus actions to be used when it seems reasonable. I would let the shove from Shield Master work after the first attack and not require the attack to end first. I would allow bonus actions to work while you are moving for disengage and dash.

If this is the case, then a rogue could use Cunning Action to disengage as a bonus action, and until the rogue has used up ALL of his movement, he absolutely cannot take the Attack action, because 'actions are indivisible'.

Nothing requires you to use all of your movement. The rogue could use the bonus action, move however much he wants to until he decides to stop, then attack.

 

[Maxperson]

Is it your position, then, that "taking the Attack action" is the trigger for making your attacks? According to that line of reasoning, if you're a shield master, "taking the Attack action" will give you not only your attacks but also a bonus action shove, and you can then decide what order to do them in.

No. The trigger is not "taking the Attack action," which is a present tense statement. The trigger is "When you take the Attack action," which is past tense. You actually have to take the action, which means making your attacks. Until you take your attacks, you have not taken the action.

For clarity, I haven't made this claim you're attributing to me. What I said was, "You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks." Another way to say this is that making one or more attacks with the Attack action is taking the Attack action.

Here is you making that claim. "You don't "get" attacks by taking the Attack action. You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks." You do in fact get attacks by taking the attack action. You do not in fact get the attack action by making one or more attacks. Perhaps you made that claim inadvertently and don't believe what you said, but it is what you said.

All you seem prepared to discuss is slavish adherence to the official interpretation. As another poster recently pointed out to me, Crawford’s rulings, even the official ones, do not constitute RAW. RAW is just what is written. It requires interpretation to have meaning.

All JC has done is back up what RAW. I don't need his ruling and don't rely upon them. I have been pointing to them as back-up for what RAW has said.

Because I haven’t changed any rules.

Perhaps you don't, but the inadvertent claim you made above does involve a rules change.

No, what you did is take the Attack action. There’s no way you could’ve used your bonus action without taking the Attack action on your turn.

You don't get to change RAW without making a house rule. If you are stating that according to your house rule, this Schrodingers situation of yours where it's not an action or a bonus action until you look at it sideways is used at your table, then I'm fine with your statement. However, if you are trying to say that according to the PHB or DMG the bonus action switches to an action, you are absolutely and factually wrong.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

In the context of this conversation, it means the same thing as the word condition. If the condition for using your bonus action on your turn is that you take the Attack action on your turn, then the condition has been met if you take the Attack action on your turn.

I think the tense needs to be changed in that last sentence.
…then the condition has been met if you have taken the Attack action on your turn.

 

[Hriston]

Using the idea of DM abdication to claim a rule says something it doesn’t is the issue. If you simply said the rule says X but I ignore that and abdicate it like Y because Reasons ABZ. We have no problem with that. We admit we are doing the same thing.

The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules.

No, it isn’t. The issue is that I expressed a dissenting interpretation, and there are some who, for whatever reason, won’t admit the possibility of multiple valid interpretations.

@Hriston

I can abjucate that a level 1 fighter makes 4 attacks when using his attack action. However doing so is objectively not following the attack action and extra attack rules.

The same thing with shield master (although there are much better reasons to abjucate it the way you do than a DM abjucate first a level 1 fighter gets 4 attacks). It’s still an abjucate on that is objectively not following the shield master and other bonus action rules. If you want to argue it is then for the love of god stop bringing abjucation into it. Whether or not you abjucate however you do has no relevance on whether you are objectively following the rules as they are written.

I brought up the idea that the rules belong to the DM in my conversation with @Asgorath not to prove in any way that the rules mean what I say they do, but rather to refute the idea that the purpose of the rules is to limit the scope of player action declarations. It’s the player’s job to describe what their character does, and it’s the DM’s job to resolve the character’s actions, using the rules as appropriate. I think that, given their response (which I plan to address in a separate post), we’re largely in agreement about this, and that the exchange is mostly due to a misconstrual on my part.

Wouldn’t you say that the condition has not been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn?

Yes, as I assume you would also. Where I think our disagreement lies is I don't think that whether you take the Attack action on your turn can be checked until either you take the Attack action, you take another action (if you only have one to take), or your turn ends. Once the condition has been met, however, that qualifies you to use your bonus action to shove a creature at any time during the same turn.

 

[Arial Black]

You're over generalizing me just a bit.

Thank you for clarifying.

What I'm saying is that each action has a time frame, and also spells out which specific rules exist for it.

Fair enough. One minor quibble: each action does not necessarily spell out ALL the rules for it, but the rules it does include are undoubtably...rules for it...!

So no, they don't have to be divisible for their effects to last until the effect ends.

Sure, but IF actions are indivisible, AND each action lasts until its effects end (specific for each action), THEN if an action's duration has not ended, no other action can be taken.

Attack specifies that you can move in-between attacks.

And if you take the view that the reason you can move during the Attack action between attacks is because it says so, this means that you cannot move during ANY action if the book doesn't say so!

Note that the rule for the Attack action does not give you permission to move between attacks! There is no mention of moving between attacks in the description of the Attack action on p192.

