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.
It might not explicitly state that is must be done "immediately and precluding all other possible occurrences", but it is strongly implied, and would actually break the game otherwise. It you could "take" the Attack action now, but delay the "one melee or ranged attack" you can do until the next round, you could attack twice next round. If you can delay everything described by the Attack action, you could take the attack action every 6 seconds, whether in combat or not, and accumulate the attacks, and just dole them out as you wanted to during actual combat. Battles would be defined not by who hits harder or can take more hits, but rather by who has spent the longest without fighting previously. That is obviously ridiculous, and I'm not suggesting you're advocating for that. But it serves to point out that there is an implicit time frame for the actions, and that it is integral to the game working properly. Given the lack of an explicit time frame, the most reasonable interpretation is that the timing is immediate.
I understand where the "declaring is taking" camp is coming from. I'm not sure whether it was a previous edition, or another game entirely, where declaring was an actual thing, and players declared their actions in reverse initiative order, but the actual actions were resolved in proper initiative order, which gave higher-initiative character's players an extra edge, in that they'd know what the other characters were intending to do before declaring their actions. (Example: a fighter is engaged with an Orc. The fighter rolled better initiative, so the Orc's player (or DM) declares "The Orc will attack with his Greatsword", then the fighter's player declares "Ok, in that case, I'll bring out my shield to try to block the attack". Then the actions are resolved: "Fighter, you brought out your shield, and hold it defensively", then "Orc attacks, rolls a ... 17, which is not high enough to hit the Fighter's AC including the Shield". If the Orc had declared to be casting a spell, the fighter might have opted for a quick attack to try to interrupt the spell, rather than bringing out the shield.)
But in this game, this edition, there's no such thing... you declare as you go. You don't declare intent, you declare activity. You don't say "I will be taking the Attack action", you say "I attack, using my Attack action". (I don't mean that literally, of course... you can state it however you wish, hehe.) So if you're not using your Attack action, saying you're taking it is either a lie (if you're doing something else), or unnecessary and useless (if you're talking about what you're going to do, rather than what you're doing). (By "useless" I mean mechanically. It can, of course, be very useful information; it just doesn't interact with the rules, since there are no rules that are based on what you will do in the future.)
It does not say that this must be done “immediately and precluding all other possible occurrences”.
Neither does pretty much anything else. Fire Bolt doesn't say you must immediately hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. It's understood that when you take the Cast A Spell action and cast Fire Bolt, the spell happens.
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 find it ironic you are saying I am being intentionally disingenuous considering the fact that there is 100% a difference between attempted robbery and robbery charges...because they are distinct and different things...and yet you are arguing using pedantry over verb tense even though 90% of the game rules are written in the future tense. But following your logic, any rules that say "When you do X, you also do Y," since they are written in future tense, don't need to have the when portion occur. So by your logic, Tavern Brawler's last ability lets me interject a bonus action to grapple even before damage rolls are made, since it isn't talking about past actions but future ones. Also by your logic, the Sulker feat's second ability only works while "making the attack" and is a dead ability since it isn't talking about a past tense nor a past continuing tense action but a current tense one.
Get the point yet? The rules are primarily written in the future tense because they are written in a natural language that tells you what future things these abilities you are taking provide. Your argument is weak, and once again the rules make it clear that if you aren't making an attack roll, you aren't attacking. So using your own pedantry, making is both a present tense and past continuing tense verb....and making an attack is not a continuing action, ergo it has to be in the context of the present tense...so until you roll to attack, you aren't attacking.
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.…”
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.
Emphasis mine. Not only does an attack have a very clear structure to be followed, that if missing anything would no longer have the structure required to be an attack, but it clearly states that you need to be making an attack roll to be making an attack.
AltaStar: An attack has a definite structure once it is executed, yes, but the Attack action is another section and is actually quite short in comparison (that is what I am quoted quoting in your post). I thought I had made the distinction and apologize for not making that clearer!
Tonio: excellent points and ones I had not considered! I loled imagining a someone saving up all their attacks for the day and unleashing them all at once--that makes me want to play my monk on Diablo! Either way, I suppose the logic does follow--though perhaps the language of the Ready action encompasses such a dastardly course of activity.
