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 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.
1) The first quote is referring to the fact it has to be a light weapon that you are attacking with, it is an addendum to the first clause.
2) Movement is an exception to the general rule, hence it having specific language that allows you to move in between attacks. This is needed because otherwise it wouldn't be possible, hence needing to show that exception.
3) We all know how shove works...it replaces an attack from your attack action. Its rules have no bearing on the timing of the bonus action granted by shield master.
4) When you take something, it is something that is currently occurring...nothing in the game rules let's you 'take' your attack action and stop after choosing your targets, which is what you continue to argue. You take something by completing the action of taking it. If I say I am going to take a walk and start walking, I didn't take a walk, I am in the process of taking a walk. Only once the process has completed will that action have occurred, and will the original statement of "I am going to take a walk" become a factual statement.
In short, nothing you quoted does anything to prove your point, and at this point it is quite clear that you don't care about discussing the RAW in good faith and only care to prove your interpretation of the rules.
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.
Since I forgot to address this, I never said they were interchangeable, but the above makes it quite clear that this action requires an attack...and the rules governing an attack make it clear what process that involves...so once again, when you take the attack action, you attack. If you don't attack, you definitely aren't taking the attack action. That isn't saying that all attacks are the attack action, but that is to say that the attack action always produces an attack of some sort, which will always require an attack roll unless a specific rule tells you to do otherwise.
1) The first quote is referring to the fact it has to be a light weapon that you are attacking with, it is an addendum to the first clause.
Attack is capitalized. That's probably not an accident.
2) Movement is an exception to the general rule, hence it having specific language that allows you to move in between attacks. This is needed because otherwise it wouldn't be possible, hence needing to show that exception.
But it demonstrates, conclusively, that an attack action isn't instantaneous.
3) We all know how shove works...it replaces an attack from your attack action. Its rules have no bearing on the timing of the bonus action granted by shield master.
It happens during the action. Again, showcasing that the action is not instantaneous.
4) When you take something, it is something that is currently occurring...nothing in the game rules let's you 'take' your attack action and stop after choosing your targets, which is what you continue to argue. You take something by completing the action of taking it. If I say I am going to take a walk and start walking, I didn't take a walk, I am in the process of taking a walk. Only once the process has completed will that action have occurred, and will the original statement of "I am going to take a walk" become a factual statement.
I've never argued that you can stop your attack action. You are demonstrating in this quote repeatedly not understanding verb tense. I'm not sure how to have a rational conversation with someone about this when they lack the fundamental understanding of a critical element of the language we're using.
When I fly on an airplane, I might experience turbulence. When do I experience this turbulence?
When I ride my bike, I enjoy the breeze on my face. When am I enjoying this breeze?
When I get sick, I drink water and eat soup. When am I eating soup and drinking water?
When you drive to work in at rush hour, you encounter traffic. When are you encountering traffic?
When they use the garden hose, the water pressure drops. When does the water pressure drop?
I don't know how to teach this to you other than just give you examples. You're arguing with language itself.
In short, nothing you quoted does anything to prove your point, and at this point it is quite clear that you don't care about discussing the RAW in good faith and only care to prove your interpretation of the rules.
Dude, I use only RAW to make my point by quoting the actual text of the rules. Rules, as written.
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.
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.
Since I forgot to address this, I never said they were interchangeable, ...
Just to be clear, you did. And, also to be clear, they're two distinct game terms.
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.
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.
Since I forgot to address this, I never said they were interchangeable, ...
Just to be clear, you did. And, also to be clear, they're two distinct game terms.
They are synonymous enough that the only way to attack outside of the attack action are bonus actions that grant an attack, and spells that require an attack roll...those are the only edge cases, making them synonymous enough in the given context that is being discussed hence my pointing out what I did. If A implies B, then B must be followed...the attack action implies making an attack, and as such those rules must be followed...so in the context being discussed, they are functionally the same. If we were talking about attacks in general though, it would not be because A implying B doesn't mean that B implies A.
