Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Asgorath]

No duration = instantaneous so we are in agreement there.

I did not say that. The duration of an action has no meaning (please show me the text in the PHB that talks about the duration of an action). An action is merely one of the building blocks that you assemble your turn out of.

The issue is the attack action with extra attack. The attack action with extra attack is not a discrete event in the sequence you are referencing. It would be 2 discrete events, attack #1 and then attack #2. So then which of these discrete events do you assign the attack action to?

There are explicit rules that allow dividing the Attack action in to separate pieces.

- There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between attacks of an Attack action. This effectively splits the original Attack action into multiple distinct elements for each attack (or groups of attacks that aren't subdivided by movement). This rule allows for nothing other than inserting movement between attacks of the Attack action, as I described in one of my earlier posts.

- There are triggers that have the condition of a single weapon attack. Thus, the triggered element can be placed any time after the first weapon attack. Move, attack #1, move, triggered bonus action (e.g. TWF), move, attack #2, move. These discrete elements are played and resolved in order.

- There are triggers that have the condition of the Attack action. This triggered element must be placed after all the individual attacks of the Attack action. If you do not insert movement in between these attacks, then the Attack action is still a single discrete element in the timeline. Move, Attack action (attacks #1 - #N), move, triggered bonus action, move.

- There are bonus actions that have no trigger, and those can be placed anywhere in the timeline. Move, attack #1, move, Healing Word, move, attack #2, move.

#1 instantaneous = no duration.

#2 I agree that your turn can to some degree be described as being made up of a sequence of in gameworld events. Consider the following sequence: You move, you attack, you move again, you attack, you move again, you bonus action shove and then you move again. Each of those activities is a discrete event. If an action is a discrete event in the sequence then which discrete event described above coorelates to the attack action?

The Attack action can explicitly be split into multiple discrete pieces, with movement between individual attacks. There's clearly text in the PHB that allows this. Why is this a problem? An action in and of itself has no concept of duration, it's merely an entry in the ordered list of elements of your turn. Given that the PHB says you can split your Attack action with movement, then the Attack action can be multiple distinct elements. Once all attacks are resolved, the Attack action is complete. AFAIK there is no language in the PHB that talks about the duration (or lack thereof) of actions, so a logical conclusion is that actions themselves have no concept of duration. In my opinion, this does not imply the actions themselves are all necessarily instantaneous, just that duration is orthogonal to the strictly ordered list of discrete elements that make up your turn. It's not like 20 feet of movement happens instantaneously, right? It's just that the game rules simply do not care, it's just a discrete element that happens on your turn.

Again, this is why I'm no longer trying to explain this as "all actions are instantaneous". Each discrete element in the ordered list gets resolved separately. Triggered elements simply must come after their triggering element(s), nothing more, nothing less.

#3 the events on your turn can be strictly ordered and actions still being instantaneous. Consider the discrete event sequence: Move, attack action, shield master bonus action, attack #1, move, attack #2, move again.

There is no action declaration phase, so the Attack action is not separate from making an attack. If this is incorrect, please cite the PHB language that allows you to declare your Attack action in advance. There are rules about splitting your Attack action into discrete elements and inserting movement between those elements, which allows you to move, attack #1, move, attack #2. At that point, assuming you have 2 attacks, your Attack action is now complete and things that trigger off the Attack action can now be added to the ordered list.

 

[Maxperson]

The Disengage action doesn't imply anything. It's explicit. "If you move you don't provoke OA's. There is no guarantee in that action that you are able to move after taking it, just that if you do move then you don't provoke OA's. My logical argument relies on the presumption/RAI that after taking the disengage action you should be able to move and not provoke OA's. I think we all agree there.

I don't think you understand how arguments by contradiction work. You start with premises and show that those premises lead to a contradiction.

In this case I have 3 premises
1) You should be able to move after taking the disengage action (the RAI that we all know)
2) You can only move before or after an action except with an explicit exception (the RAW in the PHB)
3) Actions are indivisible (your interpretation)

It's obvious those premises lead to a contradiction. You agree there I'm sure. However, what you are trying to say is that premise #2 is wrong because premise #1. The issue with that is that premise #1 only has to do with the intentions/implications and premise #2 only has to do with what is explicitly written. #2 cannot be altered by intentions/implications/RAI because the premise itself is independent of those things. That's why I find it baffling that you keep presenting that as evidence that the argument I'm presenting isn't true.

