Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Hriston]

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.

Let me get this straight, you've only been debating this because you hadn't bothered to read the document this thread's about? Well, I'm glad you've finally come around to my position that there are multiple valid interpretations of the rules-text. Have a good one!

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh no, I participated for over a week. This is an old thread now though, being continuously discussed for a month and a half now with no meaningful progress since that first week. Nothing new has been said for ages. It's just the same people repeating the same points over and over at each other, and not really addressing anyone else's point anymore other than to be dismissive and play whack a mole with each other,

It is in fact an addition to the discussion to say, "This rule in particular, due to the nature of the rule and what the author's specifically said about it, results in it being specially more of a a DMs call than most other rules."

To which you appear to have no reply. Instead, for multiple posts now, you've distracted from that point. Your current distraction is to whine and pretend that point isn't part of a discussion. Which just reinforces my point.

The disengage action, the sanctuary spell and booming blade were all new points that added to the discussion

 

[Asgorath]

I didn't say it did. I said the condition (i.e. "you take the Attack action on your turn"), the way I look at it, is a statement about what you do on your turn. If it's a true statement, then use of a bonus action to shove a creature is also a valid option for that turn.

And just to be clear, JEC disagrees with you, but I'm sure you knew that already.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995319563523784704

"D&D combat is sequential, with no action-declaration phase at the beginning. Your turn can also be interrupted by someone’s reaction. Such an interruption could, among other things, incapacitate you, meaning your intention to take a certain action was never fulfilled."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105201861819158529

"The action doesn't exist if you haven't done it. The Attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction; it means an actual attack has occurred."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105210379444006912

"In D&D, the way you take an action in combat is to actually take the action. There is no action-declaration phase.

Flurry of Blows happens after the Attack action, which means the action itself, not a declaration that you will take the action. "

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105249860121329664

"In D&D combat, many things can prevent your intentions from manifesting. Your foes can take reactions that incapacitate you or otherwise derail a plan. Or a trap might suddenly make your intended action impossible.

What you do is what matters, not what you intend to do."

 

[Hriston]

Take your pick:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736

"Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995016512497840134

"Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling"

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064126866010113

"In 2017, I clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium how timing works for a bonus action. The query there is about the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature, but as I've stated today, the answer applies universally to bonus actions with triggers. See https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf ..."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995064841214676994

"Today's clarification makes it so that you can trust your book more than ever before, since I've now eliminated an illogical ruling that actually seeded doubt about the book's text."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216

"In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight."

He originally used the word "intent" in his ruling. He then realized he was wrong, and corrected that ruling. He's even used the word "intent" in describing the corrected ruling as of this week. Thus, I don't think you can say "well his 2015 tweet is still the correct one because that's the only time he described RAI".

If you don't believe me, here he is describing what the feature is supposed to be, i.e. the intent of the feature:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994997405492772864

"It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move."

Okay, so you don't actually have any proof to back up your claim that Jeremy Crawford said he was incorrect about the RAI for the Eldritch Knight's War Magic (and, by extension, other bonus actions with conditions) when he said the intent was that the bonus action could come before or after its condition. Got it.

As I said up-thread, RAI doesn't change like a ruling can. It only matters what the designer's intent was when they wrote the rules. Jeremy Crawford changing his mind later about what he thinks the rules say has no bearing on that.

 

[Hriston]

And just to be clear, JEC disagrees with you, but I'm sure you knew that already.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995319563523784704

"D&D combat is sequential, with no action-declaration phase at the beginning. Your turn can also be interrupted by someone’s reaction. Such an interruption could, among other things, incapacitate you, meaning your intention to take a certain action was never fulfilled."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105201861819158529

"The action doesn't exist if you haven't done it. The Attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction; it means an actual attack has occurred."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105210379444006912

"In D&D, the way you take an action in combat is to actually take the action. There is no action-declaration phase.

