Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Markh3rd · Feb 9, 2019

From the PHB in the Fighter section of class abilities,

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

The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class."

I agree with the above poster. Since it says you "can" make extra attacks and not you "must" make extra attacks, and since the bonus action can fire off when it's triggering mechanic fires, once you make an attack with the attack action, you can then shield bash, as you met the requirements, then elect to finish your attacks, or move and continue attacking.

Li Shenron · Feb 9, 2019

Arial Black said:
Not a valid answer.

Not a valid question.

Setting up a fake dichotomy and ask whether the answer is A or B is unfair. If you are not open to answer C, why bother discussing?

/end communication

Stalker0 · Feb 9, 2019

Markh3rd said:
From the PHB in the Fighter section of class abilities,

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

The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class."

I agree with the above poster. Since it says you "can" make extra attacks and not you "must" make extra attacks, and since the bonus action can fire off when it's triggering mechanic fires, once you make an attack with the attack action, you can then shield bash, as you met the requirements, then elect to finish your attacks, or move and continue attacking.

I would go one of two ways based on the “can” argument.

1) (actions are divisible) You make an attack, and take a bonus action. Since you had extra attacks, you can now take them or not at your preference.

2) (actions are indivisible) You make an attack, and take a bonus action. When taking a bonus action you have made a conscious decision to finish your attack action without taking your extra attacks, so you now have no attacks left.

As to the whole “divisible vs indivisible” argument...to me actions are indivisible by default. If that was not the case, than the whole “divide your movement between attacks” clause would not be necessary...as that would simply be a natural thing that divisible actions let you do.

If you then want to argue that clause is a “clarity” for the reader instead of a rules exception, well there are plenty of other circumstances that are not explicitly mentioned for clarity. For example, with divisible actions...twin spell would allow me to touch a person, move, and touch another person. Why isn’t that explicitly mentioned for clarity?

So based on that, I assume actions are indivisible by default, until rules exceptions make them otherwise.

So that’s the default. Now at my table, I like the idea of allowing a shield bash in between attacks. So I would allow this as a “rules exception”, but I knowingly accept that it is not RAW and would not allow other divisible action scenarios in automatically.

Hussar · Feb 9, 2019

I gotta go with the indivisible camp here. Having extra attacks replaces the “one” attack you get when you take the attack action.

The attack action though is still a discrete unit, regardless of how many attacks you make.

So, by RAW, you cannot break up an attack action with a bonus action because there is only one action, even though that single action allows multiple attacks.

Oofta · Feb 9, 2019

Hussar said:
I gotta go with the indivisible camp here. Having extra attacks replaces the “one” attack you get when you take the attack action.

The attack action though is still a discrete unit, regardless of how many attacks you make.

So, by RAW, you cannot break up an attack action with a bonus action because there is only one action, even though that single action allows multiple attacks.

While I agree (otherwise there would be no reason to mention moving between attacks or that section should have been worded differently), I think it's a very arbitrary/gamist rule that disrupts the flow of the game.

I know D&D is not a simulation, but that doesn't mean we have to have rules that are completely illogical. Even hit points have a certain action movie logic to them.

Asgorath · Feb 9, 2019

deryn said:
@Asgorath From rules you can't interrupt your action with other things, unless specified otherwise. So for example you can cast Misty Step as bonus action before the attack action or after the attack action (no timing restrictions), but not beetween attacks (because if you do it you interrupt your Attack action, very few things are allowed during attacks such as using your movement).

Did you watch the Sage Advice video?

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=304

Jeremy Crawford talks about the timing of bonus actions, as documented in the rules. Here's the section from the PHB that he's talking about (Chapter 9, under The Order of Combat and Your Turn).

Bonus Actions

Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.

You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.

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.

Emphasis added. The bonus actions rules specifically say you get to choose when to take the bonus action on your turn, unless it has timing specified in the bonus action itself (e.g. Shield Master, TWF etc). Thus, it's a specific rule that overrides any general "you cannot interrupt your actions with other stuff rule" that I don't even think exists. If it does, please provide the PHB reference for it. In any case, specific beats general, and thus you can cast Misty Step and Healing Word whenever you want on your turn.

Maxperson · Feb 9, 2019

Arial Black said:
So you agree that as soon as you execute the first of your two attacks of your Attack action that you have generated the bonus action shield shove and can take it any time you want, even before you execute your second attack?

Extra attack just adds an attack to the attack action. It is not separate from it. In order to take your attack action, you'd have to complete both of your attacks. The ONLY thing you can do in-between those attacks per RAW, is move. Once you have taken the attack action by completing your attack(s), you can then use your shield to shove. That's how the game is written. That's how JC clarified it as working.

Oofta · Feb 9, 2019

Asgorath said:
Did you watch the Sage Advice video?

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA?t=304

Jeremy Crawford talks about the timing of bonus actions, as documented in the rules. Here's the section from the PHB that he's talking about (Chapter 9, under The Order of Combat and Your Turn).

