Rules as Deduced: What does a turn look like?

[broodax]

An interesting discussion came up in the RAW thread that I would like to explore further. It started with a discussion of whether one can take a bonus action dependent on an Attack Action before the attacks that are part of the Attack Action. However, it's really about a more basic understanding of how turns and actions work in 5e.

Here are, I hope, the main questions. The 2nd question here is really the one under discussion, but I think it depends on the first, and might lead into a nice conversation of the third.


What does it mean to "take an action"?
When abilities say "when you take an ... action", do they mean "after you take an ... action", "during a turn when you take an ... action", or something else?
What do we do with actions that clearly take time, when the rules treat everything as though it was instantaneous, and with activities that are happening simultaneously but are structured as sequential in the rules?


The major disagreement seems to boil down to:
Side A:

Taking an action means deciding to use that action on your turn, "declaring" it, if you will.
The "when" does not mean "after" and any bonus actions or other choices can be made before the action in question actually occurs.
I dunno.


Side B:

Taking an action means doing everything having to do with an action, up to and including resolution.
Abilities that say "when" mean "after", and no benefit of taking that ability exists until "after" you completely resolve that action.
I dunno.


Now, I happen to be with side A on the answer to the first two questions. A number of reasons were brought up in the previous discussion, namely designer responses that indicate that a shield bash and and off-hand attack can both come before the Attack Action that makes them possible. Now, some might say that this is twitter, not RAW. However, I believe it is firmly in agreement with RAW, and offers what should be seen as the correct interpretation of the RAW.

Take this sentence as an example: "When you go to the bank, you may stop and get some ice cream." Is there anything in this sentence that indicates whether I've given you permission to get a treat before or after you stop at the bank? I do not believe so. There is no plain english reason to prefer one or the other at all. If you stopped to get ice cream first, and then decided to go get a massage instead of going to the bank, you would not have had permission, i.e., you would have broken the rules. But, if you stop for ice cream and then go to the bank, you've done nothing wrong.

Further, I believe that many rules point to this as being the intent, and that the misunderstanding is due to poor choice of wording, not some broken rule or misinterpretation of RAW.


You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified
This is of course the most obvious. Again, I do not believe "when" indicates order in plain english, and therefor it cannot be taken as specifying the time. I believe the most reasonable interpretation of "when", given the context, is "on the same turn". Much the same way that "when" given the context of my previous plain english sentence could be reasonably taken a number of ways: "during the same car trip" or "on the same day", but could not be taken to mean some specific order.


You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of I action.

This rule is interesting. I believe that it indicates we should look at a turn in its entirety when determining which actions are legal, not look at things in a particular order. I have to know whether I plan to cast a bonus action spell at any point in my turn before I choose to cast a non-cantrip spell. If I do things in order, I get into weird time travel problems: "What do you mean I can't? I already did it!"

Further, I believe that if we get into a conversation about question 1 and 3 above, we'll see that the rules can't really be interpreted any other way without becoming nonsensical, as was already argued in the previous discussion. If you try to treat actions as fully distinct things that must be entirely completed before they are "taken" then you get into all sorts of trouble.

One interpretation that was not brought up before: We know from the rules that one can Attack->Move->Attack when one has Extra Attack. If the Attack action is not "taken" until the entire attack is resolved, what is to stop me from saying I Attack->Move->Take another entirely separate action? I have not taken the Attack Action yet, so I still have an action available, right?

The only way for all of these rules, I think, to make sense is to look at a turn on the whole, make sure that it is not breaking any rules, and then order the actions however one wants unless a rule specifically says that they must occur in a certain order.

Would any of the folks supporting Side B care to offer support for why "when" should be taken to mean "after" and/or correct my presentation of the argument?



