Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[epithet]

...
Some questions:

1) If the word "then" was inserted after the comma, would you consider that a timing requirement?

2) If the word "if" was replaced with "after", would you consider that a timing requirement?

3) How does this sentence differ from the 3rd bullet in the feat? It follows the same "If X, Y" format. Does that mean I get to "use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect" as long as at some point on my turn I end up being "subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage"?

I searched through the Classes and Combat chapters of the PHB on D&D Beyond, and found exactly zero instances where the word "then" came after the comma in a sentence with the form "If X, Y". If we apply the logic that sentences that take this form have no timing restrictions between X and Y, specifically that Y can happen as long as X eventually happens, the rules start saying some very strange things.

Martial Arts: "if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn". Why can't I do an unarmed strike when I Dash or take some other non-Attack action, because I declare that I'll take the Attack action on some future turn?

Natural Explorer: "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace." Why can't I move stealthily at normal pace when I'm traveling with my party, because I declare that I'll travel alone tomorrow?

Ranger's Companion: "If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself." Why can't the beast act on its own when I'm conscious, because I declare that I'll knock myself unconscious later tonight?

Stroke of Luck: "if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20." Why can't I treat any roll I like as a d20, because I declare that I'll fail an ability check in the future?
...

Some answers:
1) Maybe, not necessarily.
2) Yes. "After" establishes a sequence.
3) It doesn't. It means that the triggered condition (take no damage) happens at the same time as the trigger (you are subjected to an effect.) See below.

Your examples are great, thank you. For each of these examples, the "If you ... you can" language is used to refer to a triggered benefit that happens concurrently with the trigger, neither before nor after. Looking at each example in turn shows the consistent concurrence of these circumstances.

Martial Arts: You know that the unarmed strike is concurrent with the Attack Action because the initial statement of the rule uses "when" (When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn,) meaning "at the same time as." Therefore, in the example text "if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action" it is clearly the case that your bonus action unarmed strike is resolved at the same time as, and therefore as a practical matter as part of, the Attack Action. This makes perfect sense, because we're talking about an attack that does not differ in any way from a regular attack save that it must be an unarmed strike. In other words, your bonus action is consumed to give you an additional Extra Attack.

Natural Explorer: Here is as clear an example as you could ever hope for. "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace." The ranger does not complete his travel before he gains the ability to move stealthily at a normal pace, it very obviously must happen at the same time. Trigger and triggered benefit cannot be sequential, they must be concurrent.

Ranger's Companion: This example is different from the others in that it lacks the "you can" language, but it is functionally the same. "If you are incapacitated or absent, your beast companion acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself." Clearly, as with the Natural Explorer example, you can't reasonably read this to require that you complete your incapacitation or your period of absence before the companion can act on its own. The companion's independent action must occur during the time that the ranger is incapacitated or gone, not before, not after. Here again, the triggered benefit is concurrent with the trigger.

Stroke of Luck: This rogue benefit must happen in an instant, with the trigger and benefit taking place at exactly the same time for either of the benefits or triggers described in the feature. "If your attack misses a target within range, you can turn the miss into a hit. Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20." Notably, though, while the trigger and benefit happen at the same time, the first benefit in particular requires the DM and player to, in essence, go back in time to resolve it. The attack happened, the dice betrayed the rogue, and the result indicated a miss, but the feature allows the rogue to go back and make it a hit, instead.

So, what do these examples tell us about how we should read and adjudicate the "if you ... you can" language of the Shield Master feat? Simply that the shove should be resolved as part of the Attack Action, because the benefit (the extra shove attack) must be resolved at the same time as the trigger (the Attack Action). Like the Martial Arts example, the shove should be treated as another Extra Attack which can only be used for a particular type of attack (in this case, a shove instead of an unarmed strike) which is otherwise exactly like a regular attack made as part of the attack action. The Stroke of Luck feature tells us that for benefits that are resolved concurrently with triggers, we can actually apply the benefit retroactively, so there should be no issue with determining which of the attacks was the "bonus action shove" after the attack itself has already been resolved.