But since you seem to like taking things off tangent, lets discuss the fact that the Sage Advice felt the need to add that intent to make an attack wasn't enough. Why add that clause? Because stating that you are taking an attack action, but not actually resolving it, is mechanically the same as making your intent to eventually attack known. If the rules on the attack action allowed you to simply declare that you were attacking, why make it explicit that intent isn't enough when the end result is the same...such a clause only has weight if taking the attack action requires resolution first, otherwise such a clause is rendered pointless. Such a phrase is also included to clarify the RAW, meaning that as written the rules on the attack action typically require resolution of the attack, while only certain things are exceptions to the rule like movement.
You are very likely aware of this. as such you are likely not making an argument in good faith and likely never were...as such I should have never entertained you to begin with and will no longer discuss this further with you specifically.
An 8-page thread that could have been answered with "If your DM allows it, then yes, if your DM doesn't allow it, then no, consult your DM." My feeling on this is, sure, can shove first then attack twice, can attack, shove, attack, even shove, shove, shove, just know that NPC's can do the same thing, if you abuse it(IE every time you attack a target), then you may encounter your party facing shield mastered NPC's in combat that do similar tactics.
It's a wash though, while that player or one other may get advantage, any ranged party member has disadvantage, and your rogue in the back with his shortbow may be angry with you if you prone every target.
An 8-page thread that could have been answered with "If your DM allows it, then yes, if your DM doesn't allow it, then no, consult your DM." My feeling on this is, sure, can shove first then attack twice, can attack, shove, attack, even shove, shove, shove, just know that NPC's can do the same thing, if you abuse it(IE every time you attack a target), then you may encounter your party facing shield mastered NPC's in combat that do similar tactics.
It's a wash though, while that player or one other may get advantage, any ranged party member has disadvantage, and your rogue in the back with his shortbow may be angry with you if you prone every target.
Yeah, and people have said already a few times.
Knowing what is RAW versus what is not though is very useful, especially if you plan to play in Adventurers League games or plan to DM one in a sanctioned event...that's mostly been what has been being discussed.
They are synonymous enough that the only way to attack outside of the attack action are bonus actions that grant an attack, and spells that require an attack roll...those are the only edge cases, making them synonymous enough in the given context that is being discussed hence my pointing out what I did. If A implies B, then B must be followed...the attack action implies making an attack, and as such those rules must be followed...so in the context being discussed, they are functionally the same. If we were talking about attacks in general though, it would not be because A implying B doesn't mean that B implies A.
You take an attack action. You make an attack. One is selected from a predetermined list of available actions, of which you may take only one in a turn, the other is something that various actions allows you to make when specified in those actions. This is fundamental to any reading of the rules and you must surely understand that they are not even remotely the same thing.
But since you seem to like taking things off tangent, lets discuss the fact that the Sage Advice felt the need to add that intent to make an attack wasn't enough. Why add that clause? Because stating that you are taking an attack action, but not actually resolving it, is mechanically the same as making your intent to eventually attack known. If the rules on the attack action allowed you to simply declare that you were attacking, why make it explicit that intent isn't enough when the end result is the same...such a clause only has weight if taking the attack action requires resolution first, otherwise such a clause is rendered pointless.
You must actually take the action, I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that you don't need to take the attack action. You must take it, for sure, without a doubt you must take it. You just don't need to have taken it. Having taken the action means to complete it, which the text of the feat does not say, it says take. The text, as written, states take.
Such a phrase is also included to clarify the RAW, meaning that as written the rules on the attack action typically require resolution of the attack, while only certain things are exceptions to the rule like movement.
RAW is RAW. The only thing that changes RAW is a rules text change. Rules as Written. What you are expressing is RAI, Rules as Intended. They can clarify rules as intended. They could even modify the RAW or give superseding rules text in errata, which would be new RAW. But simply saying what they think it should do, or what it was intended to do... is RAI.
You are very likely aware of this. as such you are likely not making an argument in good faith and likely never were...as such I should have never entertained you to begin with and will no longer discuss this further with you specifically.
I only care about the written text, Rules as Written. My arguments are all based on the exact wording of the rule books, with direct quotes and references. There isn't a more good faith approach than that. In a discussion about the rules as they are written, changing the tense of the verbs to suit your argument is disingenuous at best. If you need to alter the wording to fit your interpretation, then you are, quite simply, wrong.
Here is something from Sage Advice for you:
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.
