Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

So if I can't come up with a wording, my position is wrong. When I do come up with a wording, I'm still wrong. Why am I still debating this with you exactly?

You asked for a version of the rule that lets you get an extra shove on your turn. Why does this have to be a bonus action exactly? There's a precedent in the rules for giving you extra attacks as part of your Attack action, for example the Extra Attack feature. Dread Ambusher also works in this way. If the intent was that you've become so good with your shield that you just get a free extra shove on your turn with no timing restrictions, why not word it that you get an additional attack as part of the Attack action that must be used on a shove? That way we wouldn't have to spend another thousand posts arguing about the duration of actions or how to correctly declare your action ahead of time so the reaction rules don't put you in an inconsistent state and all that.

The goal remember is for you to write a rule that would make shield master function like it does under my interpretation. My interpretation requires a bonus action to be used. Not including a bonus action fundamentally changes the rule.

That said, if I were you I would answer something like: you may bonus action shove on your turn provided that you haven't already taken an action other than the attack action. If you bonus action shove and haven't yet taken an action then the only action you may take is the attack action.

 

[FrogReaver]

Cool. Then the editor comes to you and says "we have to cut the text by 25% in order to fit all the art in, can you please trim this down? The second sentence is redundant, why don't you just stick with the standard wording of 'If you X, you can Y' that we use everywhere else in the books, per the style guide?". As I said, they could write a paragraph on every single rule in the game if they wanted to, but then the book would be unusable and they would've missed their goal of making it accessible to new players.

In my interpretation the second sentence is not redundant.

 

[Asgorath]

Oh, I know. This is another example of how Jeremy chose semantics over gameplay and reversed an earlier answer regarding the 5e rules. As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, Crawford's initial take on the matter was quite different.

The question wasn't about how Jeremy wants to interpret the rules in 2019, but rather how the rule would have been written when the Player's Handbook was published if the intent were to allow a bonus action to come before or after the triggering event, enabling the default timing of bonus actions. Since we have here a statement of that exact intent for a bonus action written into the Player's Handbook, it appears we have our answer, no?

Okay, we'll have this discussion again. In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y". His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it. I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, we'll have this discussion again. In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y". His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it. I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.

I think in 2021 he's going to be coming out and saying I F'd things up again.

I think he had the right ruling early on but the wrong explanation. The original ruling was spot on but his justification for it was terrible IMO. He definitely needed to go back and correct his faulty justification. The If X then Y talk by JC proves the anytime bonus action justification was terrible. But a bad justification doesn't invalidate a correct ruling.

The issue is that now he's using the "attack action happens at the same time as your attacks" as his justification. That to is going to ultimately prove to be a faulty justification that he's going to have to go back and correct. For example, it's already inadvertently changed TWF rules and he's already dug in so far he refuses to acknowledge that.

Eventually he's going to come out with the correct ruling and valid justification combination. It's just by the time he does no one is going to listen to him because his credibility is shot.

 

[Asgorath]

The goal remember is for you to write a rule that would make shield master function like it does under my interpretation. My interpretation requires a bonus action to be used. Not including a bonus action fundamentally changes the rule.

That said, if I were you I would answer something like: you may bonus action shove on your turn provided that you haven't already taken an action other than the attack action. If you bonus action shove and haven't yet taken an action then the only action you may take is the attack action.

I had to read the second paragraph 5 or 6 times, and my brain still hurts.

Why are you forcing unnecessary restrictions here? If the end goal is to shove whenever you like when you take the Attack action, then there's a simple wording that anyone can understand:

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can make one additional shove attack with your shield."

This succinctly explains that the extra attack can only be used to shove the target.

In my interpretation the second sentence is not redundant.

The Sage Advice Compendium disagrees with you, as do I. Maybe the fact that it's so hard to simply explain your interpretation is an indication that it's not correct?

 

[epithet]

Okay, we'll have this discussion again. In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y". His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it. I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.

While I disagree with you that the earlier rulings were nonsensical, and that these abilities have timing requirements... none of that matters. As you say, we've had that discussion already. This discussion is specifically about how the 5e designers would have written a rule in the PHB to give a character access to a bonus action that was dependant upon an Action but was not intended to have a timing requirement. As the earlier Sage Advice I quoted demonstrates, they would have written it just like they wrote it. You can get deep into the semantics of what this or that term or phrase actually means, and whether a trigger equals timing, or whatever. What you can't do is claim that at the time these rules were written they were intended to have a timing requirement. The evidence points to the contrary.

Now, as you know by now I don't place a great deal of importance on the intent. The rule is the rule, until and unless it is changed via errata. Still, in the case of an ambiguous rule (which this obviously is, 100 pages into the thread) it is worth considering what the designers meant to say when considering what whatever they said means.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, we'll have this discussion again. In 2017, he came out and said "hey I ed these rulings up, they do have timing requirements and thus you have to do X before you can do Y". His second sentence there is inconsistent with the wording in the PHB, as War Magic definitely has a timing condition built into it. I'm glad they reversed all these old nonsensical rulings.

People act as if JC can't make mistakes and then correct them later.

 

[FrogReaver]

I had to read the second paragraph 5 or 6 times, and my brain still hurts.

Why are you forcing unnecessary restrictions here? If the end goal is to shove whenever you like when you take the Attack action, then there's a simple wording that anyone can understand:

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can make one additional shove attack with your shield."

This succinctly explains that the extra attack can only be used to shove the target.

That doesn't require a bonus action. Thus its not a valid example for what we are asking for. You have a hard time of following a simple conversation...

The Sage Advice Compendium disagrees with you, as do I.

The sage advice has never commented on how such a rule would be written under my interpretation. By default it can't disagree with me. Do you even understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?

Maybe the fact that it's so hard to simply explain your interpretation is an indication that it's not correct?

My interpretation is simple to explain. You use an action and then after you have used the action you get some benefit.

 

[Maxperson]

While I disagree with you that the earlier rulings were nonsensical, and that these abilities have timing requirements... none of that matters. As you say, we've had that discussion already. This discussion is specifically about how the 5e designers would have written a rule in the PHB to give a character access to a bonus action that was dependant upon an Action but was not intended to have a timing requirement. As the earlier Sage Advice I quoted demonstrates, they would have written it just like they wrote it. You can get deep into the semantics of what this or that term or phrase actually means, and whether a trigger equals timing, or whatever. What you can't do is claim that at the time these rules were written they were intended to have a timing requirement. The evidence points to the contrary.

When an interpretation requires Schrodinger's actions and/or time travel in order to work correctly, it's the wrong interpretation.

Now, as you know by now I don't place a great deal of importance on the intent. The rule is the rule, until and unless it is changed via errata.

I'm curious if that means that you'd kill a wild shaped druid PC with a disintegrate spell as soon as the wild shape form hits 0.

 

[Asgorath]

That doesn't require a bonus action. Thus its not a valid example for what we are asking for. You have a hard time of following a simple conversation...

Well, it's not we, it's you that's asking for it, and I'm suggesting the premise of your question (assuming you're asking it to prove your interpretation that the Attack action is separate from the attacks themselves) is flawed.

My interpretation is simple to explain. You use an action and then after you have used the action you get some benefit.

Oh, this is easy then.

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to do Y."

Nice and simple.