Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Asgorath]

"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.

Again, the rules are filled with sentences that have the structure "if X, Y", and often more specifically "If you X, you can Y". This is the way the rules describe a trigger condition, and the condition must be true before Y can happen. This is confirmed by the lead rules designer:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995043696251842561

"If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y."

This applies for every sentence in the rules that uses that structure. Again, note that I did not say X must be completed -- the condition must simply be true before Y can happen.

If I follow your logic, then as a Ranger with Natural Explorer I can say that there's no timing requirement for me moving stealthily at full pace, the rule just says I can do that. At some point in the future, the "if X" part of the rule will happen, and so that means I get the "Y" part whenever I like.

 

[Hriston]

It's not an interpretation. It's out and out changing the rules. The rules require the player to take the actions and bonus actions when they are used. When a player shoves, he has to indicate whether he is using the bonus action(if it has already been triggered) or an action. It doesn't get to change later on. It's ridiculous that you are claiming not only that it can be done, but that it's an "interpretation" of the rules.

Anyway, I'm done. You will disagree, but when you engage the rules in that manner you are house ruling them. Have a good day.

There's no rule that requires a player to state on what part of the action economy his/her action-declaration relies.

 

[Asgorath]

There's no rule that requires a player to state on what part of the action economy his/her action-declaration relies.

But someone has to translate from the natural language a player uses to describe what they'd like to do on their turn into actual game mechanics, right? That could be the DM for an inexperienced player, or the player themselves. Otherwise, we're not really playing D&D anymore, are we? What happens when I say "I'd like to fly over there, stealthily at full speed, and punch that Ancient Red Dragon in the face and kill it with a single blow"? The game's combat just doesn't work like that.

- What grants me a flying speed? Without one, I can't fly.
- The rules say you have to move at a slow pace by default in order to use stealth.
- Punching the dragon involves making an attack roll, at the very least.
- My punch likely can't do enough damage to bring the dragon to 0 HP.

I'd say the DM has the final say in how the player's desires for what they do on their turn actually map to game mechanics, as part of the standard rule adjudication process. I can think of plenty of unreasonable things a player might want to do on their turn that are simply not allowed by the rules, and so in cases like that, the DM should simply say "no you can't actually do all that stuff on your turn".

 

[epithet]

Again, the rules are filled with sentences that have the structure "if X, Y", and often more specifically "If you X, you can Y". This is the way the rules describe a trigger condition, and the condition must be true before Y can happen. This is confirmed by the lead rules designer:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/995043696251842561

"If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y."

This applies for every sentence in the rules that uses that structure. Again, note that I did not say X must be completed -- the condition must simply be true before Y can happen.

If I follow your logic, then as a Ranger with Natural Explorer I can say that there's no timing requirement for me moving stealthily at full pace, the rule just says I can do that. At some point in the future, the "if X" part of the rule will happen, and so that means I get the "Y" part whenever I like.

He's saying that for any turn on which he takes the Attack Action, the Shield Specialist character can use the bonus action shove at any point during that turn, as provided in the general rule of bonus actions, because the condition for using that bonus action is satisfied. The unit of time in question is the Shield Master's turn, and on that turn he is taking the Attack Action. The Attack Action is a game construction which takes 1 turn of game time, so you can assume the entire turn (as well as any activity within it) qualifies as contemporaneous with the Attack Action.

Following that logic, during any unit of game time during which the Ranger is travelling alone for that entire unit of time, the Ranger can move stealthily at his full pace. Moving stealthily at his full pace and travelling alone must happen concurrently, as you have wryly noted. Brisk sneaking cannot be done before the solo travel, nor can it be done after--it can only be done during the solo travel, just like the bonus action shove can only be done during a turn on which the Attack Action is taken.

You have expressed an opinion upthread that overlapping actions and bonus actions are somehow more complicated, but I submit that they are not complicated in the least. First of all, they are concurrent, not overlapping--both take place "on your turn." The individual (objective) activities that form or are granted by the action or bonus action are sequential, neatly ordered according to the stated actions of the character by its player. The (formal) game constructs, actions, bonus actions, etc. have no objective reality in the game world, so you can stack as many "on your turn" as the rules allow without over-complicating anything.

 

[Maxperson]

He's saying that for any turn on which he takes the Attack Action, the Shield Specialist character can use the bonus action shove at any point during that turn, as provided in the general rule of bonus actions, because the condition for using that bonus action is satisfied. The unit of time in question is the Shield Master's turn, and on that turn he is taking the Attack Action. The Attack Action is a game construction which takes 1 turn of game time, so you can assume the entire turn (as well as any activity within it) qualifies as contemporaneous with the Attack Action.

