Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[DND_Reborn]

The condition is not "you have taken the Attack action on your turn". It's "you take the Attack action on your turn," and at the start of your turn, before you've done anything, it may be true that "you take the Attack action on your turn"!

I see your point on this, but while it may be true, it isn't yet. And, unfortunately, until it is true, you haven't gained the bonus action effect yet.

Now, I don't agree with it either from the point of view that the shove can only come after the attacks. We are going to house-rule it that you can shove before your attacks simply because our group does use declarations and rolls initiative each round after they are made. But, that is us.

Regardless, it is a good feat to have and can be used defensively after your attacks as written officially, but allowing the shove to come first makes using it offensively easier.

 

[Hriston]

I see your point on this, but while it may be true, it isn't yet. And, unfortunately, until it is true, you haven't gained the bonus action effect yet.

You also haven't not gained it yet.

Seriously, this goes back to what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said up-thread. I.e., you have to get to the future before you can check if the condition has been satisfied. Since the question is whether you take the Attack action on your turn, you may potentially have to wait until the end of your turn before it's known one way or the other.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You also haven't not gained it yet.

Seriously, this goes back to what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said up-thread. I.e., you have to get to the future before you can check if the condition has been satisfied. Since the question is whether you take the Attack action on your turn, you may potentially have to wait until the end of your turn before it's known one way or the other.

Exactly, so if you haven't gained it yet, how can you use it? You have to satisfy the condition (take the Attack action) before you gain the benefit.

Think of it like this:

If you take money out of the ATM ("the Attack action") today ("on your turn"), you can use a bonus action to go to the bookstore to buy the book you wanted ("to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield").

Without getting the money out of the ATM, you can't buy the book you wanted. (Please, no jokes about using your credit card or ordering it on-line.)

Without taking the Attack action, you have no bonus action to shove with.

As for the time-travel part, that is unnecessary. If you have reached the end of your turn without taking the Attack action, you never satisfied the conditions needed to gain the bonus action so you could not have used it, either.

On a personal note, I think JC's official ruling on this is silly. With TWF you can shove first with your attack and then if you have the Extra Attack feature, potentially make two attacks with advantage. You don't even need a feat to do this. There are many ways they could have worded Shield Master to avoid this issue and personally should have simple by removing the condition of attacking at all. The FEAT is what should give you the bonus shove action using your shield. Just make the first benefit of the feat this:

"You can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

Nice. Simple. Use it anytime during your turn you want so it can be offensive, defensive, or whatever. For instance, an Eldritch Knight could use the shove to push someone away and then cast a spell as their action.

This feature never needed to be tied into the Attack action to begin with...

 

[Asgorath]

This feature never needed to be tied into the Attack action to begin with...

Except, you know, if it was never intended to grant you near-permanent advantage (assuming decent Athletics) and was more of an "assist your melee allies" move?

 

[Arial Black]

Ok, I will call at least a foul here.

Specifically on your (mis) quote of the rule which cuts short the **actual** quote, gives bogus punctuation and isolates it from its context which alters its meaning.

Your (mis)quote was this:
"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon."

Putting that as a period ended single sentence makes it look like what you ascribe, but if taken as it actually is its meaning is clear in context.

The statement is talking about how to assign values of damage and damage type etc to the improvised weapon and tie-in proficiencies. Here is the exact quote - unedited.

"Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."

The paragraph that follows covers the other case, which helps show you the context again, and shows that even that case can apply to weapons themselves.

"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."

So, sure, you can edit a cute to cut it short and hide its context to build your rulings on, thats your call. But to me that effort just spotlights the degree of confidence you seem to have in that decision.

But hey, its GM call.

Sure I quoted the relevant part instead of the whole thing, and doing that could be a 'foul', if the entire quote would show that it would lead to the opposite conclusion.

But here, the whole rule has the same implications as the part I quoted; that 'improvised weapons' are not 'weapons'.

"Things that are true, are true."
"Things that are not true, are not true."
"Things cannot be both true and not true at the same time."

