Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[epithet]

Sure, but the Sage Advice compendium says that this is not the correct way to interpret the timing requirement of the feat.
...

It doesn't, because the role of Sage Advice is not to tell you the "correct" way to interpret anything. Sage Advice recommends an interpretation that is largely consistent with the recommended interpretation of other rules. Since he doesn't know your group or your game, Jeremy is not in a position to tell you what's correct for you, he can only offer a more-or-less consistent set of interpretations of the rules.

Sage Advice isn't "rules," its "advice," and it isn't wrong to disregard that advice and interpret a rule in a way that works for your circumstance.

 

[Hriston]

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.

That isn’t quite what I’m saying, though. Deciding how to resolve a player’s action declaration isn’t the same as simply matching it up with game mechanics. Besides, players usually have a pretty good idea of what mechanics they’re engaging when they act. If there’s a mismatch in expectations about what the rules are, then something like the following discussion may be necessary, but it isn’t ideal as an instance of play.

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."

This is all an example of the sort of conversation that might happen when player and DM need to get on the same page about what mechanics are going to be involved in resolving the player’s declared action, but it hasn’t progressed beyond establishing exactly what the player’s action declaration is. I.e., there is no resolution forthcoming from the DM in your example, but rather mechanics are being used to tell the player what his/her action declaration can or can’t be. Now, this DM is free to interpret the text of Shield Master that way. That isn’t at issue. What’s at issue is that the DM is bringing the rules in to modify the player’s action declaration before adjudicating a resolution. I don’t see that as an appropriate use of the rules in play, which is why I don’t think it matters whether the character’s shove is an action or a bonus action, because either way the resolution is the same.

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.

And that’s a perfectly valid interpretation. What the official ruling doesn’t do, however, is overwrite the words in the books. It’s just an interpretation, not a rule.

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.

But that isn’t a given. That’s your interpretation.

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.

Right, well, I disagree with the compendium. That’s the point, isn’t it? It doesn’t do your argument any good to turn around and say, “But the compendium says...” I know what it says, and I disagree with it. What do you have to say about that? Also, I’ve never once said anything about declaring an action in order to “get” a bonus action, so it’s a waste of time telling me I can’t do that.

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.

I’m actually very interested in the information Jeremy Crawford has put out about the game in general and about this feat specifically. I wouldn’t be participating in this thread if I wasn’t. That doesn’t mean I need to take everything he says as gospel truth.

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.

But that isn’t what it does by anyone’s interpretation! You have to win a contest to gain advantage. It isn’t free!

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.

That’s great, but he hasn’t said that.

"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 in 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.”

This is a great quote, and I think we have a case here of where the RAW and RAI don’t align perfectly. Unfortunately, there has been no RAI interpretation issued by Crawford for this feat. I think the closest we have is his tweet from 2015. The interpretation he has issued more recently has been based solely on RAW, which he has decided to read in the most literalistic fashion possible. I can only speculate about his reasons for this, but I imagine it’s driven by a desire at some level of the company to have a consistent product.

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.

I don’t need the compendium to tell me how the feat is supposed to work. The meaning I derive is quite simple and requires no gymnastics.

For reference, I completely agree that the DM can ignore the strict RAW + RAI + Sage Advice on how Shield Master is supposed to work if that's what is best for their table and their players. I've been saying all along that if "following your bliss" as JEC advises means that you just play the feat as shove-slice-slice and everyone at your table has fun and combat encounters aren't trivialized, then that's great and you should absolutely continue to do that. There's no need to try to extract a different meaning from the wording of the feat or the other related rules to justify that position though, just ignore the rule and do what's best for your table.

Who are you agreeing with? It certainly isn’t me! There’s very little trying involved actually. There’s certainly no need for me to ignore anything. I don’t think you understand my position and that it’s easier for you to be rude than have a productive conversation. Have a nice day.

