With the Attack action you're attacking once, and can attack twice instead, and one of those attacks can be a cantrip. Its plurial, if you only attack once, it's not in place of one of those attacks. In order to be able to use a cantrip, you must attack twice.
The first attack definitely is one of those attacks so I still don't see it being that restrictive. But it is certainly possible that I'm reading it too openly.
I’m only at level 3 of artificer. Do I have to list every feature that uses “can” to give the choice to use that feature (or a part of it) rather than not use it, or were you actually asking a meaningful question there?
Edit: let me explain a bit further. I admit that apparently I’m in the minority (maybe the only one) that has my opinion about the second sentence of BSEA. But that notwithstanding, my last post in this thread is specifically regarding “can” use features, where the “can” is specifically giving you the option to use the feature or not, and the feature does what it says when you choose to use it. The first sentence of Extra Attack (for the BS) says that you attack twice rather than once when you choose to use that portion of that feature. That sentence doesn’t give you any choice other than whether or not to use the benefit that it provides. I.e. the first sentence of Extra attack doesn’t really provide a choice to use one or two attacks, it provides the choice to use it and take two attacks or not use it. Just like you have the choice to use Second Wind (and gain the healing it describes) or not use it and go about your turn as if you didn’t use that feature.
Apparently everyone else is fine with divorcing the second sentence from the first. Fine.
Well the thing is that all the examples you are giving is allowing one choice, do this or don't. BSEA is affording you two different choices and as both of them are "can" I don't see them being that strictly chained.
Also as CC mentioned earlier, being as strict with the "use all or nothing" idea you guys seems to be how does that affect a high level fighter? Is he limited to choose between 1 and 4 attacks on a turn or can he do 2 or 3 if he wants to?
That is problematic. The only way that you can attack once is to not make use of extra attack, just like the only way you can not make use of Second Wind is to not use second wind. Any other reading is absurd.
Address this head on: a Fighter 11 can attack once (by not using Extra Attack) or three times (by using Extra Attack), but not twice by using Extra Attack? And a Fighter 17, once or four times?
If not, how is that different than what you are saying?
Anton, the Shield Master Bonus itself would trigger if you used Attack (BS 6) to cast Create Bonfire without attacking. That’s not much different than just shoving as part of Attack instead… but I’m not going to audit all of 5E, there are bound to be other “when you take the Attack action…” features a character might want to trigger on a round where they only want to cast Mage Hand or something, I dunno.
Well, that's kind of why I keep asking, because no one seems to have offered up anything that seems like a giant loophole. As you suggested and as TexasDevin pointed out a couple pages ago, the examples brought up so far just burn your bonus action needlessly.
Casting create bonfire and then shoving someone into it sounds like a nifty tactic though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Certainly, you’ve never shied away from a one of your readings of a rule because it didn’t make sense. I can certainly double down on it.
Oddly, though, EA(11) says that you can attack 3 times, instead of twice, indicating that twice is still apparently somehow an option.
I guess purely as a theoretical exercise, Extra Attack at different levels could be considered completely different features rather than just upgrades on the existing feature, if you really want to pursue this to the bitter end. If you only make two attacks, you've chosen to use the lesser version of Extra Attack.
I think that's ridiculous and serves absolutely no purpose, but hey, we've gotten this far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Anton, the Shield Master Bonus itself would trigger if you used Attack (BS 6) to cast Create Bonfire without attacking. That’s not much different than just shoving as part of Attack instead… but I’m not going to audit all of 5E, there are bound to be other “when you take the Attack action…” features a character might want to trigger on a round where they only want to cast Mage Hand or something, I dunno.
Well, that's kind of why I keep asking, because no one seems to have offered up anything that seems like a giant loophole. As you suggested and as TexasDevin pointed out a couple pages ago, the examples brought up so far just burn your bonus action needlessly.
Casting create bonfire and then shoving someone into it sounds like a nifty tactic though.
