Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Ovinomancer · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Yeah, Maxperson is right on this one; this is silly.

It is silly to imagine that you dodge/dash/disengage for an instant but you are not dodging/dashing/disengaging at the moments when your PC is actually doing those things!

Meanwhile, you do not apply that same 'logic' to the Action which allows you to execute multiple attacks!

Yeah, I know the term 'special pleading'. Just because I know it doesn't automatically invalidate the case. You are treating the Attack action differently than the others with no justification.

Nope, my logic is absolutely the same for all actions -- do what it says on the tin.

Let's say I take the Dodge action under your thinking, namely that actions last as long as their effects. When does my turn end? I haven't finished taking my action, because it lasts until the start of my next turn, but I have to take my action on my turn -- I cannot take or continue my action into other's turns, right? So, right there you're either saying that I'm still taking my action when it's someone else's turn or you've shot your argument in the foot.

Whereas, if we go with my thinking, I just do what it says on the tin. I take the Dodge actions. It reads:

Dodge

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. You lose this benefit if you are Incapacitated (as explained in Conditions ) or if your speed drops to 0.

Cool. This says that when I take this action, I'm focused entirely on avoiding attacks. Attacks against me have disadvantage (provided I can see them coming) and I get advantage on DEX saving throws (even if I can't see it coming). I lose this if my speed drops to 0 or I'm incapacitated (which drops my speed to 0) or until the start of my next turn. Okay, done reading, action over, effects in place. Done.

Simple. I do what it says on the tin. When I've done that, my action is finished. There may be an ongoing effect caused my that action, much like using the Cast a Spell action to cast Bless results in an ongoing effect after my Cast a Spell action is done. Neat.

I really cannot stress this enough: you're bringing in baggage of old rules and old ways of thinking about rules. Don't. Just do what it says on the tin.

Ovinomancer · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Not by the logic of "the Attack action IS the attack(s)"! By that logic, the Disengage action IS disengaging, the Dodge action IS dodging, the Dash action IS dashing.

And if Dash/Dodge/Disengage are NOT dashing/dodging/disengaging, there is no justification in claiming otherwise for the Attack action.

Who's claiming that the Attack action is the attack? I know [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] isn't, and I haven't. That's silly. The Attack action allows an attack. Here, let's read the tin:

Attack

The most Common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the Fighter, allow you to make more than one Attack with this action.

Okay, most common actions, uhuh, oh, here we are, "With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks." Cool. I do this when I take the Attack action -- I make an attack!

See, not the same thing, Attack action is an action, attacks are attacks. If I take the Attack action, I make an attack using the rules in the Making an Attack section. Simple and easy-peasy. You just read the tin and do what it says. When you're done doing what it says, your action is over! I mean, could it be any simpler?

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Asgorath said:
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.

And yet your case relies on 'rules' that are not rules that you choose to apply to one Action-the Attack action-but not to the others. You don't even realise that you're doing this!

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.

Wait! I was going to say that to you!

I apologize in advance as this post will likely be long

I don't mind if a post is long, as long as it is interesting. Yours is interesting. Incorrect, but interesting.

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...

...and no rule that says you can't do that thing, agreed.

Like the rules say you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn, and no rule saying you can't take it during an action.

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).

A tempting assumption, but unfounded. This cannot be relied upon in any way.

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.

While I agree that specific spells do not count as general rules in and of themselves, it is the case that the wording of some spells reveal how some general rules work.

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.

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.

What you've done here, with many correct examples, is draw the wrong conclusion.

Yes, the elements must be discrete, and must be in a definite order, and must be resolved sequentially. I agree.

But, no, Actions In Combat are not necessarily discrete elements themselves!

With Extra Attack for example, it's not the Attack action that is a single discrete element, it's each individual attack which is a discrete element!

Yes, you must have each 5 feet of movement, each attack, each shield bash, each opportunity attack, in a definite order and resolved sequentially. Even if two discrete elements occur simultaneously, the rules require us to resolve them sequentially.

But no, the Attack action, with Extra Attack, is not a discrete element in and of itself! 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.

