Duel Wielder/TWF/GWF Question [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

napoleon_in_rag

2016-05-21, 02:45 PM

It's not exactly clear what it is you're allowing here.
I will try to be clearer. I am not certain I would allow this but this is my gut reaction.

I am saying that I would not normally allow someone to use GWF and TWF simultaneously in the same round. But since we are talking about a fighter with 2 fighting styles, he/she is going to be lvl 10+. I would allow them to use their extra attack to change fighting styles mid round. So what I should have typed is this:

Attack 1 - Swing the sword two handed (GWF)
Attack 2 - Switch fighting styles and draw the dagger
Bonus Action - Throw the dagger (TWF)

I would allow a Dual Wielder the +1 AC after the switch, not before.

I like this because the fighter has a choice to make and I often feel that fighters don't get enough options in D&D compared to other classes. This move would only be advantageous in certain, very specific instances, like when you have two opponents and one is outside melee range.

I think this would break the TWF description:
Attack 1 - Swing the sword two handed (GWF)
Attack 2 - Swing the sword two handed (GWF)
Bonus Action - Throw the dagger (TWF)
+1 AC the whole time.

If they want to throw a dagger every round, they need to do this:
Attack 1 - Swing the sword one handed (TWF)
Attack 2 - Swing the sword one handed (TWF)
Bonus Action - Throw the dagger (TWF)

Again, I feel this is a DM's discretion issue. this is just how I would handle it.

Yuki Akuma

2016-05-21, 02:48 PM

You can have two fighting styles at level three if you multiclass Fighter/Paladin or Fighter/Ranger.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-21, 03:01 PM

You can have two fighting styles at level three if you multiclass Fighter/Paladin or Fighter/Ranger.

Having two styles ins't an issue (he actually doesn't need TWF "Style" in order to use that style fighting). Using two mutually exclusive styles (one requires a two handed weapon, one requires dual wielding) is the issue.
You can't be A) fighting with a two handed weapon, and B) fighting with one weapon in each hand. You have to choose.
But he thinks he's found a way to game the system to allow just that, and any DM that allows it just hasn't considered how ridiculous the concept is in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that he doesn't actually have the second weapon in his other hand to begin with anyway, which TWF kind of requires.

napoleon_in_rag

2016-05-21, 03:01 PM

You can have two fighting styles at level three if you multiclass Fighter/Paladin or Fighter/Ranger.

True but part of my reasoning is that switching fighting styles mid round is something for a higher level character. So unless the character has an extra attack to sacrifice(Lvl 5+ fighter for example), I would not allow it in my campaign because I feel that TWF and GWF are not designed to be used simultaneously.

Tanarii

2016-05-21, 03:10 PM

Not to mention the fact that he doesn't actually have the second weapon in his other hand to begin with anyway, which TWF kind of requires.
He doesn't to begin with, but if he draws it as a free object interaction between his first two-handed attack and his second one handed attack, he does.

There are three ways to shut this down as a DM.
One is a clear house rule: switching how you hold your weapon from two hands to one hand is an object interaction.
Another is interpreting the 'when' in the TWf rules for using the attack action as timing. (Which IIRC, is an interpretation you personally don't like, and JC's made some rulings that indicate it isn't the best interpretation anyway.)
The third is a house rule too: an attack action uses one style. That hurts champions or MC that want to (for example) use Protection/Dueling or Defense/anything. So maybe rule one 'attack' style with one 'defensive' style per attack action.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-05-21, 03:15 PM

There are three ways to shut this down as a DM.

Or to say actions cannot interrupt actions, so that the dagger cannot be drawn (free interaction or not) until all the attacks of the attack action are done, at which point it's obviously too late to get a bonus action from it.

napoleon_in_rag

2016-05-21, 03:34 PM

Having two styles ins't an issue (he actually doesn't need TWF "Style" in order to use that style fighting). Using two mutually exclusive styles (one requires a two handed weapon, one requires dual wielding) is the issue.
You can't be A) fighting with a two handed weapon, and B) fighting with one weapon in each hand. You have to choose.
But he thinks he's found a way to game the system to allow just that, and any DM that allows it just hasn't considered how ridiculous the concept is in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that he doesn't actually have the second weapon in his other hand to begin with anyway, which TWF kind of requires.

The issue is whether you can use two mutually exclusive fighting styles within one round. My answer is yes, but you have to sacrifice an extra attack to switch styles. This limits it to higher level PCs and gives the character a downside for doing so.

In D&D, the idea of someone swinging a sword with two hands and then drawing and throwing a dagger isn't ridiculous. Especially for a Lvl 20 Fighter who can attack 4 times in a single round (5 with a bonus action). It's not gaming the system because the player would do more damage by staying with GWF.

This is DM's discretion and this is how I would handle it. Obviously, you would handle it differently.

Rhaegar14

2016-05-21, 04:29 PM

The issue is whether you can use two mutually exclusive fighting styles within one round. My answer is yes, but you have to sacrifice an extra attack to switch styles. This limits it to higher level PCs and gives the character a downside for doing so.

In D&D, the idea of someone swinging a sword with two hands and then drawing and throwing a dagger isn't ridiculous. Especially for a Lvl 20 Fighter who can attack 4 times in a single round (5 with a bonus action). It's not gaming the system because the player would do more damage by staying with GWF.

This is DM's discretion and this is how I would handle it. Obviously, you would handle it differently.

While we're discussing this hypothetical handling of it, you do realize that your opportunity cost makes this option STRICTLY inferior to just spending the whole turn two-weapon fighting and throwing the dagger at the end, right? Using GWF with the two-handed longsword increases its average damage by maybe a point and a half over using it one-handed. That's not worth sacrificing an attack, even for a 20th level Fighter who makes four attacks.

From a gamist (rather than simulationist) perspective, the shenanigan gives a largely insignificant increase to damage output, and in exchange requires you to burn your object interaction EVERY ROUND. As a DM (since the consensus seems to be DM's discretion) I'd allow it. It doesn't really make the character any stronger, but it is a noteworthy/unique way of fighting. It's a style thing.

If you could use the Great Weapon Master feat with a two-handed longsword, my feelings on the matter might be different, but longswords lack the heavy property needed to use GWM's -5/+10.

Rhynear

2016-05-21, 04:36 PM

I tried to calculate the average damage per round for different fighting styles for a fighter without a subclass.

Based on a 60% chance to hit:

GWF
Greatsword

Level 1
2d6+3 (reroll 1’s and 2’s)
=7.22

Level 4
2d6+4 (reroll 1’s and 2’s)
=7.82

Level 5
4d6+8 (reroll 1’s and 2’s)
=15.63

Level 6
4d6+10 (reroll 1’s and 2’s)
=16.83

Level 8
4d6+10 (reroll 1’s and 2’s) (+attack on a crit)
=17.25

Level 10
4d6+10 (reroll 1’s and 2’s)
=17.25

Level 11
6d6+15 (reroll 1’s and 2’s) (+attack on a crit)
=25.67

Level 12
6d6+15 (reroll 1’s and 2’s) (+attack on a crit)
=25.67

Level 20
8d6+20 (reroll 1’s and 2’s) (+attack on a crit)
=42.1

TWF
2 Shortswords, later 2 Longswords

Level 1
2d6+6
=8.15

Level 4
2d6+8
=9.35

Level 5
3d6+12
=14.03

Level 6
3d6+15
=15.825

Level 8
3d8+15
=17.78

Level 10
3d8+15
=17.78

Level 11
4d8+20
=23.7

Level 12
4d8+20
=23.7

Level 20
5d8+25
=29.625

And the way that I suggested
TWF & GWF
2 Shortswords, later Longsword and Handaxes

Level 1
2d6+6
=8.15

Level 4
2d6+8
=6.35

Level 5
3d6+12
=14.03

Level 6
3d6+15
=15.825

Level 8
1d10+1d8+1d6+15
=17.78

Level 10
1d10+1d8+1d6+15 (reroll 1’s and 2’s)
=18.3

Level 11
2d10+1d8+1d6+20 (reroll 1’s and 2’s)
=25.02

Level 12
2d10+1d8+1d6+20 (reroll 1’s and 2’s) (+1 attack on a crit)
=26.45

Level 20
3d10+1d8+1d6+20 (reroll 1’s and 2’s) (+1 attack on a crit)
=34.82

Which shows that GWF with a 2-handed Greatsword is still better later on, but that it at least makes TWF keep up a lot longer.

This doesn't take into account the -5/+10 from GWM, so its numbers would be slightly higher.

napoleon_in_rag

2016-05-21, 09:19 PM

While we're discussing this hypothetical handling of it, you do realize that your opportunity cost makes this option STRICTLY inferior to just spending the whole turn two-weapon fighting and throwing the dagger at the end, right?

Well that's the point. Pure TWF or pure GWF should be better than switching between the two except in very rare circumstances. There needs to be a downside to switching between the two otherwise every GWM would be festooned with daggers.

An example where its better to switch:
With the first attack, the fighter kills his enemy with GWF. There are no more enemies within melee range. A character with an extra attack can switch styles and use the bonus attack to throw a dagger. For a lower level fighter, the round is finished be cause he has no extra attacks. I feel that's fair without breaking the intended design,

djreynolds

2016-05-22, 02:59 AM

Only heavy weapons will get the -5/+10. The longsword will only get the bonus attack on a crit or kill. So there is no point in selecting this.

Also you would need the duel wielder feat to wield a long sword and dagger. Otherwise you need both weapons to be light, two short swords or two scimitars, etc

The duel wielder feat does allow you two draw 2 weapons instead of one, so yes you could go two-handed and then one handed and then draw a dagger and at that point get +1 to AC.

The point is for the AC increase, is if you are moving between attacks and suffer an AoO, did you draw your dagger out first.

I understand you are trying to maximize the longsword usage, and milk it. And the only real benefit is if you have GWstyle, you get to reroll 1's and 2's on your 1d10 versatile weapon and if you are a champion perhaps you'll crit more often and get in a free two-handed chop.

I like concept, it is cool what you are doing and not in anyway OP at all. So I would allow it, since it benefits you very little when you could just grab the duel weapon style and duel wielder feat and duel longswords and get +1AC and later grab 2 levels of ranger and get the defensive style later on

Rhaegar14

2016-05-22, 03:43 AM

Well that's the point. Pure TWF or pure GWF should be better than switching between the two except in very rare circumstances. There needs to be a downside to switching between the two otherwise every GWM would be festooned with daggers.

An example where its better to switch:
With the first attack, the fighter kills his enemy with GWF. There are no more enemies within melee range. A character with an extra attack can switch styles and use the bonus attack to throw a dagger. For a lower level fighter, the round is finished be cause he has no extra attacks. I feel that's fair without breaking the intended design,

Emphasis mine. OP's trick wouldn't work with GWM. Longswords aren't Heavy and can't use the -5/+10, and the bonus action attack is redundant with TWF. Again, my opinion would be different if GWM were on the table, but it's not. The downside to the extra +1.8 damage on every longsword attack (that's really it compared to standard TWF, a whopping +7 average damage over four longsword attacks, even less if he needs to make the last attack one-handed to get the bonus action) is that his object interaction is spoken for every turn, and his damage takes a hit if he needs it for something else.

In fact, instead of the Dual Wielder feat he needs to make this work (since a longsword isn't light), he could take Polearm Master, do slightly more damage (since he'd get the Great Weapon Fighting reroll on his bonus action attack), be able to benefit from GWM, and have reach and the ability to opportunity attack when an enemy enters his threatened space, along with retaining his object interaction every turn. In exchange for +1 AC he'd get from Dual Wielder, which he could make up for by taking Defense Fighting Style instead of the TWF he'll no longer need. The trick is not in any way overpowered, at least compared to existing options.

And even with your super specific corner case example, by RAW he should be able to use his object interaction to draw a dagger and use it on one of his remaining attacks, so he still derives no benefit whatsoever, and two-weapon fighting is as good if not strictly better in every circumstance. If you're gonna nerf the weird little trick into uselessness you may as well just say "no, you can't do that" altogether.

But then, this is an entirely gamist argument. If your issue with it is from the simulationist standpoint, my points are largely moot (other than the bit about it being completely useless even in your very specific corner case).

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-23, 08:16 AM

The short answer here is no... here is why...

"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."

"Bonus Action
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."

A long sword is not a light weapon, nor are you holding it in one hand when you make your attack action. You are trying to change out after initiating the attack action, which is part of the two weapon fighting definition. The second attack and bonus attack stem from meeting the requirements of the two weapon fighting.

You could use GWF on the longsword for a two-handed first attack, and then use dueling to make a one-handed strike.
You could attack with a melee weapon, drop you weapon and pull out your bow and shoot another enemy.
The opposite of the above.
Defensive work with every other style.

Now if for some reason we are trying to bring feats into this...

GWM - A longsword doesn't have the heavy property and thus cannot benefit from the -5/+10, only the bonus attack if you score a critical or bring an enem
Dual Wielder - removes the light weapon restriction from the two weapon fighting definition making it:
"Two-Weapon Fighting (modified with DW)
When you take the Attack action and attack with a melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."

Given that the definition still says when you initiate the attack action while holding a weapon in one hand you can get a bonus attack from another weapon you are holding in your other hand (and the feat grants you +1 AC for carrying another weapon), it becomes a little more muddied, but still it would appear that both weapons would have to already be held when you take the attack action, therefore not allowing the initial GWF strike with the longsword.

Saggo

2016-05-23, 11:47 AM

You are trying to change out after initiating the attack action, which is part of the two weapon fighting definition.

That may have very well been their intent (they could go either way these days), but requiring the Attack Action to be initialized a certain way is adding information, I'm not seeing it.

Someone with a long sword and Dual Wield just needs to answer
A) I took the Attack Action and
B) I attacked with one hand.
Mechanically it's no different then making a swing with any two-handed weapon, dropping it, drawing two daggers, and poking twice.

Either way, you'll have to pay all the resource costs for styles and feats to game two-weapon fighting.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-23, 12:45 PM

You included one part of the definition... you have to take the attack action with a weapon in one hand, whilst holding a weapon in the other... there is no ambiguity there... without 2 weapons you are not dual wielding or two weapon fighting, thus no bonus attack. holding the longsword in 2 hands for the attack, negates the fact that the longsword is a one-handed weapon, via the versatile feature. Drawing a weapon after you made a two-handed attack is not two weapon fighting...nor would you get a bonus attack with that weapon, as you weren't holding the other weapon when you initiated your attack action. It is clear wording...

Crossbow Expert also includes the ...you are holding part... you don't get to draw it after you attack... you are already holding the loaded hand-crossbow to get the bonus... or it is your main weapon (the ammunition property is overruled by the feat, as well, making loading it part of the attack action, as a bow), but you still have to have the "holding" part to get the bonus.

Saggo

2016-05-23, 01:43 PM

You included one part of the definition... you have to take the attack action with a weapon in one hand, whilst holding a weapon in the other... there is no ambiguity there...

Plenty of ambiguity. It says you have to take the action and, separately and with no clear indication that the two are the same requirement, you have attack with one hand. It doesn't even say all attacks must be one-handed. Saying the Attack Action itself must be done a certain way is adding information that's not there.

Joe the Rat

2016-05-23, 02:17 PM

A simpler version here would be to start with two weapons, throw the dagger as a bonus action, and then switch to two-handed longsword (using an object interaction if you are so inclined). If you follow the Shield Master approach (declaring the Attack action is the trigger, you can take your Bonus action at any point), take your two-weapon off-hand attack first to throw the dagger, then two-hand the rest of the way through.

But let's turn this a different way.

Same 5th level fighter, same attack sequence, except now we have Duelist Style, and the Dual Wielder Feat.

Make your first attack, longsword in one hand, other empty for +2 damage. Now draw a dagger (object interaction), attack longsword again (without the extra +2), and strike with the dagger (bonus action, 2.5 damage as we do not have TWF in this build). One less potential object interaction, and slightly better overall damage.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-23, 03:06 PM

The first case would work if you had the dual wielder feat, the second wouldn't work at all.

First case (no dual wielder feat): You declare your attack action. You attack with the dagger as a thrown weapon, and you get 1 longsword attack to follow it up. The longsword isn't a light weapon, the dagger is, disqualifying your for the bonus attack; Therefore, no bonus action attack. It is treated the exact same way that throwing the dagger and drawing your sword would be.

First case (with dual wielder): You declare your attack action. You attack with the dagger as a thrown weapon (bonus attack), and you get 2 longsword attacks to follow it up. The feat negates the light property and you have initiated your attack action with a weapon in each hand. You have deprived yourself of 1 AC, as well.

Second case: sorry can't happen. You initiated your attack action with only 1 weapon in 1 hand (this disqualifies you from two weapon fighting). Also this would rely on having the Dual Wielder feat(longsword isn't light), but taking your attack action without having a weapon in each hand is what disqualifies you for two weapon fighting bonus attack here, given you have the feat.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-23, 03:18 PM

Plenty of ambiguity. It says you have to take the action and, separately and with no clear indication that the two are the same requirement, you have attack with one hand. It doesn't even say all attacks must be one-handed. Saying the Attack Action itself must be done a certain way is adding information that's not there.

There is no ambiguity here... I already quoted the PHB on the wording for two weapon fighting, but I'll include it again.

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."

That sentence basically says that in order to receive your bonus action (attack) you have to initiate the attack action, with a light weapon in each hand... not draw one after you attack once (in the case of multi-attack). You also have to attack with one of those weapons first. In order to use any other style in the same turn as two-weapon fighting, you would need the dual wielder feat, and use you bonus action (attack) to throw the off-hand weapon first, then apply the (possible second) style to follow up attacks. In the process you would lose the +1 AC from the feat, but could grant you better damage... the fact that a feat is needed for rather low damage, as well as a multi-class into 2 martial classes is a pretty expensive move for a possible 1d4/1d6+mod damage once every/round, if there is an enemy outside of 5 feet of you.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-23, 03:25 PM

The first case would work if you had the dual wielder feat, the second wouldn't work at all.

No, it wouldn't work, because he never made an attack with his one handed weapon to fulfill the req for TWF.
The bonus action attack being with a one handed weapon does not create its own bonus action.
One of (I would argue the intent to be both) normal attacks need to be made with the one handed longsword, which never occurs and thus never creates the bonus.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-05-23, 03:28 PM

A simpler version here would be to start with two weapons, throw the dagger as a bonus action

I don't think you can take a bonus action before you are entitled to a bonus action.

Make your first attack, longsword in one hand, other empty for +2 damage. Now draw a dagger (object interaction), attack longsword again (without the extra +2)

Works only if a) your DM thinks you don't have to be fighting in a two-handed style in order to gain the benefits of a two-handed style ability, and b) your DM allows you to interrupt actions with other actions.

Joe the Rat

2016-05-23, 03:29 PM

Second case: sorry can't happen. You initiated your attack action with only 1 weapon in 1 hand (this disqualifies you from two weapon fighting). Also this would rely on having the Dual Wielder feat, but taking your attack action without having a weapon in each hand is what disqualifies you for two weapon fighting bonus attack here.So we start with dagger and longsword, Initiate Attack action, use the bonus action attack from wielding a weapon in each hand to throw the dagger, leaving us with one one-handed weapon, qualifying for the Dueling style.

Assuming Dual Wielder, of course. Otherwise we go paired handaxes.

Edit: Or assuming that you can't take your actions in any order, attack, bonus action attack to throw, attack with dueling.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-23, 03:40 PM

No, it wouldn't work, because he never made an attack with his one handed weapon to fulfill the req for TWF.
The bonus action attack being with a one handed weapon does not create its own bonus action.
One of (I would argue the intent to be both) normal attacks need to be made with the one handed longsword, which never occurs and thus never creates the bonus.

It works, but you are correct to point out my simple mistake... the initial attack with the dagger would indeed be the first attack, not the bonus attack, due to the rest of the two-weapon fighting description caveat ..."If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it." Now we get the main attack: thrown dagger, bonus action attack longsword, 2nd attack longsword. The first attack with the longsword would have to be made one-handed, as per the rules of the two-weapon fighting description, you could argue that dueling COULD apply, but without the two weapon fighting style you would miss out on your ability mod for certain, and I think most DMS wouldn't allow dueling to apply. For the second attack, most likely you would be able to use either dueling or great weapon fighting. This of course would require the dual wielding feat and at least one of the other fighting styles.

So in order to make this work you would need a feat, most likely multi-classing into 2 different martial classes, and probably some DM goodwill.
Positives- Congrats you got a bonus attack and the possibility to re-roll 1 d10 die on a 1 or 2, or added +2 damage to 1 attack (if either attack actually hit)
Negatives- You lose out on +1AC from throwing one weapon away and most likely had to use your movement to close on the enemy you threw your dagger at.

Arial Black

2016-05-23, 04:57 PM

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."

That sentence basically says that in order to receive your bonus action (attack) you have to initiate the attack action, with a light weapon in each hand... not draw one after you attack once (in the case of multi-attack).

That rule does not specify that you have to be holding two weapons at the moment you make the attack using the attack action. There is nothing stopping the following sequence:-

* holding a dagger in 1H and nothing in the other, I use the attack action and attack with the dagger. At this point, according to the TWF rules, "...you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand". It doesn't say anything about currently holding the other weapon, just that now I can use a bonus action to attack with a weapon I'm holding in my other hand

* I now use my free object interaction to draw a different dagger with my other hand. I now use my bonus action to attack with it, thoroughly satisfying the clause "attack with a different light melee weapon you're holding in the other hand".

For the first attack: did I take the attack action? Check. Was it a light melee weapon? Check. Was I holding it in one hand? Check

For the bonus action attack: did I have a bonus action that allowed this? Yes, I have a bonus action that I can use to attack with a light melee weapon as long as it is not the same weapon that generated this bonus action (check) and I am holding it in one hand (check) and it is not the same hand I used to make the original attack (check).

Incidentally, you get one free interaction per round (and this is what you need to draw a weapon). If you want to have a second object interaction (like drawing another weapon) then you must use your action. One of the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat is that you can draw two weapons in the same time as other people can draw one, so that you can use your free object interaction (and/or your action) to draw two weapons simultaneously. The feat does not give you a second free object interaction! It does not allow you to draw one weapon, then later on in the same round draw a second weapon as a free interaction; you would stil have to use up your actual action in that case.

Also, adding a second hand to a weapon you're holding in one hand, or taking one hand off a weapon you're holding in two hands, doesn't take any action at all, not even your free object interaction.

Another thing, there is no rules limit on how many fighting styles you can use in the same round or at the same time, although there are some practical limits. For example, when you attack with a weapon it cannot benefit from Duelling style AND Great Weapon fighting in the same blow, but if you have two attacks you could attack once with the sword in one hand and once with it in two hands, and there is no extra action required to switch styles, not even your free object interaction. You can use whatever style you like in conjunction with the Defence style.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-05-23, 05:12 PM

* I now use my free object interaction to draw a different dagger with my other hand. I now use my bonus action to attack with it, thoroughly satisfying the clause "attack with a different light melee weapon you're holding in the other hand".

