AFTER you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
Personally, I very much like the variant suggested above:
If you attempt to Shove a creature with your shield during your attack, you may make a single melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
It does (most of) what the mechanically superior version did, without opaque wording (it doesn't let you both grapple and shove unless you have extra attacks).
Which happens first? When you take the attack action to make an attack... which happened first? Did you take the action first, or did you make the attack first? Sequentially, one happened before the other.
I have a hard time seeing them as sequential tbh, I view them as interdependent but working on different levels. Making an attack is the in-game act my character performs. Taking the attack action is the rule-mechanic I as a player use to allow my character to make that attack.
So taking the attack action is necessary to be able to make an attack, but without an attack being made then the attack action hasn't been taken. Call it announced or declared or suggested or whatever but saying that the action is taken without the character actually doing anything just doesn't sit right with me.
Which happens first? When you take the attack action to make an attack... which happened first? Did you take the action first, or did you make the attack first? Sequentially, one happened before the other.
I have a hard time seeing them as sequential tbh, I view them as interdependent but working on different levels. Making an attack is the in-game act my character performs. Taking the attack action is the rule-mechanic I as a player use to allow my character to make that attack.
So taking the attack action is necessary to be able to make an attack, but without an attack being made then the attack action hasn't been taken. Call it announced or declared or suggested or whatever but saying that the action is taken without the character actually doing anything just doesn't sit right with me.
If you believe they're simultaneous, which i don't but can totally understand how someone could... but if you do believe they're simultaneous, then:
In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature's turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster's turn, the person at the game table - whether player or DM - who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen.
This would mean that whoever's turn it is, ie our BA Shover, gets to determine if they took the action or make the attack first even though they are happening simultaneously. And, they can freely determine to interject that BA Shove right after deciding that they took the action first, before 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.
What happens first, your turn or the the actions you take in it?
Youre taking a weird view of actions and attacks being sequential effects, which isn’t language that is in any way coherent for them. Neither the action nor the attack are before each other, you are taking the action by making the attack… there’s no point at which you’re using Attack before the attack is made, and no point during making that attack that Attack has not yet been taken.
What happens first, your turn or the the actions you take in it?
Your turn.
The start of your turn happens before you can take any actions or etc. This is known, and uncontroversial.
Youre taking a weird view of actions and attacks being sequential effects, which isn’t language that is in any way coherent for them.
Everything is sequential. If that was ever in question the quote I just provide clears that up. Everything is sequential.
"In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature's turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster's turn, the person at the game table - whether player or DM - who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen."
Nothing happens simultaneously as a result. If two things would happen simultaneously, the player or DM whose turn it is decides the order. This is spelled out in black and white.
Neither the action nor the attack are before each other, you are taking the action by making the attack… there’s no point at which you’re using Attack before the attack is made, and no point during making that attack that Attack has not yet been taken.
If something happens at the same time, the player whose turn it is decides which order they go in. It isn't weird. it isn't "my take". It is just a straightforward reading of the rule for how to resolve simultaneous events.
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.
Extra Attack more than creates ambiguity. It proves that interpretation is wrong.
How, exactly? There's absolutely 0 textual support for "actions are permission slips to do things." So if I'm wrong and you're wrong, we're going to need a third option.
Making extra attacks is not simultaneous but sequencial since you you possibly be moving between attacks.
Moving between Attacks: If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack, looks pretty direct to me. Probably why the Dev say you can use the BA after first attack if you have more
And Rav is arguing that saying you are taking the attack action is enough, actually making one (or more) attack(s) can wait until after doing the BA shove. Hence the disagreement.
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack, looks pretty direct to me. Probably why the Dev say you can use the BA after first attack if you have more
They don't say that. Actually.
They say that the bonus action must come after the attack action.
While discussing this ruling, the devs at no time make even a single reference to "making an attack" for adjudicating the timing. They only and always make reference to the "action" itself. As for the timing of the attack(s) they are and have always remained silent.
I've seen this mix-up a few times in this thread and just wanted to clarify.
Here is the full quote from SAC to refresh yourself with:
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
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.
If the arm has not yet swung the sword, is there really anything there other than intention? And even if there was a moment between taking the attack action and making the attack (my position is that there is not), that moment would occur during the attack action rather than after it, right?
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack, looks pretty direct to me. Probably why the Dev say you can use the BA after first attack if you have more
They don't say that. Actually.
They say that the bonus action must come after the attack action.
I meant on twitter not Sage Advice but i might mix with another of his ruling as i can't find it anymore.