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.

Agreed. And there are also periods of time on your turn that are "during your action", when you have Extra Attack. The passage you quote regards a single attack, which IS a discrete element, so there is no 'during' in that case for that paragraph to mention.

But that paragraph is not a rule that forbids you from doing anything between elements that are discrete, nor addresses how Extra Attack changes the situation, because although there is no 'during' when there is only one element, there IS a 'during' when you have two or more discrete elements in one Action In Combat.

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 choose to take the bonus action shield shove so generated (because this is the point where the condition "take the Attack action" is true) at the same time. My menu becomes "move, weapon attack, shield shove" because there's an explicit rule that lets me take my bonus action whenever I want.

FIFY.

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.

The rules say I can take the Attack action, they say I can take a bonus action shield shove if I take the Attack action on my turn, the rules say I can take my bonus action whenever I want as soon as I have it, and if the relationship between this Action and this bonus action is one of 'cause and effect', then I can let them coincide, and because they coincide then I can choose the order in which those individual elements are resolved.

I have limited myself only to those things the rules say I can do, and I have nowhere done anything the rules say I can't do!

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
And yet your case relies on 'rules' that are not rules that you choose to apply to one Action-the Attack action-but not to the others. You don't even realise that you're doing this!

What "rules that are not rules" did I quote in my post? My starting assumption was simple: in order for you to be able to do something in combat, there must be a rule that says you can do that thing. If we can't agree on that, then there isn't much point in continuing this debate really.

Arial Black said:
...and no rule that says you can't do that thing, agreed.

Like the rules say you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn, and no rule saying you can't take it during an action.

The lack of an explicit rule that says you can take a bonus action with a timing requirement during the action that triggers it means you cannot do that. Otherwise, what's the point of the rules? Please see my foundational assumption: there must be a rule that says you can do something, or else you cannot do it. We do not need rules describing all the things you cannot do, the simple lack of a rule allowing it is all that is needed.

Arial Black said:
While I agree that specific spells do not count as general rules in and of themselves, it is the case that the wording of some spells reveal how some general rules work.

Surely, the text of the general rule is what reveals how those rules work? Why are you adding things on top of what the rule says? Just do what the rule says, nothing more, nothing less.

Arial Black said:
What you've done here, with many correct examples, is draw the wrong conclusion.

Yes, the elements must be discrete, and must be in a definite order, and must be resolved sequentially. I agree.

But, no, Actions In Combat are not necessarily discrete elements themselves!

With Extra Attack for example, it's not the Attack action that is a single discrete element, it's each individual attack which is a discrete element!

Yes, you must have each 5 feet of movement, each attack, each shield bash, each opportunity attack, in a definite order and resolved sequentially. Even if two discrete elements occur simultaneously, the rules require us to resolve them sequentially.

But no, the Attack action, with Extra Attack, is not a discrete element in and of itself! 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.

- There's a rule that says the Attack action means making a weapon attack.
- There's a rule that says Extra Attack means the Attack action gives you 2 (or more) attacks.
- There's a rule that says you can move between weapon attacks.

Where's the rule that says you can inject a bonus action that is triggered from the Attack action in between weapon attacks? The lack of explicit permission to do that means you cannot do that. I listed out the order of discrete operations for an Attack action with multiple attacks and movement, and the point at which the rules allow you to perform the bonus action shove. Again, the rule says you can move between attacks. That's the only thing you can do in between attacks of the attack action.

Arial Black said:
Agreed. And there are also periods of time on your turn that are "during your action", when you have Extra Attack. The passage you quote regards a single attack, which IS a discrete element, so there is no 'during' in that case for that paragraph to mention.

But that paragraph is not a rule that forbids you from doing anything between elements that are discrete, nor addresses how Extra Attack changes the situation, because although there is no 'during' when there is only one element, there IS a 'during' when you have two or more discrete elements in one Action In Combat.