R107 I would like to point out that when you use the Attack Action you do not have to attack immediately and can instead opt to use your bonus action first. An example

Turn starts
I decide I am going to use the Attack Action sometime this turn and declare that I am.
I then decide that I want to use my offhand attack granted by Two Weapon fighting beforehand because I don't want to waste a Strength boosted attack on the enemy in front of me.
After my offhand attack I decide to move 15 feet to another target and then make my attack/s granted by the Attack Action.
Turn ends

This is likely where your confusion arose since you can resolve your actions during your turn in whatever order you feel like. But as they said you can't use a bonus action attack in that situation because it requires that you take the Attack Action and not the Ready Action


Can you please provide RAW for this? I do not see it on page 192 of the PHB. There it says:


It does not talk about taking the action which you then use later in your turn.


RE107

TWF requires the attack action. Attack action above says when you take the Attack Action you make one melee or ranged attack.

You can then move and everything, but I believe by RAW the normal attack has to come first.


I see what you mean. It's implicit, not explicit, which opens it to some degree of interpretation.


*insert typical Mearls spiel*
I think the only time it would matter is a twf(w/o dual wielder) or polearm using the bonus action to shove (prone) before the main attack that does more damage than the offhand.


RE107

The ruling you seek that clarifies this is in the PHB, page 189:

"You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take."

"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."


In the case of TWF, timing is specified. The bonus action comes into existence because of the Attack action (prior to that, you don't have a bonus action to take), and it specifies that you can take it "when you attack" using the Attack action, indicating that you have already attacked.


You guys are reading way too much into this. Once you say "I am attacking with my dagger", then you have met the requirement, and can use the off-hand attack. You don't have to actually attack first, just take the Attack Action.

Bonus actions require *explicit* timing restrictions...otherwise they default to 'anytime' on your turn. Check out the SA for Shield Master.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/29/shield-master-feat/


When you 'take an action' in 5E, it's like choosing a permission slip which allows you to do the thing that the action-type allows, at any time from 'now' until 'the end of your turn'.

Take the 'Attack' action for example: if you have the Extra Attack feature, then whenever you take the 'Attack' action on your turn, you can take two attacks instead of one.

If 'taking the Attack action' were the same thing as 'executing two attacks' (I have two attacks per round), then the act of taking the 'Attack' action would also mean that my PC executed both attacks immediately, without being allowed to do anything else. But we know that we can execute an attack, move, interact with an object, take a bonus action, move again, then execute the second attack.

How? Because when the player takes an action, the PC doesn't instantly execute that action, it simply has permission to execute an appropriate action at any time between now and the end of its turn.

This isn't something unique about the Attack action. When you take the Dash action, what happens to your mini on the battle mat? Nothing. Taking the Dash action does nothing the instant you take it, it simply allows you to move further than usual.

What happens to your mini when you take the Disengage action? Where does it go? How many squares? Nothing instantly happens, nothing is directly caused by taking that action; you simply don't provoke OAs by moving for the rest of your turn.

This is why Shield Master allows you to execute the shield push before you attack, even though you must take the Attack action before the bonus action to shield push exists.

So, if TWF merely requires you to take the Attack action to get a bonus action attack, then you could execute the main hand/off hand attacks in any order. But if TWF requires you to actually execute a main hand attack to generate that bonus off hand attack, then the main hand attack must come first.


And yet I posted the RAW above that entirely invalidates that opinion of how he thinks it should work.

Agreed that non-RAW and non-RAI(tweets) belongs in another thread.

[ProphetSword]

Take this sentence as an example: "When you go to the bank, you may stop and get some ice cream." Is there anything in this sentence that indicates whether I've given you permission to get a treat before or after you stop at the bank? I do not believe so. There is no plain english reason to prefer one or the other at all. If you stopped to get ice cream first, and then decided to go get a massage instead of going to the bank, you would not have had permission, i.e., you would have broken the rules. But, if you stop for ice cream and then go to the bank, you've done nothing wrong.


Or, here's another example: "When you get your paycheck, you can pay your electric bill." Can you pay that bill before you get your paycheck? So, I don't think your example proves anything.



