Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Maxperson said:
What do you mean?

What I am saying is that since the Attack action doesn't start until step 1 of the first attack(whether it's a swing, shove or other action that an attack can be), you have already begun the attack by targeting your opponent, which moves you on to step 2, and then step 3. That portion is not divisible. You cannot target your attack, then stop and do something else, then pick the attack back up.

Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously! At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must resolve them sequentially.

There is nothing happening simultaneously. You are resolving the attack that started in step one, triggering the bonus action after that attack concludes, and then using the bonus action at some point during your turn after it triggers.

There is absolutely no rules requirement to complete an action before you are allowed to take a bonus action! Not for Shield Bash, not as a general rule.

This is a made-up rule.

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously! At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must resolve them sequentially.

There is absolutely no rules requirement to complete an action before you are allowed to take a bonus action! Not for Shield Bash, not as a general rule.

This is a made-up rule.

You cannot take an action and a bonus action simultaneously, there is no wording in the PHB that allows this. You've confused the rule about simultaneous effects (from spells and the like) that specify something happens at a particular point in time, such as the start of your turn (e.g. Spirit Guardians), with the action system as a whole.

As I described above, reactions force each element on your turn to be adjudicated and resolved in a discrete sequence. You take your action, then you take your bonus action. If the bonus action has no timing requirement, you can take it first, and then take your action. There is no rule that says you can take them simultaneously and then pick which one happens first.

Maxperson · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
No! The shield spell is not a time-rewinding spell!

All the game mechanics at the table do is represent the situation in the game world that the wizard managed to get the shield up just before it would have hit him!

If the spell worked as you suggest (absurdly!), then the javelin would go through the wizards head, killing him. THEN the wizard would cast shield and rewind time, raising him from the dead!

How did a dead wizard cast a spell!!!

Weren't you the one claiming that the 5e rules do not include time travel malarky?

I said the Attack action doesn't. Then I pointed out the Shield malarky and the knock out rule malarky.

The bonus action shield shove is taken at the same time as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both actions are simultaneous, each discrete game element must be resolved sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements.

It can't be taken at the same time. It is triggered/caused by the action being taken, which does not occur until AFTER the first attack finishes. Until that first attack finishes, nothing has triggered the shove bonus action.

Maxperson · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Not if you take the bonus action simultaneously!

You can't as it has not been triggered yet.

At that point both attack AND shield bash occur, but you must resolve them sequentially.

If you house rule your game so that it triggers simultaneously this would be true. Without such a house rule, the bonus action is not triggered until the Attack action has been taken. The Attack action has not been taken until the first attack is done.

There is absolutely no rules requirement to complete an action before you are allowed to take a bonus action! Not for Shield Bash, not as a general rule.

Gimme a break. I didn't say you had to complete the action. I said you had to complete the attack. Once you begin step 1 of the attack and choose a target, you then determine modifiers and make the roll. It's all part of the same motion. There is no divisibility there. Divisibility comes once you get an extra attack and can do things in-between attacks.

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Asgorath said:
Please read my long post from earlier today, these are not general rules that apply to all actions. Each action is a self-contained rule, everything you need for each action is in the text of the action itself. Disengage has no bearing on how the Attack action works.

The implied general rule, which does not exist BTW, is the idea that Actions In Combat literally ARE the things that the action allows. This is the spurious justification for "the Attack action IS the attack".

There is no such rule, for the Attack action or any other action. Yet this is the phantom rule people use to claim that you cannot shield bash before the first attack, because "the Attack action IS the attack".

The Disengage Action In Combat is NOT the 'disengaging' itself, and you agree. There is no rule that says so.

And yet there is no rule that says that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself, but you are making rules calls as if those words were written in the book! They are not! There is no excuse to treat the Attack action that way, because there are no words saying that.

And if you decide that this is how Actions In Combat work, then it must apply to ALL actions because there is nothing in the book which says so for ANY of the Actions, and if you are deciding to pretend that such a rule exists but only for the Attack action, this is Special Pleading. It is not RAW. Don't expect the rest of us to simply swallow your made-up 'rule'.