Objects are what they are. Even if you use an object as if it were a different object, it doesn't change what the object actually is.

"Dueling. When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

Now, the original version said, "...no other weapon or shield...". I hated that they took the 'or shield' away. For me, I liked that there were styles for the four basic combat styles: single weapon, two-handed weapon, two weapons, and weapon + shield. This change, allowing the style intended for 'single weapon' to be used when using a shield, especially when shield-users got their own Fighting Style thing, takes away that 'single weapon' niche.

So I houserule the 'or shield' back into the Dueling style in games I DM.

But, if 'improvised weapons' were 'weapons', then I wouldn't need a houserule! Literally anything in my off hand would be a 'weapon', and would prevent Dueling style!

Got a shield? No +2 damage for you, because shields are weapons now!

Wearing a glove? Wearing a ring? Tough, no +2 damage for you, because they are 'weapons' now!

An object is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. It cannot be both at the same time.

A shield either is a 'weapon', or it isn't. Which is it?

If we were playing 3e, the answer is definitely 'yes'. Shields are on the Weapons table, as light or medium melee weapons, and can be used in TWF.

But in 5e, shields are not 'weapons'. They are not on the Weapons table, do not prevent you getting +2 damage from the Dueling style (unfortunately!) on the grounds that they are not 'weapons'!, and although you can hit someone with a shield via the Improvised Weapons rules (which allow objects that are not 'weapons' to be used to make an attack), they therefore cannot be used in TWF because TWF specifies 'weapons'.

As an aside (despite seeing the results of my last aside!), shields are not armour either.

 

[Arial Black]

So the claim is that 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack. Of course, this falls down as soon as you get Extra Attack, because then Attack action IS a single thing and two attacks IS two things,

So, if you 'take the Attack action' and execute the first of these attacks but not the second, have you met the condition, "If you take the Attack action on your turn...".

If the answer is 'yes', then you now have a bonus action shield shove which you can now take anywhere you want, including before your second attack.

If the answer is 'no', then you can, after you executed that first attack, use the Cast A Spell action.

Further, even if you only have one attack, is 'taking the Attack action' and executing that attack the same thing?

Sanctuary says that if you target a warded creature with an attack and fail your save against the warded creature's sanctuary spell, then you must choose a new target or lose the attack.

If you are fighting a single foe that is warded with sanctuary, and on your turn 'take the Attack action' and target the creature, then fail your save against sanctuary and lose your attack (because there are no other targets), then have you 'taken the Attack action'?

If 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack, and you don't take the attack, then you logically have not 'taken the Attack action'!

If you say that you have 'taken the Attack action' even if you did not make the attack, then you literally have 'taken the Attack action' before you execute the attack.

And if that is the case, then you can 'take the Attack action' and can now shield shove as a bonus action before you execute your first attack.

It's one way or the other. Either we can shield shove before the first attack, or when failing our save against sanctuary we can take the Cast A Spell action to cast fireball even though we already took the Attack action, because it turns out that 'Attack action = attack', therefore if there was no attack there can have been no Attack action.

Which is it?

 

[DND_Reborn]

So the claim is that 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack. Of course, this falls down as soon as you get Extra Attack, because then Attack action IS a single thing and two attacks IS two things,

So, if you 'take the Attack action' and execute the first of these attacks but not the second, have you met the condition, "If you take the Attack action on your turn...".

If the answer is 'yes', then you now have a bonus action shield shove which you can now take anywhere you want, including before your second attack.

If the answer is 'no', then you can, after you executed that first attack, use the Cast A Spell action.

Further, even if you only have one attack, is 'taking the Attack action' and executing that attack the same thing?

Sanctuary says that if you target a warded creature with an attack and fail your save against the warded creature's sanctuary spell, then you must choose a new target or lose the attack.

If you are fighting a single foe that is warded with sanctuary, and on your turn 'take the Attack action' and target the creature, then fail your save against sanctuary and lose your attack (because there are no other targets), then have you 'taken the Attack action'?