A number of reasons were brought up in the previous discussion, namely designer responses that indicate that a shield bash and and off-hand attack can both come before the Attack Action that makes them possible.


I don't think RAW supports the off-hand attack coming before the main attack, no matter what someone might have tweeted. This is first supported in the book under Bonus Actions:

PHB, page 189:
"You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take..."

"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."


Throughout the book, the off-hand attack for two-weapon fighting is called "the second attack." You'll find it under class skills for the Fighter and Ranger:

PHB, page 72:
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

Unless we are meant to believe that a Fighter with a STR bonus of +3 can attack with an off-hand dagger for 1d4 as a bonus action, and then take their main hand Attack action, and because it's the second attack, can hit for 1d4 + 3 + 3, which doesn't seem like the intention at all. It's clearly meant to be 1d4+3 for the main Attack action and 1d4+3 for the off-hand second attack.


Finally, the timing is specified for the off hand attack under the Two-Weapon Fighting heading:

PHB, page 195
"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."

In this case, it says when you take the Attack action and attack, indicating that you have already attacked, you can take a bonus action to attack with a different weapon. Different than what? The weapon you already attacked with, obviously.

So in some cases, you can use a bonus action beforehand. In some cases you cannot. Two-weapon fighting is one of those cases.

[broodax]

Or, here's another example: "When you get your paycheck, you can pay your electric bill." Can you pay that bill before you get your paycheck? So, I don't think your example proves anything.



I don't think RAW supports the off-hand attack coming before the main attack, no matter what someone might have tweeted. This is first supported in the book under Bonus Actions:

PHB, page 189:
"You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take..."

"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."


Throughout the book, the off-hand attack for two-weapon fighting is called "the second attack." You'll find it under class skills for the Fighter and Ranger:

PHB, page 72:
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

Unless we are meant to believe that a Fighter with a STR bonus of +3 can attack with an off-hand dagger for 1d4 as a bonus action, and then take their main hand Attack action, and because it's the second attack, can hit for 1d4 + 3 + 3, which doesn't seem like the intention at all. It's clearly meant to be 1d4+3 for the main Attack action and 1d4+3 for the off-hand second attack.


Finally, the timing is specified for the off hand attack under the Two-Weapon Fighting heading:

PHB, page 195
"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."

In this case, it says when you take the Attack action and attack, indicating that you have already attacked, you can take a bonus action to attack with a different weapon. Different than what? The weapon you already attacked with, obviously.

So in some cases, you can use a bonus action beforehand. In some cases you cannot. Two-weapon fighting is one of those cases.

That you can provide a sentence with different context does not indicated that the word "when" always means "after", only that the context matters. I maintain that the word "when" does not explicitly indicate order.

Now, you are correct that the text for the Two-weapon Fighting fighting style does refer to the second attack. That is a pretty good indicator. However, I think it is extremely likely that they used the word "second" not because of any requirement that the bonus action attack occur later than the Attack Action attack, but simply because it is easier to write "second" than it is to write "the bonus action attack that would otherwise have not received bonus damage from an ability score modifier". "Second" is meant to indicate the second in description or adjudication, not the second temporally. It is a good counterpoint, but it doesn't actually cancel out all the other arguments, merely provides a counterpoint.

Your second argument doesn't actually add anything. "when you take the Attack Action and attack" is not adding additional ordering information. It's limiting the types of Attack Actions that should be considered. If you just simply say "when you attack with a light melee weapon", the same argument remains. "When" does not by itself indicate order, and can easily be taken to mean "during the same turn that".

[ProphetSword]

That you can provide a sentence with different context does not indicated that the word "when" always means "after", only that the context matters. I maintain that the word "when" does not explicitly indicate order.

I'm just pointing out that cherry picking a sentence to prove your point can go either way.