InquisitiveCoder: that's a very good thing to consider! Going from what you and Tonio described, I glanced at the Ready action. The part which caught me was this: "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs."
Could you conceive of the possibility of readying an Attack action in the same way, gaining the bonus action shove, and then setting the trigger to roll the attack to be the shove itself. Or would you still rule that the Attack action is in some limbo-like, untaken state until the attack roll is made (thus rendering the shove still inaccessible)?
AltaStar: An attack has a definite structure once it is executed, yes, but the Attack action is another section and is actually quite short in comparison (that is what I am quoted quoting in your post). I thought I had made the distinction and apologize for not making that clearer!
Tonio: excellent points and ones I had not considered! I loled imagining a someone saving up all their attacks for the day and unleashing them all at once--that makes me want to play my monk on Diablo! Either way, I suppose the logic does follow--though perhaps the language of the Ready action encompasses such a dastardly course of activity.
InquisitiveCoder: that's a very good thing to consider! Going from what you and Tonio described, I glanced at the Ready action. The part which caught me was this: "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs."
Could you conceive of the possibility of readying an Attack action in the same way, gaining the bonus action shove, and then setting the trigger to roll the attack to be the shove itself. Or would you still rule that the Attack action is in some limbo-like, untaken state until the attack roll is made (thus rendering the shove still inaccessible)?
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
That is in the rules on attacks in combat under the actions in combat category...notice how it doesn't say you can make, but tells you that you make one melee or ranged attack? it also explicitly says that "Making an Attack" governs the rules for this action.
Finally, to be granted the bonus attack you have to take the attack action on your turn...Readying is not taking the attack action, but setting it up to where you can take that action if a trigger occurs...so no, there is no conceivable way within the framework of RAW to get that bonus action shove...
Now, if you or your DM thinks you can use the bonus action before making the attack that is perfectly fine...But at that point you aren't adhering to RAW, which is fine in some circumstances, but not others like playing in Adventurer's League games.
InquisitiveCoder: that's a very good thing to consider! Going from what you and Tonio described, I glanced at the Ready action. The part which caught me was this: "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs."
Could you conceive of the possibility of readying an Attack action in the same way, gaining the bonus action shove, and then setting the trigger to roll the attack to be the shove itself. Or would you still rule that the Attack action is in some limbo-like, untaken state until the attack roll is made (thus rendering the shove still inaccessible)?
Normally when you ready an action, you declare the action you want up front but you don't take it until the trigger occurs and you decide you still want to expend your reaction:
First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it.
So even if you ready the Attack action, you still haven't taken it. Readying an action for later on in your turn is rarely ever useful, since you could've just taken the action directly.
Readying a spell is a special case because the game's designers wanted to make readying spells risky. If some other rule applies whenever a creature casts a spell, like Counterspell, those rules do kick in when the spell is readied and cast, not when the reaction is taken. This can have some useful applications, like readying a spell out of sight or out of counterspell range, then moving and releasing it.
Now, if you or your DM thinks you can use the bonus action before making the attack that is perfectly fine...But at that point you aren't adhering to RAW, which is fine in some circumstances, but not others like playing in Adventurer's League games.
I totally respect that that is how you would choose to interpret the RAW. As a DM I interpret it differently and for the reasons I've stated.
I also disagree with your assertion that somehow I'm not adhering to RAW, as we've all been quoting the same source material and describing interpretations thereof. But, again, if that is what you would choose to believe, I'm happy to coexist in a state of disagreement with you!
Whether that flies in AL? I don't know. I'm not familiar with how AL functions, so someone else will have to assist you there!
Now, if you or your DM thinks you can use the bonus action before making the attack that is perfectly fine...But at that point you aren't adhering to RAW, which is fine in some circumstances, but not others like playing in Adventurer's League games.
I totally respect that that is how you would choose to interpret the RAW. As a DM I interpret it differently and for the reasons I've stated.
I also disagree with your assertion that somehow I'm not adhering to RAW, as we've all been quoting the same source material and describing interpretations thereof. But, again, if that is what you would choose to believe, I'm happy to coexist in a state of disagreement with you!
Whether that flies in AL? I don't know. I'm not familiar with how AL functions, so someone else will have to assist you there!
