Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Hriston · Mar 3, 2019

Asgorath said:
Aside: there's an official ruling the Sage Advice Compendium that this isn't how the game is designed to work.

Oh, really? Which ruling is that? I didn’t know there was one about how the whole game was designed to work. Btw, did you know this thread is about the recent update to the Sage Advice Compendium?

Asgorath said:
Can you apply this timey-wimey logic to the Ranger's Natural Explorer, specifically this sentence:

"If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."

This sentence has the same structure as Shield Master's bonus action, specifically "if you X, you can Y". You're stating that you can Y, as long as X is eventually true, right?

Take out the word eventually, and you’ve got it, X for the Shield Master shove being “you take the Attack action on your turn”. If you do, then you can (on your turn).

Asgorath said:
So, why can't I use this rule to stealth at normal pace whenever I want, because I declare that I'll travel alone at some point in the future?

Because the condition isn’t “you will travel alone at some point in the future”. It’s “you are traveling alone,” which implies that the action is ongoing and concurrent with the benefit being gained. Verb tense matters.

Asgorath said:
Or, let's use another example from Shield Master itself:

"If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect."

Let's say I get hit with a Cone of Cold, and make the CON saving throw. Why can't I use the "Y" portion of this (use my reaction to halve the damage) because I declare that I'm going to get targeted by an effect that allows me to make a DEX save for half damage later on my turn (i.e. the "X" portion)?

There are a few reasons why I don’t think you can do that. First, “the saving throw” obviously refers back to the DEX saving throw in the condition, so you wouldn’t be eligible to receive this benefit on a CON saving throw. Second, a reaction, by definition, "is an instant response to a trigger of some kind," and in this case the trigger is the situation described in the condition. You can't respond to something that hasn't happened yet. Also, the verb tense used doesn't agree with your reading. I.e., "are subjected to" is not "will be subjected to".

Asgorath said:
If there's no strict timing requirement between X and Y like you're claiming, then I should be able to just put my shield in front of any effect that has me make a saving throw and take no damage when I succeed.

It's a conditional statement. X must be true for Y to be true. Any effect that allows a saving throw is not sufficient. It must be an effect that allows a DEX saving throw, and you must be subjected to it.

Asgorath said:
At the end of the turn, how do we resolve this Schrodinger's Reaction? I can't just go back and turn a bonus action into an action here, like you're suggesting we do with the Shield Master shove case.

For the umpteenth time, that's a blatant mischaracterization of what I'm suggesting, and in this case, taking no damage instead of half damage isn't something you can normally do, whereas shoving a creature is.

Asgorath said:
That's not now conditions work. The trigger condition is true from the point at which it becomes true until the end of your turn. You can't go back in time and say the trigger was true before the triggering event happened. D&D 5E is a sequential turn-based game, and as a result, timing and order of events matters.

If "you take the Attack action on your turn" is true, then that's something that's true of your turn in its entirety. It can't be both true of your turn and not true of the same turn. You either take the Attack action on your turn, or you don't take the Attack action on your turn. If I have a turn in which I take the Attack action, then I can use a bonus action to shove a creature on that turn.

Asgorath said:
Again, let's apply your logic to other triggered events.

Natural Explorer: "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace." 3 in-game years from now, my character will travel alone for day. Therefore, this trigger has been satisfied, and retroactively applies until the beginning of time because the rule doesn't explicitly say my turn. Thus, this rule says my character can simply move stealthily at full pace, period.

No, it doesn't because traveling alone three years from now doesn't make "you are traveling alone" true.

Asgorath said:
Shield Master: "If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect." I can use my shield to take zero damage any time I succeed on a saving throw, because at some point in the future I'll make a Dex save. Because I'll make that Dex save at some point in the future, the triggering condition is true and thus I can retroactively get the benefit of this feature.

No, you can't because being subjected to an effect that allows you to make a DEX save for half damage at some future time doesn't make "you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage" true.

Asgorath said:
As you can see, this is nonsense, right?

Your examples are nonsense that needlessly bogs down the conversation. It is not nonsense, however, that taking the Attack action at any time on your turn makes "you take the Attack action on your turn" true.

