Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[ad_hoc]

I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules, so can someone tell me if it is possible to take the Attack action when it isn't your turn?

The Ready Action is the one you're looking for.

 

[Hriston]

I don't know all the ins and outs of the rules, so can someone tell me if it is possible to take the Attack action when it isn't your turn?

Yes, you can Ready the Attack action and take it using your reaction on another creature's turn. Taking the Attack action that way, however, wouldn't meet the condition for using the Shield Master shove because it wouldn't be "on your turn".

 

[epithet]

...
...I don't know of anyone who was playing it that way before JEC made his infamous and incorrect tweet in 2015. ...
...

Funny, I don't know anyone who didn't think you could take the shove when you wanted. Crawford's initial (and in my opinion, correct) tweet simply confirmed what we all already supposed was the intent of the feat, specifically that you could shove before, after, or between.

I have never actually played 5e with anyone who doesn't let the shove come whenever the shield master character wants it to. and before Crawford reversed himself and issued the new (an in my opinion incorrect) Advice on the rule, I would not have taken seriously the assertion that a significant number of players of D&D thought that forcing the shove to come after all of a character's attacks was a reasonable interpretation, much less the "right way."

Fortunately, Jeremy has limited himself to just reversing his Advice, and has not changed the rule via errata. That means everyone is free to disregard his flip-flop and continue to use the common-sense interpretation of the published rule without using a homemade variant, which I know a lot of DMs are hesitant to do.

 

[cbwjm]

Funny, I don't know anyone who didn't think you could take the shove when you wanted. Crawford's initial (and in my opinion, correct) tweet simply confirmed what we all already supposed was the intent of the feat, specifically that you could shove before, after, or between.

I have never actually played 5e with anyone who doesn't let the shove come whenever the shield master character wants it to. and before Crawford reversed himself and issued the new (an in my opinion incorrect) Advice on the rule, I would not have taken seriously the assertion that a significant number of players of D&D thought that forcing the shove to come after all of a character's attacks was a reasonable interpretation, much less the "right way."

Fortunately, Jeremy has limited himself to just reversing his Advice, and has not changed the rule via errata. That means everyone is free to disregard his flip-flop and continue to use the common-sense interpretation of the published rule without using a homemade variant, which I know a lot of DMs are hesitant to do.

Depends on what you think of as common-sense when reading the feat. I always read it as occurring after the attack action was completed, I just houserule it so that it can be whenever, no attack action required. If I was going to require an attack then I'd allow it to be after the first attack but really, I'm not too concerned if it comes before all of their other attacks.

 

[Asgorath]

Depends on what you think of as common-sense when reading the feat. I always read it as occurring after the attack action was completed, I just houserule it so that it can be whenever, no attack action required. If I was going to require an attack then I'd allow it to be after the first attack but really, I'm not too concerned if it comes before all of their other attacks.

Right, my sample size is obviously very small in the grand scheme of things, but everyone agreed about the “if X then Y” timing that JEC clarified in 2017 to at least mean one attack had to be made before the bonus action was available.

 

[Hriston]

But the rules provide a framework for your character to act in combat.

I fundamentally disagree with this formulation of how the rules operate in the game. I'd refer you to Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, "The players describe what they want to do." That's how my character acts in combat. The rules come into play when "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So the rules don't provide a framework for my character to act in combat. They provide a framework for the DM to adjudicate how my character's actions in combat are resolved. We seem to be coming at this from opposite directions.

This is incorrect.

No it isn't. The condition for using the bonus action shove is exactly as I said, i.e. "If you take the Attack action on your turn". The condition is not what you said, i.e. "taking the Attack action first". The feat doesn't put a timing on the use of the bonus action. Quoting Jeremy Crawford's rulings to me doesn't change that.

Again, there is no action declaration phase in 5E where you can say "I intend to take the Attack action in the future" which would unlock the bonus action.

I'm not sure why I keep getting this particular talking-point from you. It seems like you're only comfortable repeating ideas from Jeremy Crawford's tweets even when they have nothing to do with anything I've said.

I think it's a real stretch to argue that the intent of the feat back in 2014 when the PHB was released was that you could shove before attacking. I don't know of anyone who was playing it that way before JEC made his infamous and incorrect tweet in 2015. In the years following that tweet, many people (myself included) looked at that tweet and changed the way we played the feat at our tables. It never really made sense to me, but I figured if JEC said it, then that's how it was supposed to be played.

Well, it makes sense to me, and I think I've explained that pretty well, so if it still doesn't make sense to you, I have to think you don't really want to get it.

He has since corrected this, and in the process, actually explained the intent of the bonus action shove (i.e. it's designed to be a finishing move to help your melee allies out).

Based on all the information we have today, I think it's hard to argue the RAI is the exact opposite of what he's now saying the intent of the feat is.

Again, you're claiming that Crawford saying, "It's supposed to be what it is" is a statement of intent, when really it's just an assertion that his interpretation is correct and avoids the question about what was intended.

 

[FrogReaver]

I fundamentally disagree with this formulation of how the rules operate in the game. I'd refer you to Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, "The players describe what they want to do." That's how my character acts in combat. The rules come into play when "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So the rules don't provide a framework for my character to act in combat. They provide a framework for the DM to adjudicate how my character's actions in combat are resolved. We seem to be coming at this from opposite directions.



