There’s no language in shield master that would require “after you complete” rather than mid-action “when you take”… quite the opposite. If you want to read unwritten language in to restrict the feat to the point of providing the fighter zero benefit (unless they action surge)… I guess be my guest, but there’s no “after” or “completed” or anything of the sort.
There’s no language in shield master that would require “after you complete” rather than mid-action “when you take”… quite the opposite. If you want to read unwritten language in to restrict the feat to the point of providing the fighter zero benefit (unless they action surge)… I guess be my guest, but there’s no “after” or “completed” or anything of the sort.
Please consult the often quoted SAC on Shield Master.
Shield Master
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action?
No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.
There’s no language in shield master that would require “after you complete” rather than mid-action “when you take”… quite the opposite. If you want to read unwritten language in to restrict the feat to the point of providing the fighter zero benefit (unless they action surge)… I guess be my guest, but there’s no “after” or “completed” or anything of the sort.
Please consult the often quoted SAC on Shield Master.
Shield Master
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action?
No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.
Yes, please read it. It says what C_C says: that you can't take the bonus action until after you've taken the Attack action, not that you can't take the bonus action until after the Attack action is over. C_C's position as I understand it is the same as mine: that there is no rule stating that you haven't taken an action until after the action is over, and as a corollary, as soon as you've begun an action, you qualify as having taken it.
There’s no language in shield master that would require “after you complete” rather than mid-action “when you take”… quite the opposite. If you want to read unwritten language in to restrict the feat to the point of providing the fighter zero benefit (unless they action surge)… I guess be my guest, but there’s no “after” or “completed” or anything of the sort.
I think that is because the feat was written at a time or for a situation when there was no way to do multiple things inside an Atack Action.
Yes, please read it. It says what C_C says: that you can't take the bonus action until after you've taken the Attack action, not that you can't take the bonus action until after the Attack action is over. C_C's position as I understand it is the same as mine: that there is no rule stating that you haven't taken an action until after the action is over, and as a corollary, as soon as you've begun an action, you qualify as having taken it.
An Attack Action contains one or more attacks; thus it defines a period of time and so is not complete until you've made all your attacks that comprise that Attack action.
I didn't understand the earlier discussion about whether an Attack action occurs before or after an attack since an Attack action always comprises one or more attacks. The Attack action is not an instantaneous thing.
Saying that you can't do something until after you've taken the Attack action therefore implies that you have completed all your attacks that you've chosen to take as part of the Attack action that you chose to do.
There’s no language in shield master that would require “after you complete” rather than mid-action “when you take”… quite the opposite. If you want to read unwritten language in to restrict the feat to the point of providing the fighter zero benefit (unless they action surge)… I guess be my guest, but there’s no “after” or “completed” or anything of the sort.
Please consult the often quoted SAC on Shield Master.
Shield Master
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action?
No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.
Yes, please read it. It says what C_C says: that you can't take the bonus action until after you've taken the Attack action, not that you can't take the bonus action until after the Attack action is over. C_C's position as I understand it is the same as mine: that there is no rule stating that you haven't taken an action until after the action is over, and as a corollary, as soon as you've begun an action, you qualify as having taken it.
"Taken" is past tense.
If you require an action to be "taken" before you can do something else... you must necessarily do that something else after the action is "taken".
This is some truly basic grammar here and I'm not sure there is any point trying to really drive this point across any further. "Taken" is past tense. You know what that means, so do I, we all do.
You’ve taken the attack action as soon as you have attacked, even if you haven’t completed the action. I’m with everyone else on that part.
Right. There's no sane reason to believe you need to complete the action in order to take it. The part that's hard to suss (and I don't claim to know the answer, I'm just trying to emphasize how hard it is to answer) is how to know when the action has genuinely started.
We're established this is false. I have outlined not only how to take an Attack action with no attacks in it (Bladesinger) but also how to take an Attack action that seems to force you to commit to attacking later after you do something that isn't attacking (Horizon Walker). Bladesinger only sets limited precedent, if any - it could well be that a Bladesinger's Attack action starts once they cast a cantrip, should they choose for this action to be Attack rather than Cast a Spell. Horizon Walker is also limited - it's entirely possible that the first teleport happens before the Attack action begins. I'm not saying I have any answers, just that I have questions not really answered by others.
