Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

So I just wanted to say, this thread was worth it. It's at least changed my opinion. I used to be anti-instantaneous actions and now I'm for them. Surprisingly that also means shield master can get triggered before the attacks from the attack action are taken which is completely different than my original position. So for those that offered interesting insights instead of just back and forth arguments, thank you!

 

[epithet]

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.

I see where you're coming from.

For me, as a DM, it comes down to the fact that I'm pretty indulgent when it comes to changing your mind as long as it doesn't involve undoing an attack, or un-casting a spell, or something objective like that. If someone want to change whether a shove was from Shield Master or from Extra Attack, and all that involves is re-construing the formal game constructions, I have no real objection to that (unless you're taking forever to figure out what you want to do.) For me, it's easiest to keep all the metagame stuff pretty loose until the end of the turn, then lock it down and move to the next initiative. As long as it's all kosher in retrospect, and you're not abusing my indulgence (which my players don't,) it's all good. I'm sure it would drive Max all the way around the bend.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We've always played Shield Master can use his bonus action to Shove or Knock Prone before making his attack rolls. Without allies, it is nearly a pointless feature if you play it any other way. Imagine a fighter with Shield Master in a one-on-one contest. If you force him to make the attack rolls prior to his bonus action, he gains no benefit for knocking his opponent prone after the attacks are made since the foe can simple stand up for half his movement on his turn. By allowing the bonus action to occur prior, he can then make any attacks with advantage. This gives the feature purpose IMO. It is also much more cinematic and follows understandable tactical actions.

On a similar note, our DM allows the off-hand bonus action attack to also take place before the main-hand if the player so chooses, or if they have the extra attack feature at higher levels, the off-hand attack can happen between the two main-hand attacks. It is illogical to assume every time the character attacks they MUST strike with the main-hand first. We are well aware that is not how the rules intend, but it makes more sense to allow the attacks to be more fluid. For instance, suppose you have a shortsword in one hand and dagger in the off-hand. You can throw the dagger in your off-hand as a bonus action at a target, then move to attack another target, and use your attack action against the second target. I will go further in stating an example that would really throw more "pure" rules players out of whack:

You throw a dagger from your off-hand as an attack, move and draw another dagger as part of the movement, strike with the dagger now in off-hand as your bonus action, and then conclude your attack action using "extra attack" to strike with your main-hand weapon! Crazy, huh!?!

Of course, we DO play with declarations of actions because we believe a six-second round is simply too quick to not have declared intentions, but that is our preference and another can of worms.

P.S. The fluffy bunnies are still waiting for someone to pet them. Have a heart, pet a fluffy bunny today!

 

[FrogReaver]

We've always played Shield Master can use his bonus action to Shove or Knock Prone before making his attack rolls. Without allies, it is nearly a pointless feature if you play it any other way. Imagine a fighter with Shield Master in a one-on-one contest. If you force him to make the attack rolls prior to his bonus action, he gains no benefit for knocking his opponent prone after the attacks are made since the foe can simple stand up for half his movement on his turn. By allowing the bonus action to occur prior, he can then make any attacks with advantage. This gives the feature purpose IMO. It is also much more cinematic and follows understandable tactical actions.

From a power perspective there are a lot of pointless feats. I don't feel feats were well balanced in terms of power. They feel more about flavor than power to me. As such you get some utterly weak ones and some irreplaceably powerful ones.

That said knocking someone prone is still potentially beneficial to your allies and slows down the enemy from getting to your squishies. So even in the worst case interpretation, shield master isn't a pointless feat.

By the way consider this strategy in a 1v1.

Fighter 1: Attack, attack, shield bash Knock prone. move 20 ft away, taking an OA at disadvantage.
Fighter 2: Stand up, dash 20 ft ends turn adjacent
Fighter 1: repeat.

There's plenty of benefit to shield master in 1v1 combat even when you can only shove after. You just have to think tactically.

 

[5ekyu]

We've always played Shield Master can use his bonus action to Shove or Knock Prone before making his attack rolls. Without allies, it is nearly a pointless feature if you play it any other way. Imagine a fighter with Shield Master in a one-on-one contest. If you force him to make the attack rolls prior to his bonus action, he gains no benefit for knocking his opponent prone after the attacks are made since the foe can simple stand up for half his movement on his turn. By allowing the bonus action to occur prior, he can then make any attacks with advantage. This gives the feature purpose IMO. It is also much more cinematic and follows understandable tactical actions.