Yes, but he's wrong. That's why he had to invent time travel to go back and change the bonus action to an action if something prevents his PC from using the Attack action that turn. If you have to invent time travel and Schrodinger's actions to justify your position, you're already wrong.

 

[epithet]

But someone has to translate from the natural language a player uses to describe what they'd like to do on their turn into actual game mechanics, right? That could be the DM for an inexperienced player, or the player themselves. Otherwise, we're not really playing D&D anymore, are we? What happens when I say "I'd like to fly over there, stealthily at full speed, and punch that Ancient Red Dragon in the face and kill it with a single blow"? The game's combat just doesn't work like that.

- What grants me a flying speed? Without one, I can't fly.
- The rules say you have to move at a slow pace by default in order to use stealth.
- Punching the dragon involves making an attack roll, at the very least.
- My punch likely can't do enough damage to bring the dragon to 0 HP.

I'd say the DM has the final say in how the player's desires for what they do on their turn actually map to game mechanics, as part of the standard rule adjudication process. I can think of plenty of unreasonable things a player might want to do on their turn that are simply not allowed by the rules, and so in cases like that, the DM should simply say "no you can't actually do all that stuff on your turn".

This is where verisimilitude becomes so important. A player will (at least, should) learn very quickly what characters of his race, background, and class are capable of. If someone says "I'd like to fly over there, stealthily at full speed, and punch that Ancient Red Dragon in the face and kill it with a single blow" in your first session, you simply ask "Do you think that dwarves can fly?" If that character can, for some reason, fly, well... you have to decide whether flight is maybe quiet enough to let him sneak up quickly, and if not advise the player that, just like in 'the real world,' you can get there fast or you can get there quietly, but most of the time you can't do both. Then let him roll stealth and try not to laugh as you compare it to the dragon's passive perception, and prepare to deliver "The Dragon's Address to Lunch" in your dragon voice.

The key to all of that is that, in terms of the fantasy world, it all makes sense. You don't actually need to get deep into the game mechanics.

 

[epithet]

Yes, but he's wrong. That's why he had to invent time travel to go back and change the bonus action to an action if something prevents his PC from using the Attack action that turn. If you have to invent time travel and Schrodinger's actions to justify your position, you're already wrong.

No, there is no need to go back in time for that, because the action and bonus action occur concurrently. They both occur "on your turn." Besides, time travel already exists in the D&D rules--see as an example the many features and feats that let you change the result of a die you've already rolled.

 

[Maxperson]

No, there is no need to go back in time for that, because the action and bonus action occur concurrently.

No. No they aren't happening concurrently if you are taking the bonus action BEFORE you take the action. Imagine the following scenario. The DM has an enemy with a Hold Person spell readied to cast on your fighter if your fighter moves. On your turn you take the shove action and knock down the enemy in front of you, then you move 10 feet to take that Attack action, except the Hold Person spell goes off, you miss your save and cannot take the Attack action. They would be concurrent if you actually took the Attack action and at least one attack first, since you aren't even in the process of taking your Attack action until that first attack happens.

According to Hriston, time travel occurs and the bonus action somehow becomes the action, or we have Schrodinger's action where we don't know if the shove is alive or dead until the end of the turn.

Besides, time travel already exists in the D&D rules--see as an example the many features and feats that let you change the result of a die you've already rolled.

Those mostly aren't time travel. Most of them make you use them before you know whether you've succeeded or failed, so no time travel is involved at all. Shield is the only one I can think of that can turn a hit into a miss, basically being time travel, and I have an issue with that part of the spell

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

My take-away is that movement is limited to being before or after an action as the rule I cited expresses. Do you have a different rule that says you can move in the middle of an action?

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.

Of course you continue to duck and weave. It's just ducking and weaving is not concurrent with taking the disengage action. You take the disengage action, then you duck and weave for the rest of your turn. Ducking and weaving for the rest of your turn isn't mutually exclusive with the disengage action being instantaneous with it's effects following the taking of the action.

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.

Well that's precisely the argument I'm making against non-instantaneous actions. That having actions be non-instantaneous leads inexorably to some kind of super-gamey ridiculous nonsense that takes a steaming dump on the verisimilitude of the fictional world and therefore I propose instantaneous actions as the different interpretation.

 

[FrogReaver]

He's saying that for any turn on which he takes the Attack Action, the Shield Specialist character can use the bonus action shove at any point during that turn, as provided in the general rule of bonus actions, because the condition for using that bonus action is satisfied. The unit of time in question is the Shield Master's turn, and on that turn he is taking the Attack Action. The Attack Action is a game construction which takes 1 turn of game time, so you can assume the entire turn (as well as any activity within it) qualifies as contemporaneous with the Attack Action.

If that's what he is saying I understand his interpretation. But he explicitly told me that his turn activities were sequential and not concurrent.