There should be at least 4 premises, because some people in this thread hold that actions are divisible. And if you are including the various arguments in your analysis, there are some here who think take is something happening in the present, so for them being able to move after you take an action means moving during said action. We have a lot of different ideas floating around this thread. Yours is one of them, but its hardly unassailable proof of which one is correct.

 

[5ekyu]

Well, I make use of house rules, so it isn't really my way we're talking about. This discussion, however, has been focussed on interpreting the "rules as written" in the context of the Shield Master feat, so it is important to note that the Sage Advice isn't rules, it is only advised rulings. Rulings vs. rules is a distinction worth making.

As an example, a dungeon master running a game at an Adventurer's League event is directed to use "the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.)," but "Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is at the discretion of each individual DM."

If you want to know how I personally run my game we can get into that, but I've been operating on the assumption that no one really gives a crap.

I also use house rules. Have in every campaign I have ever run.

Also, I would disagree slightly with your characterization of the discussion.

This discussion is not about RAW if you choose to define RAW in a way that excludes Sage advice. I mean, the actual title is "Sage Advice Compendium Update" not "RAW without counting Sage" or something like that. That makes it odd to declare the discussion is about RAW only not counting Sage.

Then even more oddly you bring up AL.

For someone who elects to play AL they are electing to play by the official books and have the option of adding the official Sage or not, presumably also of using any other source for their rulings at the table they want as long as it's not in direct conflict with RAW. Sounds a lot like what we have already established - folks can elect to use the book as is, or with Sage (both fine in AL) or to not (elect yo play non-AL) - none of it is binding on any GM.

But that just means we have another official source saying it's fine to use Sage for adjudication, so it adds to the odd sense that being dismissive of rulings that do just that because Sage advice isnt official enough for you to choose to use it is... dubious.

At the very least, it seems that the AL info **you** brought up puts "ruling based on Sage" on equal footing to "rulings not using Sage" (where adjudicatiins are made based on whatever the GM prefers to use -barring contradiction) not inferior to them.

So that makes using the "non-binding" nature of Sage Compendium as a point or platform to dismiss rulings based on it - as a response to someone referring to ruling "in a way that is consistent official rulings" - perhaps itself inconsistent with using the AL- which sets that up as an acceptable practice.

 

[FrogReaver]

There should be at least 4 premises, because some people in this thread hold that actions are divisible. And if you are including the various arguments in your analysis, there are some here who think take is something happening in the present, so for them being able to move after you take an action means moving during said action. We have a lot of different ideas floating around this thread. Yours is one of them, but its hardly unassailable proof of which one is correct.

I didn't say this was proof that my whole interpretations was iron clad proven correct, (instead it's evidence of that, as it proves the fundamental premise of my interpretation, that some actions don't last as long as their effects. I then take that starting point and build upon it and ultimately reach the conclusion that actions are instantaneous. I've never said that conclusion is iron clad but the fundamental premise that starts me down that path is).

What i'm saying is that we have proof that at least one action can be divided, otherwise the RAW + your interpretation (no division of actions) contradict the RAI and being that there are other interpretations where this doesn't occur then we should always use the interpretation that doesn't force RAW to contradict RAI.

I don't understand how that's not a persuasive argument.

 

[FrogReaver]

I did not say that. The duration of an action has no meaning (please show me the text in the PHB that talks about the duration of an action). An action is merely one of the building blocks that you assemble your turn out of.

It doesn't have to reference the concept by name for it to be meaningful. The movement rule only allows movement before or after an action. So whether actions have or don't have a duration is at least meaningful in that context.

There are explicit rules that allow dividing the Attack action in to separate pieces.

Exactly and because the attack action can be divided into separate pieces then the attack action is no longer a sequential building block of a turn. The pieces that make it up are, the individual attacks, but the attack action can't be because nesting movement or a bonus action inside the attack action breaks the sequential building block theory. That was the whole point of my post.

- There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between attacks of an Attack action. This effectively splits the original Attack action into multiple distinct elements for each attack (or groups of attacks that aren't subdivided by movement). This rule allows for nothing other than inserting movement between attacks of the Attack action, as I described in one of my earlier posts.

Being able to split the attack action into multiple distinct SEQUENTIAL elements proves that the attack action is not a sequential building block of a turn.

- There are triggers that have the condition of a single weapon attack. Thus, the triggered element can be placed any time after the first weapon attack. Move, attack #1, move, triggered action (e.g. TWF), move, attack #2, move. These discrete elements are played and resolved in order.

Agreed.

- There are triggers that have the condition of the Attack action. This triggered element must be placed after all the individual attacks of the Attack action.

