Let's get into the nitty-gritty here and get all super pedantic... today's lesson is on verb tenses, and why they're critical when discussing triggering conditional events.
If you take the Attack action on your turn,
The word here is "Take", not "Taken". Present tense, not past tense.
Picture this scenario: I get to a fork in the road and take the left path.
In this scenario, where am I? Have I taken the path to my destination? Or, am I just taking my first step onto the path? Maybe I'm somewhere already on it at an undetermined point? You don't know because "Take" doesn't answer those questions, nor does it specify how complete of an action it is. It only specifies that the action has, at a minimum, begun.
The point is that the if/then conditionality of the feat wording requires a present tense, not a past tense trigger. You do not need to have taken an attack action, you need to take one. Present tense. Because of that distinction, it is a straight up lie to say that you need to have completed an action for the bonus action to be available. The wording is present tense, and thus the moment you enter the transitive timeframe of beginning the action you become eligible for the trigger event of using the bonus action to shove.
Still not convinced? Let's modify our earlier thought experiment with a trigger. The path is blessed and I'm a vampire so: if I take the left path I will burst into flames.
So Again, picture: I get to a fork in the road and take the left path.
Did I burst into flames the moment my foot touched the path or after I finished taking the path?
Let's get into the nitty-gritty here and get all super pedantic... today's lesson is on verb tenses, and why they're critical when discussing triggering conditional events.
If you take the Attack action on your turn,
The word here is "Take", not "Taken". Present tense, not past tense.
Picture this scenario: I get to a fork in the road and take the left path.
In this scenario, where am I? Have I taken the path to my destination? Or, am I just taking my first step onto the path? Maybe I'm somewhere already on it at an undetermined point? You don't know because "Take" doesn't answer those questions, nor does it specify how complete of an action it is. It only specifies that the action has, at a minimum, begun.
The point is that the if/then conditionality of the feat wording requires a present tense, not a past tense trigger. You do not need to have taken an attack action, you need to take one. Present tense. Because of that distinction, it is a straight up lie to say that you need to have completed an action for the bonus action to be available. The wording is present tense, and thus the moment you enter the transitive timeframe of beginning the action you become eligible for the trigger event of using the bonus action to shove.
Still not convinced? Let's modify our earlier thought experiment with a trigger. The path is blessed and I'm a vampire so: if I take the left path I will burst into flames.
So Again, picture: I get to a fork in the road and take the left path.
Did I burst into flames the moment my foot touched the path or after I finished taking the path?
When does the 'taking' of the Attack action start?
Does it start when you say the words "I am taking the Attack action"? Does it start when you roll a die as part of an attack (little 'a')?
There's no action declaration phase in 5e, so it's not immediately clear. But let's use your fork in the road analogy--your 'taking' of the left fork in the road doesn't start when you say the words "I am taking the left path". It starts when you set foot on the path. So what is the proper analog in a D&D combat situation to your actually taking your first step on the path? When does your taking of the Attack action begin?
Seems plausible to say it begins when you make an attack roll. Your taking of the left path doesn't start until you take an action of walking onto that path. Actually doing something, not just saying you are going to do something. Your taking of the Attack action, if this is a good analogy at all, would be rolling to hit--actually doing something. Until you set foot on the path, you have not entered into the status of 'taking the path'. Until you roll to attack something, you have not entered into the status of 'taking the Attack action'.
So on this analogy, it means that you cannot do something triggered by "If you take the Attack action" until you make an attack role. Now the question would be--can you interrupt an attack (little 'a') with another attack or action? Can you make an attack roll for your sword, pause before you roll for damage or other effects, make a Bonus attack roll with your shield, determine the effects of the shield roll, and then finish adjudicating the sword attack? I'd say no.
There's no action declaration phase in 5e, so it's not immediately clear. But let's use your fork in the road analogy--your 'taking' of the left fork in the road doesn't start when you say the words "I am taking the left path". It starts when you set foot on the path. So what is the proper analog in a D&D combat situation to your actually taking your first step on the path? When does your taking of the Attack action begin?
Seems plausible to say it begins when you make an attack roll. Your taking of the left path doesn't start until you take an action of walking onto that path. Actually doing something, not just saying you are going to do something.
Combat isn't you make one swing with a sword per attack roll. A round is 6 seconds... if you are making a single slash with your sword every 6 seconds you're doing it wrong. Combat is abstract, you declare your actions and then the outcome is narrated to match them. Declare you're taking the attack action, and then use the bonus action.
You can narrate the results however you like. You swing your sword, and as they parry it, you use the opportunity to shoulder them into the ground with your shield, then you strike down, hitting true, as they can no longer defend properly. That could be 2 seconds right there... combat happens fast. When you make an attack it just means your focus that round is on attacking, not that you make a literal single swipe.
Anyway, so your attack begins when your character starts attacking and being hostile, but you get to decide, as the player, because the rules say so, when the bonus action happens in the turn. So you declare it happens before the attack action gets resolved. What that looks like from the character's perspectives is that you engage in combat, then succeed (or fail) in a shove maneuver, and then continue the melee (successfully or otherwise, by resolving the attack action).