Flurry of Blows happens after the Attack action, which means the action itself, not a declaration that you will take the action. "

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105249860121329664

"In D&D combat, many things can prevent your intentions from manifesting. Your foes can take reactions that incapacitate you or otherwise derail a plan. Or a trap might suddenly make your intended action impossible.

What you do is what matters, not what you intend to do."

I don't understand what any of this has to do with what I said.

 

[Asgorath]

Okay, so you don't actually have any proof to back up your claim that Jeremy Crawford said he was incorrect about the RAI for the Eldritch Knight's War Magic (and, by extension, other bonus actions with conditions) when he said the intent was that the bonus action could come before or after its condition. Got it.

As I said up-thread, RAI doesn't change like a ruling can. It only matters what the designer's intent was when they wrote the rules. Jeremy Crawford changing his mind later about what he thinks the rules say has no bearing on that.

Let me quote it again, as you seem to be ignoring what JEC is saying.

Original question:

https://twitter.com/DerynDraconis/status/1105201798837608448

"Great Master JeremyECrawford I don't understand, lot of confusion to me! RAW with Extra Attack can I use the Shield Master bonus action after the first attack or I must before complete the whole Attack action (resolve all the attacks)?"

Answer:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929

"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."

I've bolded the relevant section for you. JEC is saying the intent of the Shield Master feat is that it must come after at least one attack of the Attack action that triggers it, and this applies to all features that are triggered by the Attack action. That's why I quoted you a selection of his recent tweets on the subject, to show that he's talking about bonus action triggers in general.

 

[Asgorath]

I don't understand what any of this has to do with what I said.

JEC is saying the bonus action isn't a valid option until you actually do the Attack action. Simply intending to do it is not sufficient, you have to actually do it.

 

[Azzy]

How thoroughly this dead horse has been flogged. Can we go another 20 pages?

 

[Hriston]

Let me quote it again, as you seem to be ignoring what JEC is saying.

Original question:

https://twitter.com/DerynDraconis/status/1105201798837608448

"Great Master [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford I don't understand, lot of confusion to me! RAW with Extra Attack can I use the Shield Master bonus action after the first attack or I must before complete the whole Attack action (resolve all the attacks)?"

Answer:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929

"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."

I've bolded the relevant section for you. JEC is saying the intent of the Shield Master feat is that it must come after at least one attack of the Attack action that triggers it, and this applies to all features that are triggered by the Attack action. That's why I quoted you a selection of his recent tweets on the subject, to show that he's talking about bonus action triggers in general.

No, he isn't, and I've already explained what he is saying, so you're ignoring both what I'm saying and what he's saying. I'll try again. Jeremy Crawford specifically uses the phrase "our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action" (bolding added for emphasis), so this isn't an expression of the intent with which bonus actions with conditions were designed. It's an expression of the intent for what counts as the Attack action for the purpose of taking it. For me this has no relevance to the discussion on bonus action timing because I too require that you take the Attack action on your turn to qualify for using the bonus action Shield Master gives you. The question is if you can take that bonus action before or after the Attack action as you choose, and this tweet doesn't contradict the tweet that says the intent is that you can.

 

[Asgorath]

No, he isn't, and I've already explained what he is saying, so you're ignoring both what I'm saying and what he's saying. I'll try again. Jeremy Crawford specifically uses the phrase "our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action" (bolding added for emphasis), so this isn't an expression of the intent with which bonus actions with conditions were designed. It's an expression of the intent for what counts as the Attack action for the purpose of taking it. For me this has no relevance to the discussion on bonus action timing because I too require that you take the Attack action on your turn to qualify for using the bonus action Shield Master gives you. The question is if you can take that bonus action before or after the Attack action as you choose, and this tweet doesn't contradict the tweet that says the intent is that you can.

Yeah, I give up. He's directly responding to a question about the Shield Master bonus action, specifically whether you have to complete all attacks from Extra Attack or if the bonus action's condition (i.e. timing requirement) "if you take the Attack action on your turn" is satisfied after the first attack. Answer: the latter.