The explicit rule that allows for movement between attacks does result in the Attack action as a whole being split into several discrete elements, as I've explained many times in this thread already. However, that rule is the only rule that says you can do something between the attacks in the Attack action. The rules need to give you permission to do something, or else you can't do it. Once you've completed your attacks, the Attack action is over, and the available choices of things you can do on your turn becomes:

1) Move (assuming you have movement left).
2) Shield Master bonus action shove.

That is, the Attack action must be complete for the game state to be logically consistent when you perform the bonus action shove, because your turn could be interrupted and ended at any point in time before that.

Arial Black said:
FIFY.

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.

The rules say I can take the Attack action, they say I can take a bonus action shield shove if I take the Attack action on my turn, the rules say I can take my bonus action whenever I want as soon as I have it, and if the relationship between this Action and this bonus action is one of 'cause and effect', then I can let them coincide, and because they coincide then I can choose the order in which those individual elements are resolved.

I have limited myself only to those things the rules say I can do, and I have nowhere done anything the rules say I can't do!

Please quote the rule(s) that allow you to insert a bonus action that is triggered by the Attack action in between attacks of that action, then. I've been very clear about the rules text I used for my example. I've seen no rules that talk about things coinciding or happening simultaneously, or that you can choose the order that individual elements are resolved (outside of the order that you play them, per my example). Can you just quote the specific PHB text that you're talking about? If it's as clear as you suggest, then you should be able to just list the specific rule that talks about simultaneous events or actions/bonus actions and deciding which order to resolve them in.

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

dnd4vr said:
The key issue Arial Black and other supporting that position have is this: because the Attack action and bonus action shove can be simultaneous, only the order of resolving them needs to be determined. He stated this ordering is determined by the player, which is slightly incorrect as it is the DM who controls the narrative, but since the DM often defers to the player's wishes, this is a very minor oversight really.

Do us all a favour someone! My search-fu is rubbish, and even though it's been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are over a 1000 posts!

Please can someone post/cite/quote the rule regarding simultaneous elements and who gets to choose the order in which they are resolved? It would help us all to see the exact wording.

Thanks in advance.

The problem with even allowing the shove to be resolved first, assuming the Attack action is simultaneous but the DM allows it to be resolved second, is scenarios where after you resolve the shove you cannot attack anything and thus never take the Attack action. If you never take the Attack action, you never satisfied the condition of Shield Master which allowed you to shove. This leads to paradox and how do you handle that?

But you already did take the Attack action! You took it, and the bonus action it 'caused', at the same time!

Just because something happens to you which prevents you executing the attacks granted by taking the Attack action, this doesn't mean you didn't take the Attack action!

Example. You party has been engaged in a battle with an archmage. Everyone else is unconscious or dead, so it is just you and him now. On your turn, you employ your bonus action to shove, deciding to resolve it before resolving your attack from your Attack action. Unknown to you, the archmage's contingency was if he is knocked prone by an enemy, he teleports to his hideout. So, the DM says as soon as you knock the archmage prone, he disappears. But, you have no target to attack with your Attack action, so how can you take it on your turn???

Note: you don't target a creature with your Attack action, you target a creature with each individual attack!

On my turn, I took the Attack action, and took the bonus action it 'caused' at the same time. I decide to resolve the shield shove first (although rules-wise I'm taking both actions at the same time), knocking the archmage prone.

Unbeknownst to me, the archmage's contingency was if he is knocked prone by an enemy, he teleports to his hideout. He disappears! I now have two attacks to take (because I already took the Attack action), but no target to attack. Sucks to be me! Well played, archmage, well played...!

No problem at all! Well, it's a minor problem for my Shield Master (but since the archmage ran away...), but in no way is it a problem for the DM to adjudicate.

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Do us all a favour someone! My search-fu is rubbish, and even though it's been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are over a 1000 posts!

Please can someone post/cite/quote the rule regarding simultaneous elements and who gets to choose the order in which they are resolved? It would help us all to see the exact wording.

Thanks in advance.

I searched the PHB on the D&D Beyond mobile app, and there are zero instances of "simultaneous" or "resolved". There are a couple of instances of "resolve", but they're all in things like Inspiring Leader:

"You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight."

I keep asking for the specific rules text that you're talking about, and I haven't seen it quoted yet.