Not trying to come off combative with you, so sorry if that is how it sounds...my assertions are mainly there for...others...who have been combative in their defense of their interpretation.
As far as AL goes, basically the expectation is that the games follow RAW and only RAW. It is that way for cohesive experiences. As such hammering out what the written rules state rather than looking at an interpretation of what the rules are intending is paramount in running those styles of games as intended.
So even if you ready the Attack action, you still haven't taken it. Readying an action for later on in your turn is rarely ever useful, since you could've just taken the action directly.
I see what you mean and pretty much agree with you on that. Seemed like an interesting process to explore, but kind of a dead end also.
Felt like something people might look for if they tried to gimmick the Shield Master feat under the prohibited interpretation, but seems watertight to me!
I find it ironic you are saying I am being intentionally disingenuous considering the fact that there is 100% a difference between attempted robbery and robbery charges...because they are distinct and different things...
They are different but you are wrong about the difference between them. If you are in the process of robbing someone, you will be charged with robbery. The attempted robbery charges are for idiots who make an attempt that fails. Interrupted mid-robbery by police arresting you? Robbery charges. Failed robbery and later picked up? Attempted robbery. And hey, this is getting a bit off tangent, but some districts and countries will have varying legal interpretations or rules. So basing the defense of your interpretation on some esoteric interpretation of highly variable legal principle that has nothing to do with D&D is kind of a weird angle for you to take.
So by your logic, Tavern Brawler's last ability lets me interject a bonus action to grapple even before damage rolls are made, since it isn't talking about past actions but future ones. Also by your logic, the Sulker feat's second ability only works while "making the attack" and is a dead ability since it isn't talking about a past tense nor a past continuing tense action but a current tense one.
Hey man, if you're going to drag the specific text of other stuff into this discussion, actually bring the text. Don't assign someone who disagrees with you homework. And also these interpretations of 'my logic' are both wrong, and this clearly demonstrates that you're deeply confused about verb tenses.
Get the point yet? The rules are primarily written in the future tense because they are written in a natural language that tells you what future things these abilities you are taking provide. Your argument is weak, and once again the rules make it clear that if you aren't making an attack roll, you aren't attacking.
I do not get your point, not even a little. Just assertions without any supporting text or rational. You've only provided bluster and no reasoning.
I find it ironic... Get the point yet?... The rules are... Your argument is weak... the rules make it clear... So using your own pedantry...
Just bluster and unsupported assertions.
So using your own pedantry, making is both a present tense and past continuing tense verb....and making an attack is not a continuing action, ergo it has to be in the context of the present tense...so until you roll to attack, you aren't attacking.
This is the closest thing you have to an argument but again it is based on a wildly inaccurate understanding of verb tenses. So I'm really not sure what to tell you aside from brush up on verb conjugation. "Making" is only a past continuing verb if it is structured as "had been making".
Just to consider the other side... the only way that I can see to really interpret these rules and come to the conclusion that the bonus action shove must be performed after the attack action is if you were to classify your action as a resource that is spent, instead of as a verb that your characters perform. The language on that isn't strongly supported, but I could see how people might be putting themselves in that mindset and seeing this from that angle. Because if actions were like a currency, and you spent them to do things, then the wording of the Sheild Mastery feat would require that you have spent your action on the attack action.
But really... it would need the feat to be worded differently to work like that. Something like:
If you use your action to 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.
instead of what it actually says:
If 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.
Edit/Clarification: The reason why those would work differently is that a resource is either spent or it isn't, this is a binary state. Used yes, or used no. While an action, or verb, could be either no, yes, or ongoing. And in the case of "take" it means the verb is: yes or ongoing. But with the reword the conditional shifts to "use" which is still a yes or ongoing, but with only a valid yes or no option, resulting in it being a yes.
Now, if you or your DM thinks you can use the bonus action before making the attack that is perfectly fine...But at that point you aren't adhering to RAW, which is fine in some circumstances, but not others like playing in Adventurer's League games.
I totally respect that that is how you would choose to interpret the RAW. As a DM I interpret it differently and for the reasons I've stated.
