How many attacks does it take to take the Attack action?

[Bawylie]

Lot of textualism in here. I don’t disagree that the text is important; and I don’t disagree that it’s worded poorly.

I do take issue with the timing presented. An action isn’t resolved by the roll of the dice. Bear with me on that for a sec. going back to our basic RPG conversation, the player says what they want to do and the DM adjudicates the action (calling for dice or not - whatever). But we seem to be overlooking a key component of adjudication - the DM narrates What happens in the game. At that point, and only at that point, has any action resolved.

So yeah, we can roll dice simultaneously, consecutively, or paradoxically and it doesn’t really matter. What matters is the actual change to the state of the game, as spoken by the parties involved.

The game mechanic happens at the table, in the aether, the resulting narrative changes the actual game world.

In the end, the timing of when you roll dice is immaterial.

 

[5ekyu]

To me there is no "declare action" phase for a character... The feat requires the **character** to take the attack action and that means taking an attack on your turn as an action.

I do not rule the bonus action attsck csn precede its cause.
I do not rule the entire suite of extra attacks has to be concluded before the bonus attack is available, just one.

The indivisible action of that later ruling to me is not compelling.

 

[Umbran]

Part of the absurdity for me is that the "official ruling" treats the present tense as the past tense.

That isn't absurd. It is an ambiguity that arises when we consider "present tense" applying to things that have duration. In English, "the present" is either an instant, or a short duration around an instant, depending upon context. In the original intent of the rules, the attack action is atomic enough that there's no real need to worry about the difference. But....

It is also not absurd, in the point that there is a gameplay issue that can arise: "I say I am taking the attack action, gain some benefit, and then fail to actually attack anything," which is a clear violation of the spirit of the rules? The difference between the instant, and the short period, is used by the player to game the system.

What is more absurd - that we have the ruling that plays with tenses, or we have players who are trying to weasel a benefit so hard that we require the ruling?

 

[Shiroiken]

Here's my ruling:

Don't listen to anything Jeremy Crawford says. Instead, do what makes sense for your table.

For an edition meant to be light on rules and heavy on DM judgement, Crawford has this horrible tendency to get technical on stupid things. I occasionally read Sage Advice to look for RAI, because knowing where they were coming from might actually impact my rulings. Sticking strictly to RAW in an edition littered with poor wording (possibly intentionally so) is the dumbest way to judge a game, IMNSHO.

 

[Oofta]

I rule that the statement of intent to take an action is effectively taking the action. In addition, if multiple rolls of the die are used to resolve the action that does not block other legal bonus actions.

I'm not a "letter of the rules" fan. I want a fast paced relatively simple gameplay 5E usually provides. If Bob says his PC is attacking the orc, he can do anything the attack action triggers. In addition, if he wants to use a bonus action (such as casting Misty Step as a bonus action) between attacks that's also fine.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I know, this is a tired topic, but I'm genuinely curious what people think.
The "Sage Advice" has told us that in order to fulfil "when you take the Attack action" you have to have finished taking the Attack action (a paradox in and of itself), but what do you guys think?

Do you have to make all your attacks before you're considered to have taken your action? If so, how do you respond to players deciding to take an action after they've attacked, but before they've made all their attacks?

Do you rule it to require you have completed at least one attack?
Do you rule it to require you have started at least one attack?
Do you rule it to merely require they declare they're using their attack action?
Are there any others I have missed?

I go by what the rules say:

Taking an attack action requires you to make an attack. Thus, I'd rule that an attack needs to be rolled to qualify. After that, the player can use a bonus action whenever they see fit as per the rules for bonus actions (unless the text of the feat or power indicates something else). "You TAKE an attack action on your turn" is immaterially different from "You ARE TAKING an attack action on your turn" or "You HAVE TAKEN an attack action on your turn", but fundamentally different from "You WILL TAKE an attack action on your turn."

Otherwise, I'd love for my fighter to regain a use of action surge early because he WILL TAKE a short rest after the combat.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I enjoy torturing my players with action timing minutiae. Nothing is more fun for me than shutting them down because they try to do things in the wrong order, and a strict reading of the D&D 5E PHB provides me with plenty of tools for this style of DMing. Kudos to Jeremy Crawford!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I allow you to declare an attack action and it counts...but you can't change from the attack action.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Player: My PC is going to use his Shield Master bonus action to shove the goblin and then attack it twice.
DM: Wrong!! You must attack twice then shove because that's how the rule is written*.

-OR-

Player: My PC is going to use his Shield Master bonus action to shove the goblin and then attack it twice.
DM: Sweet - let's roll those opposed checks!

I know which table I'd rather be at.


*never mind that "on your turn" means any time within the 6 seconds for your turn - as long as you take the attack action "on your turn" shoving first is fine...
[SECTION]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.[/SECTION]

Put another way:
Player: My PC is going to shove the tall goblin to his left, then shove the squat goblin ahead of him, and then shove the ugly goblin to his right.
DM: Ok, as long as the Shield Master Feat bonus action is the last shove, I'll allow it.

For serious?

 

[Krachek]

the answer to the OP Koan is :
You won’t find peace in attack,
You can only take action in perfect stillness.