So the attack action doesn't represent a single swing, it could be a series of thrusts, jabs etc. But swinging would represent the beginning of an attack action and thus trigger the eligibility to resolve the bonus action shove. Thereafter you continue the attack action and resolve it.
In short, the attack actions begins when you say it does because you're in control of your own character, and the rules very clearly tell you you get to decide when the bonus action occurs during your own turn.
In my games, I have decided that shields are not weapons of any kind, because weapons are something you carry, not something you wear.
A shield is like a gauntlet or a helm or a suit of armour or a pair of boots - it's worn. It takes time to don and doff. It can't be disarmed or stolen (generally).
That's not strictly true; some shields are held rather than strapped to your arm. Either way, you should keep in mind that wielding a shield doesn't count as wearing armor for rules purposes. You can wield a shield and still benefit from Mage Armor, for example.
I don't understand how you go from recognizing that shoving doesn't require a weapon or any anything else specific beyond the capacity to take the Attack action, to concluding that you therefore can't use your shield to shove. The same logic would allow you to conclude that you can't shove with a weapon, a shoulder, a kick, etc...
You can describe your shove however you want, but RAW the Shove action has nothing to do with your weapons or your shield. It's one thing to describe that you're using your weapon for narrative purposes; I doubt any DM would care about that. But it's another thing to try to use the Shove rule to trip someone 10 feet away using a reach weapon, or say that you're using your weapon just to try to qualify for other rules like TWF or whatever. That's going to fall under Improvising An Action and you'll have to run it past your DM.
JC's 2nd ruling is mistaken. It is a bit inexcusable for him to contradict a previous ruling while fully admitting that his ruling goes against the intent of the ability. Ignore his tweet, his 1st ruling is more accurate.
Nah, his 1st ruling was totally off the mark because it implied you could do the shove before taking the Attack action. Whether one attack is sufficient is a matter of semantics and RAW vs RAI but you definitely have to at least start the action.
But it's another thing to try to use the Shove rule to trip someone 10 feet away using a reach weapon
Curious to see how you interpret the following:
The rules for Shoving a Creature are found under the Making an Attack section of the chapter on Combat, and state that "The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach."
The Weapons section of the chapter on Equipment describes the Reach property as follows: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it."
To be honest, I think there is good reason to believe that someone who wanted to Shove an opponent with their Reach weapon should be allowed to do so.
I don't understand how you go from recognizing that shoving doesn't require a weapon or any anything else specific beyond the capacity to take the Attack action, to concluding that you therefore can't use your shield to shove. The same logic would allow you to conclude that you can't shove with a weapon, a shoulder, a kick, etc...
You can describe your shove however you want, but RAW the Shove action has nothing to do with your weapons or your shield. It's one thing to describe that you're using your weapon for narrative purposes; I doubt any DM would care about that. But it's another thing to try to use the Shove rule to trip someone 10 feet away using a reach weapon, or say that you're using your weapon just to try to qualify for other rules like TWF or whatever. That's going to fall under Improvising An Action and you'll have to run it past your DM.
Wait, so you're actually saying that a Shove is some telekinetic attack? Doesn't use your shield, or your weapons, and isn't an unarmed strike or uses an improvised weapon. It just magically happens without ever touching them? Tell us how you describe it in games? I'm curious.
JC's 2nd ruling is mistaken. It is a bit inexcusable for him to contradict a previous ruling while fully admitting that his ruling goes against the intent of the ability. Ignore his tweet, his 1st ruling is more accurate.
Nah, his 1st ruling was totally off the mark because it implied you could do the shove before taking the Attack action. Whether one attack is sufficient is a matter of semantics and RAW vs RAI but you definitely have to at least start the action.
The feat says "Take", not "Taken". By RAW this means you can bonus action before you hit with the attack.
His 1st ruling was dead on accurate. You can do the shove during the attack action.
That's not strictly true; some shields are held rather than strapped to your arm. Either way, you should keep in mind that wielding a shield doesn't count as wearing armor for rules purposes. You can wield a shield and still benefit from Mage Armor, for example.
I figure that all D&D shields are strapped, because they all require one Action to don and one Action to doff.
Wearing a shield doesn't count as armour for some features, true, but neither does wearing boots or a cloak or a helm. For simplicity I just use the ruling, "worn items are not weapons". It makes a lot of discussions (like this thread :-) go away.
Still not convinced? Let's modify our earlier thought experiment with a trigger. The path is blessed and I'm a vampire so: if I take the left path I will burst into flames.
So Again, picture: I get to a fork in the road and take the left path.
Did I burst into flames the moment my foot touched the path or after I finished taking the path?
The right hand path, on the other hand, is a mile long, but if you take it, you'll find a pot of gold.
So, when do I get the pot of gold? At the end, after walking a mile, or at the first step?
