Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Hriston]

It can be understood that way if you ignore how things are written. It doesn't say "If you are going to take the attack action on your turn." or "If you take the attack action at any time during your turn."

Those both seem like acceptable glosses to me. I'm not sure why you and Jeremy Crawford regard the existing language as so restrictive. The way I conceive of game elements like the first bullet of Shield Master, which grant you a bonus action, is that they let you do something extra, a bonus, that other characters who don't have that game element can't. In the case of Shield Master's first bullet, it lets you do your usual attack routine plus shove a creature with your shield. It costs you your action and bonus action for that turn. That seems to meet the design goals of the feature, and I don't see any benefit to the game of being more restrictive than that.

It's written in the "if, then" format. "If you take the attack action on your turn," which is the "if" portion, "you can use.." It's classic "if, then." The word "then" not being explicitly written doesn't alter that.

Yes, it's called a conditional sentence. It expresses the implication that if it's true that you take the Attack action on your turn, then it's also true that you can use a bonus action to shove a creature with your shield. But this is natural language, and I think it's a mistake to read the word then as implying a specific chronology (as your emphasis with all caps seemed to do), especially when you can express something like this sentence in English:

If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast was wrong.​

Differently than abilities such as Two-Weapon Fighting which is written differently. Two-Weapon Fighting just needs a single attack to happen first.

I'd say it works the same way. You can use a bonus action to make an attack as long as you also take the Attack action and satisfy any other conditions. It's the same structure that governs all these features.

It's a shame that he shifted his focus. It was great to know what was intended and not just the literal interpretation of RAW.

I think it's telling that he included Shield Master's bonus action shove in a category of "most bonus actions" that he said did not have a timing specification.

 

[Hriston]

I get that taking the Attack action is the condition for using the bonus action, but this is something the player can do voluntarily, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to gate the bonus action behind the action because really it's something the player can invoke all at once. I don't think any more than this simple exchange would be needed if anyone was unsure if the rules were being followed by a player playing a Shield Master.

DM: Okay, Shield Master, it's your turn. What do you do?

SM: Well, first I use the bonus action my feat gives me to shove this orc prone with my shield.

DM: Okay, do you take the Attack action?

SM: I do.

DM: Okay, roll your Strength (Athletics) check.

 

[Asgorath]

I get that taking the Attack action is the condition for using the bonus action, but this is something the player can do voluntarily, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to gate the bonus action behind the action because really it's something the player can invoke all at once. I don't think any more than this simple exchange would be needed if anyone was unsure if the rules were being followed by a player playing a Shield Master.

DM: Okay, Shield Master, it's your turn. What do you do?

SM: Well, first I use the bonus action my feat gives me to shove this orc prone with my shield.

DM: Okay, do you take the Attack action?

SM: I do.

DM: Okay, roll your Strength (Athletics) check.

You're more than welcome to do that at your table obviously, but that's not RAW/RAI. JEC has been very clear that Shield Master's shove is intended to be a finishing move, and that 5E doesn't have an "action declaration phase". Taking the Attack action means actually making one or more attacks. What happens if you say "hey I'm going to take the Attack action, so let me use my Shield Master shove first" but the enemy uses a reaction that incapacitates you, preventing you from actually making your attacks? You therefore haven't actually taken the Attack action, which means you shouldn't have had access to the Shield Master shove bonus action, as that has a trigger of "taking the Attack action". Again, the feat wasn't designed as a way to grant near-permanent advantage. If you want to play it that way at your table, then naturally you should feel free to do so.

All of this is making me really glad I stopped playing my Shield Master Paladin, so that I don't have to worry about that feat in my games.

 

[Maxperson]

I am not sure what you are meaning by "hold up" with fireball.

Action Surge does not "hold up" anything. It gives you an extra action when you take it.

Fireball and Scorching Ray are both instantaneous durations but the former has one event - one resolution - it goes off. The other has sequential resolution - several different things happen in order and its permitted to make the choices, resolve one, see what happens then make the choices and resolve the next.

The rules already allow for say reactions to change things between shots of the scorching ray that could not cause the same issues for fireball. A Hellish Rebuke might drop me after one scorching ray shot, before the second shot was even declared - end done. The same rebuke from bring fireballed does not stop the res of the fireball victims from being hurt by it.

Instantaneous duration foes not mean simultaneous resolution or evdnts/effects - which is why magic missile and its explicit simultaneous internal to the spell gets singled out.

But if you want to give more clarity in what "hold up" for fireball means, go ahead.

This is why there's a problem. If there wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have to invent an entirely new "phantom rule" that says you can divide one Cast a Spell Action(with multiple attacks), but not another Cast a Spell Action(resolves in one resolution). If you can divide the action, you can divide the action regardless of whether it's one resolution or multiple resolution. If you can split up Scorching Ray to use a completely different action with Action Surge, you can do it with Fireball as well. So if actions are naturally divisible like you say, you can take the Cast a Spell Action, and the split it up by casting fireball, then while it is traveling towards the enemy, stop it in mid air so that you can take your other action, then have the fireball resume its travel and detonate.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a rule that says you can move in between attacks in an Attack action. Action Surge says:



I don't see any language about allowing that one additional action to take place in between attacks in an Attack action, and therefore, it isn't allowed by the RAW. Right?