 

[Asgorath]

It doesn't, because the role of Sage Advice is not to tell you the "correct" way to interpret anything. Sage Advice recommends an interpretation that is largely consistent with the recommended interpretation of other rules. Since he doesn't know your group or your game, Jeremy is not in a position to tell you what's correct for you, he can only offer a more-or-less consistent set of interpretations of the rules.

Sage Advice isn't "rules," its "advice," and it isn't wrong to disregard that advice and interpret a rule in a way that works for your circumstance.

But again, my point is that you don't have to ignore the official ruling on the Shield Master feat and try to extract a meaning from the words to support your position. Just change the rule for your table. There's a great segment in the recent Dragon+ Q&A video on this:

https://youtu.be/jzHRp-GTsKA?t=1221

20:21 - 21:20 or so, where Jeremy says that DMs should "change the rules boldly and happily" in order to "run the game we want to". If your table wants to be able to use the Shield Master bonus action shove any time the player wants, then just play it that way at your table. You don't need to try and extract that meaning from the rules, especially when there have been so many official responses that this is not what the rule supports. Just change the rule if that's what will make you and your players happy, and realize that changing the rules is totally fine and part of being a DM.

 

[epithet]

... Just change the rule if that's what will make you and your players happy, and realize that changing the rules is totally fine and part of being a DM.

Oh, I do. Still, there are folks who, for whatever reason, don’t want to deviate from the published rules. I think for them it is important to distinguish between the rule and the advised interpretation of it. Using the Shield Master feat as Hriston interprets it (and in accordance with Jeremy’s original tweet on the subject) is still using the rule “as written,” as opposed to the way I and others houserule away the Attack Action requirement altogether. My point is that you can follow the rule without following the Advice.

 

[Asgorath]

Oh, I do. Still, there are folks who, for whatever reason, don’t want to deviate from the published rules. I think for them it is important to distinguish between the rule and the advised interpretation of it. Using the Shield Master feat as Hriston interprets it (and in accordance with Jeremy’s original tweet on the subject) is still using the rule “as written,” as opposed to the way I and others houserule away the Attack Action requirement altogether. My point is that you can follow the rule without following the Advice.

At this point we can just agree to disagree, because the original text of the feat doesn't say you have a bonus action until you take the attack action, which JEC has clarified in his many recent discussions about the timing of bonus actions. I personally think there's a difference between the advice parts of the Sage Advice compendium (e.g. how Lucky should interact with advantage/disadvantage) and the official rulings (e.g. Q: Can you shove before you attack? A: No.). At the end of the day, the result will be the same: you, Hriston and others will play it one way, and many other folks will play it as it was designed to be played as clarified by the lead rules designer of the game. I don't understand why you need to justify this as simply interpreting the words differently to extract the meaning you want when you can simply ignore that part of the rule, but as long as everyone is having fun then it just doesn't matter.

 

[Maxperson]

...Which just goes to show that this interpretation of the rules is unplayable!

If there are two ways to interpret the rules, and one way is unplayable while the other works just fine, we must interpret the rules the way that works.

Sure, but neither way is unplayable. If you believe that actions are not divisible without an exception being made, then it follows that the exception is built into the rule itself, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. If the Disengage action is not divisible and one interpretation of an indivisible Disengage action is that you cannot then move, and another interpretation is that you can move and the rule stating that your movement for the rest of the turn does not provoke attacks means that it's an exception, we must interpret the rule in the way that works.

WHY do you believe that? What rules tell you that 'actions are indivisible'?

There is no explicit rule one way or the other, but typically one cannot do multiple actions simultaneously, so it makes more sense for them to be indivisible.

In the face of a rule which IS actually written-you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn-why would you believe that this written rule is trumped by a rule which is NOT written?

5e is written with common usages and language in mind. It's not common in my experience for people to think that someone can do two different actions simultaneously. It can be done, but it's really hard to accomplish outside of patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, and I've seen a few people fail to be able to do even that.