Bad analogy. Both options (bursting into flames from touching blessed ground, and finding something at the end of a path) have built-in timings. If "taking an Attack action" had an obvious, built-in timing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I got the impression from something I read that Crawford changed the ruling on Shield Master because there are other things that use the same wording as Shield Master but if the bonus action is allowed to go first, they don’t make sense. He was trying to be consistent on how he was interpreting “When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus attack...” He wasn’t saying Shield Master was broken and needed to be nerfed, he was saying it needed to be read a certain way to be consistent with other abilities, features, etc
When he explained how he would houserule it, I understood it as “in your home games, do what works for you”
The rules for Shoving a Creature are found under the Making an Attack section of the chapter on Combat, and state that "The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach."
The Weapons section of the chapter on Equipment describes the Reach property as follows: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it."
It makes sense for the shoving rules to be under Making an Attack, because shoving a creature is a "special attack". Not a weapon attack though. It's just an attack that falls outside of all the usual categories. It doesn't say you get to use your weapons, so mechanically you can't benefit from your weapon's properties, just like you can't go "I want to tackle him to the ground, but I have spiky armor, so I get to do damage too" or "he hits his head on the way down, so I do extra damage."
To be honest, I think there is good reason to believe that someone who wanted to Shove an opponent with their Reach weapon should be allowed to do so.
Sure. I'm not saying a player shouldn't be allowed to do that under any circumstances. I'm saying that's beyond the scope of the Shove rules, which means now you're in the scope of the Improvising An Action rule, which means the details are going to be up to your DM. They might let you do a regular shove, they might give you disadvantage on the attempt, they might even say "yeah, a polearm would be extra effective at that" and give you advantage! But you can't make any assumptions about how that's going to work until you talk to the DM.
Wait, so you're actually saying that a Shove is some telekinetic attack? Doesn't use your shield, or your weapons, and isn't an unarmed strike or uses an improvised weapon. It just magically happens without ever touching them? Tell us how you describe it in games? I'm curious.
Ugh, I'm not sure why I'm being misunderstood on this one point so much. I didn't figure this was a complicated subject.
The combat rules tell precisely you how each action works. If an action's rules don't say it does X, then it doesn't do X (for whatever value of X you want). The Attack action doesn't say you can cast a spell for free when you take that action, so you don't get to do that.
Players can add narrative flourishes to the mechanical decisions they make. The rules even say that explicitly, and the game's creators encourage it. It's a role-playing game after all.
You don't get any special benefits for adding narrative flourishes!
If a player says "I want to try to shove the skeleton prone," then cool. The rules clearly say they can try to do that and describe exactly how that happens. If they narrate that as "I sweep its leg with my glaive", I don't have a problem with that either as long as they're still following the Shove rules; the enemy's within 5 feet (or whatever their natural reach is), they make the contest as normal, etc. I don't care how they want to visualize the action. What they can't do is then say "Oh, shoving is an attack, and you let me use my glaive, so I get to use my Polearm Master bonus action." That part's up to the DM. Maybe you'd allow it, but that's besides the point. The bit about sweeping the leg was narrative fluff. Mechanically you're not making an attack with a weapon when you use the Shove rule, so they're going to have to run that part by the DM. If they want a reliable way to attack with their glaive and also shove prone that doesn't rely on the DM's approval, they can be a Battle Master or take the Martial Adept feat and learn the Trip Attack maneuver. That's exactly what it's there for.
You can describe your actions however you like, but you don't get to tack loop back around and add mechanics to what you're doing based on how you describe things. That's not your decision to make as a player.
And again, I'm not saying "you should never be allowed to do these things." The game has that Improvise An Action option for a reason. I'm saying players can't make assumptions about what the DM will allow when they want to go beyond the options the rules give them.
The feat says "Take", not "Taken". By RAW this means you can bonus action before you hit with the attack.
If you haven't made even a single attack, you haven't taken the Attack action yet, so no, you can't possibly take the bonus action before you hit with your first attack.
His 1st ruling was dead on accurate. You can do the shove during the attack action.
If by "during" you mean "in between the first attack and any additional attacks you might have", then maybe. It depends on how you choose to read it. I can see where he was coming from on his second ruling: if I say "If you do your homework, you can go to the movies with your friends", I expect you to finish your homework. Likewise if the rules say "If you move 10 feet, you can can do X" then you have to move ten feet; you don't get to do X halfway through. Jeremy's correction was coming at it from this point of view.
Saying that you already made one attack so you've taken the Attack action is also a valid way to read the Shield Master rule. You made the one attack the Attack action normally requires, so you can say you've taken the Attack action. Jeremy's even said that's how it's intended to work. The way Extra Attack is written really makes a mess out of this sort of thing.
Which interpretation is more correct is a matter of opinion, but you definitely can't shove before you attack even once.
There's no action declaration phase in 5e, so it's not immediately clear. But let's use your fork in the road analogy--your 'taking' of the left fork in the road doesn't start when you say the words "I am taking the left path". It starts when you set foot on the path. So what is the proper analog in a D&D combat situation to your actually taking your first step on the path? When does your taking of the Attack action begin?