Don't you think that the utter arbitrariness of obeying the specification that the bonus attack dagger should be a different physical object, even though it didn't sit in your off-hand during the main-hand attack so it should make absolutely no difference where it comes from, kind of gives away the absurdity of your interpretation?

Arial Black

2016-05-23, 05:42 PM

Don't you think that the utter arbitrariness of obeying the specification that the bonus attack dagger should be a different physical object, even though it didn't sit in your off-hand during the main-hand attack so it should make absolutely no difference where it comes from, kind of gives away the absurdity of your interpretation?

There is no absurdity. I get the exact same attacks with the exact same weapons held in those exact hands either way. There is no requirement about if/how you hold the weapons when you're not attacking; it matters only at the moment you actually execute the attack in question. For example, there is no requirement to hold a 2H weapon in both hands for an entire round; you only need to hold it in two hands as you execute an attack with it. It's the same principle here with TWF.

Saggo

2016-05-23, 05:52 PM

There is no ambiguity here... I already quoted the PHB on the wording for two weapon fighting, but I'll include it again.

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."

That sentence basically says that in order to receive your bonus action (attack) you have to initiate the attack action, with a light weapon in each hand... not draw one after you attack once (in the case of multi-attack). You also have to attack with one of those weapons first. In order to use any other style in the same turn as two-weapon fighting, you would need the dual wielder feat, and use you bonus action (attack) to throw the off-hand weapon first, then apply the (possible second) style to follow up attacks. In the process you would lose the +1 AC from the feat, but could grant you better damage... the fact that a feat is needed for rather low damage, as well as a multi-class into 2 martial classes is a pretty expensive move for a possible 1d4/1d6+mod damage once every/round, if there is an enemy outside of 5 feet of you.

I know the text, you're still adding information that's not there. It's making a a restriction that the bonus attack can't be the same weapon in the same hand, like Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master allows. As long as it's the Attack Action and at least one attack was one-handed and light/feat, it's fair game.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-23, 05:54 PM

Bottom line is that this entire premise is cheese, and no matter the rule hoops you leap through I simply wouldn't allow it, because intent matters and garbage like this was never intended.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-23, 06:00 PM

I don't think you can take a bonus action before you are entitled to a bonus action.

If you have a feature which grants you a bonus action, you can usually use it at any time on your turn, but in so doing you must also use the feature that granted said bonus action {if applicable).
Order of operation doesn't matter (see: shield master, war magic, etc).

Coffee_Dragon

2016-05-23, 07:03 PM

There is no absurdity. [...] For example, there is no requirement to hold a 2H weapon in both hands for an entire round; you only need to hold it in two hands as you execute an attack with it. It's the same principle here with TWF.

"The same principle" would be that fighting two-handed requires you to actually fight two-handed. That you don't think this is necessary, but you still respect the restriction of using different weapons for the two parts that you have sectioned off, perfectly highlights the absurdity.

The intent and flavour of dual-wielding are obvious. You perform an attack action (with however many attacks). You can then get another attack (as a bonus action) with a weapon in your off-hand. If that weapon wasn't in your hand while you attacked, you weren't fighting two-handed, and you don't get the benefits of any rule or ability related to fighting two-handed.

If you have a feature which grants you a bonus action, you can usually use it at any time on your turn, but in so doing you must also use the feature that granted said bonus action {if applicable).
Order of operation doesn't matter (see: shield master, war magic, etc).

I take a bonus action depending on a future action. This triggers a reaction which imposes a condition that means I can't take the action. The universe explodes.

Foxhound438

2016-05-23, 07:06 PM

so something you can do is start a round with a longsword and a dagger, attack with the dagger (throwing it)(procs 2wf bonus action) and now you only have one weapon, held in one hand, you attack like that with dueling style (damage here is better that GWF anyways), and you attack with it again with your bonus action, again with +2 damage from dueling style. After all that, you pull out another dagger.

throw dagger [proc "2wf ba, longsword"]: d4+str
longsword: d8+str+2
use "2wf ba, longsword": d8+2(+str?)

and at any time that you might be attacked, you get the +1 AC from your feat.

you could argue that it's cheesy, but take into account the fact that this pales in comparison to sharpshooter and great weapon master builds, as well as any full caster.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-23, 07:56 PM

I take a bonus action depending on a future action. This triggers a reaction which imposes a condition that means I can't take the action. The universe explodes.

Joke all you like, but Crawford has agreed with my sentiment about this multiple times. In fact, this isn't my sentiment about it at all, it's merely me echoing/paraphrasing what Crawford has already ruled.... multiple times.
Feel free to ask him, or just do a search.

Saggo

2016-05-23, 08:04 PM

Bottom line is that this entire premise is cheese, and no matter the rule hoops you leap through I simply wouldn't allow it, because intent matters and garbage like this was never intended.

Who says weapon juggling was never intended or cheesy? It's a staple in martial arts and action media. In fact, you can easily juggle multiple weapons with just the normal Attack Action and Extra Attack.

Regardless, it takes a feat just to do it and several fighting styles and/or feats to do it well (and it still isn't the optimal setup), it has a reasonable resource cost.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-23, 08:30 PM

Who says weapon juggling was never intended or cheesy? It's a staple in martial arts and action media. In fact, you can easily juggle multiple weapons with just the normal Attack Action and Extra Attack.

It's not about weapon juggling.
It's about weapon juggling to use both of A) one style which requires and benefits wielding a single weapon with two hands and B) a second style which requires and benefits wielding two separate one handed weapons.... And doing both A&B simultaneously.
That's basically the definition of cheese.

Saggo

2016-05-23, 09:17 PM

It's not about weapon juggling.
It's about weapon juggling to use both of A) one style which requires and benefits wielding a single weapon with two hands and B) a second style which requires and benefits wielding two separate one handed weapons.... And doing both A&B simultaneously.
That's basically the definition of cheese.

You can benefit from multiple abstract weapon styles, it's not hard to mix one-handed and ranged, one-handed and two weapon, one-handed and two-handed, or two-handed and ranged. Thrown weapons practically require using your object interaction in between Extra Attacks.

The game doesn't really forbid multiple styles either, stacking the defensive styles happens frequently, they do actually work simultaneously, and it doesn't have a feat cost. You can easily benefit from various combinations of Dueling and TWF, Dueling and GWF, even combinations of Archery, depending on your grip and object interaction.

Is it really so absurd that someone figured a way to benefit from two-handed and two weapon as their specific abstract styles, and GWF and TWF as their specific fighting styles when it requires a suboptimal weapon for Versatile, a feat to trigger the style, and two Fighting Styles just to be worthwhile, and your object interaction every single turn, and still not do amazing DPR?

After all, people are cheesing more styles for less work, and constantly dropping your weapon just to do this every turn is practically begging for the DM to mess with you.

Arial Black

2016-05-23, 09:19 PM

"The same principle" would be that fighting two-handed requires you to actually fight two-handed. That you don't think this is necessary, but you still respect the restriction of using different weapons for the two parts that you have sectioned off, perfectly highlights the absurdity.

The intent and flavour of dual-wielding are obvious. You perform an attack action (with however many attacks). You can then get another attack (as a bonus action) with a weapon in your off-hand. If that weapon wasn't in your hand while you attacked, you weren't fighting two-handed, and you don't get the benefits of any rule or ability related to fighting two-handed.

You are inventing a restriction that isn't there. You made it up.

Incidentally, Dual Wielder grants +1 AC while you are holding a weapon in each hand, so if you don't have a separate weapon in each hand at the moment you are attacked then you don't get the +1 bonus.

I take a bonus action depending on a future action. This triggers a reaction which imposes a condition that means I can't take the action. The universe explodes.

And yet, this is how 5E works. Taking an action doesn't actually do anything in and of itself. Taking an action simply allows you to do the thing(s) associated with that action, at any time from the moment you declare it until the end of your turn. This is what allows the Shield Master to have his shield bash before his attack, even though the attack is what generates the bonus action for the shield bash. You declare your action as the attack action (without actually attacking yet), which generates the bonus action for a shield bash. You may then execute your attack(s) and shield bash in any order you like, but once you take that bonus action shield bash you can only use your action to make the attack which generated that bonus action. If you can't make such an attack, then your action has still been used up; you cannot swap it for a different action because it has already been (partially) used to generate the bonus action, and you've already used that bonus action to make a shield bash. The universe is safe.

Incidentally, if I was in the OP's position (Extra Attack and TWF and GWF styles, and the Dual Wielder feat) then I'd make one attack with my longsword in two hands (benefitting from GWF), a second attack with my longsword in one hand (not benefitting from GWF, but generating a bonus action attack with a weapon held in my other hand), draw my dagger in my off hand as my free object interaction, then use my bonus action to attack with my dagger (melee or ranged). The DW feat does not give me a second free object interaction to draw another weapon, so if I threw my dagger then I wouldn't get the +1 bonus to AC if attacked before my next turn.

Foxhound438

2016-05-23, 09:21 PM

Arial Black

2016-05-23, 09:22 PM

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-23, 09:38 PM

sure it's trying to use two intuitively exclusive features, but it still falls quite a bit behind something that actually optimizes. It's not at all cheese in the sense that it breaks a campaign, like simulacrum would.

"It's not breaking anything" is very different from "it's not cheese"

But you're not doing them simultaneously. You're doing first one and then the other, changing what weapons are in which hands between those attacks.

Between those attacks.... Within the same attack action. That's as close to simultaneously as it gets without being literally simultaneous.

You're trying to leap through rules hoops so you can use two mutually exclusive styles within the same attack action.
That's the definition of cheese.

Arial Black

2016-05-23, 10:39 PM

Between those attacks.... Within the same attack action. That's as close to simultaneously as it gets without being literally simultaneous.

If you have the Extra Attack feature, you have two attacks whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

When you take the Attack action, you are not necessarily executing any attacks at that time, although you might.

You can take the Attack action as the first thing you do on your turn, execute one of your two attacks straight away, kill your foe, move 10 feet, use a bonus action to use your Shield Master feat to push another foe off a cliff, move 10 feet, drop your sword (no action), draw a javelin as your free object interaction, then execute the second attack (even though you declared the Attack action five seconds ago) to throw your javelin, then move 10 more feat back to where you were before.

In this round, your two attacks granted by your taking the Attack action happened five seconds and 20 feet apart. This isn't cheese, it's how 5E combat works.

You're trying to leap through rules hoops so you can use two mutually exclusive styles within the same attack action.

..but not at the same time.

Saggo

2016-05-23, 10:47 PM

You're trying to leap through rules hoops so you can use two mutually exclusive styles within the same attack action.
That's the definition of cheese.

On the other hand, someone can benefit from Dueling and GWF in the same Attack Action, and it doesn't even require your object interaction.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-24, 08:15 AM

In terms of two weapon-fighting, the bonus action requirements are that you are taking the attack action which is one of the options available.

The attack option only exists to allow you to attack. Extra features such as extra attack allow you to make multiple attacks when you take the attack action. The subset of actions allowed by the attack action are attack (either unarmed or with a weapon), grapple, or shove. That's it.

The stipulation for the bonus attack are that you first attack with a light-one handed weapon which you are currently holding. If that criteria has been met, you may then use a bonus action for an additional attack with a different light one-handed weapon, which you are holding in your other hand. The key wording here is holding. So let's see what definition of the many of the word holding would fit here...

from merriem webster's dictionary:

1
a : to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <holds property worth millions> <the bank holds the title to the car> b : to have as a privilege or position of responsibility <hold a professorship> c : to have as a mark of distinction <holds the record for the 100-yard dash> <holds a PhD>

2
: to keep under restraint <hold price increases to a minimum>: as a : to prevent free expression of <hold your temper> b : to prevent from some action <ordered the troops to hold fire> <the only restraining motive which may hold the hand of a tyrant — Thomas Jefferson> c : to keep back from use <ask them to hold a room for us> <I'll have a hot dog, and hold the mustard> d : to delay temporarily the handling of <please hold all my calls>

3
: to make liable or accountable or bound to an obligation <I'll hold you to your promise>

4
a : to have or maintain in the grasp <hold my hand> <this is how you hold the racket>; also : aim, point <held a gun on them> b : to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving <hold me up so I can see> <hold the ladder steady> <a clamp holds the whole thing together> <hold your head up> c : to bear the pressure of : support <can the roof hold all of that weight>

5
: to prevent from leaving or getting away <hold the train>: as a : to avoid emitting or letting out <how long can you hold your breath> b : to restrain as or as if a captive <the suspect was held without bail> <held them at gunpoint>; also : to have strong appeal to <the book held my interest throughout>

6
a : to enclose and keep in a container or within bounds : contain <the jug holds one gallon> <this corral will not hold all of the horses> b : to be able to consume easily or without undue effect <can't hold any more pie>; especially : to be able to drink (alcoholic beverages) without becoming noticeably drunk <can't hold your liquor> c : accommodate <the restaurant holds 400 diners> d : to have as a principal or essential feature or attribute <the book holds a number of surprises>; also : to have in store <no one knows what the future holds>

7
a : to have in the mind or express as a judgment, opinion, or belief <I hold the view that this is wrong> <hold a grudge> <holding that it is nobody's business but his — Jack Olsen> —often used with against <in America they hold everything you say against you — Paul McCartney> b : to think of in a particular way : regard <were held in high esteem>

8
a : to assemble for and carry on the activity of <held a convention> b : to cause to be carried on : conduct <will hold a seminar> c : to produce or sponsor especially as a public exhibition <will hold an art show>

9
a : to maintain occupation, control, or defense of <the troops held the ridge>; also : to resist the offensive efforts or advance of <held the opposing team to just two points> b : to maintain (a certain condition, situation, or course of action) without change <hold a course due east>

10
: to cover (a part of the body) especially for protection <had to hold their ears because of the cold>

I'm thinking that 4a is probably what the designers had in mind, which is: "to have or maintain in the grasp".

So to conclude, when you take the attack action, you must be holding (have in your grasp) in each hand a light one-handed weapon. First you must make an attack with one of those weapons, which will then enable you to make a bonus attack with the weapon held in the other hand. Neither of those attacks can have any other style applied to them. Any further attack granted by extra attack, could possibly have a different style applied, IF the conditions to use the other style are met. Dueling precludes the use of a weapon being held in the other hand, and there are no weapons with the light property that can also use 2 hands. Technically you could drop a/both weapon(s) (free action) and then 1) use the dueling style on the now single weapon you are holding, 2)use you item interaction to produce another weapon for either archery or GWF, or 3)grapple/shove.

None of this requires a feat or the two-weapon fighting style. Both of those options can (theoretically) be used to produce more damage. And since the concept of multiple weapon styles is the main topic on review here... there is the evidence to support it is available, if you have the extra attack feature and 2 fighting styles.

Theoretically with the dual wielder feat, you could in theory use 3 to 4 different offensive styles if you have a character with enough attacks, all in one round.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-05-24, 10:57 AM

Joke all you like, but Crawford has agreed with my sentiment about this multiple times.

But according to Foxhound438's signature, "sage advice worthless both in theory and in practice"!

Regardless, it takes a feat just to do it

It doesn't take a feat to just gain a bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting without ever fighting with two weapons. You may need feats 'n' styles to squeeze out additional cheese, but as Divisible said, whether it's worthwhile is not really the interesting thing.

You are inventing a restriction that isn't there. You made it up.

Here is a scenario. Bob the Fighter is holding a dagger which we call dagger A. A few feet away, Bill the Hobgoblin and Ben the Hobgoblin stand anxiously waiting. On the ground in front of Ben lies a dagger that we call dagger B, which is identical in make to dagger A.

Bob throws dagger A as a bonus action, invoking two-weapon fighting. Bill winces as the dagger clangs against his helmet, shaving off a few abstract hit points, and bounces off to land on the ground next to dagger B. Bob saunters up to the hobgoblins.

Now if I understand your position, Bob [I]can pick up dagger B and proceed to stab Ben with it, retroactively triggering the bonus action for fighting two-handed (by fighting one-handed), without violating the letter of the rules.

Bob can't pick up dagger A and proceed to stab Ben with it, because this violates the letter of the rules.

Did I get that correctly?

Saggo

2016-05-24, 02:11 PM

It doesn't take a feat to just gain a bonus action attack from two-weapon fighting without ever fighting with two weapons. You may need feats 'n' styles to squeeze out additional cheese, but as Divisible said, whether it's worthwhile is not really the interesting thing.

Since there aren't any versatile light weapons, it takes a feat to do it more than once.

Yuroch Kern

2016-05-24, 04:32 PM

With Duel Wielder and extra attack can I make a 2-handed longsword attack, then draw a dagger and make a 1-handed longsword attack then take a bonus action attack and gain +1 AC?

Also, could I use GWF on my first attack?

Yep. The feat and both styles would make it all legal. I haven't found ANY official ruling on multi-styles per round, so any ruling would be on the DM. Although the bonus AC wouldn't kick in until the dagger was firmly in hand. Very versatile combo!

Arial Black

2016-05-24, 06:57 PM

I'm thinking that 4a is probably what the designers had in mind, which is: "to have or maintain in the grasp".

I totally agree.

So to conclude, when you take the attack action, you must be holding (have in your grasp) in each hand a light one-handed weapon.

Your conclusion is not an inevitable conclusion of your premise. You are required to hold a weapon when you attack with that weapon. There is absolutely no requirement to be holding both weapons at the same time, whether at the time of the first attack or at any other time.

The bonus action must be with a weapon you are holding in the other hand. Whether or not I'm holding it when I attack with the first weapon, I definitely am holding it when I attack with it, and that fulfils the criteria of making an attack with a weapon I am 'holding in my other hand'.

Neither of those attacks can have any other style applied to them.

You made that up. There is no such rule. If there is, quote it.

Dueling precludes the use of a weapon being held in the other hand

Only whilst that attack is being executed. It does not prevent you holding a weapon in the other hand either before or after that attack.

and there are no weapons with the light property that can also use 2 hands.

The OP states that his PC has the Dual Wielder feat, which takes away the requirement for either weapon to have the Light property. The longsword would therefore be a valid weapon for both TWF and GWF. However, in order to use TWF he must only have the sword in one hand as he executes either the attack which will generate the bonus action or the bonus action attack itself, and he must use two hands as he executes an attack which benefits from GWF.

In theory, a Ftr(champion) 10/Pal 2/Rgr 2 could have four fighting styles: TWF, GWF, Duelling and Defence, and have the feats Dual Wielder and Defensive Duellist. This PC could start with a longsword in hand and a shortsword not yet drawn. He could take the Attack action and attack two-handed with the longsword, benefitting from GWF, then attack with the longsword in just one hand for his second attack, both getting the +2 damage from Duelling style AND generating a bonus action attack from the TWF rules. He could then use his free object interaction and draw his shortsword, and then use his bonus action to attack with the shortsword, adding his Str/Dex bonus to damage from TWF style. Since he is wearing armour he will have +1 AC, and since he now holds a weapon in each hand he now gets +1 AC from Dual Wielder, and can use his reaction to add his proficiency bonus to his AC against one melee attack, granted by Defensive Duellist and holding a finesse weapon.

Vogonjeltz

2016-05-24, 07:56 PM

That rule does not specify that you have to be holding two weapons at the moment you make the attack using the attack action. There is nothing stopping the following sequence:-

* holding a dagger in 1H and nothing in the other, I use the attack action and attack with the dagger. At this point, according to the TWF rules, "...you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand". It doesn't say anything about currently holding the other weapon, just that now I can use a bonus action to attack with a weapon I'm holding in my other hand

* I now use my free object interaction to draw a different dagger with my other hand. I now use my bonus action to attack with it, thoroughly satisfying the clause "attack with a different light melee weapon you're holding in the other hand".

For the first attack: did I take the attack action? Check. Was it a light melee weapon? Check. Was I holding it in one hand? Check

For the bonus action attack: did I have a bonus action that allowed this? Yes, I have a bonus action that I can use to attack with a light melee weapon as long as it is not the same weapon that generated this bonus action (check) and I am holding it in one hand (check) and it is not the same hand I used to make the original attack (check).

Incidentally, you get one free interaction per round (and this is what you need to draw a weapon). If you want to have a second object interaction (like drawing another weapon) then you must use your action. One of the benefits of the Dual Wielder feat is that you can draw two weapons in the same time as other people can draw one, so that you can use your free object interaction (and/or your action) to draw two weapons simultaneously. The feat does not give you a second free object interaction! It does not allow you to draw one weapon, then later on in the same round draw a second weapon as a free interaction; you would stil have to use up your actual action in that case.

Also, adding a second hand to a weapon you're holding in one hand, or taking one hand off a weapon you're holding in two hands, doesn't take any action at all, not even your free object interaction.

Another thing, there is no rules limit on how many fighting styles you can use in the same round or at the same time, although there are some practical limits. For example, when you attack with a weapon it cannot benefit from Duelling style AND Great Weapon fighting in the same blow, but if you have two attacks you could attack once with the sword in one hand and once with it in two hands, and there is no extra action required to switch styles, not even your free object interaction. You can use whatever style you like in conjunction with the Defence style.

Holding is present tense, so it absolutely says the weapon must be wielded at the time.

Arial Black

2016-05-24, 10:21 PM

Holding is present tense, so it absolutely says the weapon must be wielded at the time.

Yes, at the time you execute an attack with it.

Gwendol

2016-05-25, 03:49 AM

It's not that easy to parse this, but it's important to remember that the attack action, regardless of the number of attacks you are allowed to make is one action. In order to trigger TWF you need to take the attack action, using a light melee weapon in one hand. This excludes the proposal to initiate the attack action using a 2-handed grip on the longsword.
I do not agree that the bonus action attack weapon has to be wielded at the time of initiating the attack, regardless of the present tense use of "holding". Drawing the weapon is allowed as part of making the attack (PHB p 193), after all.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-25, 08:24 AM

I'd like to point out that item interactions occurs in tandem with either the movement action or the attack action. Tandem used in this manner means that the two things happen at the same time. Dual wielder feat allows 2 weapons to be drawn for exactly this purpose... otherwise that is wasted feature.

The wording for two-weapon fighting (not the style or the feat) implicitly states how the attack works. "When you take the attack action..." Not when you make any attack available to you (because they all fall under the attack action and extra attacks are just multiple strikes granted by certain classes/features).

Next comes ..." you make an attack with a light melee weapon you are holding in one hand..." obviously you are holding the weapon (no one has even argued that you don't have to be holding this weapon at the time you make an a attack)

Followed by "...you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand." It doesn't say drawing, or thinking about using... it says holding.