Your excellent examples also demonstrate that Jeremy Crawford is simply incorrect when he suggests that "if you ... you can" always establishes a sequential timing requirement. Clearly no one will be telling the Ranger he needs to do a little hex crawling and finish his trip before he can sneak up behind a foe at a brisk pace. Perhaps the feature could have been called "Walkabout, then Pounce!"

 

[Asgorath]

Some answers:
1) Maybe, not necessarily.
2) Yes. "After" establishes a sequence.
3) It doesn't. It means that the triggered condition (take no damage) happens at the same time as the trigger (you are subjected to an effect.) See below.

Your examples are great, thank you. For each of these examples, the "If you ... you can" language is used to refer to a triggered benefit that happens concurrently with the trigger, neither before nor after. Looking at each example in turn shows the consistent concurrence of these circumstances.

Martial Arts: You know that the unarmed strike is concurrent with the Attack Action because the initial statement of the rule uses "when" (When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn,) meaning "at the same time as." Therefore, in the example text "if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action" it is clearly the case that your bonus action unarmed strike is resolved at the same time as, and therefore as a practical matter as part of, the Attack Action. This makes perfect sense, because we're talking about an attack that does not differ in any way from a regular attack save that it must be an unarmed strike. In other words, your bonus action is consumed to give you an additional Extra Attack.

Natural Explorer: Here is as clear an example as you could ever hope for. "If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace." The ranger does not complete his travel before he gains the ability to move stealthily at a normal pace, it very obviously must happen at the same time. Trigger and triggered benefit cannot be sequential, they must be concurrent.

Ranger's Companion: This example is different from the others in that it lacks the "you can" language, but it is functionally the same. "If you are incapacitated or absent, your beast companion acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself." Clearly, as with the Natural Explorer example, you can't reasonably read this to require that you complete your incapacitation or your period of absence before the companion can act on its own. The companion's independent action must occur during the time that the ranger is incapacitated or gone, not before, not after. Here again, the triggered benefit is concurrent with the trigger.

Stroke of Luck: This rogue benefit must happen in an instant, with the trigger and benefit taking place at exactly the same time for either of the benefits or triggers described in the feature. "If your attack misses a target within range, you can turn the miss into a hit. Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20." Notably, though, while the trigger and benefit happen at the same time, the first benefit in particular requires the DM and player to, in essence, go back in time to resolve it. The attack happened, the dice betrayed the rogue, and the result indicated a miss, but the feature allows the rogue to go back and make it a hit, instead.

So, what do these examples tell us about how we should read and adjudicate the "if you ... you can" language of the Shield Master feat? Simply that the shove should be resolved as part of the Attack Action, because the benefit (the extra shove attack) must be resolved at the same time as the trigger (the Attack Action). Like the Martial Arts example, the shove should be treated as another Extra Attack which can only be used for a particular type of attack (in this case, a shove instead of an unarmed strike) which is otherwise exactly like a regular attack made as part of the attack action. The Stroke of Luck feature tells us that for benefits that are resolved concurrently with triggers, we can actually apply the benefit retroactively, so there should be no issue with determining which of the attacks was the "bonus action shove" after the attack itself has already been resolved.

Your excellent examples also demonstrate that Jeremy Crawford is simply incorrect when he suggests that "if you ... you can" always establishes a sequential timing requirement. Clearly no one will be telling the Ranger he needs to do a little hex crawling and finish his trip before he can sneak up behind a foe at a brisk pace. Perhaps the feature could have been called "Walkabout, then Pounce!"

Alternatively, what if we consider a simpler solution where there are no concurrent/nested actions because actions resolve instantly, and "if you ... you can" is a form of conditional or if-then statement that uses the standard rules of mathematical logic. Simply put, "if you X, you can Y" means that in order for Y to happen, X must be true.

Martial Arts:

"When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn."

