Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Ovinomancer · Mar 11, 2019

Arial Black said:
Huzzah! At last!

I agree! That's because I only hold one of these positions (the correct one!), that "if...then.." statements are not statements of causality. I mentioned this in a previous post, citing Wikipedia's essay on Causality and contrasting with conditionals. This means that the 'effect' can come before the 'cause', depending on what the condition actually is, and since the conditional here is , "on your turn", then the "if...then..." form does not require the shield shove to come after the attack; the only requirement is that both take place on your turn.

However, I anticipated that some posters would continue to assert, erroneously, that this particular "if...then..." statement should be adjudicated as if it were a statement of causality. Boy, was my anticipation correct!

What I then showed was that, even with that interpretation, it still results in being able to resolve the shield shove before you resolve the attack.

So, either way, the shield shove can go before the first attack.

I'm not implying that it cannot be a causal relationship. I'm saying that because of the "if...then..." form, the relationship is not bound by Time's Arrow, while straight causal relationships must be. And in this case, the condition itself, freed from having to occur in a set order, instead merely needs to obey the condition! And the condition is merely that they both take place "on your turn".

No!

First, 'no' from the perspective that "if...then..." statements are not bound it time, just bound by the particular condition.

Second, 'no' from a perspective which tries to claim that this particular "if...then..." statement should be treated as if it were a straight statement of causality, if that claim were true then it must obey the requirements for a temporal order, and I know you agree that it should obey that temporal order!

But the crucial part is this: "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time".

So even if you think that the 'effect' (the bonus action shield shove) cannot occur before the 'cause' (the attack), the two certainly can coincide!

Even in this interpretation, the very same moment you 'take the Attack action on your turn' you have simultaneously generated that bonus action shield shove. And because of the actual written rule stating that you can take your bonus action whenever you want during your turn as long as you have one to take, and you get this one at the very moment you 'take the Attack action', then, sure, under this interpretation you cannot take the bonus action before you get it, you certainly can take it at the very moment you get it! Because, "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede or coincide with the consequent in time".

Although you are free to choose to take the bonus action after the attack, and (under this interpretation) you cannot take the bonus action before the attack which 'caused' it, you are certainly free to take that bonus action at the same time as the attack which 'caused' it!

Not quite.

It's not that "combat turns are ordered sequences", it's that the resolution of events is 'ordered', meaning 'resolved' one after the other.

So the two actions are certainly allowed to happen simultaneously. Actions like Dash, Dodge and Disengage could not function as we use them if two actions could not occur simultaneously!

However, things must be resolved sequentially!

In 5e, when things happen simultaneously on a creature's turn, they must be resolved sequentially even if they occur at the same time.

But who decides the order in which simultaneous things get resolved?

That's right! The player of the acting creature gets to decide the order in which they are resolved!

Here, you 'take the Attack action on your turn', which 'causes' the bonus action. That bonus action is generated at the same time as you take the Attack action.

Because 'cause' and 'effect' can coincide, and the rules say you can take your bonus action when you want, you can 'take that bonus action' at the same time you get it, which is at the same time as you 'take the Attack action'.

Since you chose to have the two things occur at the same time, you get to choose the order in which they are resolved. Therefore, you can choose to resolve the shield bash first, even though both the shield bash and the attack coincide.

Ah, I see where you've gone off the rails. Okay, let's get a bit technical.

Technically, a material conditional is an if, then statement that does not imply causality. They're related truth statements of the form "if X is true, then Y is also true." The examples in the wiki article you reference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) is:

Wiki said:
If Barack Obama is president of the United States in 2011, then Germany is in Europe.

If George Washington is president of the United States in 2011, then .

As you can see, these examples show that conditionals are just related truth statements. In the first, the X being true means that Y is also true, despite the fact that X has nothing to do with Y. This statement just associates truth values. The problem with this is shown in the second example, where X is not true, so it diesn't matter what Y is. Y can be anything, a true statement or false one, because there is only a trivial relationship between X and Y.