@psychman27 When you take the Attack action, is the trigger for the two-weapon fighting bonus action attack the entire Attack action or a single attack within the attack action? Can that particular bonus action interrupt the Attack action?
@JeremyECrawford As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows.
So it's clear JC tweets can't be trusted to match the RAW. Since he's demonstrably wrong about bonus action timing coming between attacks in a single action, why assume he's right about bonus action timing coming before attacks in a single action?
Let's make this messier, to lean into how hard it is to know when an action has occurred. Suppose Jim is an L6 Bladesinger/L11 Horizon Walker with the Shield Master feat. Jim's goal is to cast Create Bonfire and bonus action shove Bob into the Bonfire; Bob is 15 feet away.
Suppose Jim is willing to stab Bob to make this happen. If Jim teleports prior to stabbing Bob, bearing in mind that the teleport is legal if and only if Jim is attacking, has the Attack action begun yet between the teleport and the stab?
If actions aren't abstract - if declaring intent doesn't matter - can Jim teleport 10 feet prior to his "attack", then swap the attack for Create Bonfire, even though this retroactively makes the teleport illegal?
It would be relevant but he is very specifically discussing how he'd run a game as a DM and what he would and wouldn't do at his table. Has nothing to do with RAW or even RAI, just general DM tips. That missing context is exactly what ptrouley is responding to. Odd to cut that bit out... unless you're just continuing the convo from the prior post, but then that isn't super clear. Anyway, he is responding to the tweet that starts:
As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action
Funny enough, this suggests he acknowledges that you can't, by default, do so. So the only two RAI answers remaining are either: BA Shove can only happen after the full attack action is completed entirely. Or that you can interrupt the action before attacks. His followup tweet, that you quote, rules out the second one.
Thus, RAI, you can only BA shove after the full action is completed. Though, again, I'm not even sure RAI is the right term for discussing how JC runs a game vs how the game itself is intended to be run. There is a subtle distinction there.
Also, just as an aside, I think it is hilarious that he said "The attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction". Comedy gold.
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.
Someone once said, "RAW<RAI. You let a badly written rule dictate your play? Play as intended," but obviously, we are free to decide whether we care about guidance that is not printed in the books.
That's what i said, Dev seem to think that taking the Attack action and attacking once fullfil the ''take the Attack action'' clause for the purpose of Shield Master. I highly doubt he is houseruling or homebrewing the feat so if he adjucates it that way, it's safe to assume it's not against the rules.
Thus, RAI, you can only BA shove after the full action is completed. Though, again, I'm not even sure RAI is the right term for discussing how JC runs a game vs how the game itself is intended to be run. There is a subtle distinction there.
This is my interpretation of RAI and it is IMO also where RAW ends up (this isn't as explicit in the language but it's how I read it).
Of course as I've said before it means Shield Master is a lot less interesting that what it was (and should be probably) so my suggestion would be to homebrew oneself out of it.
That's what i said, Dev seem to think that taking the Attack action and attacking once fullfil the ''take the Attack action'' clause for the purpose of Shield Master. I highly doubt he is houseruling or homebrewing the feat so if he adjucates it that way, it's safe to assume it's not against the rules.
Going by his twitter answers it seems fairly clear that he homebrews it on several occasions though so I'm not sure that's a safe assumption at all.
Personally, I very much like the variant suggested above:
It does (most of) what the mechanically superior version did, without opaque wording (it doesn't let you both grapple and shove unless you have extra attacks).
I have a hard time seeing them as sequential tbh, I view them as interdependent but working on different levels. Making an attack is the in-game act my character performs. Taking the attack action is the rule-mechanic I as a player use to allow my character to make that attack.
So taking the attack action is necessary to be able to make an attack, but without an attack being made then the attack action hasn't been taken. Call it announced or declared or suggested or whatever but saying that the action is taken without the character actually doing anything just doesn't sit right with me.
If you believe they're simultaneous, which i don't but can totally understand how someone could... but if you do believe they're simultaneous, then:
This would mean that whoever's turn it is, ie our BA Shover, gets to determine if they took the action or make the attack first even though they are happening simultaneously. And, they can freely determine to interject that BA Shove right after deciding that they took the action first, before 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.
What happens first, your turn or the the actions you take in it?
Youre taking a weird view of actions and attacks being sequential effects, which isn’t language that is in any way coherent for them. Neither the action nor the attack are before each other, you are taking the action by making the attack… there’s no point at which you’re using Attack before the attack is made, and no point during making that attack that Attack has not yet been taken.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Your turn.