Why? 1) The attack action has no duration (your own words). 2) If it has no duration and you place it in your sequential chain either at the same moment as the 2nd attack or immediately after that attack then how did you take the first attack without taking the attack action?

Of course if you've already taken your no duration attack action by the time the first attack is completed then how do you explain being able to make the 2nd attack?

So we can establish
1) The no duration attack action needs made either before or concurrently with the first attack
2) The 2nd attack cannot be part of that no duration attack action as it's already completed by the time the 2nd attack begins. As such the attack action in your interpretation has at least 1 effect that carries over beyond it's no duration timeframe, the ability to make a 2nd attack.

If you do not insert movement in between these attacks, then the Attack action is still a single discrete element in the timeline. Move, Attack action (attacks #1 - #N), move, triggered bonus action, move.

It's still not a discrete element in the timeline. Whether you have attack, attack or attack, move, attack, each of those attacks are discrete elements and since you described the attack action as no duration it can't possibly overlap 2 discrete events in the sequence.

- There are bonus actions that have no trigger, and those can be placed anywhere in the timeline. Move, attack #1, move, Healing Word, move, attack #2, move.

Agreed

The Attack action can explicitly be split into multiple discrete pieces, with movement between individual attacks. There's clearly text in the PHB that allows this. Why is this a problem?

Because as noted above, there are a number of implications for no duration and sequential elements on the turn. What happens is that those premises together force the conclusion that the attack action isn't a discrete sequential action on your turn. Abilities like shield master trigger off the attack action. So if the attack action isn't a discrete sequential element then we have no idea where to place shield master in the sequence. That's the problem.

An action in and of itself has no concept of duration, it's merely an entry in the ordered list of elements of your turn.

This doesn't work for the attack action, see above.

Given that the PHB says you can split your Attack action with movement, then the Attack action can be multiple distinct elements. Once all attacks are resolved, the Attack action is complete.

This doesn't work with your no duration premise.

AFAIK there is no language in the PHB that talks about the duration (or lack thereof) of actions, so a logical conclusion is that actions themselves have no concept of duration.

We have just spent this whole part here talking about their duration or lack thereof. The concept isn't directly important to the RAW and thus it's not mentioned. However it is an important concept when interpreting the RAW as it allows us to establish facts that would otherwise be unestablishable.

In my opinion, this does not imply the actions themselves are all necessarily instantaneous, just that duration is orthogonal to the strictly ordered list of discrete elements that make up your turn.

I'm confused, are actions not part of the list of discrete elements that make up your turn? I thought you were arguing the opposite?

It's not like 20 feet of movement happens instantaneously, right? It's just that the game rules simply do not care, it's just a discrete element that happens on your turn.

Sure, and because I can place that element into a sequence then triggers that happen based off that movement and everything else work out just fine. With your interpretation the attack action in particular can't be placed into that sequence. The attacks it grants are elements that can be. So when something triggers off the attack action how do we know when the trigger occurs? IMO that means the attack action must be part of the sequential elements of a turn. So then if we have to place a no duration attack action into the list of sequential turn elements where are you placing it?

Again, this is why I'm no longer trying to explain this as "all actions are instantaneous". Each discrete element in the ordered list gets resolved separately. Triggered elements simply must come after their triggering element(s), nothing more, nothing less.

So where in the sequence does the discrete element of the attack action get placed? If it's not a discrete element that can be placed in the sequence then how can things like shield master trigger off it?

There is no action declaration phase, so the Attack action is not separate from making an attack. If this is incorrect, please cite the PHB language that allows you to declare your Attack action in advance. There are rules about splitting your Attack action into discrete elements and inserting movement between those elements, which allows you to move, attack #1, move, attack #2. At that point, assuming you have 2 attacks, your Attack action is now complete and things that trigger off the Attack action can now be added to the ordered list.

There's no rules on when the attack action is made one way or the other. But what we know is that

1) The attack action has no duration (your interpretation)
2) The turn is made up of discrete sequential elements (your interpretation)
3) Each attack of the attack action is a discrete sequential element (your interpretation)
4) The attack action (with extra attack) requires more than 1 discrete sequential element to complete (direct implication of having an attack action made up of 2 discrete sequential attacks)

Contradiction: 1 and 4 = A single discrete sequential element could have a no duration action essentially overlapping it. It's impossible for a no duration action to overlap 2 discrete sequential elements.

That shows that one of your premises is incorrect.

