Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Ovinomancer]

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).

This. You do what the rules say, you don't add things because they're not needed. Duration of actions is a pointless argument -- nothing in how you adjudicate the game requires actions to have a duration. When you take your action, you do the thing it says until you're done with it and that's it.

Frex:

Dodge
When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any Attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity Saving Throws with advantage. You lose this benefit if you are Incapacitated (as explained in Conditions ) or if your speed drops to 0.

You take the dodge action. Do what it says on the tin. Done, move on with the rest of your turn (if anything is left). Same with attack, or cast a spell. Duration is adding a mechanic that is not present in the rules at all. It's like playing poker and then smugly saying that your 8 of spades trumps four 7s because it's the highest trump card played. It doesn't make sense to add mechanics not present.

 

[Asgorath]

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?

You process the elements in order. Processing the Disengage action means applying the temporary buff, which lasts until the end of your turn. There is no declaration phase, you simply process the element by doing what the action says. There is no duration of the element, nor does there need to be in order to do what the action says:

"If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn."

So, if your turn is made up of the following elements:

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move
4) Healing Word
5) Move

Each of those 5 elements is processed as a discrete operation in the order they appear (or really, in the order you play them). (1) might be moving your miniature 5 feet. (2) applies an effect that lasts the duration. (3) might be moving your miniature 10 more feet, away from an enemy with no OA due to Disengage. (4) heals someone. (5) moves your miniature 10 more feet, also with no OAs.

Let's go back to the Attack action. The rules say you can break up your movement, and move between attacks in the Attack action. We can treat this as simply splitting the Attack element in half, and inserting a movement element in between the two halves.

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack

The Attack action now has two elements, processed in order as normal. (2) might be attacking one target twice, and (4) might be attacking a different target once. The Attack action is complete when all its subdivided elements have been processed. We don't have to jump through hoops and invent rules for simultaneously moving while taking the Attack action, the text states you get to break these into separate pieces and order them how you like.

The general trigger rules for "If you X, you can Y" could be summarized like this:

- In order for a Y element to be added to the end of the ordered list, there must be at least one X element already in the list.
- Once a Y element has been added to the end of the ordered list, no more X elements can be added.

So, given that the PHB says you can break apart your movement and Attack action, anything that is triggered by the Attack action must be after one of the Attack action's elements in the list, and no Attack action element can come after it.

Legal: Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move, Triggered Bonus Action
Not Legal: Move, Attack, Move, Triggered Bonus Action, Move, Attack, Move
Even Less Legal: Move, Triggered Bonus Action, Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move

The second example is obviously legal if the trigger was making a single attack from the Attack action.

 

[Asgorath]

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

It absolutely is, there is nothing special about the Disengage action in my interpretation. As you assemble your turn, the Disengage action is just one more discrete element in the ordered list. It gets processed in that order. So, movement elements before the Disengage action provoke OAs, movement elements after it do not. No element in the list needs to have a duration applied for the effect of Disengage to happen.

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move

(1) provokes OAs, (3) does not provoke OAs as expected. The duration of any entry on this list has no bearing on that outcome, and my contention is that duration is the wrong way to be thinking about all of this.

 

[Maxperson]

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

So I misspoke slightly. Not all schools of mathematical thought hold that the proof is universally valid. You are also using the proof incorrectly incorrectly here.

"Proof by contradiction is valid only under certain conditions. The main conditions are:
- The problem can be described as a set of (usually two) mutually exclusive propositions;
- These cases are demonstrably exhaustive, in the sense that no other possible proposition exists.
Under these circumstances, if all but one of the cases are proven to be false, the remaining case must be true."

I've shown you other propositions that exist and you keep dismissing them saying basically that you don't care about them, you only care about your two propositions. That makes your proof invalid. And of course you are trying to use a math proof in a non-mathematical situation where things can alter what happens.

 

[Maxperson]

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 no declaration phase. Period. The player tells you that he is doing X, not that he is going to do X. If he does tell you what he is going to do, it's an informal declaration that has no game impact whatsoever. Nothing can trigger off of it. Only at the moment that he engages an action is the action happening and can things trigger off of taking the action.

 

[Maxperson]

You take the dodge action. Do what it says on the tin. Done, move on with the rest of your turn (if anything is left). Same with attack, or cast a spell. Duration is adding a mechanic that is not present in the rules at all. It's like playing poker and then smugly saying that your 8 of spades trumps four 7s because it's the highest trump card played. It doesn't make sense to add mechanics not present.

Except that we know that the Cast a Spell Action is not instantaneous. It can't be and still have spells cast as bonus actions which the game goes out of its way to describe as "exceptionally swift." You can't get any swifter than instant.

The Cast a Spell Action is actually the strongest proof of action duration not being instant. It talks about the length of casting times and says that some spells take minutes or hours and therefore casting a spell is not necessarily an action. However, it goes on to point out that most spells have a casting time of 1 action. Those spells are by rule, longer than spells with a casting time of a bonus action. We also know that as part of a 1 action spell, which by definition takes 1 action LONG to cast, you have to have time to pull out components, wave your hands around in a very specific manner, and speak the words of the spell. That cannot happen in an instantaneous manner.

So now we have two actions Attack and Cast a Spell that are both explicitly not instant and in fact have durations. We also have the movement actions that imply that the movement granted is a part of the action, and therefore that the actions have duration. It's counter intuitive to think that actions are instant, and the effects are actions.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I misspoke slightly. Not all schools of mathematical thought hold that the proof is universally valid. You are also using the proof incorrectly incorrectly here.

