Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Maxperson · Feb 22, 2019

Arial Black said:
Fair enough. One minor quibble: each action does not necessarily spell out ALL the rules for it, but the rules it does include are undoubtably...rules for it...!

Heh. That's a feature, not a bug. 5e is about rulings over rules, so the rules tend to be vague, sometimes open to multiple interpretations, or left with holes in them that individual DMs have to fill.

Sure, but IF actions are indivisible, AND each action lasts until its effects end (specific for each action), THEN if an action's duration has not ended, no other action can be taken.

Unless specific rules allow for them to be taken. The actions that involve movement include movement as a part of that action.

And if you take the view that the reason you can move during the Attack action between attacks is because it says so, this means that you cannot move during ANY action if the book doesn't say so!

As a strict reading, yes.

Note that the rule for the Attack action does not give you permission to move between attacks! There is no mention of moving between attacks in the description of the Attack action on p192.

That's exactly where the rule SHOULD be, though! The rule is entirely about moving during the attack action, so it really should have been in the attack action, not pages earlier.

/begin rant

5e has exceptionally poor rules organization that is rife throughout both the PHB and DMG. I can't tell you how many times I or another player has mentioned a rule that we are positive that we read, but when the DM asks to see it we spend much more time than is necessary scouring through the books. Why? Because it's not in the spot where it should most logically be. It's a royal pain in the rear. Right up there with the index taking more space and characters telling me to "See planes of existence" if I look up Acheron, rather than "See page 302."

/end rant

IF you take the view that you cannot move during an action without a rule saying you can (I am not of that opinion myself), then in order to move during an action is if it says so under Breaking Up Your Move (it does not, except for the Attack action) OR it says so under the heading of that particular action.

Not true. There are many places an specific rule creating an exception could be. One of those places is the action itself.

Agreed. However, it certainly does not say that you can move during this action! Therefore, with the previous assumption, you cannot move until ALL your movement has been expended, nor can you take any other action until ALL your move has been expended. So, with those assumptions, if you Dash then you cannot move(!) and cannot take any other action!

If you couldn't move during that action, it wouldn't be an action, it would be an inaction.

I agree that this interpretation would lead to 'silly'. But this position (position 1) is not that you Dodge for a moment and then stop while getting the benefit for a period of time; the position is that 'taking the action' is an instantaneous game construct decision by the player which allows the character to do the things associated with that action for the specified time. So 'taking the Dodge action' is an instantaneous event at the game table which then means that the character can dodge incoming attacks from now until the start of their next turn.

To remind you:-

1) is the position that 'taking the action' is an instantaneous player decision at the table which allows the character to do the stuff for a period of time

2) is the position that 'taking the action' and 'doing the stuff' are one and the same with the same duration.

2a) follows that actions are divisible

2b) follows that actions are not divisible

Which of these positions do you hold?

I hold that the rules are such that actions are discreet and not divisible unless some other rule or itself acts on it to allow division. I also hold that the action lasts until it is completed, whether that's in an instant, or until the next turn.

That said, as a DM I will allow them to be divisible when reasonable. I don't have a problem with Misty Step being used in-between attacks.

Maxperson · Feb 22, 2019

Hriston said:
Yes, as I assume you would also. Where I think our disagreement lies is I don't think that whether you take the Attack action on your turn can be checked until either you take the Attack action, you take another action (if you only have one to take), or your turn ends. Once the condition has been met, however, that qualifies you to use your bonus action to shove a creature at any time during the same turn.

JC has said(and it's obvious from reading the rules) that there is no such thing as declaring an action, so the check cannot happen until the action is taken. If you check before it is taken, you are into declaring an action which is not something in the rules.

No, it isn’t. The issue is that I expressed a dissenting interpretation, and there are some who, for whatever reason, won’t admit the possibility of multiple valid interpretations.

The issue is that some of your interpretations are not interpretations. For instance, the idea that of you take a Bonus Action that is dependent on the Attack action for the trigger ahead of the Attack action and are prevented from taking said action, that somehow the Bonus Action becomes the Attack action. There's no rule that can even remotely be interpreted as allowing that to happen.