In this document he states that when determining official rules he considers them from a RAW perspective, a RAI perspective, and a RAF perspective. Unfortunately, in this case, the RAW says you can shove as a bonus action before making the attacks, so long as you take the attack action on your turn. The RAI is that it was just meant to essentially add in a free shove with the shield whenever. And RAF varies depending who you ask. But in this case he is ignoring the RAW, ignoring the RAI, and ruling this way because of some mistaken assumption oh his part about standardized text formats and universality of interpreting their structure. The section on this issue demonstrates that he too is making the exact same error in present vs past tense verb conjugation.
Sage Advise:
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.
That's the wrong question and the answer doesn't clear up anything at all. You take the bonus action during the attack action. If he understood the issue this would not be how he "clarified" it. It clarifies nothing.
SA Continued:
The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a pre-condition: that you take the Attack action on your turn.
Correct, you must take it, present tense. The precondition trigger is: To take.
SA continued again:
In-tending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action.
No issues still, this continues to be right, but still clarifies nothing whatsoever. He's answering a different question that isn't relevant up to this point.
During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This is where even he converts the present tense trigger condition to a past tense trigger to come to a ruling that isn't RAW. If you are changing the wording, it isn't RAW.
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
The only problem is when JC and others can't wrap their heads around a present tense "if", for some reason. It is the weirdest thing in the world to have people just straight up not understand verb tenses in a situation like this. It is such a fundamental part of language it is hard to believe it is this difficult for people to understand how they work. It feels like people are intentionally or willfully pretending the written words are actually different words. Dunno. Weird though. Like, it says Take. I don't even know how that is hard.
If take then shove.
Take attack action>If take then shove=true>Finish attack action. So simple.
When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger.
Adjudicating Reaction Timing, DMG 252
If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in Ready Action.
Bonus Actions, PHB 189
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.
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not quite the same.
I wonder if you realize that anything clarified in a Sage Advice becomes RAW...because it doesn't seem that you do, or you really like beating a dead horse.
Funny you should mention that because Jeremy Crawford himself has said that anything clarified in a Sage Advice becomes RAW. And then later on, he reversed his position.
Just like his ruling on when you can use bonus action shove :)
As always, respect to all parties participating in this! I think you are all making fair and defensible points.
From SA: “During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.”
This segment in particular demonstrates what I believe to be the doorway into the great and wondrous land of interpretation: the tense of the verb “take” doesn't matter because the word itself can still be dissected.
In fact, I submit to your collective judgment that it must be interpreted because I can find nowhere in the RAW where “take the Attack action” is defined in such a way that does not necessitate further interpretation, elaboration, or analogy. Does it mean “complete”? Does it mean “activate”? Does it mean “initialize with a minimum of one attack”? Does it mean “resolve all resultant components fully and to the preclusion of all else”?
I think it can mean all of them while not rendering the judge “outside of RAW”.
I wonder if you realize that anything clarified in a Sage Advice becomes RAW...because it doesn't seem that you do, or you really like beating a dead horse.
No, it doesn't. The rules are in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual. Sage Advice is guidance on how those rules were intended to be used. It's essentially RAI. The Sage Advice Compendium tells you as much:
Rules References
The fifth edition of D&D has three official rulebooks, each of which was first published in 2014: (...)
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). ... A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The Role of Rules
... In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another. ... Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes. ... When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
Sage Advice is not an official rulebook. Sage Advice is not errata. Sage Advice rulings are not rules. "Rules As Written" refers to the rules text taken in isolation.
Obviously Sage Advice carries a great deal of weight with many players since it explains how the rules were intended to work, straight from the source. In practice, it carries almost as much weight as the rules themselves. But saying it's RAW is flat out wrong and just confuses the issue. Sage Advice rulings only tell you the RAI or give straightforward RAW answers you could've worked out yourself. They don't add to or amend the rules. The RAW is in the Player's Handbook.
Every relevant piece of rules text and designer intent has already been brought up and beaten to death. Extra Attack makes "If/when you take the Attack action" an ambiguous statement because it turns what used to be a simple, atomic process (make an attack) into a non-atomic process (make one or more attacks, possibly moving and taking bonus actions between them.) Jeremy already gave RAW and RAI rulings. Changing Shield Master with errata won't address the underlying issue; you'll run into the exact same problem with Blade Flourish, Flurry of Blows, and any other features that key off of taking the Attack action.