 

[Asgorath]

Exactly and because the attack action can be divided into separate pieces then the attack action is no longer a sequential building block of a turn. The pieces that make it up are, the individual attacks, but the attack action can't be because nesting movement or a bonus action inside the attack action breaks the sequential building block theory. That was the whole point of my post.

Okay, I'll extend the definition of an action to be one or more discrete elements on the timeline to avoid confusion. I thought that was obvious from the rest of my post, I apologize.

We all agree that the Attack action can be split into multiple pieces. However, I do not see any text in the PHB that says you can declare the Attack action, and then make the attacks later. There's a rule that says you can insert movement in between attacks. There are triggers that are based off a single attack. There are triggers that are based on the action as a whole. All of this is consistent with the idea of a discretely ordered list of elements, the triggered element must simply come after all the triggering elements. In the case of the Attack action, this is simply all of the attacks. Evaluating the condition is very straight forward: are all the attacks in the ordered list? If yes, you can add the triggered element. At this point, if you still had attacks from Extra Attack left, you simply cannot add those to the ordered list, because that invalidates the triggered bonus action that is already in the list.

Being able to split the attack action into multiple distinct SEQUENTIAL elements proves that the attack action is not a sequential building block of a turn.

It's the starting point for my analogy, that's all. Why can't the Attack action be made up of N discrete elements? The rules text clearly indicate that this is allowed.

Why? 1) The attack action has no duration (your own words). 2) If it has no duration and you place it in your sequential chain either at the same moment as the 2nd attack or immediately after that attack then how did you take the first attack without taking the attack action?

Of course if you've already taken your no duration attack action by the time the first attack is completed then how do you explain being able to make the 2nd attack?

So we can establish
1) The no duration attack action needs made either before or concurrently with the first attack
2) The 2nd attack cannot be part of that no duration attack action as it's already completed by the time the 2nd attack begins. As such the attack action in your interpretation has at least 1 effect that carries over beyond it's no duration timeframe, the ability to make a 2nd attack.

Again, no duration does not imply instantaneous. There is no language in the PHB that talks about the duration of an action, and so I'm suggesting that the concept of duration (or lack thereof) simply does not apply to actions in general.

Your turn is an ordered list of elements. The Attack action is not separate from the attacks. If you split your Attack action with movement, the Attack action is now two discrete elements in the ordered list. You can think of the ordered list as literally a sequence of labelled blocks that you arrange in order.

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove
7) Move

The 2nd block is played when you make your first attack. The 4th block is played when you make your second attack. Assuming you only have 2 attacks from Extra Attack, the Attack action is now complete and anything that triggers from the Attack action can be played and added to the strictly ordered list that defines your turn.

This only starts to get complicated and/or not make sense when you try and fit the concept of duration to each individual element on the list. My interpretation is that duration has no meaning here, the turn is simply an ordered list of elements and that triggered elements must come after triggering elements.

It's still not a discrete element in the timeline. Whether you have attack, attack or attack, move, attack, each of those attacks are discrete elements and since you described the attack action as no duration it can't possibly overlap 2 discrete events in the sequence.

Right, per above, an action is one or more elements in the timeline. The PHB clearly says you can split the Attack action into separate pieces, which implies it is now multiple distinct events on your turn (with rules about what can come between those events).

Because as noted above, there are a number of implications for no duration and sequential elements on the turn. What happens is that those premises together force the conclusion that the attack action isn't a discrete sequential action on your turn. Abilities like shield master trigger off the attack action. So if the attack action isn't a discrete sequential element then we have no idea where to place shield master in the sequence. That's the problem.

It's only a problem because you're trying to define a duration for the elements. The Attack action can be split by movement. The Attack action is complete when all of these individual elements have been added to the list. Consider a simple case where you don't move between attacks:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Shield Master shove

The exception to the general rule is that you can move between attacks. Thus:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove

In both cases, it's an ordered list of elements. The rules state when triggered elements can be added, which is that they come after the triggering elements. If you X, you can Y simply means that all the X elements have to come before the Y element(s).

This doesn't work with your no duration premise.

I disagree.

We have just spent this whole part here talking about their duration or lack thereof. The concept isn't directly important to the RAW and thus it's not mentioned. However it is an important concept when interpreting the RAW as it allows us to establish facts that would otherwise be unestablishable.

I'm not the one arguing that there is no sequence of events on your turn and you can go back in time and change a shove from a bonus action to an action. I'm not the one arguing that actions last as long as their effects. I'm no longer arguing that actions are instantaneous. I'm suggesting that action duration is irrelevant, and that the RAW fully supports your turn being a simple ordered list of elements.

