Level Up (A5E) Press the Attack/Fall Back update

[Satirical Bard]

With the new language of Press the Attack, though, you don't actually have to take the attack action. It's just a bonus action that can't be used after an attack has started. So PtA could be used with a spell, a dash, etc. Could be handy for times when a shove isn't convenient because you have other goals, but are willing to deal with others attacking you at advantage.

Surely the intent is that this combines with the Attack action?! It would be stupid IMHO to allow someone to press the attack and then not Attack.

This issue with wording and sequencing is exactly how Shield Master became a nightmare of interpretive debate, leading to contradictory rulings from JC. I hope Morrus et al can nip it in the bud before going to print.

EDIT: I think simply using WHILE rather the BEFORE would fix the problem.

 

[MarkB]

I'd lean towards the first option:

- If you're forced to move backwards (not sideways, not diagonally), then this could mean that being flanked really sucks, because you cannot fall back, thus the attacker using PtA will attack you with expertise. Could be a nice way of introducing flanking implicitly. Would also mean that once you're cornered, you're in serious trouble.

- If you can move backwards diagonally, then you can avoid the problem of not being able to fall back if you're flanked, depending on relative positioning, but not if you have a wall behind you. If there's a column or a pillar right behind you, it would still work. Let's say this has a lower effect but still works

- If you can move laterally, also diagonally frontal, than FB makes no sense anymore.

My interpretation would be that it has to be in a direction that leaves you further away from your opponent at the end of the 5-foot move. If you're using a grid, that means either straight back or diagonally back. If not, I'd still require it to be somewhere within that 90-degree region of away-ness. It would still be helpful if the text specified this, and that the reaction fails if you cannot make the move.

Surely the intent is that this combines with the Attack action?! It would be stupid IMHO to allow someone to press the attack and then not Attack.

This issue with wording and sequencing is exactly how Shield Master became a nightmare of interpretive debate, leading to contradictory rulings from JC. I hope Morrus et al can nip it in the bud before going to print.

EDIT: I think simply using WHILE rather the BEFORE would fix the problem.

Honestly, I'd find it less problematic if the bonus action made no reference to the Attack action at all, and characters could use it as and when they like, as a threat tactic. That would solve any weirdness of whether or not it commits you to attacking, while also opening up possibilities such as a spellcaster combining Press the Attack with a melee spell attack.

 

[Deset Gled]

Surely the intent is that this combines with the Attack action?! It would be stupid IMHO to allow someone to press the attack and then not Attack.

This issue with wording and sequencing is exactly how Shield Master became a nightmare of interpretive debate, leading to contradictory rulings from JC. I hope Morrus et al can nip it in the bud before going to print.

EDIT: I think simply using WHILE rather the BEFORE would fix the problem.

I think the intent is to provide more interesting and balanced tactical options to players, and PtA still does that without being tied to the attack action.

Also, the previous wording was "when you take the attack action". This revision is specifically moving away from your recommendation, and isolates the bonus action from the attack action. IMNSHO, this actually makes it easier to adjudicate. I'm not amazingly well versed on all the controversies Shield Master has caused, but from my understanding a big part of the problem is that it's wording makes it unclear when the bonus action (i.e. shoving) occurs. Forcing the bonus action to be part of the attack action would be much more problematic when you try to figure out the order in which actions are resolved. LU's current wording makes the order explicit (PtA first, anything else later).

 

[Satirical Bard]

I guess it depends first on what you want it to mean

But if the intent is to have it combine with the Attack action (which is what I've always understood was the intent), then disconnecting it in this way contradicts that intent. Now you can 'fake' PTA. To my mind, that's a feint, not pressing the attack.

I didn't see a problem with "when" because of some concept of order between actions and bonus actions - it seemed to me the intent was to add a tactical option to your Attack action at a cost (your BA). I don't see any rules anywhere in either o5e or a5e that says you can't have them run simultaneously in this way, and even if there was that general rule, the principle of 'specific beats general' would override it.

I suggested WHILE precisely because the word incorporates that simultaneous resolution more clearly than WHEN.

 

[lichmaster]

I didn't see a problem with "when" because of some concept of order between actions and bonus actions - it seemed to me the intent was to add a tactical option to your Attack action at a cost (your BA). I don't see any rules anywhere in either o5e or a5e that says you can't have them run simultaneously in this way, and even if there was that general rule, the principle of 'specific beats general' would override it.

Yes, plus this is not a WoTC product, so whatever Sage Advice was given by JC should not be considered to be a rule here. The authors should have a say in that more than anyone else.

 

[noodohs]

I mean, it says "Before you take the Attack action..." That pretty clearly indicates that you have to take the Attack action to use it.

 

[Anselm]

I mean, it says "Before you take the Attack action..." That pretty clearly indicates that you have to take the Attack action to use it.

I'd agree. At my table, I would also allow any other action that included an attack even though that's not specified.

 

[Deset Gled]

I mean, it says "Before you take the Attack action..." That pretty clearly indicates that you have to take the Attack action to use it.

I disagree on three fronts.

First, it is grammatically proper for "before" to be treated as subjunctive. That is, it appears in the same context as when someone says "Repent before it's too late". "Before" only indicates that it's possible that the future event will happen, not that it must.

Second, there's no requirement that the Attack happens right after the PtA. The text doesn't say "immediately before". If I use PtA, I could take an Attack action next round and fulfill the "before" clause. Or two rounds from now. Or tomorrow.

Third, ruling that an Attack action must be taken screws over players when they use PtA but are later unable to attack. Consider if a player uses PtA and the target Falls Back, resulting in the target no longer being attack-able (maybe they fall of a cliff, maybe they activate a floor plate that closes a portcullis between the two combatants, etc). The player is now left with no opponent to attack. Do you force the player to take the Attack action and effectively waste their turn, or do you let them take a different action to respond to the new battlefield conditions? There are a multitude of situations where changing conditions mean an Attack is not possible after PtA is used. Rulings that require you to predict the future are problematic to enforce.

 

[noodohs]

I mean, that's not grammatically anything. But since it only grants you the expertise die until the beginning of your next turn, the only possible time an attack could happen is on the same turn. So no, you can't take an attack the next round to satisfy the requirements unless you're really twisting the intent to serve your own purposes. It's all quite clearly spelled out.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I disagree on three fronts.

First, it is grammatically proper for "before" to be treated as subjunctive. That is, it appears in the same context as when someone says "Repent before it's too late". "Before" only indicates that it's possible that the future event will happen, not that it must.

Second, there's no requirement that the Attack happens right after the PtA. The text doesn't say "immediately before". If I use PtA, I could take an Attack action next round and fulfill the "before" clause. Or two rounds from now. Or tomorrow.

Third, ruling that an Attack action must be taken screws over players when they use PtA but are later unable to attack. Consider if a player uses PtA and the target Falls Back, resulting in the target no longer being attack-able (maybe they fall of a cliff, maybe they activate a floor plate that closes a portcullis between the two combatants, etc). The player is now left with no opponent to attack. Do you force the player to take the Attack action and effectively waste their turn, or do you let them take a different action to respond to the new battlefield conditions? There are a multitude of situations where changing conditions mean an Attack is not possible after PtA is used. Rulings that require you to predict the future are problematic to enforce.

That is some twisty legalese you got there.