Applying the above to Shield Master and taking the if X, Y statement as a material conditional, I know that if it is true that I take the Attack action on my turn, it is also true that I may shove as a bonus action. There's a few problems with this. Firstly, if I don't take the Attack action on my turn, then I don't know if I can shove as a bonus action. X being true means Y is also true, but X being NOT true means I have no statement about the truth of Y. Secondly, all that conditional says is that If X is true at any time, then Y is also true. I can take the Attack action once, on a once or future turn, and the conditional is true -- I can shove as a bonus action any turn I want. Neither of these make any sense for game rules, so it's pretty clear it's not a material conditional but a causal statement.

We don't just have to rely on the above analysis to determine the Shield Master if X, Y is causal -- the rules tell us it is. We have the rule that bonus actions do not exist unless given by a game element. That's a causal relationship, not a related truth statement. And, since it is causal, X must precede or coincide with Y (refer to above Wiki article).

I've so far avoided the argument that, in normative English, "if, then" statements are almost always causal statements. It's only when you're in certain branches of formal logic that they aren't. I saved this for last because it's a weaker argument. Nevertheless, since the game rules are written in normative English, it's another point against reading "if, then" as a material conditional.

Ovinomancer · Mar 11, 2019

Arial Black said:
Either 'Actions are indivisible', or they are divisible! This applies to ALL Actions In Combat. It is the fallacy of Special Pleading to assert that all the OTHER Actions are "effects with a duration", but not the Attack action! There is no rules justification to treat them differently!

This isn't what's claimed. What's claimed is tgat actions do what they say they do. Some has an effect with a soecified duration, some have a thing or things you do. It's you that is insisting that an action that has an effect with a duration also has that duration. This isn't true. Cast a Spell is an action that always results in an effect with a duration, but we aren't talking about how Cast a Spell lasts until it's effects are over. Why do you do this for Disengage?

I take the Disengage action, I get the effect listed for the duration listed. That action is now done, even if the effect persists. You surely don't argue that an attack that causes and ongoing condition also continues as long as the condition does, do you?

You keep bringing up special pleading, as if knowing the nane of an informal ligical fallacy wins the argument, but you're doing so by strawmanning to cram the duscussion into a false dichotomy. Do I win, now?

Either ALL Actions are 'effects with a duration' (so the Attack action allows you to execute your allowed attacks until you either run out of attacks or your turn ends, whichever comes first), i.e. 'actions are instantaneous declarations at the gaming table, with lasting effects', or ALL actions ARE their effects, and in that case if 'Actions are indivisible', then ALL actions are indivisible, rendering Dash, Dodge and Disengage all but unusable.

I'll take "do what it says on the tin and don't invent new things," for $100.

Seriously, you're dragging in things that aren't in the rules. Just read the rules without the baggage, I promise they work really well that way.

Ovinomancer · Mar 11, 2019

Maxperson said:
So two things. First, if a post isn't intended to be humor, laughing at it is an abuse of the laugh button on this site. ...

Wait, you were doing this to my posts in the Mother May I thread and you actually have the audacity to complain about it when done to you? Man. That's chutzpah.

Maxperson · Mar 11, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
This isn't what's claimed. What's claimed is tgat actions do what they say they do. Some has an effect with a soecified duration, some have a thing or things you do. It's you that is insisting that an action that has an effect with a duration also has that duration. This isn't true. Cast a Spell is an action that always results in an effect with a duration, but we aren't talking about how Cast a Spell lasts until it's effects are over. Why do you do this for Disengage?

I take the Disengage action, I get the effect listed for the duration listed. That action is now done, even if the effect persists. You surely don't argue that an attack that causes and ongoing condition also continues as long as the condition does, do you?

The word action implies it. If you take an "action," but do no action, such as take the Disengage "action" where you haven't moved yet, then you have not taken an action at all. Actions are about, you know, action. What you are arguing by saying that the action is over and done with having taken no time, but gives you an effect that has duration, is arguing that an "action" is not really an action, but rather the effect is the action, but not the "action." That's silly.

The action lasts as long as it takes for it's effect to be over. For the Attack action, the effect is hit or miss. For Disengage, the action lasts until your movement is done. And so on.

You keep bringing up special pleading, as if knowing the nane of an informal ligical fallacy wins the argument, but you're doing so by strawmanning to cram the duscussion into a false dichotomy. Do I win, now?

Pot, meet kettle.