"Proof by contradiction is valid only under certain conditions. The main conditions are:
- The problem can be described as a set of (usually two) mutually exclusive propositions;
- These cases are demonstrably exhaustive, in the sense that no other possible proposition exists.
Under these circumstances, if all but one of the cases are proven to be false, the remaining case must be true."

I've shown you other propositions that exist and you keep dismissing them saying basically that you don't care about them, you only care about your two propositions. That makes your proof invalid. And of course you are trying to use a math proof in a non-mathematical situation where things can alter what happens.

So 2nd most important thing.....

The logical non-mathematical argument is called reducto ad adsurdum. It's based on the law of excluded middle (that something must either be true or it must be false). The mathematical concept of proof by contradiction is the same thing. It's like you talk about things you don't understand and it's obvious you don't have the faintest clue.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is no declaration phase. Period. The player tells you that he is doing X, not that he is going to do X. If he does tell you what he is going to do, it's an informal declaration that has no game impact whatsoever. Nothing can trigger off of it. Only at the moment that he engages an action is the action happening and can things trigger off of taking the action.

If the player tells you he is doing X that is a declaration that you are doing X.

You assume that a declaration of action can only exist in a phase that occurs before the action is taken. That simply isn't the case.

 

[Asgorath]

Except that we know that the Cast a Spell Action is not instantaneous. It can't be and still have spells cast as bonus actions which the game goes out of its way to describe as "exceptionally swift." You can't get any swifter than instant.

The Cast a Spell Action is actually the strongest proof of action duration not being instant. It talks about the length of casting times and says that some spells take minutes or hours and therefore casting a spell is not necessarily an action. However, it goes on to point out that most spells have a casting time of 1 action. Those spells are by rule, longer than spells with a casting time of a bonus action. We also know that as part of a 1 action spell, which by definition takes 1 action LONG to cast, you have to have time to pull out components, wave your hands around in a very specific manner, and speak the words of the spell. That cannot happen in an instantaneous manner.

So now we have two actions Attack and Cast a Spell that are both explicitly not instant and in fact have durations. We also have the movement actions that imply that the movement granted is a part of the action, and therefore that the actions have duration. It's counter intuitive to think that actions are instant, and the effects are actions.

And it's also why I'm advocating that we simply stop thinking about this in terms of "the duration of an action". There is no rule that allows you to move while taking the Cast a Spell action, implying you have to stand there and perform the V/S/M components as needed. You can move before this action, and you can move after this action. The only thing that matters here is that the spell's casting time is 1 action.

By default, you start your turn with your movement and your action. You might also have a bonus action, or you might do something on your turn that triggers a bonus action. You might move, Cast a Spell, then move some more. The only thing that matters here is that you no longer have an action this turn, why do we care how many seconds the "Cast a Spell" action took? That action is simply resolved in the correct order, relative to the rest of the things you do on your turn. Your turn might be move, cast Healing Word, move, cast Sacred Flame, move. Why does it matter how long Healing Word or Sacred Flame took to cast? The rules say that if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can only use your action to cast a cantrip:

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

 

[FrogReaver]

You process the elements in order. Processing the Disengage action means applying the temporary buff, which lasts until the end of your turn. There is no declaration phase, you simply process the element by doing what the action says. There is no duration of the element, nor does there need to be in order to do what the action says:

"If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn."

So, if your turn is made up of the following elements:

1) Move
2) Disengage
3) Move
4) Healing Word
5) Move

Each of those 5 elements is processed as a discrete operation in the order they appear (or really, in the order you play them). (1) might be moving your miniature 5 feet. (2) applies an effect that lasts the duration. (3) might be moving your miniature 10 more feet, away from an enemy with no OA due to Disengage. (4) heals someone. (5) moves your miniature 10 more feet, also with no OAs.

Let's go back to the Attack action. The rules say you can break up your movement, and move between attacks in the Attack action. We can treat this as simply splitting the Attack element in half, and inserting a movement element in between the two halves.

1) Move
2) Attack
3) Move
4) Attack

The Attack action now has two elements, processed in order as normal. (2) might be attacking one target twice, and (4) might be attacking a different target once. The Attack action is complete when all its subdivided elements have been processed. We don't have to jump through hoops and invent rules for simultaneously moving while taking the Attack action, the text states you get to break these into separate pieces and order them how you like.

The general trigger rules for "If you X, you can Y" could be summarized like this:

- In order for a Y element to be added to the end of the ordered list, there must be at least one X element already in the list.
- Once a Y element has been added to the end of the ordered list, no more X elements can be added.

So, given that the PHB says you can break apart your movement and Attack action, anything that is triggered by the Attack action must be after one of the Attack action's elements in the list, and no Attack action element can come after it.

Legal: Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move, Triggered Bonus Action
Not Legal: Move, Attack, Move, Triggered Bonus Action, Move, Attack, Move
Even Less Legal: Move, Triggered Bonus Action, Move, Attack, Move, Attack, Move

The second example is obviously legal if the trigger was making a single attack from the Attack action.

So then to use the buff all you as a player do is simply "declare you re taking the disengage action and you've taken it". So then the discrete sequential event that is the disengage action is simply a player declaration is it not?