The start of your turn happens before you can take any actions or etc. This is known, and uncontroversial.
Everything is sequential. If that was ever in question the quote I just provide clears that up. Everything is sequential.
"In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature's turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster's turn, the person at the game table - whether player or DM - who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen."
Nothing happens simultaneously as a result. If two things would happen simultaneously, the player or DM whose turn it is decides the order. This is spelled out in black and white.
If something happens at the same time, the player whose turn it is decides which order they go in. It isn't weird. it isn't "my take". It is just a straightforward reading of the rule for how to resolve simultaneous events.
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.
How, exactly? There's absolutely 0 textual support for "actions are permission slips to do things." So if I'm wrong and you're wrong, we're going to need a third option.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Making extra attacks is not simultaneous but sequencial since you you possibly be moving between attacks.
Moving between Attacks: If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
That’s not the part we’re disagreeing about. Rav things taking the attack action, and making your first melee attack, are sequential in either order.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack, looks pretty direct to me. Probably why the Dev say you can use the BA after first attack if you have more
And Rav is arguing that saying you are taking the attack action is enough, actually making one (or more) attack(s) can wait until after doing the BA shove. Hence the disagreement.
They don't say that. Actually.
They say that the bonus action must come after the attack action.
While discussing this ruling, the devs at no time make even a single reference to "making an attack" for adjudicating the timing. They only and always make reference to the "action" itself. As for the timing of the attack(s) they are and have always remained silent.
I've seen this mix-up a few times in this thread and just wanted to clarify.
Here is the full quote from SAC to refresh yourself with:
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.
If the arm has not yet swung the sword, is there really anything there other than intention? And even if there was a moment between taking the attack action and making the attack (my position is that there is not), that moment would occur during the attack action rather than after it, right?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I meant on twitter not Sage Advice but i might mix with another of his ruling as i can't find it anymore.
EDIT Found it. https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105183657877135360
@psychman27 When you take the Attack action, is the trigger for the two-weapon fighting bonus action attack the entire Attack action or a single attack within the attack action? Can that particular bonus action interrupt the Attack action?
@JeremyECrawford As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows.
This one feels relevant too.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Sure, but here's an example of a JC tweet simply contradicting the RAW in the PHB:
JC: "No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action."
Actual RAW: "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, [...]"
So it's clear JC tweets can't be trusted to match the RAW. Since he's demonstrably wrong about bonus action timing coming between attacks in a single action, why assume he's right about bonus action timing coming before attacks in a single action?
Let's make this messier, to lean into how hard it is to know when an action has occurred. Suppose Jim is an L6 Bladesinger/L11 Horizon Walker with the Shield Master feat. Jim's goal is to cast Create Bonfire and bonus action shove Bob into the Bonfire; Bob is 15 feet away.
It would be relevant but he is very specifically discussing how he'd run a game as a DM and what he would and wouldn't do at his table. Has nothing to do with RAW or even RAI, just general DM tips. That missing context is exactly what ptrouley is responding to. Odd to cut that bit out... unless you're just continuing the convo from the prior post, but then that isn't super clear. Anyway, he is responding to the tweet that starts:
Funny enough, this suggests he acknowledges that you can't, by default, do so. So the only two RAI answers remaining are either: BA Shove can only happen after the full attack action is completed entirely. Or that you can interrupt the action before attacks. His followup tweet, that you quote, rules out the second one.
Thus, RAI, you can only BA shove after the full action is completed. Though, again, I'm not even sure RAI is the right term for discussing how JC runs a game vs how the game itself is intended to be run. There is a subtle distinction there.
Also, just as an aside, I think it is hilarious that he said "The attack action in D&D isn't an abstraction". Comedy gold.
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.
Someone once said, "RAW<RAI. You let a badly written rule dictate your play? Play as intended," but obviously, we are free to decide whether we care about guidance that is not printed in the books.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That's what i said, Dev seem to think that taking the Attack action and attacking once fullfil the ''take the Attack action'' clause for the purpose of Shield Master. I highly doubt he is houseruling or homebrewing the feat so if he adjucates it that way, it's safe to assume it's not against the rules.
This is my interpretation of RAI and it is IMO also where RAW ends up (this isn't as explicit in the language but it's how I read it).
Of course as I've said before it means Shield Master is a lot less interesting that what it was (and should be probably) so my suggestion would be to homebrew oneself out of it.
Going by his twitter answers it seems fairly clear that he homebrews it on several occasions though so I'm not sure that's a safe assumption at all.
For what it's worth, it looks like this is something we see eye to eye on.
"Not all those who wander are lost"