Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7576458" data-attributes="member: 6799649"><p>I can help you out here. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>If you take the bonus action shield shove <em>before</em> you take the Attack action, then <em>because</em> you only have the shield shove because you get it when you take the Attack action, then at the very same moment you took that shield shove then you <em>also</em> took the Attack action; it's just that you are <em>resolving</em> the shove first.</p><p></p><p>This means that if you are somehow prevented from executing your attacks, tough! You <em>already</em> 'took the Attack action' because you took the bonus action shield shove granted by it. This is no harder to grasp than the fact that if the spell <em>sanctuary</em> forces you to lose your attack, you have still taken that Attack action! If you can grasp that about <em>sanctuary</em>, there can be no excuse for failing to grasp the same thing here!</p><p></p><p>As mentioned, I don't believe that 'taking the Attack action' and 'executing the attacks granted to me by the Attack action' are the same thing, because of reasons I laid out earlier. However, IF you believe that 'taking the Attack action' IS 'executing those attacks' (because of a Tweet JC pulled out of his backside saying so), THEN you <strong>must also</strong> believe that 'taking the bonus action shield shove' IS 'executing that shield shove!</p><p></p><p>And even IF you choose to ignore the fact that , "if...then..." statements are <em>not</em> statements of causality (making the same Error as James '@$$-pull' Crawford), and choose to interpret "if...then..." statements as if they <em>are</em> statements of causality, then remember this fact about causality:-</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Read that bit again: "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede <strong><u>or coincide</u></strong> with the consequent in time". This means that the 'effect' cannot come <em>before</em> the 'cause'. But it CAN come either <em>after</em> the cause, or it can <strong><u>coincide</u></strong> with the cause!</p><p></p><p>This means that <em>at the <strong>same time</strong> as I 'take the Attack action'</em> I <em>also</em> can 'take the bonus action shield shove' if I want!</p><p></p><p>And since you are choosing to interpret 'take the Attack action' as the same thing as 'execute those attacks', and are forced to therefore interpret 'take the bonus action shield shove' as 'executing that shield shove', if you 'take the Attack action' at the same time as you 'take the bonus action shield shove', you <strong>must</strong>, according to that (your) definition, be actually 'executing those attacks' at the very same time as you actually 'execute that shield shove'!</p><p></p><p>So the attacks and the shield shove can certainly be simultaneous under that interpretation. And if they are simultaneous, who gets to decide in which order they are resolved?</p><p></p><p>That's right! The acting character's player gets to choose the order in which to resolve their simultaneous actions. And you can bet that we are choosing to resolve that shield shove first, thank-you-very-much!</p><p></p><p>So, however you interpret the relationship between 'taking the Attack action' and 'executing those attacks', BOTH ways lead to the conclusion that you CAN resolve the shield shove <em>before</em> you resolve your first attack.</p><p></p><p>Q. E. And indeed, D. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 7576458, member: 6799649"] I can help you out here. :) If you take the bonus action shield shove [i]before[/i] you take the Attack action, then [i]because[/i] you only have the shield shove because you get it when you take the Attack action, then at the very same moment you took that shield shove then you [i]also[/i] took the Attack action; it's just that you are [i]resolving[/i] the shove first. This means that if you are somehow prevented from executing your attacks, tough! You [i]already[/i] 'took the Attack action' because you took the bonus action shield shove granted by it. This is no harder to grasp than the fact that if the spell [i]sanctuary[/i] forces you to lose your attack, you have still taken that Attack action! If you can grasp that about [i]sanctuary[/i], there can be no excuse for failing to grasp the same thing here! As mentioned, I don't believe that 'taking the Attack action' and 'executing the attacks granted to me by the Attack action' are the same thing, because of reasons I laid out earlier. However, IF you believe that 'taking the Attack action' IS 'executing those attacks' (because of a Tweet JC pulled out of his backside saying so), THEN you [b]must also[/b] believe that 'taking the bonus action shield shove' IS 'executing that shield shove! And even IF you choose to ignore the fact that , "if...then..." statements are [i]not[/i] statements of causality (making the same Error as James '@$$-pull' Crawford), and choose to interpret "if...then..." statements as if they [i]are[/i] statements of causality, then remember this fact about causality:- Read that bit again: "statements of causality require the antecedent to precede [b][u]or coincide[/u][/b] with the consequent in time". This means that the 'effect' cannot come [i]before[/i] the 'cause'. But it CAN come either [i]after[/i] the cause, or it can [b][u]coincide[/u][/b] with the cause! This means that [i]at the [b]same time[/b] as I 'take the Attack action'[/i] I [i]also[/i] can 'take the bonus action shield shove' if I want! And since you are choosing to interpret 'take the Attack action' as the same thing as 'execute those attacks', and are forced to therefore interpret 'take the bonus action shield shove' as 'executing that shield shove', if you 'take the Attack action' at the same time as you 'take the bonus action shield shove', you [b]must[/b], according to that (your) definition, be actually 'executing those attacks' at the very same time as you actually 'execute that shield shove'! So the attacks and the shield shove can certainly be simultaneous under that interpretation. And if they are simultaneous, who gets to decide in which order they are resolved? That's right! The acting character's player gets to choose the order in which to resolve their simultaneous actions. And you can bet that we are choosing to resolve that shield shove first, thank-you-very-much! So, however you interpret the relationship between 'taking the Attack action' and 'executing those attacks', BOTH ways lead to the conclusion that you CAN resolve the shield shove [i]before[/i] you resolve your first attack. Q. E. And indeed, D. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
Top