Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Asgorath]

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?

Exactly. The rules say you can move before and after your action. The Disengage action provides an effect that lasts until the end of your turn, which in my opinion means the effect is separate from the action itself. Thus, the duration of the Disengage action is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the order of that discrete element in relation to other discrete elements in the ordered list. Movement before the Disengage action provokes an OA, movement after does not. The duration of any of those elements does not change those simple facts.

Edit: And to be clear, trying to impose a duration means that you can have a hard time wrapping your head around what it means to split an Attack action with movement or other discrete elements like a TWF bonus action that is triggered by a single weapon attack. Thus, we can simply ignore duration of each discrete element in the ordered list, and process them one at a time in order.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly. The rules say you can move before and after your action. The Disengage action provides an effect that lasts until the end of your turn, which in my opinion means the effect is separate from the action itself. Thus, the duration of the Disengage action is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the order of that discrete element in relation to other discrete elements in the ordered list. Movement before the Disengage action provokes an OA, movement after does not. The duration of any of those elements does not change those simple facts.

Edit: And to be clear, trying to impose a duration means that you can have a hard time wrapping your head around what it means to split an Attack action with movement or other discrete elements like a TWF bonus action that is triggered by a single weapon attack. Thus, we can simply ignore duration of each discrete element in the ordered list, and process them one at a time in order.

But because it's true I could potentially use that "meaningless" piece of information to derive meaningful conclusions right? Isn't that precisely what I've been doing?

 

[Asgorath]

But because it's true I could potentially use that "meaningless" piece of information to derive meaningful conclusions right? Isn't that precisely what I've been doing?

Sure, what conclusions are you trying to derive exactly? And, why aren’t they addressed by simply treating your turn like an ordered list of discrete elements?

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, what conclusions are you trying to derive exactly? And, why aren’t they addressed by simply treating your turn like an ordered list of discrete elements?

Because even when treating your turn as a sequential set of discrete elements there is no proof of whether the attack action should be considered a discrete sequential element separate from the attacks it provides or whether it should be view as the combination of N discrete elements (N attacks).

So instead of worrying about that meaningless question. I instead focus on something I've already derived some truth about, the duration of actions. I then attempt to build up from my simple truth more complex truths and ultimately will be able to answer the question about whether the bonus action shove can be used after the attack action but before it's attacks. (The concept is similar to how I was easily able to postulate about the attack action being it's own sequential discrete event independent of attacks).

 

[Mistwell]

Has anyone changed anyone else's mind about the core issues involved with this thread yet?

 

[FrogReaver]

[MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] in your formulation is the disengage action a sequential discrete element?

 

[FrogReaver]

Has anyone changed anyone else's mind about the core issues involved with this thread yet?

Yes. I changed my mind about them.

 

[Asgorath]

Because even when treating your turn as a sequential set of discrete elements there is no proof of whether the attack action should be considered a discrete sequential element separate from the attacks it provides or whether it should be view as the combination of N discrete elements (N attacks).

So instead of worrying about that meaningless question. I instead focus on something I've already derived some truth about, the duration of actions. I then attempt to build up from my simple truth more complex truths and ultimately will be able to answer the question about whether the bonus action shove can be used after the attack action but before it's attacks. (The concept is similar to how I was easily able to postulate about the attack action being it's own sequential discrete event independent of attacks).

Well, as I’ve said, I think the answer is really simple. The PHB says the Attack action means making an attack. There is no mention of a declaration phase. There are exceptions to the general rules that allow for splitting your Attack action with movement, implying that your Attack action now has two or more discrete elements, assuming you have multiple attacks from Extra Attack.

Why does it need to be any more complicated than that? Like all other actions, the Attack action starts as one discrete element, and can be split by specific things as documented in the rules (e.g. movement, bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack, bonus actions with no trigger, etc). If the Attack action said something about being able to make one or more weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn, then I would agree that the duration or effect of the Attack action matters. It doesn’t say that, though, which points at the Attack action being all your individual attacks (unless you split the action via the specific rules allowing that).

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, as I’ve said, I think the answer is really simple. The PHB says the Attack action means making an attack. There is no mention of a declaration phase. There are exceptions to the general rules that allow for splitting your Attack action with movement, implying that your Attack action now has two or more discrete elements, assuming you have multiple attacks from Extra Attack.

Why does it need to be any more complicated than that? Like all other actions, the Attack action starts as one discrete element, and can be split by specific things as documented in the rules (e.g. movement, bonus actions that are triggered by a single attack, bonus actions with no trigger, etc). If the Attack action said something about being able to make one or more weapon attacks between now and the end of your turn, then I would agree that the duration or effect of the Attack action matters. It doesn’t say that, though, which points at the Attack action being all your individual attacks (unless you split the action via the specific rules allowing that).

Is there a declaration phase for the disengage action? If not what do you consider the discrete sequential event to be for the disengage action?

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Shove is obviously a bonus action, it is right in the text of the Shield Master feat (since the feat is what began all this), unless you are doing it in place of your attack, in which case it is an action. Or was that a rhetorical question...?

Has anyone changed anyone else's mind about the core issues involved with this thread yet?

Well, it convinced me the ruling is the shove takes place after an attack takes place, not just the declaration. I don't personally agree with it, but I understand that is the ruling.

Is there a declaration phase for the disengage action? If not what do you consider the discrete sequential event to be for the disengage action?

There is never a declaration phase in 5E unless you play that way (which our group does because we roll Initiative each round). In the normal rules, when you turn comes you do what you tell the DM you do. So I would say there isn't a phase, it is simply the beginning of your turn IMO.

Anyway, how about this for weird:

You are a Ranger (Hunter - Horde Breaker) 3/Barbarian (Berserker) 3.
You are raging already.
You are being attacked by two targets.
But, you see two targets attacking an ally only 15 feet away and he really needs your help!
What do you do?
What do you do...?

You: Tell the DM you are Disengaging!!! LOL

Effect:
1. Disengage (no movement provokes OA)
2. Move 10 feet to engage opponents.
3. Use Frenzy (bonus action) to attack one target (no attack action needed)
4. Use Horde Breaker to attack an adjacent target (for no cost).
5. Move 20 feet away without OA from your targets.

Repeat each turn until all foes are dead.

Nice huh? You get two weapon attacks against two targets after moving and they don't get to try to attack you in return.

EDIT: Another option is to Dodge instead of Disengage. True, you provoke OAs now, but they are with disadvantage, and even better is that when an enemy moves to engage and attack you on their turn, their attacks are still with disadvantage. Oh, and you gain advantage on Dex saves as well!

Come to think of it, Dodging is probably even better in most cases. I think just found my next character concept! LOL