Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Asgorath" data-source="post: 7564897" data-attributes="member: 6921966"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So, at this point, you basically have 2 options:</p><p></p><p>1) Ignore what JEC has said and do something that wasn't intended.</p><p>2) Listen to what JEC has said and play the feat as intended.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Asgorath, post: 7564897, member: 6921966"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
Top