I agree with your conclusion but changing words and adding words in order to support your argument is not persuasive.
The text of Shield Master could be interpreted in different ways. Crawford has written in Sage Advice on how to interpret it in the context of the entire set of rules. If a DM doesn’t agree with Crawford, the DM can make a house rule for their own game.
That is really all that needs to be said.
And I don't disagree with that statement...what I disagree with are those claiming that it being able to be used before actually taking the attack action is RAW, as that is not even close to what is written or the context of what is written, but how people want to interpret it.
I hope my submission isn't being conflated with the ongoing debate about tenses. Whether it's written take, taken, took, taking, have taken, are taking--I don't feel that such a difference would resolve the debate.
Rather I think the word take is open to interpretation and could mean “was initiated” and also “was completed”.
The way I interpret it so as not to constrain my players unnecessarily is that they need only have begun the action in such a way as it cannot be undone. I don't allow any of this declaration of intent nuance; the action itself has begun and all that remains is processing what said action has permitted them to do (namely make some number of attacks).
If for some indiscernible reason they choose not to attack after shoving courtesy of Shield Master, I'd shrug at them with a very concerned expression and say, “That's fine, but your action is gone and will be recorded in the Memories as having been the Attack action. You have no actions left, is that all for your turn?”
I do like the programming comparison. I suppose I'd interpret it as having a line of code at the very beginning of the Attack action segment which sets the boolean “Attack_action_taken” to true. Then a listener for the activation of “ShieldMasterShove()” checks said condition and inserts itself whenever the player announces it.
And last, if the fear is 5E becoming too trivial or easy, then take heart! I always tell my players that anything they do, their enemies can do as well. They're usually mindful of that when they try to bend and stretch interpretations. We actually had an NPC killed by a shove/crush delivered by an ogre-like boss. With the prone-advantage it rolled a double nat-20! Fortunately they had a scroll of Raise Dead… the splattering was quite extensive.
The way I interpret it so as not to constrain my players unnecessarily is that they need only have begun the action in such a way as it cannot be undone. I don't allow any of this declaration of intent nuance; the action itself has begun and all that remains is processing what said action has permitted them to do (namely make some number of attacks).
If for some indiscernible reason they choose not to attack after shoving courtesy of Shield Master, I'd shrug at them with a very concerned expression and say, “That's fine, but your action is gone and will be recorded in the Memories as having been the Attack action. You have no actions left, is that all for your turn?”
How is that any different from a declaration of intent? In your example the player declared the Attack action but didn't "begin processing" their attacks and then took the Shield Master bonus action. You used different words to describe it, but mechanically it's exactly the same as the old "You can use the Shield Master bonus action as long as you commit to taking the Attack action later in the turn" argument people were using to allow the the bonus action before attacking.
Because the action is taken and can't be "untaken" or "not taken" later. It's real, it's started, it's happening--albeit at the pace the player describes in all their creative capacity. They can't later, however, change their mind and say "I'll instead use my action to Dash"; that decision has passed because you have already initiated the Attack action and gained its benefits.
Also there's inherent risk: suppose the creature they are attempting to bash has a reaction that results in the player being unable to reach the target when they thought they would make their attack after. Tough. The action has been taken and can't be assigned to anything else.
Because the action is taken and can't be "untaken" or "not taken" later. It's real, it's started, it's happening--albeit at the pace the player describes in all their creative capacity. They can't later, however, change their mind and say "I'll instead use my action to Dash"; that decision has passed because you have already initiated the Attack action and gained its benefits.
That's still exactly the same as the "declaration of intent." There's no meaningful difference between phrasing it as "Taking the action, but not yet processing its effects" and "Committing to take the action at a later time."
If the player has declared the Attack action but not yet made any attacks, they haven't in fact gained its benefits.
I do like the programming comparison. I suppose I'd interpret it as having a line of code at the very beginning of the Attack action segment which sets the boolean “Attack_action_taken” to true. Then a listener for the activation of “ShieldMasterShove()” checks said condition and inserts itself whenever the player announces it.
Ugh, who mixes snake_case (with an oddly capitalized first character) and PascalCase in a single codebase?
I completely respect your interpretation and would enthusiastically abide the ruling were I a player at your table! The logic makes sense to me given that the word "taken" is unfortunately imprecise (or perhaps fortunately, depending on how comfortable one feels about giving DMs leeway).
As a DM, however, I disagree that that interpretation is absolute and inarguable to the extent that I'd be willing to confine my players by it.
