Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[epithet]

It is not in the PHB, it is a from a JC comment. As I said earlier, I am not going to waste my time finding it just to satisfy you. Instead I will simply direct you to the latest SA on the Shield Master feat:
...
If I have the time and find the JC quote, I WILL POST IT just to satisfy you and others like you. ...

I think you perhaps misunderstand. We all know what Crawford said, we've all read the new Sage Advice and most of us have probably watched the videos on YouTube. The point is that some of us are of the opinion that Jeremy is wrong, that his new "ruling" goes beyond simply interpreting the rules of the game and is making up new and unnecessary restrictions, and is Bad Advice.

When Arial Black is asking you to cite the rule in the PHB, I suspect it is because he knows that there isn't one. He's probably trying to underscore the point that your argument is based on some malarky that Jeremy Crawford recently made up when he changed his mind regarding Shield Master. I don't think any of us are arguing about what the latest revisions to Sage Advice are, we are debating whether or not they're garbage.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Is it me or does anyone else feel that Sage Advice flies in the face of rulings over rules? They stress this as design intent but then hand down rulings that, to me, are minutiae. I feel it causes more debate than it settles. This board is ripe with people who take Sage Advice with a grain of salt. If there’s a serious issue with mechanics, fix it with an errata and move on but otherwise, let people make rulings.

But maybe that’s just me seeing an issue??

 

[FrogReaver]

It is not in the PHB, it is a from a JC comment. As I said earlier, I am not going to waste my time finding it just to satisfy you. Instead I will simply direct you to the latest SA on the Shield Master feat:

Shield Master
[NEW] The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.

As long as the attack action is comes before the actually attacking (as the sanctuary example helped reveal) then you can take the attack action, shield master shove, attack then attack again. Nothing in our interpretation goes against this quote.

The text "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action." clearly indicates you can decide when to take the bonus action AFTER you've taken the Attack action. The timing has now been specified: after you've taken the Attack action. You are no longer free to take it whenever you want.

I agree. But the attack action happens before your actual attacks. That's the key to piecing it back together.

You don't. How can you have taken the Attack action without Making an Attack and proceeding to the Steps to do so? To say you are taking the Attack action and then ignore what needs to follow to constitute taking the Attack action is nonsensical.

Because the sanctuary discussion revealed that you can take the attack action and never actually attack.
Because the disengage discussion revealed that you must take the disengage action and have it end before you can move again.

The individual evidences may not be wholly convincing. I get that. But the evidences all considered as a whole together definitely make a strong case that the actions in general and more importantly, the attack action all happen before the attacks it provides.

No, cause and effect are not simultaneous. Of course they are not. No one ever said they were, did they? But to satisfy the cause of taking the attack action you must make an attack, otherwise you have not taken the Attack action.

Sanctuary proves otherwise. You don't make an attack with sanctuary, you lose your attack.

You have not taken the Attack action until you choose a target for your attack (Step 1 from Making an Attack).

Okay, then I'll just shield master shove after choosing the target for my attack. You agree I can take the shove anytime on my turn after I've taken the attack action right? And since I've taken the attack action after choosing my target then I should be able to shield bash before determining modifiers and resolving the attack right?

There is no time in-between taking the Attack action and making your attack.

Do you have a rule or any evidence for this? Our side has provided evidence that actions come before their effects, including the attack action. What supports your belief that it doesn't?

If you say you are taking the Attack action, then Shove before Making an Attack, you are setting yourself up for paradox as in the scenario I proposed in post #952.

No. As long as you have taken the attack action then whether you actually can attack or not is irrelevant. In our scenario it would be take attack action. shield master shove. get stunned. SHOOT I lost my attacks. DM reviews situation and finds nothing that broke the rules as the attack action was taken before the shield master shove.

What I don't understand is the point of all this at this stage. Can you simply not accept how this works? Do you feel you need to debate it to justify the fact that you want to be able to utilize the Shove bonus action before making your attacks on your turn?

I can't answer for Arial but I don't want to be able to use it on my turn. I wanted to be right. My original belief had always been that the rules only allow the shield master shove after the attacks. I was thrilled when JC joined my side. So no, I don't want to use shield master after the attack action. I would much rather have been right.

However, I have found compelling evidence in this thread that I was wrong.

It is simply enough to just house-rule it. As JC states, the bonus action comes AFTER the Attack action. How can you be after the Attack action if you have not taken it. To start to take it, is not to have taken it.

Bad arguments deserve that response. The argument in this case is very persuasive.

For our group we'll probably just house-rule it to allow the Shove after you have made at least one attack. I'm done debating it. If you want to rule it your way feel free. If I have the time and find the JC quote, I WILL POST IT just to satisfy you and others like you. Until then have a great game!

Yep, even if JC had been right in this case then I would have houserulled it. But my reason was that I'd played it by his original ruling for so long that I wasn't changing it now. It is nice knowing I don't have to houserule it though.

