I was right about Shield Master

[FrogReaver]

Yes. I'd say you did. If I have extra attack but attack only once (either by choice or circumstances) did I actually take the Attack action?

Depends.

 

[Yunru]

Depends.

Oh? So he could take the Attack action again then, for two more attacks? Since, at least some of the time according to you, he hasn't taken the Attack action?

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

Oh? So he could take the Attack action again then, for two more attacks? Since, at least some of the time according to you, he hasn't taken the Attack action?

You can only take 1 action a turn. Obviously if you have started the attack action by attacking an enemy then starting another attack action would result in 2 actions which is against the rules.

 

[pemerton]

If we can't even agree on the importance and meaning of scope and trigger as they pertain to Bonus actions, there's little point in continuing this discussion.

Like I said upthread, there's nothing at stake for me in this ruling. I'm just intrigued by the discussion over interpretive method.

Page 69 gives me this relevant text 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 choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified . . .​

There is no mention there of scope, trigger or nesting. There is a description of the conditions that permit a bonus action, and the rule for when it can occur. The interpretive question around Shield Mastery is entirely about whether or not it's timing is specified - by an interpolated then as in If you take the attack action, then you can shove as a bonus action.

I think that the most natural reading is to take the "then" as implicit. But I also think that the most natural reading of taking the attack action is making an attack - not making all the attacks one is going to make in a turn.

Those interpretations are obviously open to dispute, but I don't see how brining in external notions of "trigger", "scope", "nesting" etc helps with that. Those notions aren't part of the rules and don't seem to be implied by them either.

You can argue that any Bonus action is technically nested within your turn, but your turn is not an action or an effect trigger.

Well, the closest thing in the rules I quoted to the idea of a "trigger" is that a game feature states that you can take a bonus action. And as far as Cunning Action is concerned, the game feature in question is being a 2nd level rogue who is taking a turn in combat. So if the notion of "trigger" is going to be deployed, it's hard for me to see that in this case it does not include taking a turn. Even accepting for the sake of discussion that you can't not take your turn, I don't see why that would debar it from being a "trigger", or as the rules put it, a game feature that permits a player to take a bonus action on his/her turn.

5e combat, by the official rules, is strictly sequential except in highly limited circumstances (interrupt Reactions like Shield or Counterspell). The old interpretation of Shield Master allowed the Bonus action shove to potentially go out of scope and operate like an interrupt Reaction.

I don't see how. Page 64 says that a bonus action is an additional action that you take on your turn. And taking the Attack Action - which is what enlivens the Shield Master bonus action - is something that happens on your turn. I don't see anything there that comes within cooee of implying that the bonus action is in fact a Reaction.

Whereas I'm prepared to accept that "taking the attack action" is open to being read as "having completed all your attacks from the attack action", although I myself don't think that's the most natural reading, I'm at a complete loss to see how anyone could read Shield Master as permitting a Reaction shove. And I don't see how settling on one rather than another reading of taking the attack action contributes to the avoidance of any such misreading.

 

[pemerton]

Simple one liner. If your attack action isn’t yet over then you haven’t taken the attack action but are still in the process of taking the attack action

The feat doesn't use the past tense "taken". It says If you take the attack action. And your attack action doesn't have to be over for it to be true that you are taking it.

EDIT: I see that [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] beat me to it.

Also, this is a good illustration of the constitution of events one by another!:

An attack action cannot be taken without attacking just like you can’t brush your teeth without moving the tooth brush over your teeth.

 

[Yunru]

You can only take 1 action a turn. Obviously if you have started the attack action by attacking an enemy then starting another attack action would result in 2 actions which is against the rules.

Ah but you just said that there were cases where you wouldn't of taken the attack action! So according to you, you haven't taken the Attack action, therefore it's still only 1 action that turn.
You can't have it both ways, you can't "start" an action without taking it.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

Ah but you just said that there were cases where you wouldn't of taken the attack action! So according to you, you haven't taken the Attack action, therefore it's still only 1 action that turn.
You can't have it both ways, you can't "start" an action without taking it.

There you go again thinking take means more than it does. I said that they haven’t taken it. I never said they hadnt started it and wouldn’t eventually be counted as taking it however the rest of their turn played out.

If they started taking the attack action then they will have taken the attack action by the end of their turn. But they still haven’t taken the action until they are done with the action.

 

[pemerton]

I really don't understand why some people insist they understand the rules better than the people who professionally wrote and interpret said rules.

<snip>

But if you think you have greater claim on understanding and interpreting the RAW than Jeremy Crawford you're sadly mistaken.

This isn't true for poetry, and it isn't true for legislation - both of which have received far more attention as objects of interpretation than RPG rules - so I don't see any reason to think that it would be true of the 5e rules.

The "rules as written" say that the bonus action is enlivened when you take the attack action. What counts as taking the attack action? Contra [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION], I think that you must make an attack to take that action. Contra [MENTION=1207]Ristamar[/MENTION], I see no good reason to think that taking that action requires having taken all your attacks (eg if I am playing an 8th level fighter and delcare an attack-move-attack, when do I take the attack action? To me the answer seems to be at the start of that sequence). Jeremy Crawford no doubt has his own opinion, but I don't see where he wrote it down in the rules!

 

[Yunru]

There you go again thinking take means more than it does. I said that they haven’t taken it. I never said they hadnt started it and wouldn’t eventually be counted as taking it however the rest of their turn played out.

If they started taking the attack action then they will have taken the attack action by the end of their turn. But they still haven’t taken the action until they are done with the action.

???

Well now you just make no sense.

Take, verb: use or have ready to use.

If you're "starting" something, you're taking it.
If you "start" something, you take it.

As for your last sentence: See every time I've asked you what it matters. Shield Master DOESN'T CARE if you've taken something, only that you take it.

Take is a PRESENT TENSE verb. You don't suddenly retroactively take something. If you are doing something, you are taking that action, whether you finish or not.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you are in the process of taking the attack action if you haven’t completed it. If you are in the process of taking something the. You haven’t taken it yet

The feat doesn't use the past tense "taken". It says If you take the attack action. And your attack action doesn't have to be over for it to be true that you are taking it.

EDIT: I see that [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] beat me to it.

Also, this is a good illustration of the constitution of events one by another!:

​

To take something you can’t just have started taking it. You must complete the taking of it. Immediately afterward you would be said to have took it.