Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

FrogReaver · Feb 17, 2019

epithet said:
I think one of the clearest indications that this new and revised Shield Master comment from Jeremy Crawford is bad advice is that across the dozens of pages of this thread, it seems that most of the people who defend his new interpretation of the rule do so only in theory, while 'confessing' that they would not adhere to it in their own game. Whether 'allowing' the shove to come between attacks, or whenever the character wants, or declaring by house rule that the attack action itself is unnecessary, there don't seem to be a lot of commenters who are eager to use Jeremy's new Shield Master advice in their own game. And why would they? At no point during the years when Jeremy's advice (whether because he was drunk in line at the grocer's or not) was to "take your bonus shove whenever you want it" did the Shield Master feat dominate the game. I think most of us need a much better reason to tell a player he can't string his attacks together the way he wants to on his turn than "Well, see, Jeremy changed his mind, so... sorry."

For many of the people here that agree with JC's ruling, we only started playing that you could shove prone before your attack action because of his initial tweet that it was allowed. Because that was so long ago, because it's hard to take something people get used to away from them, because allowing it before doesn't imbalance the game etc.... because of all these reasons we don't feel the need to change how we play with the feat even though he has now made clear the correct ruling. That doesn't mean we won't acknowledge the ruling and celebrate it as a correct ruling despite it not being a good rule for us to use at this time.

FrogReaver · Feb 17, 2019

epithet said:
Ultimately, the rules are best when they are at their most flexible.

I think that rules are best when they line up with the rules in the book. The old shield master rule from JC didn't do that IMO. The new one does.

There is no way for a set of rules to contemplate every situation in every game, and the magic of tabletop RPGs is that they don't have to. The DM can apply the rules to resolve the acts and efforts of the player characters without having to look at the Actions in Combat section like an instruction manual from Ikea.

They don't have to spell out every course of action. However, when a mechanical rule spells out a certain ability a certain way then that ability does exactly what it says (or overridden by houserules). If a player wants to attack and shove without the shield master feat then the DM can rule on if that's possible and what order he can do it in etc. But if he wants to do so by using the shield master feat then he needs to go by the mechanics that are spelled out (either in the rules themselves or in the DM's houserules).

If, at the end of a shield master's turn, the Attack Action has been taken and a bonus action shove was taken, the conditional described in the feat has been satisfied regardless of the sequence of attacks. The ability to reconcile complex behavior during a combat turn into movement, action, bonus action, and flourish is part of what makes a live D&D game better than playing Baldur's Gate on your PC.

Sure if you define moment X as at the end of the turn and then look at the shield master feat then it's criteria have been satisfied. No argument there. The issue is that they also need to be satisfied at moment Y when you made the bonus action shove attack. If they aren't satisfied at that moment in time then by rule you actually didn't have a bonus action to take, which means that doing so was against the rules.

PHB Rule that I am referring to.

You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.

epithet · Feb 17, 2019

FrogReaver said:
...
Sure if you define moment X as at the end of the turn and then look at the shield master feat then it's criteria have been satisfied. No argument there. The issue is that they also need to be satisfied at moment Y when you made the bonus action shove attack. If they aren't satisfied at that moment in time then by rule you actually didn't have a bonus action to take, which means that doing so was against the rules.

PHB Rule that I am referring to.

Sure, and the "other feature" here is the Shield Master feat. All I'm saying is that you can consider the action (Attack Action) and bonus action (shove) together. You don't have to: you can increment your way through the turn like you're assembling a bookshelf if you want to. I obviously think that my way is better.

FrogReaver · Feb 17, 2019

epithet said:
Sure, and the "other feature" here is the Shield Master feat. All I'm saying is that you can consider the action (Attack Action) and bonus action (shove) together. You don't have to: you can increment your way through the turn like you're assembling a bookshelf if you want to. I obviously think that my way is better.

My point was that you can't actually do it that way. You don't have a bonus action shove attack to take unless you've already satisfied the conditions given in the shield master feat that grant it.

Arial Black · Feb 17, 2019

Asgorath said:
I think it's actually pretty simple, and most actions are simply instantaneous.

Attack - JEC says it ends when you've taken all your attacks.
Cast a Spell - Many/most of these are instantaneous. For example, Scorching Ray has a duration of "instantaneous" despite it having 3 or more rays that you roll to hit for individually.
Dash - Instantaneous. You take this action, and your speed doubles.
Disengage - Instantaneous. You take this action, and movement no longer provokes OAs.
Dodge - Instantaneous. You take this action, and all attacks against you have disadvantage.
Help - Open for debate.
Hide - Instantaneous.
Ready - Instantaneous.
Search - Open for debate, I'd argue not instantaneous.
Use an Object - Open for debate, probably not instantaneous.

There's no need to argue about breaking up a Dash, Disengage or Dodge action for example, because the action is instantaneous and the effects last for the duration. While those effects are in play, you can do other things you have access to, such as bonus actions or movement.

You are asserting these interpretations without sufficient evidence to back them up. This results in glaring inconsistencies.