In a perfect world Extra Attack and Multiattack would've been written along the lines of "If you take the Attack action using your action or Action Surge, you can take the Attack action an additional time during your turn." That would've avoided the timing ambiguity, removed the need for special rules for moving between attacks, and streamlined the Haste spell and the grapple/shove rules. But there's no chance Wizards of the Coast will drastically redesign Extra Attack in errata. Each group of players is going to have to deal with the ambiguity and decide for themselves what "If you take the Attack action" means to them when a character has Extra Attack.
Funny you should mention that because Jeremy Crawford himself has said that anything clarified in a Sage Advice becomes RAW. And then later on, he reversed his position.
Just like his ruling on when you can use bonus action shove :)
Last I saw him speak of this was the beginning of 2019 where he said anything in Sage Advice is an official ruling while his tweets no longer are. Official rulings have the same weight as RAW as you noted, which is why I made the claim to begin with.
Has he since reversed that? I am legitimately unaware if he has.
I wonder if you realize that anything clarified in a Sage Advice becomes RAW...because it doesn't seem that you do, or you really like beating a dead horse.
No, it doesn't. The rules are in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual. Sage Advice is guidance on how those rules were intended to be used. It's essentially RAI. The Sage Advice Compendium tells you as much:
Rules References
The fifth edition of D&D has three official rulebooks, each of which was first published in 2014: (...)
Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). ... A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
The Role of Rules
... In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another. ... Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes. ... When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.
RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.
Sage Advice is not an official rulebook. Sage Advice is not errata. Sage Advice rulings are not rules. "Rules As Written" refers to the rules text taken in isolation.
Obviously Sage Advice carries a great deal of weight with many players since it explains how the rules were intended to work, straight from the source. In practice, it carries almost as much weight as the rules themselves. But saying it's RAW is flat out wrong and just confuses the issue. Sage Advice rulings only tell you the RAI or give straightforward RAW answers you could've worked out yourself. They don't add to or amend the rules. The RAW is in the Player's Handbook.
Every relevant piece of rules text and designer intent has already been brought up and beaten to death. Extra Attack makes "If/when you take the Attack action" an ambiguous statement because it turns what used to be a simple, atomic process (make an attack) into a non-atomic process (make one or more attacks, possibly moving and taking bonus actions between them.) Jeremy already gave RAW and RAI rulings. Changing Shield Master with errata won't address the underlying issue; you'll run into the exact same problem with Blade Flourish, Flurry of Blows, and any other features that key off of taking the Attack action.
In a perfect world Extra Attack and Multiattack would've been written along the lines of "If you take the Attack action using your action or Action Surge, you can take the Attack action an additional time during your turn." That would've avoided the timing ambiguity, removed the need for special rules for moving between attacks, and streamlined the Haste spell and the grapple/shove rules. But there's no chance Wizards of the Coast will drastically redesign Extra Attack in errata. Each group of players is going to have to deal with the ambiguity and decide for themselves what "If you take the Attack action" means to them when a character has Extra Attack.
I will cede that I was incorrect possibly, but as Sage Advice are official rulings, one would assume that means that it has the same weight as RAW and functionally reframes the existing RAW to work closer to the intended way...but wouldn't that functionally make those rulings RAW? That's basically why I made the assertion I did to begin with.
Definitely with AtlaStar here! I thought it was fairly straightforward that SA was considered RAW, though perhaps I as well am under a misapprehension.
It is published by WotC and includes this bit:
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium...."
If that doesn't mean "this is RAW" then I don't know what else could!
I saw someone say Taking the Attack Action is started by attacking. Real quick:
I am a warlock. I use the Meld into Shadows invocation to turn invisible. Next turn, I use my action to take the attack action. But my familiar attacks instead. Did I take the attack action? Do I turn back visible?
I saw someone say Taking the Attack Action is started by attacking. Real quick:
I am a warlock. I use the Meld into Shadows invocation to turn invisible. Next turn, I use my action to take the attack action. But my familiar attacks instead. Did I take the attack action? Do I turn back visible?