Seems plausible to say it begins when you make an attack roll. Your taking of the left path doesn't start until you take an action of walking onto that path. Actually doing something, not just saying you are going to do something.
Combat isn't you make one swing with a sword per attack roll. A round is 6 seconds... if you are making a single slash with your sword every 6 seconds you're doing it wrong. Combat is abstract, you declare your actions and then the outcome is narrated to match them. Declare you're taking the attack action, and then use the bonus action.
There is no 'declaring' in the rules. If you want to put that into the game, you are putting it in yourself, and thus changing the rules. Fine if you want to do it, but we shouldn't pretend that the rules include that.
You can narrate the results however you like. You swing your sword, and as they parry it, you use the opportunity to shoulder them into the ground with your shield, then you strike down, hitting true, as they can no longer defend properly. That could be 2 seconds right there... combat happens fast. When you make an attack it just means your focus that round is on attacking, not that you make a literal single swipe.
Anyway, so your attack begins when your character starts attacking and being hostile,
This is an equivocation. When does your character start attacking? I don't mean 'at the beginning of battle', I mean 'that turn'. The question I asked earlier was not "when does your character start attacking", the question I asked was "When does your character begin 'Taking the Attack action' for that turn?"
It begins when you roll a die to attack.
but you get to decide, as the player, because the rules say so, when the bonus action happens in the turn.
This is the exact issue in question. You cannot answer the question of when the bonus action can be taken by simply stating your conclusion that it can be taken whenever you want as evidence for the claim that it can be taken whenever you want.
You raised the analogy of 'taking a path'. On your own analogy, you don't start taking the path, and thus have not qualified for 'taking the path', until you take the action of setting food on the path. By analogy (your own analogy), you wouldn't start 'taking the Attack action' until you take an action that is an attack. Which, in the terms of the game (with no declaration phase or requirement) is rolling to hit.
This has nothing to do with the narration of the game and whether or not you are imagining your character taking one swing every 6 seconds. That is nothing I neither said nor alluded to, that's a red herring.
What this has to do with is triggers for actions in the rules.
The rules say that you can take this particular Bonus Action "if you take the Attack action". But you simply have not 'taken' the Attack action until you roll one or more dice to attack someone. Saying the words 'I take the Attack action' is not 'taking the attack action', as there is nothing in the rules that indicates you have to say anything or declare anything at all. Your attack doesn't begin 'when you say it does'--you can say your attack for this turn began last turn, or you can say your attack began during someone else's turn, but that doesn't make what you are saying correct. Your attack begins when the rules allow it to begin. That is A) during your turn and B) when you are allowed to roll dice to attack. You can of course choose to attack or not to attack.
But you cannot simply choose to have a Bonus Action in any turn you want--you have to be allowed to have one. You can make it happen when you want after you have one. But in this case, you do not have a bonus actionuntil you take the Attack action...which starts when you make an attack roll.
Again, if you want to play it your way, play it your way. But your own analogy leads to these conclusions.
No but your DM is going to have a really hard time knowing what your character does if you never declare what he does...
"When does your character begin 'Taking the Attack action' for that turn?"
It begins when you roll a die to attack.
Now that's just you making stuff up. Total fiction. The rules say absolutely no such thing and it doesn't even make sense. The player rolls the dice, not the character.
This whole thing is just a collective fever dream, but it has some agreed upon basic rules. When you say you're taking an action, you and the DM, and the group as a whole agree that you are able to do so. If anyone disagrees then the game screeches to a halt and dies. So your character takes whatever action you say he does, within the framework of the game, as agreed upon by the group. Ergo, when you say you take the attack action, you do. It begins whenever you and your group agree that it begins, which must inevitably be when you say, declare, or otherwise communicate to the group that is the action you are taking. That's when the action begins.
Question for you, if you really believe the action begins when you roll. When does an action begin that has no roll? Does it never begin?
The right hand path, on the other hand, is a mile long, but if you take it, you'll find a pot of gold.
So, when do I get the pot of gold? At the end, after walking a mile, or at the first step?
Uh, you're never getting the pot. I'm getting it.
But you are actually right on. That was exactly my point. The wording doesn't tell you the exact timeframe of the conditional result.
If [take] then [result]... it means that [result] could be as early as immediately after starting the action of taking, or some mid-point of the action taking, or after the completion of the action of taking.
It is not specified. That is precisely my point. And since you can freely choose when bonus actions happen, you pick immediately.
The attack action does not need to be completed prior to taking the bonus action. It could happen at any point after the immediate start of the action. Essentially, so long as the attack action has started and is locked in place as what is absolutely for sure happening... you can bonus action shove. To disagree is to literally not know what the English RAW words mean.
The right hand path, on the other hand, is a mile long, but if you take it, you'll find a pot of gold.
So, when do I get the pot of gold? At the end, after walking a mile, or at the first step?
Uh, you're never getting the pot. I'm getting it.