If you 'take the Dodge action', then from the moment you say that you are taking this action until the start of your next turn, you can....dodge.

If you 'take the Disengage action', then from the moment you say that you are taking this action until the end of your turn, you can....disengage.

If you 'take the Hide action', then from the moment you say you are taking this action until the moment you are either discovered or you choose to do something that ends that condition, you are....hiding.

If you 'take the Attack action', from the moment you say you are taking this action until the end of your turn you may....attack, as many times as you have attacks.

From this, how on Earth is it possible to conclude that the Attack action ends only when you have executed the last of your required attacks, but that ALL the other actions are 'instantaneous', but their effects last longer? You could equally say, based on the same evidence (or lack thereof) that the Attack action is 'instantaneous' but its effects last until the end of your turn.

epithet · Feb 17, 2019

FrogReaver said:
My point was that you can't actually do it that way. You don't have a bonus action shove attack to take unless you've already satisfied the conditions given in the shield master feat that grant it.

And my point is that you totally can do it that way, as evidenced by the fact that Hriston and I both did it that way before I simply house ruled away the Attack Action requirement. (I'm only assuming Hriston still does it this way.) Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but doing it this way was Jeremy's drunk grocery store tweet advice for a couple of years.

I get that you disdain this reading of the rules--you have made that abundantly clear. I get, also, that Jeremy is so contrite over having to reverse himself that he won't tweet about the rules except in a controlled environment now. I fully comprehend your position, Jeremy's position, and every other opinion expressed in this thread, barring only a few that were not, in the strictest sense, written in English.

I just don't agree with you.

FrogReaver · Feb 17, 2019

epithet said:
And my point is that you totally can do it that way, as evidenced by the fact that Hriston and I both did it that way before I simply house ruled away the Attack Action requirement. (I'm only assuming Hriston still does it this way.) Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but doing it this way was Jeremy's drunk grocery store tweet advice for a couple of years.

I get that you disdain this reading of the rules--you have made that abundantly clear. I get, also, that Jeremy is so contrite over having to reverse himself that he won't tweet about the rules except in a controlled environment now. I fully comprehend your position, Jeremy's position, and every other opinion expressed in this thread, barring only a few that were not, in the strictest sense, written in English.

I just don't agree with you.

I understand what you are saying to. I disagree with you. However, unlike you I'm trying to tell you WHY I disagree with you. So since you really understand why I disagree with you then surely you can do more than simply reassert your position. Surely you can tell me why my position that you understand doesn't sway you.

Arial Black · Feb 17, 2019

I've been away for a few days, and I've just spent the time to go through 200 posts or so. One thing jumped out at me...

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!

If something has a duration of 'instantaneous', then there is a 'before' that instantaneous event, there is an 'after', but there is no 'during', because 'instantaneous' denotes an infinitely small (but non-zero) period of time. If a duration can be subdivided, then it cannot by definition be 'instantaneous'.

So spells with an 'instantaneous' duration but with multiple beams/attacks, it cannot be that you could resolve the first beam, have your character wait to see if this kills the target, and then use the information to either attack the same creature with the second beam if it is still alive, or switch targets to attack a different creature with the second beam if the first is dead.

This is because the observation of the results of the first beam must occur after the beam's instantaneous existence, and by that point in time the whole spell and ALL its beams has come and gone.

From these forums it appears that many 5e players play it as if the spell had a duration of '1 round' during which you have several beams to use. This astonishes me.

However, multiple weapon attacks are not assumed to all happen simultaneously. In most cases it would be impossible for them to occur in the same instant, but you could say that you could make two weapons hit at the same time, and I suppose you could fluff that two attacks with a spear was one spear thrust going through two enemy bodies...

On the larger topic, when it comes to the actual rules of the game, they are permissive: you can only do something rules-wise if the rules say you can. You cannot say, "Ah, but nowhere in the rules does it say that a 1st level barbarian can't cast 9th level spells, so I can!"

(BTW, this is in contrast to non-rules things, like breathing or shaving or eating. You don't need a rule to give you permission to do non-rules things)

Does this solve the dispute between, "It doesn't say that actions are divisible" versus "It doesn't say that actions are indivisible"?

Yes.

If we restrict our rules actions (like 'attack', 'move', 'cast a spell', etc.) to only those which the rules specifically allow, then:-

* I can attack, move, and attack again later (I have Extra Attack and I rule which says I can do this

* I can cast misty step (and I can cast it whenever I want during my turn because I have a rule that says I can

* I can do them both in the same round, because the rules say I can take an action, take a bonus action, and move, in my turn

* therefore, I can attack, move, cast misty step, move, and attack again, because I have restricted all my game rule elements only to those things the rules say that I can do

* given that I am only doing those things that the rules say I can do, and since that sequence of events is not absurd in the fiction of the game world, the only thing that could disallow this is...a rule that says so!

* since there is NO rule which prevents me from doing those things in that order, and there ARE rules which allow everything I've done in this round, then I can.

QED

IF there were a rule which prevented this, then it would....prevent this. But there is no such rule.