Now, you are correct that the text for the Two-weapon Fighting fighting style does refer to the second attack. That is a pretty good indicator. However, I think it is extremely likely that they used the word "second" not because of any requirement that the bonus action attack occur later than the Attack Action attack, but simply because it is easier to write "second" than it is to write "the bonus action attack that would otherwise have not received bonus damage from an ability score modifier". "Second" is meant to indicate the second in description or adjudication, not the second temporally. It is a good counterpoint, but it doesn't actually cancel out all the other arguments, merely provides a counterpoint.


Or, they could have used "off-hand attack" instead of "second attack." So, I think it's a little telling that in this case the off-hand attack is intended to come second.



Your second argument doesn't actually add anything. "when you take the Attack Action and attack" is not adding additional ordering information. It's limiting the types of Attack Actions that should be considered. If you just simply say "when you attack with a light melee weapon", the same argument remains. "When" does not by itself indicate order, and can easily be taken to mean "during the same turn that".

Then why not simply leave it as "when you take the Attack Action?" Why add "and attack?" Because the second part is important...you can attack with a different weapon "when you take the Attack Action and attack."

[sophontteks]

regarding shield bash

"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."

'If' is not 'after'
It is hard to believe they would write such an ambiguous word for no reason.

Extra attack uses similiar wording. The only difference is that shield bash uses a bonus action.

So, can a bonus action be a part of an attack action as though its a cost, or is it always separate? As far as I know, they are always separate. That's a problem.

I believe shield bash can be used in any order because of the use of if instead of when or after, but I can't prove it definitively one way or the other. Strong arguments on both sides.

Regarding when
I disagree with your opinion here, and side with B. When can absolutely be used to show chronology in english. The word literally means "the sequential order in which past events occur." When implies something 'occurred in the past'.

For example.
"When I was 5"
You may not know my age, but you can certainly determine that I must be older then 5, because I was very clear that being 5.
A: occurred.
B: was in the past.

"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified"
When here very much refers to the order of events. English is funny, because the verb choose makes this present tense, and when is being used to dictate chronology.

This leaves us with 2 possibilities regarding the use of the word when. Either it is done before, or it is done after. What we are aiming for with shield bash is 'during'.

Ultimately, in order to end the debate, someone needs to show that a bonus action can be part of an attack action, and not always its own separate entity. If it is separate then an attack action, there is a clear order of events which must occur. Namely A: attack action
Followed by
B: Bonus action depending on an attack action.

[mrumsey]

I'm just pointing out that cherry picking a sentence to prove your point can go either way.
It isn't cherry picking. His argument is not that "when" cannot denote an order, merely that it does not always denote order. His exception proves this case.




Then why not simply leave it as "when you take the Attack Action?" Why add "and attack?" Because the second part is important...you can attack with a different weapon "when you take the Attack Action and attack."
(Honest Question) Can't one use their attack action to push someone or perform other combat-related actions? In this case, they would use their Attack Action, but not attack. It is clarifying the specific use of the Attack Action that triggers the additional attack. It does not explicitly require an order, which is the basis of his argument.

[sophontteks]

It isn't cherry picking. His argument is not that "when" cannot denote an order, merely that it does not always denote order. His exception proves this case.


His exception doesn't prove the case.
"When you go to the bank, you may stop and get some ice cream."

Go to the bank is the condition which was being met. Just leaving met that condition, not the arrival, after meeting this condition of 'going to the bank' we may 'stop and get ice cream'.

[mrumsey]

His exception doesn't prove the case.
"When you go to the bank, you may stop and get some ice cream."
When is dictating order here, it's our own bad interpretation of English allowing us to get away with it.
"Well we are going to the bank, so we can get ice cream first."
Sure, but that's not what was said. People generally don't take things this literally. It's fine to get ice cream first because it was never meant to be taken literally.

If were gonna take this literally, however, the quote was clear. Bank first, then ice cream.

When does not require an order here. When is referencing "go." Where are you going? To the bank. It sets up another action that is dependent on the first (in the sentence, not in action).