But you are actually right on. That was exactly my point. The wording doesn't tell you the exact timeframe of the conditional result.
If [take] then [result]... it means that [result] could be as early as immediately after starting the action of taking, or some mid-point of the action taking, or after the completion of the action of taking.
It is not specified. That is precisely my point. And since you can freely choose when bonus actions happen, you pick immediately.
The attack action does not need to be completed prior to taking the bonus action. It could happen at any point after the immediate start of the action. Essentially, so long as the attack action has started and is locked in place as what is absolutely for sure happening... you can bonus action shove. To disagree is to literally not know what the English RAW words mean.
This is entirely incorrect, and not just per Crawford, but the published Sage Advice.
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.
So no, per RAW you can NOT shove before making the attack.
Oh, and this is what happens when you take the attack action (or cast a spell that uses an attack roll).
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Notice how resolving the attack is part of making an attack? That means that if an attack doesn't resolve, an attack hasn't been made, meaning that you have not taken the attack action...so there is no cheesing by saying "I am declaring an attack, but first I use my bonus action to shove" because part of taking the attack action is actually making the attack.
There are several ways that the writers could have written this so it would be unambiguous.
If you have taken ...
After you have taken ...
If you take ... , then ...
There is no ambiguity; the feat says "if you take the attack action on your turn" and nothing else.
Therefore you must take the attack action, which has a sequence of events you have to follow as part of the rules on making an attack...which includes resolving the attack.
If you don't roll to make an attack, you haven't taken the attack action on your turn. Period.
Oh, and this is what happens when you take the attack action (or cast a spell that uses an attack roll).
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Notice how resolving the attack is part of making an attack? That means that if an attack doesn't resolve, an attack hasn't been made, meaning that you have not taken the attack action...so there is no cheesing by saying "I am declaring an attack, but first I use my bonus action to shove" because part of taking the attack action is actually making the attack.
Are you saying that you haven’t committed to making the attack and therefore taking the attack action until the roll is made? Can you opt out of attacking after 2? Could you opt out of attacking after an enemy uses an ability like Warding Flare (cleric light domain)?
Oh, and this is what happens when you take the attack action (or cast a spell that uses an attack roll).
Making an Attack
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Notice how resolving the attack is part of making an attack? That means that if an attack doesn't resolve, an attack hasn't been made, meaning that you have not taken the attack action...so there is no cheesing by saying "I am declaring an attack, but first I use my bonus action to shove" because part of taking the attack action is actually making the attack.
Are you saying that you haven’t committed to making the attack and therefore taking the attack action until the roll is made? Can you opt out of attacking after 2? Could you opt out of attacking after an enemy uses an ability like Warding Flare (cleric light domain)?
You haven't made the attack action unless you've attacked, as has been made very clear in the Sage Advice ruling...so no, you can't opt out because you must attack once that choice is made, otherwise you haven't attacked. Hence why there are additional rules about movement that do let you break your attack in order to move between attacks, and the extra attack feature tells you that you can make an additional attack but aren't forced...but if you choose to not make that extra attack, you don't get to go back and attack again because your action is spent with you consciously choosing to not attack more than once for your attack action.
It is take your Attack action by doing all those attacks, then being granted a bonus action.
If you have pie for dessert, you can have ice cream with it.
Does this mean you have to finish the pie before you get the ice cream?
If you chose to have pie for dessert, then you do what comes after making that choice...the point is the act of choosing pie then has a process where you actually get yourself a slice of pie, then grab ice cream after you've actively taken the steps to get the pie like getting a plate, a fork, etc. Same deal with what we are talking about; If you haven't attacked, you haven't taken the attack action. Just like if you don't cut a piece of pie and put it on a plate, you haven't gotten yourself pie for dessert.
EDIT: I also want to point out that the above quote is ambiguous in the real world, but not in game mechanics...in the real world, this statement is ambiguous and could mean either or...in game terms, you do the first thing, then get the second, so in game mechanics it would work 100% how you described even though that seems silly in the real world...but D&D is a game, and thus has to have strict definitions and wordings that have to be followed more pedantically than what you'd get away with in the real world...and once again, the sage advice has made it 100% clear that by RAW you have to attack, not just choose to attack, but actually take that action to be granted the bonus action.
Let's get into the nitty-gritty here and get all super pedantic... today's lesson is on verb tenses, and why they're critical when discussing triggering conditional events.
The word here is "Take", not "Taken". Present tense, not past tense.
Picture this scenario: I get to a fork in the road and take the left path.
In this scenario, where am I? Have I taken the path to my destination? Or, am I just taking my first step onto the path? Maybe I'm somewhere already on it at an undetermined point? You don't know because "Take" doesn't answer those questions, nor does it specify how complete of an action it is. It only specifies that the action has, at a minimum, begun.
The point is that the if/then conditionality of the feat wording requires a present tense, not a past tense trigger. You do not need to have taken an attack action, you need to take one. Present tense. Because of that distinction, it is a straight up lie to say that you need to have completed an action for the bonus action to be available. The wording is present tense, and thus the moment you enter the transitive timeframe of beginning the action you become eligible for the trigger event of using the bonus action to shove.