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Nope, sorry, you can't go "simultaneous!" and then not, you know, do it simultaneously. You're admitting the flaw in your argument, here, that simultaneity doesn't exist in the 5e ruleset -- we have no way to resolve simultaneous actions.

Yes we have! We resolve simultaneous elements one-at-a-time, in the order chosen by the acting creature.

Your proposal that it's simultaneous is unsupported by the rules and your presented method of resolving these unsupported events is similarly unsupported. It's a nice theory, though, just lacking in any evidence in the rules.

Of course, the existence of a rule which says that IF you are doing two elements simultaneously you resolve them one-at-a-time would show that:-

* the rules recognise that two game elements CAN be simultaneous

* we know what to do when they are

On the other hand, if I say that you have to take the Attack actions before you get the bonus action shove, I can point to the rules that support this reading, start to finish. I just read what it says on the tin for each and do that. No simultaneity introduced, no baggage, just the text.

No problem! You are certainly allowed to take your bonus action well after your attack action if you want, because the rules say you can take your bonus action whenever you want.

This is the very same rule that lets me take my bonus action at the same time!

Try it, it's quite liberating, because then you fully understand how the rules work and can change them in just the right ways to avoid potholes and achieve your design goals. Like I did, when I removed the If part of Shield Master.

Wait, you mean you changed the rule! Fine! But that houserule has no place in a rules debate about what the rule ACTUALLY IS!

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
The implied general rule, which does not exist BTW, is the idea that Actions In Combat literally ARE the things that the action allows. This is the spurious justification for "the Attack action IS the attack".

There is no such rule, for the Attack action or any other action. Yet this is the phantom rule people use to claim that you cannot shield bash before the first attack, because "the Attack action IS the attack".

The Disengage Action In Combat is NOT the 'disengaging' itself, and you agree. There is no rule that says so.

And yet there is no rule that says that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself, but you are making rules calls as if those words were written in the book! They are not! There is no excuse to treat the Attack action that way, because there are no words saying that.

And if you decide that this is how Actions In Combat work, then it must apply to ALL actions because there is nothing in the book which says so for ANY of the Actions, and if you are deciding to pretend that such a rule exists but only for the Attack action, this is Special Pleading. It is not RAW. Don't expect the rest of us to simply swallow your made-up 'rule'.

The Attack action is the words in the PHB:

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks." Cool, when I take the Attack action, I make an attack following the 3 steps in the "Making an Attack" section. Easy.

With Extra Attack, it can be multiple weapon attacks:

"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Cool, when I take the Attack action, I can now make 2 attacks! Easy.

With the rule exception that allows you to move between weapon attacks, it might also include a discrete movement element:

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks." Great, now I can attack different targets as needed. Easy.

That's it. That's all there is to the Attack action. All discrete individual elements of that must be resolved before the action as a whole is complete. When this action is the trigger for something else, such as the Shield Master bonus action, then the action must come first or else you end up with paradoxes due to reactions ending your turn early. We can break the Attack action into smaller discrete elements precisely because there are explicit rules that let us do so. These specific rules are exactly that: specific. They are not general rules that suddenly say "all actions are divisible!" or "actions last as long as their effects!". Stop trying to mix and match the rules from one action to the rest, and just do what each action says. The specifics of the Dodge action have no impact on how you take the Attack action on your turn. They are two completely independent rules. Just because Dodge provides an effect (that might qualify for the XGTE rules about simultaneous effects) does not mean the Attack action or the Use an Object actions do.

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Yes we have! We resolve simultaneous elements one-at-a-time, in the order chosen by the acting creature.

Of course, the existence of a rule which says that IF you are doing two elements simultaneously you resolve them one-at-a-time would show that:-

* the rules recognise that two game elements CAN be simultaneous

* we know what to do when they are

No problem! You are certainly allowed to take your bonus action well after your attack action if you want, because the rules say you can take your bonus action whenever you want.

