Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[epithet]

1. If you can't separate the disengage action from the disengage movement and
2. If you can only move before or after an action (as the rule I citied indicates) then
CONCLUSION: if you take the disengage action you can't move after taking the disengage action

See, I have reasoning for why I think JC is wrong about not being able to separate action from their effects. In the case of the disengage action it's absolutely necessary for the action to be separated from it's effects because if you don't then given the above logical argument you literally can't move after taking it which is nonsensical as the whole purpose of taking it is to be able to move without taking OA's.

I see your reasoning, and it is consistent. While yours is not the only way to interpret the rules, your interpretation is probably the one that most adheres to the exact letter of the rules, and it is much more logical than Crawford's new Advice.

 

[epithet]

Why do you think I am treating those differently? See up until now I've thought you had some grand point that would prove attack actions can't be taken instantaneously. Now I think you don't and that you somehow think I believe that the disengage action is instantaneous but the attack action isn't. That would be a strange thing to believe without a good reason to do so.

I have a very good reason indeed.

I was mistaken.

It happens.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not seeing how that breaks the game. It works just fine.

What you're really saying is that it is easy to fix the break by just altering which is the bonus action and which is the action. It's very broken in that if you play by the rules, you end up with a bonus action used and no trigger for said bonus action, since the action was prevented by the hold spell. The game doesn't let you switch bonus actions and actions. That's your fix.

There are plenty of things that are undetermined in D&D until something else happens, case in point most reactions. It's one 6 second turn, it's not that hard to work out man.

And there are vastly more that are not undetermined, with actions and bonus actions being among them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fastest 40 m dash time is 4.42 seconds. That's nearly 30 ft/s

I'm not saying I could do it either, but it's at least humanely possible and not supernaturally so.

I think you meant humanly unless while doing it you are being very kind and compassionate?

Who wants to hug the fluffy bunnies? They are SO soft!

 

[FrogReaver]

If X is an attack that you could make as part of the attack action, it's pretty simple. If X is something completely different, like moving an extra 10 feet, I regard it as essentially becoming part of your attack action, meaning if you move the extra 10 feet you've taken the attack action even if you don't make any attacks. I know that doesn't synch with Jeremy's current advice, but it is the way that makes sense to me without getting all metagamy. It's a simple "that ability gives you an extra 10 feet of movement if you use it, but then all you can do is attack. That's all you'll have time for on your turn, unless you want to dig deep with an action surge."

I agree that's a good way to do it. But we are trying to iron out the actual game rules on this at the moment and I think your answer is actually an attempt at avoiding directly answering my question that was about how you view your interpretation of concurrent actions/bonus actions and the rules interacting in the scenario I described.

 

[FrogReaver]

I see your reasoning, and it is consistent. While yours is not the only way to interpret the rules, your interpretation is probably the one that most adheres to the exact letter of the rules, and it is much more logical than Crawford's new Advice.

The only thing I dislike about my current interpretation is that I fear it will also apply to other bonus actions that have an actual timing requirement and thus effectively eliminate the timing clause out of the bonus action rules. That is why I am so interested in the concurrent explanation and how it handles other bonus actions that we normally agree have timing.

 

[epithet]

In the concurrent bonus action and attack action concept what prevents a player from ignoring all timing requirements on a bonus action. For example if you have an ability that said when you take the attack action on your turn and attack you can make a bonus action to do X. If everything is concurrent then would you also be able to take that kind of bonus action before the attack action?

I agree that's a good way to do it. But we are trying to iron out the actual game rules on this at the moment and I think your answer is actually an attempt at avoiding directly answering my question that was about how you view your interpretation of concurrent actions/bonus actions and the rules interacting in the scenario I described.

Sorry, if you want a simple and direct answer then it is: Yes, as long as you take the attack action on that turn. If your bonus action is something other than an attack, then you've taken the Attack Action when you do that other thing, even if you make no attacks.

 

[epithet]

The only thing I dislike about my current interpretation is that I fear it will also apply to other bonus actions that have an actual timing requirement and thus effectively eliminate the timing clause out of the bonus action rules. That is why I am so interested in the concurrent explanation and how it handles other bonus actions that we normally agree have timing.

Well, if a bonus action has an actual timing requirement I think it would almost certainly be based on an objective activity, like making a melee weapon attack, rather than simply upon a formal Action, like taking the Attack Action on your turn. Even if you interpret Actions and Bonus Actions to be handled concurrently, the objective activities they grant will be sequential. Take the bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting as an example: it uses almost the exact same language as shield master, but adds "and make a melee weapon attack" to it. The Attack Action happens "on your turn," but the melee weapon attack happens at a distinct point in time within your turn, as part of a sequence of events.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sorry, if you want a simple and direct answer then it is: Yes, as long as you take the attack action on that turn. If your bonus action is something other than an attack, then you've taken the Attack Action when you do that other thing, even if you make no attacks.

Thanks, then for me I have a preference for the sequential turn, both player and character side. I think instantaneous actions solve a lot of the complicated problems, though its possible there may be an example of that I'm unaware of that also makes instantaneous actions not work. If there is such an example then I'll revisit concurrent actions at that time, or worst case I'll determine the rules have no consistent interpretation which isn't a bad place to be either as it means I and my DM entirely get to decide how to handle the situation based on factors other than whatever the rule is.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, if a bonus action has an actual timing requirement I think it would almost certainly be based on an objective activity, like making a melee weapon attack, rather than simply upon a formal Action, like taking the Attack Action on your turn. Even if you interpret Actions and Bonus Actions to be handled concurrently, the objective activities they grant will be sequential. Take the bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting as an example: it uses almost the exact same language as shield master, but adds "and make a melee weapon attack" to it. The Attack Action happens "on your turn," but the melee weapon attack happens at a distinct point in time within your turn, as part of a sequence of events.

So basically as long as the activity described is an objective in character activity then timing contraints would still apply. Interesting. That actually works out for my instantaneous action interpretation as well. Nice catch!