Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Yunru]

What does duration actually represent?

How long the magic stays around once cast.
That's why you're unable to dispel magic on instant duration spells.
The casting time is how long it takes to cast completely.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How long the magic stays around once cast.
That's why you're unable to dispel magic on instant duration spells.
The casting time is how long it takes to cast completely.

So, then, have you cast EB and are adjudicating its instantaneous effects on the first bolt or the last?

 

[Hriston]

The wording of the feat does not in any way suggest that you can take the bonus action prior to the action.

Sure it does! It says, “If you take the Attack action on your turn”. That can be understood to mean you can take the action and qualify for using the bonus action at any point during your turn, including the part of your turn which comes after you use the bonus action.

It explicitly states that IF you take, THEN you shove.

Except you've interpolated the word then! It isn't there, so the timing you imply isn't specified. This isn't computer code. My own paraphrase would be more like, "If you take the Attack action at any time during one of your turns, you can also use a bonus action at any time during the same turn to try to shove a creature..." I can make interpolations too, you know?

This is a good point, and just makes game balance more likely to be the reason Shield Master works differently.

Differently from what? There are many bonus actions in the game that rely on satisfying the terms of a conditional clause beginning with when or if, including bonus action attacks from Charger, Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, Martial Arts, War Magic, and Two-Weapon Fighting. These all work the same way as Shield Master. Others, such as those from Great Weapon Master and Tavern Brawler, are predicated on scoring a hit or a critical. For an example of a bonus action that has clear timing specificity, however, look at Flurry of Blows. I'm sure there are others examples.

I have no idea why he hasn't come out and said it. He's also correct about it being a more literal interpretation of RAW, but if that's all it was, he would have said something like he did with Disintegrate and Wild Shape. In that ruling he let us know RAI prior to saying that the druid by RAW does in fact dust as soon as the wild shape form hits 0 hit points.

He seems to have changed his focus since he replied to your question about disintegrate and Wild Shape. He used to talk about intent, now he seems more interested in promoting the most literal RAW interpretation. I believe his tweet about Shield Master from four years ago gives some insight into the RAI, in that it refers to being able to choose the timing with "most bonus actions", Shield Master included. That seems consistent with what's said about bonus actions under "Your Turn" in the Combat section and was likely how Shield Master was intended to be understood.

 

[Lord Twig]

Nonsense. Because that makes none sense. If it's resolved instantaneously, then the damage is instantaneous, meaning you see the damage instantaneously. Besides which, that's not what duration actually represents.

What's movement got to do with anything?

That duration is not the same as casting time is a fair point. That said I don't think it is incorrect to apply the results of the spell either after all attacks are made or to apply them one at a time. The rules are not clear on which way to do it so it is just a DM call.

The point about movement between attacks is that it is the only exception that allows you to do something else during an action, and it is explicitly an attack action using weapon attacks. Casting a spell is a completely different action. Even if it allows you to make attack rolls as part of the spell it is not an attack action.

 

[Hriston]

Why do you need to take the 'attack action' at all in the 'fiction'?

For your character to shove a creature in the fiction (without the feat's bonus action), you need to take the Attack action. I don't think there's any other action that's suitable for that action declaration. Obviously, your character isn't "taking the Attack action" in the fiction unless s/he is playing D&D!

Crawford has explained that it is this way to keep the game flowing. The rules are designed to make combat go smoothly and quickly.

I get that, but I don't think a monolithic RAW interpretation is necessary for that.

You also don't get a bonus action until a thing gives that action. So you don't have it to use until you've done the attack action.

You seem to be referencing this passage from the section on bonus actions:

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.​

Notice that it's a game feature that gives you a bonus action, so in the case of Shield Master, it's having the feat that gives you a bonus action to use, not taking the Attack action. In my view, the Attack action just comes along with the bonus action the feat gives you.

 

[ad_hoc]

Notice that it's a game feature that gives you a bonus action, so in the case of Shield Master, it's having the feat that gives you a bonus action to use, not taking the Attack action. In my view, the Attack action just comes along with the bonus action the feat gives you.

It's not. The Bonus Action becomes available when its requirements are met.