The next sentence states that you can't add you ability modifier to the off-hand weapon attack (because without the style, you are not as well trained to do so).

The last sentence says that if either weapon has the thrown property, then you can throw it, as opposed to making a melee attack.

I understand that some think that holding it at the time of the attack is fine, but it is not. Why not? Because so far this whole definition is in one sentence... under a subheading for an attack style called two-weapon fighting. Two weapon-fighting is unique in that if you follow the light weapon in each hand, when you take the attack action (again the full action, not a singular attack under that action), then you are rewarded with a bonus action: attack.

Now the style adds damage to the off-hand weapon, and the feat removes the light restriction, allows drawing 2 weapons at the same time, and grants an armor bonus, for following the rules of the feature.

So if you are holding a longsword, and you wish to get a bonus action from two-weapon fighting, you had better be drawing that off-hand weapon in tandem with your attack action at latest to get the second weapon (it's called two-weapon fighting for a reason) to qualify for the bonus attack. Holding a weapon in each hand precludes the use of any other style at this point, but after the initial attack, you could theoretically begin adding styles to the bonus attack and any other attacks granted by the extra attack feature (if you threw your weapon on the initial attack, you would technically be left with only one weapon, which COULD theoretically allow dueling on, and not GWF, as the bonus action attack is also supposed to be made one-handed.)

If you instead try to break the system by arguing that if it isn't explicitly forbidden, then it must be allowed, then you are using a very strict RAW, as well as a loose interpretation of the language, to combat any sane explanation of general RAW or RAI. If it works for you, then go for it, I personally don't care as long as you're not arguing at my table. But please don't go around spreading your blatant maneuvering as RAI in forums posts where people are asking valid questions and further muddying the waters. Keep it to optimization and theorycrafting posts, please.

Gwendol

2016-05-25, 08:59 AM

Yeah, so to be clear I'd like to add that I do not believe you are allowed to get the benefit of the dueling fighting style if TWF, regardless of wielding an off-hand weapon at the time of the strike of the main weapon. It has to be one or the other.

Tanarii

2016-05-25, 09:15 AM

I'd like to point out that item interactions occurs in tandem with either the movement action or the attack action. Tandem used in this manner means that the two things happen at the same time.
Rules quote? Because the section in the combat chapter on other actions never uses the word tandem. It says "part of" and "during" which could allow it at any point.

PHB Chapter 9 Combat Pg 190
Other Activity on Your Turn
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-25, 09:19 AM

Rules quote? Because the section in the combat chapter on other actions never uses the word tandem. It says "part of" and "during" which could allow it at any point.

PHB Chapter 9 Combat Pg 190
Other Activity on Your Turn
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

Just slightly bellow that section, on the same page, in the box:

Interacting with Objects Around You
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in
tandem with your movement and action:
• draw or sheathe a sword
• open or close a door
• withdraw a potion from your backpack
• pick up a dropped axe
• take a bauble from a table
• remove a ring from your finger
• stuff some food into your mouth
• plant a banner in the ground
• fish a few coins from your belt pouch
• drink all the ale in a flagon
• throw a lever or a switch
• pull a torch from a sconce
• take a book from a shelf you can reach
• extinguish a small flame
• don a mask
• pull the hood of your cloak up and over your head
• put your ear to a door
• kick a small stone
• turn a key in a lock
• tap the floor with a 10-foot pole
• hand an item to another character

Tanarii

2016-05-25, 09:31 AM

And the text makes it clear that in this case, tandem means any point that is during or part of your action. Your strict interpretation of (edit: one word of) RAW is clearly not RAI for object interactions.

Much as I'd like it to be.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-25, 10:06 AM

here is the bit you are referring to... (pg 190 PHB)

"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."

The action used to attack is indeed the same attack action required by two-weapon fighting (and all other attacks, extra or otherwise, save for bonus attacks). This example is just stating that one can draw their weapon (or weapons if a dual wielder) as part of taking their attack action. All weapon attacks, grapples, and shoves are covered under the attack action.

Their later use of tandem doesn't preclude their use of during in this paragraph, as the tandem (at the same time) is happening during their movement/attack action. If nothing else the use of tandem after during clarifies their intent. You are opening the door at the same time you are moving towards your foe... you draw you weapon at the same time you begin your attack [action]. If you don't have the required two weapons for two-weapon fighting being held at the same time you make the first attack, then you are disqualified from gaining the bonus action: attack from the feature. Drawing the second weapon after attacking with the first weapon means that you were not holding the second weapon while you made the initial attack, and instead of engaging in two-weapon fight, you have attacked with one hand and then drawn another weapon.

Tanarii

2016-05-25, 12:06 PM

you draw you weapon at the same time you begin your attack [action].Nothing in this rule says anything about it having to happen at the same time you 'begin' your action. That's a rule you are adding. It says it happens 'during', or as 'part of', the action. In the case of an Attack Action with Extra Attack, that's at any point including between attacks.

In fact, there doesn't seem to be anything that requires taking an Action to occur at the same 'time' as executing the Action. Especially in the case of the Attack Action. I know people that play it as you use the Action when you actually resolve it, and I know people that play it as you use the Action at the beginning of the round, then resolve thing at the appropriate 'time' or order. Edit: In other words, using the Action is abstract within the round, but resolution has order (ie move then attack is different from attack then move.)

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-25, 12:29 PM

OK, so a turn is comprised of two events... movement and action.

If you take an action (the list of commonly used as well as the rule for improvised action is on pg 192-193) you may move before and after. If you can make multiple attacks as a part of your attack action, then you may move in between attacks, as long as you have movement left.

If I am not currently holding a weapon, and I don't draw my weapon as part of my attack action, then I am attacking with my unarmed strikes... I can draw after that and any follow up would be made with the weapon.

If I attack with a single weapon, then draw another, I was not holding the second when I made the first attack, then I don't get the bonus action granted by two-weapon fighting...because I am not attacking with two weapons, as defined by the rule governing said action.

Tanarii

2016-05-25, 12:41 PM

If I attack with a single weapon, then draw another, I was not holding the second when I made the first attack, then I don't get the bonus action granted by two-weapon fighting...because I am not attacking with two weapons, as defined by the rule governing said action.Yes. I agree with that. I think that you must be simultaneously holding two weapons when you make the attack with the first weapon, to be able to use a bonus action to attack with the second weapon. Based on my interpretation of a common English reading of this sentence: "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."

But that just precludes using Dueling Fight Style with triggering a bonus attack on the same attack.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-25, 01:09 PM

Right... which was more than half of what was being argued here... if you accept what the PHB says about two-weapon fighting, then you and I are of the same opinion.

Everything else I presented basically says that in order to use two-weapon fighting (the feature) with another style in the same turn, you would have to meet requirements for two-weapon fighting first, and that the requirements for two-weapon style exclude every other fighting style, save for defensive (but we were discussing offensive styles, not defensive). If you have four attacks, I don't care which attack meets the requirements for two-weapon fighting, but one of them has to, and the attack that generates the bonus action attack cannot benefit from any other style.

Vogonjeltz

2016-05-25, 05:52 PM

Yes, at the time you execute an attack with it.

No, contextually that is referencing that you are holding the offhand weapon at the same time as when you attacked using the mainhand weapon, the bonus action is contingent on this state of existence (two weapons wielded, one in each hand, at the time of the attack action).

The feat also makes this distinction clear in the second function

Saggo

2016-05-26, 12:28 AM

Yes. I agree with that. I think that you must be simultaneously holding two weapons when you make the attack with the first weapon, to be able to use a bonus action to attack with the second weapon. Based on my interpretation of a common English reading of this sentence: "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."

But that just precludes using Dueling Fight Style with triggering a bonus attack on the same attack.
There's a good case not even simultaneously is a requirement.

According to Crawford on War Magic and Shield Master and with any consistency, you can make the bonus action attack before the Attack Action.

If your attack is a thrown ranged attack, you now have a free hand. At face value this is enough to trigger Dueling on all attacks during the Attack Action, as taking the Attack Action and attacking with one-hand are both met.

Holding both weapons simultaneously is only an emergent property if the Attack Action must precede the bonus attack. If we accept Crawford's ruling, then there's a good argument it's not an emergent property and "with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand" is only a qualifier during the bonus attack.

It's still not optimal, you have to throw, sheath, or drop a weapon. To use it every turn you have to have a large supply of thrown weapons or drop it. If you're dropping a weapon constantly, all a DM has to do is a Ready Action to catch it and it's been foiled.

Holding both weapons in the traditional way is still the best use of two weapon fighting, I'd hazard a guess the DPR is still higher too. All this would do is open up additional one-off options for PCs, giving them some good combat story moments.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-26, 08:11 AM

Crawford's musings aside... the language used in all 3 features are different.

War Magic
"Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action."

You cast a cantrip... you can then make a weapon attack. Although there is nothing broken if it were used the other way.

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."

When you use your action to attack (melee, ranged[not applicable here], grapple, or shove) you can toss a bonus action: shove (if you are wielding a shield) in there anywhere, as the is no further restriction. This is the most open for placement of the bonus action. It is also most beneficial for it to occur prior to any other attacks, as shoving someone prone grants advantage on all melee attacks.

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 have to take the attack action, attack with the first (light) weapon in one hand, which then grants you the bonus action: attack, if and only if, your are also holding another (light) weapon in your other hand when you made the first attack. After the initial attack, you can take that bonus action: attack whenever you want to. You can move before or after, strike a different target, but it has to be with a qualifying weapon in the other hand.

This one has the most restrictive wording of the bunch. It is apparent how it is supposed to work. Given that many people also consider the feature/style/feat to be average at best, we are merely discussing theorycraft here, as the result of a character with more than 2 styles would be rather limiting and impractical. I agree that if the initial weapon attack is thrown, then you are technically left with only one weapon, that qualifies for dueling style, or rather there is nothing in the PHB that could be used to deny your applying the style to the remaining solo weapon, other than DM fiat.

Saggo

2016-05-26, 09:00 AM

Crawford's musings aside... the language used in all 3 features are different.They are, yet Crawford still ruled War Magic and Shield Master the same. TWF follows the established formula and the assumption is bonus actions can be used at any point.

You have to take the attack action, attack with the first (light) weapon in one hand, which then grants you the bonus action: attack, if and only if, your are also holding another (light) weapon in your other hand when you made the first attack. After the initial attack, you can take that bonus action: attack whenever you want to. You can move before or after, strike a different target, but it has to be with a qualifying weapon in the other hand.
If and only if is an assumption. Even in a common English reading, the preposition can easily only belong to the clause following the comma, whereas you're assuming it belongs to the two clauses preceding the comma. It's an emergent requirement since at no point is it expressly called out.

If we apply Crawford's ruling, which we have no real argument to think it doesn't apply, then there's good reason that TWF doesn't enforce if and only if. Any following attack could benefit from any feature the PC had.

Given that many people also consider the feature/style/feat to be average at best, we are merely discussing theorycraft here, as the result of a character with more than 2 styles would be rather limiting and impractical.
The thread started with theorycrafting, this is just a bit more.

Tanarii

2016-05-26, 09:34 AM

They are, yet Crawford still ruled War Magic and Shield Master the same. TWF follows the established formula and the assumption is bonus actions can be used at any point.There is a major difference between those and TWF.

Even War Magic can be (very loosely) interpreted to getting the bonus attack just by using the action. In other words, you can:
1) Use action Cast a Spell to cast a Cantrip (metagame declaration)
2) gain a bonus action that you can use to physically attack (metagame result)
2) Use bonus action to physically attack (metagame declaration)
3) Resolve physical attack (in-game: make the attack)
3) Resolve the cantrip (in-game: cast the spell)

That depends on the interpretation that you are using the metagame action Cast a Spell with it being specifically "to cast a cantrip". I personally don't agree with that interpretation at all. I think you use the action (metagame declaration), but then chose specifically to cast a cantrip when you resolve it (in-game: cast the spell). But apparently JC thinks choosing to cast a cantrip is done when you use the action (metagame declaration), not when you resolve it (in-game: cast the spell).

TWF you have to use the action, but you also have to actually make an attack with your first weapon. It's not just dependent on using the action, it's dependent on actually making the attack. So the required steps are:
1) Use Attack action (metagame declaration)
2) Resolve a first weapon physical attack (in-game: make the attack)
3) Gain a bonus action to make second weapon TWF attack (metagame result)
4) Use bonus action to make second weapon TWF attack (metagame declaration)
5) Resolve a second weapon physical attack (in-game: make the attack)

Edit: Unlike casting a spell, the Attack Action is comprised of discrete subportions. So there is no way to interpret the clause "and attack etc" as part of the Action itself. It must be a separate clause, unlike "to cast a cantrip", which can be interpreted (loosely) as being part of the use an action clause. It's also separated by an operator (so to speak) "and", making it clear it's a second condition.

Saggo

2016-05-26, 07:45 PM

Even War Magic can be (very loosely) interpreted to getting the bonus attack just by using the action. In other words, you can:
1) Use action Cast a Spell to cast a Cantrip (metagame declaration)
2) gain a bonus action that you can use to physically attack (metagame result)
2) Use bonus action to physically attack (metagame declaration)
3) Resolve physical attack (in-game: make the attack)
3) Resolve the cantrip (in-game: cast the spell)

Interesting theory, it could fit, but I don't think the book gives any clear indication that actions have declare and resolve states. The action is used when the spell/cantrip is cast. A simpler explanation is that WotC and specifically Crawford allow bonus actions to occur before triggers, especially since his justification is you get to choose bonus action timing.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-26, 08:23 PM

allow bonus actions to occur before triggers

And that, my friends, is the problem right there.
Bonus actions generally do NOT have triggers, but most of you seem to think that they do.
You do not have the use of a bonus action unless you have a feature (or spell, or something) which grants you a bonus action. But once you have a bonus action available, you can just use it. If you use it, you have to also fulfill any potential requirements that the feature which granted it may have. If you cannot fulfill those requirements, you can't use the bonus action.
It's not a matter of it being triggered.
They don't have triggers.

Tanarii

2016-05-26, 08:32 PM

The action is used when the spell/cantrip is cast. A simpler explanation is that WotC and specifically Crawford allow bonus actions to occur before triggers, especially since his justification is you get to choose bonus action timing.If that's the case, there's no RAW justification for his ruling, since 'when you use action' (to roughly paraphrase) means using and resolving at once. Since that's what allows you to use the bonus action, you can't use it until after you've already used (and resolved) the action that allowed you to use it.

It also causes some issues for things that don't necessarily resolve all at once, like attacks surrounding your move.

Now, you can certainly say: you're using the action during the entirety of its resolution. But that amounts to the same thing as the metagame declarations of use (instead they're the start of using the actions) and then resolutions (end of using the actions) that I laid out. Edit: It also causes some potential issues with free hands. For example a EK using a two-handed weapon while simultaneously casting a S component cantrip couldn't use War Magic to attack 'first' then cast his spell without War Caster, since he'd be casting the spell and using his bonus action to attack at the same time.

Edit2: the other justification he could be using for his ruling is that you generally only do one action in a round, so as long as the general conditions are met for getting and using a bonus action, order or resolution isn't particularly important, and causes unnecessary metagame thinking and restrictions of what's happening when. I suspect that's most likely.

Saggo

2016-05-26, 09:01 PM

If that's the case, there's no RAW justification for his ruling, since 'when you use action' (to roughly paraphrase) means using and resolving at once. Since that's what allows you to use the bonus action, you can't use it until after you've already used (and resolved) the action that allowed you to use it.
That's a whole other discussion, but I generally agree, their use of conditional conjunctions doesn't match his ruling. That's why I prefaced with if we accept his ruling.

It also causes some issues for things that don't necessarily resolve all at once, like attacks surrounding your move.

Now, you can certainly say: you're using the action during the entirety of its resolution. But that amounts to the same thing as the metagame declarations of use (instead they're the start of using the actions) and then resolutions (end of using the actions) that I laid out. Edit: It also causes some potential issues with free hands. For example a EK using a two-handed weapon while simultaneously casting a S component cantrip couldn't use War Magic to attack 'first' then cast his spell without War Caster, since he'd be casting the spell and using his bonus action to attack at the same time. Movement should fall under specific beats general, since there's a section for movement during extra attacks. Otherwise, they treat an action as a single use event, or simply put, using your action is doing the attack/cantrip. I just don't see any direct support to say actions have declaration and resolution states that you're interrupting with the bonus action. I think it's just bonus action -> appropriate action.

But, let's assume that's the case. What would prevent something like Attack Action -> Single One-Hand Weapon Attack -> Draw Off-hand -> Bonus Attack Throw -> Remaining One-Hand Weapon Attacks. It would satisfy all apparent properties, if not all assumed emergent ones like simultaneous wielding.

And that, my friends, is the problem right there.
Bonus actions generally do NOT have triggers, but most of you seem to think that they do.
You do not have the use of a bonus action unless you have a feature (or spell, or something) which grants you a bonus action. But once you have a bonus action available, you can just use it. If you use it, you have to also fulfill any potential requirements that the feature which granted it may have. If you cannot fulfill those requirements, you can't use the bonus action.
It's not a matter of it being triggered.
They don't have triggers.
Something caused the bonus action to exist, trigger is fine.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-27, 08:28 AM

But, let's assume that's the case. What would prevent something like Attack Action -> Single One-Hand Weapon Attack -> Draw Off-hand -> Bonus Attack Throw -> Remaining One-Hand Weapon Attacks. It would satisfy all apparent properties, if not all assumed emergent ones like simultaneous wielding.

Well for starters the intentional mis-reading of the sentence. To exclude the emergent property of the two weapon fighting, you are in fact taking away the actual intent and complexity required to limit the bonus action, and replacing it with the various sub-components, individually. The language is there and it combines all of the sub-components into one larger component (one sentence, just one). Here is the definition for two-weapon fighting one last time.

1(When you take the Attack action) 2( and attack) 3( with a light melee weapon) 4( that you’re holding in one hand,) 5( you can use a bonus action) 6( to attack) 7(with a different light melee weapon) 8( that you’re holding) 9( in the other hand.)

1- tells you what action is required (attack action)
2- defines which option from number 1 you must use (attack, not grapple or shove)
3- defines the first restriction for the first option
4- defines the second restriction for the first option
5- tells you what you get for following 1 - 4
6- defines what option 5 allows
7- defines the first restriction to 6
8- defines the second restriction to 6
9- defines the third restriction to 6

If we split these up into their separate parts and issue the commands in order...and ignore the whole, then we get what you are arguing in your quote above.

But if we instead look at the entirety of the sentence, then we find that the granting of 5, doesn't stop at step 4 and then picks up at 5, but instead continues on through 9, creating the assumed emergent property of simultaneous wielding of the two weapons required for the specialized feature two-weapon fighting.

Edit: please excuse the fact that I didn't break step 4 into two separate clauses..it's early here.

Gwendol

2016-05-27, 09:08 AM

What's truly annoying is that the TWF bonus attack does not work with Whirlwind attack (as written) since Multiattack is a separate action. My guess is most DM's will allow it anyway, because it's so stupid, but there you have it.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-27, 09:21 AM

Correct, whirlwind is defined as an action for a special melee attack (albeit against up to 6 to eight foes if totally surrounded), so no extra attacks and no bonus attacks are usable, unless you have GWM feat and qualify for it's "cleave" aspect.

Also of note are that dueling and GWF styles can be applied to whirlwind, as well as the -5/+10 of GWM.

Saggo

2016-05-27, 04:54 PM

Well for starters the intentional mis-reading of the sentence.

It wasn't intentionally misread, it's as valid a parse as yours and arguably has better face value. The only actual intent we can intrinsically give it is that you need two different weapons and hands. Anything else is just an interpretation, yours and mine, and frankly WotC intent often doesn't match up with the language they use. Personally, I'm poking at TWF to see what we can come up with.

Fortunately or not, everything thought up so far has been high cost, low reward. However cheesy someone thinks it is, nothing has invalidated traditional dual wielding.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-27, 07:58 PM

And on that we agree.

Saggo

2016-05-28, 07:57 PM

And on that we agree.

What do you think of Draw -> Attack Action -> Attack Throw -> Bonus w/ Dueling -> Remaining Attacks w/ Dueling. Or if you don't want Bonus interrupting, Attack Action -> Attack w/ Dueling -> Draw Off Hand -> Attack Throw -> Bonus w/ Dueling?

Arial Black

2016-05-29, 11:25 AM

What do you think of Draw -> Attack Action -> Attack Throw -> Bonus w/ Dueling -> Remaining Attacks w/ Dueling. Or if you don't want Bonus interrupting, Attack Action -> Attack w/ Dueling -> Draw Off Hand -> Attack Throw -> Bonus w/ Dueling?

The only thing I think that is doubtful (I'm AFB) is getting the +2 Duelling damage bonus to a thrown weapon attack (if that's what you mean). IIRC, the weapon has to be in one hand to get that duelling damage bonus.

Saggo

2016-05-29, 03:11 PM

The only thing I think that is doubtful (I'm AFB) is getting the +2 Duelling damage bonus to a thrown weapon attack (if that's what you mean). IIRC, the weapon has to be in one hand to get that duelling damage bonus.

In general a thrown melee weapon would benefit from Dueling, it only requires a melee weapon in one hand (not a melee attack), but that wasn't what I was going at. I was looking at ways to get Dueling on a number of attacks equal to your normal amount with Extra Attack while getting a bonus attack and adhering to a simultaneous wielding requirement. The Throw wouldn't have Dueling but the bonus attack could.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-05-29, 06:14 PM

Vogonjeltz

2016-05-30, 11:51 AM

And that, my friends, is the problem right there.
Bonus actions generally do NOT have triggers, but most of you seem to think that they do.
You do not have the use of a bonus action unless you have a feature (or spell, or something) which grants you a bonus action. But once you have a bonus action available, you can just use it. If you use it, you have to also fulfill any potential requirements that the feature which granted it may have. If you cannot fulfill those requirements, you can't use the bonus action.
It's not a matter of it being triggered.
They don't have triggers.

"Potential requirements" would be the same thing as "trigger".

Shield master requires the attack action be taken (not an attack, just the action), similarly war magic requires the cast a spell action to be taken, but it doesn't say the timing requires that the spell be cast or an attack made.

Conversely, TWF does require an attack to be made first by requiring an attack with a specific kind of weapon. The requirement on the weapon that can make the bonus attack is also a light weapon that is being held in the other hand, as it must be the case at the time of the trigger (an attack with a light weapon in one hand) than it necessarily follows that one can not draw a weapon later on to make the attack.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-30, 12:48 PM

Conversely, TWF does require an attack to be made first by requiring an attack with a specific kind of weapon. The requirement on the weapon that can make the bonus attack is also a light weapon that is being held in the other hand, as it must be the case at the time of the trigger (an attack with a light weapon in one hand) than it necessarily follows that one can not draw a weapon later on to make the attack.