Here, the trigger is taking the Attack action and attacking with an unarmed strike or Monk weapon. The Attack action resolves the instant you make that attack(*), and thus the trigger happens and you now have access to a bonus action for another unarmed strike. You cannot take the bonus action until the trigger happens, i.e. you don't have the bonus action attack until you actually take the Attack action.

(*) Yes, Extra Attack complicates all of this.

Natural Explorer:

"If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace."

Here, the trigger is traveling alone, which once again resolves the instant you start traveling alone. Once you start doing that, the triggered effect is available and you can move stealthily at a normal pace. You cannot move stealthily at normal pace until the trigger happens, i.e. you have to actually start traveling alone before this can happen.

Ranger's Companion:

"If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself."

Here, the trigger is you being incapacitated or absent. The beast will not act on its own until that trigger takes place, which again resolves the instant you become incapacitated or absent. If you are present and not incapacitated, the trigger has not happened and thus the beast will not act unless commanded to.

Stroke of Luck:

"Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20."

Here, the trigger is you failing an ability check. This trigger resolves the instant you fail an ability check, and thus the triggered effect of treating the roll as a 20 takes place. You cannot treat a d20 roll as a 20 until the trigger takes place.

So, back to Shield Master. Following my simple logic, the trigger of taking the Attack action by making an attack (*) resolves instantly and you now have access to a bonus action shove. This is nice and simple because there are no nested or simultaneous actions to keep track of.

(*) Yes, Extra Attack complicates all of this.

You suggest that Shield Master simply adds a shove to your Attack action. I would disagree with this assessment, and use the Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher ability as an example of wording that would allow this:

"If you take the Attack action on that turn, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of that action."

This clearly states the additional attack is part of the Attack action itself, not a bonus action. Here, the Ranger gets 3 attacks on their first turn, and 2 attacks on all subsequent turns in a combat encounter. Shield Master does not use this wording, and thus the bonus action is separate and distinct from the Attack action itself. Given that the trigger for the shove is the Attack action, surely that means you actually have to make an attack before you even have access to the bonus action shove?

Based on all of this, I'll respectfully disagree with your conclusions. If we treat each element as a distinct unit that instantly resolves, we don't have to worry about nested actions. The simple form of "if X, Y" establishes a clear logical relationship between X and Y, and using the standard rules of logic (or computer programming) then in order for Y to happen X must first be true. Note that I did not say X must be completed, it must merely be true. For example, Natural Explorer's trigger is "if you are traveling alone". As soon as that trigger is true, the effect takes place (i.e. you can stealth at normal pace). Similarly, when the trigger is the Attack action, in order for that trigger to happen you must actually make an attack. This applies to Two-Weapon Fighting, Martial Arts, Shield Master and so on. The game is full of these types of triggers, and in all cases, the rules use sentences of the from "if X, Y". No then, no after, simply "if X, Y".

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but as I mentioned earlier, I think applying Occam's razor to all of this points us at the solution I described above.

 

[epithet]

...
Based on all of this, I'll respectfully disagree with your conclusions. If we treat each element as a distinct unit that instantly resolves, we don't have to worry about nested actions. The simple form of "if X, Y" establishes a clear logical relationship between X and Y, and using the standard rules of logic (or computer programming) then in order for Y to happen X must first be true. Note that I did not say X must be completed, it must merely be true. For example, Natural Explorer's trigger is "if you are traveling alone". As soon as that trigger is true, the effect takes place (i.e. you can stealth at normal pace). Similarly, when the trigger is the Attack action, in order for that trigger to happen you must actually make an attack. This applies to Two-Weapon Fighting, Martial Arts, Shield Master and so on. The game is full of these types of triggers, and in all cases, the rules use sentences of the from "if X, Y". No then, no after, simply "if X, Y".

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but as I mentioned earlier, I think applying to all of this points us at the solution I described above.