I'm pretty sure we have abandoned the search for practical meaning, and we are now just embarking on a thought experiment that has nothing to do with using Shield Master bonus action shove, while taking place in a thread about using Shield Master bonus action shove. The point of the discussion is now simply about people winning a debate. What is the endgame here? If someone hypothetically manages to convince us that a Bladesinger can, in fact, take the attack action, attack one time, and cast a cantrip instead of making a traditional attack*... then what? Where does this exercise tie into the idea of using Shield Master shove as a bonus action?
Casting create bonfire and then shoving someone into it does sound like a nifty tactic. But so does simply attacking someone one time and then casting create bonfire on them without bothering with the unreliability of a wizard making a Strength (Athletics) check.
* setting aside the fact that a Bladesinger cannot even cast spells while wearing a shield unless they dip another class or have some other way of gaining proficiency with a shield.
Because it shows the absurdity of thinking that you haven't taken the attack action until you make the attack. You take the attack action when you say you take it. No sooner, no later. Trying to parse the BSEA feature with the ruling "you must make an attack to have taken the attack action" leads to wildly erratic and clearly non-RAI rulings.
You don't need to attack but you do need to act. You can't say you take the attack action and then not do so while at the same time expecting the benefit you would get from doing so.
If being able to use a BA shove is a benefit of taking the attack action, then, taking that BA is indeed an act that shows you have taken the attack action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To be clear, you absolutely cannot take the Attack to make no attacks (and nothing replacing an attack). I'm not sure what sort of slippery slope others may perceive has been greased here from permitting that a Bladesinger's cantrip may replace 1 of 1 or 1 of 2 attacks alike, but an Attack action that makes nothing is not an action that has yet been taken in any meaningful way.
I logged in to way too many new comments on this thread so I skipped to the end and don't even know what is being discussed anymore (I assume no one is arguing that you can take an action without taking that action, since that would be logically absurd).
But this is correct. I shudder to imagine why CC is having to explain why "doing nothing" is not an action, but they are correct.
Oh boy do I have some bad news for you, better not hit that "Prev" button!
Jokes aside, you can absolutely find some weird ways to take the Attack action without making any attacks (cantrip swap, battlemaster maneuvers), but you must be doing something during the action. Not just "I take the Attack action to do nothing." The Attack action may or may not have any language in itself closing that (pointless) loophole, but the plain english meaning of "take" certainly precludes it as nonsense.
Again, no one is claiming this. Are people propping it up as a strawman? Yeah. See the below exchange:
I'll end with where you started: "Whats funny is the RAI Tweets or whatever don't say you need to have actually made an attack." I believe this may be true, but it's also beside the point. If you take the attack action without attacking just so that you can activate the bonus action shove, then why not just shove with your action without using a bonus action at all?
Well, it isn't besides the point. it is exactly the point. That guidance people point to that "says you must make an attack first" doesn't ever actually say you need to make an attack first. It says you need to take the attack action first. The game is silent on when that happens exactly.
But how would your character benefit in this scenario from taking the attack action without making any attacks? Just to prove you can?
My understanding of what you are describing:
Action = Attack, but make no attacks
Bonus action = shove
What I would do instead (no Shield Master feat required)
Action = shove
Bonus action = profit?
Both scenarios end up making the same number of attacks and also shoving the enemy.
No. You absolutely use the attacks. The sequence would be:
Take Attack Action (Satisfying SM feat reqs)
Interject BA Shove immediately
Follow through with 1st attack from the attack action.
Repeat for additional attacks, if available, from Extra Attack features.
The game does not specify the timing for when an action is or is not taken. it is taken when you say it is taken. Simply Take the Attack Action then cram the BA Shove in before the Attacks from that action. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn". Just choose: to take that BA between the taking the attack action and making the attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Also as CC mentioned earlier, being as strict with the "use all or nothing" idea you guys seems to be how does that affect a high level fighter? Is he limited to choose between 1 and 4 attacks on a turn or can he do 2 or 3 if he wants to?
He's allowed to use the level 5 or 11 versions of the feature, they aren't removed.
No. You absolutely use the attacks. The sequence would be:
Take Attack Action (Satisfying SM feat reqs)
Interject BA Shove immediately
Follow through with 1st attack from the attack action.
Repeat for additional attacks, if available, from Extra Attack features.