I would say as well that by taking the Attack action, even if you do not immediately make attack rolls, you have gained access to them. Even if the player has not activated them yet, I would rule that they are "gained".
As I said, respectfully disagreeing and enjoying the differences of opinion!
I completely respect your interpretation and would enthusiastically abide the ruling were I a player at your table! The logic makes sense to me given that the word "taken" is unfortunately imprecise (or perhaps fortunately, depending on how comfortable one feels about giving DMs leeway).
As a DM, however, I disagree that that interpretation is absolute and inarguable to the extent that I'd be willing to confine my players by it.
I would say as well that by taking the Attack action, even if you do not immediately make attack rolls, you have gained access to them. Even if the player has not activated them yet, I would rule that they are "gained".
As I said, respectfully disagreeing and enjoying the differences of opinion!
You r comment brings up a point. If taking the attack action is the trigger, you CULd argue that once you declare that you are taking the action, you have met the trigger requirements, even before the 1st attack.
With that in mind I agree with you 100%, and would absolutely support hat at any table.
I would say as well that by taking the Attack action, even if you do not immediately make attack rolls, you have gained access to them. Even if the player has not activated them yet, I would rule that they are "gained".
Which is exactly what a declaration of intent is. I'm not bringing this up because I disagree with how you run things. But you literally said you "don't allow any of this declaration of intent nuance" and then proceeded to describe something that's identical in every way to a declaration of intent.
I do like the programming comparison. I suppose I'd interpret it as having a line of code at the very beginning of the Attack action segment which sets the boolean “Attack_action_taken” to true. Then a listener for the activation of “ShieldMasterShove()” checks said condition and inserts itself whenever the player announces it.
Ugh, who mixes snake_case (with an oddly capitalized first character) and PascalCase in a single codebase?
:D
Haha, guilty as charged! It's been about 10 years and two career path changes since I did any programming or took any coursework. I shall prostrate myself and beg forgiveness!
I would say as well that by taking the Attack action, even if you do not immediately make attack rolls, you have gained access to them. Even if the player has not activated them yet, I would rule that they are "gained".
Which is exactly what a declaration of intent is. I'm not bringing this up because I disagree with how you run things. But you literally said you "don't allow any of this declaration of intent nuance" and then proceeded to describe something that's identical in every way to a declaration of intent.
I see what you mean and shall try phrasing it differently. Consider these two scenarios:
1. Player states they are taking the Attack action and immediately gains the ability to make at least one attack roll, whether it is melee or ranged. As a DM I do not see any explicitly written requirement to perform this roll immediately and to the preclusion of all other actions available to them. I permit them to choose to use the bonus action to shove at this time.
2. A player says, "I promise to take the Attack action later on in my turn, can I use my bonus action to shove now?" I say, "No. You must actually take the Action." They counter, "Why?" I explain, "Because something may happen that later prevents you taking the Action regardless of your intent to do so. You must make the commitment prior."
I would say as well that by taking the Attack action, even if you do not immediately make attack rolls, you have gained access to them. Even if the player has not activated them yet, I would rule that they are "gained".
Which is exactly what a declaration of intent is. I'm not bringing this up because I disagree with how you run things. But you literally said you "don't allow any of this declaration of intent nuance" and then proceeded to describe something that's identical in every way to a declaration of intent.
I see what you mean and shall try phrasing it differently. Consider these two scenarios:
1. Player states they are taking the Attack action and immediately gains the ability to make at least one attack roll, whether it is melee or ranged. As a DM I do not see any explicitly written requirement to perform this roll immediately and to the preclusion of all other actions available to them. I permit them to choose to use the bonus action to shove at this time.
2. A player says, "I promise to take the Attack action later on in my turn, can I use my bonus action to shove now?" I say, "No. You must actually take the Action." They counter, "Why?" I explain, "Because something may happen that later prevents you taking the Action regardless of your intent to do so. You must make the commitment prior."
This. For instance if they move up using all their movement, initiate the attack action, take the bonus action, shove the mob back 5 feet, and suddenly there are no mobs left for the player to attack. The consequence is the attack action completes without any actual attacks.
They could have fixed this REALLY easily with a quick errata changing take to taken. 2 letters. But they refused to do so, even after 2 tweet rulings and a sage advice. My question is...why? I suppose 'leaving it up to the table' is one reason, but as this (and many other) threads have indicated, that choice is causing more harm than good IMO. The flip flop/if-then, take -taken issue not only makes the feat weak by default, it makes people look unfavorably at their other rulings.
That question will never be answered, and it is obvious that folks here have pretty much already decided. <shrug>
On the up side, the fact that this type of thing does not happen more (I can only thnk of a handful of such issues) says a lot for how well the rules are written.
I see what you mean and shall try phrasing it differently. Consider these two scenarios:
1. Player states they are taking the Attack action and immediately gains the ability to make at least one attack roll, whether it is melee or ranged. As a DM I do not see any explicitly written requirement to perform this roll immediately and to the preclusion of all other actions available to them. I permit them to choose to use the bonus action to shove at this time.
2. A player says, "I promise to take the Attack action later on in my turn, can I use my bonus action to shove now?" I say, "No. You must actually take the Action." They counter, "Why?" I explain, "Because something may happen that later prevents you taking the Action regardless of your intent to do so. You must make the commitment prior."
These are still the same thing. If the player can "actually take the action" (which you later describe as "make the commitment") but still move, take bonus actions and reactions and delay the effects of taking the action as long as they want, that's completely indistinguishable from promising to take the action later. If the player promises to take the action later, they can't back out. You're the DM, so you have the power to hold them to that promise (a.k.a. commitment).
In scenario 2 you say something might happen that later prevents them from taking the action but taking the action doesn't actually do anything under your rules because they can delay the effects of the action as long as they want. There's literally no difference between 1) "actually taking the action" and getting incapacitated before they finally decide to attack and 2) promising to take the action and getting incapacitated before they "actually take it."
In both cases we're talking about a commitment to taking a certain action but not a different one, while delaying what the action does but still being able to claim any benefits or bonus actions that depend on that action.
I completely respect your interpretation and would enthusiastically abide the ruling were I a player at your table! The logic makes sense to me given that the word "taken" is unfortunately imprecise (or perhaps fortunately, depending on how comfortable one feels about giving DMs leeway).
You are of course welcome to use whatever systems you want in your campaigns. I just want to make it clear that there is no contextual imprecision with the word "taken" at all. It is, in fact, extremely precise. The root word "take" is used in verb form; "taken" is simply the past participle of the verb, and does not hold any other meaning than reflecting the tense of the sentence it is being used in. The tense is mechanically meaningless because it does not alter the core meaning of the word itself; you cannot "take" anything until you actually take it.
If we're at a track, and you tell me that you're going to "take a lap", you haven't actually done it until you complete the lap.
To be even more clear, if I ask you "have you taken a lap?", then answer is "no" until you have actually completed taking a lap.
Have you taken the Attack before you've resolved ANY attack rolls? NO.
"I intend to take that person's wallet." Okay, have you actually taken their wallet yet? No? Then you didn't take their wallet.
Your intent to do something means nothing until you've actually done it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's also no coincidence that the game calls them "actions". There's no rules text explaining that an action's effects happen immediately because the authors expected "take an action" to be taken literally. An action is something you do. When you take an action, you do that thing.
To take the attack action means going through every step, otherwise you haven't taken that action, you've only shown the intent to take that action...once again, if I said "I am going to rob a bank," which is a statement of intent, it doesn't mean I deserve to get arrested for robbing a bank as the action hasn't actually occurred.
If you have the bank teller at gunpoint while demanding the money, you are robbing the bank.
If you rob the bank, you may go to jail.
You do not need to complete the action of robbing the bank to go to jail for doing so. Just being mid-robbing is plenty sufficient for most judicial systems.
You are of course welcome to use whatever systems you want in your campaigns. I just want to make it clear that there is no contextual imprecision with the word "taken" at all. It is, in fact, extremely precise. The root word "take" is used in verb form; "taken" is simply the past participle of the verb, and does not hold any other meaning than reflecting the tense of the sentence it is being used in. The tense is mechanically meaningless because it does not alter the core meaning of the word itself; you cannot "take" anything until you actually take it.
If we're at a track, and you tell me that you're going to "take a lap", you haven't actually done it until you complete the lap.
To be even more clear, if I ask you "have you taken a lap?", then answer is "no" until you have actually completed taking a lap.
Taking =/= taken. They have very different tenses and are pointing to different temporal frames. If you are taking a lap, you are in the middle of the action and have not yet completed it. So you have not taken the lap if you are taking the lap. To 'take a lap' is even less specific, it is a temporal reference of 'having begun taking or later'. So 'to take a lap' could be to have taken one, but it could still be to be taking one.