The problem with instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that, well... it doesn't work. For Natural Explorer, it isn't sufficient to have travelled alone, you must be actively travelling alone while the benefit of full speed stealth applies. If you stop travelling alone, you lose the benefit. For the Beast Master, you have to be knocked out or gone. If you wake up or return, you lose the benefit. The trigger isn't momentary, preceding the benefit, it must be concurrent with the benefit. For Stroke of Luck, applying the first benefit undoes the first condition at the instant it took place, there is no elapsed time. The second benefit is applied between the roll and the result of the role, which also involves no elapsed time in the game. These are necessarily simultaneous, because of their very nature. Yes, you gain the benefit after the trigger arises, but not before it is resolved. The trigger is still happening when you apply the benefit, and their resolution is concurrent and (for Stroke of Luck) mutual.

Occam's Razor, applied to Martial Arts, Shield Master shoves, and similar bonus action granted attacks that are linked to and triggered by an Attack Action, would in my opinion suggest simply adding an attack to the extant sequence of attacks and resolving them all the same because they are essentially identical attacks. The Martial Arts bonus unarmed attack is identical to an Attack Action unarmed attack. The Shield Master bonus action shove is identical to an Attack Action shove. Occam's Razor would suggest that you should not imply or apply more requirements and restrictions to those bonus attacks than are explicitly and unambiguously stipulated in the rule text.

 

[Asgorath]

The problem with instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that, well... it doesn't work. For Natural Explorer, it isn't sufficient to have travelled alone, you must be actively travelling alone while the benefit of full speed stealth applies. If you stop travelling alone, you lose the benefit. For the Beast Master, you have to be knocked out or gone. If you wake up or return, you lose the benefit. The trigger isn't momentary, preceding the benefit, it must be concurrent with the benefit. For Stroke of Luck, applying the first benefit undoes the first condition at the instant it took place, there is no elapsed time. The second benefit is applied between the roll and the result of the role, which also involves no elapsed time in the game. These are necessarily simultaneous, because of their very nature. Yes, you gain the benefit after the trigger arises, but not before it is resolved. The trigger is still happening when you apply the benefit, and their resolution is concurrent and (for Stroke of Luck) mutual.

Occam's Razor, applied to Martial Arts, Shield Master shoves, and similar bonus action granted attacks that are linked to and triggered by an Attack Action, would in my opinion suggest simply adding an attack to the extant sequence of attacks and resolving them all the same because they are essentially identical attacks. The Martial Arts bonus unarmed attack is identical to an Attack Action unarmed attack. The Shield Master bonus action shove is identical to an Attack Action shove. Occam's Razor would suggest that you should not imply or apply more requirements and restrictions to those bonus attacks than are explicitly and unambiguously stipulated in the rule text.

It absolutely works. Natural Explorer's trigger is you travelling alone. While that trigger is true, the triggered effect happens. As soon as the trigger is false, the triggered effect no longer happens. Similarly, the trigger for Ranger's Companion is you being incapacitated or absent. As soon as that trigger is no longer true, the triggered effect no longer happens and the beast stops until you spend an Action to give it an order. Neither of these rules are talking about actions in combat, and so the best analogy is a simple boolean variable in a programming language. While the variable is true, the effect happens. As soon as the variable is false, the effect stops happening. Or, if we don't want to use logic or programming languages, think of it as a light switch. When you turn the light switch to the "on" position, the lights are illuminated. When you turn the switch off, the lights are no longer illuminated. This could be expressed in the 5E rules as "if you turn the switch on, the lights are illuminated" for example, in order to stick with the "if X, Y" style used throughout the rules to describe a trigger.

When applying the trigger concept to an action in combat, again this works in a very simple way. Each action in combat is a distinct unit that (typically) instantly resolves. The action may have a lasting effect, such as the Dash action giving you extra movement for the remainder of your turn. There are rules that explicitly add extra attacks to the Attack action, and thus we cannot simply assume that a bonus action attack operates in the same way. If they did, then surely they would use the same wording as the rules that add extra attacks to the Attack action, like Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher?