How many more years do you think it's going to take before you finally realize that this type of rules lawyering has no place under 5e's game design? Seriously, how many?
I mean, you've already had two, and it still hasn't taken yet.
Stop parsing the language into segments (because, who does that?) or comparing the language of two similarly worded abilities (because the book was written by more than one person), and instead attempt to imbue the language with intent. You'll easily be able to make rulings on literally any issue or question that arises.
Especially in cases such as this, where multiple questions regarding bonus action timing have already been answered, and all answered in identical manner.... which contradicts your parsing interpretation.

In this case (the original question posed), all the discussion of dropping weapons and drawing weapons and all that garbage is moot.
The intent is very clearly that two mutually exclusive fighting styles (one requiring one weapon one in each of both hands, and one requiring a single weapon wielded in two hands) cannot be used in conjunction.
No other discussion on this matter is needed.
Anything allowing it is obviously not RAI, no matter how many rules hoops people can leap through to attempt to justify it.

Tanarii

2016-05-30, 01:22 PM

I mean, you've already had two, and it still hasn't taken yet.
Stop parsing the language into segments (because, who does that?) or comparing the language of two similarly worded abilities (because the book was written by more than one person), and instead attempt to imbue the language with intent. You'll easily be able to make rulings on literally any issue or question that arises.this is particularly funny to me, because JCs ruling on War Magic and Shield Mastery is entirely dependent on sentence parsing (edit: and complex rules concept interpretations on action timing) , as opposed to a common English reading of the rules.

Edit2: for that matter, a simple and straight forward reading of the TWF rules without parsing the sentence, or working in weird concepts on metagame action timing, results in the same disagreement with JCs rules interpretations for War Magic and Shield Mastery. There's no way to arrive at his interpretations without using arcane rules knowledge, sentence parsing, and unusual definitions for English words and concepts.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-05-30, 01:34 PM

How many more years do you think it's going to take before you finally realize that this type of rules lawyering has no place under 5e's game design? Seriously, how many?

I'm confused, aren't you both with me in the "this is cheese avec cheese" camp?

Tanarii

2016-05-30, 01:35 PM

I'm confused, aren't you both with me in the "this is cheese avec cheese" camp?

He is, but because 'common sense'. Which has nothing to do with RaW or RaI. It has to do with the way he thinks the rules *should* work, not what they say, either in a plain English reading or a parsing reading.

DivisibleByZero

2016-05-30, 01:53 PM

this is particularly funny to me, because JCs ruling on War Magic and Shield Mastery is entirely dependent on sentence parsing (edit: and complex rules concept interpretations on action timing) , as opposed to a common English reading of the rules.

No, it isn't dependent on parsing.
It's the exact opposite, in point of fact.
It's dependent upon reading the entire entry as a whole, and determining intent based on that complete reading , which is the antithesis of parsing.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-05-30, 08:57 PM

I think "common sense" can be applied on both levels when resolving ambiguities, though, the fluff level - "does this make sense given what's being simulated?" - and the crunch level - "does this make sense as a piece of deliberate game design?" It just so happens in this case that most every indication points in the same direction of "overlapping" fighting styles being total cheese. :smallwink:

I'm not a theorycrafter myself, but I get it when people go, "guys, the rules totally say this, and it's ridiculous, and no DM without a hole in the head would allow it in actual play, but it's there, so let's break it in theory". But when there is a reasonable way to resolve an ambiguity without running up against absurdities on either the simulation level or the design level, and people have to insist on a tortured* unreasonable interpretation to have their way, everything just goes fuzzy and it's time to break out the grapes and crackers. It's kinda like a couple of passages in the commandments of practical optimization:

* "The rules don't say I can't!" is not practical optimization.

* If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim... not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.

*YES MALEFICE I'M USING YOUR TRADEMARK WORD

Tanarii

2016-05-31, 10:24 PM

No, it isn't dependent on parsing.
It's the exact opposite, in point of fact.
It's dependent upon reading the entire entry as a whole, and determining intent based on that complete reading , which is the antithesis of parsing.

It is entirely dependent on parsing, in combination with a rules interpretation that separates using actions from when you're doing in in-game associated thing (which requires a certain rules conceptualization tin that wouldn't occur to a plain English reading), plus an esoteric interpretation of the meaning of the word 'when'.

Also, sorry for my last snippy remark about your interpretations. It was uncalled for. You're interpreting the rules, and it's not cool of me to cast aspersions on your choice of interpretation by implying it's not really an attempt to look at RAW or RAI.

Gwendol

2016-06-01, 02:35 AM

No, it isn't dependent on parsing.
It's the exact opposite, in point of fact.
It's dependent upon reading the entire entry as a whole, and determining intent based on that complete reading , which is the antithesis of parsing.

Bah, if you go with that view then I'd suggest taking into account the headline of that section. It says Two-Weapon fighting. They only talk about using two weapons, and always in present tense. Just reading the whole kind of gives away that the rules are for those using two weapons. If you don't other rules apply.
As a DM I accept drawing and attacking with a second weapon, but that would be a ruling that isn't clearly allowed from the text.

Saggo

2016-06-01, 10:09 AM

The intent is very clearly that two mutually exclusive fighting styles (one requiring one weapon one in each of both hands, and one requiring a single weapon wielded in two hands) cannot be used in conjunction.
No other discussion on this matter is needed.
Anything allowing it is obviously not RAI, no matter how many rules hoops people can leap through to attempt to justify it.

Regardless of how much weight someone gives author intent, a cursory glance at Wikipedia and Google will tell you that intent is not absolute to the meaning and significance of a text.

Should Crawford make a tweet declaring that the intent was for TWF to be the only thing allowed on your turn, it's counter-intuitive. There's plenty of support for using offensive methods and fighting styles in sequence during a single turn. You can easily use a dart for Archery and Sharpshooter and a great sword to finish with GWF and GWM. Adding TWF as a style and method to the sequence is easily a natural extension of what is allowed.

Aggressively pushing an interpretation of the intent to dissuade discussion is unbecoming.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-12, 05:05 AM

According to Crawford on War Magic and Shield Master and with any consistency, you can make the bonus action attack before the Attack Action.Yeah i agree the Sage Advice favors a ruling that allow you to take the bonus action before attacking with an action, which means you could take a bonus action attack before attacking when Two-Weapon Fighting. I don't necessarily agree with such ruling but i must admit it aligns with this clarification.

War Magic: Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).

Yuki Akuma

2016-09-12, 06:13 AM

This thread is three months old.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-12, 07:41 AM

I know it was recently shown to me in a different discussion sorry for the thread necro

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-12, 09:42 AM

How old is "too old" anyway? There's a thread from back in May that I have a partially written response to (got interrupted, saved to text file, forgot about for a while, profit) and was wondering whether to a) post in thread, b) repurpose as new thread or c) forget it ever happened.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-12, 09:52 AM

How old is "too old" anyway?Yeah good question :)

I believe i joined this forum community after this thread was created it would explain why i didn't see it before loll

PeteNutButter

2016-09-13, 06:34 AM

With Duel Wielder and extra attack can I make a 2-handed longsword attack, then draw a dagger and make a 1-handed longsword attack then take a bonus action attack and gain +1 AC?

Also, could I use GWF on my first attack?

The main thing is why would you want to? GWF adds like 1 damage, while duelist adds 2. You are adding an extra layer of cheese just to break even IMO.

Arial Black

2016-09-13, 07:55 AM

Yeah i agree the Sage Advice favors a ruling that allow you to take the bonus action before attacking with an action, which means you could take a bonus action attack before attacking when Two-Weapon Fighting. I don't necessarily agree with such ruling but i must admit it aligns with this clarification.

War Magic: Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).

Taking an Action In Combat simply enables you to do the stuff allowed by that particular Action, from the moment you take the Action until the end of your turn. For example, if you take the Cast A Spell action, this doesn't mean you must instantly cast a spell! It just means that you now have permission to cast a spell anytime from 'now' until the end of that turn. Similarly, when you take the Attack action, you do not have to take all (or even any) of your attacks immediately; you can now take your attacks any time from now until the end of your turn.

So Warcaster lets you generate a bonus action that allows you to execute one weapon attack when you take the Cast A Spell action (intending to cast a cantrip). You don't actually have to cast the cantrip yet! Taking the Action is enough.

So, take the Cast A Spell action (without casting the cantrip yet), this generates a bonus action which you can use to execute a single weapon attack. At this point you have neither cast the cantrip nor attacked with a weapon! You now have permission to do so, and you may do them in any order you like, from now until the end of your turn.

Note that even though you haven't cast the cantrip yet, as soon as you use the bonus action which was generated by you taking the Cast A Spell Action to execute that weapon attack, you have already used your main action. Your main action at this point already is the Cast A Spell action, and the only kind of spell you can cast is a cantrip. You don't actually have to cast the cantrip if you don't want to, but you cannot swap that Action In Combat for a different one because you have already used your action for the Cast A Spell action to generate that bonus action that you have already used to execute that weapon attack.

Does that make sense to you?

Plaguescarred

2016-09-13, 08:20 AM

Taking an Action In Combat simply enables you to do the stuff allowed by that particular Action, from the moment you take the Action until the end of your turn. For example, if you take the Cast A Spell action, this doesn't mean you must instantly cast a spell! It just means that you now have permission to cast a spell anytime from 'now' until the end of that turn. Similarly, when you take the Attack action, you do not have to take all (or even any) of your attacks immediately; you can now take your attacks any time from now until the end of your turn.

So Warcaster lets you generate a bonus action that allows you to execute one weapon attack when you take the Cast A Spell action (intending to cast a cantrip). You don't actually have to cast the cantrip yet! Taking the Action is enough.

So, take the Cast A Spell action (without casting the cantrip yet), this generates a bonus action which you can use to execute a single weapon attack. At this point you have neither cast the cantrip nor attacked with a weapon! You now have permission to do so, and you may do them in any order you like, from now until the end of your turn.

Note that even though you haven't cast the cantrip yet, as soon as you use the bonus action which was generated by you taking the Cast A Spell Action to execute that weapon attack, you have already used your main action. Your main action at this point already is the Cast A Spell action, and the only kind of spell you can cast is a cantrip. You don't actually have to cast the cantrip if you don't want to, but you cannot swap that Action In Combat for a different one because you have already used your action for the Cast A Spell action to generate that bonus action that you have already used to execute that weapon attack.

Does that make sense to you?No and i don't think it's supported by the rules but that you rather jump to false conclusions based on existing specific rules. There are exception about specifically moving between attacks or using bonus action without specific timing yes but no general rule allowing you to delay an action resolvement or take action or move between otherwise. I don't think you can take the Cast A Spell Action and move before actually casting the spell, or take the Hide action and then makes attacks (i.e Action Surge) before hiding.

Arial Black

2016-09-13, 10:37 AM

No and i don't think it's supported by the rules but that you rather jump to false conclusions based on existing specific rules. There are exception about specifically moving between attacks or using bonus action without specific timing yes but no general rule allowing you to delay an action resolvement or take action or move between otherwise. I don't think you can take the Cast A Spell Action and move before actually casting the spell, or take the Hide action and then makes attacks (i.e Action Surge) before hiding.

It's how the rules actually work.

When you take the Disengage action, what immediately happens? Nothing. Taking this Action In Combat just allows you to do something from the moment you take the action until the end of your turn.

What happens immediately to your character when you take the Dash action? Nothing. Taking this Action In Combat just allows you to move further, from now until the end of your turn.

In fact, we know that this is how the game system works! If it didn't work this way, then that shield bash from Shield Master would have to come after the attack that generated that bonus action. But we know that you take the Attack Action In Combat, this generates the bonus action shield bash, and then you can actually execute these two things, in either order, from now until the end of your turn.

This is not some special rule that applies only to Shield Master! Read that feat. There is no such language. The reason that it does work like JC says it does, without needing an explanatory note in the feat itself, is because this is how the entire Actions In Combat system works in 5E, so there is no need for a special note in the feat as it works the same as everything else.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-13, 11:13 AM

It's how the rules actually work.

When you take the Disengage action, what immediately happens? Nothing. Taking this Action In Combat just allows you to do something from the moment you take the action until the end of your turn.If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn’t
provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn, taking effect immediatly, not at later moment.

What happens immediately to your character when you take the Dash action? Nothing. Taking this Action In Combat just allows you to move further, from now until the end of your turn.When you take the Dash action, you gain extra movement for the current turn, taking effect immediatly, not at later moment.

In fact, we know that this is how the game system works! If it didn't work this way, then that shield bash from Shield Master would have to come after the attack that generated that bonus action. But we know that you take the Attack Action In Combat, this generates the bonus action shield bash, and then you can actually execute these two things, in either order, from now until the end of your turn.Using Shield Master as justification is not a good exemple as it use an exceptional specific rule saying they can be taken at any moment once enabled, as per Sage Advice. Prior to Jeremy Crawford clarifying it, people constantly asked because the general order of of event in the feat were such that you were taking the Attack action before having a bonus action to take. The exception here is that bonus actions can now be taken prior to the attack of an attack action resolve.

Nothing indicate that taking an action doesn't happen at the moment of taking it otherwise, yes some effect can be more lenghtly than others and can even allow movement and other action in between, not that doesn't mean that you don't normally do things at the moment of taking said action.

Arial Black

2016-09-13, 11:21 AM

Quote Originally Posted by Arial Black:-
The way 5E works is that 'taking an Action In Combat' is not the same thing as 'executing something that requires that action'.

Originally posted by Tanarii:-
That's not explicit in the rules.

Originally posted by Odigity:-
You are right, which is unfortunate. I wish they had made it explicit, as it would have avoided months of confusion on my part.

However, much like an astronomer can deduce the existence of a planet without seeing it by measuring it's gravitational effect on nearby bodies, you can deduce this "permission slip" model from the existing information (PHB + Crawford), as Arial Black has demonstrated with his well-chosen examples and commentary. It's the only model that is consistent with the outcomes described by the authoritative sources we have access.

We tend to view games like D&D as a rough model for a fictional reality, but it, like all games, is just an abstract ruleset. Many if not most games (D&D, Magic: The Gathering, etc) are fundamentally about resource management, and are designed, play-tested, and balanced with that in mind.

In game play terms, your actions are resources that you spend to gain the benefits. When you spend your action on an Attack Action, you're paying the price for the right to one (or more) attacks. What you do with it is up to you. You can buy an ice cream cone and throw it on the floor if you want, as long as you pay the price. Otherwise, it would be illegal for a player with Extra Attack to take the Attack Action but then only make one attack. They are not compelled to make two, that would be depriving them of free will.

Arial Black

2016-09-13, 11:28 AM

Using Shield Master as justification is not a good exemple as it use an exceptional specific rule saying they can be taken at any moment once enabled, as per Sage Advice. Prior to Jeremy Crawford clarifying it, people constantly asked because the general order of of event in the feat were such that you were taking the Attack action before having a bonus action to take. The exception here is that bonus actions can now be taken prior to the attack of an attack action resolve.

JC never indicated that Shield Master is a special case! The fact that people played differently before JC's clarification just means that they misunderstood the way 5E works. No biggie, it caught me out too at first.

Nothing indicate that taking an action doesn't happen at the moment of taking it otherwise, yes some effect can be more lenghtly than others and can even allow movement and other action in between, not that doesn't mean that you don't normally do things at the moment of taking said action.

And nothing indicates that you must execute the stuff allowed by taking an Action In Combat instantly! In fact, all of the examples and clarifications we do have (Shield Master, War Caster, etc.) indicate that you can do stuff in any order, regardless of the order you took the Actions In Combat that allowed those things.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-13, 11:42 AM

JC never indicated that Shield Master is a special case! The fact that people played differently before JC's clarification just means that they misunderstood the way 5E works. No biggie, it caught me out too at first.

And nothing indicates that you must execute the stuff allowed by taking an Action In Combat instantly! In fact, all of the examples and clarifications we do have (Shield Master, War Caster, etc.) indicate that you can do stuff in any order, regardless of the order you took the Actions In Combat that allowed those things.Shield Master is not a special case, its the clarification that bonus action can be taken before the actual timing at which they are enabled that is! Same goes for War Caster. Not because you can now take a bonus action anytime on a turn you are enabled to take one that it means any actions you take can be delayed.

When you take the Attack action, you make one or more melee or ranged attack. Not at the end of the turn after you do other stuff, when you take the Attack action. Except you can move between attacks, even possibly take bonus actions and reactions. But you start performing the action the moment you take it, not delay it and start doing it at any other moment on your turn. If you cast an instantaneous spell, you can't do nothing else unless you have a reaction or bonus action enabling you to. You cannot use the Cast a Spell action, hold onto it, move out of cover let the spell go, and move back being cover. The only way to hold onto a spell is with the Ready Action.

Arial Black

2016-09-13, 08:22 PM

Shield Master is not a special case, its the clarification that bonus action can be taken before the actual timing at which they are enabled that is! Same goes for War Caster. Not because you can now take a bonus action anytime on a turn you are enabled to take one that it means any actions you take can be delayed.

When you take the Attack action, you make one or more melee or ranged attack. Not at the end of the turn after you do other stuff, when you take the Attack action. Except you can move between attacks, even possibly take bonus actions and reactions. But you start performing the action the moment you take it, not delay it and start doing it at any other moment on your turn. If you cast an instantaneous spell, you can't do nothing else unless you have a reaction or bonus action enabling you to. You cannot use the Cast a Spell action, hold onto it, move out of cover let the spell go, and move back being cover. The only way to hold onto a spell is with the Ready Action.

We know the bolded part isn't true. If it were, then when you took the Attack Action then you'd have to actually execute the attack at the same time, and the Shield Master bonus action shield bash would have to come after!

But we know it doesn't work that way. We know that you can take the shield bash before you execute the attack. We also know that 7th level Eldritch Knights can attack before the cantrip is cast, even though that bonus action attack is generated by casting the cantrip.

The only way this can work is if 'taking an Action In Combat' is a separate thing from 'executing the things allowed by that Action'. This explanation is not contradicted by the written rules, and is consistent with JC's explanations for every relevant example he has addressed.

None of those things you mentioned are worded as if they work differently than the normal rules.

If you have a different explanation of how these things can possibly be consistent, then post it. I'm happy to have people see both explanations and judge what makes sense.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-14, 04:23 AM

When you take the Attack action, you make one or more melee or ranged attack. Not at the end of the turn after you do other stuff, when you take the Attack action. Except you can move between attacks, even possibly take bonus actions and reactions.

We know the bolded part isn't true. If it were, then when you took the Attack Action then you'd have to actually execute the attack at the same time, and the Shield Master bonus action shield bash would have to come after!

But we know it doesn't work that way. We know that you can take the shield bash before you execute the attack. We also know that 7th level Eldritch Knights can attack before the cantrip is cast, even though that bonus action attack is generated by casting the cantrip.

The only way this can work is if 'taking an Action In Combat' is a separate thing from 'executing the things allowed by that Action'. This explanation is not contradicted by the written rules, and is consistent with JC's explanations for every relevant example he has addressed.

None of those things you mentioned are worded as if they work differently than the normal rules.

If you have a different explanation of how these things can possibly be consistent, then post it. I'm happy to have people see both explanations and judge what makes sense."Except you can move between attacks, even possibly take bonus actions and reactions." Is the important part youfailed to bold..... you keep bringing up exceptions that use bonus actions to justify action delay. We know you can take a bonus action at any time once enabled, even before the attack of an Attack action. But if you take the Attack action and don't have any bonus action to take, you cannot move & do other stuff and decide to swing at the end of your turn.

Arial Black

2016-09-14, 06:01 AM

"Except you can move between attacks, even possibly take bonus actions and reactions." Is the important part youfailed to bold..... you keep bringing up exceptions that use bonus actions to justify action delay. We know you can take a bonus action at any time once enabled, even before the attack of an Attack action. But if you take the Attack action and don't have any bonus action to take, you cannot move & do other stuff and decide to swing at the end of your turn.

Quote the rule that says so.

Every example we have allows you to actually execute the stuff your action allows at any time during your turn, from when you 'take the Action' until the end of your turn. Including, BTW, the multiple attacks granted by taking the Attack action with Extra Attack.

Earlier, in response to my point that the Dash and Disengage actions don't result in anything happening immediately, you said that as soon as you take the Disengage action you immediately have the ability to avoid provoking...anytime from now until the end of your turn.

You said that taking the Dash action lets you immediately....have more move which you can use between now and the end of your turn....

By the same token, taking the Attack action immediately...gives you the ability to make your allowed number of weapon attacks, any time between now and the end of your turn.

Nothing in the RAW contradicts this! Every actual example we have allows this.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-14, 07:07 AM

Quote the rule that says so.

Every example we have allows you to actually execute the stuff your action allows at any time during your turn, from when you 'take the Action' until the end of your turn. Including, BTW, the multiple attacks granted by taking the Attack action with Extra Attack.

Earlier, in response to my point that the Dash and Disengage actions don't result in anything happening immediately, you said that as soon as you take the Disengage action you immediately have the ability to avoid provoking...anytime from now until the end of your turn.

You said that taking the Dash action lets you immediately....have more move which you can use between now and the end of your turn....

By the same token, taking the Attack action immediately...gives you the ability to make your allowed number of weapon attacks, any time between now and the end of your turn.

Nothing in the RAW contradicts this! Every actual example we have allows this.When you take an action, it tells you what you do. If you claim you don't immediatly acocmplish it but can delay and do other stuff (other that specific rule like bonus action) after you take them, the burden is on you to quote the rule that says you can take an action but do it later on your turn.

Strill

2016-09-14, 07:24 AM

When you take an action, it tells you what you do. If you claim you don't immediatly acocmplish it but can delay and do other stuff (other that specific rule like bonus action) after you take them, the burden is on you to quote the rule that says you can take an action but do it later on your turn.

PHB p.190 "MOVING BETWEEN ATTACKS
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."

p.189 "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified"

Plaguescarred

2016-09-14, 07:53 AM

Arial Black

2016-09-15, 07:20 AM

PHB p.190 "MOVING BETWEEN ATTACKS
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."

p.189 "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified"

@ Plaguescarred:-

According to the example given in the rule, you can move before your first attack. You could, as the first thing you do on your turn, take the Attack Action (without executing an attack yet), move a bit, actually attack once, move a bit more, attack again, move a bit more. This gap between 'taking the Action' and 'executing the stuff allowed by the action' is totally consistent between this example and the 'permission slip' model.

Every example we have is also consistent with this model. It is disingenuous to claim that every single example that exists is an 'exception' while being unable to provide a single example which matches your idea of the non-exception.

