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

[Bawylie]

Here's my ruling:

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

This is truly a good ruling. If only because it’s impossible to get a simple Yes/No answer from him on a simple Yes/No question.

Person: “Jeremy, can I do the thing?”

Jeremy Crawford (possibly a Kraang): “Consulting the rules for thing on page N: if you could do the thing then the rule would say you could do the thing but since the rule does not say you can do the thing then that is a thing that the rule does not allow nor disallow.”

Person: cryingcat.jpg

 

[guachi]

My table goes with your option 3: "Rule it to merely require they declare they're using their attack action."

The entire ability could have been reworded in errata to work similar to cantrips and bonus action spells. The causality works both ways with those. Cast cantrip -> only cast bonus action spell. Cast bonus action spell -> only cast cantrip.

Attack action -> can shield bash. Shield bash -> can only attack action.

Something like this: on your turn, you may use a bonus action to shield bash. If you use this ability, the only action you may take on your turn is the Attack action.

 

[Yardiff]

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?

You and others who have brought this "player gaming the system" up have witnessed this in play or is this also theorycraft?

 

[Oofta]

You and other who have brought this "player gaming the system" up have witnessed this in play or is this also theorycraft?

And even if they did, all the DM has to say is the magic word "no".

 

[Hriston]

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?

This is genuinely how I see it. Assuming the player’s desired sequence is to use the bonus action shove first, once the shove has happened, the subsequent events will take one of two forms. Either the player will perform his/her Attack action by making one or more attacks, or the shove will itself be considered to have been the player’s full Attack action for that turn. Since an Attack action is taken either way, I really don’t see how this is much of an issue.

 

[Umbran]

You and others who have brought this "player gaming the system" up have witnessed this in play or is this also theorycraft?

The issue exists in at least one place in the rules. But, you may be missing the point.

If the question arises, then any absurdity is *not* in "the present is the past tense".

If the question doesn't arise, then there is no absurdity at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

This ruling in particular was actually the last straw for me with these "official rulings." That, and watching the guy actually DM.

When 5e was released, we discussed Shield Master and I argued that the words on the page aligned with a ruling that said attacks first, then you get your bonus action shove. It made that part of Shield Master not all that great unless initiative or readied actions lined up well enough for allies to take advantage of the prone condition. I figured that was fair - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, which is about par for the course for 5e. Of course, a ton of people disagreed with me, and that's cool.

Then the "official ruling" came out that, actually, you can do it the way the people who disagreed with me argued. Fair enough, I accepted and adopted that ruling. Only Crawford could know the RAI, after all, even if a plain reading did not suggest to me this was the correct ruling. And now it's inexplicably changed back.

So yeah. I'm done with this guy's rulings. Not because I necessarily disagree with them in all cases but because of the inconsistency. In my view, one of the most important things a DM can do is be consistent as this is part of creating the conditions for players to make informed decisions. As well, having watched him DM, I can't see how you go from the words on the page to the play experience on display. His credibility is shot with me and, because I value that consistency highly, I cannot allow Crawford's rulings to make my game more inconsistent.

The same thing happened with the elf’s Trance feature. When he initially answered, he said quite explicitly that the intent was for Trance not to change the duration of a long rest, only the amount of it that need be spent sleeping, and was also courteous enough to spend a few words discussing the possible implications of if you do allow it to change the duration of a long rest. It was quite useful, I, as someone who interpreted that rule differently than what he said was the intent, was made aware of what the intent was, and what effects my interpretation had on the game, and could make an informed decision about how to rule at my own table (for the record, I went with “it does change the duration.”) Then there was an errata to the rules for long rests, and Jeremy revised his answer. The new answer is fully consistent with the rules as written post-errata, but it is now in direct conflict with what he previously said was the intent of the rule, and he makes no mention of that.

Somewhere along the line, Jeremy switched from giving helpful insight on developer intent and advice about the implications of RAW vs. RAI, to just spitting out direct RAW clarification. In fact, at times it seems like he is actively avoiding giving any indication of what the actual intent behind a rule he’s been asked to clarify is.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

But here is the rub... every answer in Ssge could be "rulings not rules" and it could be useless.

Crawford sticks to "by the book" - at times imo to a fault - with an occasional nod to RAI and "I would allow" but never ever says "all GMs must" and often reinforces the GM role in choices and rulings.

I took his magic missle damage rulings not as how I should do it but as what "the rules are" and then made sure to note the differences in my game for my players.

Having an official answer gives us a baseline to diverge from, not a shackle.

 

[Azzy]

RE: Thread Title

How many nuns can a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?

 

[pukunui]

I'm confused as to what the issue is here? When would you ever want to shield bash and then *not* use the Attack action straight after in order to get advantage from the target being prone? And why is that not a sound tactic? It makes more sense to me to knock your opponent over and then hit them while they're down than to "rattle" them a bit and then knock them down after.

Are there players who want to use shield bash to knock their opponents down and then go do something else?

I'm really struggling to see what's so controversial here, and why people are insisting that the Attack action be taken if shield bash is used. What other viable option is there?

Is there some sort of "spray shield bash and walk away" combo that I'm missing here?

This is truly a good ruling. If only because it’s impossible to get a simple Yes/No answer from him on a simple Yes/No question.

I've experienced this myself. So frustrating! Why is it so hard for him to just say "yes" or "no"? It certainly would save him a lot of unnecessary verbiage.

As well, having watched him DM, I can't see how you go from the words on the page to the play experience on display ...

I have not watched him DM. I am wondering if you would be willing to elaborate on this at all. Feel free to PM me if you prefer.