Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Asgorath]

There are 2 possibilities for the attack action
Possibility 1: the action consists of N discrete sequential elements
Possibility 2: the action itself is a discrete sequential element and provides the ability to perform an additional N discrete elements.

My evidence for possibility 2 is that other actions are a single discrete sequential element that provide an effect that last through N discrete sequential events. Why should the attack action be any different?

Possibility 3: The action consists of 1 discrete element, with rules about splitting this into up to N pieces, where N is the number of attacks granted by Extra Attack. You can only insert specific things between elements of the Attack action.

Maybe that's close enough to (1) that it doesn't really matter.

Actions like Dodge and Disengage specifically talk about an effect that applies for a duration. The Attack action does not. Therefore, the Attack action does not apply an effect that lasts for an unspecified duration. The PHB talks about being able to break apart the Attack action and insert movement between attacks. Those pieces, taken together, still form your Attack action. I'm not aware of any language that says the Attack action applies a buff that lasts until the end of your turn that allows you to make N weapon attacks. Therefore, the Attack action is not an instantaneous declaration, and is the actual attacks themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

I have a rule that shows actions are not divisible by movement. Therefore your proposition doesn't disprove my proof.

My proposition allows for actions to be be divisible by movement.

"...using some of your speed before and after your action." does not exclude movement during the action. It just points out permissions for those other two situations. So that rule does not show that actions are not divisible by movement.

Moving between attacks is not intuitive. Many will think you can, and many will think you can't, so it needed a rule to make clear that the game does allow it for sure in that situation. The existence this rule does not mean that this is the only time you may move in the middle of an action, so it is not a rule that shows that actions are not divisible by movement.

The Dash action adds to movement, so it makes crystal clear sense that you should be able to move during that action, so there was no need to create an extra rule for it like they did with Attack, and which is not excluded by "...using some of your speed before and after your action."

Now, I've argued before, and still believe, that just because something is not excluded by the rules, does not automatically make it included in the rules. However, the natural reading Dash and other movement actions, as well as the apparent reasoning behind why Attack is called out separately, and the fact that actions being divisible by movement is not excluded, strongly indicates to me that actions are divisible, and movement is one of those things that many actions are divisible by.

Other actions like Help have no need for such divisibility. You move if necessary, engage the Help, and move on if you want.

 

[Asgorath]

How does anyone know you are taking the disengage action if you don't declare you are taking it?

There's a big difference between saying "I'm going to Disengage and then move over there", and "I declare that I will Disengage later in my turn, then use my bonus action X that is triggered from Disengage to do Y now, then I'll move a bit, actually Disengage, and then move some more". I'm suggesting you take the Disengage action by just taking the Disengage action, I'm avoiding the word declare here because it's been so frequently used to suggest you can declare that you'll Attack later on your turn so that you can start by Shield Master shoving first, which I believe is not how bonus action triggers work.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except that we know that the Cast a Spell Action is not instantaneous. It can't be and still have spells cast as bonus actions which the game goes out of its way to describe as "exceptionally swift." You can't get any swifter than instant.

The Cast a Spell Action is actually the strongest proof of action duration not being instant. It talks about the length of casting times and says that some spells take minutes or hours and therefore casting a spell is not necessarily an action. However, it goes on to point out that most spells have a casting time of 1 action. Those spells are by rule, longer than spells with a casting time of a bonus action. We also know that as part of a 1 action spell, which by definition takes 1 action LONG to cast, you have to have time to pull out components, wave your hands around in a very specific manner, and speak the words of the spell. That cannot happen in an instantaneous manner.

Now this is more persuasive. You have found an action that seems, at least on the surface, to be non-instantaneous. If there's at least 1 other action that is demonstrably non-instantaneous then that's much better evidence that the attack action is also.

That said, is there anything preventing the cast a spell action from occurring before the actual spell is cast?

 

[Maxperson]

How does anyone know you are taking the disengage action if you don't declare you are taking it?

You take it.

Player: "DM, I am taking the disengage action." That's not a declaration of intent, but rather a statement of action.

 

[Maxperson]

Now this is more persuasive. You have found an action that seems, at least on the surface, to be non-instantaneous. If there's at least 1 other action that is demonstrably non-instantaneous then that's much better evidence that the attack action is also.

That said, is there anything preventing the cast a spell action from occurring before the actual spell is cast?

The casting time of the spell is 1 action and is not instantaneous. I don't think it makes sense for the comnbat action to be instant, but the casting time of 1 action not to be. What does 1 action mean if not the duration of an action in combat? Actions as a game mechanic only appear in combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's a big difference between saying "I'm going to Disengage and then move over there", and "I declare that I will Disengage later in my turn, then use my bonus action X that is triggered from Disengage to do Y now, then I'll move a bit, actually Disengage, and then move some more". I'm suggesting you take the Disengage action by just taking the Disengage action, I'm avoiding the word declare here because it's been so frequently used to suggest you can declare that you'll Attack later on your turn so that you can start by Shield Master shoving first, which I believe is not how bonus action triggers work.

I think the word Now does a nice job of differentiating those ideas. You declare the action NOW. Or you declare the action for later. In your concept the action must be declared now. So then even if the attack action is a discrete sequential event separate from the attacks it grants then it must immediately precede them and doing anything else between the attack action and the attacks would mean that you didn't actually follow through with your declaration and so you didn't actually take the attack action.

I might could get behind that concept. Actions are discrete events that must be declared immediately as you are using them. Then their effects immediately follow. This interpretation would allow any bonus action to be used inbetween extra attacks. It would allow movement to be used after taking the disengage action. *It would allow the shield master shove attack to be used after the first attack but not before it.

 

[FrogReaver]

You take it.

Player: "DM, I am taking the disengage action." That's not a declaration of intent, but rather a statement of action.

A declaration = a statement of action. Apparently your not using the natural meaning of the word declaration here and instead have let some gamey interpretation of the word usurp it's actual definition.

 

[Maxperson]

A declaration = a statement of action. Apparently your not using the natural meaning of the word declaration here and instead have let some gamey interpretation of the word usurp it's actual definition.

A declaration in the common usage in D&D, how JC is using it, and how we are using it here, is a statement of future intent.

Player: "DM, on my turn I am going to move 5 feet, then cast misty step, then use my Attack action, then move 25 feet." That would be declaring what your action will be.

When you are informing the DM of what you are doing at this moment, it's a statement of action. Yes, it's technically a declaration, but it is not the kind of declaration that we are discussing. At no time, though, whether using the kind of declaration everyone else is talking about, or the kind of declaration you using on this technicality, is the declaration valid within the game rules. Being entirely informal, it has no mechanical game validity whatsoever. Nothing can trigger off of a declaration of any kind. Only when you are actually engaging the action does anything begin to trigger off of it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

True. We follow the older style where players have to announce (i.e. declare) intentions for the round before initiative is rolled. You can't change your mind after the roll except to default to Dodge on your turn if you want. But in 5E, you just tell the DM what you do on your turn.