I mean hell, if I could do that within the rules, the next time the wizard is going to cast Magic Weapon on my sword and I go before him, I'll just swing with my enchanted sword. After all, I can trigger the effect before the action happens so long as it happens at some point on the turn. And if the wizard should be knocked out before he can cast the spell, well then he must have cast it at the moment I swung the sword. Man! "Interpreting" the rules like this is fun!

FrogReaver · Feb 22, 2019

Hriston said:
No, it isn’t. The issue is that I expressed a dissenting interpretation, and there are some who, for whatever reason, won’t admit the possibility of multiple valid interpretations.

There's 2 issues now.

1. The initial discussion about your interpretation being invalid. You see if an interpretation is valid I'm perfectly happy with multiple valid interpretation. Please don't mistaken believing a particular interpretation is invalid as a belief that there is only ever a single valid interpretation.

2. The point you made just a few posts back where you argued that due to rules being non-restrictive and you being able to abdicate your particular way meant you were playing by the rules. In short that issue is as I stated "The issue is using the idea of DM abdication as proof that you are doing something by the rules."

I brought up the idea that the rules belong to the DM in my conversation with @Asgorath not to prove in any way that the rules mean what I say they do, but rather to refute the idea that the purpose of the rules is to limit the scope of player action declarations. It’s the player’s job to describe what their character does, and it’s the DM’s job to resolve the character’s actions, using the rules as appropriate. I think that, given their response (which I plan to address in a separate post), we’re largely in agreement about this, and that the exchange is mostly due to a misconstrual on my part.

"Purpose" is such an odd word. The purpose of rules is to give us structures by which we can play the game. Players definitely can describe whatever they want their character to do and the DM definitely does resolve the characters actions, using the rules as appropriate. That said while the purpose of rules isn't to limit the scope of a players declaration, rules can definitely limit the mechanical resolution of such actions. As my previous example. A level 4 Fighter player may declare he attacks the ogre 4 times with his greatsword. The rules restrict the mechanical resolution of that declaration to a single attack and damage roll on this particular turn (barring the extra attack feature).
Now you as a DM are welcome to ignore that mechanical restriction placed upon the PC by the rules. It's your right to abdicate however you want. It's just that some abjucations follow the rules as they are written and some do not. There's no shame in admitting that, but most importantly in a rules discussion it does need to be admitted when you are doing one and when you are doing the other.

So I don't believe I'm misconstruing your statements. I flat out disagree with your portrayal of non-restrictive rules. I flat out disagree with the logical consequences that these beliefs incur. You see, the consequence of agreeing that rules never restrict actions is to admit that you can abdicate however you want and still be playing by the rules. I vehemently reject any premise that is going to lead down that kind of path.

I also think your purpose of using this abjucation and non-restrictive rules stance was to argue that your position is valid. As noted above, I reject your premises for this argument. So to me. the only way for your position to be valid is if it's a valid interpretation of the rules text. How about we get back to talking about that?

Yes, as I assume you would also. Where I think our disagreement lies is I don't think that whether you take the Attack action on your turn can be checked until either you take the Attack action, you take another action (if you only have one to take), or your turn ends. Once the condition has been met, however, that qualifies you to use your bonus action to shove a creature at any time during the same turn.

So you believe the condition for the bonus action shove hasn't been met until you have taken the attack action on your turn. That's a good start. At least we agree there.

So you also believe you can't check whether you took the attack action on your turn until 1 of 3 things happen
1) you take the attack action
2) you take another action
3) your turn ends

I agree here as well. You even go on to say that ONCE the condition has been met that qualifies you to use the bonus action shove any time during the same turn. I agree there as well. What I don't get is how you are saying "ONCE the condition has been met" and then insist on being able to "time travel" back to a point before you actually met the condition and then claim that because you actually met the condition in the pre time travel timeline that you now have also met the condition in the post time traveled timeline even though you've still not met the condition in this post time travel timeline yet. How does your interpretation not essentially boil down to something like this?