On a similar note, our DM allows the off-hand bonus action attack to also take place before the main-hand if the player so chooses, or if they have the extra attack feature at higher levels, the off-hand attack can happen between the two main-hand attacks. It is illogical to assume every time the character attacks they MUST strike with the main-hand first. We are well aware that is not how the rules intend, but it makes more sense to allow the attacks to be more fluid. For instance, suppose you have a shortsword in one hand and dagger in the off-hand. You can throw the dagger in your off-hand as a bonus action at a target, then move to attack another target, and use your attack action against the second target. I will go further in stating an example that would really throw more "pure" rules players out of whack:

You throw a dagger from your off-hand as an attack, move and draw another dagger as part of the movement, strike with the dagger now in off-hand as your bonus action, and then conclude your attack action using "extra attack" to strike with your main-hand weapon! Crazy, huh!?!

Of course, we DO play with declarations of actions because we believe a six-second round is simply too quick to not have declared intentions, but that is our preference and another can of worms.

P.S. The fluffy bunnies are still waiting for someone to pet them. Have a heart, pet a fluffy bunny today!

5e system is built and designed around team play, do the assumption is there will be allies and elements are based on it.

Have you looked at how effective bardic inspire dice are sat levrls 1-2 if you are solo? How effective Inspiring leader is solo? Or the help action entirely solo?

Shield Master gives you three benefits, two of which are solo fine - they just affect you. It cannot have one with diminished capability while solo?

Now for your example, let's take two fighters at 5th level one-on-one.

Stan has Shield Master, Dave does not. Both are primarily sword xnd board types.

Stan takes two swings, 5th level then bonus shoves.
Say Dave goes down.
Stan steps away allowing Dave a disadvantaged AO. Moves 30 ft.
Dave can get up, but cannot close to melee this turn. Maybe he can juggle the interactions to throw something but that's hardly a match.

So one disadvantaged and one interaction juggled throw vs two normal melee swings.

"nearly a pointless feature"?

Now swap Dave for any number of beasts/monsters with less than 50' movement and reach combined - now they likley dont have a "throw option." Now every round you can bonus shove and succeed at the end is an exchange where you gain the edge of taking your two melee attacks at full and all the opponent gets is one disadvantaged AO.

"nearly a pointless feature"?

As one-third of a feat?

Even after limiting it to solo fights and ignoring its team play potential?

Gotcha. Sure thing.

As for your TWF run on...

" It is illogical to assume every time the character attacks they MUST strike with the main-hand first."

Yes, exactly, which is why "main hand" and off-hand are not in the 5e TWF rules. There is no limitation that requires either hand to start the sequence, just that the bonus action must be with a different light weapon in a different hand. That's all. Depending on styles and specifics, that bonus attsck may have no ability modifier but that's tied to its bonus action snd could apply to one hand on one turn and the other on the next.

Far as I can tell, your shortsword dagger whatever examples are all legal within std 5e rules and the only change your tule fir was allow a little different answer to "which attack loses the ability score bonus" **if** they lack the style that negates that.

Not really mind blowing?

 

[Asgorath]

Fun fact, I role played Don Quixote and it was a blast.

I can't see how I misconstrued your position at all. Do you believe that you can move during the Dash Action? If you believe that you can take the Dash Action instantly and then dash the whole turn, and you can take the Disengage Action instantly and disengage the whole turn, why can't you take the Attack Action instantly and then make your attacks throughout the rest of your turn? Do you think the Actions in Combat should not be treated the same way?

The Dash action essentially gives you a buff for the rest of your turn: your movement speed doubles. The action resolves instantly and provides this buff effect for the stated duration.

The Disengage action essentially gives you a buff for the rest of your turn: your movement no longer provokes OAs. The action resolves instantly and provides the buff effect for the stated duration.

The Attack action resolves the instant you make an attack. Extra Attack says your Attack action gives you multiple weapon attacks, and there's a special rule that allows you to move between attacks granted by Extra Attack. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, once again, if you have 2 attacks and Shield Master, the rules say you can move, attack, move, attack, move, and then use your bonus action to shove. The 2nd move is explicitly allowed by the movement rules. The bonus action is allowed because the Shield Master's bonus action has the trigger of the Attack action, which happens to be 1 or 2 attacks, and must come after the Attack action.