This is the very same rule that lets me take my bonus action at the same time!

Wait, you mean you changed the rule! Fine! But that houserule has no place in a rules debate about what the rule ACTUALLY IS!

Please go and re-read the rule from XGTE. It's talking about effects. It is not talking about actions. Actions and effects are two separate concepts. Some actions, such as Dodge and Disengage, provide effects with a duration. Not all actions do this, as each action is a specific rule that applies to itself only.

The wording of the XGTE rule is very specific:

Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.

For example, you might need to adjudicate a Vampire standing in a Spirit Guardians AoE.

Regeneration. The vampire regains 20 hit points at the start of its turn if it has at least 1 hit point and isn't in sunlight or running water. If the vampire takes radiant damage or damage from holy water, this trait doesn't function at the start of the vampire's next turn.

An affected creature's speed is halved in the area, and when the creature enters the area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there, it must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 3d8 radiant damage (if you are good or neutral) or 3d8 necrotic damage (if you are evil). On a successful save, the creature takes half as much damage.

The XGTE rule says the person controlling the creature gets to decide which order these two effects happen at the start of their turn. Nothing more, nothing less.

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Nope, my logic is absolutely the same for all actions -- do what it says on the tin.

You don't even realise you're doing it, do you? You don't even realise that at the same time as you are insisting that you treat ALL actions the same-by doing what that action says on that tin-you THEN go on to treat the Attack action as if it said that the Attack action IS the 'attack' itself. But it doesn't!

That's why it's special pleading! There is no wording under the entry for the Attack action, or anywhere else in the PHB, which says that! But you are insisting that you are just doing what it says on the tin!

But it does not say that, on that tin or anywhere else!

If it does, quote it!

Let's say I take the Dodge action under your thinking, namely that actions last as long as their effects. When does my turn end? I haven't finished taking my action, because it lasts until the start of my next turn, but I have to take my action on my turn -- I cannot take or continue my action into other's turns, right? So, right there you're either saying that I'm still taking my action when it's someone else's turn or you've shot your argument in the foot.

Since my position is that Actions In Combat are NOT the same thing as the elements they allow-for the Attack action, the Dodge action, or for any other Action In Combat-it's not the Action that lasts, but the game element which lasts.

I am consistent. This is true for both the Dodge action AND the Attack action, and all the others, because there is nothing written on any of their tins which says otherwise!

IF you were to rule that ALL actions ARE their game elements, then you would shoot yourself in the foot, because the Dodge, Dash and Disengage actions would not work.

IF you treat ONLY the Attack action as if it were the attack(s), then you are adding those words to the tin yourself!

This says that when I take this action, I'm focused entirely on avoiding attacks.

So...if you are focused entirely on avoiding attacks, that means if you Dodge as a bonus action you cannot take any other action until your next turn....right? Just what it says on the tin?

Simple. I do what it says on the tin.

You're doing what you wrote on the tin! The rules don't actually say what you claim!

I really can't stress this enough.

DND_Reborn · Mar 12, 2019

Hriston said:
What paradox? If I take the Attack action on my turn, I have satisfied the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature. If I don't take the Attack action, then I have merely shoved a creature (which consumes my action). What's paradoxical about that?

Those examples show the paradox. If you don't take the Attack action, you are not satisfying the requirement in Shield Master which allows the bonus action to begin with. In order to gain the bonus action, you must take the Attack action on your turn. I am showing you exactly how you can be denied your Attack action, thus you have no granted Bonus action. But, oh, wait, you already used it! How can that be since you didn't meet the requirements for it??? THAT is the paradox you seem oblivious to...

Hriston said:
Let's say I shove a creature. There's no reason to think I must necessarily use a bonus action to do so. So I'm not breaking any rules by shoving a creature. If I then go on to take the Attack action, well then I have satisfied the condition for making the shove-attempt using a bonus action. Otherwise, I didn't use a bonus action at all!