 

[epithet]

At this point we can just agree to disagree, because the original text of the feat doesn't say you have a bonus action until you take the attack action, which JEC has clarified in his many recent discussions about the timing of bonus actions. I personally think there's a difference between the advice parts of the Sage Advice compendium (e.g. how Lucky should interact with advantage/disadvantage) and the official rulings (e.g. Q: Can you shove before you attack? A: No.). At the end of the day, the result will be the same: you, Hriston and others will play it one way, and many other folks will play it as it was designed to be played as clarified by the lead rules designer of the game. I don't understand why you need to justify this as simply interpreting the words differently to extract the meaning you want when you can simply ignore that part of the rule, but as long as everyone is having fun then it just doesn't matter.

I think for me there are a few assertions that are just very difficult to leave unchallenged. For example, you continue to insist that Crawford's new interpretation of the feat is "as it was designed," when nothing of the sort has been established. Yes, Crawford is very clear indeed about his current intent for the feat, but he's never said that it was originally written to be a so-called "finishing move," just that he interprets it to be so now. I think the fact that the "official ruling" was originally and for a couple of years that you could take the shove bonus action whenever you want is a strong indicator that the original concept was to have the shove be a set-up for your attacks. The idea that the feat would be written to require the shove to happen at the time when it would be least useful to the person who took the feat is patently ridiculous, in my opinion, and Crawford's reference to it as a "finishing move" has caused me to lose a measure of respect for his published opinions generally.

Another assertion that is galling is the insistence that since Crawford has published an interpretation of the "If you ... you can" language to impose a timing requirement, that it must therefore be the case that this language unambiguously has a timing requirement and that, in fact, there is no other reasonable way to read the sentence. I think interpreting the sentence to mean that you can take the shove if you take the attack action, meaning the shove would be simultaneous with the attack action, is a far more reasonable, natural, and intuitive reading of that sentence. (As in, "If you go to the mailbox, you can take the dog for a walk.") All this "indivisible action" malarky has been concocted to try to justify this "if means after" construction, to (what I regard as) the detriment of any game run by a DM who tries to adhere to "official rulings."

No, I don't need to justify anything. I do, however, feel an urge to respond to your apparent belief that the only way to hold an opinion different from yours on this issue is to willfully fail a reading comprehension check, because the way you and Jeremy read the sentence in question is obviously, inarguably, unassailably correct. Never mind that pages and pages of forum posts, in addition to earlier tweets from Jeremy Crawford himself, reasonably interpret the language of the sentence to mean something other than "if equals after."

Mind you, I'm not saying--nor do I recall seeing anyone else suggest--that it is not possible to reasonably parse the language of the sentence in question the way that you and Jeremy Crawford are so enthusiastically championing. I do feel that it leads to an unreasonable conclusion regarding the Shield Master feat's bonus action shove, but I will certainly agree that the very obviously ambiguous language of the feat can be interpreted that way (which is why I removed any ambiguity in my home game with a house rule.) It's really only you and Max who seem to regard the sentence as being entirely unambiguous, and insisting that yours is the clearly and unequivocally right way to read the bloody thing.

Edit: One final point: the only distinction I draw among Crawford's statements regarding the rules is between errata and everything else. Errata changes the rules, while nothing else does. An "official ruling" is no different that a drunken grocery store tweet, really, other than the implication that he probably thought about it a bit more. I think the drunken tweets are probably more indicative of how he would rule at the table as a Dungeon Master, while the "official ruling" has been overthought in an attempt to preserve some kind of internal consistency among his Sage Advice suggestions.

 

[Arial Black]

the original text of the feat doesn't say you have a bonus action until you take the attack action

A bit confusing, but I think you're saying, "the original text of the feat says you don't have a bonus action until you take the attack action".

Well, on this specific point, what the feat actually says is this:-

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield".

Sure, you can read that as meaning "after you have taken the Attack action".

However, you can also interpret that "If you take the Attack action on your turn...", then all you need to do is, sometime on your turn, use your action to take the Attack action. The only specified timing is 'on your turn'. There is no restriction to 'after your action'!

