Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Hriston]

Show me that rule.

“On your turn, you can... take one action.”

Show me that rule, too.

“you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you.” The text says, “Using the Attack action,” but shoving a creature using a bonus action is resolved identically. I.e., "Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

And this is just blatantly false. You know the moment you use something whether it's an action or a bonus action. The ability you use tells you straight out. Despite your claims, there is no Shrodinger's action in 5e.

I'm not sure what you mean by "use something". In the game, players describe what they want their characters to do, not what game-feature they use. They can, but it isn't required. You're assuming your preferred play-style is mandated by the rules, which isn't the case.

What is the case is that for his/her character to shove a creature, all a player needs to do is describe his/her character shoving a creature. It's the DM's job to work out which game-elements come into play, and to resolve a shove, all that needs to happen is a contested roll.

This is just sophistry. You don't declare that you are going to use an action in the game at some point during the turn. I'll go Yoda on you. Use or use not, there is no declare.

Look, you're playing games with semantics. You said, "there is no such thing as declaring an action," and that just isn't so. Step 2 of the basic pattern of play, the players' entire third of the conversation, is declaring actions for their characters. "The players describe what they want to do." That's what an action-declaration is. In the case of shoving a creature, a player might say, "I move around the orc so the pit is behind it and try to push it into the pit." Then it's the DM's job to ask the player for a STR (Athletics) check, roll the orc's ability check to contest it, and narrate the result.

This is not possible by RAW. The Rules as Written tell you what type of action you are taking in the instant you take it. The moment the PC takes a shove, it is either the action or the bonus action. Either you take it as a Bonus Action, in which case the trigger already has to have happened, or you take it as part of your Attack action, in which case you must say that as soon as you take it. There is no limbo state that the shove waits in to see what it will become.

Edit: I left out Reactions since they are not a part of this discussion. I added it in, because many people here have problems with context and/or will seize on the omission as an evasion.

What rule requires you to say whether you shove a creature as an action or a bonus action? I don't think there is one. All that's required of the player is to engage with the fiction and describe what fictional actions his/her character is taking. Again, you seem to be assuming your preferred play-style is mandated somewhere in the rules, but I don't think it is.

1. Magic Weapon: Is this contingent on something occurring later in the round? Yes.
1. Shove: Is this contingent on something occurring later in the round? Yes.

2. Magic weapon: Am I using the ability before the trigger happens? Yes.
2. Shove. Are you using the ability before the trigger happens? Yes.

3. Is my wizard being knocked out before the trigger occurs? Yes.
3. Is your fighter being knocked out before the trigger occurs? Yes.

4. Am I then re-writing reality so that the trigger never needed to happen and an action was taken to provide the effect? Yes.
4. Are you then re-writing reality so that the trigger never needed to happen and an action was taken to provide the effect? Yes.


I'm not seeing any difference in the steps taken between the two. The reasoning for both examples is the same. That one is an action and the other a bonus action is not relevant. Both can be taken at any point during the turn. If you are having problems with my wizard example, you really should take a closer look at what you are claiming.

Shoving a creature isn't contingent on anything occurring later in the round. As long as the creature is no more than one size larger than you and within your reach, you can describe your character trying to shove it when it's your turn.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't need one, does it? After all, you are only moving on your turn, and the Disengage benefits lasts until the end of your turn. I'm not even certain who is arguing which side anymore! LOL

Argument by contradiction. I’m showing that there is a contradiction in the position that actions last as long as their effects and what necessarily results from that position: that you won’t be able to move after taking the disengage action. This is such strong evidence that I’ve changed my position and no longer believe actions last as long as their effects.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Argument by contradiction. I’m showing that there is a contradiction in the position that actions last as long as their effects and what necessarily results from that position: that you won’t be able to move after taking the disengage action. This is such strong evidence that I’ve changed my position and no longer believe actions last as long as their effects.

Hmm... Ok, so let me see if I am understanding your position properly then:

You said that you won't be able to move after disengaging? Do you mean if you moved prior to disengaging, you stipulate you cannot move afterwards as well? That seems a direct contradiction to the rules allowing you to move before and after your action provided you have movement remaining.

 

[Asgorath]

Hmm... Ok, so let me see if I am understanding your position properly then:

You said that you won't be able to move after disengaging? Do you mean if you moved prior to disengaging, you stipulate you cannot move afterwards as well? That seems a direct contradiction to the rules allowing you to move before and after your action provided you have movement remaining.

If the game supports discrete events that effectively resolve instantly, then yes, you can move after disengaging. The effect of the Disengage action lasts until the end of your turn. The action itself is instantaneous, and thus there doesn't need to be a special rule that says "you can move while Disengaging" like there is to say "you can move between attacks in the Attack action".

If the Disengage action itself (not the effect, the action) lasted until the end of your turn, then you would need a special rule that says you can move while taking the Disengage action. The lack of such a rule strongly suggests this is not how the game is supposed to work.

The Attack action with Extra Attack slightly complicates things, which is why there is a special rule that explicitly says you can move between attacks in that action. It's also why some bonus action triggers contain language like TWF's "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". That trigger is resolved as soon as you actually make a single weapon attack, and thus the bonus action is granted.

Edit: To clarify, he's agreeing with you, based on his realization that actions resolve instantly while their effects persist for the stated duration (rather than the action itself persisting).

 

[Asgorath]

What rule requires you to say whether you shove a creature as an action or a bonus action? I don't think there is one. All that's required of the player is to engage with the fiction and describe what fictional actions his/her character is taking. Again, you seem to be assuming your preferred play-style is mandated somewhere in the rules, but I don't think it is.