The game does not specify the timing for when an action is or is not taken. it is taken when you say it is taken. Simply Take the Attack Action then cram the BA Shove in before the Attacks from that action. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn". Just choose: to take that BA between the taking the attack action and making the attack.
So you want to be able to use SM even though you haven't actually taken the attack that SM has as a prerequisite? Yea I call shenanigans on that. ;)
Don't get me wrong, it would make a lot more sense if SM allowed for a a shove first and attacks second and it was stupid of them to not fix the feat when they "corrected" the timing issue. But it doesn't... That was the whole point of the change they made in the SAC.
And this is what makes this whole discussion so stupid. If you don't like the change they made then don't use it, use the old ruling. Or make your own homebrew (Saga's suggestion from page 1 looks really good IMO). But trying to wordsmith your way around their change of the rule and pretending that when they say "we changed this" they really mean "we didn't change anything" is just ridiculous IMO.
If you read in the book instead of the D&DB class description it isn't actually listed as 3 separate features but as a single one that gets upgraded.
Actually, it's both. The level 5 feature says it changes at levels 11 and 20, but there are also specific features at levels 11 and 20. Which I guess means a level 20 can attack 1, 3, or 4 times, but not 2.
If you read in the book instead of the D&DB class description it isn't actually listed as 3 separate features but as a single one that gets upgraded.
Actually, it's both. The level 5 feature says it changes at levels 11 and 20, but there are also specific features at levels 11 and 20. Which I guess means a level 20 can attack 1, 3, or 4 times, but not 2.
No, there aren't. This is the layout when you look in the Player's Handbook, even on dndbeyond. I don't have a book in front of me to confirm, but suspect it's laid out this same way, with only a single Extra Attack feature:
Class Features
As a fighter, you gain the following class features.
Hit Points
Hit Dice: 1d10 per fighter level
Hit Points at 1st Level: 10 + your Constitution modifier
Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d10 (or 6) + your Constitution modifier per fighter level after 1st
You start with the following equipment, in addition to the equipment granted by your background:
(a) chain mail or (b) leather armor, longbow, and 20 arrows
(a) a martial weapon and a shield or (b) two martial weapons
(a) a light crossbow and 20 bolts or (b) two handaxes
(a) a dungeoneer’s pack or (b) an explorer’s pack
Fighting Style
You adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty. Choose one of the following options. You can’t take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.
Archery
You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.
Defense
While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.
Dueling
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Great Weapon Fighting
When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.
Protection
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.
Second Wind
You have a limited well of stamina that you can draw on to protect yourself from harm. On your turn, you can use a bonus action to regain hit points equal to 1d10 + your fighter level. Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.
Action Surge
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action.
Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice before a rest, but only once on the same turn.
Martial Archetype
At 3rd level, you choose an archetype that you strive to emulate in your combat styles and techniques. Choose Champion, Battle Master, or Eldritch Knight, all detailed at the end of the class description. The archetype you choose grants you features at 3rd level and again at 7th, 10th, 15th, and 18th level.
Ability Score Improvement
When you reach 4th level, and again at 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th, and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. As normal, you can’t increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.
Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
Indomitable
Beginning at 9th level, you can reroll a saving throw that you fail. If you do so, you must use the new roll, and you can’t use this feature again until you finish a long rest.
You can use this feature twice between long rests starting at 13th level and three times between long rests starting at 17th level.
There's no slipping out of this for Bees. If they believe that Extra Attack is either a binary one attack (not using the feature at all), or using the maximum number of attacks it allows (2, 3, or 4 depending on level), with no ability to stop up short without not using the feature... than an Fighter 17 can only attack once or four time, never twice or three, because they only have one Extra Attack feature.
In plain English, when somebody tells you that you "can" have more than one of something, that is understood to mean that number of something or less, in most contexts. See also, you "can" Action Surge twice per day as a Fighter at 17th level, the feature has not removed your ability to only Action Surge once per day instead. A Druid "can use [Wild Shape] twice," which obviously means they can also use it just once.
