Monk of the Hand actually bad

[Dalebert]

My roommate's a monk of the hand and he's having serious buyer's remorse after it's been pointed out to him that flurry of blows must come after the attack action. He can't even benefit from his own knocking things prone to gain advantage.

[Lord Vukodlak]

My roommate's a monk of the hand and he's having serious buyer's remorse after it's been pointed out to him that flurry of blows must come after the attack action. He can't even benefit from his own knocking things prone to gain advantage.

You get TWO unarmed strikes with flurry of blows, one to knock them down and one with advantage to kick them 15ft away. They then have to spend half their movement just to stand up then walk 15ft back to you. Either one can allow you to pound on a foe while using your enhanced movement to prevent him from fighting back.
Furthermore D&D is a team game, giving others advantage while still getting to make your full attack is a great deal. By Rogue/Battlemaster using the trip maneuver last so he doesn't have disadvantage due to using a ranged weapon. But giving advantage to my melee allies (while possibly shooting a flying creature out of the air) is a great asset.

[Foxhound438]

My roommate's a monk of the hand and he's having serious buyer's remorse after it's been pointed out to him that flurry of blows must come after the attack action. He can't even benefit from his own knocking things prone to gain advantage.

monk is really more of a utility/control class in the first place. If he really wants advantage on his attacks, he will still get stunning strike at level 5. in the mean time, open hand technique does provide a lot of battlefield control, so he can at least have that.

[djreynolds]

Step of the wind allows any monk to disengage provided they have the KI points and bonus action... meaning they can't flurry. You can walk away if they are 15ft away or have no reaction

But open hand can get 4 attacks and without allowing a save strip an opponent of their reaction... meaning you can walk away but more importantly they cannot hit any of your teammates and have no reaction for spells

So imagine you hit first, say a caster, they cannot use their shield spell on the incoming great axe coming into cleave them in half

Granted I feel you on the prone aspect

[Specter]

This isn't true, as you can use that advantage on the 4th attack. But even if it were true, he's not thinking about his party getting the advantage, only himself, which is selfish and un-DnD.

[Finlam]

This isn't true, as you can use that advantage on the 4th attack. But even if it were true, he's not thinking about his party getting the advantage, only himself, which is selfish and un-DnD.

That's needlessly harsh.

It's hardly selfish to want a class to play in an intuitive way i.e. that he could use the ability on any attack and not just flurry.

Monks are the worst designed class in 5e: FFS the entire class is basically "Stunning Strike" and nothing else. Would it have killed the designers to throw them a bone?

[mgshamster]

Monks are the worst designed class in 5e:

That's needlessly harsh.

Even if we were to agree that the monk is the worst class in the game, the difference between the worst and the best is so small that it's barely worth noticing. We can judge the 5e classes on a scale of 1 to 10, while forgetting that the 3.X classes were on a scale of -50 to 50.

Using 3.X's tier system (either 5 or 6 tiers), all of the 5e classes fall into tier 3.

[Coffee_Dragon]

My roommate's a monk of the hand and he's having serious buyer's remorse after it's been pointed out to him that flurry of blows must come after the attack action.

Some people consider "after the attack action" to not be equal to "after executing the attacks granted by the attack action". Your roommate could talk to his DM.

[EvilAnagram]

That's needlessly harsh.

It's hardly selfish to want a class to play in an intuitive way i.e. that he could use the ability on any attack and not just flurry.

Monks are the worst designed class in 5e: FFS the entire class is basically "Stunning Strike" and nothing else. Would it have killed the designers to throw them a bone?
Having four attacks, solid defenses, magic effects without spell slots, and incredible mobility is apparently nothing?

[Naanomi]

Monks are the worst designed class in 5e: FFS the entire class is basically "Stunning Strike" and nothing else. Would it have killed the designers to throw them a bone?
Have you played a ranger to any significant level?

The disparity between classes is pretty low overall (especially compared to 3.5’s spread of ‘Archivist/(spell to power Erudite)>Truenamer’) in any case

[EvilAnagram]

Some people consider "after the attack action" to not be equal to "after executing the attacks granted by the attack action". Your roommate could talk to his DM.

The PHB explicitly allows you to break up attacks in the attack action. You can attack once, flurry once to knock prone, and get in two more attacks with the enemy prone, and it's entirely by RAW.

[Specter]

That's needlessly harsh.

It's hardly selfish to want a class to play in an intuitive way i.e. that he could use the ability on any attack and not just flurry.

Monks are the worst designed class in 5e: FFS the entire class is basically "Stunning Strike" and nothing else. Would it have killed the designers to throw them a bone?

It's not harsh at all. If you're not thinking about your party when you're playing a game that is literally a party doing everything together, then you are being selfish, and that is not cool, ever.