This is getting laughable. You are basically arguing this: you shove, and if that shove is followed by the Attack action, then you must have used a bonus action to do it because you are using the Attack action now. But, if for some reason, you are denied your Attack action after the shove, then you are just saying your Attack action is what was used for the shove. I'm sorry, but that is pretty bad logic there. You have to decide the source of the ability that allows you to take an action before you use it, not afterwards. You cannot exchange bonus actions for actions and vice versa.

Hriston said:
There's nothing paradoxical about being denied the ability to attack. It happens all the time in the game without anyone thinking it's paradoxical. The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one. I would recommend not doing that.

The paradox is that you used a bonus action granted by a feat and then did not satisfy the condition required to earn that bonus action. "The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one." Exactly, THAT is precisely what you ARE doing!

If you want to shove, how are you doing it? Are you using your Attack action to shove? Ok, go ahead. Are you using the bonus action from Shield Master? Sure, but only if you take the Attack action. No problem I suppose--UNLESS you are denied the ability to take the Attack action. Again, paradox.

Suppose you have 1 hit point left and you are facing an orc and a goblin. The orc is going first and the DM decides to Ready the orc's action to Attack if you shove the goblin and knock him prone. You turn comes and you knock the goblin prone using your bonus shove from Shield Master. Since the triggering event occured, the DM has the orc use its reaction to attack you and it hits, knocking you to 0 hit points. You are now unconscious. You used the bonus action from Shield Master, but never used the Attack action that would grant it. Again, paradox. You can't switch what action caused you to shove after the fact.

Hriston said:
They're both SA, but only the original ruling expressed RAI. What evidence do you have for how Jeremy Crawford thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first affects game-balance? In the Sage Advice segment of the 2/1/19 Dragon Talk, he said decisions on the timing of bonus actions were made not for balance reasons, but for smooth game-play. Besides, considering how the Eldritch Knight's War Magic could potentially interact with Eldritch Strike if allowing the bonus action weapon attack to come first, I doubt he thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first is game-breaking if he doesn't think the same thing about War Magic.

Except for the fact that he reversed his original ruling on how Shield Master works, so you can doubt it all you want but the evidence of his reversal suggests otherwise.

Hriston said:
How exactly have you benefited, though? Without the feat, you can shove a creature, so that in itself isn't a benefit. No, the benefit of the feat is that you can shove a creature AND take the Attack action on the same turn, and if you can't take the Attack action for whatever reason, then you haven't benefited.

Except you have. You gained the shove. What benefit is that to you without your Attack action to follow it? Maybe not much, except if you have allies nearby who can still benefit from it. What benefit the bonus action Shove is without your own personal Attack action is situational.

Hriston said:
I agree that if you never take the Attack action, then you can never use a bonus action to shove a creature. You can still shove a creature without using a bonus action, though, so there's that.

Good, we are making progress at least. We agree you can always shove if you have another means of making an attack, such as through the Attack action.

Hriston said:
No, what was intended (RAI) has been stated by the very person you say feels otherwise. On July 6, 2015, he said, "The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip." That's a clear statement of the intent with which the game was designed. The more recent change in the official interpretation is motivated not by a desire to reveal the RAI, but rather to elevate a literalistic interpretation of the RAW over the RAI. A RAI interpretation is still possible with the existing language, though, so I can understand the decision not to issue errata for this. What I don’t like, however, is WotC’s tendency to then defend their uncorrected, ambiguous text by doubling down on the most literalistic interpretation possible.

You keep bringing War Magic into this. Maybe that was my fault and I did a while back, I honestly don't remember, but can we agree to keep War Magic out of it? It is a needless complication which cannot prove your point, however much you like to think possible RAI can.

Hriston said:
That’s your interpretation. My interpretation accords with the feat’s intended lack of a timing specification.

There is no lack of timing. It is very explicit in the SA for Shield Master. In case you missed this from an earlier post of mine, I will paste it here:

Shield Master
[NEW] 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."