I'm not sure there's any examples in 5E to be found of something that uses "you can ___ X times" to mean "only X times, no less", other than when X is "once." If you want to get all technical and demand to see where 5E spells out that "can ___ X times" should always be read "can ___ [up to] X times", you've got me, I doubt it spells that out as a cannon of general interpretation, if you don't already bring it with you as an unspoken understanding of how plain English uses "can."
That's fine and all for a fighter making 3 or 2 attacks, but you are still saying that any character that uses their attack action to make a single attack is using Extra Attack? They're making an attack once "instead of once"?
I'll say that they're benefiting from Extra Attack in that situation, about as much as they're benefiting from a feature that provides them a +1 AC bonus when a monster attacks them and misses by two or more, or when they're benefiting from a feature that gives them +10 speed but only move 30, etc etc.
In the first place, I'm not sure that 5E really invites a character to ever "not use" their passive features; even DMG Chapter 8 talks about same-name features always benefiting a character, but the character only applying the effect of one such feature at a time. At the point where a feature is on your character sheet, you're using it.
And in the second place, even if features can be "used" or "not used" based on what the character is doing on a round, I just really can't think of a similar feature that would show what you're talking about to make sense, a "use it to its fullest or don't use it at all" feature.
Extra Attack is not obligatory, when you take the Attack action you can attack multiple times or just once if you prefer. You gerenally attack when taking the Attack action but exception may exist.
Commander Strike and Pact of the Chain are exemples where one can take the Attack action without attacking. They allow you to make someone else attack, so while you're not attacking, there's still the possibility of an attack though, yet not by you.
The first attack definitely is one of those attacks so I still don't see it being that restrictive. But it is certainly possible that I'm reading it too openly.
Well the thing is that all the examples you are giving is allowing one choice, do this or don't. BSEA is affording you two different choices and as both of them are "can" I don't see them being that strictly chained.
Also as CC mentioned earlier, being as strict with the "use all or nothing" idea you guys seems to be how does that affect a high level fighter? Is he limited to choose between 1 and 4 attacks on a turn or can he do 2 or 3 if he wants to?
Address this head on: a Fighter 11 can attack once (by not using Extra Attack) or three times (by using Extra Attack), but not twice by using Extra Attack? And a Fighter 17, once or four times?
If not, how is that different than what you are saying?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Well, that's kind of why I keep asking, because no one seems to have offered up anything that seems like a giant loophole. As you suggested and as TexasDevin pointed out a couple pages ago, the examples brought up so far just burn your bonus action needlessly.
Casting create bonfire and then shoving someone into it sounds like a nifty tactic though.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Certainly, you’ve never shied away from a one of your readings of a rule because it didn’t make sense. I can certainly double down on it.
Oddly, though, EA(11) says that you can attack 3 times, instead of twice, indicating that twice is still apparently somehow an option.
I guess purely as a theoretical exercise, Extra Attack at different levels could be considered completely different features rather than just upgrades on the existing feature, if you really want to pursue this to the bitter end. If you only make two attacks, you've chosen to use the lesser version of Extra Attack.
I think that's ridiculous and serves absolutely no purpose, but hey, we've gotten this far.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm pretty sure we have abandoned the search for practical meaning, and we are now just embarking on a thought experiment that has nothing to do with using Shield Master bonus action shove, while taking place in a thread about using Shield Master bonus action shove. The point of the discussion is now simply about people winning a debate. What is the endgame here? If someone hypothetically manages to convince us that a Bladesinger can, in fact, take the attack action, attack one time, and cast a cantrip instead of making a traditional attack*... then what? Where does this exercise tie into the idea of using Shield Master shove as a bonus action?
Casting create bonfire and then shoving someone into it does sound like a nifty tactic. But so does simply attacking someone one time and then casting create bonfire on them without bothering with the unreliability of a wizard making a Strength (Athletics) check.
* setting aside the fact that a Bladesinger cannot even cast spells while wearing a shield unless they dip another class or have some other way of gaining proficiency with a shield.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If being able to use a BA shove is a benefit of taking the attack action, then, taking that BA is indeed an act that shows you have taken the attack action.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No one is claiming this.