I'm confused, are actions not part of the list of discrete elements that make up your turn? I thought you were arguing the opposite?

Again, I'm suggesting that we should simply stop trying to think about this in terms of action duration (even if the duration is zero). My analogy of an ordered list of events does not imply anything about the in-game duration of any particular entry in that list, nor does it require any concept of duration at all. It's just an ordered list. "If you X, you can Y" simply means Y elements must come after all X elements.

Sure, and because I can place that element into a sequence then triggers that happen based off that movement and everything else work out just fine. With your interpretation the attack action in particular can't be placed into that sequence. The attacks it grants are elements that can be. So when something triggers off the attack action how do we know when the trigger occurs? IMO that means the attack action must be part of the sequential elements of a turn. So then if we have to place a no duration attack action into the list of sequential turn elements where are you placing it?

The rules say you can split your Attack action with movement. If you do so, your Attack action is now two discrete elements in the list. This is still perfectly consistent in my opinion. The wording of the Attack action suggests it is not separate from the attacks themselves, and does not mention a declaration phase.

So where in the sequence does the discrete element of the attack action get placed? If it's not a discrete element that can be placed in the sequence then how can things like shield master trigger off it?

Right, if we're going to get into the nitty-gritty details here, the Attack action can be made up of N discrete elements. There are clear rules about what can come between those elements in the ordered list, namely:

- Movement
- Bonus actions that are triggered from a single weapon attack
- Bonus actions that have no trigger

Why is this a problem?

"I move over there. I attack that Orc. I move over to the other Orc and attack it. I move to the third Orc and use my Shield Master shove to knock it prone."

That's an ordered list of discrete elements that do not rely on us imposing a definition of action duration that isn't in the PHB.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say this was proof that my whole interpretations was iron clad proven correct, (instead it's evidence of that, as it proves the fundamental premise of my interpretation, that some actions don't last as long as their effects. I then take that starting point and build upon it and ultimately reach the conclusion that actions are instantaneous. I've never said that conclusion is iron clad but the fundamental premise that starts me down that path is).

While I'm not of the opinion that actions can just be divided, there is an interpretation that says that they can. If they are divisible, then your conclusion is inherently flawed, and your method of reaching your conclusion doesn't disprove the divisibility theory.

It's okay to hold the position that in your opinion actions work like X, Y and Z, but that doesn't mean that you've shown proof that other theories are wrong. It just means that if the assumptions you make are true, then those other theories are wrong, so for your game since you are going to treat those assumptions as true, actions work like you are stating.

What i'm saying is that we have proof that at least one action can be divided, otherwise the RAW + your interpretation (no division of actions) contradict the RAI and being that there are other interpretations where this doesn't occur then we should always use the interpretation that doesn't force RAW to contradict RAI.

Yes, we have proof that the Attack action can be divided by movement. We also have a statement by JEC seeming to say that untimed bonus actions can be used during any action, making them divisible. We have a prior statement, though, saying that actions cannot be nested within one another unless there is a specific rule allowing it. I asked for clarity, but he hasn't responded. Until then, it seems actions are divisible and you can nest actions within one another provided they are untimed(Misty Step), or specifically work within another action(Two-Weapon Fighting).

Given the above, there's no reason to assume that an action that includes movement as a part of it, like Disengage and Dash do, do not also allow for that movement to occur during the action. That would be the reasonable assumption.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I wouldn't mind at all:

Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.​

The difference between Flurry of Blows and the first bullet of Shield Master are the words Immediately after. That gives you a specific time in which the unarmed strikes must take place.

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.

Frankly, I find this narrative that has emerged to be somewhat revisionist. Here's the original question asked on December 30, 2014:

Timing of Shield Master bonus shove. Does "take attack action" mean make 1 or all att rolls 1st? or can shove then attack?​

Jeremy Crawford didn't need to look up any rules. The question laid everything out for him to consider, i.e. the condition, and whether it needs to be satisfied before shoving. Here's how he answered on January 21, 2015:

As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.​

He refers to the general rule for bonus actions and the condition of taking the Attack action, confirming that the Shield Master shove, like most bonus actions, has no timing specification. There isn't a single relevant rule he's missing here. He simply later changed his mind about how he wanted to interpret those rules. The plea of incompetence is just a cover story.

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?

