Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
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.

Well, I'm glad that neither of you is claiming anything so silly! Others have though; it's partly why I keep mentioning it.

The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round.

Nothing in the rules says that the first attack has some special restriction regarding when in your round you resolve it.

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!

And, when I get two or more attacks I make those attacks 'when I take the Attack action', by which you mean 'at the same time as you take the Attack action', right?

But we know for a fact that is not the case. You can take your attacks whenever you want in your round, as long as you take the Attack action! What rule says that the first attack is tied to any particular time!

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?

I totally Agree.

I take the Attack action, I then make my attacks whenever I want on my turn, using the rules for Making An Attack (AN attack, not ALL your attacks!) for each individual attack.

I'm doing what it says on the tin.

From what you say, someone has used a crayon to scribe words to the effect that "the first attack must be executed as soon as you 'take the Attack action' (a different thing, remember?) on that tin. Also, the crayon wielder has added to the rule, "you can take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn)", the words "except between 'taking the Attack action' and the execution of the first attack".

You should be more discerning when you read those tins. The crayon is a dead giveaway!

Arial Black · Mar 12, 2019

Asgorath said:
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.

We do agree on that.

Where we disagree is on the 'rule' you made up restricting when on my turn I can take my bonus action.

On p189 of the PHB, in the section entitled Bonus Actions, it tells you the rules for...bonus actions! There was a clue in the name!

It says, "You choose when to take a bonus during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified".

It says nothing like, "...except during another action", or, "...except between taking the Attack action and executing your first attack".

The only 'timing' regarding Shield Master is that you only get it "If you take the Attack action on your turn". Even if you regard this as a straight statement of causality, that results in you being able to choose to take the bonus action shield bash at the same time as you take the Attack action that 'caused' it.

There is no rule forbidding simultaneous Actions In Combat, only rules which mean that each separate game element must be resolved sequentially.

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.

The presence of a rule that says you CAN take it when you want during your turn, and the complete absence of a rule forbidding it, means you CAN do that!

There is absolutely no burden upon the Bonus Action rules to spell out every single occasion you CAN use it! All it needs is to say you CAN use it when you want, and that is enough. It is 'what it says on the tin'!

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.

That's what I just said! We DO have a rule which says you can, on p189 of the PHB!

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.

I am! I'm doing what is says on the tin, which is "You choose when to take a bonus action on your turn"! It's you who's inventing unwritten extra restrictions in crayon!

- 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.

And the rule which says you can move between attacks is true.

And the rule which says you can take your bonus action when you want in your turn is also true.

They are not mutually exclusive! The rule allowing you to move between attacks is not a rule disallowing anything else between attacks, and this unwritten 'rule' cannot trump the written rule which says that you choose when to take your bonus action.

Where's the rule that says you can inject a bonus action that is triggered from the Attack action in between weapon attacks?

PHB, p189.

The lack of explicit permission to do that means you cannot do that.

The presence of the rule on p189 means I can. That, combined with no rule forbidding it, means I can.

It is absurd to assume that the general rule regarding when you can take your bonus action must include every single specific exception! That's not how the rules work and you know it!

IF there were a written rule (not in crayon!) that says that 'during' the Attack action is an exception to the general rule on the timing of bonus actions, then you'd be right. There is not, so you're wrong.

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.

Not so. There IS a rule which says you CAN on p189, and no rule which forbids it. The permission to move between attacks does not trump other rules which say you CAN do those things whenever they say they can be used.

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.

PHB p189 disagrees.

The rules need to give you permission to do something, or else you can't do it.

I do have permission. It's on p189.

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.

There is nothing illogical about doing things between attacks!

The fact that you may lose the opportunity to execute those attacks is already an element of the game (sanctuary, Readied actions, contingency) and does not present a problem whatsoever. You took both the action and the bonus action at the same time, and chose the order of resolution.

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.

It's on p189. It says I can choose when to take my bonus action during my turn.

I've been very clear about the rules text I used for my example.

I've quoted the rule; it's on p189.

Meanwhile, you've added crayon rules to add restrictions. Fine at your table, but we are discussing RAW.

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.

True.