You’ve taken the attack action as soon as you have attacked, even if you haven’t completed the action.
You're describing "taking" the attack action.
If you can attack twice, and have already attacked once and are going to but haven't yet attacked a second time... you're "taking" the attack action.
"Taken" the attack action means it is over. Whether you attacked once or a hundred time, the action is over if you've "taken" it. But until it is over you haven't "taken" it. You'd only be "taking" it.
If you do genuinely disagree. Please tell use what verb tense of "take" would indicate that the action was over? If not "taken" what word conveys this timing?
The fact there is no answer is your answer. "Taken" refers to after the action is complete. "Taking" is while it is ongoing.
You’ve taken the attack action as soon as you have attacked, even if you haven’t completed the action.
You're describing "taking" the attack action.
If you can attack twice, and have already attacked once and are going to but haven't yet attacked a second time... you're "taking" the attack action.
True. You are currently taking the action, which is grammatically equivalent to answering "yes" to "have you taken the action yet?".
"Taken" the attack action means it is over.
False. Not how English works.
Whether you attacked once or a hundred time, the action is over if you've "taken" it.
Nope.
But until it is over you haven't "taken" it.
Nope.
You'd only be "taking" it.
Grammatically identical.
If you do genuinely disagree. Please tell use what verb tense of "take" would indicate that the action was over?
None.
If not "taken" what word conveys this timing?
Completed and finished are two examples of (conjugated) verbs that convey the finality required.
The fact there is no answer is your answer. "Taken" refers to after the action is complete. "Taking" is while it is ongoing.
Covered above. Not how the English language works.
For example, suppose someone parks in my parking spot, and I sue them. The lawsuit is still ongoing. If someone asks me if I have sued them yet, the answer is yes, even though the suit itself is an ongoing process which has not yet been completed. Many verbs work this way.
You’ve taken the attack action as soon as you have attacked, even if you haven’t completed the action.
You're describing "taking" the attack action.
If you can attack twice, and have already attacked once and are going to but haven't yet attacked a second time... you're "taking" the attack action.
True. You are currently taking the action, which is grammatically equivalent to answering "yes" to "have you taken the action yet?".
"Taken" the attack action means it is over.
False. Not how English works.
Whether you attacked once or a hundred time, the action is over if you've "taken" it.
Nope.
But until it is over you haven't "taken" it.
Nope.
You'd only be "taking" it.
Grammatically identical.
If you do genuinely disagree. Please tell use what verb tense of "take" would indicate that the action was over?
None.
If not "taken" what word conveys this timing?
Completed and finished are two examples of (conjugated) verbs that convey the finality required.
The fact there is no answer is your answer. "Taken" refers to after the action is complete. "Taking" is while it is ongoing.
Covered above. Not how the English language works.
For example, suppose someone parks in my parking spot, and I sue them. The lawsuit is still ongoing. If someone asks me if I have sued them yet, the answer is yes, even though the suit itself is an ongoing process which has not yet been completed. Many verbs work this way.
Past tense and present tense verbs aren't the same. Past tense refers to verbs that have already happened. Present tense refers to verbs that are happening now. This really isn't the place to be teaching someone something this fundamental. GL in your games though! If whatever you're doing is working for you, more power to you, but we're going to fundamentally read these rules differently.
English gonna English. Nothing in Shield Master is past tense, and to the extent SAC may have introduced that implication itself (without RAW support for doing so), it’s author has clarified they didn’t mean to and wouldn’t rule that way themself.
I don’t understand trying to fight on a hill that you don’t even support, on this one. Are you trying to prove that the RAW is something undesirable, to better justify wholly disregarding it to allow shoving even earlier?
Taken is not part of the feat verbiage, but the Sage Advice. Shield Master only cares if you take the Attack action, which you do when attacking at least once.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There’s no language in shield master that would require “after you complete” rather than mid-action “when you take”… quite the opposite. If you want to read unwritten language in to restrict the feat to the point of providing the fighter zero benefit (unless they action surge)… I guess be my guest, but there’s no “after” or “completed” or anything of the sort.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Please consult the often quoted SAC on Shield Master.
I got quotes!
