Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

I knew I'd seen this before. Reading more of the thread, we see this:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995134313841676288



So yeah, he was specifically talking about bonus actions with triggers like Shield Master and Two-Weapon Fighting when discussing the "if X then Y" timing, and what that means when X is "the Attack action". The tweet above makes it clear that bonus actions without triggers, such as Misty Step, can indeed be taken between attacks granted by Extra Attack while you're taking the Attack action.

Great find. Then he simply misspoke. That’s good to know! That makes the whole ordeal less unimaginable.

That said I don’t buy that his statement we are discussing even applies to triggered bonus actions. But I’ll let him backtrack at his own pace and save some face since the biggest issue was about not being able to use non-triggered bonus actions between attacks. I think he’s sufficiently clarified that part.

 

[Hriston]

You mean the tweet that's since been deleted and corrected by many other tweets, videos and the Sage Advice Compendium itself?

Although Jeremy Crawford claimed to have deleted the original tweet in the 2/1/19 Sage Advice segment on Dragon Talk to which you linked, he didn't. It's right here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329, and yes, I think it's evidence of the intent with which the rules were written. It also implies that when/if conditions don't constitute specified timing for bonus actions to which they apply.

I also find his story about it being a "clipped" tweet that he didn't remember tweeting because he was in line at Trader Joe's or waiting for someone at a bar to be completely unconvincing. The tweet doesn't read as a case of him pressing send before he was finished composing his thoughts or anything like that. I think rather that it accurately reflects his thinking about bonus actions at the time, and that he has since changed his mind about his interpretation of the RAW and doesn't want to publicly take responsibility for the change.

Sage Advice on Shield Master bonus action:

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=1392

It's a finishing move:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864

No action declaration phase in 5E:

http://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1000164214588112896

It's worth watching the video if nothing else, the section on Shield Master ends at around 30:45 or so.

He didn't say anything in the Dragon Talk video about the bonus action shove having been intended as a finishing move. What he said is that it wasn't intended to give you advantage on all your attacks upon successfully knocking your opponent prone. I think his original tweet calls this statement into question, however.

His "finishing move" tweet, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be an expression of intent, but rather a doubling-down on his RAW interpretation, focusing on what the feat "is", even though the questioner had asked about what the feat "was" supposed to be. This sort of evasive answer has become typical for Crawford.

I also don't get why you and Jeremy seem to think the absence of an action-declaration phase from 5E combat is at all relevant. The player doesn't need to declare actions for his/her entire turn. All s/he needs to do is describe to the table that his/her character is shoving another creature, which is a totally permissible move no matter what happens on the rest of his/her turn.

Taking the Attack action means the action as a whole:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/994997096829804549

Shield Master uses the "if X then Y" timing restrictions:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995112448477749248

Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with only taking part of the Attack action, but I disagree with Crawford that the condition must happen first. Also, I disagree that "If X, then Y" constitutes a timing restriction or implies any particular sequence of events.

Right, but the important part is that you shove after your attacks, because it's intended to be a finishing move to help the rest of your party.

You haven't established that intent. If it was, I think the feat would have said something to that effect. Such a move may not help your party at all if, for example, you're the only melee combatant.

I'm merely pointing out what the rules say, and what JEC has been saying/clarifying about those rules for a long time now. You can obviously do whatever you want, but at this point, I don't think you can claim that the intent of the Shield Master slam is that it's an opening move.

I think the intent, as per Crawford's original tweet and the RAW for bonus actions with no specified timing, is that you use the bonus action shove at a time of your choosing during your turn. And you aren't "merely pointing out what the rules say". You're making a particular interpretation with which I happen to disagree.

This particular ruling didn't make me stop playing my character. However, every time I used it as an opening move, I thought it was kind of dumb and overpowered and detracted from my other abilities like Vow of Enmity.

So, why'd you keep doing it?

 

[Asgorath]

Although Jeremy Crawford claimed to have deleted the original tweet in the 2/1/19 Sage Advice segment on Dragon Talk to which you linked, he didn't. It's right here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329, and yes, I think it's evidence of the intent with which the rules were written. It also implies that when/if conditions don't constitute specified timing for bonus actions to which they apply.

I also find his story about it being a "clipped" tweet that he didn't remember tweeting because he was in line at Trader Joe's or waiting for someone at a bar to be completely unconvincing. The tweet doesn't read as a case of him pressing send before he was finished composing his thoughts or anything like that. I think rather that it accurately reflects his thinking about bonus actions at the time, and that he has since changed his mind about his interpretation of the RAW and doesn't want to publicly take responsibility for the change.