Yardiff · Mar 3, 2019

dnd4vr said:
I don't know who precisely wrote it, but from the SA/twitter stuff JC commented it was supposed to be a "finishing move" and increases dynamics with allies to act in concert or something.

I'd rather hear from who wrote it.

DND_Reborn · Mar 3, 2019

Yardiff said:
I'd rather hear from who wrote it.

Fair enough, but as far as I suspect JC was involved in the writing most likely.

Asgorath · Mar 3, 2019

Hriston said:
Oh, really? Which ruling is that? I didn’t know there was one about how the whole game was designed to work. Btw, did you know this thread is about the recent update to the Sage Advice Compendium?

This language in the Sage Advice Compendium is quite clear that the phrasing of the condition applies to the entire game, not just Shield Master:

"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."

Hriston said:
If "you take the Attack action on your turn" is true, then that's something that's true of your turn in its entirety. It can't be both true of your turn and not true of the same turn. You either take the Attack action on your turn, or you don't take the Attack action on your turn. If I have a turn in which I take the Attack action, then I can use a bonus action to shove a creature on that turn.

I'll refer you to @Ovinomancer's excellent post above where they talk about "if and only if" or IFF, as they did a much better job of explaining why these "if you X, you can Y" sentences have a strict timing requirement.

Arial Black · Mar 3, 2019

The trouble with having a life is that, when I finally get a chance to peruse this thread again, I have to read through 150 posts before I can reply, and by that time there is so much I want to write!

However, it has given me some perspective. The main takeaway is that there really is only ONE problem with the Shield Master feat, and that problem is called Jeremy Crawford!

His pulling a ret-conned "Actions are indivisible" from his backside has all sorts of destructive and non-sensicle consequences.

The cure for all this is simple: look at his 'advice' with a critical eye, and only adopt those which make sense. Since we have shown that "Actions are indivisible" does not make sense, do not adopt it.

An aside: you cannot use a shield, or any other improvised weapon, in TWF. This is because TWF requires a weapon for both the triggering attack and the bonus action attack. 'Improvised weapons' are, by definition, not 'weapons'.

DND_Reborn · Mar 3, 2019

Arial Black said:
The trouble with having a life is that, when I finally get a chance to peruse this thread again, I have to read through 150 posts before I can reply, and by that time there is so much I want to write!

However, it has given me some perspective. The main takeaway is that there really is only ONE problem with the Shield Master feat, and that problem is called Jeremy Crawford!

His pulling a ret-conned "Actions are indivisible" from his backside has all sorts of destructive and non-sensicle consequences.

The cure for all this is simple: look at his 'advice' with a critical eye, and only adopt those which make sense. Since we have shown that "Actions are indivisible" does not make sense, do not adopt it.

An aside: you cannot use a shield, or any other improvised weapon, in TWF. This is because TWF requires a weapon for both the triggering attack and the bonus action attack. 'Improvised weapons' are, by definition, not 'weapons'.

It is a lot to digest if you have been absent from following it for a day or more!

You aside, however, is your interpretation. You are the first to mention not viewing it that way despite my posting repeatedly about it. That's cool if you don't want to view it that way, but our group does and our DM sees an improvised weapon for what it is... a weapon (part of the wording of it, after all). However, he did require the player to also take the Dual Wielder feat since a shield, certainly, can hardly be considered to have the Light property even if used as a weapon. Also, I should mention he informed the player that unless he took Tavern Brawler or Weapon Master, he would not be able to use his proficiency bonus on the attack roll with it. The player eventually took Tavern Brawler as it fit the character well.

Either way, since it is a matter of interpretation, there is no use debating it since we are both, in fact, correct in our own way.

5ekyu · Mar 4, 2019

Arial Black said:
The trouble with having a life is that, when I finally get a chance to peruse this thread again, I have to read through 150 posts before I can reply, and by that time there is so much I want to write!

However, it has given me some perspective. The main takeaway is that there really is only ONE problem with the Shield Master feat, and that problem is called Jeremy Crawford!