Consider this: you move away from an enemy and forget to Disengage. The enemy gets an OA and hits you. You then decide to take the Disengage action to get away from the other 2 enemies you are engaged with. The Disengage action applies to the 2nd and 3rd enemy only, but not the first, because you hadn't taken the Disengage action yet.

If I was designing a combat system for a TTRPG, and had the option between clearly defined events that happen in a specific order with rules describing trigger conditions that grant extra abilities, or a loosey-goosey system that had no timing or ordering and basically just threw everything into a big pot and stirred it around and hoped that the end result was valid and relied on you going back in time to fix things up when the results weren't consistent, then I know which one I'd pick.

I'll ask again: the rules talk about bonus actions with timing requirements, please provide an example of such a bonus action and why it's different to Shield Master.

 

[Asgorath]

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.

Where does JEC say this?

Disengage resolves instantly, and gives you the effect (or buff) that your movement for the rest of the turn no longer provokes OAs. You don't need to keep taking the Disengage action, nor does the action itself need to last until the end of your turn. How does this apply to the Dodge action, which lasts until the start of your next turn? How do you take an action when it's not even your turn anymore?

These actions are different to the Attack action, because they are providing a short-term effect that persists for the duration. You could compare them with an at-will spell that provides a buff that lasts until the end of your turn or the start of your next turn or whatever the specified duration is. The Attack action is simple: you make an attack with your weapon. Extra Attack grants you the ability to make multiple attacks as part of the action, and there's a special rule that allows you to move in between those attacks.

The TWF bonus action is granted when you make a single weapon attack, because that's what the trigger condition is. The Shield Master bonus action is granted when you've taken the Attack action (as a whole), because that's what the trigger condition is. If this is not true, then why can't I stealth at full speed all the time when I'm a Ranger with Natural Explorer? If there's no connection between X and Y in sentences of the form "If you X, you can Y" then that rule and many others simply break down.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Unless you read the Disengage action language as specific beats general and it allows you to continue moving. Then he can be right and it isn't necessary for them to be separate.

 

[FrogReaver]

Where does JEC say this?

Disengage resolves instantly, and gives you the effect (or buff) that your movement for the rest of the turn no longer provokes OAs. You don't need to keep taking the Disengage action, nor does the action itself need to last until the end of your turn. How does this apply to the Dodge action, which lasts until the start of your next turn? How do you take an action when it's not even your turn anymore?

These actions are different to the Attack action, because they are providing a short-term effect that persists for the duration. You could compare them with an at-will spell that provides a buff that lasts until the end of your turn or the start of your next turn or whatever the specified duration is. The Attack action is simple: you make an attack with your weapon. Extra Attack grants you the ability to make multiple attacks as part of the action, and there's a special rule that allows you to move in between those attacks.

Maybe, but I don't find that a very compelling case. Unless there's something very important I'm missing, it would seem most likely IMO that all actions are either instantaneous or all actions last for their duration. I've proven they can't all last for their duration. Therefore my conclusion is that they are all instantaneous. You can say what if, might and maybe all you want but at the end of the day I need more evidence than mights and maybe's to change my mind.

The TWF bonus action is granted when you make a single weapon attack, because that's what the trigger condition is. The Shield Master bonus action is granted when you've taken the Attack action (as a whole), because that's what the trigger condition is. If this is not true, then why can't I stealth at full speed all the time when I'm a Ranger with Natural Explorer? If there's no connection between X and Y in sentences of the form "If you X, you can Y" then that rule and many others simply break down.

So you posit Natural Explorer as a counter example for why actions can't all be instantaneous. Let me take a look. Oh I see. It's not a capital Action like the attack Action or the dodge Action etc. That makes my answer there pretty simple. Since it's not an Action then it's not instantaneous.

You bring TWF in as well. TWF also requires a trigger of an attack. An attack is not an instantaneous event like an Action is. So it can trigger off an attack just fine and not contradict my stance.

You bring up the notion that shield master bonus action shove must be taken after the attack action is completed. I agree. However, I don't believe the attacks are part of the Action itself but rather that the Attack Action is instantaneous and taking it grants you the ability to make attacks.

So I think I'm covered against all those counterexamples. Got any thing else?

 

[FrogReaver]

Unless you read the Disengage action language as specific beats general and it allows you to continue moving. Then he can be right and it isn't necessary for them to be separate.

It doesn't grant you the ability to keep moving. It only grants you the ability that IF you move then you don't provoke OA's. There is a difference.