If 'taking the Attack action' literally IS the attack, and you don't take the attack, then you logically have not 'taken the Attack action'!

If you say that you have 'taken the Attack action' even if you did not make the attack, then you literally have 'taken the Attack action' before you execute the attack.

And if that is the case, then you can 'take the Attack action' and can now shield shove as a bonus action before you execute your first attack.

It's one way or the other. Either we can shield shove before the first attack, or when failing our save against sanctuary we can take the Cast A Spell action to cast fireball even though we already took the Attack action, because it turns out that 'Attack action = attack', therefore if there was no attack there can have been no Attack action.

Which is it?

Since you didn't ask anyone in particular, I'll take a whack at it. This is my interpretation anyway...

Yes. Take the Attack action = making an attack roll (or at least attempting to) since that would constitute you choosing Attack action as your action for your turn. If you have Extra Attack and make an attack roll against a target, you gain the bonus action to Shove. However, you still cannot Shove until you complete the Extra attack because IT is part of the Attack action. With the exception of movement, which expressly is allowed between attacks, you must complete one action before you can begin another (reactions are another exception, but that is the nature of reactions). This is why the idea that the Attack action must be concluded before it can have been taken was stated.

In the case of Sanctuary, if you have no other target, you lose the attack or spell on the failed save, but the action WAS taken (even if foiled) because in order to roll the Wisdom save you must be using the Attack action to attack. If you have extra attack and want to use that on the warded caster, it would require another Wisdom save, because the text of Sanctuary is for each attack (not Attack action). After any Extra Attack is resolved (or lost on the failed save), you could still execute the Shove with Shield Master as a bonus action. However, since this is also an attack, it too would require a Wisdom save before you could execute it. This is an example of specific beating general.

Even if you failed all the Wisdom saves, you still took your actions (Attack and Bonus) because without you taking them, you never would have needed to make the saving throws. So, no, you could not take another action, you already took them.

I see a lot of debating this point, but it really isn't that hard to understand IMO. You might not want to accept the official ruling (our table certainly is not), and you can debate it to your heart's content, but it isn't going to change it for now.

Now, I'll leave it to someone else to take their turn at your post if they so desire. Cheers.

 

[Asgorath]

Now, I'll leave it to someone else to take their turn at your post if they so desire. Cheers.

Right, I don't see what the big deal is here. By default, Actions are a discrete element on your turn. There's a specific rule that lets you split the Attack action with movement if you have more than one attack (e.g. Extra Attack), but the Attack action is still the sum total of all those discrete pieces. You resolve the elements in order. If you attempt to attack a creature protected by Sanctuary, you either have to pick a new target or the attack fizzles. This doesn't change the fact that there's a period of time on your turn before you've taken an action, and a period of time after the action has been taken. If you don't move in between attacks, then your Attack action is just making all the attacks against the target(s) in range. Extra Attack can basically result in your turn having three phases: before, during, and after your action. Once you've started the Attack action, you cannot take another action.

 

[FrogReaver]

Even if you failed all the Wisdom saves, you still took your actions (Attack and Bonus) because without you taking them, you never would have needed to make the saving throws. So, no, you could not take another action, you already took them.

So you agree that the Attack Action came before the attack?

And

That you can take the attack action without ever making an attack?

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, I don't see what the big deal is here. By default, Actions are a discrete element on your turn. There's a specific rule that lets you split the Attack action with movement if you have more than one attack (e.g. Extra Attack), but the Attack action is still the sum total of all those discrete pieces.

If your attack action isn't taken until you've made both of your attacks, then how did you make the first attack without taking the attack action?

You resolve the elements in order. If you attempt to attack a creature protected by Sanctuary, you either have to pick a new target or the attack fizzles.

Since you made no attacks and making attacks is what makes up the attack action then you didn't take the attack action right?

Once you've started the Attack action, you cannot take another action.

Does this mean you can start the attack action without having to actually attack?