If there is, cite it.

Asgorath · Feb 17, 2019

Arial Black said:
You are asserting these interpretations without sufficient evidence to back them up. This results in glaring inconsistencies.

If you 'take the Dodge action', then from the moment you say that you are taking this action until the start of your next turn, you can....dodge.

If you 'take the Disengage action', then from the moment you say that you are taking this action until the end of your turn, you can....disengage.

If you 'take the Hide action', then from the moment you say you are taking this action until the moment you are either discovered or you choose to do something that ends that condition, you are....hiding.

If you 'take the Attack action', from the moment you say you are taking this action until the end of your turn you may....attack, as many times as you have attacks.

From this, how on Earth is it possible to conclude that the Attack action ends only when you have executed the last of your required attacks, but that ALL the other actions are 'instantaneous', but their effects last longer? You could equally say, based on the same evidence (or lack thereof) that the Attack action is 'instantaneous' but its effects last until the end of your turn.

Let's apply the Occam's razor test to each of these actions. What's the simplest explanation of each of these rules? In my opinion: In all cases, you take the action, and something instantly happens or changes. For everything but the Attack action, some effect applies for the duration (end of your turn, start of your next turn, whatever it might be). The simplest explanation at that point is that you've now taken that action. This avoids any possibility of nested actions or all the other leaps people have been taking in this thread lately, with unwritten rules about action indivisibility and so on. If all these actions are instantaneous, then you simply never have to worry about whether an action is divisible or not.

Extra Attack clearly complicates things, as now you have multiple weapon attacks making up a single action. The rules explicitly say you're allowed to move between attacks, which implies this is no longer an instantaneous effect. My initial reading of all of this was that once you've made the first attack, you've committed yourself to the Attack action, and thus I played Shield Master as slice-shove-slice for a long time. Turns out that was not the intent of the feat. Jeremy Crawford has gone to great lengths to explain that Shield Master's shove was designed as a finish move to assist your party. Perhaps they could make the wording of the feat clearer, or the fact that the Attack action isn't taken until all attacks have been made, or whatever.

So, at this point, you basically have 2 options:

1) Ignore what JEC has said and do something that wasn't intended.
2) Listen to what JEC has said and play the feat as intended.

If the lead rules designer of the game says that you haven't taken the Attack action until all attacks from Extra Attack have been made, and that features like Shield Master's shove are based around an "if X then Y" timing restriction that requires the Attack action to have been made (i.e. the shove is a finishing move to help your party), then that's the way I'm going to play it at my table by default. I can certainly understand that interpretation of the rules (slice-slice-shove), just as I can understand coming to my original conclusion (slice-shove-slice). Again, JEC has made it clear that the intent was not to grant near-permanent advantage to someone with the feat, and when I was incorrectly playing it like that it really did cheapen some of my other class abilities like Vow of Enmity.

FrogReaver · Feb 17, 2019

Asgorath said:
Let's apply the Occam's razor test to each of these actions. What's the simplest explanation of each of these rules? In my opinion: In all cases, you take the action, and something instantly happens or changes. For everything but the Attack action, some effect applies for the duration (end of your turn, start of your next turn, whatever it might be). The simplest explanation at that point is that you've now taken that action. This avoids any possibility of nested actions or all the other leaps people have been taking in this thread lately, with unwritten rules about action indivisibility and so on. If all these actions are instantaneous, then you simply never have to worry about whether an action is divisible or not.

Extra Attack clearly complicates things, as now you have multiple weapon attacks making up a single action. The rules explicitly say you're allowed to move between attacks, which implies this is no longer an instantaneous effect. My initial reading of all of this was that once you've made the first attack, you've committed yourself to the Attack action, and thus I played Shield Master as slice-shove-slice for a long time. Turns out that was not the intent of the feat. Jeremy Crawford has gone to great lengths to explain that Shield Master's shove was designed as a finish move to assist your party. Perhaps they could make the wording of the feat clearer, or the fact that the Attack action isn't taken until all attacks have been made, or whatever.

So, at this point, you basically have 2 options:

1) Ignore what JEC has said and do something that wasn't intended.
2) Listen to what JEC has said and play the feat as intended.

If the lead rules designer of the game says that you haven't taken the Attack action until all attacks from Extra Attack have been made, and that features like Shield Master's shove are based around an "if X then Y" timing restriction that requires the Attack action to have been made (i.e. the shove is a finishing move to help your party), then that's the way I'm going to play it at my table by default. I can certainly understand that interpretation of the rules (slice-slice-shove), just as I can understand coming to my original conclusion (slice-shove-slice). Again, JEC has made it clear that the intent was not to grant near-permanent advantage to someone with the feat, and when I was incorrectly playing it like that it really did cheapen some of my other class abilities like Vow of Enmity.

One small observation. He wasn't talking about the shield master feat....

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

epithet

Explorer

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Arial Black

Adventurer

epithet

Explorer

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Arial Black

Adventurer

Asgorath

Explorer

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Similar Threads

Related Articles