I also disagree with your assertion that somehow I'm not adhering to RAW, as we've all been quoting the same source material and describing interpretations thereof. But, again, if that is what you would choose to believe, I'm happy to coexist in a state of disagreement with you!
Whether that flies in AL? I don't know. I'm not familiar with how AL functions, so someone else will have to assist you there!
Not arguing with you or anything; I just want to point out a couple of things for others that view this thread, so they do not get confused.
There is literally no interpretation to the RAW. It is "Rules as Written". If you apply any interpretation to the wording, then you are applying "Rules as Intended" (RAI).
Any deviation from the logical structure, wording, and grammar of a rule, ability, feature, etc. does mean that you are not adhering to the RAW.
What we have been discussing in this thread is the RAW of Shield Master. We are not making interpretations ofhow the feat should work. We are analyzing how the feat does work.
Adventurer's League is RAW or bust; for players and DMs. Analyzing the actual RAW is important because all AL games MUST adhere to the RAW, and ONLY the RAW. There is no interpretation allowed whatsoever in these games, or the entire concept of AL--being able to drop in & out of different tables, modules, campaigns, etc. knowing everyone is following the same rules--is destroyed.
The RAW of Shield Master's shove feature has been fully analyzed, and is as follows:
If 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.
You have not taken the Attack until you have actually made your attack.
You have not made your attack until you have actually resolved rolling for the attack
If you have multiple attacks per Attack action you have not completed the Attack action until you have actually resolved rolling for all your attacks, or by resolving at minimum one attack and choosing to forfeit any remaining attacks.
The bonus action shove cannot be inserted between multiple attacks in a single Attack action.
The trigger that allows you to take the bonus action shove is having taken the Attackaction itself; not the individual attack, whether you hit, score a critical hit, etc.
As above, you must finish resolving all attacks in your Attack action, or by resolving one attack and choosing to forfeit the rest.
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.
This is the closest thing you have to an argument but again it is based on a wildly inaccurate understanding of verb tenses. So I'm really not sure what to tell you aside from brush up on verb conjugation. "Making" is only a past continuing verb if it is structured as "had been making".
Thank's for proving my point? Because the rules quoted say you are making an attack when you are making an attack roll...ergo if you do not roll you aren't attacking. Glad you realize that now.
This is the closest thing you have to an argument but again it is based on a wildly inaccurate understanding of verb tenses. So I'm really not sure what to tell you aside from brush up on verb conjugation. "Making" is only a past continuing verb if it is structured as "had been making".
Thank's for proving my point? Because the rules quoted say you are making an attack when you are making an attack roll...ergo if you do not roll you aren't attacking. Glad you realize that now.
But as discussed numerous times, attacking and taking an attack action are two different things within the rules, sure, they're very related, but not synonymous.
This is the closest thing you have to an argument but again it is based on a wildly inaccurate understanding of verb tenses. So I'm really not sure what to tell you aside from brush up on verb conjugation. "Making" is only a past continuing verb if it is structured as "had been making".
Thank's for proving my point? Because the rules quoted say you are making an attack when you are making an attack roll...ergo if you do not roll you aren't attacking. Glad you realize that now.
But as discussed numerous times, attacking and taking an attack action are two different things within the rules, sure, they're very related, but not synonymous.
They actually are.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
The RAW of Shield Master's shove feature has been fully analyzed, and is as follows:
If 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.
You have not taken the Attack until you have actually made your attack.
You have not made your attack until you have actually resolved rolling for the attack
If you have multiple attacks per Attack action you have not completed the Attack action until you have actually resolved rolling for all your attacks, or by resolving at minimum one attack and choosing to forfeit any remaining attacks.
The bonus action shove cannot be inserted between multiple attacks in a single Attack action.
The trigger that allows you to take the bonus action shove is having taken the Attack action itself; not the individual attack, whether you hit, score a critical hit, etc.
As above, you must finish resolving all attacks in your Attack action, or by resolving one attack and choosing to forfeit the rest.
All of this is wrong. You are inserting the word taken where the rules as written use the word take. This is not RAW. You have to change word tense to make your interpretation true. I bolded where you changed word tense to force your interpretation to be true.
Now, if you or your DM thinks you can use the bonus action before making the attack that is perfectly fine...But at that point you aren't adhering to RAW, which is fine in some circumstances, but not others like playing in Adventurer's League games.
