Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Hriston]

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.

That's what I mean. Nothing I said has anything to do with what you're intending to do.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Right, and he gives a RAW interpretation-based response to that question (which is what was asked for). What he doesn't do is pull back the curtain on the design process of bonus actions with conditions and say how they were supposed to work. Fortunately, he already did that with the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, because he uses the word targeting in one declaration and not the other, it's more mechanically binding? Is that your position? Because, to me, "I try to smash the kobold with my mace." and, "I target the kobold with my mace." are equivalent statements.

By RAW they are not. One statement has no mechanics attached to it at all. It's simply an informal declaration of intent. The other statement is part of the Attack action as step 1 of Making an Attack and does have mechanics attached to it. The declaration is completely unbinding by the way. I can declare to you that I am going to smash the kobold, then change my mind and do literally anything else allowed to my PC. Once I have begun targeting, though, I am committed to the attack as there are no rules for backing out of an attack once you begin it.

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.

There is no such mechanical condition. It doesn't exist in 5e. Go look at Appendix A in the PHB. It's not there.

If it's a true statement, then use of a bonus action to shove a creature is also a valid option for that turn.

If you house rule it to be so, sure. There is no mechanical condition of "you take the Attack action on your turn" that allows you to trigger the bonus action by RAW, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, and he gives a RAW interpretation-based response to that question (which is what was asked for). What he doesn't do is pull back the curtain on the design process of bonus actions with conditions and say how they were supposed to work. Fortunately, he already did that with the original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic.

Dude. The RAI portion immediately after is still in the context of the Shield Master bonus action. He does in fact pull back the curtain on the design intent(RAI) for how Shield Master works with the Attack action.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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!

What does anything you said here have to do with my post? The thread is about SA, which obviously I've read since I've quoted it numerous times. Watch! I'm about to do it again in a bit! Also, I do not come to your understanding in the case of Shield Master that there are "multiple valid interpretations", only that DMs are free to change the rules to meet the desires of their tables through house-rules. Which, incidentally, is what you are doing.

I will post this one more time, and maybe this time you will actually address my points in it. You have yet to do so about this part of prior posts.

Read this carefully! (Now, you might be tempted to not read it, thinking "Oh, I've read it before." but don't. Read it.)

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.​

That's it. Right there. Do you see it?

First part: Simple question: Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? Simple answer: NO.

NO. Can that be any plainer? Yet you continue to argue you can take the bonus action first. Why? He is answering the question right there in SA. And while his tweets aren't official rules, SA is. I'll quote it for you, "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford."

Next part: Precondition. Definition: precondition - something that must come before or is necessary to a subsequent result. The Attack action must come before the subsequent result of gaining the bonus action.

Next part: the text "Intending to that that action isn't sufficient; you must actually take it [the Attack action] before you can take the bonus action." Again, you must take the Attack action before you can take the bonus action. By your logic you are not in fact taking the Attack action first, you are trying to take it after the bonus action.

Last part: the text "you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action." after you've taken = after you have taken. This is past tense. PAST. The Attack action must have been taken before you get to decide when to take the bonus action. You are deciding to take it before you have even taken the Attack action. You are not following the official ruling on Shield Master. You are house-ruling it.

Will you address these points? They are all contained in the SA, released by WotC and the D&D team, and official content and rulings on how to interpret rules. But you continue to interpret them otherwise...

Obviously, you don't agree with JC's interpretation. That's not what I am posting about. Of course you are free to change a rule anyway your group wants. But if you deviate from the official ruling you are making a house-rule--which (and I could be wrong about this, but I don't ever recall you admitting it) you have yet to admit you are doing.

I will not reply to any post you make unless you are specifically addressing the points I have made here. If you do not address them, I must believe you do understand the intent of Shield Master, the official ruling from SA, and are simply being argumentative.

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

Sure can! 20 pages is nothing, we'll be there by next week!

 

[epithet]

...

Will you address these points? They are all contained in the SA, released by WotC and the D&D team, and official content and rulings on how to interpret rules. But you continue to interpret them otherwise...

Obviously, you don't agree with JC's interpretation. That's not what I am posting about. Of course you are free to change a rule anyway your group wants. But if you deviate from the official ruling you are making a house-rule--which (and I could be wrong about this, but I don't ever recall you admitting it) you have yet to admit you are doing.

...

Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's.

Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place.

 

[5ekyu]

Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's.

Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place.

I think you are overstating the case.

As of January the defined role of SAC is official rulings on the rules for D&D.

So, it is a set of official [insert synonym de jour] clarifications to the rules of D&D.

Of course SAC, like every rule in the PHB, is subject to the overall "DM decides the rules for their game".

That said, honestly, the difference between *house rule* and *gm ruling* seems just to be one of importance aesthetically. I try and divide them in my game only as a *highlight* - so that things which change directly the printed rules are house rules and called out (spending HD when healing, removing massive damage death, multi-saves added to many effects). This is different from cases where I have specific rulings and "ways I will rule" that are likely to not be as overtly impactful. (Obviously anything chargen is highest priority.)

You may choose to see SAC as just some advice, like it's a guy at the hobby store waxing on about how stealth and climbing should interact... but its given a better defined (now) place and more official status than that in very many cases.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Dude, stop doing that. Seriously. Sage Advice is NOT a set of rulings that applies to your game, or a set of modifications and additions to the rules of D&D. It is just advice. If a DM doesn't know how to rule on an issue, he can check Sage Advice to get a recommendation. Even if he takes the recommendation, the ruling is the DM's.

Rejecting the advice of Jeremy Crawford, whether in tweets or in the Sage Advice pdf, is not the same as making a house rule. Taking the Advice is fine, rejecting it is fine, making a house rule is fine. There is no element of moral superiority to be found among any of those, but I do think it is important to be clear in your terminology. To "deviate from the official ruling" is absolutely not the same as "making a house rule," and your insistence that it is reveals a danger in having the Sage Advice Compendium in the first place.

Did you read the part where I quoted that SA is, in fact, official rulings now? It is new, so maybe you missed it. Here, I'll show you:



Of course, as the bottom says and has been pointed out, a DM can always ignore them, just as a DM can choose to not use any rule or change them. Nothing new there.

 

[Hriston]

By RAW they are not. One statement has no mechanics attached to it at all. It's simply an informal declaration of intent. The other statement is part of the Attack action as step 1 of Making an Attack and does have mechanics attached to it. The declaration is completely unbinding by the way. I can declare to you that I am going to smash the kobold, then change my mind and do literally anything else allowed to my PC. Once I have begun targeting, though, I am committed to the attack as there are no rules for backing out of an attack once you begin it.

I think the idea that there's a different mechanical implication between saying, "I try to hit the kobold," and, "I target the kobold," is silly in the extreme. What possible justification in the RAW do you have for saying this?

There is no such mechanical condition. It doesn't exist in 5e. Go look at Appendix A in the PHB. It's not there.



If you house rule it to be so, sure. There is no mechanical condition of "you take the Attack action on your turn" that allows you to trigger the bonus action by RAW, though.

The condition to which I'm referring is right there in the feat we've been discussing. It's the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature.

 

[Hriston]

Dude. The RAI portion immediately after is still in the context of the Shield Master bonus action. He does in fact pull back the curtain on the design intent(RAI) for how Shield Master works with the Attack action.

The tweet is about how you can tell if you've completed an action. RAW you have to finish the whole action to complete it. RAI for the Attack action, though, is that one attack completes it. This has implications for Shield Master of course, but does not itself address the RAI for the timing of bonus actions with conditions.