I will cede that I was incorrect possibly, but as Sage Advice are official rulings, one would assume that means that it has the same weight as RAW and functionally reframes the existing RAW to work closer to the intended way...but wouldn't that functionally make those rulings RAW?
It functionally makes those rulings Rules As Intended. Nothing in Sage Advice changes what's actually printed in the core books, and that's the only source of RAW. While you and I might agree on following the spirit and design intent of the rules, there's certainly people that are perfectly happy to ignore Sage Advice and run things based purely on their own interpretation of the RAW, and they're technically not wrong.
I am a warlock. I use the Meld into Shadows invocation to turn invisible. Next turn, I use my action to take the attack action. But my familiar attacks instead. Did I take the attack action? Do I turn back visible?
You certainly took the Attack action, because otherwise you wouldn't have been able to forego an attack and allow your familiar to attack instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) The first quote is referring to the fact it has to be a light weapon that you are attacking with, it is an addendum to the first clause.
2) Movement is an exception to the general rule, hence it having specific language that allows you to move in between attacks. This is needed because otherwise it wouldn't be possible, hence needing to show that exception.
3) We all know how shove works...it replaces an attack from your attack action. Its rules have no bearing on the timing of the bonus action granted by shield master.
4) When you take something, it is something that is currently occurring...nothing in the game rules let's you 'take' your attack action and stop after choosing your targets, which is what you continue to argue. You take something by completing the action of taking it. If I say I am going to take a walk and start walking, I didn't take a walk, I am in the process of taking a walk. Only once the process has completed will that action have occurred, and will the original statement of "I am going to take a walk" become a factual statement.
In short, nothing you quoted does anything to prove your point, and at this point it is quite clear that you don't care about discussing the RAW in good faith and only care to prove your interpretation of the rules.
Since I forgot to address this, I never said they were interchangeable, but the above makes it quite clear that this action requires an attack...and the rules governing an attack make it clear what process that involves...so once again, when you take the attack action, you attack. If you don't attack, you definitely aren't taking the attack action. That isn't saying that all attacks are the attack action, but that is to say that the attack action always produces an attack of some sort, which will always require an attack roll unless a specific rule tells you to do otherwise.
Attack is capitalized. That's probably not an accident.
But it demonstrates, conclusively, that an attack action isn't instantaneous.
It happens during the action. Again, showcasing that the action is not instantaneous.
I've never argued that you can stop your attack action. You are demonstrating in this quote repeatedly not understanding verb tense. I'm not sure how to have a rational conversation with someone about this when they lack the fundamental understanding of a critical element of the language we're using.
When I fly on an airplane, I might experience turbulence. When do I experience this turbulence?
When I ride my bike, I enjoy the breeze on my face. When am I enjoying this breeze?
When I get sick, I drink water and eat soup. When am I eating soup and drinking water?
When you drive to work in at rush hour, you encounter traffic. When are you encountering traffic?
When they use the garden hose, the water pressure drops. When does the water pressure drop?
I don't know how to teach this to you other than just give you examples. You're arguing with language itself.
Dude, I use only RAW to make my point by quoting the actual text of the rules. Rules, as written.
I got quotes!
This thread is a gift that keeps on giving.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Just to be clear, you did. And, also to be clear, they're two distinct game terms.
I got quotes!
They are synonymous enough that the only way to attack outside of the attack action are bonus actions that grant an attack, and spells that require an attack roll...those are the only edge cases, making them synonymous enough in the given context that is being discussed hence my pointing out what I did. If A implies B, then B must be followed...the attack action implies making an attack, and as such those rules must be followed...so in the context being discussed, they are functionally the same. If we were talking about attacks in general though, it would not be because A implying B doesn't mean that B implies A.
But since you seem to like taking things off tangent, lets discuss the fact that the Sage Advice felt the need to add that intent to make an attack wasn't enough. Why add that clause? Because stating that you are taking an attack action, but not actually resolving it, is mechanically the same as making your intent to eventually attack known. If the rules on the attack action allowed you to simply declare that you were attacking, why make it explicit that intent isn't enough when the end result is the same...such a clause only has weight if taking the attack action requires resolution first, otherwise such a clause is rendered pointless. Such a phrase is also included to clarify the RAW, meaning that as written the rules on the attack action typically require resolution of the attack, while only certain things are exceptions to the rule like movement.
You are very likely aware of this. as such you are likely not making an argument in good faith and likely never were...as such I should have never entertained you to begin with and will no longer discuss this further with you specifically.
An 8-page thread that could have been answered with "If your DM allows it, then yes, if your DM doesn't allow it, then no, consult your DM." My feeling on this is, sure, can shove first then attack twice, can attack, shove, attack, even shove, shove, shove, just know that NPC's can do the same thing, if you abuse it(IE every time you attack a target), then you may encounter your party facing shield mastered NPC's in combat that do similar tactics.
It's a wash though, while that player or one other may get advantage, any ranged party member has disadvantage, and your rogue in the back with his shortbow may be angry with you if you prone every target.
Yeah, and people have said already a few times.
Knowing what is RAW versus what is not though is very useful, especially if you plan to play in Adventurers League games or plan to DM one in a sanctioned event...that's mostly been what has been being discussed.
You take an attack action. You make an attack. One is selected from a predetermined list of available actions, of which you may take only one in a turn, the other is something that various actions allows you to make when specified in those actions. This is fundamental to any reading of the rules and you must surely understand that they are not even remotely the same thing.
You must actually take the action, I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that you don't need to take the attack action. You must take it, for sure, without a doubt you must take it. You just don't need to have taken it. Having taken the action means to complete it, which the text of the feat does not say, it says take. The text, as written, states take.
RAW is RAW. The only thing that changes RAW is a rules text change. Rules as Written. What you are expressing is RAI, Rules as Intended. They can clarify rules as intended. They could even modify the RAW or give superseding rules text in errata, which would be new RAW. But simply saying what they think it should do, or what it was intended to do... is RAI.
I only care about the written text, Rules as Written. My arguments are all based on the exact wording of the rule books, with direct quotes and references. There isn't a more good faith approach than that. In a discussion about the rules as they are written, changing the tense of the verbs to suit your argument is disingenuous at best. If you need to alter the wording to fit your interpretation, then you are, quite simply, wrong.
Here is something from Sage Advice for you:
In this document he states that when determining official rules he considers them from a RAW perspective, a RAI perspective, and a RAF perspective. Unfortunately, in this case, the RAW says you can shove as a bonus action before making the attacks, so long as you take the attack action on your turn. The RAI is that it was just meant to essentially add in a free shove with the shield whenever. And RAF varies depending who you ask. But in this case he is ignoring the RAW, ignoring the RAI, and ruling this way because of some mistaken assumption oh his part about standardized text formats and universality of interpreting their structure. The section on this issue demonstrates that he too is making the exact same error in present vs past tense verb conjugation.
Sage Advise:
That's the wrong question and the answer doesn't clear up anything at all. You take the bonus action during the attack action. If he understood the issue this would not be how he "clarified" it. It clarifies nothing.
SA Continued:
Correct, you must take it, present tense. The precondition trigger is: To take.
SA continued again:
No issues still, this continues to be right, but still clarifies nothing whatsoever. He's answering a different question that isn't relevant up to this point.
This is where even he converts the present tense trigger condition to a past tense trigger to come to a ruling that isn't RAW. If you are changing the wording, it isn't RAW.
The only problem is when JC and others can't wrap their heads around a present tense "if", for some reason. It is the weirdest thing in the world to have people just straight up not understand verb tenses in a situation like this. It is such a fundamental part of language it is hard to believe it is this difficult for people to understand how they work. It feels like people are intentionally or willfully pretending the written words are actually different words. Dunno. Weird though. Like, it says Take. I don't even know how that is hard.
If take then shove.
Take attack action>If take then shove=true>Finish attack action. So simple.
I got quotes!
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not quite the same.
I got quotes!
I wonder if you realize that anything clarified in a Sage Advice becomes RAW...because it doesn't seem that you do, or you really like beating a dead horse.
Funny you should mention that because Jeremy Crawford himself has said that anything clarified in a Sage Advice becomes RAW. And then later on, he reversed his position.