I totally respect that that is how you would choose to interpret the RAW. As a DM I interpret it differently and for the reasons I've stated.
I also disagree with your assertion that somehow I'm not adhering to RAW, as we've all been quoting the same source material and describing interpretations thereof. But, again, if that is what you would choose to believe, I'm happy to coexist in a state of disagreement with you!
Whether that flies in AL? I don't know. I'm not familiar with how AL functions, so someone else will have to assist you there!
Not arguing with you or anything; I just want to point out a couple of things for others that view this thread, so they do not get confused.
There is literally no interpretation to the RAW. It is "Rules as Written". If you apply any interpretation to the wording, then you are applying "Rules as Intended" (RAI).
Any deviation from the logical structure, wording, and grammar of a rule, ability, feature, etc. does mean that you are not adhering to the RAW.
What we have been discussing in this thread is the RAW of Shield Master. We are not making interpretations ofhow the feat should work. We are analyzing how the feat does work.
Adventurer's League is RAW or bust; for players and DMs. Analyzing the actual RAW is important because all AL games MUST adhere to the RAW, and ONLY the RAW. There is no interpretation allowed whatsoever in these games, or the entire concept of AL--being able to drop in & out of different tables, modules, campaigns, etc. knowing everyone is following the same rules--is destroyed.
The RAW of Shield Master's shove feature has been fully analyzed, and is as follows:
If 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.
You have not taken the Attack until you have actually made your attack.
You have not made your attack until you have actually resolved rolling for the attack
If you have multiple attacks per Attack action you have not completed the Attack action until you have actually resolved rolling for all your attacks, or by resolving at minimum one attack and choosing to forfeit any remaining attacks.
The bonus action shove cannot be inserted between multiple attacks in a single Attack action.
The trigger that allows you to take the bonus action shove is having taken the Attackaction itself; not the individual attack, whether you hit, score a critical hit, etc.
As above, you must finish resolving all attacks in your Attack action, or by resolving one attack and choosing to forfeit the rest.
As I said to a couple of others, I fully support your interpretation of the RAW on the feat and the rules related to it, I simply disagree that it is an absolute and exclusive interpretation. It does make sense the way you have structured your personal thoughts and words on how it should be ruled, and I would without hesitation support it as a player at your table!
One question, however, since you did make a point about striving to alleviate confusion:
Something that seems to me a bit confusing from your response is that you state "The RAW of Shield Master's shove feature has been fully analyzed, and is as follows", but what you proceed to state next is both quoted RAW text combined with what I must assume are your own words as there are no quotations nor indication that what you are saying is text from any of the actual rulebooks.
I want to make sure I don't misunderstand, so please forgive if I have done so, but it seems as if you are referring to your own interpretation as if it is RAW.
This is the closest thing you have to an argument but again it is based on a wildly inaccurate understanding of verb tenses. So I'm really not sure what to tell you aside from brush up on verb conjugation. "Making" is only a past continuing verb if it is structured as "had been making".
Thank's for proving my point? Because the rules quoted say you are making an attack when you are making an attack roll...ergo if you do not roll you aren't attacking. Glad you realize that now.
But as discussed numerous times, attacking and taking an attack action are two different things within the rules, sure, they're very related, but not synonymous.
They actually are.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
Emphasis mine.
You are completely and wholly incorrect on this. An attack is not synonymous with an attack action. The terms are definitively not interchangeable. Attempting to parse any of the rules regarding additional attacks would completely and fundamentally fail and fall apart if you were to attempt to interpret these two different terms as being synonymous.
I would like to take a second to compare Two Weapon fighting with Shield Master. I'll bold the important distinction.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and Attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus Attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Shield Master:
If 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.
Two-weapon fighting explicitly requires that you have actually made the attack. Shield master does not. Shield Master requires that you take the action.
Okay, but some people argue that taking an action is instantaneous. But we know that it is not the case. We know that the attack action can be interrupted.
Breaking up movement:
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.
So we know that stuff can be done during the action. At a minimum movement can be done during the action.
Can.. anything else be done during an attack action? Good question, funny enough, a shove can.
Shove:
Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee Attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.