I also note that neither the Eldritch Knight's ability nor the Shield Master feat mention that they are exceptions to the normal way the general rules for using Actions In Combat works. With the 'permission slip' model as the general rule, then the way these two abilities work (including using the bonus action before the thing that allegedly generates the bonus action) is already consistent with the general rule that 'taking an Action In Combat' is a different thing than executing those things allowed by that action; no explanatory note or exception required.

If, as you claim, 'taking an Action' was the same thing as 'executing the thing allowed by that Action', then those two abilities would not allow you to use a bonus action you haven't generated yet! There is nothing in either description that mentions any change to how the rules for Actions work.

In your model, the 'Actions and execution are the same thing' model, then since the thing that generates the bonus action is 'taking the Action', you could not take the bonus action before that bonus action even exists!

Since we know that we can take the bonus action first (and we know there is no special language in either of these two abilities that makes an exception to the normal rules for Actions) we can see that your model does not match the reality. It is a failed model.

The only way that you could take the bonus action first is if the bonus action exists before the attack is executed.

Since the wording of these two abilities is such that 'taking the Attack Action' is what generates the bonus action, as opposed to it being 'executing an attack' that generates the bonus action, the only explanation that fits the reality is that 'taking the Action' and 'executing the attack' are different things in 5E.

Q, E, and indeed, D. :smallsmile:

Plaguescarred

2016-09-15, 07:44 AM

@ Plaguescarred:-

According to the example given in the rule, you can move before your first attack. You could, as the first thing you do on your turn, take the Attack Action (without executing an attack yet), move a bit, actually attack once, move a bit more, attack again, move a bit more. This gap between 'taking the Action' and 'executing the stuff allowed by the action' is totally consistent between this example and the 'permission slip' model.

Every example we have is also consistent with this model. It is disingenuous to claim that every single example that exists is an 'exception' while being unable to provide a single example which matches your idea of the non-exception.

I also note that neither the Eldritch Knight's ability nor the Shield Master feat mention that they are exceptions to the normal way the general rules for using Actions In Combat works. With the 'permission slip' model as the general rule, then the way these two abilities work (including using the bonus action before the thing that allegedly generates the bonus action) is already consistent with the general rule that 'taking an Action In Combat' is a different thing than executing those things allowed by that action; no explanatory note or exception required.

If, as you claim, 'taking an Action' was the same thing as 'executing the thing allowed by that Action', then those two abilities would not allow you to use a bonus action you haven't generated yet! There is nothing in either description that mentions any change to how the rules for Actions work.

In your model, the 'Actions and execution are the same thing' model, then since the thing that generates the bonus action is 'taking the Action', you could not take the bonus action before that bonus action even exists!

Since we know that we can take the bonus action first (and we know there is no special language in either of these two abilities that makes an exception to the normal rules for Actions) we can see that your model does not match the reality. It is a failed model.

The only way that you could take the bonus action first is if the bonus action exists before the attack is executed.

Since the wording of these two abilities is such that 'taking the Attack Action' is what generates the bonus action, as opposed to it being 'executing an attack' that generates the bonus action, the only explanation that fits the reality is that 'taking the Action' and 'executing the attack' are different things in 5E.

Q, E, and indeed, D. :smallsmile:They are exceptions since they let you do stuff differently. Every actions you take is followed by what you do i.e as an action you do X....or when you take X action, you do Y etc....

When you take the Attack action, you attack. You must move before or after taking an action according to Breaking Up Your Move, but you could move during such action if you can make multiple attacks according to Moving Between Attacks. This makes it an exception, a specific rule vs the general rule.

Similarly when you take an action you do X but you could do other things during such action if you have a specific game elements letting you do so, such as a bonus action or reaction, also making it an exception.

WIthout such specific bonus action, reaction or the ability to move between attacks, you just do your action as prescribed, and either move before or after it.

odigity

2016-09-15, 11:18 AM

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-15, 11:48 AM

I don't think Plaguescarred is going to be convinced without new information, since Arial Black has already done an admirable job presenting his side using all existing information.

If Jeremy Crawford tweeted that movement was allowed between Eldritch Blast attacks (lvl 5+), would that close the case that this is not an exception but the general rule?

I think it would be more confusing since those aren't weapon attacks.

odigity

2016-09-15, 11:54 AM

I think it would be more confusing since those aren't weapon attacks.

Yeah, that was dumb. Spells are very different, as demonstrated by the fact that readying a spell requires concentration. All EB rays probably have to go off at once.

(In my defense, I had just woken up.)

Arial Black

2016-09-18, 05:42 AM

They are exceptions since they let you do stuff differently. Every actions you take is followed by what you do i.e as an action you do X....or when you take X action, you do Y etc....

When you take the Attack action, you attack. You must move before or after taking an action according to Breaking Up Your Move, but you could move during such action if you can make multiple attacks according to Moving Between Attacks. This makes it an exception, a specific rule vs the general rule.

Similarly when you take an action you do X but you could do other things during such action if you have a specific game elements letting you do so, such as a bonus action or reaction, also making it an exception.

WIthout such specific bonus action, reaction or the ability to move between attacks, you just do your action as prescribed, and either move before or after it.

I appreciate that you are sincere in your belief, but trying to be objective to make this post as helpful as I can to people who may be reading our arguments and trying to make up their minds which case is stronger...

You may point out that there is no wording that explicitly states what I'm calling the 'permission slip' model; fair enough.

However, I must point out that, equally, there is no wording that states that 'taking an action' requires that the things allowed by that action must be executed immediately! The only thing that is required is that they are executed during that turn.

Furthermore, every single example we have, rulebooks, JC tweets, whatever, works just like the 'permission slip' model and, crucially, many would not work in the 'taking the Action = executing the action' model you propose. With your model it would not be possible to get the shield bash before the attack that generates it, for example. There is no wording within the Shield Master feat that would indicate that the timing of the generated bonus action is any different for this feat as for the general rules. With your model, the thing that generates the shield bash is the main attack itself, therefore the bonus action does not exist (and therefore cannot be used) until after the attack that generates it.

Since we know that you can use the shield bash before the main attack, and we know that there is nothing in the feat that changes the normal timing, your 'taking the action = executing the attack' model fails.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-18, 08:04 AM

However, I must point out that, equally, there is no wording that states that 'taking an action' requires that the things allowed by that action must be executed immediately! The only thing that is required is that they are executed during that turn.It does, look at any action it doesn't states you can do it later but at present tense, as an action you do X... or when you take X action you do Y....

There is no action declaration step at the start of your turn, followed by action resolution, like there was in AD&D 2nd edition. When its your turn you take action and do stuff, which can potentially allow you to take further action. Yes Jeremy Crawford clarified (note that its not a written rule in any books though, just RAI) the intention was that you can take a bonus action before the action that allowed it, as if it was interruptng it before it can resolve.

But that doesn't mean you can declare action, and resolve them later and move in between if not allowed and do other action if not taking a bonus action specifically enabled. I think some people have been jumping to false conclusion by applying Jeremy Crawford's ruling about the intention of War Magic (or Shield Master) bonus action usable even during the action (RAI), and applying this about any action or movement when its not the case. If you look at any gameplay video on the web, you will see they don't declare their actions and movement before resolving anything, but rather as they go along.

While it was clarified that bonus actions can occur during an action. That doesn't mean you can delay any action you take and move or do something else without taking a bonus action or move during it if its not an action leting you do multiple weapon attacks. Looking at the rules and their respective exemple clearly shows you cannot break up your movement even further during an action under normal circumstance unless it's one that include multiple melee attacks.

Breaking Up Your Move: You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

Moving Between Attacks: 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.

So for exemple, if a 2nd level fighter use an action, he will only be able to move before or after it unless that action includes more than one weapon attack, and he will only be able to take another action after it. If he has a bonus action he can take he could take it at any time on his turn though as it specifically say so for them.

Arial Black

2016-09-18, 08:27 AM

It does, look at any action it doesn't states you can do it later but at present tense, as an action you do X... or when you take X action you do Y.....

....and the 'present tense' here means 'during this turn'.

Shield Master et al includes no wording at all which changes the general timing of the sequence of events in a turn, whatever those general rules happen to be!

In your model, even though your model allows bonus actions to be taken (which also = 'executing that action' for you) at any point during that turn, neither your model nor mine allows you to take a bonus action you do not have at the point you want to take it!

In your model, the Shield Master bonus action shield bash does not exist until the main attack has been executed, because your model has executing that attack equaling the action required to generate that bonus action.

The general rules for bonus actions is that creatures do not have a bonus action!...until another rule or special ability generates one.

The fact that you can take a bonus action that you actually have at any point during your turn does not give you the ability to take a bonus action that you do not have yet! In your model, that bonus action does not exist before the main attack has been executed.

Since we know that we can take this bonus action before the main attack, the only conclusion that can logically be reached is that this bonus action already exists, and therefore has already been generated, before the main attack has been executed.

And since it is 'taking the attack action' that generates the bonus action to shield bash, 'taking the attack action' must come before the shield bash, and the shield bash must come before the execution of the main attack generated by taking the Attack Action (in the example where shield bash comes before the main attack).

That leaves 'take Attack Action' as being a separate thing in the rules to 'executing that attack'.

Eldansyr77

2016-09-18, 10:03 AM

Having two styles ins't an issue (he actually doesn't need TWF "Style" in order to use that style fighting). Using two mutually exclusive styles (one requires a two handed weapon, one requires dual wielding) is the issue.
You can't be A) fighting with a two handed weapon, and B) fighting with one weapon in each hand. You have to choose.
But he thinks he's found a way to game the system to allow just that, and any DM that allows it just hasn't considered how ridiculous the concept is in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that he doesn't actually have the second weapon in his other hand to begin with anyway, which TWF kind of requires.

Come on people I thought we were a team hahah this is the point of this site ... to talk about little shenanigans and sort them out so that we all learn new ways to use rules, features etc just be a bit more thoughtful on how we portrait our feelings =)

I think The TWF would come into play after and while the character is drawing and holding the dagger and long sword ... until after they have thrown it (as they do not have another weapon in they're offhand)

Plaguescarred

2016-09-18, 12:26 PM

....and the 'present tense' here means 'during this turn'.Please quote the rule saying that? You cannot take an action and then resolve it anytime during your turn, at least not unless you Ready (for spellcasting)

You use this based on the JC intention of bonus actions usage once enabled. But that doesn't mean you can just do so with any action or movement. Especially when they're already regulated, in the case of movement.

So which rule state that you can take all action and movement but just resolve them later on your turn as you see fit?

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-18, 12:31 PM

You guys sound like a broken record.
-show me where it says you can do that!
-show me where it says you can't!

The bottom line here is that JC's rulings make the intent clear. And that intent matches, in every single example, the "permission slip" ideal.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-18, 12:32 PM

Yes for bonus action. yet people insist that it can apply to other stuff as well which is not and has no rule or JC backing,

bid

2016-09-18, 06:06 PM

Yes for bonus action. yet people insist that it can apply to other stuff as well which is not and has no rule or JC backing,
Occam's razor.

You don't invent bits to complicate thing if it works without them.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-19, 04:38 AM

Occam's razor.

You don't invent bits to complicate thing if it works without them.That's the thing, no rule or JC ruling work as such for regular action or movement! (it would break the rule for Breaking Up Your Move if it did for exemple) they were specifically given for bonus action usage only since they don't evoke anything else.

If you watch any of the gameplay videos out there, it's also not how turns are played; people are not declaring and taking all their actions and movement prior to execute any, but rather execute them as they take them so it should be another clue... :)

Arial Black

2016-09-19, 05:11 PM

If you watch any of the gameplay videos out there, it's also not how turns are played; people are not declaring and taking all their actions and movement prior to execute any, but rather execute them as they take them so it should be another clue... :)

I'm not claiming that you have to 'declare' what actions you will take at the start of your turn and then execute them all!

I'm saying, and every example supports this, is that you can 'take an Action In Combat' at any time during your turn, even if you have already taken other actions/bonus action/free interactions/whatever (and maybe even executed them). From the moment you 'take an Action' in a turn, from that point until the end of that turn, you can actually execute the thing that your chosen Actions In Combat give you permission to do.

So you could, for example, 'take the Attack Action', then execute the attack straight away, then wait to see if the target falls. Based on what the result of that action was (did I kill him?) you could then 'take the Disengage Action' as a bonus action using your Cunning Action class feature (because the target didn't fall and you don't want to risk the AoO). If he had gone down, you could have chosen to 'take the Hide Action' using the same feature, and then actually hidden.

So you don't have to declare everything up front. This can often resemble the 'taking the Action = executing the action' model, but this sequence of event obeys not only that model, it also obeys the 'permission slip' model.

The same rogue could have 'taken the Attack Action' (without actually attacking yet), then 'taken the Disengage Action' (nothing actually happens when you take that action anyway), and then used his move and the attack he has permission to execute, in any order, because the Disengage Action is not a thing that 'happens' at all; it just prevents the possibility of something happening. In this example, the timing of Action and Bonus action is totally irrelevant.

He could instead have 'taken the Attack Action', then 'taken the Hide Action', and then actually execute his attack and attempt to hide in either order! He has permission to do both things, and no restriction in the rules about what order to execute them. For the rogue, this is an interesting choice with different consequences either way. If he hides first, his attack will be with advantage (assuming the Hide attempt succeeds) but he won't be hidden at the end of his turn, rendering him vulnerable until his next turn. On the other hand he could execute his attack first. It won't have advantage, but after the attack he can move behind cover and execute a hide attempt.

One reason why the 'permission slip' model isn't obvious is that, most of the time, the game runs in such a way that the use of Actions In Combat and the execution of those actions coincide; that's okay, it doesn't contradict either model.

However, there are some things that only work using the 'permission slip' model but definitely cannot work with the 'Action = execution' model; among them are the Shield Master shield bash and the Eldritch Knight's Warcaster feature. They cannot work in the 'Action = execution' model because you cannot use a bonus action that you don't have! The fact that you promise to generate that action in the near future is neither here nor there! You only have any bonus action once another rule has generated that bonus action. In your model, shield-bashing before the attack that generates it would be impossible. Since we know that it is possible, then the 'Action = execution' model cannot be true!

Plaguescarred

2016-09-19, 06:41 PM

He could instead have 'taken the Attack Action', then 'taken the Hide Action', and then actually execute his attack and attempt to hide in either order! He has permission to do both things, and no restriction in the rules about what order to execute them.If there is no bonus action or reaction involve there would be no permission slip letting you hide before making the attack after using the Attack action. You claim you can take two actions before executing any one of them and there is no rule or JC ruling backing that up. You're coming to that conclusion based on JC ruling on bonus action usage, which is not applicable in this scenario so you're extrapolating without support.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-19, 06:52 PM

However, there are some things that only work using the 'permission slip' model but definitely cannot work with the 'Action = execution' model; among them are the Shield Master shield bash and the Eldritch Knight's Warcaster feature. They cannot work in the 'Action = execution' model because you cannot use a bonus action that you don't have! The fact that you promise to generate that action in the near future is neither here nor there! You only have any bonus action once another rule has generated that bonus action. In your model, shield-bashing before the attack that generates it would be impossible. Since we know that it is possible, then the 'Action = execution' model cannot be true!JC ruling on bonus action usage was also disputed RAW because he claim the intention is for them to be possibly taken before the action granting them to you, meaning you effectively don't one to take yet at this moment as per the rules on bonus action itself. Its a RAI call, weak at that as it doesn't sync well with RAW. Anyone that would have given such an answer in a Rule Q&A on forums would have been pointed to RAW rather fast :)

Tanarii

2016-09-19, 06:58 PM

JC ruling on bonus action usage was also disputed RAW because he claim the intention is for them to be possibly taken before the action granting them to you, meaning you effectively don't one to take yet at this moment as per the rules on bonus action itself. Its a RAI call, weak at that as it doesn't sync well with RAW. Anyone that would have given such an answer in a Rule Q&A on forums would have been pointed to RAW rather fast :)
It was pointed out repeatedly when JC made the ruling by people who were trapped in the mindset of 'take action' = 'immediately resolve action at this point in executing the current turn'.

Edit: I can understand where the mindset comes from. It's from viewing the abstract rules as a simulation for the in-game universe. Therefore 'take' an action must mean 'my character executes this action in-world'. But if you instead view the turn / action rules as the abstract layer for resolution of the in-universe activity, as opposed to the rules of executing the in-universe activity, you don't run into the road-block you're running into claiming that JC's RAI disagrees with RAW. Because it doesn't any longer. At that point, taking actions is a metagame activity, not an in-world activity.

Phoenix042

2016-09-20, 03:43 AM

It was pointed out repeatedly when JC made the ruling by people who were trapped in the mindset of 'take action' = 'immediately resolve action at this point in executing the current turn'.

Edit: I can understand where the mindset comes from. It's from viewing the abstract rules as a simulation for the in-game universe. Therefore 'take' an action must mean 'my character executes this action in-world'. But if you instead view the turn / action rules as the abstract layer for resolution of the in-universe activity, as opposed to the rules of executing the in-universe activity, you don't run into the road-block you're running into claiming that JC's RAI disagrees with RAW. Because it doesn't any longer. At that point, taking actions is a metagame activity, not an in-world activity.

This is maybe the best way to explain it so far, but I'd like to weigh in here to help.

RAW, bonus actions are actions, and so are reactions, and the "breaking up your move" feature applies to them as well (this can be seen in several places, most notably in the description of bonus actions and reactions in the PHB Combat chapter).

Then direct your attention to the "other activity on your turn" section on the same page. This is where we first run into the "free object interaction" rule that is so critical to smooth play in 5e. It's also the crux of the question of whether you can draw your sword in the middle of a divided attack action.

Because, as part of your move, you can open a door (spelled out by an example). And as we already know, you can move between attacks, and as we FURTHER know, opening a door costs you your object interaction.

Simple, clear, done.

Yes, a character with the "Extra Attack" feature or any other way of attacking two (or more) times with one action can:
1) While holding a longsword in two hands, take the "Attack" action and hit a creature within 5ft, benefiting both from the versatile property and the GWF style (if he has it).
2) Move and/or interact with the world, in this case drawing or picking up another weapon (possibly even from the foe you just hit with your first attack, if you downed him or disarmed him).
3) Attack with the longsword, now wielded in one hand, regardless of what you picked up or drew in your other hand.
4) If you have the dual-wielder feat and the weapon in your other hand is one handed, you have just:

Taken the attack action, and
Attacked with a one-handed weapon in one hand, so you can:
Use a bonus action on your turn to attack with a (one handed) weapon you are holding in the other hand.

So, what about taking a bonus action between the two attacks granted by the attack action? Yes. The rules say you can take a bonus action whenever you want to on your turn unless the specific bonus action you take says otherwise, and nothing in the "Actions in combat" or "Making an attack" sections, or in the "Extra Attack" feature overrides this general rule. Similarly, you can take a reaction between your two attacks, or an object manipulation. Rules abound that say you can take these whenever they apply or help you accomplish something on your turn, and no rules explicitly prevent this. This allows, for example, for a character to drop off a cliff and cast feather fall on himself in the middle of his attack routine, which is obviously intentional.

Note also that the word "When" is not the word "After," or even the phrase "At exactly the same time as," and the phrase "attack with" is not the same phrase as "complete all of the attacks that action grants you using only" or some similarly restrictive nonsense.

The idea that a player who wants his character to fluidly switch between fighting styles and adjust his weapons to match is somehow trying to pull off "shenanigans" is really a messed up idea.

Do note though, that you DO at some point have to make at least ONE attack with a light (or if you have dual-wielder, one-handed) weapon wielded in ONE hand WHILE holding another weapon in your other hand (that is itself light or, again, with dual wielder, one handed) in order to qualify for the bonus action attack.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-20, 04:46 AM

Plaguescarred

2016-09-20, 04:53 AM

Then direct your attention to the "other activity on your turn" section on the same page. This is where we first run into the "free object interaction" rule that is so critical to smooth play in 5e. It's also the crux of the question of whether you can draw your sword in the middle of a divided attack action.Yeah both free item interaction and talking can be done in tandem with your action and move i didn't want to bring them up as i thought it would detract from the debate but you're right they're other "permission slip" if you want.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-20, 05:54 AM

The idea that a player who wants his character to fluidly switch between fighting styles and adjust his weapons to match is somehow trying to pull off "shenanigans" is really a messed up idea.

I don't know how much of this thread and the other one you read, but the disagreement is not about "switching" so much as "combining". Some people definitely want to apply multiple fighting modes to the same attack.

Do note though, that you DO at some point have to make at least ONE attack with a light (or if you have dual-wielder, one-handed) weapon wielded in ONE hand WHILE holding another weapon in your other hand (that is itself light or, again, with dual wielder, one handed) in order to qualify for the bonus action attack.

And the people who favour layering fighting styles think that what you wrote above is "restrictive nonsense". They think your "while" to require simultaneity is conjured out of thin air just as you think of the "when" in the rules. If you don't think "when" has any weight, where do you find the simultaneity? "Holding"? Of course you're holding the second weapon when you attack with it.

Tanarii

2016-09-20, 01:37 PM

The rule don't differientiate wether in game or out of game when they say when you take X action you do Y. No delay timing whatsoever is given either later or whenever you want on your turn, which means the execution of an action is made when taken. Nor is JC ruling ever claim you can do that.

What it instead said is the intention of a bonus action (not just any action, but bonus action) are that they can be taken prior to even when they're granted. But that doesn't mean action resolution can be delayed and resolve just when you want or that you can take two regular actions before resolving any of them. JC ruling doesn't say the action that the bonus action precede after granting them can be resolve at any later moment on your turn. So if the bonus action is granted to you when taking X action, while you can take the bonus action before it, you should be doing X action right after since that's what you're supposed to be doing to be granted that bonus action in the first place!You're entirely missing the point, as evinced by your comment of 'later moment'. There is no time in the abstract turn. There is only order of resolution. And 'take an action' doesn't specifically require that it be tied with the order of resolution.

Time exists in-game obviously, and equally obviously order of resolution is relevant to mapping the abstraction of the rules to the in-game world, including time. But 'taking' actions isn't required to be a part of order of resolution or the mapping of abstract rules to in-game world.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-20, 03:04 PM

You're entirely missing the point, as evinced by your comment of 'later moment'. There is no time in the abstract turn. There is only order of resolution. And 'take an action' doesn't specifically require that it be tied with the order of resolution.

Time exists in-game obviously, and equally obviously order of resolution is relevant to mapping the abstraction of the rules to the in-game world, including time. But 'taking' actions isn't required to be a part of order of resolution or the mapping of abstract rules to in-game world.Not sure what you're trying to say here but a round is 6 seconds and everybody takes a turn within that time frame. On your turn when you take an action, you do X. You are the one claiming that when you take an action, you don't have to do it and even can take another action, delaying their resolution. While action time isn't quantified, there is still an order of resolution to be respected as you cannot move during an action for exemple as per Breaking Up A Move, instead moving before and after it, unless you can Move Between Attacks somehow.