The monk class can hold its own just fine, both in exploration, with their boosted athletics, and in combat, being the best martials for debuffing and one of the hardest to kill especially at higher levels. Open Hand comes to add strategy and party dynamics to the class. If you're not thinking of how to coordinate it with your party, then take something else.

This is the same logic that gets Wolfbarian neglected close to Bearbarian: you should take care of yourself before thinking of anyone else. Through years of rolling dice around, I am 100% sure it's false.

[Dalebert]

I think the best measure of balance is to compare them to other monk archetypes. They're definitely front-loaded. Their 3rd level ability is the best, the one we're discussing. The 6th and 11th level ones are once per day abilities that are jokes. Then... eventually... quivering palm is pretty cool. Therefore their 3rd level ability justifiably should be amazeballs. By comparison, shadow monk gets consistently excellent abilities with nearly unlimited usage. Most are severely limited by bright light of course but you'll likely get a lot of bang for that buck. My first character was a shadow monk with warlock dip and was amazeballs. I don't see any way to make two of the hand's abilities not suck all the time. You're paying a heavy oppotunity cost for that 3rd level ability.


Some people consider "after the attack action" to not be equal to "after executing the attacks granted by the attack action". Your roommate could talk to his DM.

That's how many have been interpreting it. He must declare the attack action but can delay it.


The PHB explicitly allows you to break up attacks in the attack action. You can attack once, flurry once to knock prone, and get in two more attacks with the enemy prone, and it's entirely by RAW.

I was wondering that. I've always been under the impression you could make your attacks at any time. This would be a compromise that seems to meet the requirement of the ability.

[Tanarii]

I don't see any way to make two of the hand's abilities not suck all the time.

Which two are those? Because from where I'm standing this is ridiculous hyperbole. Knocking someone prone, pushing them 15ft away, or removing their reaction with each attack every time you flurry is still not only useful, it is (incoming counter-hyperbole) totally amazeballs.

Even in the worst case situation where your DM rules Flurry has do be done not only right after your attack (or second attack after Extra attack) and before any movement, it's still amazeballs. I've seen it ruled that way. I do not agree with said ruling. OH Monl ability is still incredibly awesome tactical ability anyway.

[Dalebert]

Which two are those?

I was very clear about which two. I was not dissecting the 3rd level ability. I was talking about out of their four archetype features, this one at 3rd level should be amazeballs. They're paying a substantial opportunity cost with the 6th and 11th level joke features.


Their 3rd level ability is the best, the one we're discussing. The 6th and 11th level ones are once per day abilities that are jokes. Then... eventually... quivering palm is pretty cool. Therefore their 3rd level ability justifiably should be amazeballs.

[Citan]

My roommate's a monk of the hand and he's having serious buyer's remorse after it's been pointed out to him that flurry of blows must come after the attack action. He can't even benefit from his own knocking things prone to gain advantage.
Hey...
You know, your player should not worry so much about it.
If he REALLY wants to get advantage by putting prone, he can just instead use one of his first attacks of Attack to make a regular Shove. Sure, it does eat into one attack, but at least he gets the three other with advantage.

His chance to succeed on that should be pretty good too. ;)

Plus everybody else said: Monk is a teamworker at core, dealing spike damage is not his thing. ;)

[Dalebert]

Plus everybody else said: Monk is a teamworker at core, dealing spike damage is not his thing. ;)

He definitely realizes he's not a major damage-dealer. Not bad either. He's also glad to help the team. Problem is that is extremely dependent on the initiative order working out a certain way. If the enemy goes soon after him, it's mostly a waste, and it's surprising how often that is. Especially considering that, I really don't blame him for wanting to benefit from knocking things prone when that's his main thing. I mean, aside from quivering palm which is an extremely high tier ability that many will never even achieve, this IS his defining feature as a MotH. Again, the level 6 and 10 features of MotH are so obviously jokes, it's like the designers felt they had to punish them for such a good lvl 3 ability. 3 should justify that.

[Citan]

Hey, I can understand that. : )

I dont see many workarounds though : maybe a Cleric pal could Guidance him as a principle with your approval, or maybe a Bard could give him an inspiration as often as possible...
Or he could just grit his teeth until lvl4 and grab Alert feat ASAP.
Last thing I see could be you allowing UA so he grabs one level of Revised Ranger but that would be potentially opening a nasty can of worms....

Beyond those leveling options, naybe you could tailor a quest for him to get an Initiative improving item in the end... ?

[Dalebert]

I'm not the DM and this is AL.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The 6 is not that bad, though, is it? It's a decently sized ball of hit points (Tough x 1.5) at a level where most others don't get super amazeballs. A few days ago I was looking at the monk for the first time with an eye towards making one; the buffet of base class abilities didn't seem unfun at all, and Open Hand seemed the best fit for what I wanted. I did note however that 11 seemed thoroughly underwhelming for a level where many if not most other classes do get teh amazeballs.