If you'd rather use the one tweet that JEC says he doesn't even remember tweeting as the basis for your interpretation, despite the massive amount of evidence that suggests that particular tweet was incorrect (including JEC saying on many different occasions on many different platforms that the original tweet was incorrect), then we'll just have to agree to disagree. The latest Sage Advice compendium is pretty clear on the matter:

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.

This is the exact opposite of what the original incorrect tweet says, and is quite clear about how the timing of this particular bonus action works.

 

[Maxperson]

I also find his story about it being a "clipped" tweet that he didn't remember tweeting because he was in line at Trader Joe's or waiting for someone at a bar to be completely unconvincing. The tweet doesn't read as a case of him pressing send before he was finished composing his thoughts or anything like that. I think rather that it accurately reflects his thinking about bonus actions at the time, and that he has since changed his mind about his interpretation of the RAW and doesn't want to publicly take responsibility for the change.

His "finishing move" tweet, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be an expression of intent, but rather a doubling-down on his RAW interpretation, focusing on what the feat "is", even though the questioner had asked about what the feat "was" supposed to be. This sort of evasive answer has become typical for Crawford.

You're seeing what you want to see, not what's there. That tweet you just linked was one sentence with commas. It wasn't some super composed tweet as you make it out to be. I could write that up in about 10 seconds while in line somewhere as well. And his finishing move tweet is an expression of intent, whether you believe it or not.

The player doesn't need to declare actions for his/her entire turn. All s/he needs to do is describe to the table that his/her character is shoving another creature, which is a totally permissible move no matter what happens on the rest of his/her turn.

This is true, but to do so requires taking an attack action. Either to get the attack to convert into the shove, or to get the bonus action from Shield Master. You cannot get the bonus action from Shield Master before you take the attack action. That's not how the rules work.

Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with only taking part of the Attack action, but I disagree with Crawford that the condition must happen first. Also, I disagree that "If X, then Y" constitutes a timing restriction or implies any particular sequence of events.

Do you disagree that longswords deal damage when they hit, too? If you do, change it like you are changing these rules.

 

[Hriston]

Making an attack does not equal an attack action.

This is the question to which I was responding:

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?

This hypothetical situation that both [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] and Jeremy Crawford have brought up as a problem with the interpretation that allows a shield master to bonus action shove first isn't actually a problem. If the only action you take on your turn is to shove a creature, then it most certainly counts as taking the Attack action. Since that's the situation we're talking about, none of the things you bring up in your post about what happens after I've shoved a creature matter because, according to the example given, at that point, I've been incapacitated.

 

[Hriston]

If you'd rather use the one tweet that JEC says he doesn't even remember tweeting as the basis for your interpretation, despite the massive amount of evidence that suggests that particular tweet was incorrect (including JEC saying on many different occasions on many different platforms that the original tweet was incorrect), then we'll just have to agree to disagree. The latest Sage Advice compendium is pretty clear on the matter:



This is the exact opposite of what the original incorrect tweet says, and is quite clear about how the timing of this particular bonus action works.

He changed his mind about his interpretation. I'm not sure what "massive amount of evidence" you're talking about other than him changing his mind, though. What we disagree about is that you think I'm making an error in interpretation. My view is that both interpretations are valid. I know which one I prefer, however.

 

[Arial Black]

Since you started this most recent run with the following i think it helps to repeat it...

"One thing about how players seem to think 5e works just astonishes me, and I believe stems from 5e's lack of wording; something that players of 3e would not do... ...and that is: not realising the consequences of the 'instantaneous' duration!"

You then went on to make a lot of claims about what a duration of instantaneous means even in terms of in-game choices - and not one rule cite from 5e to support them?

Is it possible you are dragging 3e rules definitions into this - is that because thats something 3e players would do or how it worked in 3e?

As for your retort about JEC and whether he knows what instantaneous means... this is from the notion of 5e rules, 5e terms and what that means and he answered that clearly in the Sage Compendium. That was already quoted.

But what was not quoted as recently was this...

"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

So, the publishers establish an official source for 5e rulings.
So, that source provides a clear example and answer that directly contradicts your long run on about "how players seem to think 5e works" and then go about trying to show how it really works.

Maybe, just maybe, those 3e players should read what 5e rules and official rulings sources have to say about what instantaneous duration means before trying to tell those players what they know?

Maybe?



But maybe, just maybe, before going off on how many 5e players don't know this or

This edition, 5e, is proud of the fact that it uses 'natural language' rather than more technical language like in 3e and 4e.

Fine. The consequence of this 'natural language' decision is that words in the rules mean what they mean in everyday language, rather than loads of words being defined in the game which only have that meaning in this game.