To resume, the rules don't have turn seperated in in different stages to take all actions and then resolves them or movement etc...When you turn is up, you can take action and do it, or move before, after or possibly during, thus resolving all actions and movement as they're taken.

Phoenix042

2016-09-20, 03:10 PM

I don't know how much of this thread and the other one you read, but the disagreement is not about "switching" so much as "combining". Some people definitely want to apply multiple fighting modes to the same attack.

Okay, I'll admit that prior to my first post I had read only the first and last page of this thread and skimmed the others, so now I went back and reread them. (the other thread about monks, though, I'd read completely).

And RAW, you totally cannot overlap multiple fighting styles to a single attack, so I'm agreeing with you there 100%. You can't bonus action throw a dagger (using twf rules, at least), followed by using every attack in your attack action to fight with a longsword wielded in two hands (and benefit from GWF). At least one of the attacks you make would have to be with one hand (and should probably be resolved before any of your other attacks, but I'm less sure about that), as per the rules for TWF. You can't prequalify and then not follow through on the requirements, although I think becoming incapacitated is an obvious exception.

I still think you can take the bonus action before the triggering attack, but you must then MAKE the triggering attack, which has to meet all requirements. I'd also argue that, for the purposes of that triggering attack, you'd be considered "wielding" the weapon you attacked with using your bonus action EVEN if you just threw it, which would prevent the application of the dueling fighting style to your next attack (or one of them).

And an attack action is a different matter, since it can include multiple attacks, and TWF doesn't say "all your attacks that you make as part of the attack action" have to each fulfill the requirements in order to grant you a bonus action to attack off-handedly with.

I do agree though that this gets rather muddled in some circumstances.

Aside from trying to apply multiple fighting styles to a single attack, is there any reason you'd want to use your bonus action attack BEFORE the triggering attack (in the case of TWF) that doesn't involve trying to apply multiple fighting styles to a single attack?

And the people who favour layering fighting styles think that what you wrote above is "restrictive nonsense". They think your "while" to require simultaneity is conjured out of thin air just as you think of the "when" in the rules. If you don't think "when" has any weight, where do you find the simultaneity? "Holding"? Of course you're holding the second weapon when you attack with it.

I think "when" has plenty of weight, it's just that literally every single thing you can do on your turn has some clause or rule about interrupting other activity. The permission slip model would fall apart outside of the exceptions created by the bonus action, reaction, interaction, movement, and talking sections, except that that's LITERALLY everything you can do on your turn outside of your action.

When you say that you can't "initiate an attack and then resolve it later, except in the case a bonus action," what, exactly, are you thinking that you CAN'T do before resolving it? Because you can obviously take a granted bonus action before making the triggering attack (I think most people in this thread agree on that point now) but you could also take a reaction, triggered by, say, getting knocked off a cliff by someone else's readied action when you know the spell "feather fall." You could also take your object interaction (say, opening a door between you and some enemies), speak, and move (since, if you've just taken a bonus action, you have just taken a type of action, after which you are allowed to move as per the "breaking up your move" section).

So basically I understand that the permission slip model isn't spelled out in the rules the way some people are presenting it, but what activity are you arguing you CANNOT engage in between a bonus action attack (triggered by your action) taken prior to your regular attacks, and the resolution of those attacks?

Phoenix042

2016-09-20, 03:25 PM

To resume, the rules don't have turn seperated in in different stages to take all actions and then resolves them or movement etc...

You are correct that the rules don't explicitly say this. The permission slip model is just a neat and tidy way of explaining the way the rules DO actually work.

When you say that you can't take an action and then resolve it later, what, exactly, are you claiming that you CANNOT do before resolving the action after deciding to take it?

Because, as most people now agree, you CAN take a bonus action before resolving the attacks granted by your action, even if that bonus action requires that you attack (as TWF's granted bonus action does).

You can also take a reaction, assuming something triggers it. And after taking that bonus action listed above, you can move if you chose to, since the "Breaking up your move" section says that you can move after your action, and a bonus action is considered an action. And since you can take an object interaction as part of your action or move, you can do that between your granted bonus action attack and any attacks you make as part of the triggering action, too.

Ultimately, there's nothing you CAN'T do between the TWF granted attack (taken first if you choose) and the attack(s) granted by your action, which I think is very intentional. Restricting movement and other activity between actions like that would primarily limit melee characters, which is unnecessary and unrealistic.

Now with that said, you still DO have to actually make the triggering attack, if you can, and that attack must meet all requirements laid out in the TWF section, since otherwise you don't qualify for that attack. You couldn't decide to use your action for something else that turn, or to not make an attack with a light (or one handed, with dual wielder) weapon that you are holding in one hand.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-20, 03:32 PM

When you say that you can't take an action and then resolve it later, what, exactly, are you claiming that you CANNOT do before resolving the action after deciding to take it?Taking another action i.e Action Surge?

Because, as most people now agree, you CAN take a bonus action before resolving the attacks granted by your action, even if that bonus action requires that you attack (as TWF's granted bonus action does).RAW no you can't as you can only get a bonus action attack to take when you take the Attack action, which you haven't done yet if taking it before.

RAI yes you can as evidence by the intention of bonus action usage in JC ruling.

Now with that said, you still DO have to actually make the triggering attack, if you can, and that attack must meet all requirements laid out in the TWF section, since otherwise you don't qualify for that attack. You couldn't decide to use your action for something else that turn, or to not make an attack with a light (or one handed, with dual wielder) weapon that you are holding in one hand.What if you take your bonus action, move and get hit by a OA that stunn you, making you unable to take the Attack action anymore? THat's the sort of scenario that makes this permission slip model weird as it can mean that the triggering action can be invalidated before it was even taken to allow the bonus action to be taken.

Phoenix042

2016-09-20, 04:14 PM

Taking another action i.e Action Surge?

An interesting case, as there isn't a long paragraphed section on that exceptional ability in chapter 9. I'd argue that, if you ignore the permission slip model and assume that everything happens EXACTLY when you trigger it, you can STILL take the action granted by action surge at any time on your turn, possibly even dividing up your original action. For example, an EK fighter 19 could take the attack action, attack (and maybe bring down) one foe, then action surge and cast the spell "dimension door" to teleport to some other foe, and finish the original attack action by attacking him, too. He could even use the bonus action attack granted by Improved War magic BEFORE he teleported, if he had a valid target, in that case interrupting an action with a bonus action, possibly some movement, and even a second action.

The general rule is that you perform activity and take actions on your turn whenever you decide to, and absolutely nothing in the combat section or any of the rules for attacking or taking actions says that you cannot interrupt an action with some other activity. ANY other activity, actually.

Specific only beats general in there IS a specific.

RAW no you can't as you can only get a bonus action attack to take when you take the Attack action, which you haven't done yet if taking it before.

I'd argue that even before JC made a ruling, the word "when" does not necessarily imply "after," and reasonably means that you could take your attacks in any order you choose as long as you, at some point, fulfill the requirements.

However, TWF does specifically call out an additional requirement NOT seen in the other cases, and an argument could be made that the requirement that you must "attack with a light weapon you are holding in one hand" combines with the provision that you "otherwise do not have a bonus action to spend [unless] some feature ... gives you one," precluding the possibility of taking the bonus action BEFORE attacking with that first weapon at least once in the way described in the TWF rules.

What if you take your bonus action, move and get hit by a OA that stunn you, making you unable to take the Attack action anymore? THat's the sort of scenario that makes this permission slip model weird as it can mean that the triggering action can be invalidated before it was even taken to allow the bonus action to be taken.

This is an easy one. See the rules for opportunity attacks, and note the following:

The enemy's movement OUT of your reach triggers the attack.
The attack actually occurs while they're still in your reach, before the triggering condition.
If they get knocked unconscious or otherwise stopped (such as by the sentinel feat), the triggering condition never actually happens.
5e doesn't implode. This is a perfectly reasonable way for the rules to work, and there's nothing wrong with getting knocked unconscious after throwing a dagger before you get a chance to swing your shortsword twice, even if you didn't apply your ability modifier to the dagger throw because you were saving it for a different target.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-20, 08:54 PM

Okay, I'll admit that prior to my first post I had read only the first and last page of this thread and skimmed the others, so now I went back and reread them. (the other thread about monks, though, I'd read completely).

By "the other thread" I meant this one:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500293-TWF-while-drawing-the-second-weapon

It was the reason this older thread was bumped, but dropped to page 5 after people continued to post here.

And RAW, you totally cannot overlap multiple fighting styles to a single attack, so I'm agreeing with you there 100%.

Other proponents of the permission slip model have had no problems dissociating all the TWF requirements based on "when" meaning "during your turn": if the circumstance "you can use a bonus action to attack" is not something that follows from executing the main attack, then why should the condition "that you're holding in the other hand" be checked at the time of the main attack? I'll leave it to them to argue this with you if they like, but I think it's a little curious that your intuition agrees with me halfway on this.

Aside from trying to apply multiple fighting styles to a single attack, is there any reason you'd want to use your bonus action attack BEFORE the triggering attack (in the case of TWF) that doesn't involve trying to apply multiple fighting styles to a single attack?

One could imagine contrived scenarios where you want to attack with different weapons in the right order. Some might want to do it for harmless style.

When you say that you can't "initiate an attack and then resolve it later, except in the case a bonus action," what, exactly, are you thinking that you CAN'T do before resolving it?

I think this part was actually aimed at Plaguescarred, but my understanding of the written rules is I think basically the same as his:

* During your turn, you have a menu of actions to take. There will be both general and specific restrictions governing how many and which ones you can take.
* You take one action at a time and resolve it. For many types of highly formalized actions, it's meaningless to partition declaration of intent and resolution into different stages. Declaring an attack or spell, for instance, is usually performative.
* Resolving some actions may put additional actions on your menu and/or relax restrictions. These additional options get added at these specific points. They did not preexist on your menu simply because you had the power and inclination to enable them.
* You are allowed to move, speak and/or make a free object interaction in between actions, and, as an explicit exception, move in between multiple attacks of an attack action.
* In general, though, actions are atomic. You are not allowed to execute actions within other actions, e.g. split the multiple attacks of an attack action with a bonus action spell or Action Surge.

Crawford's rulings on bonus actions obviously contradict this simple, logical and time paradox-free model, which is why I no longer argue it with a lot of fervour. I still think it's an odd ruling and if it had come from anyone else I would have dismissed it. Since it basically flipped my understanding of the action framework upside-down, and in my view leaves us with clashing rules-as-seemingly-intended-if-there's-any-rhyme-and-reason regarding fighting styles and such, I can't help but feel that at some point, someone must have failed to think all this through properly, and that the current situation is not entirely conclusive or satisfactory.

odigity

2016-09-20, 09:46 PM

I think this part was actually aimed at Plaguescarred, but my understanding of the written rules is I think basically the same as his:

* During your turn, you have a menu of actions to take. There will be both general and specific restrictions governing how many and which ones you can take.
* You take one action at a time and resolve it. For many types of highly formalized actions, it's meaningless to partition declaration of intent and resolution into different stages. Declaring an attack or spell, for instance, is usually performative.
* Resolving some actions may put additional actions on your menu and/or relax restrictions. These additional options get added at these specific points. They did not preexist on your menu simply because you had the power and inclination to enable them.
* You are allowed to move, speak and/or make a free object interaction in between actions, and, as an explicit exception, move in between multiple attacks of an attack action.
* In general, though, actions are atomic. You are not allowed to execute actions within other actions, e.g. split the multiple attacks of an attack action with a bonus action spell or Action Surge.

Wow. That is an excellent and concise articulation of the intuitive model one might derive from a reading of the rules. It matches how I thought of things before the Crawford ruling.

Crawford's rulings on bonus actions obviously contradict this simple, logical and time paradox-free model, which is why I no longer argue it with a lot of fervour. I still think it's an odd ruling and if it had come from anyone else I would have dismissed it. Since it basically flipped my understanding of the action framework upside-down, and in my view leaves us with clashing rules-as-seemingly-intended-if-there's-any-rhyme-and-reason regarding fighting styles and such, I can't help but feel that at some point, someone must have failed to think all this through properly, and that the current situation is not entirely conclusive or satisfactory.

I can see why you might find Crawford's ruling annoying or inconvenient, because it does basically invalidate the intuitive model. However, I'm ok with this, because the intuitive model had serious flaws. All the fixation on what weapon you're holding when, and if Dueling still applies to a thrown weapon because it's not "in hand" when it hits -- basically, all the fixation on in-turn sequencing/timing/criteria-matching issues go away with the Permission Slip model, which is the model I find to be most intuitive and Occam's Razor-satisfying in light of the Crawford ruling.

Tanarii

2016-09-20, 10:05 PM

Crawford's rulings on bonus actions obviously contradict this simple, logical and time paradox-free model, which is why I no longer argue it with a lot of fervour. I still think it's an odd ruling and if it had come from anyone else I would have dismissed it. Since it basically flipped my understanding of the action framework upside-down, and in my view leaves us with clashing rules-as-seemingly-intended-if-there's-any-rhyme-and-reason regarding fighting styles and such, I can't help but feel that at some point, someone must have failed to think all this through properly, and that the current situation is not entirely conclusive or satisfactory.pretty much the same for me. Until I thought on the abstract nature of a turn in response to crawfords shield master / war magic rulings, I agreed with your initial way of thinking. And plaguescarred. In fact, I bet if I look back in this particular thread I'll find posts from me arguing in favor of actions and resolution being the same thing. Then I arrived at what was effectively the 'permission slip' model independently. However, his ruling on Monk's Flurry of Blows (see Monk TWF thread) seems at first glance to be in direct contradiction to that. So now I'm re-evaluating.

Phoenix042

2016-09-21, 12:51 AM

By "the other thread" I meant this one:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500293-TWF-while-drawing-the-second-weapon

Ah yes, actually I have read that one. The assumption that you don't need to be holding both weapons at the actual point at which you qualify for TWF is, I think, wrong, and it comes from a subtle difference between the way they use "when" and the way they use "are." If you look them up and actually read their definitions (no, I'm not being condescending, it's seriously helpful) it's easier to see how there are multiple valid interpretations of the two-weapon fighting section. How it obviously should work is that it should both allow you to take the attacks in any order you wish, while still requiring that at some point on your turn you're actually wielding (as in using, not just holding) two weapons, each in a different hand, at the same time, and making at least ONE one-handed, non-dueling attack with each of them.

Look, the permission slip model is a neat way to explain it, but the reality is this: You actually don't just "have permission" to make the attack; you're already making it, when you INTERRUPT it with whatever the hell you want to do, as per the total lack of rules preventing you from doing just that. It's not just a declaration that you're going to attack with a light weapon in one hand that gives you the bonus action, it's the act of actually making the attack. Thing is, you "take a bonus action whenever you want to on your turn," and that includes during another action (since nothing says that it doesn't), which is what you actually do, both in a metagame and actual game sense, and whenever you take an action, you're also given permission to move as per the rule on breaking up your move, and again, bonus actions are actions for that purpose.

One could imagine contrived scenarios where you want to attack with different weapons in the right order. Some might want to do it for harmless style.

Actually, that's totally valid and should work, now that I think of it. Say, for example, that you're 10ft away from some guy with a reach weapon who's probably only got 1hp left, and 35ft in the OTHER direction is some guy you really want to bring down soon. And you have a shortsword in one hand and a dagger in the other, and you DON'T have the TWF style (because who EVER does in this thread, lol). So you want to throw your dagger as a bonus action (without adding your ability modifier) and then move to engage the other guy with your remaining attack(s) using the shortsword.

Dear lord, that was convoluted.

But should totally be allowed by the rules.

* During your turn, you have a menu of actions to take. There will be both general and specific restrictions governing how many and which ones you can take.
* You take one action at a time and resolve it. For many types of highly formalized actions, it's meaningless to partition declaration of intent and resolution into different stages. Declaring an attack or spell, for instance, is usually performative.
* Resolving some actions may put additional actions on your menu and/or relax restrictions. These additional options get added at these specific points. They did not preexist on your menu simply because you had the power and inclination to enable them.
* You are allowed to move, speak and/or make a free object interaction in between actions, and, as an explicit exception, move in between multiple attacks of an attack action.
* In general, though, actions are atomic. You are not allowed to execute actions within other actions, e.g. split the multiple attacks of an attack action with a bonus action spell or Action Surge.

That's actually really, beautifully elegant, and definitely the way I first interpreted the rules (since I was coming from 3.5, and such was the norm then), and also deeply, deeply flawed. Disallowing activity in between otherwise discreet events on your turn just because each event constitutes only one part of an, as you say, atomic action is, as I have said before, needlessly restrictive.

I actually thought this only briefly. Before ever reading any JC ruling, I came to the conclusion that the "when" clause in those several places in the rules did not prevent a player from resolving the actions they are taking in any order they wish, even interspersing parts of one action and another, and moving between any and all discreet events as they wish.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-21, 06:30 AM

An interesting case, as there isn't a long paragraphed section on that exceptional ability in chapter 9. I'd argue that, if you ignore the permission slip model and assume that everything happens EXACTLY when you trigger it, you can STILL take the action granted by action surge at any time on your turn, possibly even dividing up your original action. For example, an EK fighter 19 could take the attack action, attack (and maybe bring down) one foe, then action surge and cast the spell "dimension door" to teleport to some other foe, and finish the original attack action by attacking him, too. He could even use the bonus action attack granted by Improved War magic BEFORE he teleported, if he had a valid target, in that case interrupting an action with a bonus action, possibly some movement, and even a second action.

The general rule is that you perform activity and take actions on your turn whenever you decide to, and absolutely nothing in the combat section or any of the rules for attacking or taking actions says that you cannot interrupt an action with some other activity. ANY other activity, actually.

I'd argue that even before JC made a ruling, the word "when" does not necessarily imply "after," and reasonably means that you could take your attacks in any order you choose as long as you, at some point, fulfill the requirements.When you take an action you do x....cannot be more clearer about tis timing. Taking such action mean your doing it. Now actions can be interrupted, and see other stuff happening in tandem, such as when using a free item interaction. Wvwn possibly movement if the action has multiple weapon attacks. But the rules don't explicitly allow the use of an action during the use of an action, before its resolved like movement or item interaction. Even the permission slip model in offered by JC ruling is given for bonus action only, which is different.

I don't see ''when'' the way you do i guess, as his ruling allow Shield Master bonus action to be taken before the Attack action. Before precede when taking the Action, which means before when you take the Attack action, you don't have a bonsu action to take RAW as you only get it when you take it!

Arial Black

2016-09-21, 06:33 AM

If there is no bonus action or reaction involve there would be no permission slip letting you hide before making the attack after using the Attack action. You claim you can take two actions before executing any one of them and there is no rule or JC ruling backing that up. You're coming to that conclusion based on JC ruling on bonus action usage, which is not applicable in this scenario so you're extrapolating without support.

In the example given, the Hide action was indeed a bonus action. Although it (usually) takes your (main) Action to Hide, the rogue's Cunning Action special ability allows them to take the Hide (or Dash or Disengage) action as a bonus action.

Therefore, even under your model, the rogue can execute his Hide and his Attack in any order.

Arial Black

2016-09-21, 06:42 AM

JC ruling on bonus action usage was also disputed RAW because he claim the intention is for them to be possibly taken before the action granting them to you, meaning you effectively don't one to take yet at this moment as per the rules on bonus action itself. Its a RAI call, weak at that as it doesn't sync well with RAW. Anyone that would have given such an answer in a Rule Q&A on forums would have been pointed to RAW rather fast :)

It only fails to make sense if you use the 'Action = execution' model.

It makes perfect sense in the 'permission slip' model.

This indicates that JC thinks the game works in the 'permission slip' model (although he probably doesn't use that phrase because I made the phrase up myself as a short way of referring to this model), and he wrote the rules.

When you have the mindset that the 'permission slip' model is how the game works and how the game was written to work and how the game is intended to work, then there is no part of the RAW or JC tweet that doesn't fit perfectly, which further supports the case for the 'permission slip' model. Meanwhile, for the 'Action = execution' model, so many things don't make sense! You've admitted this in your quote! This is another clue about which model better models the 'reality' of 5E.

We're actually doing science here, people! :smallsmile:

Arial Black

2016-09-21, 06:51 AM

RAW no you can't as you can only get a bonus action attack to take when you take the Attack action, which you haven't done yet if taking it before.

RAI yes you can as evidence by the intention of bonus action usage in JC ruling.

All this just goes to show that 'taking an Action' is a different thing than 'executing the stuff allowed by that Action'.

In the 'permission slip' model, executing the bonus action attack before executing the (main) action attack is totally RAW, because it is not 'executing the (main Action) attack' that generates the possible bonus action attack; it is 'taking the Attack Action' (as opposed to 'executing that attack') that generates the bonus action.

There is no disconnect between RAW, tweets and usage when you execute the bonus action attack before the main action attack if the 'permission slip' model is true.

There is a severe disconnect if the 'Action = execution' model is true.

Therefore, the 'permission slip' model is a more accurate model of the 5E 'reality'.

Tanarii

2016-09-21, 08:59 AM

We're actually doing science here, people! :smallsmile:
Haha cracked me up :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, how does you permission slip model account for JC tweet restricting the Monk's flurry of blows to immediately after taking the Attack Action?

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-21, 09:42 AM

Haha cracked me up :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, how does you permission slip model account for JC tweet restricting the Monk's flurry of blows to immediately after taking the Attack Action?

JCs tweet didn't restrict it.
The PHB restricted it.
That ability specifically uses the word immediately, and it's the only one to do so. This is a case of specific vs general.
The general rules let you do things when you want to. This specific ability tells you that it must be done immediately.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-21, 12:30 PM

All this just goes to show that 'taking an Action' is a different thing than 'executing the stuff allowed by that Action'.

In the 'permission slip' model, executing the bonus action attack before executing the (main) action attack is totally RAW, because it is not 'executing the (main Action) attack' that generates the possible bonus action attack; it is 'taking the Attack Action' (as opposed to 'executing that attack') that generates the bonus action.In Two-Weapon Fighting? No its both taking the Attack action and attacking see below;

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.

So before taking the Attack action and attacking, you cannot take a bonus action to attack by RAW since you don't have one tio take

Plaguescarred

2016-09-21, 12:34 PM

It only fails to make sense if you use the 'Action = execution' model.

It makes perfect sense in the 'permission slip' model.

This indicates that JC thinks the game works in the 'permission slip' model (although he probably doesn't use that phrase because I made the phrase up myself as a short way of referring to this model), and he wrote the rules.JC ruling was regarding bonus action usage only. If your permission slip is meant to apply to anything else yyou're not under his RAI interpretation anymore and more into hourserule territory. Which is okay you can do anything you want if doing so, you don't even need JC ruling at this point.