Enevhar Aldarion · Mar 12, 2019

Wow, I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned Crawford's tweets from earlier today (Monday) where he basically confirms what some of us here said that bonus actions that are triggered by an attack can occur in between the attacks provided by Extra Attacks. Here are a couple of relevant comments:

"Summary: the trigger is the attack that's part of the Attack action, not the entire action."

"As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows."

Ovinomancer · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
Well, I'm glad that neither of you is claiming anything so silly! Others have though; it's partly why I keep mentioning it.

Well, I'm glad you've decided to stop beating up that strawman of "you said the Attack action is the attack!" strawman with valiant shouts of "special pleading!!" It was getting old. At this point, you're 0 for 2 on fallacy yelling. Maybe lay off a bit? Try talking?

The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round.

Well, in order, I do, and I don't, exactly.

When I chose an action, I do what that action says. For the Attack action, it says I make an attack. There aren't extra decision steps, here, so if I take the Attack action the only thing that happens is that I make an attack. This is what "doing what it says on the tin" means. Actions are self contained units of doing things, not open ended decision trees.

Does the Attack action get more complicated with Extra Attack? Yes, a bit. Now, when I take the Attack action, I make more than one attack (up to my EA limit). The rules are pretty clear that this is what changes. Extra Attack doesn't have any language that changes or adds other things to the Attack action or how it works. The Attack action otherwise works exactly the same for one attack as it does for two.

But, wait, you say, what about the moving between attacks! Glad you asked. We have one more rule that isn't Extra Attack but is triggered by it, and it says that if you do make more than one attack with the Attack action, you can use your Move between attacks. Neato! But, afain, this otherwuse doesn't alter how the Attack action works, and it doesn't add other options.

So, to your questions, my reasoning is unaltered by your confusion about it. The Attack action does what it says, no more and no less. Yes, if you have EA, you truvially make attacks later in your turn from the first, but all you're allowed to do between attacks is move.

Nothing in the rules says that the first attack has some special restriction regarding when in your round you resolve it.

You resolve it when you take the Attack action, because taking that action limits you to what that action says to do.

And, when I get two or more attacks I make those attacks 'when I take the Attack action', by which you mean 'at the same time as you take the Attack action', right?

The Attack action enables the attacks, but it doesn't have any "time" itself. You say "Bob the Fighter takes the Attack action with Ecmxtra Attack!" Cool. We read Attack action. It says to make attacks, so Bob's player that until Bob runs out of allowed attacks. Between thise attacks, Bob can move up to the limit if his Move. That's it, because that's all that the Attack action says on the tin.

But we know for a fact that is not the case. You can take your attacks whenever you want in your round, as long as you take the Attack action! What rule says that the first attack is tied to any particular time!

Um, no. Show me that rule text.

I totally Agree.

I take the Attack action, I then make my attacks whenever I want on my turn, using the rules for Making An Attack (AN attack, not ALL your attacks!) for each individual attack.

I'm doing what it says on the tin.

The bolded part is not on the tin. You brought that with you. That's the problem you keep having, you bring baggage.

From what you say, someone has used a crayon to scribe words to the effect that "the first attack must be executed as soon as you 'take the Attack action' (a different thing, remember?) on that tin. Also, the crayon wielder has added to the rule, "you can take your bonus action whenever you want on your turn)", the words "except between 'taking the Attack action' and the execution of the first attack".

Nope. When I take the Attack action, I do what it says. That's make an attack. If you wanted to do something else, you shouldn't pick the Attack action.

What you're doing here is bringing in baggage. That baggage is some complicated timing stack like MtG where there's phases and action declarations ho on a stack to be resolved LIFO, but this doesn't exist in 5e. It's nowhere in the rules, so you're adding it to imagined blank spaces.

The 5e rules work super well if read cleanly, without baggage. Unfortunately, that means that Shield Master bonus action shoves come after the Attack action resolves. Fortunately, you can talk with your table and fashion a house rule to make it more to your taste. This is super awesome, and exactly what I've done.

You should be more discerning when you read those tins. The crayon is a dead giveaway!

Only one of us is writing in things. Protip: it's you. The reason you think I'm adding things is because I'm wiping off what you've crayoned in.

