Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Hriston]

that RAW has no action declaration phase. That declaring an action has no binding influence on the player who can change it at will. That nothing in the game triggers off of a declaration that has no meaning since there are no mechanical declarations in RAW. On the other hand, targeting is mechanical and involves the attack.

Okay, but on that note, declaring that you are targeting a creature is not binding. You would actually have to target it.

The thing is, since the creature only exists in the fiction and you don't, I don't see how you get around making a declaration that you target it. The absence of a specific phase of combat doesn't abrogate the need to make action-declarations in order to play the game.

The tweet is in direct response to asking about the Shield Master bonus action. Therefore, every part of that answer pertains to it. Context is your friend. You will do better in discussions when you can recognize context and understand its use.

Don't patronize me. The tweet is in response to a question about how Jeremy Crawford's RAW interpretation of Shield Master interacts with Extra Attack, namely that Crawford has said that "take the Attack action" means you need to complete the entire Attack action before you can take the bonus action. His response is that, by the RAW, "take the Attack action" means "finish the whole [Attack] action." He then says that, by the RAI, "take the Attack action" means "make at least one attack with [the Attack action]". The response has nothing to do with whether "take the Attack action" is something that has to happen before the bonus action can be taken, which would actually address the issue of timing.

 

[Arial Black]

Anyone who looks at a conditional statement and tries to apply the consequence before the condition clearly has a misguided view of the English language.

Well, it is a point of pride that 5e is written in 'natural language'. So, in normal language as opposed to 5e jargon, are conditional statements causal? Is the order required?

Conditional statements are not statements of causality. An important distinction is that statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time, whereas conditional statements do not require this temporal order. Confusion commonly arises since many different statements in English may be presented using "If ..., then ..." form (and, arguably, because this form is far more commonly used to make a statement of causality). The two types of statements are distinct, however.

Yeah, I feel sorry for anyone who has a misguided view of the English language.

Poor James. : (

 

[Asgorath]

The response has nothing to do with whether "take the Attack action" is something that has to happen before the bonus action can be taken, which would actually address the issue of timing.

That's a pretty biased interpretation of the tweet, to use your terminology. What about all the other tweets where he explicitly says that the bonus action has to happen after the condition, and provides the reasons why that's the case? That is, that this is the only logical answer based on the rest of the rules?

 

[Sadras]

The thread that refuses to die.

Well the posters did fail their Thread Lore check so they have not discovered that this particular Thread has resistance versus logic and invulnerability to agreement (EDIT: like many others).
Personally I'm of the opinion that the Moderator should have give them an insight check at least, if not a passive check against their score, to figure this all out.

There are some, from another Thread, that might call this style of moderation Mother-May-I, but that is too much of a pejorative for me.

 

[Hriston]

At some point in the future, with all the stuff people have debated about this feat, I am positive it will be in the errata and then settled.

I don't think any errata will be issued for Shield Master, and here's why: Corrections are made when the text fails to convey its intended meaning, and that seems to have happened to some extent in this case, but sometimes a decision is made to let the text stand because the required changes would be too far reaching, or because the intended meaning can be gleaned as one of several alternatives. When that happens, it seems the official response is to declare the most literalistic interpretation as the sole correct one. The fact that this has happened indicates that errata will not be forthcoming.

I'm sorry, but I think your interpretation is nonsensical. Anyone who looks at a conditional statement and tries to apply the consequence before the condition clearly has a misguided view of the English language.

What would you make of this sentence?: If you go to the store today, you can stop by the bank on your way there. Clearly, you're not meant by this to stop by the bank after you go to the store! I think the English language is more flexible than you imagine it is.

 

[Arial Black]

You can keep quoting Wikipedia all you like

Thanks! Natural Language FTW!

In a rules system for a game, you start with nothing and then add rules to allow you to do things.

Yes. One consequence of that is that a rule which says something has no power to prevent other rules from making exceptions. If it did then the whole 'specific beats general' would be impossible.

So, the rule which allows movement between attacks in no way forbids another rule that allows something else to happen between attacks!

That other rule is the rule that lets you take your bonus action when you like on your turn.

