Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Maxperson · Feb 10, 2019

Markh3rd said:
I think that is splitting hairs. At least for me, it's pretty clear that you can make an attack with your offhand weapon when you attack with your main hand weapon. It's also clear that there is no wording that states that all main hand weapon attacks must be finished first. Since its reasonable to treat the shield as a weapon in the off hand that can shove after the main hand attacks, it is also perfectly legal.

Two things. First, the wording of two-weapon fighting explicitly states make AN attack, so the wording specifically allows it to happen after one attack. Shield Master doesn't allow that, since you have take the entire action. Second, I agree with you that a shield in the off hand is similar to a weapon in the off hand, which is why up thread I said I would be making a house rule to allow it to happen after the first attack happens.

But that's me, and my interpretation. If WOTC clarifies further one way or the other, I will accept the official ruling. But right now, for me and others, it's not clear enough.

Er, in this very thread WoTC did clarify as an official ruling that you have to wait until after the entire attack action to use the Shield Master shove. That's what this debate is all about.

Maxperson · Feb 10, 2019

Arial Black said:
This is an 'if/then' statement, where the action (take a law degree) is continuous for several years! The purpose of the law library is to help law students pass their law degree, but those students who are not taking a law degree are not allowed to access the law library.

Sure, the conditional must be satisfied in order to get the result. But if it were the case that that the conditional must in all cases be started, gone through, and completed before the result, then how would it work in the above example?

Well, taking a law degree only takes a few seconds. The dean or whoever hands you the diploma and you accept it. EARNING the law degree takes years.

'If you take the law degree', with that understanding, would mean that you cannot access the law library until after you have completed your degree!

That obviously (and I hope it is obvious!) would be absurd! The conditional does not have to be completed.

It's only obvious, because it was a bad example. You can access the school law library while you are a student while earning the law degree, so you don't actually have to take the degree first.

In fact, in some cases it might not even have to begin!

"If you take a law degree, then you can take a room in the law dormitory".

That doesn't make sense. Once you have a law degree, you won't be staying at the dormitory. That sentence should read, "While taking(current tense) classes to earn a law degree, you can take(future tense) a room in the law dormitory." or "While taking(current tense) classes to earn a law degree, you take(past tense as you now already have it) a room in the law dormitory."

You are allowed to take a room in the dormitory before you even attend your first lecture, before your course actually starts. Just saying you will, in the immediate future, take a law degree is enough.

But you have not taken a law degree at that point. You will be taking classes to earn a law degree at that point. Once you start the classes, then you are taking classes to earn a law degree. Until you graduate and accept the diploma, which takes only seconds, you didn't take a law degree.

Maxperson · Feb 10, 2019

Arial Black said:
To me, the reason why the 5e PHB needs to explain that you can move between attacks is not because they needed a sly way to insert an 'actions are indivisible' rule without making it obvious! Why? Why would they try to conceal a rule?

No, the reason that movement between attacks needed to be written in the 5e PHB is that the expectation was that not only will 5e attract new players to the hobby, but that all the players who are currently playing 3e/4e/Pathfinder will switch to 5e, and one of the significant differences between the editions, crucial information for those who are playing a PC with more than one attack, is that 5e let's you break up your move between attacks while all those previous editions did not!

I played those edition! I love playing melee warriors. THE most frustrating things about playing high level warriors in those editions is that if I am good enough to have, say, 8 attacks per round (easy!), then if I don't move or move 5ft then I get all 8, but if I move even 10ft then I only get 1. I lose 7 attacks! Meanwhile, the guy who is changing the very nature of reality by messing with Forces Man Was Not Meant To Know can do so, and still move 30ft!

I absolutely loved 5e letting me use the attacks that I've earned in conjunction with my move. It's one of the reasons why I'd rather play 5e than 3e, and I like 3e!

So yes, the 5e PHB absolutely had to specify that you can move between attacks, because if it didn't say so then it would be assumed that you could not.