Just like his ruling on when you can use bonus action shove :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
As always, respect to all parties participating in this! I think you are all making fair and defensible points.
From SA: “During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.”
This segment in particular demonstrates what I believe to be the doorway into the great and wondrous land of interpretation: the tense of the verb “take” doesn't matter because the word itself can still be dissected.
In fact, I submit to your collective judgment that it must be interpreted because I can find nowhere in the RAW where “take the Attack action” is defined in such a way that does not necessitate further interpretation, elaboration, or analogy. Does it mean “complete”? Does it mean “activate”? Does it mean “initialize with a minimum of one attack”? Does it mean “resolve all resultant components fully and to the preclusion of all else”?
I think it can mean all of them while not rendering the judge “outside of RAW”.
No, it doesn't. The rules are in the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual. Sage Advice is guidance on how those rules were intended to be used. It's essentially RAI. The Sage Advice Compendium tells you as much:
Sage Advice is not an official rulebook. Sage Advice is not errata. Sage Advice rulings are not rules. "Rules As Written" refers to the rules text taken in isolation.
Obviously Sage Advice carries a great deal of weight with many players since it explains how the rules were intended to work, straight from the source. In practice, it carries almost as much weight as the rules themselves. But saying it's RAW is flat out wrong and just confuses the issue. Sage Advice rulings only tell you the RAI or give straightforward RAW answers you could've worked out yourself. They don't add to or amend the rules. The RAW is in the Player's Handbook.
Every relevant piece of rules text and designer intent has already been brought up and beaten to death. Extra Attack makes "If/when you take the Attack action" an ambiguous statement because it turns what used to be a simple, atomic process (make an attack) into a non-atomic process (make one or more attacks, possibly moving and taking bonus actions between them.) Jeremy already gave RAW and RAI rulings. Changing Shield Master with errata won't address the underlying issue; you'll run into the exact same problem with Blade Flourish, Flurry of Blows, and any other features that key off of taking the Attack action.
In a perfect world Extra Attack and Multiattack would've been written along the lines of "If you take the Attack action using your action or Action Surge, you can take the Attack action an additional time during your turn." That would've avoided the timing ambiguity, removed the need for special rules for moving between attacks, and streamlined the Haste spell and the grapple/shove rules. But there's no chance Wizards of the Coast will drastically redesign Extra Attack in errata. Each group of players is going to have to deal with the ambiguity and decide for themselves what "If you take the Attack action" means to them when a character has Extra Attack.
Last I saw him speak of this was the beginning of 2019 where he said anything in Sage Advice is an official ruling while his tweets no longer are. Official rulings have the same weight as RAW as you noted, which is why I made the claim to begin with.
Has he since reversed that? I am legitimately unaware if he has.
I will cede that I was incorrect possibly, but as Sage Advice are official rulings, one would assume that means that it has the same weight as RAW and functionally reframes the existing RAW to work closer to the intended way...but wouldn't that functionally make those rulings RAW? That's basically why I made the assertion I did to begin with.
Definitely with AtlaStar here! I thought it was fairly straightforward that SA was considered RAW, though perhaps I as well am under a misapprehension.
It is published by WotC and includes this bit:
"Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium...."
If that doesn't mean "this is RAW" then I don't know what else could!
I saw someone say Taking the Attack Action is started by attacking. Real quick:
I am a warlock. I use the Meld into Shadows invocation to turn invisible. Next turn, I use my action to take the attack action. But my familiar attacks instead. Did I take the attack action? Do I turn back visible?
Questions, questions.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
I saw someone say Taking the Attack Action is started by attacking. Real quick:
I am a warlock. I use the Meld into Shadows invocation to turn invisible. Next turn, I use my action to take the attack action. But my familiar attacks instead. Did I take the attack action? Do I turn back visible?
Questions, questions.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
It functionally makes those rulings Rules As Intended. Nothing in Sage Advice changes what's actually printed in the core books, and that's the only source of RAW. While you and I might agree on following the spirit and design intent of the rules, there's certainly people that are perfectly happy to ignore Sage Advice and run things based purely on their own interpretation of the RAW, and they're technically not wrong.
You certainly took the Attack action, because otherwise you wouldn't have been able to forego an attack and allow your familiar to attack instead.