Emphasis added. The bonus actions rules specifically say you get to choose when to take the bonus action on your turn, unless it has timing specified in the bonus action itself (e.g. Shield Master, TWF etc). Thus, it's a specific rule that overrides any general "you cannot interrupt your actions with other stuff rule" that I don't even think exists. If it does, please provide the PHB reference for it. In any case, specific beats general, and thus you can cast Misty Step and Healing Word whenever you want on your turn.

Does it? Yes, you can take the bonus action any time during your turn. One interpretation is that it can be taken either before or after any action.

The "can't interrupt" is one of those fuzzy rules determined by the fact that it spells out the exception for movement. I was multi-tasking while listening, but I don't remember Crawford specifically addressing the issue.

From Chapter 9 of the PHB:

Moving Between 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.

As a DM, I know how I'm going to rule, but the "can't interrupt an action with anything other than movement" is a valid ruling based on the text. A nit-picky one perhaps, but still valid.

5ekyu · Feb 9, 2019

Maxperson said:
Extra attack just adds an attack to the attack action. It is not separate from it. In order to take your attack action, you'd have to complete both of your attacks. The ONLY thing you can do in-between those attacks per RAW, is move. Once you have taken the attack action by completing your attack(s), you can then use your shield to shove. That's how the game is written. That's how JC clarified it as working.

When?

I am aware of JEC having said this in the past... but...

it did not get into the recent errata, did not make it into the recent compendium and did not make it into the live-stream devoted to bonus actions in Feb 2019.

What did make it into those was the statement about the unofficial nature of even JEC tweets.

Meanwhile, how many different things can you do inside of an action - between it starting and it finishing? You seem to suggest none.
Move for sure between attacks.
Cast reaction spells for sure - counterspell vs counterspell as the best example where you have a Magic missile spell being cast by Joe, a counterspell from Sam tries to stop it and Joe throws his own reaction counterspell - net result is two spent counterspells within the casting of the original Magic missile which then goes off.
There are likely plenty of other things that can be done when one starts looking at the various maneuvers and defensive reactions.

Attack, move, that movement prompts an AO, that AO prompts a reaction or bonus action, move continues etc.

There is an explicit rule specific to bonus actions that says you can take a bonus action when you want "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."

The revised compendium for Shield Master reads - "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action."

So, there does not seem to have been any part of the earlier uofficial tweets "indivisible actions" brought forward into these products.

Which leaves us back to what counts as taking the attack action which is defined as making one attack.

They could have said "completed" or "all attacks of" and any number of ways to re-state that Shield master in the compendium, but they did not.
They could have chosen to add the indivisible action as a general rule, but they did not.

So, as of that compendium, it seems a lot like they have not carried forward the older indivisible action at all *and* have now declared the source it came from (JEC Tweets) as unofficial.

Reaction sperlls for sure

epithet · Feb 9, 2019

Maxperson said:
Extra attack just adds an attack to the attack action. It is not separate from it. In order to take your attack action, you'd have to complete both of your attacks. The ONLY thing you can do in-between those attacks per RAW, is move. Once you have taken the attack action by completing your attack(s), you can then use your shield to shove. That's how the game is written. That's how JC clarified it as working.

You do love your absolutes, Max.

The way the game was written and clarified was, for several years, that you could take your Shield Master shove whenever you wanted to. Now, Crawford has decided that he must have been drunk and in line at the grocery store when he tweeted that, and just didn't notice it for a long time after.

For me, there's something important about the way you have to explain a thing to a new player. You tell a player "ok, for a fighter at your level with that feat, you get two melee attacks and then an extra shield bash you can use to shove someone back or knock him down."
The player replies, "Great, I want to knock him down first, because I remember from the wolves last time that Prone sucks!"
"Oh, sorry," you have to say, "you can't do that. You have to make both of your regular attacks first, then try to knock him down."
Your player has a reasonable question. "Why? That doesn't make any sense."
"Because," you respond with a sigh, "that's just what the rule says."

If the only answer you can come up with is "it's just what the rule says," it's a crap rule. All of Jeremy's justifications for this current Sage Advice ruling on this unchanged rule are, in my opinion, really tenuous. It goes to show, I believe, the limited value of Sage Advice, which is to provide an arguably consistent set of rulings and interpretations that a DM can fall back on if he's not comfortable making a ruling or interpreting a rule himself. Your best bet is always to interpret a rule in a way that makes sense to your and your party and fits with the game you're playing at your table, but if that's not something you are comfortable with you can look up the Sage Advice, which has as its primary virtue a reasonable level of internal consistency with other Sage Advice interpretations.

I think the best way to interpret the rule is that the Attack action does the same thing that every other action does in combat--it gives you something you can do. When you take the attack action, you can make one or more attacks. You don't have to, and if something stops you you don't get to. It's just like Dash. Why? Because it is better and simpler to be consistent with similar rules than to be consistent with your interpretation of similar verb clauses and prepositional phrases.

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Markh3rd

Explorer

Li Shenron

Legend

Stalker0

Legend

Hussar

Legend

Oofta

Legend

Asgorath

Explorer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Oofta

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

epithet

Explorer

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex

Related Articles

Voidrunner's Codex