Again, no one is claiming this. Are people propping it up as a strawman? Yeah. See the below exchange:
No. You absolutely use the attacks. The sequence would be:
The game does not specify the timing for when an action is or is not taken. it is taken when you say it is taken. Simply Take the Attack Action then cram the BA Shove in before the Attacks from that action. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn". Just choose: to take that BA between the taking the attack action and making the attack.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
He's allowed to use the level 5 or 11 versions of the feature, they aren't removed.
If you read in the book instead of the D&DB class description it isn't actually listed as 3 separate features but as a single one that gets upgraded.
So you want to be able to use SM even though you haven't actually taken the attack that SM has as a prerequisite? Yea I call shenanigans on that. ;)
Don't get me wrong, it would make a lot more sense if SM allowed for a a shove first and attacks second and it was stupid of them to not fix the feat when they "corrected" the timing issue. But it doesn't... That was the whole point of the change they made in the SAC.
And this is what makes this whole discussion so stupid. If you don't like the change they made then don't use it, use the old ruling. Or make your own homebrew (Saga's suggestion from page 1 looks really good IMO). But trying to wordsmith your way around their change of the rule and pretending that when they say "we changed this" they really mean "we didn't change anything" is just ridiculous IMO.
Actually, it's both. The level 5 feature says it changes at levels 11 and 20, but there are also specific features at levels 11 and 20. Which I guess means a level 20 can attack 1, 3, or 4 times, but not 2.
No, there aren't. This is the layout when you look in the Player's Handbook, even on dndbeyond. I don't have a book in front of me to confirm, but suspect it's laid out this same way, with only a single Extra Attack feature:
There's no slipping out of this for Bees. If they believe that Extra Attack is either a binary one attack (not using the feature at all), or using the maximum number of attacks it allows (2, 3, or 4 depending on level), with no ability to stop up short without not using the feature... than an Fighter 17 can only attack once or four time, never twice or three, because they only have one Extra Attack feature.
That's ridiculous.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And yet it is what the text says. Does it offer you those other numbers? Really? Or are you just taking a convenient reading?
Are you really saying that Extra Attack works differently than every other feature for reasons? What text support do you have for those reasons?
In plain English, when somebody tells you that you "can" have more than one of something, that is understood to mean that number of something or less, in most contexts. See also, you "can" Action Surge twice per day as a Fighter at 17th level, the feature has not removed your ability to only Action Surge once per day instead. A Druid "can use [Wild Shape] twice," which obviously means they can also use it just once.
I'm not sure there's any examples in 5E to be found of something that uses "you can ___ X times" to mean "only X times, no less", other than when X is "once." If you want to get all technical and demand to see where 5E spells out that "can ___ X times" should always be read "can ___ [up to] X times", you've got me, I doubt it spells that out as a cannon of general interpretation, if you don't already bring it with you as an unspoken understanding of how plain English uses "can."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's fine and all for a fighter making 3 or 2 attacks, but you are still saying that any character that uses their attack action to make a single attack is using Extra Attack? They're making an attack once "instead of once"?
I'll say that they're benefiting from Extra Attack in that situation, about as much as they're benefiting from a feature that provides them a +1 AC bonus when a monster attacks them and misses by two or more, or when they're benefiting from a feature that gives them +10 speed but only move 30, etc etc.
In the first place, I'm not sure that 5E really invites a character to ever "not use" their passive features; even DMG Chapter 8 talks about same-name features always benefiting a character, but the character only applying the effect of one such feature at a time. At the point where a feature is on your character sheet, you're using it.
And in the second place, even if features can be "used" or "not used" based on what the character is doing on a round, I just really can't think of a similar feature that would show what you're talking about to make sense, a "use it to its fullest or don't use it at all" feature.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ok, so they attack "once instead of once." Perfectly reasonable.
Nope, they attack once, using an Attack that allows them to attack
onceonce or twice, due to their Extra Attack feature.dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Extra Attack is not obligatory, when you take the Attack action you can attack multiple times or just once if you prefer. You gerenally attack when taking the Attack action but exception may exist.
Commander Strike and Pact of the Chain are exemples where one can take the Attack action without attacking. They allow you to make someone else attack, so while you're not attacking, there's still the possibility of an attack though, yet not by you.