FrogReaver · Feb 22, 2019

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]

In my games a turn is treated as a sequential series of events. Is it not treated as such in your game? If it's not I could maybe see how your position makes sense?

Yardiff · Feb 23, 2019

I think this is the way some of see things.

Attack Action:
Attack (melee/ranged)
(Extra Attack)

Shield Master character Attack Action:
(Bonus Action Shove)
Attack (melee/ranged)
(Extra Attack)

Asgorath · Feb 23, 2019

Yardiff said:
I think this is the way some of see things.

Attack Action:
Attack (melee/ranged)
(Extra Attack)

Shield Master character Attack Action:
(Bonus Action Shove)
Attack (melee/ranged)
(Extra Attack)

Sure, but the Sage Advice compendium says that this is not the correct way to interpret the timing requirement of the feat.

The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action?

No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.

This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.

The PHB says:

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.

The wording seems pretty clear that the Attack action means actually making an attack, which JEC has confirmed on Twitter and elsewhere.

Yardiff · Feb 23, 2019

I disagree with all that. Whether its a house rule or RAW interpretation I prefer the bonus action taken when you like. Also most people I know made the interpretation of bonus action when you like.

Asgorath said:
The wording seems pretty clear that the Attack action means actually making an attack, which JEC has confirmed on Twitter and elsewhere.

And repeating the bold part doesn't make true. If it had been clear there wouldn't have been questions for clarification.

FrogReaver · Feb 23, 2019

Yardiff said:
I disagree with all that. Whether its a house rule or RAW interpretation I prefer the bonus action taken when you like. Also most people I know made the interpretation of bonus action when you like.

And repeating the bold part doesn't make true. If it had been clear there wouldn't have been questions for clarification.

There's been questions and clarification on nearly every rule in 5e. I don't think questions or clarification mean something is unclear.

The key to eliminating most confusion in shield master is realizing that you don't even have a bonus action to take until you've taken the attack action and satisfied the condition required for it's bonus action.

That said the question of whether taking the attack action extends the whole duration of your attacks or not is still up for debate. Is the attack action like the disengage action where it's effects by necessity last longer than the disengage action itself? Or is the attack action only finished when you as a player either have used all the attacks or declared the end of that action before using all the attacks?

I had previously considered the later as the only answer possible. Now because of the disengage action discussion I view the first answer as possible as well. Thus, I'm with you that the RAW isn't clear. I do think JC's clarification is currently clear though.

Maxperson · Feb 23, 2019

Yardiff said:
And repeating the bold part doesn't make true. If it had been clear there wouldn't have been questions for clarification.

A lot of people see what they want to see. It's a human thing.

Arial Black · Feb 23, 2019

Maxperson said:
If you couldn't move during that action, it wouldn't be an action, it would be an inaction.

...Which just goes to show that this interpretation of the rules is unplayable!

If there are two ways to interpret the rules, and one way is unplayable while the other works just fine, we must interpret the rules the way that works.

I hold that the rules are such that actions are discreet and not divisible unless some other rule or itself acts on it to allow division. I also hold that the action lasts until it is completed, whether that's in an instant, or until the next turn.

WHY do you believe that? What rules tell you that 'actions are indivisible'?

All the rules tell us about this is what we CAN use actions to do. Nowhere does it mention that 'actions are indivisible', so why interpret the rules this way when this results in unplayable rules?

In the face of a rule which IS actually written-you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn-why would you believe that this written rule is trumped by a rule which is NOT written?

That said, as a DM I will allow them to be divisible when reasonable. I don't have a problem with Misty Step being used in-between attacks.

Why interpret the rules such that they are unplayable, forcing you to houserule, rather than interpret them such that they ARE playable?

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Yardiff

Adventurer

Asgorath

Explorer

Yardiff

Adventurer

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Arial Black

Adventurer

Similar Threads

Related Articles