Maxperson · Mar 11, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Wait, you were doing this to my posts in the Mother May I thread and you actually have the audacity to complain about it when done to you? Man. That's chutzpah.

There were things you were saying that were so absurd they had to be intended for humor. Otherwise...

Ovinomancer · Mar 11, 2019

Maxperson said:
The word action implies it. If you take an "action," but do no action, such as take the Disengage "action" where you haven't moved yet, then you have not taken an action at all. Actions are about, you know, action. What you are arguing by saying that the action is over and done with having taken no time, but gives you an effect that has duration, is arguing that an "action" is not really an action, but rather the effect is the action, but not the "action." That's silly.

The action lasts as long as it takes for it's effect to be over. For the Attack action, the effect is hit or miss. For Disengage, the action lasts until your movement is done. And so on.

Nope, the Disengage Action does not last until you finish moving, the effect created by the Disengage Action does. It's simple, you do what it says on the tin.

Pot, meet kettle.

Sigh, yes, Max, that was the joke. You know, for someone really concerned about others properly acknowledging humor, this and your other post aren't great showings of example.

Asgorath · Mar 11, 2019

Arial Black said:
I'm not suggesting that the ability to execute those attacks is totally divorced from the Attack action which granted them, I'm suggesting that there is a difference between 'taking an action' and 'executing the stuff granted by that action', countering the claim that 'taking an Action' IS THE SAME THING as 'the effect of that Action'.

The rules for Extra Attack and the rules for Moving Between Attacks make it clear that you certainly can use your first attack to stab the goblin in the kitchen, then move into the dining room, then slash at the orc.

This means that, even though we don't know how many seconds go by between attacks, we do know that these attacks cannot have been simultaneous with each other.

IF we accept that 'taking an action' is the same thing as the stuff allowed by taking that action, that means that both of those attacks ARE the Attack action. Since those attacks were certainly not occurring simultaneously with each other, this means that the Attack action, with Extra Attack, is not necessarily a single, instantaneous event.

So, after the first attack on the goblin but before the attack on the orc, there is a gap in time into which one can 'take a bonus action', because there is a written rule which says you can take your bonus action when you like on your turn, and no written rule saying anything to the effect of, "...except during another action".

The goblin and the orc say otherwise!

After you attack the goblin but before you attack the orc, have you met the condition, 'take the Attack action on your turn'? It's binary; it's either 'yes' or 'no'.

If it's, "yes you have met the condition", then you have met that condition before the second attack took place. This also means that the second attack cannot have been 'take the Attack action' itself, because if it was then you could not have satisfied the condition!

If it's, "no, you have not met the condition", then you did not 'take the Attack action', and are free to take whatever Action you want because you have an unspent action!

Which is it?

If you are tempted to wriggle on the hook by claiming that executing that first attack commits you to taking the Attack action, then by the same logic, taking the bonus action shield shove first also commits you to taking the Attack action! If you have no problem with the former, you can have no problem with the latter!

Either 'Actions are indivisible', or they are divisible! This applies to ALL Actions In Combat. It is the fallacy of Special Pleading to assert that all the OTHER Actions are "effects with a duration", but not the Attack action! There is no rules justification to treat them differently!

Either ALL Actions are 'effects with a duration' (so the Attack action allows you to execute your allowed attacks until you either run out of attacks or your turn ends, whichever comes first), i.e. 'actions are instantaneous declarations at the gaming table, with lasting effects', or ALL actions ARE their effects, and in that case if 'Actions are indivisible', then ALL actions are indivisible, rendering Dash, Dodge and Disengage all but unusable.

Why must it be A or B here? There's a third option C, which is simply this: the PHB defines what each action is. They are specific rules that apply to the action they are defining alone, and not general rules that apply to the whole game. I really think that this is where you've gone off the rails and it's forcing you to make conclusions that are not supported by the words in the PHB. I apologize in advance as this post will likely be long, but I will make one more attempt to explain why it doesn't have to be A or B as you defined them here. I'm going to start with some basic assumptions, in particular that in order for you to actually be able to do something during combat, there must be a rule that says you can do that thing. Similarly, I'm going to assume that the simplest outcome for a given rule is the correct one, as this helps to ensure that turns in combat are generally quick and easy (as apparently this was one of the goals of the 5E combat system, unlike previous editions).