No it isn't. The condition for using the bonus action shove is exactly as I said, i.e. "If you take the Attack action on your turn". The condition is not what you said, i.e. "taking the Attack action first". The feat doesn't put a timing on the use of the bonus action. Quoting Jeremy Crawford's rulings to me doesn't change that.



I'm not sure why I keep getting this particular talking-point from you. It seems like you're only comfortable repeating ideas from Jeremy Crawford's tweets even when they have nothing to do with anything I've said.



Well, it makes sense to me, and I think I've explained that pretty well, so if it still doesn't make sense to you, I have to think you don't really want to get it.



Again, you're claiming that Crawford saying, "It's supposed to be what it is" is a statement of intent, when really it's just an assertion that his interpretation is correct and says nothing about what was intended.

Using the idea of DM abdication to claim a rule says something it doesn’t is the issue. If you simply said the rule says X but I ignore that and abdicate it like Y because Reasons ABZ. We have no problem with that. We admit we are doing the same thing.

The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]

I can abjucate that a level 1 fighter makes 4 attacks when using his attack action. However doing so is objectively not following the attack action and extra attack rules.

The same thing with shield master (although there are much better reasons to abjucate it the way you do than a DM abjucate first a level 1 fighter gets 4 attacks). It’s still an abjucate on that is objectively not following the shield master and other bonus action rules. If you want to argue it is then for the love of god stop bringing abjucation into it. Whether or not you abjucate however you do has no relevance on whether you are objectively following the rules as they are written.

 

[Asgorath]

I fundamentally disagree with this formulation of how the rules operate in the game. I'd refer you to Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, "The players describe what they want to do." That's how my character acts in combat. The rules come into play when "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions." So the rules don't provide a framework for my character to act in combat. They provide a framework for the DM to adjudicate how my character's actions in combat are resolved. We seem to be coming at this from opposite directions.

We're saying the same thing. The player describes what they want to do, the DM then translates that to game mechanics using the rules.

Player: "I want to run over to that monster, slam it in the face with my shield, and then attack it with my sword".

DM: "Great, you can use one of your attacks to shove it prone, and then make the second attack with advantage if you succeeded."

Player: "Why can't I attack it twice? I have the Shield Master feat."

DM: "You have to attack first before you get the bonus action to shove from that feat."

No it isn't. The condition for using the bonus action shove is exactly as I said, i.e. "If you take the Attack action on your turn". The condition is not what you said, i.e. "taking the Attack action first". The feat doesn't put a timing on the use of the bonus action. Quoting Jeremy Crawford's rulings to me doesn't change that.

Again, we can agree to disagree here, but as Jeremy Crawford has explained at length, the standard phrasing of "if X, then Y" in the wording of bonus actions like Shield Master or Two-Weapon Fighting is the game's definition of timing restrictions for those bonus actions. He has also clarified that for this type of bonus action, the "X" part has to happen before the "Y" part. Perhaps they could've spent more time explaining this in greater detail in the PHB, but when the lead rules designer comes out and says "this is what we mean by these words in the PHB" then that's what the rules are, in my opinion.

I'm not sure why I keep getting this particular talking-point from you. It seems like you're only comfortable repeating ideas from Jeremy Crawford's tweets even when they have nothing to do with anything I've said.

Given the fact that the "if X, then Y" timing requirement is a trigger, and that X has to happen before Y, you have to actually take the Attack action before you can get a bonus action to shove someone from the Shield Master feat. The Sage Advice compendium is pretty clear about this. You can't skirt the rules by saying "well I declare that I'm going to take the Attack action on my turn" to get the bonus action first.

Well, it makes sense to me, and I think I've explained that pretty well, so if it still doesn't make sense to you, I have to think you don't really want to get it.

As I've said, I played the feat using the incorrect 2015 tweet for a long time. I think the difference here is that I'm willing to accept the new information from the lead rules designer of the game about how the feat is actually supposed to work, while you are not. Again, as JEC has explained in detail on many different platforms, the feat is not designed to just grant near-permanent advantage. If it was, then they would've just said "you have advantage on all weapon attacks while wearing a shield" or something similar.

Again, you're claiming that Crawford saying, "It's supposed to be what it is" is a statement of intent, when really it's just an assertion that his interpretation is correct and avoids the question about what was intended.

When the lead rules designer says "this is what we intended" by a particular rule, yeah, I'm going to take that as a statement of intent as to how they expected the rules to work.

"RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.
When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule."

You can obviously just ignore that and play some mental gymnastics to extract a meaning from the words that isn't designed to be there, I'm just pointing out that the Sage Advice compendium is quite clear that this is not the way the feat is supposed to work.

 

[Hriston]

I'm very curious what you think the word "trigger" means...

If the trigger is taking the attack action on your turn and you haven't yet taken the attack action on your turn then how has anything been triggered?

In the context of this conversation, it means the same thing as the word condition. If the condition for using your bonus action on your turn is that you take the Attack action on your turn, then the condition has been met if you take the Attack action on your turn.