The text "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action." clearly indicates you can decide when to take the bonus action AFTER you've taken the Attack action. The timing has now been specified: after you've taken the Attack action. You are no longer free to take it whenever you want. Also note the use of the word "precondition", pre-, as in before, as in the Attack action. Not after, not simultaneous, before. The Attack action must come before the bonus action shove because it is a precondition (**** #1 ****).

For further thought, I am pasting yet another post (which I will note, no one refuted in any way):

dnd4vr said:
Okay, so I am about to go to bed and I will make one final attempt to clarify this so Asgorath isn't doing all the work (good job, btw!). From tweets posted by JC and others on May 11, 2018:

#1. Jonathan Ellis
"What was it supposed to be? How is using a bonus action to knock someone prone and then attack cheesy?"

#2. Jeremy Crawford
"It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move."

Please note two things in JC's reponse to Mr Ellis's questions.

1. "a way to knock someone prone after your attack." Not after your Attack action, after your attack. If you have not attacked, you have not satisfied the condition. Taking the Attack action means you are attacking. Until you have resolved the attack, you are not "after" it.

2. "It's essentially a finishing move." A finishing move. Not a in-the-middle-of-my-attacks move, finishing move.

A later tweet also from May 11, 2018:

(**** #2 ****)
#3. Jeremy Crawford
"If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise. The action as a whole is the condition."

We all agree (I believe) with the interpretation of the first part, "If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise." The rule for Shield Master is "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature..." We all agree you must take the Attack action in order to gain the benefit of the bonus action--there is no doubt about that.

Now, the case is being argued that you are taking the Attack action, just not making your attacks yet. This is the point where we deviate so I will continue with the next sentence:

"The action as a whole is the condition."

Since the action as a whole is the condition, you must take it in its entirety, not piece by piece, in order to satisfy the condition. Trying to take it piece-by-piece as some have reasoned violates that "The action as a whole is the condition." ruling. Therefore, you cannot: take the Attack action, bonus action Shove, attack. If you try to do so, you are not taking the action as a whole, which is the condition, thus denying yourself the Bonus action with which to Shove.

Therefore you must do the following:
1. Take the Attack action since that is required for the Bonus action as its condition. (No arguments here.)
2. Since the action as a whole is the condition, you must take it and complete it, not break it apart, before you have satisfied the condition.

Once you take the Attack action as a whole (that's the condition from #3 above), you then gain the benefit of the bonus action to Shove. If you don't take the Attack action as a whole, you don't get the bonus action to Shove.

You don't agree with JC's rulings, fine, as always it is up to the DM and the table to play how they see fit. If you do so, however, hopefully you will now understand why it is against the official rules and a house-rule. I don't see why anyone has an issue with that, since many of us play with at least some house-rules, after all.

Good night!

All the evidence is right there above.
(**** #1 ****). The Attack action must come first, it is the precondition to gaining the bonus action to shove.
(**** #2 ****). The Attack action must be taken in its entirety before you gain the bonus action to shove

Hriston said:
I’m curious what part of the official ruling you think I don’t understand? You seem to think that understanding it makes it impossible to disagree with.

The point above indicates you don't understand the official ruling on the timing element of Shield Master, which of course is the entire basis for the point that the shove comes after you've taken the Attack action.

You can disagree with it all you want. Heck, I don't agree with it, and if that is all this boils down to then what are we wasting all this time for? Just say you house-rule it and be done with it. Is there some reason you don't want to say that? Do you think house-rules are a bad thing?

We've house-ruled it. I can freely say that. Our table doesn't like the official ruling so we allow the attack-shove-extra attack variant that we like. It sort of follows the official rule... you did take the Attack action first, but we just don't follow part 2 that the Attack action must be completed in its entirety. Works for us.

Now, it is late. I've had a long day at work and the next few days will also be long days. If you reply and I don't have time to respond before the weekend, please be patient and accept my apologies.