"When" does not specify any order for activities or actions other than traveling to the bank. You can assume that there is an order. You can assume the order is implied; however, it is not explicitly established by "when."

Here is another example: "When I run, I make sure to stretch." Do I stretch before, after, or during "running?" Realistically, both before and after if I am a serious runner. All that is establish by this sentence is that if I participate in running, I stretch.

Could I be more specific with this sentence? Absolutely. Should I be more specific? Most likely. Am I required to be more specific by the rules of the English language? Nope.

I would prefer that they had better clarity on some rules. I'm not even saying I agree with OP, but I do agree with the current logic he is using.

Also, I like civil discourse and this is (currently) a good thread for that.

[sophontteks]

The part that's killing me is that bonus attacks aren't stated anywhere in combat actions. They have to be a part of another action right?
That's shield bash, ya know, no signs or order, only that the player is taking the attack action. If bonus attacks are part of this action, and not a separate action on their own, then shield bash can be done in any order. Not only that but we could bash someone 5 feet away, break the attack action with movement, and commit the actual attack afterwards. We can't dash or cast a spell though, because by using shield bash we have committed an attack action, even if we failed to use a regular attack.

This the going to the bank thing again ey. The attack action isn't an attack in itself, its just the act of attacking, satisfied by saying "I will use an attack action."

I'm trying to argue against it just because I want to be sure.

[mrumsey]

The part that's killing me is that bonus attacks aren't stated anywhere in combat actions. They have to be a part of another action right?
That's shield bash, ya know, no signs or order, only that the player is taking the attack action. If bonus attacks are part of this action, and not a separate action on their own, then shield bash can be done in any order. Not only that but we could bash someone 5 feet away, break the attack action with movement, and commit the actual attack afterwards. We can't dash or cast a spell though, because by using shield bash we have committed an attack action, even if we failed to use a regular attack.

This the going to the bank thing again ey. The attack action isn't an attack in itself, its just the act of attacking, satisfied by saying "I will use an attack action."

I'm trying to argue against it just because I want to be sure.

You are exactly right. Bonus actions never exist by themselves, but always in conjunction with some other action; however, they are indeed a separate action - which is weird. Reactions are in a similar place, but are typically more clear on timings.

I'm not sure where I fall on the "When do bonus actions fall" argument. I would probably play it case-by-case. I would definitely make sure any cheese is met with cheese (assuming it materially affects the game). I would also require the triggering action to take place (or perhaps be wasted in rare occasions). If they used a bonus action and happened to kill the last bad guy in range, that sucks. Too bad. You cannot use your Action to cast a cantrip because you did something silly. I wouldn't let them NOT attack a different bad guy (in the case that doing so is dis-advantageous). Their actions have effects and decisions won't always be perfectly correct (especially in a battle).

I'm rambling now because it has been a long day, everyone has left, and I still need to wait for the wife to pick me up.

In any case, I hope I made at least a little sense.

Thank you. (?)

[broodax]

Only a moment to reply, so I can't address all the points yet. But, I don't know where anyone would ever get the idea that a bonus action is part of another action. They are absolutely separate, explained separately and differentiated in the rules. Further, there are plenty of ways one can take a bonus action without taking any other actions at all, from casting a bonus action spell to activating certain items.

[ProphetSword]

The rules clearly state that you can take a bonus action in your turn whenever you want unless the timing is specified. You don't have a bonus action to take unless something grants you a bonus action. That granting can be as simple as deciding you want to cast a bonus action spell to activating the Attack action and attacking in order to get an attack with a different weapon in your off-hand. It is a case-by-case basis, for sure. Sometimes it can be before, and sometimes it has to be after.

I agree with broodax, though. Bonus actions are definitely separate actions and were intended to be so. They are part of a six-second turn, and a lot of things can happen in that turn, but all those things do not all fall under the same action.

[sophontteks]

Ok, they can be their own separate action, and they can be part of an action. I see cases where they are definitely their own thing and I see cases where they are just a part of another action.
Its probably confusing only because they are trying to keep a hard limit on our total actions.