To imagine that the rule that allows movement between attacks somehow forbids other rules from allowing other things to also happen between attacks-the things that the new rule specifically allows-goes against the whole 'specific beats general' game system.

Sure, they could've used very formal logical language and statements like "if and only if you take the Attack action on your turn, after that action is fully resolved and until the end of your turn you can do Y" but the book would be bordering on unreadable. It certainly wouldn't cater to a more casual or newer player.

Let's imagine that Extra Attack doesn't exist. Let's imagine the Attack action means making an attack. Let's imagine that the Shield Master bonus action has the condition of taking the attack action. Let's imagine that reactions are a thing. It's quite logical that with these constraints, you have to actually make an attack before you can use the Shield Master bonus action, because if you do the bonus action first and someone uses a reaction to end your turn, you never make an attack on your turn. If you never took the Attack action on your turn, then why were you allowed to use the bonus action? Turns out that's exactly what JEC is saying, i.e. within the constraints of the 5E system these conditions do enforce a timing requirement or else the game can be left in an inconsistent state.

Let's imagine that the intent of Shield Master was that the bonus action shield shove had to be paired with the Attack action, but that you could freely choose the order of attack(s)/shield shove. How would they write this, in 'natural language', without making it unreadable or increasing the page count?

You want the bonus action shield shove to be freely taken whenever you want during your turn, just like the other bonus actions. But you want to make sure that it can only be taken in the same round that you also take the Attack action.

Hmmm. How about this: "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

Yes, that does it perfectly!

It tells us that we can take a bonus action shield shove, but only if you also take the Attack action on your turn.

We know from understanding the English language that an 'if...then...' statement is not a statement of causality requiring a temporal order. It says what it needs to in as short a sentence as possible.

Job done!

What could possibly go wrong...?

 

[Hriston]

That's a pretty biased interpretation of the tweet, to use your terminology.

Why?

What about all the other tweets where he explicitly says that the bonus action has to happen after the condition, and provides the reasons why that's the case? That is, that this is the only logical answer based on the rest of the rules?

Those tweets don't talk about what was intended.

 

[Asgorath]

Those tweets don't talk about what was intended.

Neither did the original Shield Master tweet from 2015, which is kind of my point. That tweet was a ruling. JEC has since said that ruling was incorrect, and has provided a new ruling with a more detailed explanation of why the original ruling was incorrect. War Magic is a completely independent feature with its own intent, so why are you applying the intent from War Magic to Shield Master?

 

[Hriston]

Neither did the original Shield Master tweet from 2015, which is kind of my point. That tweet was a ruling. JEC has since said that ruling was incorrect, and has provided a new ruling with a more detailed explanation of why the original ruling was incorrect. War Magic is a completely independent feature with its own intent, so why are you applying the intent from War Magic to Shield Master?

Here's the easy answer, the full rules answer from the June, 2016 Sage Advice:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​

Clearly, the reasoning given applies to all bonus actions that don't have specified timing, and that he considers the war magic bonus attack to be one of these.

But what about the shield master shove? Doesn't it have a specified timing? Let's compare the first bullet of Shield Master with War Magic and see if there's some difference.

Shield Master
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.​

War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.​

The language here is fairly parallel. If/when you take/use [your] action, you can use/make a bonus action. If the war magic bonus attack doesn't have a timing specification, then neither does the shield master shove.

 

[Asgorath]

Here's the easy answer, the full rules answer from the June, 2016 Sage Advice:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​

Clearly, the reasoning given applies to all bonus actions that don't have specified timing, and that he considers the war magic bonus attack to be one of these.

But what about the shield master shove? Doesn't it have a specified timing? Let's compare the first bullet of Shield Master with War Magic and see if there's some difference.

Shield Master
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.​

War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.​

The language here is fairly parallel. If/when you take/use [your] action, you can use/make a bonus action. If the war magic bonus attack doesn't have a timing specification, then neither does the shield master shove.

So the fact that this earlier Sage Advice Compendium answer uses the word "intent" overrides the fact that JEC has come out and said "these previous rulings were bad, and here are the reasons why" in your opinion? You don't mind that the old rulings are illogical and ignore the way reactions work, and were thus inconsistent with the rest of the rules?