Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[epithet]

Why is it not possible?

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

You can place the shove anywhere after 4, because that's the point where your Attack action is complete. The Attack action is unique in that there are rules exceptions that allow the action to be broken into smaller pieces, with things like movement in between. Those pieces must all still be processed before the action can trigger something else like Shield Master's shove. I'm not sure why the concept of "are you done attacking or not" is that hard to figure out? If you are still making attacks from the Attack action, you haven't finished the Attack action yet.

Even if you accept that an Action occupies the position of a discrete point in time during your turn (rather than simply taking place "on your turn" generally,) there is nothing other than Crawford's dubious recent additions to his Sage Advice that would equate "take" with "finish." Even if you have the Extra Attack feature, you have absolutely and definitively taken the Attack Action once you have made a single melee or ranged weapon attack. For one thing, making your extra attack is optional, and perhaps more importantly you cannot (unless you use an Action Surge, Cunning Action, or are effected by a spell like haste,) take a different action on that turn.

Is there anything you can point to other than the recent statements by Jeremy Crawford that would suggest that "take the Attack Action" necessarily requires completing any and all attacks which it allows? Because as far as I can tell, that is a new and preposterous interpretation that Jeremy produced from his backside only recently, and one which does not bear up under scrutiny. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the rules that requires making an attack before allowing the bonus action shove. I don't share that interpretation, but I certainly acknowledge that it is one that a reasonable and thoughtful person might reach. I cannot agree that interpreting the rule to require a Shield Master to complete all attacks granted by the Attack Action before considering the bonus shove to have been triggered is reasonable.

 

[FrogReaver]

Even if you accept that an Action occupies the position of a discrete point in time during your turn (rather than simply taking place "on your turn" generally,) there is nothing other than Crawford's dubious recent additions to his Sage Advice that would equate "take" with "finish." Even if you have the Extra Attack feature, you have absolutely and definitively taken the Attack Action once you have made a single melee or ranged weapon attack. For one thing, making your extra attack is optional, and perhaps more importantly you cannot (unless you use an Action Surge, Cunning Action, or are effected by a spell like haste,) take a different action on that turn.

Is there anything you can point to other than the recent statements by Jeremy Crawford that would suggest that "take the Attack Action" necessarily requires completing any and all attacks which it allows? Because as far as I can tell, that is a new and preposterous interpretation that Jeremy produced from his backside only recently, and one which does not bear up under scrutiny. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the rules that required making an attack before allowing the bonus action shove. I don't share that interpretation, but I certainly acknowledge that it is one that a reasonable and thoughtful person might reach. I cannot agree that interpreting the rule to require a Shield Master to complete all attacks granted by the Attack Action before considering the bonus shove to have been trigger is reasonable.

I guess the counterpoint would be, if you have already completed your attack action by the end of the first attack, how are you making the 2nd attack?

 

[epithet]

I guess the counterpoint would be, if you have already completed your attack action by the end of the first attack, how are you making the 2nd attack?

It doesn't matter, because nothing is triggered by completing the Attack Action. My point is that while you may or may not have completed the Action, you have inarguably taken it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I'm not sure you read my post. Instantaneous is a duration that spells have. The Cast a Spell action has no duration at all, because duration isn't a concept that's applied to it at all. You take the action "Cast a Spell" and you do what the action says, then you do anything else you have left for your turn. Duration is trumping cards in poker.

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.

You should read the "Longer Casting Times" bit in the rules. It deals with this. When you cast spells with a casting time of longer than "one action" you have to spell each of your actions on your turns taking the "Cast a Spell" action and maintain concentration. Since the casting of the spell requires multiple "Cast a Spell" actions, one per turn, then we're back to "Cast a Spell" not having anything at all to do with duration or time.

Again, actions do not have duration. Insisting they do is trying to trump hands in poker. It's nonsense.

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.

Nope, you haven't shown either have a duration. Or that duration is even a concept that applies to actions at all. Find the rule about how long actions take. We'll wait.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if you accept that an Action occupies the position of a discrete point in time during your turn (rather than simply taking place "on your turn" generally,) there is nothing other than Crawford's dubious recent additions to his Sage Advice that would equate "take" with "finish." Even if you have the Extra Attack feature, you have absolutely and definitively taken the Attack Action once you have made a single melee or ranged weapon attack.

That's not true. "Taken" is past tense. You haven't taken the Attack action until it ends. You have, though, absolutely and definitively started "taking" your Attack action once you have made a single melee attack and have the extra attack feature.

For one thing, making your extra attack is optional, and perhaps more importantly you cannot (unless you use an Action Surge, Cunning Action, or are effected by a spell like haste,) take a different action on that turn.

This is true. You are not compelled to complete all of your attacks. You can end the Attack action after a single swing if you like. Until you choose to take that extra attack or end the Attack action early, you are still "taking" your Attack action.

Is there anything you can point to other than the recent statements by Jeremy Crawford that would suggest that "take the Attack Action" necessarily requires completing any and all attacks which it allows?

Anything other than the official position and ruling of the guy who created the game? The common usage of take I would think.

Because as far as I can tell, that is a new and preposterous interpretation that Jeremy produced from his backside only recently, and one which does not bear up under scrutiny. I can see a reasonable interpretation of the rules that requires making an attack before allowing the bonus action shove. I don't share that interpretation, but I certainly acknowledge that it is one that a reasonable and thoughtful person might reach. I cannot agree that interpreting the rule to require a Shield Master to complete all attacks granted by the Attack Action before considering the bonus shove to have been triggered is reasonable.