Yes, please read it. It says what C_C says: that you can't take the bonus action until after you've taken the Attack action, not that you can't take the bonus action until after the Attack action is over. C_C's position as I understand it is the same as mine: that there is no rule stating that you haven't taken an action until after the action is over, and as a corollary, as soon as you've begun an action, you qualify as having taken it.
I think that is because the feat was written at a time or for a situation when there was no way to do multiple things inside an Atack Action.
An Attack Action contains one or more attacks; thus it defines a period of time and so is not complete until you've made all your attacks that comprise that Attack action.
I didn't understand the earlier discussion about whether an Attack action occurs before or after an attack since an Attack action always comprises one or more attacks. The Attack action is not an instantaneous thing.
Saying that you can't do something until after you've taken the Attack action therefore implies that you have completed all your attacks that you've chosen to take as part of the Attack action that you chose to do.
"Taken" is past tense.
If you require an action to be "taken" before you can do something else... you must necessarily do that something else after the action is "taken".
This is some truly basic grammar here and I'm not sure there is any point trying to really drive this point across any further. "Taken" is past tense. You know what that means, so do I, we all do.
I got quotes!
You’ve taken the attack action as soon as you have attacked, even if you haven’t completed the action. I’m with everyone else on that part.
Right. There's no sane reason to believe you need to complete the action in order to take it. The part that's hard to suss (and I don't claim to know the answer, I'm just trying to emphasize how hard it is to answer) is how to know when the action has genuinely started.
We're established this is false. I have outlined not only how to take an Attack action with no attacks in it (Bladesinger) but also how to take an Attack action that seems to force you to commit to attacking later after you do something that isn't attacking (Horizon Walker). Bladesinger only sets limited precedent, if any - it could well be that a Bladesinger's Attack action starts once they cast a cantrip, should they choose for this action to be Attack rather than Cast a Spell. Horizon Walker is also limited - it's entirely possible that the first teleport happens before the Attack action begins. I'm not saying I have any answers, just that I have questions not really answered by others.
You're describing "taking" the attack action.
If you can attack twice, and have already attacked once and are going to but haven't yet attacked a second time... you're "taking" the attack action.
"Taken" the attack action means it is over. Whether you attacked once or a hundred time, the action is over if you've "taken" it. But until it is over you haven't "taken" it. You'd only be "taking" it.
If you do genuinely disagree. Please tell use what verb tense of "take" would indicate that the action was over? If not "taken" what word conveys this timing?
The fact there is no answer is your answer. "Taken" refers to after the action is complete. "Taking" is while it is ongoing.
I got quotes!
No. Taken does not mean complete. We have a word for completed, it is “completed.”
True. You are currently taking the action, which is grammatically equivalent to answering "yes" to "have you taken the action yet?".
False. Not how English works.
Nope.
Nope.
Grammatically identical.
None.
Completed and finished are two examples of (conjugated) verbs that convey the finality required.
Covered above. Not how the English language works.
For example, suppose someone parks in my parking spot, and I sue them. The lawsuit is still ongoing. If someone asks me if I have sued them yet, the answer is yes, even though the suit itself is an ongoing process which has not yet been completed. Many verbs work this way.
How should I interpret the word "after" in that sentence?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The way I want you to
upvote for honesty
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Past tense and present tense verbs aren't the same. Past tense refers to verbs that have already happened. Present tense refers to verbs that are happening now. This really isn't the place to be teaching someone something this fundamental. GL in your games though! If whatever you're doing is working for you, more power to you, but we're going to fundamentally read these rules differently.
I got quotes!
English gonna English. Nothing in Shield Master is past tense, and to the extent SAC may have introduced that implication itself (without RAW support for doing so), it’s author has clarified they didn’t mean to and wouldn’t rule that way themself.
I don’t understand trying to fight on a hill that you don’t even support, on this one. Are you trying to prove that the RAW is something undesirable, to better justify wholly disregarding it to allow shoving even earlier?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
They are not grammatically equivalent at all.
When asked "have you taken the action yet?" the answer would be "no, I am still taking the action". (the tense being different).
Taken is not part of the feat verbiage, but the Sage Advice. Shield Master only cares if you take the Attack action, which you do when attacking at least once.