Have you taken the Attack before you've resolved ANY attack rolls? NO.
"I intend to take that person's wallet." Okay, have you actually taken their wallet yet? No? Then you didn't take their wallet.
Your intent to do something means nothing until you've actually done it.
If your hand is in their pocket grabbing the wallet... you are presently taking the wallet.
But if they interrupt you... you didn't complete the action of taking it, so you have not taken the wallet, but you were taking it.
So if we set up a similar trigger of... If you take a wallet, you may get labeled a thief.
As soon as you're caught red-handed in the middle of the action, you are now labeled a thief. But, technically speaking, you never completed the act of taking it, so you have not taken the wallet.
People seem to have a very hard time with word tenses... the feat should just be reworded to mean whatever they want it to mean. But RAW you can take the bonus action immediately after you start, yet not necessarily complete, the attack action. There is literally nothing anyone has said in this entire thread that shows how that ruling is incorrect other than just pointing to tweets and submitting to JC's authority.
Sigred, I too would extend to you a warm welcome to use whatever systems you want in your campaigns! The world's greatest role playing game is nothing if not a fantastic place to explore--especially the various confines of its regulations and the interpretation thereof.
---
I do still respectfully disagree with these strict and prohibitive interpretations; they are strong, thorough, and convincing, but I do not believe them to be absolute, inarguable, or exclusive. I still acknowledge room for debate with the word “take” as well as within the structure of the Attack action itself.
The Attack action doesn't specify any timing, distance, duration, or explicit limitations on activity during its course. It expresses neither beginning nor end, merely that “With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.…”
It does not say that this must be done “immediately and precluding all other possible occurrences”. If any of you choose to interpret it in such a manner and also believe that the authors intended it be so, then I fully support your choice! But I would also fully support others who've outlined their positions which permit the pre-attack roll shove.
I recognize both as valid and fair, and I see that circumstance of duality as healthy for the culture of the game.
To take the attack action means going through every step, otherwise you haven't taken that action, you've only shown the intent to take that action...once again, if I said "I am going to rob a bank," which is a statement of intent, it doesn't mean I deserve to get arrested for robbing a bank as the action hasn't actually occurred.
If you have the bank teller at gunpoint while demanding the money, you are robbing the bank.
If you rob the bank, you may go to jail.
You do not need to complete the action of robbing the bank to go to jail for doing so. Just being mid-robbing is plenty sufficient for most judicial systems.
And there is a legal difference between attempted robbery and actual robbery...so I wouldn't get arrested for robbery, I'd get arrested for attempted robbery...in the context of the game rules, it doesn't say you get the bonus action when you attempt the attack does it, only when you take it.
And there is a legal difference between attempted robbery and actual robbery...so I wouldn't get arrested for robbery, I'd get arrested for attempted robbery...in the context of the game rules, it doesn't say you get the bonus action when you attempt the attack does it, only when you take it.
I'm sorry that you think so, but if you are mid-robbery and have pointed guns at bank employees, you're not going to be arrested for just attempted anything, you're in the middle of the action. I suspect you are being intentionally disingenuous here, just for debate's sake... But you have to understand the difference between verb tenses, right?
And I don't disagree with that statement...what I disagree with are those claiming that it being able to be used before actually taking the attack action is RAW, as that is not even close to what is written or the context of what is written, but how people want to interpret it.
I hope my submission isn't being conflated with the ongoing debate about tenses. Whether it's written take, taken, took, taking, have taken, are taking--I don't feel that such a difference would resolve the debate.
Rather I think the word take is open to interpretation and could mean “was initiated” and also “was completed”.
The way I interpret it so as not to constrain my players unnecessarily is that they need only have begun the action in such a way as it cannot be undone. I don't allow any of this declaration of intent nuance; the action itself has begun and all that remains is processing what said action has permitted them to do (namely make some number of attacks).
If for some indiscernible reason they choose not to attack after shoving courtesy of Shield Master, I'd shrug at them with a very concerned expression and say, “That's fine, but your action is gone and will be recorded in the Memories as having been the Attack action. You have no actions left, is that all for your turn?”
I do like the programming comparison. I suppose I'd interpret it as having a line of code at the very beginning of the Attack action segment which sets the boolean “Attack_action_taken” to true. Then a listener for the activation of “ShieldMasterShove()” checks said condition and inserts itself whenever the player announces it.