The most common usage of take is past tense. There have been some contortionists here who have tried to show how take = taking, but those have all failed when examined closely.

I also don't agree with his ruling. Not from the standpoint of it doesn't make sense as written, but rather that it just doesn't make sense to have to wait until all attacks have been taken. If you could shove after one attack last week, why can you suddenly not do so today after you improved and can attack twice?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here is an interesting comparison:

Two fighters. "Shield Master" Sam is a sword and board with Shield Master. "Two-Weapon Fighting" Todd is a Dual-Wielding sword savant (with Two-Weapon Fighting Style). Both are Level 5.

Sam can attack, attack, shove;
Todd can shove, attack, attack.

Sam's breakdown. Attack action (sword) with Extra Attack (sword) and then bonus action to Shove.

Todd's breakdown: Attack action to Shove (as "special melee attack" using one of his attacks from the attack action), Extra attack (sword), and then bonus action (sword) from TWF.

Both have two attacks, both can shove.

However, Todd could never shove last since his bonus action comes after completing his Attack action, and TWF only allows you "to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand." In other words, it has to be a weapon attack, not the "special melee attack" of the shove action.

Does that bother anyone else? One can only shove last, the other can only shove first. Why? It seems a silly distinction to me.

 

[epithet]

That's not true. "Taken" is past tense. You haven't taken the Attack action until it ends. You have, though, absolutely and definitively started "taking" your Attack action once you have made a single melee attack and have the extra attack feature.

This is true. You are not compelled to complete all of your attacks. You can end the Attack action after a single swing if you like. Until you choose to take that extra attack or end the Attack action early, you are still "taking" your Attack action.

Anything other than the official position and ruling of the guy who created the game? The common usage of take I would think.

The most common usage of take is past tense. There have been some contortionists here who have tried to show how take = taking, but those have all failed when examined closely.

I also don't agree with his ruling. Not from the standpoint of it doesn't make sense as written, but rather that it just doesn't make sense to have to wait until all attacks have been taken. If you could shove after one attack last week, why can you suddenly not do so today after you improved and can attack twice?

The feat doesn't require you to "have taken" anything, it just says "if you take." I submit to you that the condition is definitely satisfied if you "are taking" the Attack Action, especially given the fact that after you make your first attack your other option for Actions on that turn are foreclosed. Why can't you disengage after your first attack? Because you only get one Action on your turn, and you took the Attack Action.

Nothing in the rules can be reasonably interpreted to require you to end your Attack Action before the bonus shove, only to take it. Taking an Action in the context of the 5e rules is not the same as completing, finishing, or ending the action.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't matter, because nothing is triggered by completing the Attack Action. My point is that while you may or may not have completed the Action, you have inarguably taken it.

If you take the attack action on your turn, you can do X. In that context take can equally mean complete or start the process of taking.

If you take the ethical hacking course you will be learning from a great professor.
VS.
If you take the ethical hacking course you will gain some valuable real world counter hacking knowledge.

In the first statement take assumes you are in the process of taking the course. In the 2nd take assumes you have completed the course.

 

[epithet]

Here is an interesting comparison:

Two fighters. "Shield Master" Sam is a sword and board with Shield Master. "Two-Weapon Fighting" Todd is a Dual-Wielding sword savant (with Two-Weapon Fighting Style). Both are Level 5.

Sam can attack, attack, shove;
Todd can shove, attack, attack.

Sam's breakdown. Attack action (sword) with Extra Attack (sword) and then bonus action to Shove.

Todd's breakdown: Attack action to Shove (as "special melee attack" using one of his attacks from the attack action), Extra attack (sword), and then bonus action (sword) from TWF.

Both have two attacks, both can shove.

However, Todd could never shove last since his bonus action comes after completing his Attack action, and TWF only allows you "to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand." In other words, it has to be a weapon attack, not the "special melee attack" of the shove action.

Does that bother anyone else? One can only shove last, the other can only shove first. Why? It seems a silly distinction to me.

Especially since Sam took a feat to get the special ability.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure you read my post. Instantaneous is a duration that spells have. The Cast a Spell action has no duration at all, because duration isn't a concept that's applied to it at all. You take the action "Cast a Spell" and you do what the action says, then you do anything else you have left for your turn. Duration is trumping cards in poker.

By RAW actions have a duration. That duration is 1 action. A duration of 1 action is a length of time that is greater than instantaneous, because we know that spells that are bonus actions are exceptionally swift.

You've just declared that the Cast a Spell action, which takes 1 action worth of time, takes zero time and that bonus spells take even less than zero.

You should read the "Longer Casting Times" bit in the rules. It deals with this. When you cast spells with a casting time of longer than "one action" you have to spell each of your actions on your turns taking the "Cast a Spell" action and maintain concentration. Since the casting of the spell requires multiple "Cast a Spell" actions, one per turn, then we're back to "Cast a Spell" not having anything at all to do with duration or time.

That makes no sense. Each action has a duration of 1 action. If it takes more rounds to do it, it just means that you have to use multiple Cast Actions on multiple turns, each taking 1 action in length, in order to complete the spell.

Again, actions do not have duration. Insisting they do is trying to trump hands in poker. It's nonsense.

It's RAW. 1 action is in fact a unit of time in combat. Actions take 1 action to complete. That's the rules.

Nope, you haven't shown either have a duration. Or that duration is even a concept that applies to actions at all. Find the rule about how long actions take. We'll wait.

They take 1 action. Bonus actions are swifter than that. They didn't write in that actions are 2.4 seconds and bonus actions are .6, if that's what you are looking for. But they absolutely write actions as taking time and bonus actions as taking much less time.