Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Mistwell]

"@JeremyECrawford

More Jeremy Crawford Retweeted Draconis
The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.

Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form."

Here he is saying that the action is not instantaneous. It doesn't end until you finish the whole action. That's RAW. You are in error with your interpretation.

"[M]aking one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows." contradicts that however.

Again, this is silly. It's a DM call. When the guy who wrote the rule is running it and explaining it one way, and stating the rule was written another way (sort of, since 1176 posts says it's not clear) then its a friggen DM call and none of this matters.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll ask you directly: under your theory, when does the Dodge action end?

Consistent with the PHB and JC, you take it on your turn and it ends when you start your next turn. There is no rule preventing actions you take on your turn from carrying over past your turn.

For me, it ends when I note the effects, because that's what it says.

No it doesn't say any such thing. The rules do not say it ends when you note the effects. There is no such language.

Much like the Attack action isn't the attack, the Didge action isn't the effect.

While the Attack action is not the attack, it does last until all attacks are done. This is consistent with the rules as written and JC's tweet.

 

[Maxperson]

This is basically what I was saying up-thread about 5E's basic pattern of game-play. Players declare actions for their characters. The DM resolves those actions, using the rules and mechanics as tools to do so when appropriate.

This doesn't seem right to me. Surely, the player, when declaring that his/her character attempts to smash the kobold with a mace, has a certain expectation about which mechanics are going to be involved in the resolution. An attack roll will be made and compared to the kobold's AC, followed by a damage roll if a hit is scored. Now, unexpected things sometimes happen in the game, and there's no guarantee that the action's resolution will follow those steps, but I think it's a stretch to say there's no association whatsoever between the player's action declaration and the mechanics that are typically used to resolve it.

The declarations are completely informal and have no mechanics attached to them. When a player declares that his PC attempts to smash the kobold, it has no mechanical meaning. When he actually says, I am targeting the kobold with the mace, then the mechanics start. He's not bound in any way by his informal declaration, either. He can tell you he's going to smash the kobold, then change his mind and say he's targeting the orc next to it instead.

Is that what this is about? I think we agree that taking the Attack action typically involves making one or more attacks, and that you haven't taken the Attack action until the attack(s) you're making with it has/have at least been attempted. That isn't in contention, at least not for my part.

Where I think we disagree is that you look at "you take the Attack action on your turn" as an event which must occur before the bonus action which is conditioned upon it, whereas I look at it as a statement about what you do on your turn which, if true about your turn, allows you to also use a bonus action to shove at a time of your choosing during your turn.

RAW does not let you make a statement about what you will do on your turn and have it trigger a bonus action. No mechanical declaration phase exists, so no declaration about the future has any mechanical meaning whatsoever.

 

[Maxperson]

"[M]aking one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows." contradicts that however.

How does specific beats general contradict the general attack rule? It simply overrides the basic attack rules and adds in some other stuff, which allows you to take bonus actions after the first attack.

 

[Mistwell]

How does specific beats general contradict the general attack rule? It simply overrides the basic attack rules and adds in some other stuff, which allows you to take bonus actions after the first attack.

The most important part of what I wrote, the entire thesis of my statement, you cut. And my thesis refutes what you just wrote. That being, that this entire debate is incredibly silly and it's obviously, blatantly, screamingly a DM call. The very author of it says the way it's written, which itself is very vague and subject to interpretation, ended up different than both his intent and how he runs it.

Bottom line - I don't care about the minutia of your silly argument. It's meaningless. This one is a DMs call. Even if you think you're passionately correct in the most technical sense, I still think you're involved in a meaningless dispute over nothing. DMs are going to have to make the call on this one, no matter how much you advocate otherwise.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Consistent with the PHB and JC, you take it on your turn and it ends when you start your next turn. There is no rule preventing actions you take on your turn from carrying over past your turn.

You realize that, with this interpretation, you can take the Attack action and just not make one of your Extra Attacks, so your Attack action then lasts until some later turn when you can then take that attack? If not, explain why it works this way for one action, but not another.

No it doesn't say any such thing. The rules do not say it ends when you note the effects. There is no such language.