Like the OP implied, part of this was kinda answered already. Shield bash was by far the most ambiguous one, and the only one that pertains to me :P
http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4180141

[broodax]

Or, they could have used "off-hand attack" instead of "second attack." So, I think it's a little telling that in this case the off-hand attack is intended to come second.

Then why not simply leave it as "when you take the Attack Action?" Why add "and attack?" Because the second part is important...you can attack with a different weapon "when you take the Attack Action and attack."

They could have, but that is just as confusing because there is no such thing as a "main hand" or "off-hand" in 5e. Also, they specify, as has been covered by someone else already I think, that you must attack with a light melee weapon because if you use your Attack Action for something else, you are not allowed to perform that particular bonus action.


regarding shield bash

"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."

'If' is not 'after'
It is hard to believe they would write such an ambiguous word for no reason.

Extra attack uses similiar wording. The only difference is that shield bash uses a bonus action.

So, can a bonus action be a part of an attack action as though its a cost, or is it always separate? As far as I know, they are always separate. That's a problem.

I believe shield bash can be used in any order because of the use of if instead of when or after, but I can't prove it definitively one way or the other. Strong arguments on both sides.

Regarding when
I disagree with your opinion here, and side with B. When can absolutely be used to show chronology in english. The word literally means "the sequential order in which past events occur." When implies something 'occurred in the past'.

For example.
"When I was 5"
You may not know my age, but you can certainly determine that I must be older then 5, because I was very clear that being 5.
A: occurred.
B: was in the past.

"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified"
When here very much refers to the order of events. English is funny, because the verb choose makes this present tense, and when is being used to dictate chronology.

This leaves us with 2 possibilities regarding the use of the word when. Either it is done before, or it is done after. What we are aiming for with shield bash is 'during'.

Ultimately, in order to end the debate, someone needs to show that a bonus action can be part of an attack action, and not always its own separate entity. If it is separate then an attack action, there is a clear order of events which must occur. Namely A: attack action
Followed by
B: Bonus action depending on an attack action.

I think you are mistakenly identifying "when" with the past tense. This is certainly not true, as was demonstrated in the running example (which is much better than mine, thanks to confusing over whether one has gone to the the bank after merely leaving...). Further, we are not necessarily aiming for "during" the attack. That is one interpretation that might work though! If we start breaking up an attack into declaring, targeting, rolling, resolving, etc. then insert other actions in the middle, that's one way things can work. I think that doing so might be getting overly complicated though.


You are exactly right. Bonus actions never exist by themselves, but always in conjunction with some other action; however, they are indeed a separate action - which is weird. Reactions are in a similar place, but are typically more clear on timings.

I'm not sure where I fall on the "When do bonus actions fall" argument. I would probably play it case-by-case. I would definitely make sure any cheese is met with cheese (assuming it materially affects the game). I would also require the triggering action to take place (or perhaps be wasted in rare occasions). If they used a bonus action and happened to kill the last bad guy in range, that sucks. Too bad. You cannot use your Action to cast a cantrip because you did something silly. I wouldn't let them NOT attack a different bad guy (in the case that doing so is dis-advantageous). Their actions have effects and decisions won't always be perfectly correct (especially in a battle).

He is not right. Bonus actions frequently happen by themselves. Your argument that we must avoid these situations is a good one. I don't think it's necessary to do it on a case by case basis though, if you accept the un-written structure of how one takes a turn that I've proposed.

[Vogonjeltz]

For example, second wind and cunning action are bonus actions (that don't depend on an action being taken that round)

[NNescio]

If we follow the developer tweet and allow the shield bash to occur before the attack, what happens if you're interrupted by a reaction that leaves you with no targets left to attack (except yourself), or incapacitated or otherwise made incapable of attacking (say you got dropped by an OA)? Do we retroactively negate the effects of the bash?