So while we are using the attack action, we can replace one of our attacks with a special attack - shove. Neat.
So, we can move and/or shove in the middle of an attack action, by RAW. So we know attack actions are not an instantaneous event, they transpire over some nebulous and indetermined duration, but that for sure other events can happen during or simultaneous to them.
So let's go back to the RAW of Shield Master again.
Shield Master:
If 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.
Present tense condition right here, take. So if we are in the act of taking the action we qualify by RAW. What's bonus actions say about timing?
Bonus Actions:
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during Your Turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take Actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action.
Ah, right.
So...
We can interrupt or otherwise act in the midst of an attack action.
We can bonus action shove while we take an attack action.
We get to choose when the bonus action occurs during our turn.
Guys. RAW is very clear that you can bonus action shove before you make the attacks from your attack action.
It might not explicitly state that is must be done "immediately and precluding all other possible occurrences", but it is strongly implied, and would actually break the game otherwise. It you could "take" the Attack action now, but delay the "one melee or ranged attack" you can do until the next round, you could attack twice next round. If you can delay everything described by the Attack action, you could take the attack action every 6 seconds, whether in combat or not, and accumulate the attacks, and just dole them out as you wanted to during actual combat. Battles would be defined not by who hits harder or can take more hits, but rather by who has spent the longest without fighting previously. That is obviously ridiculous, and I'm not suggesting you're advocating for that. But it serves to point out that there is an implicit time frame for the actions, and that it is integral to the game working properly. Given the lack of an explicit time frame, the most reasonable interpretation is that the timing is immediate.
I understand where the "declaring is taking" camp is coming from. I'm not sure whether it was a previous edition, or another game entirely, where declaring was an actual thing, and players declared their actions in reverse initiative order, but the actual actions were resolved in proper initiative order, which gave higher-initiative character's players an extra edge, in that they'd know what the other characters were intending to do before declaring their actions. (Example: a fighter is engaged with an Orc. The fighter rolled better initiative, so the Orc's player (or DM) declares "The Orc will attack with his Greatsword", then the fighter's player declares "Ok, in that case, I'll bring out my shield to try to block the attack". Then the actions are resolved: "Fighter, you brought out your shield, and hold it defensively", then "Orc attacks, rolls a ... 17, which is not high enough to hit the Fighter's AC including the Shield". If the Orc had declared to be casting a spell, the fighter might have opted for a quick attack to try to interrupt the spell, rather than bringing out the shield.)
But in this game, this edition, there's no such thing... you declare as you go. You don't declare intent, you declare activity. You don't say "I will be taking the Attack action", you say "I attack, using my Attack action". (I don't mean that literally, of course... you can state it however you wish, hehe.) So if you're not using your Attack action, saying you're taking it is either a lie (if you're doing something else), or unnecessary and useless (if you're talking about what you're going to do, rather than what you're doing). (By "useless" I mean mechanically. It can, of course, be very useful information; it just doesn't interact with the rules, since there are no rules that are based on what you will do in the future.)
Neither does pretty much anything else. Fire Bolt doesn't say you must immediately hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. It's understood that when you take the Cast A Spell action and cast Fire Bolt, the spell happens.
I find it ironic you are saying I am being intentionally disingenuous considering the fact that there is 100% a difference between attempted robbery and robbery charges...because they are distinct and different things...and yet you are arguing using pedantry over verb tense even though 90% of the game rules are written in the future tense. But following your logic, any rules that say "When you do X, you also do Y," since they are written in future tense, don't need to have the when portion occur. So by your logic, Tavern Brawler's last ability lets me interject a bonus action to grapple even before damage rolls are made, since it isn't talking about past actions but future ones. Also by your logic, the Sulker feat's second ability only works while "making the attack" and is a dead ability since it isn't talking about a past tense nor a past continuing tense action but a current tense one.
Get the point yet? The rules are primarily written in the future tense because they are written in a natural language that tells you what future things these abilities you are taking provide. Your argument is weak, and once again the rules make it clear that if you aren't making an attack roll, you aren't attacking. So using your own pedantry, making is both a present tense and past continuing tense verb....and making an attack is not a continuing action, ergo it has to be in the context of the present tense...so until you roll to attack, you aren't attacking.
