Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Asgorath]

Where you and I differ is that I have no aversion to ambiguous rules. When a rule is ambiguous in its meaning, I simply decide based on the context what it should mean, and play accordingly. You, apparently, need to parse out the exact semantics of the terminology and take that as the meaning of the rule, no matter how ridiculous that meaning might be (case in point, disintegrate a perfectly healthy druid.) It often appears to me, as I view or participate in these conversations, that if a rule can be read in more than one way, you will pick the worst possible interpretation and then argue vigorously that it is the only correct way to read the rule. If Jeremy agrees with you, so much the better.

Disintegrate vs wild shape was an ambiguous rule, as demonstrated by hundreds or thousands of posts disputing the "correct" interpretation of the rule. Clearly, the "correct" interpretation of Shield Master's bonus action is also ambiguous. It will be interesting to see whether or not Jeremy amends it with errata, and if he does so, how. I'm tempted toward the suspicion that he will leave it ambiguous, just so that people can continue to interpret it how they feel is appropriate, but that's probably me projecting my own peevishness onto him. He probably regards ambiguity as his own personal kryptonite.

A lot of the arguments in the past thousand posts have read as "I really want to shove first, so let me warp the meaning of the words to support my position". The PHB doesn't talk about the duration of an action. The PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves. The PHB doesn't talk about just doing stuff and resolving what was an action and what was a bonus action when your turn is over. The PHB does use standard phrasing across multiple rules, and tends to be very economical in its use of the language.

As I've said many times, I can absolutely agree that attack-shove-attack is a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the feat, because once you've taken the first attack you have committed yourself to the Attack action. My only real issue with that is that there is a condition on the Shield Master bonus action, and so we can go off into the weeds whether "take" means "taken" or "taking". However, we haven't been debating that for the last couple of hundred posts, unless I'm missing something. I'm simply advocating for taking the simple approach and not reading things that aren't in the words in the PHB. If the PHB doesn't talk about action duration, then action duration isn't a thing. If the PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves, then that's not a thing. Just do what it says on the tin.

 

[Asgorath]

When I read the Shield Master feat this is what I see when you talk about taking the Attack Action.


'If you take the Attack action on your turn', you can make a melee or ranged attack. If your 5th level or higher you can also make an extra attack.

'If you take the Attack action on your turn and have the Shield Master feat', you can make a melee or ranged attack and a shove using a bonus action. If your 5th level or higher you can also make an extra attack.

This is how it has always read to me.


Shield Master feat
'If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.'

And as I've pointed out several times in the last few pages, if they intended the feat to simply grant you another shove attack as part of the Attack action, then they could've worded it exactly like Extra Attack or Dread Ambusher where you literally just get another attack in the Attack action that must be used to shove.

 

[Yardiff]

In the PHB, except for "extra attack" class feature, how many things grant another attack like action that isn't a bonus action?








Edit: On a side note, which developer was it who said they never liked the 'bonus action'?

 

[Maxperson]

Where you and I differ is that I have no aversion to ambiguous rules. When a rule is ambiguous in its meaning, I simply decide based on the context what it should mean, and play accordingly. You, apparently, need to parse out the exact semantics of the terminology and take that as the meaning of the rule, no matter how ridiculous that meaning might be (case in point, disintegrate a perfectly healthy druid.) It often appears to me, as I view or participate in these conversations, that if a rule can be read in more than one way, you will pick the worst possible interpretation and then argue vigorously that it is the only correct way to read the rule. If Jeremy agrees with you, so much the better.

There is nothing ambiguous with the rule. It says you don't get the bonus action unless you take the attack action. There is no state of having taken the attack action on your turn until you actually take it. There is no semantics or parsing on my end of things. I am taking them as they are written. Where we differ is that I have no aversion to admitting when I house rule something.

If I disagree with Jeremy, I will make a house rule. If I agree with him, I'm already running it that way so no biggie.