5E is an exceptions-based game, where specific rules can override general ones. This is defined at the start of the PHB:

This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

To be clear, this does not mean that if one spell says the game works in a particular way, that this has created a general rule and that's how the game works in all cases. Some people have argued that spells like Sanctuary or Shield imply that the Attack action or actions in general must work in a certain way, but this is not correct: the spells provide exceptions to the rules governing those actions, and apply to those spells only.

Here are some general rules for combat:

On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first.

You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

This is the foundation on which we build everything else, and it sets up the precedent that there is an order to the individual elements of your turn. That is, there are clearly-defined portions of your turn "before your action" and "after your action". This suggests that the elements of your turn are played and resolved sequentially, and that order matters.

At this point, I think it's worth talking about one of the most important features of the combat system, namely reactions.

Reactions
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction.

When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.

The Ready action, which sets up a reaction, also says:

When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.

Why do I suggest that discrete elements must be resolved sequentially and that order matters? The answer is simple: there might be a reaction waiting to happen, with a trigger of any individual element on your turn. Going forward, let's imagine that one of the enemies you are fighting is Bob, who has the Sentinel and War Caster feats and access to the Banishment spell.

So, on your turn, you have movement and an action. The rules state you can move before or after your action, or split your movement so you move first, take the action, and then move again. Each of these discrete elements must be played and resolved independently, because Bob could be waiting to banish you at any point. For example, the trigger of his Ready action of casting the Banishment spell might be "if an enemy moves within 15' of my friend Jim". In order for this to work, the state of the game must advance forward in discrete steps as you perform each element of your turn. If my turn starts with using some of my movement to get into melee range of Jim and then take my action, the movement must be resolved first and independently of the action, so that the reaction trigger can also be resolved as soon as it becomes true.

Perhaps Bob did not actually have a Ready action waiting for me, so now I'm in melee range of his friend Jim and can take my action. The PHB lists 10 standard actions, with rules for each specific action. Again, as I said earlier, the rule for one action is a specific rule for that action alone, not a general rule for the whole game. When adjudicating a specific action, we must simply look at the text for that action alone. There are actions that provide a temporary buff for a specified duration, for example the Disengage or Dodge actions. These actions clearly list the effect and duration in the words of the rules themselves:

If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn.

When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage.

Just because these two actions "resolve instantly" and provide an effect for a duration, does not mean that this is how all actions work. Each action is defined separately. When taking a particular action, all we need to do is look at the text for that specific action, because it defines how the action works. If we are taking action A, then the fact action B behaves differently is irrelevant, as B is a specific rule that applies to the B action alone.

Okay, so I'm standing next to Jim, and have some of my movement left as well as my action, per the general rules I listed above. I decide I want to take the Attack action. I have the Extra Attack class feature that says:

Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

and the Attack action itself says:

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.

Making an Attack lists 3 steps: 1) Choose a target. 2) Determine modifiers. 3) Resolve the attack. I choose Jim as the target of my attack, determine the modifiers, and then make the first attack roll. This first attack must happen as a discrete step, because Bob is standing next to Jim and thus might want to take his Sentinel attack against me. Once the first attack is resolved, we move onto the next attack, and work through the same 3 steps to resolve that attack.

In previous editions, movement and actions were completely separate. That is, as soon as you stopped moving, you were done and couldn't move again until your next turn. 5E changed that by allowing you to move before and after your action, and it also added another specific rule, which is to allow movement between weapon attacks:

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

This is not a general "all actions are divisible" rule, this is a specific rule that allows for exactly one thing to happen: movement between weapon attacks. It doesn't specify which action must provide the weapon attacks. It does explicitly says weapon attacks, which means it does not apply to spells like Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

So, let's say I've made one attack against Jim, but then decide that maybe it'd be better to attack his wizard friend Sally. As I just described, there's a rule that lets me use some of my movement in between weapon attacks, so I move over next to Sally. This must be resolved as a discrete element, because Bob might use his reaction to make an opportunity attack against me and cast Banishment. Assuming he either does not do that or I make my saving throw, I'm now standing in melee range of Sally and can make an attack against her, using the standard 3-step rule. Again, this attack must be resolved as a discrete step, because Bob might have a Ready action trigger of "if someone attacks Sally".