Separating these bonus actions that grant weapon attacks or shoves from the ones you take as part of the Attack action is kind of important, especially when it comes to the interaction of those rules with Extra Attack. Similarly, the triggering attack for Shield Master might itself be a shove, and assuming you don't have Extra Attack, then you would not be able to make a weapon attack on your turn. While I agree that the attacks granted by the Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Master (shove) and Martial Arts are fundamentally the same (i.e. you roll to hit or make an Athletics check etc), the rules absolutely do not say "if you take the Attack action ..., you get an additional attack/shove as part of your Attack action". You have the Attack action as the trigger, and the bonus action as the triggered effect. The rules for the Attack action are separate from the rules about bonus actions, and thus those two things are distinct units of combat. Again, this is supported by the wording of the Dread Ambusher feature, which grants an extra attack as part of the Attack action.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is. The fictional events that happen in a character's turn happen in a sequence.

I doubt you're trying to see how it makes sense.

Of course event's for the character happen in sequence. That's not what I'm asking.

In my games players sequentially declare and describe what they will have their character do. The character performs those actions immediately as the player describes them and in the sequence he describes them. That's why in my games I check right when a character is going to perform some action that he is actually capable of doing that. So in my game a player declares bonus action shove and I check to see if he's met the condition it requires of taking the attack action on his turn and he hasn't yet and so his declaration is then disqualified.

If in your games the player can declare a bunch of things all at once like I'll bonus action shove and then attack that guy (i'd describe this as concurrent) and then you check to make sure all the conditions on those actions were met and since you are treating the declaration as current then it would be. Then you have the character sequentially perform the described actions then I can understand the different of opinion.

If that's what you are doing then that at least makes sense to me, although it still seems like a bit convoluted process to me but the logic behind the interactions at least make sense even if I don't understand the logic for why you would play that way in the first place.

 

[FrogReaver]

The problem with instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that, well... it doesn't work. For Natural Explorer, it isn't sufficient to have travelled alone, you must be actively travelling alone while the benefit of full speed stealth applies. If you stop travelling alone, you lose the benefit. For the Beast Master, you have to be knocked out or gone. If you wake up or return, you lose the benefit. The trigger isn't momentary, preceding the benefit, it must be concurrent with the benefit. For Stroke of Luck, applying the first benefit undoes the first condition at the instant it took place, there is no elapsed time. The second benefit is applied between the roll and the result of the role, which also involves no elapsed time in the game. These are necessarily simultaneous, because of their very nature. Yes, you gain the benefit after the trigger arises, but not before it is resolved. The trigger is still happening when you apply the benefit, and their resolution is concurrent and (for Stroke of Luck) mutual.

Occam's Razor, applied to Martial Arts, Shield Master shoves, and similar bonus action granted attacks that are linked to and triggered by an Attack Action, would in my opinion suggest simply adding an attack to the extant sequence of attacks and resolving them all the same because they are essentially identical attacks. The Martial Arts bonus unarmed attack is identical to an Attack Action unarmed attack. The Shield Master bonus action shove is identical to an Attack Action shove. Occam's Razor would suggest that you should not imply or apply more requirements and restrictions to those bonus attacks than are explicitly and unambiguously stipulated in the rule text.

But the problem with not instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that disengage completely fails to work.

 

[epithet]

But the problem with not instantly resolving the trigger before applying the benefit is that disengage completely fails to work.

I don't see the failure. You don't just disengage once and have done with it, you continually disengage for the rest of your turn. Whatever else you may do during that turn, you're also disengaging so that your movement doesn't provoke Oppos. That's why you don't provoke... you're still disengaging.

 

[Asgorath]

I don't see the failure. You don't just disengage once and have done with it, you continually disengage for the rest of your turn. Whatever else you may do during that turn, you're also disengaging so that your movement doesn't provoke Oppos. That's why you don't provoke... you're still disengaging.

Your action for the turn is to disengage, which resolves instantly. The effect of that action is that your movement no longer provokes OAs, because you're being careful and dodging and weaving as you move. You could narrate this with as much flair as you like, but the underlying mechanic is still absolutely supported by an instant resolution of the action.