That ruling is ridiculous. Heck, you don't even need to be interrupted by a reaction. If the shove kills a creature (by falling damage Sparta style, or if you knock down a flyer), you'll left with no attacks either if you don't have a 1H ranged or throwing weapon. I mean, sure, RAW, you can punch yourself, but that's just absurd.


regarding shield bash

"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."

'If' is not 'after'
It is hard to believe they would write such an ambiguous word for no reason.

If is a conditional. If the conditional has not come to pass (that is, you have not taken the attack action yet on that turn), then it returns FALSE, and therefore the effect doesn't apply.

It's like basic Programming 101.

[djreynolds]

It would be nice to use the shield bash of the shield master before your attack, so your attacks get advantage or the rogue can sneak attack. Allowing this to happen can make the feat very powerful.

Now the reality is anyone can shove someone by sacrificing their attack action, the shield master allows this a bonus action, so you get to attack and then shove without losing your attack action.

Hunter's mark is another bonus action that can be moved if that target has expired to another creature. But if said ranger has two attacks and has marked a creature from a previous round and kills this creature with his first attack, he "cannot now" move the hunter's mark as a bonus action from the expired creature to the new one he is about to attack and gain the damage bonus in "that" round, but only on the next subsequent turn.

A rogue may use a bonus action on each of their turns in combat, such as disengage and if he had an additional attack from a say 5th level of fighter he multi-classed with, he could attack and use his bonus action to disengage from this opponent to not provoke an AoO and if he had movement, move to another enemy and attack.

It is confusing, I've always assumed a bonus action came after your attack in the turn, but the rogue does not specify that and perhaps is special only to them in regards to the use of cunning action. Also rogue's, unless multi-classed do not get an additional attack, which why this can become very effective

If doesn't break the game I say do it. But the use of shield master's bonus action could be very powerful if allowed to be used first and therefore should not be allowed or at least with caution.

[Kryx]

Wow, I'm incredibly surprised by Crawford's tweet on shield bash. Their complex wording around bonus actions seems so unnecessary if you can use it whenever.

So options at this point are:

Take his ruling and use it on most bonus actions like he says
Houserule


I think I'll use his ruling. Crazy change from what is expected - especially for shield bash.

[djreynolds]

I saw the tweet, great for shield master. Use it. And any ambiguity in wording, use the bonus action when it says "if" when you want. From Mr Crawford

[broodax]

So if I take the argument correctly, it is that when the rules says "if" it means to indicate that there's no timing requirement, but that when it says "when" it means to indicate order?

That's a pretty reasonable argument. I wouldn't use it because it seems to 'parse'y to me, but it makes sense, and matches all the tweets I know of while maintaining an order for off-hand attacks if you want that.

Another interesting question was raised. If we allow a shield bash or similar attack to come before the Attack Action in a turn, what happens if the shield bash eliminates the only reasonable target for the Attack Action?

Now... I don't think this is actually an issue. If you choose to shield bash a flying enemy (it's not clear that it immediately falls before you can attack, but let's assume), or kill an enemy with your two-weapon fighting bonus attack, and are left with no beneficial targets for an attack action, what happens? Well, you still need to take the Attack Action, and we know you're going to, because you "declared" it, for lack of a better term. And, there's nothing wrong with wasting this action. You don't have to do anything so silly as attacking yourself.


1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

The question about being interrupted and stopped is even less of an issue. Again, if I say "I am going to take the attack action this round, and also I am going to bonus action shield bash, and move some." Then I:
1) Shield Bash
2) Start moving
3) Suffer an OA that drops me
4) Never make a melee weapon attack

There's nothing actually wrong here. I used I action on the Attack Action, and the whole point of the requirement is to limit the action economy and make sure I don't do anything I'm not supposed to on my turn. That I got no benefit from that action because I died before it could succeed is... sad? but it's not breaking a rule.