Well, the rules also don't say when your turn actually ends, so I guess, by this logic, it doesn't?

The rules say that on your Turn, you can take your Move and one Action. This language defines what your Turn consists of, a Move and one Action. There are other things that may be added, but that's the core definition of a Turn. If a Move and one Action define a turn, then the completion (or forgoing) of those ends your turn. It makes no sense to have your Turn be defined by taking one Action if that Action instead could possibly extend until your next Turn. There's zero evidence that this is intended. Instead, taking an Action is defined entirely within the entry for that Action. The Dodge action, for example, says what it does when you take it. Extending the Dodge action until the effect it has ends conflicts with the definition of a Turn, and requires assuming things not in evidence.

Further, there's no reason I can see for extending actions in this manner. What's the benefit of doing it this way vice, say, my way?

While the Attack action is not the attack, it does last until all attacks are done. This is consistent with the rules as written and JC's tweet.

So is my interpretation. There's a wealth of things consistent with JC's latest, non-rules authoritative tweet.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No worries!

Appreciated! I have a few minutes before I hit the sack, so... short and sweet.

Since Crawford's tweet (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248) where he states the following:

"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls.

My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say."

There is no further point in debating this since the DM has the final say (as always) and there is no rule in the PHB or DMG that exists that will concretely clarify the position of Shield Master and the bonus attack and its timing. No matter who says what, there will always be someone who will feel otherwise. Until an actual errata comes out addressing this, we have no where to turn.

If the time comes where this is in the errata, perhaps I will revisit it with a concrete and definite ruling. Until then... I am moving on to other things on the forum.

So, my compatriots in the d20 realms, all I can leave you with is a "Well met!" and PLAY ON!

 

[Maxperson]

The most important part of what I wrote, the entire thesis of my statement, you cut. And my thesis refutes what you just wrote. That being, that this entire debate is incredibly silly and it's obviously, blatantly, screamingly a DM call. The very author of it says the way it's written, which itself is very vague and subject to interpretation, ended up different than both his intent and how he runs it.

It doesn't refute what I wrote. It's just an observation that applies to quite literally every rule in the game. If we are going to eliminate discussion on things that are the DM's call, there's nothing to discuss, and this is a forum to discuss things. If you don't want to discuss with us, don't.

 

[Maxperson]

You realize that, with this interpretation, you can take the Attack action and just not make one of your Extra Attacks, so your Attack action then lasts until some later turn when you can then take that attack? If not, explain why it works this way for one action, but not another.

::looks over the rules for the Attack action:: Yeah, no. There's nothing there that says the action continues on to the next turn like Dodge does, so it doesn't.

The rules say that on your Turn, you can take your Move and one Action. This language defines what your Turn consists of, a Move and one Action. There are other things that may be added, but that's the core definition of a Turn. If a Move and one Action define a turn, then the completion (or forgoing) of those ends your turn. It makes no sense to have your Turn be defined by taking one Action if that Action instead could possibly extend until your next Turn. There's zero evidence that this is intended. Instead, taking an Action is defined entirely within the entry for that Action. The Dodge action, for example, says what it does when you take it. Extending the Dodge action until the effect it has ends conflicts with the definition of a Turn, and requires assuming things not in evidence.

You're trying to apply a specific exception to the Dodge action to all the other actions in order to prove me wrong. That tactic fails on its face. If an action doesn't say it continues on to the next turn like Dodge does, then it doesn't.

So is my interpretation. There's a wealth of things consistent with JC's latest, non-rules authoritative tweet.

It was a non-official tweet. He remains an authority, official or not.

 

[Mistwell]

It doesn't refute what I wrote. It's just an observation that applies to quite literally every rule in the game. If we are going to eliminate discussion on things that are the DM's call, there's nothing to discuss, and this is a forum to discuss things. If you don't want to discuss with us, don't.

Show me 10 rules where the author said it's written different than his intent or how he plays it. I'll wait.

Right. Now that we're done with that silliness, it's not like all the other rules in the game. It's pretty unique. If you don't want to discuss that aspect that's fine, you can stop replying to me. But that's the point I am making, no matter how much you want to drag this back to the minutiae.