 

[5ekyu]

Is it me or does anyone else feel that Sage Advice flies in the face of rulings over rules? They stress this as design intent but then hand down rulings that, to me, are minutiae. I feel it causes more debate than it settles. This board is ripe with people who take Sage Advice with a grain of salt. If there’s a serious issue with mechanics, fix it with an errata and move on but otherwise, let people make rulings.

But maybe that’s just me seeing an issue??

Iirc the literal first question addressed of the current Sage Advice is

"Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM
can just make a ruling? "

 

[DND_Reborn]

Iirc the literal first question addressed of the current Sage Advice is

"Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM
can just make a ruling? "

For once, I COMPLETELY agree with you. That being said, I feel like to continue this pointless back-and-forth with others would just be banging my head against the wall. I feel no need to try to convince someone of my understanding when I am not even playing with them!

I'll wait for another topic before chiming in again.

 

[Asgorath]

Sanctuary proves otherwise. You don't make an attack with sanctuary, you lose your attack.

Sanctuary is a specific exception that applies to that spell only, not a general rule that applies to the entire game. It also doesn't say in the spell's text that the attacker gets their action back and can do something else instead of their failed attack, much like Counterspell doesn't say that the target gets their action back to do something else after you cause their spell to fail. It's pretty clear that Sanctuary is applied in step 3 of the "Making an Attack", which is to resolve the attack. The resolution of your attack against a creature that is protected by Sanctuary when you fail your Wisdom save is that the attack fizzles. Once any other attacks granted by Extra Attack are resolved, your Attack action is over. There's no rewinding time to decide you'll take a different action instead, much like there is zero mention in the rules about an action declaration phase. Just do what it says on the tin.

 

[5ekyu]

For once, I COMPLETELY agree with you. That being said, I feel like to continue this pointless back-and-forth with others would just be banging my head against the wall. I feel no need to try to convince someone of my understanding when I am not even playing with them!

I'll wait for another topic before chiming in again.

Not surprising in the least. I figured a "no comment" was imminent.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sanctuary is a specific exception that applies to that spell only, not a general rule that applies to the entire game. It also doesn't say in the spell's text that the attacker gets their action back and can do something else instead of their failed attack, much like Counterspell doesn't say that the target gets their action back to do something else after you cause their spell to fail. It's pretty clear that Sanctuary is applied in step 3 of the "Making an Attack", which is to resolve the attack. The resolution of your attack against a creature that is protected by Sanctuary when you fail your Wisdom save is that the attack fizzles. Once any other attacks granted by Extra Attack are resolved, your Attack action is over. There's no rewinding time to decide you'll take a different action instead, much like there is zero mention in the rules about an action declaration phase. Just do what it says on the tin.

How about responding to the rest of my post

 

[FrogReaver]

Logical Inferences are integral to being about to understand complex topics. The Rules don't have to spell absolutely everything out as we can reason. If reasoning is applied to a given interpretation and it results in something you disagree with you can not reasonably use the notion that the rules would have to state that. What's being provided is a logical deduction from your stated interpretation (the facts you've presented about your interprestion) and what the rules actually say. The whole idea is that given your truths and the truth of the rules we will be able to reason out other facts. If your arguing against that reasoning based on your interpretation "facts" and raw that leads to some conclusion you don't agree with then at least present a reasonable argument as to why the reasoning fails. Saying there's no rule doesn't cut it in such a situation.

 

[Asgorath]

How about responding to the rest of my post

What's the point? [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and I have been responding to this using the words in the PHB. There is no text that says "due to the way Sanctuary works, the Attack action is separate from the actual attacks". There is no text that talks about the duration of an action. You can perform the Cast a Spell action and not actually cast a spell, due to it being Counterspelled. You seem to have latched onto Sanctuary as the proof that your interpretation is correct, but I fundamentally disagree and have posted at length about how I believe the Attack action and actions in general work (i.e. the Attack action is making an attack, Extra Attack gives you multiple attacks, it's all part of the action, there's a specific rule that says you can insert movement between attacks, etc etc etc).

JEC has talked at length about how spells in 5E work, specifically that all you need to know about a particular spell is the words in that spell alone. You don't need to refer to other spells or other features of the game, you simply do what the spell says. Sanctuary says that if you try and attack a creature protected by the spell and fail your Wisdom save, that attack is lost. It does not say you get to go back in time and choose a different action, or that you can Shield Master shove any time you like, it simply says that if you try and attack a creature protected by this spell and fail your save, you can't attack the target. We don't need to read anything more from the text of the spell, the effect is quite simple and quite clear: if you fail your save, you can't attack the target protected by the spell. Just do what it says. No need to take these words and infer that some other portion of the game must behave in a way that is not in the text of those rules, this spell simply provides an exception to the general rules of the game.