Tanarii

2016-09-21, 12:38 PM

JCs tweet didn't restrict it.
The PHB restricted it.
That ability specifically uses the word immediately, and it's the only one to do so. This is a case of specific vs general.
The general rules let you do things when you want to. This specific ability tells you that it must be done immediately.
No, he restricted it to occurring after the actual attacks were fully resolved. Under the permission slip model, you could take the attack action, then immediately use your bonus action to flurry, then resolve your attack action. Under the JC ruling you can't.

Edit: For reference

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/28/monk-bonus-attacks-beforeafterduring-attack-action/

Q: "so FoB must be after the Attack action is fully resolved, while Unarmed Strike acts like any other bonus action then?"

A: "That's correct."

Plaguescarred

2016-09-21, 12:52 PM

When taking an action you're executing something just the way it reads you can see for exemple;

Turn Undead: As an action, you present your holy symbol ...

Wholenes of Body: As an action, you can regain hit points.

Lay on Hands: As an action, you can touch a creature and draw power from the pool to restore a number o f hit points...

Sacred Weapon: As an action, you can imbue one weapon that you are holding with positive energy,

Hide: When you take the Hide action, you make a Dexterity (Stealth) check in an attempt to hide,

Cloak of Elvenkind: Pulling the hood up or down requires an action.

Porcullisis: Winching a portcullis up or down requires an action.

Potions: administering a potion to another creature requires an action.

Bag of Holding: Retrieving an item from the bag requires an action.

Cube of Force: You can use an action to press one of the cube's faces,

Etc...

WereRabbitz

2016-09-21, 01:00 PM

So question...

If you have the TWF Style & Feat and the Dueling feat from another class is this RAW/RAI?

Start out Longsword in Primary Hand and Dagger in Off Hand

Bonus Action: Throw Dagger
Attack 1 Long Sword +2 damage
Attack 2 Long Sword + 2 damage

Throwing the dagger now leaves you with a single weapon in hand would that prompt Dueling to kick in?

Forget the whole 2handed part all together.

@OP

If you have to discuss it this much then it's edgy and gimicky and I wouldn't normally allow it unless the player is wanting to add it for flavor and not for min/maxing. I allow more leniency for flavor and even then I might let them get away with it once per fight or something.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-21, 01:00 PM

Plaguescarred

2016-09-21, 01:02 PM

Arial Black

2016-09-23, 07:53 AM

In Two-Weapon Fighting? No its both taking the Attack action and attacking see below;

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.

So before taking the Attack action and attacking, you cannot take a bonus action to attack by RAW since you don't have one tio take

Let's compare that wording to the wording of the Eldritch Knight's War Magic class feature:-

"Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action."

Now, we know that this bonus action weapon attack can be executed before the thing that generates this bonus action: 'use your action to cast a cantrip'.

When we try and understand the 'truth' about how 5E works, our model must allow for this (because it doesn't say that this timing or interpretation is an exception to the general rules), and if it doesn't then we must either adjust our model so that it allows for this 'truth' or we must abandon that model.

Breaking down the phrase 'use your action to cast a cantrip', what is happening rules-wise? First, you must take an action that allows you to cast a cantrip (in both your model and mine), which will usually be the 'Cast A Spell' action. When you execute that action (in either model), you choose which spell you cast. It could be a cantrip, or it could be any spell of 1st level or higher that you can cast and have the slots for.

Using War Magic, in the 'permission slip' model, the EK 'takes the Cast A Spell action'. He knows that if he uses that action to cast a cantrip then this generates a bonus action which he can use to make a weapon attack. He also knows that if he uses the Cast A Spell action to cast a spell of 1st level or higher then this does not generate that bonus action.

He also knows that he can execute the bonus action attack before he actually casts the spell. So, it cannot be actually casting the cantrip that generates the bonus action; it must be the 'taking the Cast A Spell' action to cast a cantrip that generates the bonus action.

So the sequence is: 'take the Cast A Spell' action (with the intention of casting a cantrip), take the bonus action to make a weapon attack, then execute the weapon attack. Now, since the bonus action attack has already been executed then it must already exist. This means that it is the taking of the Cast A Spell action, as opposed to actually casting a cantrip, that generates this bonus action. Since it was specified that the Cast A Spell action had to be used to cast a cantrip in order for the bonus action to be generated, and the bonus action has been generated AND used, then any spell you actually cast (because the Cast A Spell action gave you permission to cast a spell), then you cannot change your action (because you have already used it to generate the bonus action even though you haven't cast a spell yet) AND, if you actually cast a spell, then it must be a cantrip.

Similarly, in TWF you can take the bonus action first, but that means your main attack must include at least one attack that is made by a light weapon held in one hand (not the hand you used for the bonus action attack). You don't have to execute the main attack, but if you don't then it's wasted.

Now, under your 'Action = execution' model, if you have to actually execute the casting of the cantrip in order to generate the bonus action attack (on the grounds that not only do you have to 'take the Cast A Spell action' but also have to actually cast a cantrip), then it would not be possible to actually execute that weapon attack first. But, since we know that the 'truth' of 5E is that you can execute the attack first, your model fails.

So the fact that the generation of a bonus action requires the 'taking of an Action In Combat' but also requires that the Action be taken to do a specific thing (like 'cast a cantrip' or 'attack with a light weapon in one hand') is not a barrier to the 'permission slip' model. It just means that the main action's permission is narrower than it usually would be, because you've narrowed it by taking the bonus action which is generated by that specific use of that action type. So if you take the Cast A Spell action and execute the bonus action attack from War Magic then you only have permission to cast a cantrip with your main action. If you take the Attack Action to generate a bonus off-hand TWF attack then you only have permission to use your Attack action to execute your attacks if at least one of those attacks is executed with a light weapon held in (the other) hand.

Arial Black

2016-09-23, 08:42 AM

No, he restricted it to occurring after the actual attacks were fully resolved. Under the permission slip model, you could take the attack action, then immediately use your bonus action to flurry, then resolve your attack action. Under the JC ruling you can't.

That's right.

Under the 'permission slip' model, where 'taking the action' is a separate thing to 'executing the stuff allowed by that action', the wording of FOB, "Immediately after you 'take the Attack action' on your turn" would result in:-

'take Attack action' -> 'immediately take bonus action FOB -> execute 'normal' and FOB attacks in any order and at any point during your turn

JC's tweet does not allow that.

Hmmm.

Science is simply a systematic method to understand 'reality', knowing that we cannot know the 'truth' but can try to model it and continue to refine our models to better match our observations.

Back in the day, we were trying to understand the universe. There were two competing models: the Steady State model (which says the the universe as a whole stays roughly like it is, like it was and like it will always be; the details of individuals stars etc. will change but the universe itself will always be the same size and have the same general conditions) and the Big Bang model (which says that there was a point singularity when time started and the universe expanded). Although we cannot possibly know 'The Truth', things that actually happen must be 'true', and our models must include the actuality or be modified or abandoned. It also means that our model does not need to make a claim to explain everything at this time, but it must be able to accommodate new actualities or be modified to do so. If it can't, then it must be abandoned.

So, evidence showed that the universe was actually expanding while the only force we knew of at the time that could have an effect at that scale (gravity) would actually make the universe contract! Einstein tried to adjust the Steady State model to account for this reality, but failed.

The Steady State model went into the dustbin of history, leaving the Big Bang model as the only contender. Thus proved, it went from 'model' to proven 'Theory'.

This doesn't mean that there was nothing left unknown! The model got refined to take account of new observations of reality. If at any time the model could not be adjusted to take account of reality then it would have to be abandoned. So far it has been able to account for every observation (with some modification), making it a very successful model indeed.

The 'truth' about how 5E works cannot be known to us, but we can observe the rules and read JC's tweets about the 'reality' of how the 5E rules work. We can create a model of what we think 'the truth' of 5E is, but like any good science it is prone to adjustments to take account of our observations.

Coming from 3E, I started with the 'Action = execution' model. That model had to be abandoned when it could not be adjusted to take account of the bonus actions from Shield Master and War magic coming before the Actions that generated them; being used before they even existed.

A new model was needed. The 'permission slip' model appeared, and successfully accounted for every observation of 5E reality.

Until the recent FOB tweet.

At the moment, neither the 'Action = execution' model nor the 'permission slip' model can account for this and the other things like Shield Master and War Magic. The first model has been abandoned, and it remains to be seen if the second model can be adjusted to take account of the new FOB tweet.

The trouble is that, unlike the universe, 5E can be....imperfect. The universe must be 'true', but the creator of 5E is fallible.

How can the creator be wrong about his creation? If he contradicts himself; if he gives rulings that cannot all be true because no possible model can have 5E work the way he says different parts work in individual rulings.

He's only human. From what I've observed, he seems to favour rulings that give the players the most flexibility in what they want to do, and his tweets reflect that, even if they don't make sense when you gather all those rulings together and try to model what the truth of 5E must be.

For example, he rules that the separate beams of eldritch blast and scorching ray can not only be shot one-by-one but also the caster has enough time to observe the results of each beam before deciding who to aim the next beam at, contrary to the rules of instantaneous spells. He rules that bonus actions can be taken before the Actions that generate them are executed.

How to model all those things, while also being consistent with the RAW, is not easy. If we can't, it may be because JC has not created an internally consistent rules-set, which results in us not only being able to use 'rulings not rules', but requiring that we use 'rulings not rules' because the rules alone fall apart at the edges.

Or it may be that such a model does exist and JC knows it, but he hasn't explained it to us well enough yet.

So, any ideas on how to fix either model so that it explains his tweets on Shield Master, War Magic and FOB?

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 08:47 AM

So the sequence is: 'take the Cast A Spell' action (with the intention of casting a cantrip), take the bonus action to make a weapon attack, then execute the weapon attack. Now, since the bonus action attack has already been executed then it must already exist. This means that it is the taking of the Cast A Spell action, as opposed to actually casting a cantrip, that generates this bonus action.I agree that this is how it should go, in tandem with the action. COmpared to JC's Shield Master ruling, JC's War Magic ruling laim it can come before the cantrip as opposed to before the action itself.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 08:58 AM

This arguing about timing is getting ridiculous.

It's much easier (and completely fitting with the rules and rulings) if you think of it this way:
Instead of using your action to "cast a cantrip" or to "use the attack action" or whatever, you are instead using your action to use the feature in question. When you do so, you can/must then use the abilities included in the feature, in any order you choose (unless the features specify timing, like flurry of blows does by using the phrase "immediately after").

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 09:24 AM

Since RAW you don't have a bonus action to take prior to when you take an action granting it to you, it just makes more sense to be able to take bonus action anytime you take an action granting it to you, including during its execution. This also ensure that your cannot be in the incapacity to be granted this bonus action by either changing your action or becoming incapable of taking actions i.e incapacitated.

But those rulings don't mean you can take actions at the start of your turn and resolve them anytime you want later during turn like it was originally claimed.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 11:00 AM

Since RAW you don't have a bonus action to take prior to when you take an action granting it to you,

That's now what RAW says. That's your interpretation of what RAW says.
And that interpretation is what is causing the issues here.
What it says (to paraphrase, I'm AFB) is that you don't have a bonus action unless you have a feature which grants you one. It says nothing about "prior to when you take an action granting it to you." That's how you may be reading/interpreting it, but that isn't what it says.
As soon as you have a feature which grants you one, you then have a bonus action. Sometimes that bonus action is only allowed if you also do something specific on your turn. But the rules for bonus actions state that you can do it any time on your turn unless timing is specified.

One you have the feature, you have a bonus action.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 11:20 AM

That's now what RAW says. That's your interpretation of what RAW says.
And that interpretation is what is causing the issues here.
What it says (to paraphrase, I'm AFB) is that you don't have a bonus action unless you have a feature which grants you one. It says nothing about "prior to when you take an action granting it to you." That's how you may be reading/interpreting it, but that isn't what it says.
As soon as you have a feature which grants you one, you then have a bonus action. Sometimes that bonus action is only allowed if you also do something specific on your turn.If you don't have a bonus action to take unless you have a feature which grants you one, and that the feature says you can take a bonus action when taking the Attack action, before you have taken the Attack action you shouldn't have one, That is not my interpretation, that is what it says!

If you're not doing what you have to do to get a BA, you don't have one to take and will only have one to take when doing so...

So a Shield Master starting his turn can move and take reaction as he wish, but won't have a shove bonus action to take until when taking the Attack action. Similarly, a two-weapon fighter starting his turn can move and take reactions as he wish, but won't have a bonus action attack to take until when taking the Attack action and attacking. And if neither ever do, neither will have had such bonus action to take.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 11:23 AM

You missed my edit while you were typing.
And once again, that's what you're reading, but that isn't what it says.
That point is why you're even having this debate.

Read my previous two posts together and you'll understand what the rules are saying.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 11:27 AM

Tell you what. I'll make it easy for you.

That's now what RAW says. That's your interpretation of what RAW says.
And that interpretation is what is causing the issues here.
What it says (to paraphrase, I'm AFB) is that you don't have a bonus action unless you have a feature which grants you one. It says nothing about "prior to when you take an action granting it to you." That's how you may be reading/interpreting it, but that isn't what it says.
As soon as you have a feature which grants you one, you then have a bonus action. Sometimes that bonus action is only allowed if you also do something specific on your turn. But the rules for bonus actions state that you can do it any time on your turn unless timing is specified.

One you have the feature, you have a bonus action.

It's much easier (and completely fitting with the rules and rulings) if you think of it this way:
Instead of using your action to "cast a cantrip" or to "use the attack action" or whatever, you are instead using your action to use the feature in question. When you do so, you can/must then use the abilities included in the feature, in any order you choose (unless the features specify timing, like flurry of blows does by using the phrase "immediately after").

Get it?

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 11:31 AM

One you have the feature, you have a bonus action.Yes, but the feature tells you when you can take it. That is why these debates and Q&As exist!

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 11:37 AM

Yes, but the feature tells you when you can take it. That is why these debates and Q&As exist!
I'll say it once again.
The rules for bonus actions state that you can take it any time on your turn that you want to, unless the timing is specified.
One you have a feature granting you a bonus action, you then have a bonus action to take (at any time on your turn, like the rules state). Sometimes you must also do something specific on your turn, as the feature states.
This does not imply order unless it is is specified, like "immediately after" in flurry of blows.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 11:49 AM

When you're not taking an action, can you make a TWF attack as a bonus action?

When you take the Hide action, can you make a TWF attack as a bonus action?

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 11:52 AM

Still missing the point.

When you're not taking an action, can you make a TWF attack as a bonus action?

When you take the Hide action, can you make a TWF attack as a bonus action?

As soon as you have a feature which grants you one, you then have a bonus action. Sometimes that bonus action is only allowed if you also do something specific on your turn. But the rules for bonus actions state that you can do it any time on your turn unless timing is specified.

One you have the feature, you have a bonus action.

Sometimes they bonus action must be accompanied by a specific action, but the order is irrelevant (unless timing is specified, like with flurry of blows).

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 02:00 PM

Sometimes they bonus action must be accompanied by a specific action, but the order is irrelevant (unless timing is specified, like with flurry of blows).Taking the Attack action is the accompaigned specific action and when, immediatly after etc. are timing.

Likewise When you take the Attack action and shove a creature, can you make a TWF attack as a bonus action? All the answers are no because you're not taking the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 02:21 PM

Taking the Attack action is the accompaigned specific action and when, immediatly after etc. are timing.

Likewise When you take the Attack action and shove a creature, can you make a TWF attack as a bonus action? All the answers are no because you're not taking the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand.

The word When doesn't indicate specific timing. The word When indicates the other action that must be performed on that turn.
If the word When indicated specific timing, then Shield Master and War Magic wouldn't be intended to use the bonus action before the attack/cantrip. But we all know that they are intended that way. So obviously the word When doesn't indicate specific timing.

Your second point in nonsense, because as I have stated multiple times, sometimes a bonus action must be accompanied by a specific action on your turn. A shove is not an attack with a weapon, so that's not a combination that you can do.
Unless you have the Extra Attack feature.
If you do, then you could use that feature in conjunction with TWF to make one attack, one TWF bonus attack, and one shove, and you can do it all in any order that you like.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 02:55 PM

Call it timing or whatever specific action requirement, if you can only take a bonus action when taking the Attack action, until when you do, you cannot take a bonus action to attack. Compared to Cunning Action, which has no such requirement, can truly be taken anytime on your time. For exemple;

Grock the fighter see orcs in the distance. He moves 20 feet to the closest orc, drawing a scimitar.
Can he take a TWF bonus action? No as moving or drawing a weapon doesn't let you do so.

Then Grok draw his other short sword as an action.
Can he take a TWF bonus action? No as taking the Use An Object doesn't let you do so.

Grok then take the Attack action and attack with his scimitar.
Can he take a TWF bonus action? Yes as he take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon.

In comparison if Grok was a rogue instead, he could have a Cunning Action bonus action anytime, even before moving or taking an action, as he is not required to take a specific action.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 03:12 PM

I agree.
None of that applies to anything that I was saying.

That's the entire purpose of my earlier statement about [sometimes a bonus action must be accompanied by a specific action].

How is explaining something that I (and everyone else) already know relevant?
You're still missing the point.

When does indeed indicate timing. When, on the other hand, does not indicate specific timing, and therefore any bonus action which uses the word When can be done any time on your turn as long as you also do the other thing on that same turn.
If you disagree with this, then you need to explain why Shield Master and War Magic and all of the rest of them all follow that model, while apparently you find them to be excpetions.
If you can't explain why When doesn't indicate specific timing in some circumstances (as per the Lead Designer), but you feel that it does in other circumstances (as per your own personal interpretation), then you need to concede.
Explain the difference or concede.

odigity

2016-09-23, 03:19 PM

JC's tweet does not allow that.

Hmmm.

...

So, any ideas on how to fix either model so that it explains his tweets on Shield Master, War Magic and FOB?

I don't think the FoB ruling automatically invalidates the Permission Slip model. FoB has fairly unique wording with the term "Immediately after". This could just be a legit explicit exception.

It would make sense if they were trying to prevent the Monk from surpassing the Fighter's unique ability to make four general attacks each turn (which they only get at level *20*) by placing some restrictions, like you only get to throw a few kicks right then and there rather than reposition yourself for optimal 3rd and 4th attacks. Especially considering you get FoB at level *2*, which is amazing.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 03:29 PM

If you disagree with this, then you need to explain why Shield Master and War Magic and all of the rest of them all follow that model, while apparently you find them to be excpetions.I already said JC's ruling while RAI doesn't align with RAW. Before taking the Attack action is not when aking the Attack action, so by RAW a bonus action with such specific requirement could be used anytime on your turn when you take such action, by RAW. It also has issues that could put you in the incapacity to take the required specific action, if allowed to take the bonus action before when it says so.

What i was disagreeing with was also the permission slip model that could let you declare taking any action at the start of your turn and execute them anytime you later on your turn.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 03:30 PM

Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. 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 can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available. [b]You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specifiedL/b], and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

Emphasis in bold.
The first point is reinforcing the fact that you don't have a bonus action unless you get one from a feature or a spell. Once you have that feature or spell available, you then have a bonus action. Sometimes that bonus action must be accompanied by a specific action.
It then goes on to state that a bonus action, once available, can be taken at any time on your turn unless the timing is specified.

If When we're specifying timing, then War Magic and Shield Master and the like would not be allowed to happen before the attack/cantrip in question.
But we all know that they are.
So the word When doesn't indicate specific timing. The phrase When you do [x] indicates what else must be done on that turn.
That's it.
Nothing more.

The permission slip model holds water.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-23, 03:31 PM

I don't think the FoB ruling automatically invalidates the Permission Slip model. FoB has fairly unique wording with the term "Immediately after". This could just be a legit explicit exception.If action =/= execution then it would let you take the bonus action immetiatly after taking the Attack action and resolve the attacks later on which JC ruled against.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 03:33 PM

If action =/= execution then it would let you take the bonus action immetiatly after taking the Attack action and resolve the attacks later on which JC ruled against.

....which is explicitly WHY the permission slip model holds water and your entire argument goes against the explained RAI.
Because Flurry of Blows explicitly specified timing by using the words Immediately After.

In every case, when the phrase When you [do X] is used, JC says you can do it whenever. As soon as the words Immediately after are used, JC says that it must be done immediately after.
Do you now see that the word When does not indicate specific timing?
Do you now see that this gives weight to the permission slip idea?

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-23, 03:50 PM

This arguing about timing is getting ridiculous.

Another thing that's ridiculous is that the player base is left trying to reverse-engineer the action framework of an RPG ruleset whose possibly greatest selling point is its detailed tactical system, two years after publication, from designer clarifications on specific options. Instead of saying we've settled how the game actually works, people should be annoyed and pestering Crawford for an actual, conclusive reconcilation of the rules and rulings (or revision of either or both), and preferably in more than 140 characters.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-23, 04:01 PM

I'm done typing.
I'm going to just quote/copy/paste/link this post over and over again from now until it sinks in.

That's now what RAW says. That's your interpretation of what RAW says.
And that interpretation is what is causing the issues here.
What it says (to paraphrase, I'm AFB) is that you don't have a bonus action unless you have a feature which grants you one. It says nothing about "prior to when you take an action granting it to you." That's how you may be reading/interpreting it, but that isn't what it says.
As soon as you have a feature which grants you one, you then have a bonus action. Sometimes that bonus action is only allowed if you also do something specific on your turn. But the rules for bonus actions state that you can do it any time on your turn unless timing is specified.

One you have the feature, you have a bonus action.

It's much easier (and completely fitting with the rules and rulings) if you think of it this way:
Instead of using your action to "cast a cantrip" or to "use the attack action" or whatever, you are instead using your action to use the feature in question. When you do so, you can/must then use the abilities included in the feature, in any order you choose (unless the features specify timing, like flurry of blows does by using the phrase "immediately after").

Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. 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 can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available. [b]You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specifiedL/b], and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

Emphasis in bold.
The first point is reinforcing the fact that you don't have a bonus action unless you get one from a feature or a spell. Once you have that feature or spell available, you then have a bonus action. Sometimes that bonus action must be accompanied by a specific action.
It then goes on to state that a bonus action, once available, can be taken at any time on your turn unless the timing is specified.

If When we're specifying timing, then War Magic and Shield Master and the like would not be allowed to happen before the attack/cantrip in question.
But we all know that they are.
So the word When doesn't indicate specific timing. The phrase When you do [x] indicates what else must be done on that turn.
That's it.
Nothing more.

The permission slip model holds water.