Emphasis mine. Not only does an attack have a very clear structure to be followed, that if missing anything would no longer have the structure required to be an attack, but it clearly states that you need to be making an attack roll to be making an attack.
AltaStar: An attack has a definite structure once it is executed, yes, but the Attack action is another section and is actually quite short in comparison (that is what I am quoted quoting in your post). I thought I had made the distinction and apologize for not making that clearer!
Tonio: excellent points and ones I had not considered! I loled imagining a someone saving up all their attacks for the day and unleashing them all at once--that makes me want to play my monk on Diablo! Either way, I suppose the logic does follow--though perhaps the language of the Ready action encompasses such a dastardly course of activity.
InquisitiveCoder: that's a very good thing to consider! Going from what you and Tonio described, I glanced at the Ready action. The part which caught me was this: "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs."
Could you conceive of the possibility of readying an Attack action in the same way, gaining the bonus action shove, and then setting the trigger to roll the attack to be the shove itself. Or would you still rule that the Attack action is in some limbo-like, untaken state until the attack roll is made (thus rendering the shove still inaccessible)?
That is in the rules on attacks in combat under the actions in combat category...notice how it doesn't say you can make, but tells you that you make one melee or ranged attack? it also explicitly says that "Making an Attack" governs the rules for this action.
Finally, to be granted the bonus attack you have to take the attack action on your turn...Readying is not taking the attack action, but setting it up to where you can take that action if a trigger occurs...so no, there is no conceivable way within the framework of RAW to get that bonus action shove...
Now, if you or your DM thinks you can use the bonus action before making the attack that is perfectly fine...But at that point you aren't adhering to RAW, which is fine in some circumstances, but not others like playing in Adventurer's League games.
Normally when you ready an action, you declare the action you want up front but you don't take it until the trigger occurs and you decide you still want to expend your reaction:
So even if you ready the Attack action, you still haven't taken it. Readying an action for later on in your turn is rarely ever useful, since you could've just taken the action directly.
Readying a spell is a special case because the game's designers wanted to make readying spells risky. If some other rule applies whenever a creature casts a spell, like Counterspell, those rules do kick in when the spell is readied and cast, not when the reaction is taken. This can have some useful applications, like readying a spell out of sight or out of counterspell range, then moving and releasing it.
I totally respect that that is how you would choose to interpret the RAW. As a DM I interpret it differently and for the reasons I've stated.
I also disagree with your assertion that somehow I'm not adhering to RAW, as we've all been quoting the same source material and describing interpretations thereof. But, again, if that is what you would choose to believe, I'm happy to coexist in a state of disagreement with you!
Whether that flies in AL? I don't know. I'm not familiar with how AL functions, so someone else will have to assist you there!
Not trying to come off combative with you, so sorry if that is how it sounds...my assertions are mainly there for...others...who have been combative in their defense of their interpretation.
As far as AL goes, basically the expectation is that the games follow RAW and only RAW. It is that way for cohesive experiences. As such hammering out what the written rules state rather than looking at an interpretation of what the rules are intending is paramount in running those styles of games as intended.
I see what you mean and pretty much agree with you on that. Seemed like an interesting process to explore, but kind of a dead end also.
Felt like something people might look for if they tried to gimmick the Shield Master feat under the prohibited interpretation, but seems watertight to me!
Thanks for entertaining the question! :)
They are different but you are wrong about the difference between them. If you are in the process of robbing someone, you will be charged with robbery. The attempted robbery charges are for idiots who make an attempt that fails. Interrupted mid-robbery by police arresting you? Robbery charges. Failed robbery and later picked up? Attempted robbery. And hey, this is getting a bit off tangent, but some districts and countries will have varying legal interpretations or rules. So basing the defense of your interpretation on some esoteric interpretation of highly variable legal principle that has nothing to do with D&D is kind of a weird angle for you to take.
Hey man, if you're going to drag the specific text of other stuff into this discussion, actually bring the text. Don't assign someone who disagrees with you homework. And also these interpretations of 'my logic' are both wrong, and this clearly demonstrates that you're deeply confused about verb tenses.
I do not get your point, not even a little. Just assertions without any supporting text or rational. You've only provided bluster and no reasoning.
