Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

Per my post above, my interpretation says that actions don't have a duration.

No duration = instantaneous so we are in agreement there.

I think my building block analogy is the best way to describe the point I've been trying to make this whole time. If you assemble your turn as a sequence of basic building blocks, then there is never a question about "what's the duration of action X" -- a given action is just a discrete event in the sequence, and the sequence gets resolved in order from start to finish.

The issue is the attack action with extra attack. The attack action with extra attack is not a discrete event in the sequence you are referencing. It would be 2 discrete events, attack #1 and then attack #2. So then which of these discrete events do you assign the attack action to?

Edit: To be clear, I was trying to argue against the idea that actions last as long as their effects, because this doesn't make sense to me based on the Disengage and Dodge actions. There are more than two options though, and so I've given up advocating that since actions cannot last as long as their effects the only explanation must be that actions are instantaneous -- it makes more sense to me that actions simply have no duration at all, and your turn is built up of discrete strictly-ordered events.

#1 instantaneous = no duration.

#2 I agree that your turn can to some degree be described as being made up of a sequence of in gameworld events. Consider the following sequence: You move, you attack, you move again, you attack, you move again, you bonus action shove and then you move again. Each of those activities is a discrete event. If an action is a discrete event in the sequence then which discrete event described above coorelates to the attack action?

#3 the events on your turn can be strictly ordered and actions still being instantaneous. Consider the discrete event sequence: Move, attack action, shield master bonus action, attack #1, move, attack #2, move again.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm curious about what makes you think the attack action is instantaneous while disengage is not. As [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] mentioned, you can attack, move around a bunch and then attack again. How the heck do you construe that as instantaneous?

For myself, I think the timing is built into each action. I think the Attack action lasts from the instant you take the first swing to the moment you finish damage or miss on your last one, plus any movement in between attacks. I think disengage lasts the rest of your turn or the rest of your movement, whichever comes first. And so on.

Now I know that the game doesn't explicitly say the above, but neither does it say that actions are instantaneous. My opinion is that a more common and organic reading of these actions lends itself to turns having a duration, with built in exceptions to account for the length they last. It takes a less intuitive reading to come up with them lasting only an instant, but the effects lasting the entire round, where the effects are the action you took, yet it's not the action.

This is very much a ruling situation, though, since the rules don't say either way.

 

[FrogReaver]

For myself, I think the timing is built into each action. I think the Attack action lasts from the instant you take the first swing to the moment you finish damage or miss on your last one, plus any movement in between attacks. I think disengage lasts the rest of your turn or the rest of your movement, whichever comes first. And so on.

I know you think that. What I don't understand is that I've presented proof that the disengage action cannot last till the end of your turn or till your movement ends and you still think that. What about the proof doesn't convince you?

Now I know that the game doesn't explicitly say the above, but neither does it say that actions are instantaneous. My opinion is that a more common and organic reading of these actions lends itself to turns having a duration, with built in exceptions to account for the length they last. It takes a less intuitive reading to come up with them lasting only an instant, but the effects lasting the entire round, where the effects are the action you took, yet it's not the action.

When presented with a well reasoned and logical argument that shows at least 1 action can't last it's duration then any common or organic reading of the rules which result in that action lasting it's duration are also logically discarded. At that point it stops being about intuition or what you feel is the best reading and what you've proven the best and most coherent interpretation cannot be.

This is very much a ruling situation, though, since the rules don't say either way.

There's parts of this discussion that are definitely rulings. However, when presented with proof that an interpretation has unintended and silly consequences (like disengage action does with the interpretation that it lasts until the end of your turn) then it's reasonable to abandon that interpretation.

So going back to the first question I asked, what is it about the proof I've offered about the disengage action that you don't find compelling?

 

[Azzy]

Still no consensus?

 

[FrogReaver]

Still no consensus?

There appears to be a consensus that we have no consensus....

 

[Maxperson]

There appears to be a consensus that we have no consensus....

I disagree! Oh, wait. Never mind.

 

[Maxperson]

I know you think that. What I don't understand is that I've presented proof that the disengage action cannot last till the end of your turn or till your movement ends and you still think that. What about the proof doesn't convince you?

When presented with a well reasoned and logical argument that shows at least 1 action can't last it's duration then any common or organic reading of the rules which result in that action lasting it's duration are also logically discarded. At that point it stops being about intuition or what you feel is the best reading and what you've proven the best and most coherent interpretation cannot be.

Your "proof" was based on a False Dichotomy. I presented another way to read the rules other than the two you proposed. You then dismissed it, saying that the actions don't explicitly say what they imply. Sure. That's true. It's also true that they don't say that they are instantaneous. they also do not say that you cannot split an action, or that you cannot move in the middle of an action. Those are assumptions you are making.