Rogue's Cunning Action is designed the way you are describing.

You don't have one until you do. Crawford is very clear about this. You are free to houserule any way you want of course.

At first I was against his ruling but after listening to his reasons of why the game is designed like this I have come around to it. If you prefer this aspect of the design of the game to be different then just make it different. It is useful to know the reasoning behind the design at least.

 

[Hussar]

My additiona? Mr. (Ms.? Mrs.?) 'Actions are indivisible despite it not being written anywhere, or in any offical source'?

Show me the rule that supports what you are saying - that Actions maybe be interrupted by any bonus action.

You can't because only specific instances of where that is true are called out. The general rule is that actions are not divisible because there is nothing anywhere that states that they are. You are adding the rule. I'm simply reading the rules as they are written. Nothing in the rules states (outside of exceptions) that you can take a bonus action in the middle of an Action. Nothing states that having multiple attacks actually changes the Attack Action in any form.

When you take an Action, you complete that action (barring exceptions of course) before you can do anything else like a Bonus Action.

 

[Hriston]

The Bonus Action becomes available when its requirements are met.

Another way to look at it is that you meet the requirements when you use the bonus action made available by the game feature. It's like the game feature gives you the ability to do a cool action-combination, part of which takes your action.

 

[Asgorath]

Show me the rule that supports what you are saying - that Actions maybe be interrupted by any bonus action.

You can't because only specific instances of where that is true are called out. The general rule is that actions are not divisible because there is nothing anywhere that states that they are. You are adding the rule. I'm simply reading the rules as they are written. Nothing in the rules states (outside of exceptions) that you can take a bonus action in the middle of an Action. Nothing states that having multiple attacks actually changes the Attack Action in any form.

When you take an Action, you complete that action (barring exceptions of course) before you can do anything else like a Bonus Action.

JC clearly points out that unless the bonus action has timing restrictions, you can take it any time you like on your turn. Between attacks in an attack action qualifies as any time in the turn, and thus I think it's quite reasonable to take a bonus action like Misty Step or Healing Word there, as neither of those bonus actions have any timing restrictions.

This doesn't apply to bonus actions with "if X then Y" style restrictions, as JC indicates X has to be completed before you even have the bonus action Y.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it does! It says, “If you take the Attack action on your turn”. That can be understood to mean you can take the action and qualify for using the bonus action at any point during your turn, including the part of your turn which comes after you use the bonus action.

It can be understood that way if you ignore how things are written. It doesn't say "If you are going to take the attack action on your turn." or "If you take the attack action at any time during your turn."

Except you've interpolated the word then! It isn't there, so the timing you imply isn't specified. This isn't computer code. My own paraphrase would be more like, "If you take the Attack action at any time during one of your turns, you can also use a bonus action at any time during the same turn to try to shove a creature..." I can make interpolations too, you know?

It's written in the "if, then" format. "If you take the attack action on your turn," which is the "if" portion, "you can use.." It's classic "if, then." The word "then" not being explicitly written doesn't alter that.

Differently from what? There are many bonus actions in the game that rely on satisfying the terms of a conditional clause beginning with when or if, including bonus action attacks from Charger, Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, Martial Arts, War Magic, and Two-Weapon Fighting. These all work the same way as Shield Master. Others, such as those from Great Weapon Master and Tavern Brawler, are predicated on scoring a hit or a critical. For an example of a bonus action that has clear timing specificity, however, look at Flurry of Blows. I'm sure there are others examples.

Differently than abilities such as Two-Weapon Fighting which is written differently. Two-Weapon Fighting just needs a single attack to happen first.

He seems to have changed his focus since he replied to your question about disintegrate and Wild Shape. He used to talk about intent, now he seems more interested in promoting the most literal RAW interpretation. I believe his tweet about Shield Master from four years ago gives some insight into the RAI, in that it refers to being able to choose the timing with "most bonus actions", Shield Master included. That seems consistent with what's said about bonus actions under "Your Turn" in the Combat section and was likely how Shield Master was intended to be understood.

It's a shame that he shifted his focus. It was great to know what was intended and not just the literal interpretation of RAW.