And last, if the fear is 5E becoming too trivial or easy, then take heart! I always tell my players that anything they do, their enemies can do as well. They're usually mindful of that when they try to bend and stretch interpretations. We actually had an NPC killed by a shove/crush delivered by an ogre-like boss. With the prone-advantage it rolled a double nat-20! Fortunately they had a scroll of Raise Dead… the splattering was quite extensive.
How is that any different from a declaration of intent? In your example the player declared the Attack action but didn't "begin processing" their attacks and then took the Shield Master bonus action. You used different words to describe it, but mechanically it's exactly the same as the old "You can use the Shield Master bonus action as long as you commit to taking the Attack action later in the turn" argument people were using to allow the the bonus action before attacking.
Because the action is taken and can't be "untaken" or "not taken" later. It's real, it's started, it's happening--albeit at the pace the player describes in all their creative capacity. They can't later, however, change their mind and say "I'll instead use my action to Dash"; that decision has passed because you have already initiated the Attack action and gained its benefits.
Also there's inherent risk: suppose the creature they are attempting to bash has a reaction that results in the player being unable to reach the target when they thought they would make their attack after. Tough. The action has been taken and can't be assigned to anything else.
That's still exactly the same as the "declaration of intent." There's no meaningful difference between phrasing it as "Taking the action, but not yet processing its effects" and "Committing to take the action at a later time."
If the player has declared the Attack action but not yet made any attacks, they haven't in fact gained its benefits.
Ugh, who mixes snake_case (with an oddly capitalized first character) and PascalCase in a single codebase?
:D
I completely respect your interpretation and would enthusiastically abide the ruling were I a player at your table! The logic makes sense to me given that the word "taken" is unfortunately imprecise (or perhaps fortunately, depending on how comfortable one feels about giving DMs leeway).
As a DM, however, I disagree that that interpretation is absolute and inarguable to the extent that I'd be willing to confine my players by it.
I would say as well that by taking the Attack action, even if you do not immediately make attack rolls, you have gained access to them. Even if the player has not activated them yet, I would rule that they are "gained".
As I said, respectfully disagreeing and enjoying the differences of opinion!
You r comment brings up a point. If taking the attack action is the trigger, you CULd argue that once you declare that you are taking the action, you have met the trigger requirements, even before the 1st attack.
With that in mind I agree with you 100%, and would absolutely support hat at any table.
Which is exactly what a declaration of intent is. I'm not bringing this up because I disagree with how you run things. But you literally said you "don't allow any of this declaration of intent nuance" and then proceeded to describe something that's identical in every way to a declaration of intent.
Haha, guilty as charged! It's been about 10 years and two career path changes since I did any programming or took any coursework. I shall prostrate myself and beg forgiveness!
I see what you mean and shall try phrasing it differently. Consider these two scenarios:
1. Player states they are taking the Attack action and immediately gains the ability to make at least one attack roll, whether it is melee or ranged. As a DM I do not see any explicitly written requirement to perform this roll immediately and to the preclusion of all other actions available to them. I permit them to choose to use the bonus action to shove at this time.
2. A player says, "I promise to take the Attack action later on in my turn, can I use my bonus action to shove now?" I say, "No. You must actually take the Action." They counter, "Why?" I explain, "Because something may happen that later prevents you taking the Action regardless of your intent to do so. You must make the commitment prior."
This. For instance if they move up using all their movement, initiate the attack action, take the bonus action, shove the mob back 5 feet, and suddenly there are no mobs left for the player to attack. The consequence is the attack action completes without any actual attacks.
They could have fixed this REALLY easily with a quick errata changing take to taken. 2 letters. But they refused to do so, even after 2 tweet rulings and a sage advice. My question is...why? I suppose 'leaving it up to the table' is one reason, but as this (and many other) threads have indicated, that choice is causing more harm than good IMO. The flip flop/if-then, take -taken issue not only makes the feat weak by default, it makes people look unfavorably at their other rulings.
That question will never be answered, and it is obvious that folks here have pretty much already decided. <shrug>
On the up side, the fact that this type of thing does not happen more (I can only thnk of a handful of such issues) says a lot for how well the rules are written.
These are still the same thing. If the player can "actually take the action" (which you later describe as "make the commitment") but still move, take bonus actions and reactions and delay the effects of taking the action as long as they want, that's completely indistinguishable from promising to take the action later. If the player promises to take the action later, they can't back out. You're the DM, so you have the power to hold them to that promise (a.k.a. commitment).