You're pretty free with being okay with assumptions when they support you, but apparently you're the only one that can do that sort of thing.

There's parts of this discussion that are definitely rulings. However, when presented with proof that an interpretation has unintended and silly consequences (like disengage action does with the interpretation that it lasts until the end of your turn) then it's reasonable to abandon that interpretation.

But again, it only has that silly an unintended consequence if you don't accept the implied ability to move during the actions that have duration and involve movement.

So going back to the first question I asked, what is it about the proof I've offered about the disengage action that you don't find compelling?

It ignored other options. I don't know that you are wrong, but as you are ignoring other options and also using some assumptions in your "proof," I can't say that you are right, either. Your proof isn't as iron clad as you think it is.

 

[5ekyu]

While that's certainly true, they are "the rules" of D&D. No tweet nor "official" Advice from Crawford or anyone else constitutes a rule, and the only way the rules are modified is by published errata. There are those who make a reasonable effort to play "by the rules" or to follow the "rules as written," and for them the published rules are, in fact, binding: they have elected to be bound by them. There is therefore an important distinction to be made between the rules and the Advice, "official" or otherwise.

That important distinction however is entirely in the eye of the beholder. So, same as someone can have "elected to be bound" by the PHB and some or all or none of its optional rules - so someone can have "elected to be bound" by those books and/or the designated official errata and/or the designated other official source - sage advice compendium.

So, you know, dismissing one group position because it chooses to be bound by a different set of the non-binding official content than you do seems rather much like saying "I like it this way" rather than an argument about what the official way to do it is or is not in any objective sense doesnt it?

 

[epithet]

That important distinction however is entirely in the eye of the beholder. So, same as someone can have "elected to be bound" by the PHB and some or all or none of its optional rules - so someone can have "elected to be bound" by those books and/or the designated official errata and/or the designated other official source - sage advice compendium.

So, you know, dismissing one group position because it chooses to be bound by a different set of the non-binding official content than you do seems rather much like saying "I like it this way" rather than an argument about what the official way to do it is or is not in any objective sense doesnt it?

Well, I make use of house rules, so it isn't really my way we're talking about. This discussion, however, has been focussed on interpreting the "rules as written" in the context of the Shield Master feat, so it is important to note that the Sage Advice isn't rules, it is only advised rulings. Rulings vs. rules is a distinction worth making.

As an example, a dungeon master running a game at an Adventurer's League event is directed to use "the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.)," but "Whether or not any given Dungeon Master chooses to utilize Sage Advice as a resource for rules adjudication in D&D Adventurers League play is at the discretion of each individual DM."

If you want to know how I personally run my game we can get into that, but I've been operating on the assumption that no one really gives a crap.

 

[FrogReaver]

Your "proof" was based on a False Dichotomy. I presented another way to read the rules other than the two you proposed. You then dismissed it, saying that the actions don't explicitly say what they imply. Sure. That's true. It's also true that they don't say that they are instantaneous. they also do not say that you cannot split an action, or that you cannot move in the middle of an action. Those are assumptions you are making.

You're pretty free with being okay with assumptions when they support you, but apparently you're the only one that can do that sort of thing.



But again, it only has that silly an unintended consequence if you don't accept the implied ability to move during the actions that have duration and involve movement.



It ignored other options. I don't know that you are wrong, but as you are ignoring other options and also using some assumptions in your "proof," I can't say that you are right, either. Your proof isn't as iron clad as you think it is.

The Disengage action doesn't imply anything. It's explicit. "If you move you don't provoke OA's. There is no guarantee in that action that you are able to move after taking it, just that if you do move then you don't provoke OA's. My logical argument relies on the presumption/RAI that after taking the disengage action you should be able to move and not provoke OA's. I think we all agree there.

I don't think you understand how arguments by contradiction work. You start with premises and show that those premises lead to a contradiction.

In this case I have 3 premises
1) You should be able to move after taking the disengage action (the RAI that we all know)
2) You can only move before or after an action except with an explicit exception (the RAW in the PHB)
3) Actions are indivisible (your interpretation)

It's obvious those premises lead to a contradiction. You agree there I'm sure. However, what you are trying to say is that premise #2 is wrong because premise #1. The issue with that is that premise #1 only has to do with the intentions/implications and premise #2 only has to do with what is explicitly written. #2 cannot be altered by intentions/implications/RAI because the premise itself is independent of those things. That's why I find it baffling that you keep presenting that as evidence that the argument I'm presenting isn't true.