Ovinomancer · Mar 12, 2019

Enevhar Aldarion said:
Wow, I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned Crawford's tweets from earlier today (Monday) where he basically confirms what some of us here said that bonus actions that are triggered by an attack can occur in between the attacks provided by Extra Attacks. Here are a couple of relevant comments:

"Summary: the trigger is the attack that's part of the Attack action, not the entire action."

"As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows."

Crawford needs to not to. Seriously, the rule says Attack action, not attack, but here he subs in attack for Attack action. Sigh.

I mean, if you wanted to make this issue worse, I'm struggling to think of how you could do it better than Crawford. His rulings on timings have been all over the place.

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Crawford needs to not to. Seriously, the rule says Attack action, not attack, but here he subs in attack for Attack action. Sigh.

I mean, if you wanted to make this issue worse, I'm struggling to think of how you could do it better than Crawford. His rulings on timings have been all over the place.

Well, let's look at what he actually said.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248

"As of the January edition of the Sage Advice Compendium PDF, my tweets aren't official rulings. I don't want people having to sift through my tweets for official rules calls.

My tweets will preview official rulings in the compendium. And remember, the DM has the final say."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929

"The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.

Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105201861819158529

"The action doesn't exist if you haven't done it. The Attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction; it means an actual attack has occurred."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105200842347405312

"To be clear, the clarification was that the bonus action couldn't come before you made any attacks, since you have to actually take the Attack action for the feat to work."

So, non-official rulings that confirm what we've been saying: basic RAW means the Attack action as a whole, RAI means at least one attack since you've committed to the Attack action and can't take any other actions that turn. I think we all agree that we'd play it attack-shove-attack at our tables, which is all Jeremy is saying here (i.e. that meets the basic requirements that the Attack action has been started).

Asgorath · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
We do agree on that.

Where we disagree is on the 'rule' you made up restricting when on my turn I can take my bonus action.

On p189 of the PHB, in the section entitled Bonus Actions, it tells you the rules for...bonus actions! There was a clue in the name!

It says, "You choose when to take a bonus during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified".

It says nothing like, "...except during another action", or, "...except between taking the Attack action and executing your first attack".

The only 'timing' regarding Shield Master is that you only get it "If you take the Attack action on your turn". Even if you regard this as a straight statement of causality, that results in you being able to choose to take the bonus action shield bash at the same time as you take the Attack action that 'caused' it.

There is no rule forbidding simultaneous Actions In Combat, only rules which mean that each separate game element must be resolved sequentially.

Please go back and read the earlier posts from [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and me that talk about why the condition in the Shield Master feat is a timing requirement, and thus this bonus action does not qualify for "you can take it any time you like". I'd be happy to go into it again if needed, but I feel like we've already explained this.

At no point do the rules say you get to decide to do multiple things at the same time. Thus, you cannot just do that. There is a rule in XGTE that says if two effects happen simultaneously, you get to decide the order in which they are resolved. The rule very explicitly says effects, not actions, and it very explicitly says that the effects have to already be happening simultaneously before the rule applies. For example, you might be standing in the AoE of Spirit Guardians and Healing Spirit. One does damage at the start of your turn, one heals you at the start of your turn. You can decide to be healed first as that might prevent you from dropping to 0 HP and thus falling prone. This rule doesn't turn into a general rule that says you can just do stuff simultaneously, we just do what the words of the rule say.

Arial Black said:
The presence of a rule that says you CAN take it when you want during your turn, and the complete absence of a rule forbidding it, means you CAN do that!

There is absolutely no burden upon the Bonus Action rules to spell out every single occasion you CAN use it! All it needs is to say you CAN use it when you want, and that is enough. It is 'what it says on the tin'!

That's what I just said! We DO have a rule which says you can, on p189 of the PHB!

I am! I'm doing what is says on the tin, which is "You choose when to take a bonus action on your turn"! It's you who's inventing unwritten extra restrictions in crayon!

The Shield Master bonus action has a condition, which means the timing of the bonus action is specified, which means you don't get to just take it whenever you like. The condition must be true before you get to take the bonus action.

Arial Black said:
And the rule which says you can move between attacks is true.

And the rule which says you can take your bonus action when you want in your turn is also true.