The reason we are certain that you can move between attacks is because it says so on p.190 under Movement and Position under Breaking Up Your Move: Moving Between Attacks.

IF you take the view that you cannot move during an action without a rule saying you can (I am not of that opinion myself), then in order to move during an action is if it says so under Breaking Up Your Move (it does not, except for the Attack action) OR it says so under the heading of that particular action.

Dash specifies that your move speed doubles, so the duration for it is the duration of your movement.

Agreed. However, it certainly does not say that you can move during this action! Therefore, with the previous assumption, you cannot move until ALL your movement has been expended, nor can you take any other action until ALL your move has been expended. So, with those assumptions, if you Dash then you cannot move(!) and cannot take any other action!

Disengage specifies that you can move and that such moves do not provoke attacks.

No. It does not say that you can move! It says that your movement doesn't provoke. It remains in effect until your movement is expended, but with the above assumption you are not allowed to move during the Disengage action because you have no written permission to do so! Not in the description of Disengage, not in the section on Breaking Up Your Move.

If we say that the actions are all instantaneous, but the effects last longer, then you end up with the ridiculous situation I described above. You can take the Disengage action, do a 1 second jig, and then stand stock still. A monster who was nowhere near you when you began your jig can rush up to you, attack you while you are standing stock still, and get disadvantage to the attack. That's just silly, but it's the result of treating all actions as being instantaneous.

I agree that this interpretation would lead to 'silly'. But this position (position 1) is not that you Dodge for a moment and then stop while getting the benefit for a period of time; the position is that 'taking the action' is an instantaneous game construct decision by the player which allows the character to do the things associated with that action for the specified time. So 'taking the Dodge action' is an instantaneous event at the game table which then means that the character can dodge incoming attacks from now until the start of their next turn.

To remind you:-

1) is the position that 'taking the action' is an instantaneous player decision at the table which allows the character to do the stuff for a period of time

2) is the position that 'taking the action' and 'doing the stuff' are one and the same with the same duration.

2a) follows that actions are divisible

2b) follows that actions are not divisible

Which of these positions do you hold?

Now, this is my reading of how RAW works. How I personally would run things would be to allow bonus actions to be used when it seems reasonable. I would let the shove from Shield Master work after the first attack and not require the attack to end first. I would allow bonus actions to work while you are moving for disengage and dash.

I appreciate that, because in my view it is not possible to hold position 2b) AND the position that you cannot break up your move without text saying that you can! You must 'houserule' at this point, because that interpretation of RAW is unplayable!

However, it is of no value to debate what our houserules are! We can only debate the RAW and our interpretations of it. For me, the very fact that position 2b) and 'cannot break up your move without permission' positions result in an unplayable game clearly demonstrates that those are incorrect interpretations of the RAW!

Nothing requires you to use all of your movement. The rogue could use the bonus action, move however much he wants to until he decides to stop, then attack.

Since he cannot move during an action, he cannot move. This means that taking the Dash or Disengage action is totally pointless given those previous interpretations.

For me, all this clearly rules out both 2b) AND the 'cannot move during an action without permission' interpretations of the RAW.

This leaves us with the interpretation that you CAN move during an action that is itself a non-instantaneous event. The Movement Between Attacks section therefore is not something that gives permission, but is there to clarify that you CAN move between attacks in this new 5e system, unlike in 3e/Pathfinder.

It also means that either position 1) OR position 2a) must be true.

 

[Asgorath]

I brought up the idea that the rules belong to the DM in my conversation with @Asgorath not to prove in any way that the rules mean what I say they do, but rather to refute the idea that the purpose of the rules is to limit the scope of player action declarations. It’s the player’s job to describe what their character does, and it’s the DM’s job to resolve the character’s actions, using the rules as appropriate. I think that, given their response (which I plan to address in a separate post), we’re largely in agreement about this, and that the exchange is mostly due to a misconstrual on my part.

For reference, I completely agree that the DM can ignore the strict RAW + RAI + Sage Advice on how Shield Master is supposed to work if that's what is best for their table and their players. I've been saying all along that if "following your bliss" as JEC advises means that you just play the feat as shove-slice-slice and everyone at your table has fun and combat encounters aren't trivialized, then that's great and you should absolutely continue to do that. There's no need to try to extract a different meaning from the wording of the feat or the other related rules to justify that position though, just ignore the rule and do what's best for your table.

 

[5ekyu]

For reference, I completely agree that the DM can ignore the strict RAW + RAI + Sage Advice on how Shield Master is supposed to work if that's what is best for their table and their players. I've been saying all along that if "following your bliss" as JEC advises means that you just play the feat as shove-slice-slice and everyone at your table has fun and combat encounters aren't trivialized, then that's great and you should absolutely continue to do that. There's no need to try to extract a different meaning from the wording of the feat or the other related rules to justify that position though, just ignore the rule and do what's best for your table.

Exactly. I make no bones that i have played it as one-attack-procs-bonus since before the ruling from JEC that was later reversed etc. While i think its actually fitting with RAW or close enough to hit Gm ruling, calling it a house rule in my game is fine by me and my players, just like we list "claws are finesse weapons."