Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 7575594" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>I think it might help to differentiate between having a bonus action to take and actually taking it. Comments along the lines of "you don't have a bonus action until [taking the Attack action] gives it to you" seem to be confusing the two things.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fair enough. None of this is a problem for me because, to me, "on your turn" can be read without bias as referring to your entire turn, and it can't be both true and false that "you take the Attack action on your turn," so the question is if you do or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Flurry of Blows has additional language specifying when the bonus action must take place relative to the Attack action. Shield Master doesn't have that language. It would have been trivial to write, "After you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action...", if that was the intent. But, as the original ruling on the War Magic bonus action shows, it wasn't, unless the argument is made that Jeremy Crawford was wrong about the intent at that time, and only remembered or was reminded of what the original intent was later.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Up thread, I brought up Step 2 of the basic pattern of play in response to [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION]'s statement that "the rules provide a framework for your character to act in combat." I don't subscribe to the idea that the rules are proscriptive with regard to players' action-declarations. They tell you what you <em>can</em> do, not what you can't. There's even a sidebar under Actions in Combat about "Improvising an Action". It states:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in the Using Ability Scores section for inspiration as you improvise.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.</p><p>I agree that it's orthogonal to bonus action timing, and I'm not arguing for any inconsistency in interpretation between a player-facing vs a DM-facing reading of the rules. In my game, a shield master player is free to declare an attempt to shove a creature and then go on to take a full compliment of attacks afterwards by virtue of having the feat, and the DM is expected to rule in accordance with that reading of the feat and the bonus action rules in general. I was simply taking issue with the statement that a player needs a rule that says they can make this series of action-declarations in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 7575594, member: 6787503"] I think it might help to differentiate between having a bonus action to take and actually taking it. Comments along the lines of "you don't have a bonus action until [taking the Attack action] gives it to you" seem to be confusing the two things. Fair enough. None of this is a problem for me because, to me, "on your turn" can be read without bias as referring to your entire turn, and it can't be both true and false that "you take the Attack action on your turn," so the question is if you do or not. Flurry of Blows has additional language specifying when the bonus action must take place relative to the Attack action. Shield Master doesn't have that language. It would have been trivial to write, "After you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action...", if that was the intent. But, as the original ruling on the War Magic bonus action shows, it wasn't, unless the argument is made that Jeremy Crawford was wrong about the intent at that time, and only remembered or was reminded of what the original intent was later. Up thread, I brought up Step 2 of the basic pattern of play in response to [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION]'s statement that "the rules provide a framework for your character to act in combat." I don't subscribe to the idea that the rules are proscriptive with regard to players' action-declarations. They tell you what you [I]can[/I] do, not what you can't. There's even a sidebar under Actions in Combat about "Improvising an Action". It states: [INDENT]Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in the Using Ability Scores section for inspiration as you improvise. When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.[/INDENT] I agree that it's orthogonal to bonus action timing, and I'm not arguing for any inconsistency in interpretation between a player-facing vs a DM-facing reading of the rules. In my game, a shield master player is free to declare an attempt to shove a creature and then go on to take a full compliment of attacks afterwards by virtue of having the feat, and the DM is expected to rule in accordance with that reading of the feat and the bonus action rules in general. I was simply taking issue with the statement that a player needs a rule that says they can make this series of action-declarations in the first place. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
Top