The word 'instantaneous' has a real world meaning. The 'natural language' decision means that 'instantaneous' means the same thing in the rules as it does outside the rules, unless 5e were to publish a rules definition of that word which excludes the real-world meaning.

Since they have not, we are left with the real-world definition of 'instantaneous': an infinitely small, but non-zero, period of time.

That has consequences. It means that all of the effects of a spell with an instantaneous duration happen at the same time, because there can be no 'before' or 'after' within that infinitely small time period, because if you could sub-divide a time period then by definition it could not be infinitely small!

There is no point claiming that you are using 'natural language' and then using that language in un-defined ways that are opposite to their actual meanings!

 

[Arial Black]

A general rule cannot create an exception for another general rule, even if it appears to. It requires a specific rule to do so.

Putting aside the fact that I don't agree with your assertion about which rule counts as general and which counts as specific...!

"A general rule cannot create an exception for another general rule".

Fine.

One 'general' rule (which I'm granting for the sake of argument) is 'bonus actions can be taken whenever you want in your turn'.

What is this other general rule you think is in opposition?

Is it the phantom 'actions are indivisible' rule?

Because, if that is the other general rule, then I will point out once again, there is no such rule!

If that is not the other general rule, then what is?

 

[Arial Black]

But without specific wording, you cannot take two actions at the same time. A bonus action is still an action. It's just a bonus one.

Why not?

What rule prevents you?

 

[Arial Black]

Dash: double the distance you can walk this turn.

Disengage: your movement this turn does not provoke AoAs.

Dodge: if you are attacked at any time from now until the start of your next turn that attack roll has disadvantage.

Attack: you may execute the attacks that you have from now until the end of this turn.

Hide: you become hidden until your Stealth check is beaten, your cover goes away, or you do something to end your hidden condition.

There are two ways to view when an action ends:-

1) 'taking an action' is an instantaneous event, but the effects of that action (movement, not provoking, dodging, executing your attacks, being hidden) have a duration.

2) 'taking an action' is the same thing as the action itself, which means the action itself has a duration, and the action has not ended until that duration expires. Dash, Disengage, Attack start when you 'take the action' and only end when your turn ends. Dodge starts when you take the action and only ends at the start of your next turn. Hide starts when you take the Hide action and only ends when you are discovered, your cover goes away, or if you do something to end it.

If 1) is true, then yes, 'actions are indivisible', but not because there is any such rule but because 'taking an action' is an instantaneous event and you cannot divide 'instantaneous'. However, the effects of that action have a duration, and nothing prevents those effects being divided. This means that your bonus action shove has been generated as soon as you 'took the attack action' and you are now free to use that bonus action whenever you want, even between attacks or before you execute your first attack.

If 2) is true, then the question of whether or not 'actions are indivisible' becomes relevant.

2a) Actions ARE divisible: this means you can cast a bonus action spell while you are in the middle of an action. So you can misty step after you take the Dash action, the Disengage action, the Dodge action, the Attack action, the Hide action, etc. This means that you definitely can take the bonus action shield bash between attacks, and arguably before you execute the first attack.

2b) Actions are NOT divisible: this means that you cannot cast a bonus action spell while you are in the middle of an action. So you could not misty step after you take the Dash action! The Disengage action! The Dodge action! The Attack action! OR the Hide action!

It also means that a rogue who uses Cunning Action to Dash or Disengage as a bonus action before he uses his action for anything, now cannot take his actual action for anything at all! Actions are indivisible, so because his Dash or Disengage started when he took that bonus action and will not end until the end of his turn, his turn is already over before he can use his action for anything!

Also, since some posters are fond of asserting that you can only move between attacks is because there is a clause which says you can, and without such a clause then you could not, this means that you cannot move during any action except the Attack action! If 2b) is true AND that assertion is true, then after you take the Dash, Disengage or Dodge actions, you are not allowed to move!

I contend that 2b) is absurd. There is no reason at all to suppose that you cannot take a bonus action after you Dash, Disengage, Hide or Dodge, and there is no excuse for treating the Attack action differently without a written rule which says so; if you do, that is the fallacy of Special Pleading.

It is also absurd to imagine you cannot move after you take the Dash or Disengage actions! They would become meaningless! This shows that the clause which says you can move between attacks is not a rules exception, it just reminds us that the ability to divide your move is not restricted by multiple attacks, important for players of previous editions who would assume the opposite.

If 2b) is absurd, this leaves either 2a), which certainly allows a bonus action between attacks and arguably allows it before the first attack, and 1) which certainly allows the bonus action between attacks or before your first attack.

Easy!