My 2nd attack is complete, which also means my action is complete. I'm now standing next to Sally, but have some movement left. The general rule says I can move before and after my action, so I'm free to move away from Sally if I want to. I do that, which of course means she can attempt an opportunity attack against me. Bob might also have a reaction waiting to go, with a trigger of "if someone moves away from Sally", which means that movement must be a discrete element and resolved before I can do anything else.

Reactions demand that my turn be made up of discrete elements, and that those discrete elements be played and resolved in order. The order matters, because each individual element might trigger a reaction, which can drastically alter the state of the game. To use our previous example, Bob might be waiting to cast Banishment on me depending on exactly what I do on my turn, and the only way this works is that each element of my turn is played one at a time. Once an element has been resolved, we move onto the next one, and the state of the game advances (i.e. positioning, what's on my menu of things I can do next, and so on).

Let's imagine I have the Shield Master feat. Here are the specific rules that apply:

You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

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.

We've already determined that there are well-defined periods of time on your turn that are "before your action" and "after your action", based on the movement rules. So, when can I use the Shield Master bonus action on the turn I described above?

1) At the start of my turn, my menu of available options is "move, action". I have not taken the Attack action, so I do not have access to the bonus action shove yet.

2) I use some of my movement, and my menu of available options is still "move, action" because I have movement left.

3) I take the Attack action and make a weapon attack against Jim, and my menu becomes "move, weapon attack" because there's an explicit rule that lets me move between weapon attacks, and the Extra Attack feature grants me a second attack when I take the Attack action.

4) I move over to Sally, and my menu is still "move, weapon attack" because I have movement left.

5) I make my second weapon attack against Sally, and my menu becomes "move, Shield Master shove". This is the point where the condition "take the Attack action" is true and I can actually do something about it. Again, there's an exception to the rules that says I can move between weapon attacks, which means this is the only thing I can do between weapon attacks.

6) Let's say I do actually shove Sally prone before moving away, now her OA has disadvantage. My menu becomes "move" because I have used my action and the bonus action I was granted by the Attack action.

7) I move away, my menu becomes empty because I have used all of my available options. My turn ends.

Again, my turn is constructed of elements that are explicitly allowed by rules in the PHB. At no point do I have to guess or infer something, I'm using the actual words in the PHB. These elements must be played and resolved in order, because Bob might be waiting to cast Banishment at any stage of my turn. This is why the duration of the Attack action is completely irrelevant to how the attacks get resolved, and why the duration of an action has no relevance in general (which is why the PHB does not talk about it). It's also why the condition in the Shield Master bonus action is a timing requirement. The condition must be true before I can use the bonus action, because at any stage in my turn I might trigger Bob's reaction and he ends my turn. The game cannot be in an inconsistent state where I've used a bonus action that is granted by an action, and never actually take that action on my turn. At no point does the PHB specify that the Attack action is separate from the attacks it grants, if we just do what it says in that rule, we take the Attack action by making an attack. Extra Attack grants us a second attack, which gets added to our menu of available options after the first attack has been made. There is an explicit rule that lets us move between weapon attacks, so if we have movement left it's also on our menu of options. Once all the attacks have been made, the Attack action has been taken, and anything that is triggered by that action now comes into play.

Why can't you shove between attacks? The Shield Master feat is triggered by the Attack action, not by making a weapon attack. The PHB says the Attack action with Extra Attack is 2 weapon attacks, and the PHB says you can move between weapon attacks. That's all you're allowed to do. Attack and move. Once you've made those 2 attacks, the action is done. Once the action is done, the bonus action's condition is true, and thus the bonus action becomes available for use until the end of your turn.

To summarize: The PHB says what you can do on your turn, starting with movement and an action. Your turn must be a series of discrete elements, because those elements might trigger a reaction. That reaction might have to occur after the triggering element is finished, but before the next one starts. If there is a conditional element, the condition therefore must be true before it can be played, because a reaction may prevent you from actually performing the condition in the future as you originally intended. Specific rules are not general rules, just because one action works in a particular way does not mean every action must also work in exactly the same way.