They are not mutually exclusive! The rule allowing you to move between attacks is not a rule disallowing anything else between attacks, and this unwritten 'rule' cannot trump the written rule which says that you choose when to take your bonus action.

Right, this applies to bonus actions with no condition, such as Healing Word or Misty Step. It does not apply to bonus actions with conditions like Shield Master, because the condition itself is a timing requirement. Before your action, the condition is false, and thus you cannot take the bonus action. After your action, the condition is true, and you can.

Arial Black said:
There is nothing illogical about doing things between attacks!

The fact that you may lose the opportunity to execute those attacks is already an element of the game (sanctuary, Readied actions, contingency) and does not present a problem whatsoever. You took both the action and the bonus action at the same time, and chose the order of resolution.

Please quote the PHB text that says you get to do those two things "at the same time", because I haven't seen it. The XGTE rule on Simultaneous Effects does not apply, because that only deals with effects (e.g. spells) not actions themselves. If the rules don't give you permission to do two things at the same time, then you can't just do that.

Maxperson · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
The trouble for you is, without that silly claim, you have no justification for insisting that the first element of that Attack action-the first attack-cannot be separated from 'taking the Attack action', when we know full well that all of the other attacks granted by taking that action CAN be taken later in the round.

That's just wrong, as I've shown you repeatedly. The wording of Attack action is "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." WITH, not after. The action and the first attack are not the same, but they must occur simultaneously. There is no Attack action being taken prior to the first attack occurring. The Attack action is being taken after the first attack occurs.

But we know for a fact that is not the case. You can take your attacks whenever you want in your round, as long as you take the Attack action! What rule says that the first attack is tied to any particular time!

Er, the Attack action says it. The first attack is tied to when you take the Attack action. They by RAW occur simultaneously.

I take the Attack action, I then make my attacks whenever I want on my turn, using the rules for Making An Attack (AN attack, not ALL your attacks!) for each individual attack.

Not quite. You take the Attack action and the first attack simultaneously. You don't get to take the attack whenever you want on your turn, because that implies that you could take the attack before you even take the Attack action, which is against the rules.

Maxperson · Mar 12, 2019

Arial Black said:
There is no rule forbidding simultaneous Actions In Combat, only rules which mean that each separate game element must be resolved sequentially.

You keep saying this as if it means something. It really doesn't. A failure to forbid does not equate to approval. The game also fails to forbid my longsword from detonating a nuclear explosion when I strike something. Am I to believe that because the game doesn't forbid it, I can do it? That's not how games and rules work. If it's not forbidden by a rule, you still can't do it unless you can show a rule that does allow you to do it. There is no rule allowing simultaneous actions in combat. The closest you will find is the rule on Attack actions which says through it's use of "with" that the first attack happens simultaneously with the Attack action being taken.

The presence of a rule that says you CAN take it when you want during your turn, and the complete absence of a rule forbidding it, means you CAN do that!

As I pointed out above, this is just wrong. I mean, there's also a complete absence of a rule forbidding my fighter from teleporting at will, or engaging a special ability to give him a billion extra hit points. According to your statement above that means he can do those things.

That's what I just said! We DO have a rule which says you can, on p189 of the PHB!

Except that Shield Master requires you to take the Attack action first, which is provided timing. So no, you can't take the shove when you want on your turn. It can only happen after the trigger gives it to you.

That, combined with no rule forbidding it, means I can.

Again, no. Lack of forbiddance does not mean you can do it. That's not how rules and games work. If the game doesn't forbid something and you think it should be allowed, you have to create a house rule to allow it.

Maxperson · Mar 12, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Crawford needs to not to. Seriously, the rule says Attack action, not attack, but here he subs in attack for Attack action. Sigh.

I mean, if you wanted to make this issue worse, I'm struggling to think of how you could do it better than Crawford. His rulings on timings have been all over the place.

"@JeremyECrawford

More Jeremy Crawford Retweeted Draconis
The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action.

Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form."

Here he is saying that the action is not instantaneous. It doesn't end until you finish the whole action. That's RAW. You are in error with your interpretation.

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Arial Black

Adventurer

Arial Black

Adventurer

Enevhar Aldarion

Hero

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Asgorath

Explorer

Asgorath

Explorer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads

Related Articles