This one:

"You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take."

You start your turn with your move and your action. If you say "I want to shove that Orc and then hit it with my sword" at level 4 with the Shield Master feat, then the DM should say "well you can't actually do that because the shove consumes your action". Specifically, until you've taken the Attack action, you don't have a bonus action to shove someone. That's the way bonus actions with triggers work, the trigger must be true or you simply don't have the bonus action yet.

At some point the player's description of what they'd like to do needs to be converted into actual game mechanics. The bonus action rules are clear: you don't have a bonus action until something grants you one. Shield Master doesn't say "you have a bonus action shove", it says that you get the shove when you take the Attack action on your turn. All evidence points to actions being discrete entities, and thus you actually have to take the Attack action before the Shield Master's bonus action trigger condition is satisfied, and you can then use that bonus action to shove someone after you've attacked but before the end of your turn. You could also move in between, which allows you to shove a different target, for example.

 

[Hriston]

So when the lead rules designer says that "if X, then Y" has special meaning within the rules of the game, and that Shield Master is an example of such a trigger, he's just wrong?

The question is whether the condition specifies a timing for the bonus action. I don't think it does. If you want to regard it as specifying a timing, i.e. after the Attack action has been taken, there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it's the best reading for the game.

Or is it because the PHB wording of Shield Master doesn't specifically contain the word "then" that he's wrong?

The word then wouldn't add anything to the meaning, IMO. It's implicit in the structure of the sentence.

Or that when he's been telling everyone on many different platforms that the intent of the feat is the shove happens after the Attack action, and that the feat's bonus action is intended to be a finishing move, he's just wrong?

Here's an interesting tweet from Jeremy in this regard:

Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling​

This doesn't sound like someone who forgot about his original ruling or tweeted it in error. It sounds like someone who has changed his mind. If the RAI was for Shield Master to give you a finishing move, then why did he originally rule against that? Did he change his mind twice?

Do you just flat-out ignore the entire Sage Advice compendium, or just the question about Shield Master?

Do you realize this is a loaded question? I'm obviously not ignoring what Jeremy Crawford said about Shield Master.

 

[epithet]

"You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet."

The only thing the game allows is moving before or after your action. The attack action with extra attacks is an explicit exception. The disengage action has no such exception.

So, let me get this straight. The rules point out that, unlike some previous editions, you don’t have to use all your movement at once. You can break it up and essentially move whenever you want to, as long as your total movement doesn’t exceed your character’s maximum. Your take-away is that movement is limited to the exact examples described, anything else is prohibited.

This is makes it necessary, in your opinion, to characterize Disengage as something you do once, in a single moment, which then gives you up to six seconds of movement with impunity. You don’t have to continue to duck and weave, no... casually strolling among the ogres is fine, you’re protected by that one little flinch you made a few seconds back.

Or—and hear me out on this—you could say that if an interpretation of the rules leads inexorably to some kind of super-gamy ridiculous nonsense that takes a steaming dump on the verisimilitude of your fictional world, you should look for a different interpretation. That’s also a possibility.

 

[Asgorath]

The question is whether the condition specifies a timing for the bonus action. I don't think it does. If you want to regard it as specifying a timing, i.e. after the Attack action has been taken, there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it's the best reading for the game.

Would you mind providing an example of a bonus action that does have specific timing, and explaining how it differs from Shield Master? I'd like to understand how you're interpreting that part of the bonus action rules.

Here's an interesting tweet from Jeremy in this regard:

Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling​

This doesn't sound like someone who forgot about his original ruling or tweeted it in error. It sounds like someone who has changed his mind. If the RAI was for Shield Master to give you a finishing move, then why did he originally rule against that? Did he change his mind twice?

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064841214676994

"Today's clarification makes it so that you can trust your book more than ever before, since I've now eliminated an illogical ruling that actually seeded doubt about the book's text."

I don't think there are any inconsistencies here. JEC replies to a question on Twitter about Shield Master in 2015 and says "sure, you can shove whenever you like!" without actually reading the rules and then promptly forgets about it. Years later, someone points out that this ruling is bad, so he clarifies how bonus action timing is supposed to work and reverses his previous bad ruling.

Do you realize this is a loaded question? I'm obviously not ignoring what Jeremy Crawford said about Shield Master.

I'm just trying to understand how you're reconciling the fact he's come out and said "hey that 2015 tweet was bad, I was wrong, here's how bonus action timing and Shield Master are supposed to work", including adding a question about Shield Master to the Sage Advice Compendium (the source of official rulings about rules questions). It's one thing to just not use the rule as intended at your table, but you seem to be arguing that his ruling is simply incorrect and the 2015 tweet is how the rule is supposed to work. Is that not the case?

 

[epithet]

The more I think about it, the more it seems likely that Jeremy isn’t the one who wrote the feat. When he describes intention, he seems to be talking only about how he intends for people to interpret the text now, not the intent of the author when it was written. Not that it matters—it says what it says, regardless of the authors intent then or Jeremy’s intent now. It’s just interesting to contemplate.

 

[Hriston]

Every last bonus action caused by a trigger has timing built in. That timing is the trigger. That's how language commonly works, so that's how it works in 5e. Only bonus actions that have no trigger can be used at any time.

"If you take the Attack action on your turn," doesn't indicate a specific time. That can happen at any point during your turn, which just so happens to be the same period of time in which you could potentially use a bonus action.