In scenario 2 you say something might happen that later prevents them from taking the action but taking the action doesn't actually do anything under your rules because they can delay the effects of the action as long as they want. There's literally no difference between 1) "actually taking the action" and getting incapacitated before they finally decide to attack and 2) promising to take the action and getting incapacitated before they "actually take it."
In both cases we're talking about a commitment to taking a certain action but not a different one, while delaying what the action does but still being able to claim any benefits or bonus actions that depend on that action.
You are of course welcome to use whatever systems you want in your campaigns. I just want to make it clear that there is no contextual imprecision with the word "taken" at all. It is, in fact, extremely precise. The root word "take" is used in verb form; "taken" is simply the past participle of the verb, and does not hold any other meaning than reflecting the tense of the sentence it is being used in. The tense is mechanically meaningless because it does not alter the core meaning of the word itself; you cannot "take" anything until you actually take it.
If we're at a track, and you tell me that you're going to "take a lap", you haven't actually done it until you complete the lap.
To be even more clear, if I ask you "have you taken a lap?", then answer is "no" until you have actually completed taking a lap.
Have you taken the Attack before you've resolved ANY attack rolls? NO.
"I intend to take that person's wallet." Okay, have you actually taken their wallet yet? No? Then you didn't take their wallet.
Your intent to do something means nothing until you've actually done it.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's also no coincidence that the game calls them "actions". There's no rules text explaining that an action's effects happen immediately because the authors expected "take an action" to be taken literally. An action is something you do. When you take an action, you do that thing.
If you have the bank teller at gunpoint while demanding the money, you are robbing the bank.
If you rob the bank, you may go to jail.
You do not need to complete the action of robbing the bank to go to jail for doing so. Just being mid-robbing is plenty sufficient for most judicial systems.
I got quotes!
Taking =/= taken. They have very different tenses and are pointing to different temporal frames. If you are taking a lap, you are in the middle of the action and have not yet completed it. So you have not taken the lap if you are taking the lap. To 'take a lap' is even less specific, it is a temporal reference of 'having begun taking or later'. So 'to take a lap' could be to have taken one, but it could still be to be taking one.
If your hand is in their pocket grabbing the wallet... you are presently taking the wallet.
But if they interrupt you... you didn't complete the action of taking it, so you have not taken the wallet, but you were taking it.
So if we set up a similar trigger of... If you take a wallet, you may get labeled a thief.
As soon as you're caught red-handed in the middle of the action, you are now labeled a thief. But, technically speaking, you never completed the act of taking it, so you have not taken the wallet.
People seem to have a very hard time with word tenses... the feat should just be reworded to mean whatever they want it to mean. But RAW you can take the bonus action immediately after you start, yet not necessarily complete, the attack action. There is literally nothing anyone has said in this entire thread that shows how that ruling is incorrect other than just pointing to tweets and submitting to JC's authority.
I got quotes!
Sigred, I too would extend to you a warm welcome to use whatever systems you want in your campaigns! The world's greatest role playing game is nothing if not a fantastic place to explore--especially the various confines of its regulations and the interpretation thereof.
---
I do still respectfully disagree with these strict and prohibitive interpretations; they are strong, thorough, and convincing, but I do not believe them to be absolute, inarguable, or exclusive. I still acknowledge room for debate with the word “take” as well as within the structure of the Attack action itself.
The Attack action doesn't specify any timing, distance, duration, or explicit limitations on activity during its course. It expresses neither beginning nor end, merely that “With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.…”
It does not say that this must be done “immediately and precluding all other possible occurrences”. If any of you choose to interpret it in such a manner and also believe that the authors intended it be so, then I fully support your choice! But I would also fully support others who've outlined their positions which permit the pre-attack roll shove.
I recognize both as valid and fair, and I see that circumstance of duality as healthy for the culture of the game.
And there is a legal difference between attempted robbery and actual robbery...so I wouldn't get arrested for robbery, I'd get arrested for attempted robbery...in the context of the game rules, it doesn't say you get the bonus action when you attempt the attack does it, only when you take it.
I'm sorry that you think so, but if you are mid-robbery and have pointed guns at bank employees, you're not going to be arrested for just attempted anything, you're in the middle of the action. I suspect you are being intentionally disingenuous here, just for debate's sake... But you have to understand the difference between verb tenses, right?
I got quotes!