I'm sure I haven't convinced anyone of anything, but I really think it's worth actually going back and reading the words that are in the book. Someone complained that the rules are full of inconsistencies, but I believe the rules are generally very consistent if you simply do what the words say and not add extra things on top of that.

Hriston · Mar 11, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Sorry for the late reply today (busy) and I know others have brought up some points, but I don't have time to digest it all before I hit the sack. So, please forgive any redundancies. I've also added the numbering to address your points.

#1. You are denied the ability to use it because you have not satisfied the requirements to gain the Bonus action feature.

But I may satisfy it later on my turn. If I take the Attack action later on my turn, then I took the Attack action on my turn but you didn't allow me to use a bonus action to shove a creature. That isn't following the rule.

dnd4vr said:
If you argue you can take the Shove first and not worry because you'll have to wait and see, think about what you are doing. What if you use your Bonus action to shove, and then are denied your Action afterwards and cannot take the Attack action?

Then you only shoved on your turn. How is that a problem? It isn't breaking anything.

dnd4vr said:
Does the Shove have to be unresolved now because you certainly didn't take the Attack action on your turn!

Of course not! The shove attempt is always resolved the same way whether you use a bonus action to do it or not.

dnd4vr said:
Here is a perfect scenario where this could happen.

You are badly injured and have only 5 hit points remaining. You are fighting two foes and decide to use your Bonus Action to shove one and your Attack action on him with advantage. However, you use your Bonus action and succeed, the opponent is knocked prone! Wait! Unknown to you, the other foe has the Sentinel Feat! Since you Shoved, which is a special attack but an attack nonetheless, he uses his reaction to make a melee weapon attack against you! He hits! A crit! You take 10 damage and fall unconscious. However, the universe is askew, how can this be? Don't you have to take the Attack action on your turn since you used the Bonus action granted by Shield Master to Shove earlier?

This is why your reasoning falls apart IMO. You cannot benefit from a conditional feature before you satisfy the condition to gain it. In the scenario you Shoved before you took the Attack action and were unable to take the Attack action, therefore you never should have been able to Shove.

You can shove a creature without using a bonus action any time you like, though. The benefit of the feat is it lets you shove a creature AND take the Attack action on your turn. It's an added benefit!

dnd4vr said:
#2. This of course ties into the next point. As you say, "...so later, on your turn, when you do [take the Attack action], you'll be able to use a bonus action, ..." Notice what you wrote: "you'll be able" as in "you will be able", will, as in future tense, which follows you writing "so later, on your turn". You have just written that later you will be able to use a bonus action. Later, as in after the Attack action has been made.

Right, which invokes the general rule for bonus actions. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified," so following the RAI established by Jeremy Crawford's original ruling on the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature, you choose when during your turn to take the bonus action shove because its timing isn't specified.

dnd4vr said:
#3. You have no other cash, this is why you must go to the ATM to get cash in order to buy the book.

This is just you adding things to the example. It's also like saying you can't shove a creature without using a bonus action, which you obviously can.

dnd4vr said:
#4. But you are, inadvertently, when you use a bonus action to Shove before taking the Attack action. The scenario I pointed out in response to #1 shows how this could happen.

No, you'd still need to take the Attack action on your turn for your shove-attempt to use a bonus action.

dnd4vr said:
#5. I meant time-travel because of the paradox potentially created and demonstrated in the scenario for #1. I do notice, however, you seem to think: "If all you did on your turn was to shove a creature, then you took the Attack action when you did so. In the case of Shield Master, "taking the Attack action" doesn't correspond to anything in the fiction different from "taking a bonus action" as long as at least one of your attacks is a shove." Shoving a creature, in and of itself, does not constitute taking the Attack action. Your statement seems to reflect (correct me if I am mistaken) that by using the Bonus action to Shove, you in fact took the Attack action when you did so? If that is your reasoning, IMO your logic is flawed because taking a bonus action is not the same thing as taking the Attack action, even if both actions are used to resolve a Shove. The first is a bonus action where you are permitted to try to shove a creature, while an Attack action can be used to shove or make other forms of attacks.