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Okay, I just found this in XGTE:

Simultaneous Effects

Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.

You'll note that it specifically says "effects". This means the effect of spells. Here's an example:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/931243403127406592

Q: Vampire Regeneration vs. Spirit Guardians? What is the order of operations for "at start of turn" spells/abilities such as Vampire's Regeneration starting his/her turn inside a Spirit Guardian's of an enemy?

A: Xanathar's Guide contains a rule on simultaneous effects. Short form: you decide the order of simultaneous effects on the turn of a character/monster you play.

So, this is specifically talking about the effect of spells, in particular when you have multiple effects that apply at the start or end of your turn. If you have multiple of these effects on you, you can decide the order in which they happen.

This is a specific rule that talks about spell effects. It has no bearing on the action system as a whole.

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Maxperson said:
Mechanically, when you hit with an attack, you hit also your opponent in the game world and deal your damage. When the target THEN casts Shield in the game world, that hit has to be rewound and turned retroactively into a miss. That's time travel. This hit has already occurred in the game world and is being unwound through time so that it never happens.

No! The shield spell is not a time-rewinding spell!

All the game mechanics at the table do is represent the situation in the game world that the wizard managed to get the shield up just before it would have hit him!

If the spell worked as you suggest (absurdly!), then the javelin would go through the wizards head, killing him. THEN the wizard would cast shield and rewind time, raising him from the dead!

How did a dead wizard cast a spell!!!

Weren't you the one claiming that the 5e rules do not include time travel malarky?

Except the mechanics do care. Since there is no mechanical ability to declare an Attack action, the only way to mechanically know if an Attack action is taken during your turn, is to actually take it. That means that there is no mechanical way to trigger the bonus shove prior to taking the Attack action. The mechanics as written don't care if the shove comes after the first attack or later attacks, though. It can't come before, though, as the Attack action doesn't begin until you are taking your first attack.

Right.

The bonus action shield shove is taken at the same time as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both actions are simultaneous, each discrete game element must be resolved sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements.

Simples.

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Right.

The bonus action shield shove is taken at the same time as the Attack action which 'caused' it. While both actions are simultaneous, each discrete game element must be resolved sequentially. And the acting player chooses the resolution sequence of simultaneous elements.

Simples.

This is just not true, though. If the Attack action and Shield Master bonus action were spells that provided effects that lasted for a duration, and both explicitly said they happen at the start or end of your turn for example, then the XGTE rule would apply. They are not spells, they do not provide effects, they are things you do on your turn in combat and thus the XGTE rule does not apply.

Maxperson · Mar 12, 2019

Hriston said:
This is a little hard to follow because in my parlance declaring actions is the entirety of what a player does in this game. How else is a player supposed to interact with the game-world than by declaring what it is their character does (his/her actions)? I can accept that you have an idiosyncratic definition of what it is to declare an action, but the example you give doesn’t seem like much of an action-declaration at all.

Of course it's important. But it's informal and has no mechanical value at all. If a player declares his PC is going to look for secret doors on the south wall, there is nothing mechanical there. His PC goes over to the south wall and looks around. Until I call for the roll to try and find something, mechanics don't play any part. Combat is the same. He can tell me he is going to attack the kobold, but there's nothing mechanical there at all until he actually rolls to hit. It's just an informal declaration that lets me and the other players know what is happening.

Stated as an action-declaration, this would go something like, “I strike the kobold with my mace.” I think you’d agree that this type of statement has all kinds of mechanical implications.

It has no mechanics associated with it whatsoever. Only the actual attack roll when the Attack action is taken has mechanics associated with it. Until then, it's just a non-mechanical statement.

Right, that’s why I wait until the Attack action has been taken before I say the shove-attempt was done using a bonus action.

Sure, but the Attack action has not been taken until the first attack has begun, and the attack must be finished before anything else can be done.

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Arial Black

Adventurer

Asgorath

Explorer

Arial Black

Adventurer

Asgorath

Explorer

Asgorath

Explorer

Arial Black

Adventurer

Asgorath

Explorer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads

Related Articles