Still not convinced? Let's modify our earlier thought experiment with a trigger. The path is blessed and I'm a vampire so: if I take the left path I will burst into flames.
So Again, picture: I get to a fork in the road and take the left path.
Did I burst into flames the moment my foot touched the path or after I finished taking the path?
I got quotes!
When does the 'taking' of the Attack action start?
Does it start when you say the words "I am taking the Attack action"?
Does it start when you roll a die as part of an attack (little 'a')?
There's no action declaration phase in 5e, so it's not immediately clear. But let's use your fork in the road analogy--your 'taking' of the left fork in the road doesn't start when you say the words "I am taking the left path". It starts when you set foot on the path. So what is the proper analog in a D&D combat situation to your actually taking your first step on the path? When does your taking of the Attack action begin?
Seems plausible to say it begins when you make an attack roll. Your taking of the left path doesn't start until you take an action of walking onto that path. Actually doing something, not just saying you are going to do something. Your taking of the Attack action, if this is a good analogy at all, would be rolling to hit--actually doing something. Until you set foot on the path, you have not entered into the status of 'taking the path'. Until you roll to attack something, you have not entered into the status of 'taking the Attack action'.
So on this analogy, it means that you cannot do something triggered by "If you take the Attack action" until you make an attack role. Now the question would be--can you interrupt an attack (little 'a') with another attack or action? Can you make an attack roll for your sword, pause before you roll for damage or other effects, make a Bonus attack roll with your shield, determine the effects of the shield roll, and then finish adjudicating the sword attack? I'd say no.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Combat isn't you make one swing with a sword per attack roll. A round is 6 seconds... if you are making a single slash with your sword every 6 seconds you're doing it wrong. Combat is abstract, you declare your actions and then the outcome is narrated to match them. Declare you're taking the attack action, and then use the bonus action.
You can narrate the results however you like. You swing your sword, and as they parry it, you use the opportunity to shoulder them into the ground with your shield, then you strike down, hitting true, as they can no longer defend properly. That could be 2 seconds right there... combat happens fast. When you make an attack it just means your focus that round is on attacking, not that you make a literal single swipe.
Anyway, so your attack begins when your character starts attacking and being hostile, but you get to decide, as the player, because the rules say so, when the bonus action happens in the turn. So you declare it happens before the attack action gets resolved. What that looks like from the character's perspectives is that you engage in combat, then succeed (or fail) in a shove maneuver, and then continue the melee (successfully or otherwise, by resolving the attack action).
So the attack action doesn't represent a single swing, it could be a series of thrusts, jabs etc. But swinging would represent the beginning of an attack action and thus trigger the eligibility to resolve the bonus action shove. Thereafter you continue the attack action and resolve it.
In short, the attack actions begins when you say it does because you're in control of your own character, and the rules very clearly tell you you get to decide when the bonus action occurs during your own turn.
I got quotes!
That's not strictly true; some shields are held rather than strapped to your arm. Either way, you should keep in mind that wielding a shield doesn't count as wearing armor for rules purposes. You can wield a shield and still benefit from Mage Armor, for example.
You can describe your shove however you want, but RAW the Shove action has nothing to do with your weapons or your shield. It's one thing to describe that you're using your weapon for narrative purposes; I doubt any DM would care about that. But it's another thing to try to use the Shove rule to trip someone 10 feet away using a reach weapon, or say that you're using your weapon just to try to qualify for other rules like TWF or whatever. That's going to fall under Improvising An Action and you'll have to run it past your DM.
Nah, his 1st ruling was totally off the mark because it implied you could do the shove before taking the Attack action. Whether one attack is sufficient is a matter of semantics and RAW vs RAI but you definitely have to at least start the action.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Curious to see how you interpret the following:
The rules for Shoving a Creature are found under the Making an Attack section of the chapter on Combat, and state that "The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach."
The Weapons section of the chapter on Equipment describes the Reach property as follows: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it."
To be honest, I think there is good reason to believe that someone who wanted to Shove an opponent with their Reach weapon should be allowed to do so.
Wait, so you're actually saying that a Shove is some telekinetic attack? Doesn't use your shield, or your weapons, and isn't an unarmed strike or uses an improvised weapon. It just magically happens without ever touching them? Tell us how you describe it in games? I'm curious.
The feat says "Take", not "Taken". By RAW this means you can bonus action before you hit with the attack.
His 1st ruling was dead on accurate. You can do the shove during the attack action.
I got quotes!
I figure that all D&D shields are strapped, because they all require one Action to don and one Action to doff.
Wearing a shield doesn't count as armour for some features, true, but neither does wearing boots or a cloak or a helm. For simplicity I just use the ruling, "worn items are not weapons". It makes a lot of discussions (like this thread :-) go away.
The right hand path, on the other hand, is a mile long, but if you take it, you'll find a pot of gold.