But to imagine that this means that 'actions are indivisible' is an unjustified leap of logic. First, because it doesn't say that, and second because bonus actions have a rule that IS written which says that you CAN use them whenever you want, and reactions say you can use them when they are triggered, with no mention either there or anywhere else that they cannot be used between attacks!

He didn't take that leap in logic. You misunderstood what he was saying. Actions have not been divisible in any edition(except maybe 4e since I don't know that one). Not in 1e. Not in 2e. Not in 3e. Not in 5e. UNLESS an exception allows it. In 3e you could be a Whirling Dervish and move while attacking. There may have been other methods such as pounce that you could get to make an exception to that rule. There was also the 5 foot step. In 5e you have the movement exception built into the attack rule. That's all he was saying. He wasn't saying that the movement being built in proved that there was a rule that you couldn't break up actions. He was pointing out that you could never break up an action UNLESS an exception such as the one in 5e was given.

Markh3rd · Feb 10, 2019

Maxperson said:
Er, in this very thread WoTC did clarify as an official ruling that you have to wait until after the entire attack action to use the Shield Master shove. That's what this debate is all about.

I mean clarify further. As in further elaboration would be nice as to Indivisible actions.

The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The "if" must be satisfied before the "then" comes into play.

Because that officially didn’t answer the question of “when” I can use the bonus action except that I cannot shove first then attack.

SkidAce · Feb 10, 2019

View attachment 104703

Hussar · Feb 10, 2019

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - your example has a problem. The phrase "If you take a law degree" is wrong. It should be, "If you are taking a law degree, then you can use the library". You are trying to use present simple tense for an ongoing action, which, while colloquially done, is grammatically incorrect.

Now, for the "take a walk, lock my door" example, yes, that's true. And, honestly, I did misspeak. However, that doesn't apply in this case because the feat specifically delineates an order of action - take the Attack action THEN take the bonus action.

The issue at hand is, does having multiple attacks make the Attack Action divisible? Nothing in the rules says that it does. And, the existence of exceptions like movement during an Attack Action certainly strongly implies that no, it is not divisible. Having a single attack or multiple attacks has no impact on the Attack Action - when you take the Attack Action, you must complete that action before taking a Bonus action. ((Or you could take the bonus action first in some cases))

Yunru · Feb 10, 2019

Markh3rd said:
Because that officially didn’t answer the question of “when” I can use the bonus action except that I cannot shove first then attack.

It didn't even qualify that, since you take the Attack action as soon as you state you do, which is before you even make an attack.

Yunru · Feb 10, 2019

Hussar said:
[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] - your example has a problem. The phrase "If you take a law degree" is wrong. It should be, "If you are taking a law degree, then you can use the library". You are trying to use present simple tense for an ongoing action, which, while colloquially done, is grammatically incorrect.

But it is preseng tense, and that's what matters. If it really meant after, it would use "took" or "taken".

Maxperson · Feb 10, 2019

Markh3rd said:
I mean clarify further. As in further elaboration would be nice as to Indivisible actions.

The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The "if" must be satisfied before the "then" comes into play.

Because that officially didn’t answer the question of “when” I can use the bonus action except that I cannot shove first then attack.

I don't think clarity is needed on indivisible actions. Actions have not been divisible in 1e, 2e, 3e or 5e except when an exception is made through an item, spell or ability. D&D is an exceptions based game. It forms a general rule and then goes about providing exceptions to most of them. I think the current ruling provides all the clarity it needs to about how Shield Master is supposed to be ruled. It differs from Two Weapon Fighting for an important reason. Being able to knock someone prone before you finish attacking is much strong than an extra off hand attack.

Azzy · Feb 10, 2019

SkidAce said:
View attachment 104703

Can you interrupt a Flogging a Dead Horse action to use your bonus action or is it indivisible?

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Markh3rd

Explorer

SkidAce

Legend

Hussar

Legend

Yunru

Banned

Yunru

Banned

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ

Similar Threads

Related Articles