Just bluster and unsupported assertions.
This is the closest thing you have to an argument but again it is based on a wildly inaccurate understanding of verb tenses. So I'm really not sure what to tell you aside from brush up on verb conjugation. "Making" is only a past continuing verb if it is structured as "had been making".
I got quotes!
Just to consider the other side... the only way that I can see to really interpret these rules and come to the conclusion that the bonus action shove must be performed after the attack action is if you were to classify your action as a resource that is spent, instead of as a verb that your characters perform. The language on that isn't strongly supported, but I could see how people might be putting themselves in that mindset and seeing this from that angle. Because if actions were like a currency, and you spent them to do things, then the wording of the Sheild Mastery feat would require that you have spent your action on the attack action.
But really... it would need the feat to be worded differently to work like that. Something like:
instead of what it actually says:
Edit/Clarification: The reason why those would work differently is that a resource is either spent or it isn't, this is a binary state. Used yes, or used no. While an action, or verb, could be either no, yes, or ongoing. And in the case of "take" it means the verb is: yes or ongoing. But with the reword the conditional shifts to "use" which is still a yes or ongoing, but with only a valid yes or no option, resulting in it being a yes.
I got quotes!
Not arguing with you or anything; I just want to point out a couple of things for others that view this thread, so they do not get confused.
We are analyzing how the feat does work.
The RAW of Shield Master's shove feature has been fully analyzed, and is as follows:
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.
Thank's for proving my point? Because the rules quoted say you are making an attack when you are making an attack roll...ergo if you do not roll you aren't attacking. Glad you realize that now.
But as discussed numerous times, attacking and taking an attack action are two different things within the rules, sure, they're very related, but not synonymous.
I got quotes!
They actually are.
Emphasis mine.
All of this is wrong. You are inserting the word taken where the rules as written use the word take. This is not RAW. You have to change word tense to make your interpretation true. I bolded where you changed word tense to force your interpretation to be true.
I got quotes!
As I said to a couple of others, I fully support your interpretation of the RAW on the feat and the rules related to it, I simply disagree that it is an absolute and exclusive interpretation. It does make sense the way you have structured your personal thoughts and words on how it should be ruled, and I would without hesitation support it as a player at your table!
One question, however, since you did make a point about striving to alleviate confusion:
Something that seems to me a bit confusing from your response is that you state "The RAW of Shield Master's shove feature has been fully analyzed, and is as follows", but what you proceed to state next is both quoted RAW text combined with what I must assume are your own words as there are no quotations nor indication that what you are saying is text from any of the actual rulebooks.
I want to make sure I don't misunderstand, so please forgive if I have done so, but it seems as if you are referring to your own interpretation as if it is RAW.
Thank you and please clarify!
You are completely and wholly incorrect on this. An attack is not synonymous with an attack action. The terms are definitively not interchangeable. Attempting to parse any of the rules regarding additional attacks would completely and fundamentally fail and fall apart if you were to attempt to interpret these two different terms as being synonymous.
I got quotes!
I would like to take a second to compare Two Weapon fighting with Shield Master. I'll bold the important distinction.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
Shield Master:
Two-weapon fighting explicitly requires that you have actually made the attack. Shield master does not. Shield Master requires that you take the action.
Okay, but some people argue that taking an action is instantaneous. But we know that it is not the case. We know that the attack action can be interrupted.
Breaking up movement:
So we know that stuff can be done during the action. At a minimum movement can be done during the action.
Can.. anything else be done during an attack action? Good question, funny enough, a shove can.
Shove:
So while we are using the attack action, we can replace one of our attacks with a special attack - shove. Neat.
So, we can move and/or shove in the middle of an attack action, by RAW. So we know attack actions are not an instantaneous event, they transpire over some nebulous and indetermined duration, but that for sure other events can happen during or simultaneous to them.
So let's go back to the RAW of Shield Master again.
Shield Master:
Present tense condition right here, take. So if we are in the act of taking the action we qualify by RAW. What's bonus actions say about timing?
Bonus Actions:
Ah, right.
So...
Guys. RAW is very clear that you can bonus action shove before you make the attacks from your attack action.
I got quotes!