In every case, when the phrase When you [do X] is used, JC says you can do it whenever. As soon as the words Immediately after are used, JC says that it must be done immediately after.
Do you now see that the word When does not indicate specific timing?
Do you now see that this gives weight to the permission slip idea?

odigity

2016-09-23, 04:52 PM

If action =/= execution then it would let you take the bonus action immetiatly after taking the Attack action and resolve the attacks later on which JC ruled against.

Maybe not. I don't think we have enough information yet.

I made a post about this recently in the "Monks and TWF" thread:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21224927&postcount=39

Flurry of Blows:

"Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action."

Now, in the Permission Slip model, taking the Attack action is not the same thing as executing the attacks granted by the Attack action, but given Crawford's tweet on Flurry of Blows, I would reinterpret FoB's text to read:

"Immediately after executing the last attack granted by taking the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action."

That still leaves the question of if movement is allowed between attack and flurry #1, and between flurry #1 and flurry #2.

I wish they had more precisely defined the model in the PHB instead of "trying to keep it simple". All they've done is obfuscate the truth.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-24, 05:44 AM

Arial Black

2016-09-24, 08:05 AM

Since some bonus action can be taken when you take the Attack action in order to justify taking thembefore some of you now think there is some sort of permission slip model letting you take action at the start of your turn and not execute them immediately but later.

Actually, the RAW (even without any tweets) supports either model, in that it simply doesn't say one way or another whether actions must be executed instantly or any time during your turn. Saying it doesn't say the latter doesn't imply it must be the former.

I understand JC ruling saying Shield Master is intended to be taken even before the Attack action. What it doesn't say is just how long before it can be taken

Exactly!

You guys can do what you want with these rulings i know in my campaign i won't let bonus action being taken before taking the Attack action, perhaps in tandem with it even before executing any of its attack, or after it, but certainly not before it. This ensures the Attack action can't invalidated by taking another action instead

The 'permission slip' model already ensures this because you have already 'taken the Action' (in order to generate the bonus action) so you cannot swap it for a different Action.

or becoming incapacitated before taking it.

And that's solved by the 'permission slip' model too! The Action has already been taken. The rules don't care whether or not you actually execute the attack(s) to which you are entitled by taking the Attack action. Falling unconscious before you have a chance to execute those attacks is neither here nor there, because the Attack Action has already been taken and the bonus action generated.

Nor will i force actions being declared taken at the start of turn, and executed later on to justify some ruling.

And again, no part of the 'permission slip' model forces anyone to declare what Actions they are taking at the start of the turn before executing any of them. You can 'take the Action' any time during your turn, and having done so execute the stuff allowed by that action, at any time during your turn, even if you already took an action (or bonus action) AND resolved the execution of that action prior to that in this turn.

The stuff you worry about simply does not come to pass. The game runs better, and brings up no new problems, when you run the game according to the 'permission slip' model.

If you can think of a situation where the 'permission slip' model makes the game not work, post it and we'll see if there actually is a problem or not.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-24, 08:51 AM

If you can think of a situation where the 'permission slip' model makes the game not work, post it and we'll see if there actually is a problem or not.Taking the Spell action, moving out of cover, executing the spell and moving back to cover. If you could take the Attack action and just execute it later there would be no need for a rule specifically allowing you to Move Between Attacks during the said action. You instead have to move before and after your action, unless you can make multiple attacks with it.

Actually, the RAW (even without any tweets) supports either model, in that it simply doesn't say one way or another whether actions must be executed instantly or any time during your turn. Saying it doesn't say the latter doesn't imply it must be the former.We've gone through this already if the rules don't say you don't have to execute an action when taken like you claim then they are executed when taken, working as written; "when you take Y action, you do X"...or "as an action you do X", or "doing X require an action" etc... Also JC ruling regarding Flurry of Blows would be different if you were allowed to take the bonus action immediately after taking the Attack action while executing it later.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-24, 08:58 AM

Plaguescarred

2016-09-24, 09:11 AM

Again you're missing the point.
Previous editions, with their "only move before or after your action" rules, simulated what you're trying to say.
The 5e movement rules effectively simulate that you're doing things while moving, so that example is invalid.

Your problem is that you are such a hard core RAW lawyer that you miss the forest for the trees.I think you're the one missing the point as if it was really the case then rules for Moving Between Attacks would be unecessary.

Also there's no need for name calling so please don't

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-24, 09:58 AM

I think you're the one missing the point as if it was really the case then rules for Moving Between Attacks would be unecessary.

Also there's no need for name calling so please don't

I wasn't name calling.
The rules for moving between attacks are there to simulate that you can in fact move while doing things like attacking, which you couldn't in earlier eitions.
Before it was either move then action, or action then move.
Now you can move before, after, during, or any/and all three.
The rule you state as unnecessary exists because movement works differently than it did before, so they added that rule to make this point clear. This rule simulates that you can move while doing things now.
When you break it down and parse it like that you're missing the forest for the trees.
Clearly it isn't unnecessary, or we wouldn't be discussing this at the moment.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-24, 10:10 AM

I wasn't name calling.You didn't call me a hardcore RAW lawyer ?

Before it was either move then action, or action then move.
Now you can move before, after, during, or any/and all three.
The rule you state as unnecessary exists because movement works differently than it did before, so they added that rule to make this point clear. This rule simulates that you can move while doing things now.
This rule exist to let you move while taking an action that include multiple attacks specifically. Otherwise you move before or after your action.

Breaking p Your Move: You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action, and then move 20 feet.

Moving Between Attacks: 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.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-24, 10:22 AM

In previous editions, you could only move then act, or act then move.
Now you can mix it up as you see fit.
That simulates that you can act while moving.

The problem is that you're so focused on the exact wording of what it says that you aren't reading between the lines.

This is what I was talking about with the hard core RAW lawyering comment. And this is what I was talking about with the missing the forest for the trees comment.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-24, 10:31 AM

It says so right in the text that i don't know what more to tell you.

The change from last edition is that you had a move action to take and couldn't break it up and use the rest after your action.

Now you can. And even better if said action let you make multiple attacks, you can break it further and move between those!

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-24, 10:34 AM

Plaguescarred

2016-09-24, 10:40 AM

Here's the bottom line, you're bringing a 3e/4e mentality into 5e. 5e was built upon a different philosophy, so that mentality doesn't work any longer. And that's why you're having a hard time understanding what the rules are trying to say.
That goes for breaking up your movement. That goes for when you can take a bonus action. That probably goes for the vast majority of the rest of the game as well.
I'm just glad I'm not at your table.Gosh we're two! BTW you're the one who brought up previous edition reference. I was just enlighting you on their differences since you brought it up.

I find rather disappointing that you can't debate without resorting to name calling or insinuating that others have a hard time understanding the rest of the game when they disagree with you on a subject. You're nicer when you don't have anything better to say than quote yourself actually.

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-24, 10:54 AM

It's frustrating trying to explain something simple to someone when, if they'd just take off their lawyer glasses and their 3e/4e blinders for a moment, it's all clear as day.... but they just refuse to see it.

Arial Black

2016-09-25, 06:27 AM

Taking the Spell action, moving out of cover, executing the spell and moving back to cover. If you could take the Attack action and just execute it later there would be no need for a rule specifically allowing you to Move Between Attacks during the said action. You instead have to move before and after your action, unless you can make multiple attacks with it.

Where is the problem? How is the sequence:-

take Cast A Spell Action -> move a bit -> actually cast spell -> move a bit more

...any different to:-

move a bit -> take Cast A Spell Action -> actually cast spell -> move a bit more

...in either game mechanics terms (does it avoid Attacks of Opportunity, does it let you avoid something or do something that isn't true when doing it the other way) or what happens in-world (what actually happens in-world is that the creature moves a bit and then casts a spell then moves a bit more; the 'take an Action In Combat part is pure meta-game and doesn't exist in-world)?

The writer of 5E, knowing that a large number of players would have previously played 3E, had to carefully spell out the fact that not only was there no such thing as a 'move action' any more, but that this had consequences for the game. In 3E you got all 8 (or however many) of your attacks if you moved no more than a 5-foot step but you only got one attack if you had the effrontery to move 10 feet! In 5E you get all of your attacks no matter how far you move and you don't have to execute all of your attacks at the same time.

So this fact is mentioned several times in different ways throughout the rules, just to make sure we get it.

The whole point is that movement no longer restricts what you do when executing your actions. To read it as if you are only allowed to move while doing the Attack Action specifically but are not allowed to with the other actions is to understand the complete opposite of what is intended.

We've gone through this already if the rules don't say you don't have to execute an action when taken like you claim then they are executed when taken, working as written; "when you take Y action, you do X"...or "as an action you do X", or "doing X require an action" etc... Also JC ruling regarding Flurry of Blows would be different if you were allowed to take the bonus action immediately after taking the Attack action while executing it later.

Yeah, we have gone through this before, and 'when' refers to 'during this turn'.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-25, 06:48 AM

How is the sequence:-

take Cast A Spell Action -> move a bit -> actually cast spell -> move a bit more

...any different to:-

move a bit -> take Cast A Spell Action -> actually cast spell -> move a bit moreThe difference is where the creature is when casting the spell and everything it entails, from what it can see or be seen and effects that can interact with it i.e Counterspell

It would also let you move during an action when you otherwise shouldn't as per Breaking Up A Move.

The whole point is that movement no longer restricts what you do when executing your actions. To read it as if you are only allowed to move while doing the Attack Action specifically but are not allowed to with the other actions is to understand the complete opposite of what is intended.Like i said if this was true that you could move during any actions rather than before and after, then there would be no need for a Moving Between Attacks rule as you could move between the action letting you make multiple attacks anyway. Instead, Moving Between Targets allow you to break your movement further , meaning further than before and after an action like you normally do in 5E as per Breaking Up A Move.

If you could move between any action then Sage Advice wouldn't say you can't during Whirlwind Attack;

Can a ranger move between the attack rolls of the Whirlwind Attack feature? No. Whirlwind Attack is unusual, in that it’s a single attack with multiple attack rolls. In most other instances, an attack has one attack roll. The rule on moving between attacks (PH, 190) lets you move between weapon attacks, not between the attack rolls of an exceptional feature like Whirlwind Attack.

Arial Black

2016-09-25, 08:19 AM

The difference is where the creature is when casting the spell and everything it entails, from what it can see or be seen and effects that can interact with it i.e Counterspell

There is no difference! Where the caster is at the moment the spell is actually cast is the point where 'everything it entails' comes into it, including counterspell or Readied Action or whatever. The 'taking the Action' part is a meta-game construct that the creatures cannot know about in-world. What they can know about and react to are things that actually happen, like spells being cast or attacks executed.

There is no advantage to be gained by 'taking the Action/permission slip' while in cover if you actually cast the spell in the open!

Like i said if this was true that you could move during any actions rather than before and after, then there would be no need for a Moving Between Attacks rule as you could move between the action letting you make multiple attacks anyway.

Yes there would, and I mentioned it earlier. It was necessary to make sure that we know that it is different in 5E than it was in previous editions.

The 'moving between attacks' part is not a separate rule, it just reminds us of how the general movement rules apply when you get multiple attacks.

If you could move between any action then Sage Advice wouldn't say you can't during Whirlwind Attack;

Can a ranger move between the attack rolls of the Whirlwind Attack feature? No. Whirlwind Attack is unusual, in that it’s a single attack with multiple attack rolls. In most other instances, an attack has one attack roll. The rule on moving between attacks (PH, 190) lets you move between weapon attacks, not between the attack rolls of an exceptional feature like Whirlwind Attack.

The Sage is clarifying that the reason you cannot move between the multiple attacks granted by Whirlwind Attack is because Whirlwind attack is not multiple attacks but rather a single attack resolved by multiple attack rolls, and that Whirlwind Attack is exceptional (ie 'an exception to the general rules) in this regard.

Any other situations where you think the 'permission slip' model messes up the game?

Plaguescarred

2016-09-25, 08:33 AM

We clearly see things quite differently and your view doesn't really match my experience in all the 5E games i've ran, played or watch online or IRL.

Arial Black

2016-09-25, 09:55 AM

We clearly see things quite differently and your view doesn't really match my experience in all the 5E games i've ran, played or watch online or IRL.

That may be because the 'permission slip' model in no way precludes executing your stuff immediately after 'taking the Action' which allows that stuff. Usually, there is no reason not to! Usually, you wouldn't want to take the action too early, or it may narrow your choices later on in that turn.

But there are times when you do want to separate 'Action' and 'execution' in time: to allow you to execute your shield bash before you attack with Shield Master, or attack before you cast the cantrip with War Magic, etc.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-25, 09:58 AM

We clearly see things quite differently and your view doesn't really match my experience in all the 5E games i've ran, played or watch online or IRL.

I do think it's a problem for the view of the permission slip model as an intended, integral part of the rules that we're supposed to see these indirect indications, yet nothing stating up front "OK here's how it actually works", and then for two years the designers seemingly not knowing or caring how basically everyone uses the same declaration-execution model used in 99% of all RPGs and board games because the rules as written perfectly support that, never issuing any general complement or clarification but only limited scope clarifications (arguably inconsistent) that again should be seen as indirect signals how it really works. All this does not say "making sure we get it" to me at all.

Plaguescarred

2016-09-25, 12:00 PM

I do think it's a problem for the view of the permission slip model as an intended, integral part of the rules that we're supposed to see these indirect indications, yet nothing stating up front "OK here's how it actually works", and then for two years the designers seemingly not knowing or caring how basically everyone uses the same declaration-execution model used in 99% of all RPGs and board games because the rules as written perfectly support that, never issuing any general complement or clarification but only limited scope clarifications (arguably inconsistent) that again should be seen as indirect signals how it really works. All this does not say "making sure we get it" to me at all.Me too. I fail to see why Flurry of Blows couldn't be taken immediately after taking the Attack action if the permission slip model really existed yet JC and MM rulings doesn't seem to rule in favor. The word "immediately" seems the different reason why, which only make sense if its immediately after the Attack action is taken and executed, rather than just taken and executed later like the permission slip model supposedly operate.

odigity

2016-09-25, 12:29 PM

Me too. I fail to see why Flurry of Blows couldn't be taken immediately after taking the Attack action if the permission slip model really existed yet JC and MM rulings doesn't seem to rule in favor. The word "immediately" seems the different reason why, which only make sense if its immediately after the Attack action is taken and executed, rather than just taken and executed later like the permission slip model supposedly operate.

It's because they did a crappy job writing the rules.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-25, 01:01 PM

It's because they did a crappy job writing the rules.

So we're basically asked to believe they were simultaneously very precise and very sloppy writing the rules.

Arial Black

2016-09-26, 08:02 AM

So we're basically asked to believe they were simultaneously very precise and very sloppy writing the rules.

Yes. It's very human.

The writer knows what he means, and can deliberately over-emphasise some things for the purpose of trying to make sure we 'get it'. But it may be that although the words he wrote perfectly support what he means, he doesn't realise that the same words could also support a different interpretation. It's hard to assess your own work this way.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-30, 08:22 AM

The writer knows what he means, and can deliberately over-emphasise some things for the purpose of trying to make sure we 'get it'. But it may be that although the words he wrote perfectly support what he means, he doesn't realise that the same words could also support a different interpretation. It's hard to assess your own work this way.

I don't disagree with that, but it's still a warning flag if a hypothesis needs us to regard everything in favour as signal and any indications against it as noise, you know, if we're talking science. :smallwink:

But anyway, there's this new thing:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502038-Mike-Mearls-Answer-to-the-Whirlwind-Attack-Question

Mike Mearls says with the new Whirlwind Attack, you "determine targets when you use the action - might invalidate some attacks". The vocal majority are taking this to conclusively mean conditions must be met at the time of declaration/beginning of execution. Those few still saying you should get to satisfy the range requirements at each point during the round are getting smacked down pretty hard. Tough break for permission slip?

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-30, 08:58 AM

But anyway, there's this new thing:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502038-Mike-Mearls-Answer-to-the-Whirlwind-Attack-Question

Mike Mearls says with the new Whirlwind Attack, you "determine targets when you use the action - might invalidate some attacks". The vocal majority are taking this to conclusively mean conditions must be met at the time of declaration/beginning of execution. Those few still saying you should get to satisfy the range requirements at each point during the round are getting smacked down pretty hard. Tough break for permission slip?

There's an even newer thing. (https://mobile.twitter.com/calebrus44/status/781506911904600064)
Meals has confirmed that WwA is essentially Link's spin attack. He confirmed that in 4e terms, WwA would be a 5' AoE melee burst. Not a thing that allows you to prance around the battlefield hitting everything that ends up within your 5' reach.

None of that has any relevance on the permission slip model, which still holds water with every ruling made to date.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-30, 09:38 AM

None of that has any relevance on the permission slip model, which still holds water with every ruling made to date.

No? Having to satisfy the conditions of Whirlwind Attack when you declare/initiate it, having to satisfy the conditions of two-weapon fighting when you declare/initiate it, no reason permission slip should treat these analogously?

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-30, 09:45 AM

No? Having to satisfy the conditions of Whirlwind Attack when you declare/initiate it, having to satisfy the conditions of two-weapon fighting when you declare/initiate it, no reason permission slip should treat these analogously?

TWF doesn't apply.
You are using your action for Whirlwind, not using your action for the Attack action.
That's why this has no relevance to the permission concept.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-09-30, 10:04 AM

You are using your action for Whirlwind, not using your action for the Attack action.

Yes. You're saying, "I'll take the Whirlwind action, here are my targets, I'll make sure I'm within 5' of each when the time comes to bop them." Permission slip is all about parcelling out conditions in space and time and promise you'll satisfy each at some point.

Player: "I'm going to throw my dagger as a bonus action."

TWF: "Um, but you didn't attack with the main weapon yet."

Player: "Oh, I promise to do that later on, probably."

Permission slip: "I'll allow it."

Player: "And now I'm going to make that attack, qualifying for Dueling by the way."

TWF: "But, um, you're not holding anything in the off hand to make it two-weapon fighting."

Player: "I did before, aren't you paying attention?"

Permission slip: "I'll allow it."

Different player: "I'm going to do a Whirlwind Attack, hit these people, and those over there."

Whirlwind: "But, but, those over there aren't within five feet."

Different player: "Oh, they will be, promise."

Permission slip: "I'll all-"

GitP: "NO!"

DivisibleByZero

2016-09-30, 10:45 AM

Different player: "I'm going to move into position to do a Whirlwind Attack, hit these people, and those over there."

Whirlwind: "But, but, those over there aren't within five feet."

Different player: "Oh, they will be when I get there and attack everyone."

Permission slip: "Of course you can do that."

Permission is relevant if you have an ability which requires a particular action be used on the same turn.
Whirlwind is not such an ability, so permission is not relevant in any way.

Arial Black

2016-10-01, 07:04 AM

Mike Mearls says with the new Whirlwind Attack, you "determine targets when you use the action - might invalidate some attacks". The vocal majority are taking this to conclusively mean conditions must be met at the time of declaration/beginning of execution. Those few still saying you should get to satisfy the range requirements at each point during the round are getting smacked down pretty hard. Tough break for permission slip?

In a word: no.

Whirlwind Attack is not several attacks. It is a single special attack that is resolved through several attack rolls. There is no movement allowed between attacks.

It does not intersect with the 'permission slip' model in any unusual way. The unusual part is that it's a single attack, not multiple attacks, despite having multiple attack rolls. The rule about moving between attacks does not apply.

When you want to execute a WA, the action you need to give you permission to execute the WA is not the Attack action. You must take the special 'Whirlwind Attack' action. You can take that action (without executing it), move and do other stuff you have permission to do, execute WA while standing in one spot throughout the process, then do other stuff/move if you have permission.

Arial Black

2016-10-01, 07:16 AM

Permission slip is all about parcelling out conditions in space and time and promise you'll satisfy each at some point.

No, permission slip is all about 'taking the action' being a different thing than 'executing the stuff allowed by that action'.

With TWF, it's not that you 'promise to attack with the other weapon later'. It's that you have already 'taken the action' that gives you permission to attack later (and the 'taking of the action' is what generates the bonus action; actually executing the attack is not what generates the bonus action), so after you generate (and maybe execute) that already generated bonus action, the only thing you have permission to do (as a result of previously taking the Attack action) is to execute an attack with a light melee weapon in one hand (a different hand than you used for the bonus attack).

You don't actually have to execute that (main) attack! That is not what generates the bonus action. But, if you choose not to execute that 'main' attack, you've wasted your action because you don't have permission to do anything else and cannot swap your action for a different action at this point because you've already used it to generate the bonus action 'off-hand' attack that you have already executed.

Coffee_Dragon

2016-10-02, 06:56 PM

Permission is relevant if you have an ability which requires a particular action be used on the same turn.
Whirlwind is not such an ability, so permission is not relevant in any way.

Whirlwind Attack is an action that lets you do something as long as conditions are met. TWF is a function of the Attack action that lets you do something as long as conditions are met. So I would say it's relevant in some way, even if I'll admit it's not ideal for the purposes of this discussion.

Whirlwind Attack is not several attacks. It is a single special attack that is resolved through several attack rolls. There is no movement allowed between attacks.

First let me note that I agree with you completely about how Whirlwind Attack should be played. But the whole uproar about the new Whirlwind started because the text had been changed (for whichever reason) to read "attacks" instead of "attack". To some people, this obviously meant you could attack the whole battlefield because as we all know "If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, [you can move] between those attacks". When asked to clarify, Mearls did not say that you're not supposed to move between attacks, or that it counts as just one attack, but instead that targets are picked upon taking the action and this "might invalidate some attacks". The ruling provides no general foundation, it just sort of implies that targeting conditions are clustered up so that you can't select two targets for which the same location wouldn't satisfy both range requirements. That's a pretty convoluted thing to merely hint at (I would have done it differently), but most everyone thinks there's no question that's what he meant. So, then, if it's taken for granted that Whirlwind conditions are tangled up in time and space, why aren't TWF conditions tangled up in time and space?

No, permission slip is all about 'taking the action' being a different thing than 'executing the stuff allowed by that action'.

Well, it's also about separating out conditions, isn't it? It doesn't only work on the "I can do Y now because I've locked in my action as X which allows Y" level, with X and Y as black boxes. In order to work, it must allow you to lift out the various requirements of X and Y, possibly interrelated, and satisfy each one at a time and in an order of your choosing, even to arrive at a point where you have to admit you won't satisfy all of them after all.

You don't actually have to execute that (main) attack! That is not what generates the bonus action.

I don't think the rules actually support that particular statement. They read: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon ..." It isn't very unclear whether the mainhand attack is one of the conditions for gaining the bonus action. I get why you favour the view that it isn't - it smooths over potential temporal hiccups caused by applied permission slip, there will be times when it won't make much sense to mechanically execute the mainhand attack, and there's simply little gain in brutally enforcing it - but to me it looks much like a case of having to claim the designers plumb didn't mean what they wrote in order for the model to fit.