Disintegrate vs wild shape was an ambiguous rule, as demonstrated by hundreds or thousands of posts disputing the "correct" interpretation of the rule. Clearly, the "correct" interpretation of Shield Master's bonus action is also ambiguous. It will be interesting to see whether or not Jeremy amends it with errata, and if he does so, how. I'm tempted toward the suspicion that he will leave it ambiguous, just so that people can continue to interpret it how they feel is appropriate, but that's probably me projecting my own peevishness onto him. He probably regards ambiguity as his own personal kryptonite.

No. This was another unambiguous rule that people wanted to find ways to twist in order to keep the druid alive or to match what they wished it would be saying. Wild Shape unequivocally says that the druid hits 0 hit points prior to changing back. Disintegrate unequivocally says that if the target hits 0, it is turned to dust. End of story.

 

[epithet]

...If the PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves, then that's not a thing. Just do what it says on the tin.

But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB reinforces the fact that a lowercase attack and the uppercase Attack (Action) are not the same thing. I find the argument that the Attack Action is entirely inseparable from the attack it grants you to be unpersuasive.

Before any of this Advice or clarification, I read the Shield Master bonus action as expanding your Attack Action, much the same as Extra Attack does. It was the simplest interpretation and implementation, and it seemed to fit the purpose the bonus action was meant to serve. Having now picked every word of this damn thing apart now, I still think that if you have an Action "on your turn" and a bonus action "during your turn" and each gives you an attack, you have two attacks--just handle them together. Everything else just seems like gamist semantic shenanigans.

 

[FrogReaver]

A lot of the arguments in the past thousand posts have read as "I really want to shove first, so let me warp the meaning of the words to support my position".

You are projecting.

The PHB doesn't talk about the duration of an action.

That doesn't mean it's not an important concept.

The PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves.

The PHB doesn't talk about the attack action being part of the attacks themselves

The PHB doesn't talk about just doing stuff and resolving what was an action and what was a bonus action when your turn is over.

Not my position so no comment.

The PHB does use standard phrasing across multiple rules, and tends to be very economical in its use of the language.

Typically yes.

As I've said many times, I can absolutely agree that attack-shove-attack is a reasonable interpretation of the wording of the feat, because once you've taken the first attack you have committed yourself to the Attack action.

Sure, but you do realize that is opposed to the JC ruling you adore so much?

My only real issue with that is that there is a condition on the Shield Master bonus action, and so we can go off into the weeds whether "take" means "taken" or "taking".

Those aren't weeds. That's an integral part of the discussion, especially in regards to whether just 1 or both attacks need to be taken.

However, we haven't been debating that for the last couple of hundred posts, unless I'm missing something. I'm simply advocating for taking the simple approach and not reading things that aren't in the words in the PHB.

On things the PHB is silent about we are left to our reasoning. My approach is no more complex than yours. It's just different. My approach is very simple. My justifications for my approach are complex because this is a complex subject and one where the PHB gave no direct rules for.

On the other hand your justification for your approach has boiled down to, "the PHB doesn't explicitly state Frogreaver's interpretation and therefore mine is right". Well no. Unless it explicitly states yours too then we are in the same boat so to speak. The difference is that I'm using my reasoning to derive a conclusion and you just keep coming back to "the PHB doesn't explicitly state Frogreaver's interpretation and therefore mine is right".

If the PHB doesn't talk about action duration, then action duration isn't a thing.

That's nonsensical. We can derive truths from other truths. That's the basis of complex reasoning in general. We take truths and combine them together and reason about them in such a way that we discover more truths. Action duration itself is an axiom. Either actions are instantaneous or they have a duration. There is no other option. We use logic and reasoning based on the truths we already know to discover that truth as well.

So you can try to argue it's not an important truth, but you can't conflate it's importance with it's existence as you continue to attempt to do.

If the PHB doesn't talk about the Attack action being separate from the attacks themselves, then that's not a thing. Just do what it says on the tin.