So, when do I get the pot of gold? At the end, after walking a mile, or at the first step?
Bad analogy. Both options (bursting into flames from touching blessed ground, and finding something at the end of a path) have built-in timings. If "taking an Attack action" had an obvious, built-in timing, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I got the impression from something I read that Crawford changed the ruling on Shield Master because there are other things that use the same wording as Shield Master but if the bonus action is allowed to go first, they don’t make sense. He was trying to be consistent on how he was interpreting “When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus attack...” He wasn’t saying Shield Master was broken and needed to be nerfed, he was saying it needed to be read a certain way to be consistent with other abilities, features, etc
When he explained how he would houserule it, I understood it as “in your home games, do what works for you”
It makes sense for the shoving rules to be under Making an Attack, because shoving a creature is a "special attack". Not a weapon attack though. It's just an attack that falls outside of all the usual categories. It doesn't say you get to use your weapons, so mechanically you can't benefit from your weapon's properties, just like you can't go "I want to tackle him to the ground, but I have spiky armor, so I get to do damage too" or "he hits his head on the way down, so I do extra damage."
Sure. I'm not saying a player shouldn't be allowed to do that under any circumstances. I'm saying that's beyond the scope of the Shove rules, which means now you're in the scope of the Improvising An Action rule, which means the details are going to be up to your DM. They might let you do a regular shove, they might give you disadvantage on the attempt, they might even say "yeah, a polearm would be extra effective at that" and give you advantage! But you can't make any assumptions about how that's going to work until you talk to the DM.
Ugh, I'm not sure why I'm being misunderstood on this one point so much. I didn't figure this was a complicated subject.
If a player says "I want to try to shove the skeleton prone," then cool. The rules clearly say they can try to do that and describe exactly how that happens. If they narrate that as "I sweep its leg with my glaive", I don't have a problem with that either as long as they're still following the Shove rules; the enemy's within 5 feet (or whatever their natural reach is), they make the contest as normal, etc. I don't care how they want to visualize the action. What they can't do is then say "Oh, shoving is an attack, and you let me use my glaive, so I get to use my Polearm Master bonus action." That part's up to the DM. Maybe you'd allow it, but that's besides the point. The bit about sweeping the leg was narrative fluff. Mechanically you're not making an attack with a weapon when you use the Shove rule, so they're going to have to run that part by the DM. If they want a reliable way to attack with their glaive and also shove prone that doesn't rely on the DM's approval, they can be a Battle Master or take the Martial Adept feat and learn the Trip Attack maneuver. That's exactly what it's there for.
You can describe your actions however you like, but you don't get to tack loop back around and add mechanics to what you're doing based on how you describe things. That's not your decision to make as a player.
And again, I'm not saying "you should never be allowed to do these things." The game has that Improvise An Action option for a reason. I'm saying players can't make assumptions about what the DM will allow when they want to go beyond the options the rules give them.
If you haven't made even a single attack, you haven't taken the Attack action yet, so no, you can't possibly take the bonus action before you hit with your first attack.
If by "during" you mean "in between the first attack and any additional attacks you might have", then maybe. It depends on how you choose to read it. I can see where he was coming from on his second ruling: if I say "If you do your homework, you can go to the movies with your friends", I expect you to finish your homework. Likewise if the rules say "If you move 10 feet, you can can do X" then you have to move ten feet; you don't get to do X halfway through. Jeremy's correction was coming at it from this point of view.
Saying that you already made one attack so you've taken the Attack action is also a valid way to read the Shield Master rule. You made the one attack the Attack action normally requires, so you can say you've taken the Attack action. Jeremy's even said that's how it's intended to work. The way Extra Attack is written really makes a mess out of this sort of thing.
Which interpretation is more correct is a matter of opinion, but you definitely can't shove before you attack even once.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
There is no 'declaring' in the rules. If you want to put that into the game, you are putting it in yourself, and thus changing the rules. Fine if you want to do it, but we shouldn't pretend that the rules include that.
This is an equivocation. When does your character start attacking? I don't mean 'at the beginning of battle', I mean 'that turn'. The question I asked earlier was not "when does your character start attacking", the question I asked was "When does your character begin 'Taking the Attack action' for that turn?"
It begins when you roll a die to attack.
This is the exact issue in question. You cannot answer the question of when the bonus action can be taken by simply stating your conclusion that it can be taken whenever you want as evidence for the claim that it can be taken whenever you want.
You raised the analogy of 'taking a path'. On your own analogy, you don't start taking the path, and thus have not qualified for 'taking the path', until you take the action of setting food on the path. By analogy (your own analogy), you wouldn't start 'taking the Attack action' until you take an action that is an attack. Which, in the terms of the game (with no declaration phase or requirement) is rolling to hit.
This has nothing to do with the narration of the game and whether or not you are imagining your character taking one swing every 6 seconds. That is nothing I neither said nor alluded to, that's a red herring.
What this has to do with is triggers for actions in the rules.
The rules say that you can take this particular Bonus Action "if you take the Attack action". But you simply have not 'taken' the Attack action until you roll one or more dice to attack someone. Saying the words 'I take the Attack action' is not 'taking the attack action', as there is nothing in the rules that indicates you have to say anything or declare anything at all. Your attack doesn't begin 'when you say it does'--you can say your attack for this turn began last turn, or you can say your attack began during someone else's turn, but that doesn't make what you are saying correct. Your attack begins when the rules allow it to begin. That is A) during your turn and B) when you are allowed to roll dice to attack. You can of course choose to attack or not to attack.
But you cannot simply choose to have a Bonus Action in any turn you want--you have to be allowed to have one. You can make it happen when you want after you have one. But in this case, you do not have a bonus action until you take the Attack action...which starts when you make an attack roll.
Again, if you want to play it your way, play it your way. But your own analogy leads to these conclusions.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
No but your DM is going to have a really hard time knowing what your character does if you never declare what he does...
Now that's just you making stuff up. Total fiction. The rules say absolutely no such thing and it doesn't even make sense. The player rolls the dice, not the character.
This whole thing is just a collective fever dream, but it has some agreed upon basic rules. When you say you're taking an action, you and the DM, and the group as a whole agree that you are able to do so. If anyone disagrees then the game screeches to a halt and dies. So your character takes whatever action you say he does, within the framework of the game, as agreed upon by the group. Ergo, when you say you take the attack action, you do. It begins whenever you and your group agree that it begins, which must inevitably be when you say, declare, or otherwise communicate to the group that is the action you are taking. That's when the action begins.
Question for you, if you really believe the action begins when you roll. When does an action begin that has no roll? Does it never begin?
I got quotes!
Uh, you're never getting the pot. I'm getting it.
But you are actually right on. That was exactly my point. The wording doesn't tell you the exact timeframe of the conditional result.
If [take] then [result]... it means that [result] could be as early as immediately after starting the action of taking, or some mid-point of the action taking, or after the completion of the action of taking.
It is not specified. That is precisely my point. And since you can freely choose when bonus actions happen, you pick immediately.
The attack action does not need to be completed prior to taking the bonus action. It could happen at any point after the immediate start of the action. Essentially, so long as the attack action has started and is locked in place as what is absolutely for sure happening... you can bonus action shove. To disagree is to literally not know what the English RAW words mean.
I got quotes!
This is entirely incorrect, and not just per Crawford, but the published Sage Advice.
So no, per RAW you can NOT shove before making the attack.
Oh, and this is what happens when you take the attack action (or cast a spell that uses an attack roll).
Notice how resolving the attack is part of making an attack? That means that if an attack doesn't resolve, an attack hasn't been made, meaning that you have not taken the attack action...so there is no cheesing by saying "I am declaring an attack, but first I use my bonus action to shove" because part of taking the attack action is actually making the attack.
There are several ways that the writers could have written this so it would be unambiguous.
If you have taken ...
After you have taken ...
If you take ... , then ...
There is no ambiguity; the feat says "if you take the attack action on your turn" and nothing else.
Therefore you must take the attack action, which has a sequence of events you have to follow as part of the rules on making an attack...which includes resolving the attack.
If you don't roll to make an attack, you haven't taken the attack action on your turn. Period.
Are you saying that you haven’t committed to making the attack and therefore taking the attack action until the roll is made? Can you opt out of attacking after 2? Could you opt out of attacking after an enemy uses an ability like Warding Flare (cleric light domain)?
If you have pie for dessert, you can have ice cream with it.
Does this mean you have to finish the pie before you get the ice cream?
You haven't made the attack action unless you've attacked, as has been made very clear in the Sage Advice ruling...so no, you can't opt out because you must attack once that choice is made, otherwise you haven't attacked. Hence why there are additional rules about movement that do let you break your attack in order to move between attacks, and the extra attack feature tells you that you can make an additional attack but aren't forced...but if you choose to not make that extra attack, you don't get to go back and attack again because your action is spent with you consciously choosing to not attack more than once for your attack action.
It is take your Attack action by doing all those attacks, then being granted a bonus action.
If you chose to have pie for dessert, then you do what comes after making that choice...the point is the act of choosing pie then has a process where you actually get yourself a slice of pie, then grab ice cream after you've actively taken the steps to get the pie like getting a plate, a fork, etc. Same deal with what we are talking about; If you haven't attacked, you haven't taken the attack action. Just like if you don't cut a piece of pie and put it on a plate, you haven't gotten yourself pie for dessert.
EDIT: I also want to point out that the above quote is ambiguous in the real world, but not in game mechanics...in the real world, this statement is ambiguous and could mean either or...in game terms, you do the first thing, then get the second, so in game mechanics it would work 100% how you described even though that seems silly in the real world...but D&D is a game, and thus has to have strict definitions and wordings that have to be followed more pedantically than what you'd get away with in the real world...and once again, the sage advice has made it 100% clear that by RAW you have to attack, not just choose to attack, but actually take that action to be granted the bonus action.