Hunter's mark is another bonus action that can be moved if that target has expired to another creature. But if said ranger has two attacks and has marked a creature from a previous round and kills this creature with his first attack, he "cannot now" move the hunter's mark as a bonus action from the expired creature to the new one he is about to attack and gain the damage bonus in "that" round, but only on the next subsequent turn.

Why? Is there a requirement on the timing of the bonus action that moves hunter's mark? No? Then you can choose when to do it, based on the general rule for bonus actions. Oh, there actually is. It has to be on a subsequent turn. So I don't see any issue or how this applies to this discussion, it's really clear.

[Tenmujiin]

Rather than trying to analyse the precise wording of plain english why not just judge it by what makes sense. Sure different people are going to come to a different result but that's just 5e...

The whole "when you take the attack action" wording seems like they were just looking for a succinct way of saying that you can only use it as part of attacking a target and just doesn't really make sense. Why wouldn't I be able to slap my enemy with my shield before I hit him with my sword or mix up which hand I attack with first while dual-wielding?


If is a conditional. If the conditional has not come to pass (that is, you have not taken the attack action yet on that turn), then it returns FALSE, and therefore the effect doesn't apply.

It's like basic Programming 101.

This isn't programing, its plain english 'if' has a much less specific meaning.

[sophontteks]

If is a conditional. If the conditional has not come to pass (that is, you have not taken the attack action yet on that turn), then it returns FALSE, and therefore the effect doesn't apply.

It's like basic Programming 101.
Your right actually. Except you have mistaken 'attack action' for physically making an attack. It never says if I attack.

Shield bash allows you to use a bonus attack if you use an attack action. How does someone commit an attack action?
He says "I'm attacking..."
That's it.
I've satisfied the conditions of the IF requirement just by saying I'm attacking.

So what does this mean? Well hes not casting a spell, and hes not dashing. He can otherwise feel free to divide this attack action as he pleases, even moving between attacks. At the worst he committed an attack action, used a shield bash, and was unable to find any legal target in movement range to finish the rest of his remaining attacks. Since he has already used an attack action, he can't cast a spell or dash, and his turn ends.

Furthermore, committing an attack action doesn't necessarily mean we are attacking with weapons at all. Dual weapon fighting has similiar wording, but additionally requires that the player attack with his main weapon first. Shield bash only requires the attack action. Thus I could decide to instead push a target, shield bash another, and even push a third target with my extra attack, if I have that. While doing so I can interrupt this string with movement too.

Whats cool about shield bash is that we see the bonus attack is just a part of the attack action, no different then the extra attack martial classes receive, but using it costs a bonus action.

Really, this ruling makes a lot of sense, and everyone just kind of overthought it in debates. Noone asks about what happens to their additional attack if they kill their only legal target in their first swing, because the answer is obvious, they don't make their second attack. Shield bash functions the exact same way. No legal targets? Ok, well, all your extra attacks are wasted.
You made an attack action, and you used it to shield bash.
End of turn.

[Vogonjeltz]

If we follow the developer tweet and allow the shield bash to occur before the attack, what happens if you're interrupted by a reaction that leaves you with no targets left to attack (except yourself), or incapacitated or otherwise made incapable of attacking (say you got dropped by an OA)? Do we retroactively negate the effects of the bash?

That ruling is ridiculous. Heck, you don't even need to be interrupted by a reaction. If the shove kills a creature (by falling damage Sparta style, or if you knock down a flyer), you'll left with no attacks either if you don't have a 1H ranged or throwing weapon. I mean, sure, RAW, you can punch yourself, but that's just absurd.



If is a conditional. If the conditional has not come to pass (that is, you have not taken the attack action yet on that turn), then it returns FALSE, and therefore the effect doesn't apply.

It's like basic Programming 101.

If you run out of movement and have no remaining targets you've wasted your action at that point. Why is that a worry?

[bid]

I've satisfied the conditions of the IF requirement just by saying I'm attacking.
+1:smallbiggrin: