Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Hriston]

He totally fails to answer the question!

We want to know whether the bard can/should see the number rolled on the d20 so he can get a clue whether or not to use Cutting Words.

We still don't know.

How hard can it be? How hard can it be to answer the darn question?

I think the assumption is that the roll is made out in the open where the bard can see it, but tables differ on this, so the answer allows for tables that use a DM screen as well.

 

[Oofta]

"When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn. "

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. "

The difference is (what I think AB was bringing up) the attack action *is* make an attack. The Dash action is gain extra movement, not use extra movement.

So, my dash action is *done* in toto as soon as I "take it" and I now have the extra movement to use or not. The "action" is resolved. So the "indivisible action" does not apply.

For the "take attack action" with extra attacks the indivisible action applies (JEC) to everything but movement. But there is no additional limit on what that movement is or where it came from.

You seem to be wanting to see dash action as "making the move" like the attack action is "make an attack" but they are distinctly different.

I dont go with the Indivisible action either btw unless the situation makes it so. But Dash and Attack would be different either way.

The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move.

Which is exactly the type of nit-picky BS argument I try to avoid at all costs at my table. I don't want to have to parse out the exact meaning of phrases and words in the document. It's not written like a technical document and I don't want to try to interpret it as one. To me that's one of the strengths of 5E.

I also have other issues with the ruling. It means I couldn't do the following between attacks: misty step as a bonus action between attacks; bonus action healing word an ally; use an action surge to take an action to interact with an object; stab someone with my primary weapon then with my off-hand weapon before attacking with my primary again, etc.

That's just not as fun and slows down the flow of the game for me and my group, so I will continue to ignore it. If other people like the structure that strict parsing of the rules gives them, more power to them.

 

[5ekyu]

The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move.

Which is exactly the type of nit-picky BS argument I try to avoid at all costs at my table. I don't want to have to parse out the exact meaning of phrases and words in the document. It's not written like a technical document and I don't want to try to interpret it as one. To me that's one of the strengths of 5E.

I also have other issues with the ruling. It means I couldn't do the following between attacks: misty step as a bonus action between attacks; bonus action healing word an ally; use an action surge to take an action to interact with an object; stab someone with my primary weapon then with my off-hand weapon before attacking with my primary again, etc.

That's just not as fun and slows down the flow of the game for me and my group, so I will continue to ignore it. If other people like the structure that strict parsing of the rules gives them, more power to them.

"The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move. "

You do not have to take the dash action between your attacks - in this hypothetical case where you can dash and have multiple attacks.

You can dash, now you have extra movement, then use any/all of movement before, after, between attacks.

It seemed like someone was saying that the movement from Dash was an indivisible action. Trying to construe you could not fo stuff while using that Dash movement, but using the movement is **not** part of the Dash action the way making an attack is part of the Attack action.

"stab someone with my primary weapon then with my off-hand weapon before attacking with my primary again, etc."

Any attack can be used with any weapon unless specified otherwise. So, you could strike (say sword dagger pair) with sword and dagger no problem even with his ruling then move on and take any remaining attacks. You would simply be using two of your attacks from the extra attack.

However, I am pretty sure with TWF the bonus action attack csn be used in the middle of the action... between attacks.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with ..."

That seems to key it to an attack so you can even use your bonus action.

 

[Yunru]

However, I am pretty sure with TWF the bonus action attack csn be used in the middle of the action... between attacks.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with ..."

That scream bit keys it to an attack so you can even use your bonus action.

Exceeept, weren't you just arguing that Shield Master couldn't put until after all attacks were made because "when you take the Attack action" meant you had to complete the Attack action?

 

[Oofta]

"The rules state that you can use your movement between the attacks of an attack action, not that you can take the dash action to move. "

You do not have to take the dash action between your attacks - in this hypothetical case where you can dash and have multiple attacks.

You can dash, now you have extra movement, then use any/all of movement before, after, between attacks.

It seemed like someone was saying that the movement from Dash was an indivisible action. Trying to construe you could not fo stuff while using that Dash movement, but using the movement is **not** part of the Dash action the way making an attack is part of the Attack action.

"stab someone with my primary weapon then with my off-hand weapon before attacking with my primary again, etc."

Any attack can be used with any weapon unless specified otherwise. So, you could strike (say sword dagger pair) with sword and dagger no problem even with his ruling then move on and take any remaining attacks. You would simply be using two of your attacks from the extra attack.

However, I am pretty sure with TWF the bonus action attack csn be used in the middle of the action... between attacks.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with ..."

That scream bit keys it to an attack so you can even use your bonus action.

Let's say I can take dash action in addition to my normal action. Rogue, haste, action surge, whatever.

I attack and kill enemy A. I need 35 ft of movement to get to enemy B. I really want to get to enemy B. I only have 30 ft of movement so I want to move and use the dash action to move my base speed.

I can't do that unless I can break up my attack action with anything other than movement. Dash action grants movement, but it is still an action.

 

[5ekyu]

Exceeept, weren't you just arguing that Shield Master couldn't put until after all attacks were made because "when you take the Attack action" meant you had to complete the Attack action?

Actually let's be clear.
I **do not** in my games require the indivisible action ruling. Have said that several times.
So, **in my games** you can make one attack of your attack action, then use the SM bonus action shove anytime after that, even if you have more of your attack action to finish.

That is different from a discussion about the official rules and rulings.

As for the Indivisible action, there is a difference between the SM BA and the TWF that was in the text you quoted.

SM BA
"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."

TWF
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon..."

The TWF establishes the attack made as part of the Attack action as also part of the trigger specifically. The SM requires the Attack Action taken.

So it seems the two rules establish a difference, one calling out the individual attack in the trigger while the other triggers on the whole attack action.

(Typically, the SM debates hinges on whether you can ignore the attack part of the Attsck action and get your shove anyway... intent bring sll that matters... to some... but that's another story.)

If SM had the same "attack action and attack..." wording as TWF it would be great... establishing that one attack is required before the special shove and like TWF avoiding any issues of having to finish the attack action. (Pretty much, that's how I use it... putting it squarely behind the wet dream of the shove firsters and the overly odd indivisible action of JEC rulings.)

 

[Yunru]

ASM BA
"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."

TWF
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon..."

The TWF establishes the attack made as part of the Attack action as also part of the trigger specifically. The SM requires the Attack Action taken.

But both require you to "take the Attack action". One just has more requirements. How is one's taking the attack action different just because it also requires you use a certain weapon?

EDIT: Not that any of this matters from an official standpoint, since every tweet is now unofficial.

 

[5ekyu]

But both require you to "take the Attack action". One just has more requirements. How is one's taking the attack action different just because it also requires you use a certain weapon?

EDIT: Not that any of this matters from an official standpoint, since every tweet is now unofficial.

It doesnt require you to use a different weapon alone, it specifically calls out the making of ** an attack.** That establishes the attack of the attack action as the trigger - specifically **an attack** not all attacks - singular.

If you desire to not see that as different yo keep arguing it, that's great, have a blast.

But between shield master and twf only one of them has language specifically calling making one attack as part of the trigger.

Now, like I said, for my own games, I font follow the indivisible action ruling, so as long as you take the attack sction by making one attack, you can then usebthd bonus shove.

 

[Yunru]

It doesnt require you to use a different weapon alone, it specifically calls out the making of ** an attack.** That establishes the attack of the attack action as the trigger - specifically **an attack** not all attacks - singular.

No it doesn't.
You've the trigger: When you take the Attack action
and you've the restriction: and attack with...

The trigger isn't "When you make an attack with... as part of the Attack action" it's specifically "When you take the Attack action" which is the same as Shield Master.

Of course, I think we're all playing devil's advocate to each other?

 

[5ekyu]

No it doesn't.
You've the trigger: When you take the Attack action
and you've the restriction: and attack with...

The trigger isn't "When you make an attack with... as part of the Attack action" it's specifically "When you take the Attack action" which is the same as Shield Master.

Of course, I think we're all playing devil's advocate to each other?

Wow... Nope, just taking the attack action is not the trigger. The trigger is taking the attack action **and** making an attack with blah blah.

And means both are part of the trigger.

Usually, but I guess not to some.

You do you and... wait no better not add any confusion with another znd...

You just do you.