 

[epithet]

It absolutely works. Natural Explorer's trigger is you travelling alone. While that trigger is true, the triggered effect happens. As soon as the trigger is false, the triggered effect no longer happens. Similarly, the trigger for Ranger's Companion is you being incapacitated or absent. As soon as that trigger is no longer true, the triggered effect no longer happens and the beast stops until you spend an Action to give it an order. Neither of these rules are talking about actions in combat, and so the best analogy is a simple boolean variable in a programming language. While the variable is true, the effect happens. As soon as the variable is false, the effect stops happening. Or, if we don't want to use logic or programming languages, think of it as a light switch. When you turn the light switch to the "on" position, the lights are illuminated. When you turn the switch off, the lights are no longer illuminated. This could be expressed in the 5E rules as "if you turn the switch on, the lights are illuminated" for example, in order to stick with the "if X, Y" style used throughout the rules to describe a trigger.

When applying the trigger concept to an action in combat, again this works in a very simple way. Each action in combat is a distinct unit that (typically) instantly resolves. The action may have a lasting effect, such as the Dash action giving you extra movement for the remainder of your turn. There are rules that explicitly add extra attacks to the Attack action, and thus we cannot simply assume that a bonus action attack operates in the same way. If they did, then surely they would use the same wording as the rules that add extra attacks to the Attack action, like Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher?

Separating these bonus actions that grant weapon attacks or shoves from the ones you take as part of the Attack action is kind of important, especially when it comes to the interaction of those rules with Extra Attack. Similarly, the triggering attack for Shield Master might itself be a shove, and assuming you don't have Extra Attack, then you would not be able to make a weapon attack on your turn. While I agree that the attacks granted by the Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Master (shove) and Martial Arts are fundamentally the same (i.e. you roll to hit or make an Athletics check etc), the rules absolutely do not say "if you take the Attack action ..., you get an additional attack/shove as part of your Attack action". You have the Attack action as the trigger, and the bonus action as the triggered effect. The rules for the Attack action are separate from the rules about bonus actions, and thus those two things are distinct units of combat. Again, this is supported by the wording of the Dread Ambusher feature, which grants an extra attack as part of the Attack action.

Dread Ambusher is not really comparable to Martial Arts or Shield Master, because the extra attack doesn't consume a bonus action. It is just like Extra Attack, but only on the first round of combat.

I think it is important to consider the role of Actions and Bonus Actions in 5e. Neither of them are discrete packets of activity that you queue up, though they might include activities like attacks or spells that are discrete packets of activity. Rather, an Action or Bonus action exist to limit the activity on your turn. When you take an Action, you can't take one of the other Actions. When something uses your Bonus Action, you cannot then do something else that uses your Bonus Action. They represent opportunity cost.

The only unit of time that matters for actions in combat is your turn. Your Action and Bonus Action (assuming you have one) both take place at the same time: on your turn. Individual activities, like actual movement, weapon attacks, spells, flourishes, interactions, etc. all take place in the order the player wants, but the distinction is that those things all have a narrative presence, a reality in the fiction of the game world. Your Action and Bonus Action do not--they are formal constructs of the game system with no objective reality in the narrative fiction of the game world. In other words, you may move 10 feet and make a melee attack, then disengage (as a cunning action) and move another 20 feet. Those are all activities that occur in a sequence, and the timing of them matters. Stepping back to the meta-game, however, you took the Attack Action and your Bonus Action on your turn.

Reactions are different. A Reaction happens in a single moment, triggered by an activity with objective reality in the game world's fiction, and involves the reactor doing an activity with similar objective reality.

 

[epithet]

Your action for the turn is to disengage, which resolves instantly. The effect of that action is that your movement no longer provokes OAs, because you're being careful and dodging and weaving as you move. You could narrate this with as much flair as you like, but the underlying mechanic is still absolutely supported by an instant resolution of the action.

What you call the effect, I call the action.