His pulling a ret-conned "Actions are indivisible" from his backside has all sorts of destructive and non-sensicle consequences.

The cure for all this is simple: look at his 'advice' with a critical eye, and only adopt those which make sense. Since we have shown that "Actions are indivisible" does not make sense, do not adopt it.

An aside: you cannot use a shield, or any other improvised weapon, in TWF. This is because TWF requires a weapon for both the triggering attack and the bonus action attack. 'Improvised weapons' are, by definition, not 'weapons'.

As an aside to your aside, I would as gm be very hesitant to rule that items i allowed as "improvised weapons" were not in fact weapons for all purposes. The rule constantly refers to them as "improvised weapons" not as say "make weapon attacks with objects."

If I wont allow something to be used as a weapon, I wont sllow it to be used as a weapon. If I will, I will. I dont need to start micro-parsing that ruling of my own into weapons for this and not weapons for that.

Maxperson · Mar 4, 2019

Arial Black said:
An aside: you cannot use a shield, or any other improvised weapon, in TWF. This is because TWF requires a weapon for both the triggering attack and the bonus action attack. 'Improvised weapons' are, by definition, not 'weapons'.

My opinion is that you are emphasizing the wrong part of that. Improvised weapons are by definition weapons. Last I checked weapons = weapons. "Improvised" is an adjective that modifies the subject, which is weapon. It's also a weapon that is used in melee, so I don't see an issue with using a shield in two-weapon fighting.

5ekyu · Mar 4, 2019

Maxperson said:
My opinion is that you are emphasizing the wrong part of that. Improvised weapons are by definition weapons. Last I checked weapons = weapons. "Improvised" is an adjective that modifies the subject, which is weapon. It's also a weapon that is used in melee, so I don't see an issue with using a shield in two-weapon fighting.

Iirc there were a series of (now unofficial) sage tweets from 2015 and 2016 which came down to improvised weapons are weapons but that their use with feats (I think dual was mentioned) was up to the GM. Shield was specifically mentioned in this regard.

Like I said in an earlier post - if I am as GM gonna allow something as an improvised weapon, I am going to count it as a weapon when it is being used that way and not treat it as a weapon on one hand and not a weapon on another.

As an example of this, if a character wanted to use his shield as a weapon on his turn, I would treat it as a weapon in that hand, for that turn, which would impact feats or styles that require that hand not have a weapon in it.

Arial Black · Mar 4, 2019

PHB p147:-

"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon."

Meaning, first, it is not an actual weapon, and second, in many cases an improvised weapon is not similar to an actual weapon.

Weapon = weapon.

Improvised weapon = not weapon, used as if it were a weapon.

'Weapon' is an object designed to be a weapon. The improvised weapon rules provide a way to use objects in combat that are not weapons, and ways to use things that are weapons in a way they were not designed, like hitting someone upside the head with a crossbow.

Things are what they are, even if you use them in inappropriate ways. You can get a piggy-back from a friend, but that doesn't allow him to benefit from the rules for mounts.

The spell magic weapon says, "You touch a nonmagical weapon." Can I cast it on a magical weapon? After all, I could use a magical weapon as if it were not magical? No, no more than you can cast the spell on a painting or a viking longship. The fact that the rules provide a way to adjudicate a PC hitting someone over the head with a painting (or a longship) does not make either a valid target for the spell.

Hold person says, "Choose a humanoid you can see..." Can you cast it on a vampire? After all, they conform to the natural language meaning of 'humanoid': two arms, two legs, one head, one body? No, because the term 'humanoid' is a game term with a specific meaning, and that meaning excludes creatures that are not (game term) humanoids, like undead.

And 'weapon' is also a game term, meaning 'an object designed to be a weapon'. Weapons are simple or martial, melee or ranged. The term does not mean, "anything you pick up and hit people with". If it did, there would be no section on 'improvised weapons', it would just be 'weapons' and include objects like paintings and toasters and....every object in the world!

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Yardiff

Adventurer

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

Asgorath

Explorer

Arial Black

Adventurer

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

5ekyu

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

5ekyu

Hero

Arial Black

Adventurer

Similar Threads

Related Articles