Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[cbwjm]

One reason why I would like to allow the bonus action shove after the 1st attack, is because that may have been how it was used for 4 levels then suddenly, at level 5, the fighter needs to make 2 attacks or lose an attack before shield bash. Unless you're getting rid of the rule that requires the attack action and just allow a bonus action shove whenever, I think allowing the bonus action to go after the 1st attack and before the 2nd, is reasonable.

 

[Azzy]

And this is why JC's ruling on Shield Master is just crap. It opened the door to more over-analyzation of something in a game that should just be fluid.

 

[Hussar]

While I agree (otherwise there would be no reason to mention moving between attacks or that section should have been worded differently), I think it's a very arbitrary/gamist rule that disrupts the flow of the game.

I know D&D is not a simulation, but that doesn't mean we have to have rules that are completely illogical. Even hit points have a certain action movie logic to them.

Totally and 100% agree.

 

[Maxperson]

When?

I am aware of JEC having said this in the past... but...

it did not get into the recent errata, did not make it into the recent compendium and did not make it into the live-stream devoted to bonus actions in Feb 2019.

What did make it into those was the statement about the unofficial nature of even JEC tweets.

Meanwhile, how many different things can you do inside of an action - between it starting and it finishing? You seem to suggest none.
Move for sure between attacks.
Cast reaction spells for sure - counterspell vs counterspell as the best example where you have a Magic missile spell being cast by Joe, a counterspell from Sam tries to stop it and Joe throws his own reaction counterspell - net result is two spent counterspells within the casting of the original Magic missile which then goes off.
There are likely plenty of other things that can be done when one starts looking at the various maneuvers and defensive reactions.

Attack, move, that movement prompts an AO, that AO prompts a reaction or bonus action, move continues etc.

There is an explicit rule specific to bonus actions that says you can take a bonus action when you want "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."

The revised compendium for Shield Master reads - "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action."

So, there does not seem to have been any part of the earlier uofficial tweets "indivisible actions" brought forward into these products.

Which leaves us back to what counts as taking the attack action which is defined as making one attack.

They could have said "completed" or "all attacks of" and any number of ways to re-state that Shield master in the compendium, but they did not.
They could have chosen to add the indivisible action as a general rule, but they did not.

So, as of that compendium, it seems a lot like they have not carried forward the older indivisible action at all *and* have now declared the source it came from (JEC Tweets) as unofficial.

Reaction sperlls for sure

You have a point about reactions breaking into the middle of an attack, but those are contingent on getting an opportunity attack somehow or having a feat like sentinal. No bonus action happens during the middle of an attack without being triggered by a reaction or a specific rule that beats the general one.

Shield master isn't a reaction which specifically allows it to break into the middle of an attack action, or a specific rule that allows you to interrupt the attack action. In fact, it specifically says if you have taken(past tense) the attack action. That past tense wording means that you have to have finished the attack action first. Otherwise you have not taken it at all. You are taking it. If you haven't even started it, then you have only declared your intent to take it. Neither of those two circumstances meets the specific criteria set forth in the feat.

 

[Maxperson]

The way the game was written and clarified was, for several years, that you could take your Shield Master shove whenever you wanted to. Now, Crawford has decided that he must have been drunk and in line at the grocery store when he tweeted that, and just didn't notice it for a long time after.

The way the game is and was written, you have to take the attack action first(past tense_. In the middle of taking the action and about to take the action are not qualifiers to trigger the feat. They are justifications for those who choose to "interpret" the feat that way, to do something that the game doesn't allow.

 

[Maxperson]

And this is why JC's ruling on Shield Master is just crap. It opened the door to more over-analyzation of something in a game that should just be fluid.

So change it. I happen to think that it makes sense for it to be able to be used in the middle of a multi-attack. The point of the feat is clearly to set up the shield push with an attack that throws the enemy off balance. One attack is sufficient for that in my opinion, so I will be house ruling the feat to allow it.

 

[Azzy]

So change it.

Done. It doesn't change the fact I still think that his ruling opened up an unnecessary can of worms and has caused an unproductive (to the game) line of thought and rules-based pedantry that serves no purpose.

 

[Maxperson]

Done. It doesn't change the fact I still think that his ruling opened up an unnecessary can of worms and has caused an unproductive (to the game) line of thought and rules-based pedantry that serves no purpose.

Fair enough. I'm pretty sure I saw this argument a few times before his ruling, though, so I don't think it opened the can so much as reminded people it existed.

 

[epithet]

The way the game is and was written, you have to take the attack action first(past tense_. In the middle of taking the action and about to take the action are not qualifiers to trigger the feat. They are justifications for those who choose to "interpret" the feat that way, to do something that the game doesn't allow.

Totally not the case, from a simple grammatical perspective. "If you take the Attack action on your turn" is not the same as "after you take the attack action," nor is it the same as "once you have completed the attack action in its entirety," nor is it in any other way past tense. "You take" is present tense, as opposed to "you took" or "you have taken."

Similarly, "you can use a bonus action" is also present tense, and not future tense. It is not "you will be able to" or "you can then take" or anything of the sort.

I will agree that in most cases, an "if a, then b" structure suggests that "a" come first, but certainly not all the time. In this instance, it seems most reasonable to read "a" and "b" as happening at the same time. Take, for example, the wording of the Extra Attack feature, "whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." That's still an "if a then b" logic structure, but the word "whenever" implies concurrence. In fact, that is exactly how I've been reading the feat all along, reading the "If" the same as a "When," so that the Shield Master can choose to have an Extra Extra Attack that can only be used for the Shove and precludes other bonus actions on his turn, but otherwise (especially for timing) works the same as the Extra Attack. Slice, shove, slice... shove, slice, slice... slice, slice, shove... no difference.

This whole concept that the Attack Action is the same as the attack you make "with this action" (note that "with this action" also doesn't really carry timing constraints) is new, and the fact that Jeremy has been beating that drum a lot in the past few weeks doesn't change the fact that it's new. His insistence that declarations don't count opens other issues, as well. Take, for example, the Sanctuary spell. "Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw." If you fail the saving throw and don't choose another target, then you don't make an attack and therefore under the new Crawford interpretation you have not taken the Attack Action, and you're free to Dash, Dodge, Cast a Spell, etc.

 

[epithet]

Done. It doesn't change the fact I still think that his ruling opened up an unnecessary can of worms and has caused an unproductive (to the game) line of thought and rules-based pedantry that serves no purpose.

I don't know about that, it caused me to just say "to hell with it" and house rule away the need for an Attack Action altogether both for Shield Master and for Two-Weapon Fighting (you still have to make a "main hand" attack, but it can be an attack that is part of another action, like Cast a Spell.)

That was productive, at least for my game.