I think his ruling is okay. Maybe it's correct for him and his table. Maybe it's correct for Hasbro. But I think it's an inferior use of the rules because it prioritizes a literalistic interpretation over the spirit of what a bonus action is supposed to be, something extra you can do on your turn at a time of your choosing. I'm pretty sure this is why Mike Mearls said that bonus actions were "fairly hacky".

 

[DND_Reborn]

I can't believe 752 posts later Shield Master is still in debate (sure, not all of them are about the feat, but it began on #17 as I see it).

I love it!

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, I'll extend the definition of an action to be one or more discrete elements on the timeline to avoid confusion. I thought that was obvious from the rest of my post, I apologize.

We all agree that the Attack action can be split into multiple pieces. However, I do not see any text in the PHB that says you can declare the Attack action, and then make the attacks later. There's a rule that says you can insert movement in between attacks. There are triggers that are based off a single attack. There are triggers that are based on the action as a whole. All of this is consistent with the idea of a discretely ordered list of elements, the triggered element must simply come after all the triggering elements. In the case of the Attack action, this is simply all of the attacks. Evaluating the condition is very straight forward: are all the attacks in the ordered list? If yes, you can add the triggered element. At this point, if you still had attacks from Extra Attack left, you simply cannot add those to the ordered list, because that invalidates the triggered bonus action that is already in the list.



It's the starting point for my analogy, that's all. Why can't the Attack action be made up of N discrete elements? The rules text clearly indicate that this is allowed.



Again, no duration does not imply instantaneous. There is no language in the PHB that talks about the duration of an action, and so I'm suggesting that the concept of duration (or lack thereof) simply does not apply to actions in general.

Your turn is an ordered list of elements. The Attack action is not separate from the attacks. If you split your Attack action with movement, the Attack action is now two discrete elements in the ordered list. You can think of the ordered list as literally a sequence of labelled blocks that you arrange in order.

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove
7) Move

The 2nd block is played when you make your first attack. The 4th block is played when you make your second attack. Assuming you only have 2 attacks from Extra Attack, the Attack action is now complete and anything that triggers from the Attack action can be played and added to the strictly ordered list that defines your turn.

This only starts to get complicated and/or not make sense when you try and fit the concept of duration to each individual element on the list. My interpretation is that duration has no meaning here, the turn is simply an ordered list of elements and that triggered elements must come after triggering elements.



Right, per above, an action is one or more elements in the timeline. The PHB clearly says you can split the Attack action into separate pieces, which implies it is now multiple distinct events on your turn (with rules about what can come between those events).



It's only a problem because you're trying to define a duration for the elements. The Attack action can be split by movement. The Attack action is complete when all of these individual elements have been added to the list. Consider a simple case where you don't move between attacks:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Shield Master shove

The exception to the general rule is that you can move between attacks. Thus:

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack
5) Move
6) Shield Master shove

In both cases, it's an ordered list of elements. The rules state when triggered elements can be added, which is that they come after the triggering elements. If you X, you can Y simply means that all the X elements have to come before the Y element(s).



I disagree.



I'm not the one arguing that there is no sequence of events on your turn and you can go back in time and change a shove from a bonus action to an action. I'm not the one arguing that actions last as long as their effects. I'm no longer arguing that actions are instantaneous. I'm suggesting that action duration is irrelevant, and that the RAW fully supports your turn being a simple ordered list of elements.



Again, I'm suggesting that we should simply stop trying to think about this in terms of action duration (even if the duration is zero). My analogy of an ordered list of events does not imply anything about the in-game duration of any particular entry in that list, nor does it require any concept of duration at all. It's just an ordered list. "If you X, you can Y" simply means Y elements must come after all X elements.



The rules say you can split your Attack action with movement. If you do so, your Attack action is now two discrete elements in the list. This is still perfectly consistent in my opinion. The wording of the Attack action suggests it is not separate from the attacks themselves, and does not mention a declaration phase.



Right, if we're going to get into the nitty-gritty details here, the Attack action can be made up of N discrete elements. There are clear rules about what can come between those elements in the ordered list, namely:

- Movement
- Bonus actions that are triggered from a single weapon attack
- Bonus actions that have no trigger

Why is this a problem?

"I move over there. I attack that Orc. I move over to the other Orc and attack it. I move to the third Orc and use my Shield Master shove to knock it prone."

That's an ordered list of discrete elements that do not rely on us imposing a definition of action duration that isn't in the PHB.

And if the attack action is made up of N discrete elements then it must have a duration...

In other words changing your claim to the attack action being made up of N discrete elements logically implies that it has a duration which contradicts your original premise that actions have no duration.