Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

I answered this 2 posts ago.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move (this does not provoke OAs)

Yes, you can move after you Disengage. The effect of that action lasts for the duration, which in this case is the end of your turn.

Do you believe the rules state that you can only move before or after an action (except for the attack action which the rules give a clear exception for)?

 

[Maxperson]

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!

Someone gave it a shove early on and the action hasn't stopped.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

My conclusion only depends on 2 premises. 1) you can move after taking the disengage action (RAI) and 2) you can only move before or after an action (RAW).

The part you are complaining about being an assumption is how arguments by contradiction work. They assume one something (along with other statements that are facts and not assumptions) in order to show the assumption false and thus prove that the opposite of that assumption is true. You literally can't have an argument by contradiction without an assumption, it's part of how that mode of argumentation works. It's a mathematically valid mode of proof as well. Some fascinating things have been proven by contradiction proofs.

I don't have to worry about whether actions are inherently divisible or indivisible, just whether movement can divide them.

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.

They aren't assumptions they are premises and those premises are come explicitly from the RAI and RAW. The only assumption is the one required for the valid mode of proof by contradiction to work.

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).

I'm only worried about whether movement can be used during an action, not whether bonus actions can.

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.

You mean besides the explicit rule that says: You can move before or after your action (as opposed to you can move anytime)… yea that rule kind of throws a monkey wrench in it for the move anytime position.

 

[Asgorath]

Do you believe the rules state that you can only move before or after an action (except for the attack action which the rules give a clear exception for)?

Movement is a discrete element in the ordered list that makes up your turn. Elements in that list can be movement, your action, bonus action, reaction, whatever. Example:

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

Here's the relevant text from the PHB:

Breaking Up Your Move
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.

Moving Between Attacks
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

This strongly implies to me that each section of movement is a discrete element in the ordered list of your turn, just like actions and bonus actions. So, I think the answer to your question is yes, you cannot move concurrently with taking an action -- the movement either comes before or after your action (or other discrete element on your turn). Each element in the list gets resolved in order, one at a time.

 

[Asgorath]

Someone gave it a shove early on and the action hasn't stopped.

Our turn isn't over, so we haven't been able to determine if the shove was a bonus action or an action yet.

 

[FrogReaver]

Movement is a discrete element in the ordered list that makes up your turn. Elements in that list can be movement, your action, bonus action, reaction, whatever. Example:

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

Here's the relevant text from the PHB:



This strongly implies to me that each section of movement is a discrete element in the ordered list of your turn, just like actions and bonus actions. So, I think the answer to your question is yes, you cannot move concurrently with taking an action -- the movement either comes before or after your action (or other discrete element on your turn). Each element in the list gets resolved in order, one at a time.

So if you believe those 2 things,
1) That you can only move before or after an action and
2) That you can move after taking the disengage action

Then doesn't that mean that the disengage action began on your turn and ended sometime on your turn before it was over? Isn't that the definition of duration? If it's not then what definition are you using?

 

[Maxperson]

My conclusion only depends on 2 premises. 1) you can move after taking the disengage action (RAI) and 2) you can only move before or after an action (RAW).

The part you are complaining about being an assumption is how arguments by contradiction work. They assume one something (along with other statements that are facts and not assumptions) in order to show the assumption false and thus prove that the opposite of that assumption is true. You literally can't have an argument by contradiction without an assumption, it's part of how that mode of argumentation works. It's a mathematically valid mode of proof as well. Some fascinating things have been proven by contradiction proofs.

I don't have to worry about whether actions are inherently divisible or indivisible, just whether movement can divide them.

You didn't actually prove anything about actions though, since you ignore other theories that would defeat your proof. You are also trying to tie a mathematical proof(which not all schools of mathematical thought even accept) to a non-mathematical situation.

I'm not accepting your proof, because it doesn't actually prove anything here. After all is said and done, there are still other ways to look at the situation that don't require only your two premises, and which don't need to result in your conclusion.

You mean besides the explicit rule that says: You can move before or after your action (as opposed to you can move anytime)… yea that rule kind of throws a monkey wrench in it for the move anytime position.

So this is a Strawman. I did not say anything about moving any time. I said very clearly "an action that includes movement as a part of it,..." That is explicitly not "any time," and since only specific actions include movement, they are specific over the general rule about actions.

 

[Asgorath]

So if you believe those 2 things,
1) That you can only move before or after an action and
2) That you can move after taking the disengage action

Then doesn't that mean that the disengage action began on your turn and ended sometime on your turn before it was over? Isn't that the definition of duration? If it's not then what definition are you using?

My point is that the "duration of the Disengage action" is irrelevant and has no meaning or value. This is supported by the fact that there is zero language in the PHB about the "duration of an action", because in my opinion it simply does not matter. The only thing that matters is the order of the elements that make up your turn. The Disengage action, like other actions, is a discrete element in the ordered list. You process these elements in order, one at a time. Once you've processed the Disengage element, you have taken the action and any event that has that as a trigger can now be added to the ordered list.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move

The movement element (3) does not provoke OAs. The movement element (1) does provoke OAs. Why do you care how long (2) took? We simply resolve each entry in the list in order, and apply the effects of the entry as needed. So, movement might be moving your miniature on the map. Disengage means applying the temporary "your movement doesn't provoke OAs" buff, similar to the buff you'd get from the Shield spell for example. Any movement that happens after this element is resolved does not provoke an OA, nothing more, nothing less. The "duration" of the Disengage action itself has no relevance to this, in my opinion -- it's simple one of the discrete elements on your turn that gets processed in order.

 

[FrogReaver]

You are also trying to tie a mathematical proof(which not all schools of mathematical thought even accept)

Wait WHAT?????

This is more important than all the other topics. You seriously believe that mathematics exist where proof by contradiction isn't accepted?

Have you ever taken a mathematical logic class? A mathematical proofs class? Do you know what a truth table is? Are you just talking out of your A double S?

Can you prove the irrationality of the square root of 2 without a proof by contradiction? Can you prove that the halting problem is unsolvable without a proof by contradiction?

I'm in absolute shock that you could say something like that

 

[FrogReaver]

My point is that the "duration of the Disengage action" is irrelevant and has no meaning or value. This is supported by the fact that there is zero language in the PHB about the "duration of an action", because in my opinion it simply does not matter. The only thing that matters is the order of the elements that make up your turn. The Disengage action, like other actions, is a discrete element in the ordered list. You process these elements in order, one at a time. Once you've processed the Disengage element, you have taken the action and any event that has that as a trigger can now be added to the ordered list.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move

The movement element (3) does not provoke OAs. The movement element (1) does provoke OAs. Why do you care how long (2) took? We simply resolve each entry in the list in order, and apply the effects of the entry as needed. So, movement might be moving your miniature on the map. Disengage means applying the temporary "your movement doesn't provoke OAs" buff, similar to the buff you'd get from the Shield spell for example. Any movement that happens after this element is resolved does not provoke an OA, nothing more, nothing less. The "duration" of the Disengage action itself has no relevance to this, in my opinion -- it's simple one of the discrete elements on your turn that gets processed in order.

So you don't disagree that I've proven that the disengage action has a duration that is less than the duration of it's effects. You just think that it's a meaningless piece of information to have?