No, that isn't my reasoning at all. My reasoning is that the conditional language of the feat requires that the shield master's total activity for his/her turn is considered when fitting it into the action economy. This doesn't create a paradox because all that happens in a shove-first scenario is either that the shield master attempts to shove a creature, or that the shield master attempts to shove a creature and also takes the Attack action. There's nothing paradoxical about either of those situations.

dnd4vr said:
#6. Well, I am glad we seem to agree that even in our disagreements we could still play a game together. As I have stated in other posts, I prefer the idea that the Shield Master feat would confer a Bonus action without the Attack action having to precede it, but unfortunately for us that is not the official ruling as I understand it. I hope my DM will house-rule it the other way, but I'll continue to play in his game as well, even if he doesn't. Since you agree it is a valid interpretation, I won't try to persuade you otherwise except to finish this post unless you wish to continue?

My point is that although the official interpretation is one of at least two valid interpretations, it goes against the stated RAI for bonus actions of this sort, and when given a choice, I'll take playing the game as it was intended to be played, rather than go with an unintended interpretation just because it's considered to be more literal. I can see why Jeremy Crawford might express such an interpretation, but I don't quite understand why anyone would want to play that way. On the other hand, as I said, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker.

dnd4vr said:
#7. You are correct in both points here. I am saying, if you have Extra Attack and TWF, you could use the Attack action and your first attack to Shove, knocking your opponent prone. At which point you still have your second attack via Extra Attack AND your bonus action granting you another attack via TWF. Both of these attack would be made with advantage. Without Extra Attack, shoving a creature WOULD NOT constitute making an attack with a Light melee weapon, so you would not gain the bonus action attack from TWF. To me there is no debate on this because shoving a creature is not a melee weapon attack at all and I would have to dig, but I remember reading that either in one of the core books or maybe SA.

I found this tweet from Jeremy dated March 10, 2016:

Does Shove qualify you to use the bonus attack in Two Weapon Fighting or Martial Arts? The shove and grapple options don't involve an attack with a weapon or an unarmed strike, so no.

dnd4vr said:
#8. This seems to return to #5 in that your wording indicates you understand that the bonus action Shove from Shield Master counts as its own satisfying condition because it is a melee attack. In the X,Y logic, that would be like arguing this: "If X, then Y" becomes "Since Y, then Y." You are trying to equate Y to X, but they are not the same (again, see #5 above).

Well, a shove-attempt could satisfy the condition for using a bonus action to make another shove-attempt, but the point I was making is only tangentially related. The point I was making has to do with the idea of being committed to taking the Attack action. If you shove a creature, then you're either taking the Attack action to make that shove-attempt, or you're using a bonus action conditioned on taking the Attack action, so either way you're committed to taking the Attack action. The Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature doesn't have this quality because making a weapon attack in no way commits you to casting a cantrip.

dnd4vr said:
Maybe that clears things up or not? If you are stuck in your own understanding, I don't know if anything more I have to say can convince you otherwise. I think the scenario in #1 shows it best how you must first take the Attack action before you can Shove (at least as the official ruling is concerned). I agree I like it better the other way since it adds an offensive element to Shield Master without having to rely on allies to benefit instead of you. But, I am not JC and I don't make the rules, I can only encourage my DM to house-rule otherwise.

I'm sorry, but if your goal here is to clear things up, you're barking up the wrong tree. I already understand the official ruling, and I disagree with it. No amount of explaining it to me is going to change that. I also disagree that it requires a house-rule to play out of accordance with the official ruling.

Hriston · Mar 11, 2019

FrogReaver said:
The RAW says that you only have a bonus action to take if something provides one. Shield Master only provides a bonus action to take if you take the attack action on your turn. So until you've taken the attack action on your turn how do you have a bonus action to take?

That's not what Shield Master says it does, though. Shield Master lets you use a bonus action if you take the Attack action on your turn. Having the bonus action to take just seems to be a matter of having the feat. Actually using or taking it is what's conditioned on taking the Attack action on your turn.

Hriston · Mar 11, 2019

Asgorath said:
To be super pedantic, the thing that grants you the bonus action is the Shield Master feat, based on the condition that you take the Attack action first. Are you going to claim the feat itself isn't a "special ability, spell, or other feature of the game" as well? This feels like the weakest argument made so far, and by a huge margin.

Of course not! That's actually the point I was making. I'm glad you agree!

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Asgorath

Explorer

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth

Similar Threads

Related Articles