Bonus actions are not actions, and the bonus action rules clearly state you get to decide when to take the bonus action on your turn (unless there are timing requirements in the bonus action itself). To use your example, you could:

- Move
- Attack action, take first swing
- Move some more
- Take a bonus action without timing requirements, because this qualifies as "any time on your turn"
- Move a little more
- Take second swing, completing the Attack action
- Action Surge
- Move a little more
- Take a second action

It's not my argument. If actions are naturally divisible like [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] and other are claiming, then you can in fact trigger the Action Surge in the middle of your Attack Action or Cast a Spell Action. There's no inherent timing conflict built into Action Surge that would prevent it. You get to choose when to take your action, and you get to choose when to Action Surge. However, if actions are not naturally divisible like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I are saying, you could not do that. You would need a rule that explicitly allows you to use it during the action, such as reaction rules or smite.

 

[Markh3rd]

All of this is making me really glad I stopped playing my Shield Master Paladin, so that I don't have to worry about that feat in my games.

I will still use it. It's other benefits of protection against spells and AE's are nice. Prone for melee allies is nice, and casters can still do save vs attacks or effects without disadvantage. At higher levels I can still give myself advantage after an action surge. So it's still good.

 

[cbwjm]

Same question, different spell.
Would you allow a 5th level caster to cast eldritch blast and attack with the first bolt then move then attack with the second bolt? How about casting the first bolt of eldritch blast then casting misty step then attacking with the second bolt?

It seemed cheesy to me but the more I think about it, I think I'd allow the first at my table (not the second though - I don't allow bonus actions in the middle of actions).

For me, when trying to decide on this I'd probably think "this sounds cool. I'll allow it!" That goes for both moving and the bonus action misty step.

 

[Hussar]

Those both seem like acceptable glosses to me. I'm not sure why you and Jeremy Crawford regard the existing language as so restrictive. The way I conceive of game elements like the first bullet of Shield Master, which grant you a bonus action, is that they let you do something extra, a bonus, that other characters who don't have that game element can't. In the case of Shield Master's first bullet, it lets you do your usual attack routine plus shove a creature with your shield. It costs you your action and bonus action for that turn. That seems to meet the design goals of the feature, and I don't see any benefit to the game of being more restrictive than that.



Yes, it's called a conditional sentence. It expresses the implication that if it's true that you take the Attack action on your turn, then it's also true that you can use a bonus action to shove a creature with your shield. But this is natural language, and I think it's a mistake to read the word then as implying a specific chronology (as your emphasis with all caps seemed to do), especially when you can express something like this sentence in English:

If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast was wrong.​

Sorry, the English teacher in me has to stop you there. Your sentence is grammatically wrong. It should be:

If it rains this afternoon, then yesterday's weather forecast will be wrong.​

IOW, it must rain first, THEN the forecast is shown to be wrong.

I'd say it works the same way. You can use a bonus action to make an attack as long as you also take the Attack action and satisfy any other conditions. It's the same structure that governs all these features.



I think it's telling that he included Shield Master's bonus action shove in a category of "most bonus actions" that he said did not have a timing specification.

There are two problems with this interpretation:

1. Complexity. If you can "nest" actions like this, you can very easily make actions very, very complicated. In the case of a fighter, with Action Surge, you could wind up having to resolve three or four actions in a single turn and track which are which within the loop:

For example, the 5th level fighter takes an Attack Action, makes a single attack, then takes a bonus action to knock an opponent prone with his shield, then takes an action surge to make two more attacks, then concludes with a single attack from his initial Attack action. Add in things like Superiority dice and possibly Oppotunity Attacks plus movement, and that round can get really, really complicated.

It's far simpler to rule that Actions (as in the rules defined items) are discrete.

2. Balance issues. A Way of the Hand Monk uses Ki to flurry - can he take his second attack (from being 5th level) after he has knocked an enemy prone from a bonus flurry attack? After all, why wouldn't you do it every time, if you can? Or dropping a bonus action spell into the middle of an attack. There are a number of knock on effects if you allow Actions to be divided whenever the player wishes.

 

[Sadras]

Sometimes, in the middle of making coffee, I have to butter the toast when it gets released from the toaster as I prefer to butter it when its warm, I then go back and finish making the coffee.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is why there's a problem. If there wasn't a problem, you wouldn't have to invent an entirely new "phantom rule" that says you can divide one Cast a Spell Action(with multiple attacks), but not another Cast a Spell Action(resolves in one resolution). If you can divide the action, you can divide the action regardless of whether it's one resolution or multiple resolution. If you can split up Scorching Ray to use a completely different action with Action Surge, you can do it with Fireball as well. So if actions are naturally divisible like you say, you can take the Cast a Spell Action, and the split it up by casting fireball, then while it is traveling towards the enemy, stop it in mid air so that you can take your other action, then have the fireball resume its travel and detonate.

Yeah, I don't get the "phantom rule" argument line as it cuts just as well both ways. If an argument also applies against my position, I wouldn't use it as a clib against others. Every time I see it, it just tells me the response is more argumentative than reasoned.

It's fair to point it out, though, in the sense that we don't have a clear rule statement either way, but then you go to secondary reasons for support, you don't say, "and therefore neither of us has a leg to stand on so your wrong, legless guys! Haha!" It's just weird.