The PHB doesn't talk about the action being non-separate from the attacks themselves. Then that's not a thing either. Does that mean the Attack Action is neither separate nor non-separate from the attacks themselves.... opps that's a contradiction. I just proved your reasoning incorrect AGAIN!

 

[Maxperson]

Edit: On a side note, which developer was it who said they never liked the 'bonus action'?

I think it was Mike Mearls who lamented about the bonus action.

 

[epithet]

There is nothing ambiguous with the rule. It says you don't get the bonus action unless you take the attack action. There is no state of having taken the attack action on your turn until you actually take it. There is no semantics or parsing on my end of things. I am taking them as they are written. Where we differ is that I have no aversion to admitting when I house rule something.

If I disagree with Jeremy, I will make a house rule. If I agree with him, I'm already running it that way so no biggie.

No. This was another unambiguous rule that people wanted to find ways to twist in order to keep the druid alive or to match what they wished it would be saying. Wild Shape unequivocally says that the druid hits 0 hit points prior to changing back. Disintegrate unequivocally says that if the target hits 0, it is turned to dust. End of story.

See what I mean?

By the way, you do know that disintegrate was changed in the last round of errata, don't you? It's just that you keep talking about what disintegrate "unequivocally says" and, in your earlier post, "RAW says that..." when you're actually talking about what it used to say.

If it was unambiguous, there wouldn't have been a difference between what was written and what was intended, would there? Fixing the rule in errata would have been unnecessary. Instead, ambiguity in the rule lead to some people finding an interpretation that led to a ridiculous result, and (of course) loudly proclaiming that it was the only correct way to read the rule. Jeremy Crawford, who as I mentioned has a serious weakness for a silly semantic argument, was powerless to resist until he actually changed the wording of disintegrate in the latest errata, bringing that chapter finally to a close... or so I thought.

 

[Asgorath]

But we have always known that an attack is something different than the Attack Action. You can make an attack as part of casting a spell (including melee or ranged weapon attacks) and as a reaction or bonus action. All kinds of things give you attacks. Every combat related section of the PGB reinforces the fact that a lowercase attack and the uppercase Attack (Action) are not the same thing. I find the argument that the Attack Action is entirely inseparable from the attack it grants you to be unpersuasive.

Before any of this Advice or clarification, I read the Shield Master bonus action as expanding your Attack Action, much the same as Extra Attack does. It was the simplest interpretation and implementation, and it seemed to fit the purpose the bonus action was meant to serve. Having now picked every word of this damn thing apart now, I still think that if you have an Action "on your turn" and a bonus action "during your turn" and each gives you an attack, you have two attacks--just handle them together. Everything else just seems like gamist semantic shenanigans.

In all those cases, the attack(s) are part of a well-defined thing in the rules, though. Your Cast a Spell action might involve you casting a spell that involves a weapon attack. That doesn't mean you get to declare you'll cast a spell, make a weapon attack for... reasons, and then later in your turn actually resolve the spell itself. You start your turn with movement and an action. If some feature gives you a bonus action with no timing requirement, cool, you have a bonus action as well (e.g. Rogue's Cunning Action). You don't also get free weapon attacks you can make at any point you like, those attacks come from some part of the combat rules. I'm not suggesting the only way you get to make an attack is with the Attack action, I am suggesting that you have to actually take an action to be able to do something on your turn (*aside from bonus actions with no timing requirement).

You start your turn having not taken an action. You then take your action, which might be the Attack action. Extra Attacks allows for multiple attacks as part of that action. There's an explicit rule that lets you move between attacks from Extra Attack. Once those attacks are resolved, you have now taken your action. Why are we trying to do more than that, like insert triggered bonus actions before or during the triggering event? The fact that Shield Master is a bonus action and not part of the Attack action itself suggests that they are in fact two completely separate things, and must be resolved independently.

 

[FrogReaver]

In the PHB, except for "extra attack" class feature, how many things grant another attack like action that isn't a bonus action?








Edit: On a side note, which developer was it who said they never liked the 'bonus action'?

Hunter level 3 ability grants an extra attack. It's free though. I think that's all.