We know this is the case, since JC himself interpreted those words that way for years!

 

[Hriston]

No. The trigger is not "taking the Attack action," which is a present tense statement. The trigger is "When you take the Attack action," which is past tense.

Actually, both verb forms you’ve written are in the present tense. Taking is the present participle, while take is the simple present. Present tense is often used to refer to future events, however, especially when used in a condition clause such as, “If you take the Attack action”. Past tense would be, “If you took the Attack action,” although I’m not sure what significance you think that grammatical construction would have.

You actually have to take the action, which means making your attacks. Until you take your attacks, you have not taken the action.

I’ll take this as a “no” to the question I asked you, and I agree; taking the Attack action is synonymous with making your attack(s). There is no condition that needs to be met before you can make your attack(s), and when you do, you’re taking the Attack action.

Here is you making that claim. "You don't "get" attacks by taking the Attack action. You take the Attack action by making one or more attacks." You do in fact get attacks by taking the attack action. You do not in fact get the attack action by making one or more attacks. Perhaps you made that claim inadvertently and don't believe what you said, but it is what you said.

It’s weird how you quote me saying one thing and then try to use that to claim I’m saying something else. Look at your own quote. I didn’t say you “get” the Attack action. I said you “take” the Attack action. This agrees with your statement that taking the Attack action “means making your attacks.” You’re seeing disagreement where none exists, and it seems you’ve gone back to saying you get attacks by taking the Attack action. This contradicts your statement that taking the Attack action means making your attack(s). If you put those two statements together, it means you get attacks by making attacks, which is kind of circular and paradoxical, don’t you think?

You don't get to change RAW without making a house rule. If you are stating that according to your house rule, this Schrodingers situation of yours where it's not an action or a bonus action until you look at it sideways is used at your table, then I'm fine with your statement. However, if you are trying to say that according to the PHB or DMG the bonus action switches to an action, you are absolutely and factually wrong.

No, there’s no switching involved. What I’m saying is this: If a player declares they shove a creature, I resolve that by the rules, with a contest. Then, when they declare another attack, if they have the Shield Master feat, I see that they’re taking the Attack action on their turn, which qualifies them to have used their bonus action for the shove, meaning they still have their action to use. I haven’t changed the RAW more than anyone else who interprets the rules in order to play the game. I have nothing against house-rules and am not ashamed of the ones I use, but this isn’t a case of making any changes to the rules. There is more than one interpretation, and your interpretation isn’t any better than mine.

 

[Arial Black]

Sure, but neither way is unplayable. If you believe that actions are not divisible without an exception being made, then it follows that the exception is built into the rule itself, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation. If the Disengage action is not divisible and one interpretation of an indivisible Disengage action is that you cannot then move, and another interpretation is that you can move and the rule stating that your movement for the rest of the turn does not provoke attacks means that it's an exception, we must interpret the rule in the way that works.

If you accept that "your movement this turn does not provoke" to give permission to do what seems 'expressly' forbidden by the unwritten 'rule', then surely the case for "you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn" is even stronger!

There is no explicit rule one way or the other, but typically one cannot do multiple actions simultaneously, so it makes more sense for them to be indivisible.

While there is no rule which says you can't, there is a rule which says you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn.

As for making sense (and I'm a big fan of that!), sure it makes sense that you can't be chanting the verbal components for two spells simultaneously, and it makes sense that you can't use your single weapon to attack two opponents in different rooms simultaneously, it does make perfect sense to be able to execute one attack, misty step into another room, then execute your second attack! What's nonsensicle about that?

5e is written with common usages and language in mind. It's not common in my experience for people to think that someone can do two different actions simultaneously. It can be done, but it's really hard to accomplish outside of patting your head and rubbing your belly at the same time, and I've seen a few people fail to be able to do even that.

And we're not doing that! We're saying that you can pat your head, then cast a spell, then rub your tummy!