[Chugger]

That's needlessly harsh.



Monks are the worst designed class in 5e: FFS the entire class is basically "Stunning Strike" and nothing else. Would it have killed the designers to throw them a bone?

In AL I've seen very few players who know how to play monk, and I've wasted many rounds not fighting but instead pouring a healing potion down a zero'd monk's throat. Monk players almost never weave in and out of combat - they tend to run up like tanks and stand there on the line after striking - so stupid.

I keep getting told that they're amazing. This must come at much higher levels.

Now, back in summer I fought w/ a bugbear monk a few times - this was an exception. He used his reach to strike from 10' away and then backed off w/ no AoO because the monsters' reach was, in those modules, only 5'. I could see this model working.

[Finlam]

In AL I've seen very few players who know how to play monk, and I've wasted many rounds not fighting but instead pouring a healing potion down a zero'd monk's throat. Monk players almost never weave in and out of combat - they tend to run up like tanks and stand there on the line after striking - so stupid.

I keep getting told that they're amazing. This must come at much higher levels.

Now, back in summer I fought w/ a bugbear monk a few times - this was an exception. He used his reach to strike from 10' away and then backed off w/ no AoO because the monsters' reach was, in those modules, only 5'. I could see this model working.

I've seen this a lot too. If you need a rogue dip, the mobile feat, or reach to make the class combat functional, then it's a strong sign they really should've given it some ability to go into and out of combat i.e. to be a striker.

Yes, they can spend a ki point for disengage, but every ki spent on that is a SS not landed and a flurry not used. It becomes a choice between surviving and doing pitiful monk damage or contributing to combat and risking going down quickly. Without reach, the mobile feat, or a rogue dip for cunning action, most players do not manage to pull off monk tactics successfully.

Just like the level 3 open hand monk feature being limited only to flurry, or the 4 elements being the most useless subclass in the game (competing only with the original beast master), the base monk class is needlessly restricted for some warped sense of balance. When most players fail to play a class effectively, it's not the player's fault: it's the designers.

The shadow monk is about the only thing they did right with the class and I'm hoping the kensei is another good contribution to a class in much need of love.

[Citan]

I've seen this a lot too. If you need a rogue dip, the mobile feat, or reach to make the class combat functional, then it's a strong sign they really should've given it some ability to go into and out of combat i.e. to be a striker you don't know how to play one correctly.

Fixed that for you. :smallbiggrin:
(Don't worry, I'm half-joking).

Seriously, of course Rogue dip or Mobile feats work wonders on a Monk, but let's be honest, they work wonder on any melee martial. ;)
A Monk can start with 16 AC which is strictly better than a Barbarian using Reckless Attack even with medium armor and shield.

Monk are just like a Rogue: not supposed to stand like a brainless lemming in the field, but carefully twisting the distance between you and a few selected enemies.
Of course this is much harder at low levels but it can be done.

Many people seem to forget, not only that Monks can use all simple weapon with DEX, but the plain existence of thrown weapons.
Combine that with the extra 10 feet at level 2 and you can alternate turns in which you go all pummeling on an enemy and other turns in which you keep a fair distance, at worst suffering one opportunity attack.

In short, Monks suffer at low level, but mainly because of the few Ki pool that makes every choice hard to make. Once you get 6-7 Ki and 15 feet extra movement, things start getting brighter: you can kite more effectively while keeping one Ki for emergencies or the like. :)
Same problem of being hard to survive at low level could be said for most casters (Sorcerers and Wizards do have Shield, but that is a precious resource that recharge on a long-rest), which do not even have mobility or arrow deflect as protection against ranged.
Even Barbarians, if played stupidly aka "rushing without an ounce of reflexion" will quickly go down in spite of their resistance. ;)

>> Before level 5, as a Monk, one should not be afraid to play safe and dirty whenever going into melee would make him face several attacks in the remaining round. Even if it means "sacrificing" a bonus action weapon attack (or, you could just dual-wield for occasional double throw).
All their features scream "hit&run tactic" so saying that "it's sad that Monk need reach to be functional" is quite a misunderstanding of what the Monk are supposed to be in the first place. ^^

Monks are "resilience late bloomers", embrace it. ;)
Monks are a class harder to play efficiently (like Sorcerers), let's accept it. ^^

(By the way, low level's "Monk crappy damage" is on par or better than Fighter you know? ^^)


Just like the level 3 open hand monk feature being limited only to flurry, or the 4 elements being the most useless subclass in the game (competing only with the original beast master), the base monk class is needlessly restricted for some warped sense of balance. When most players fail to play a class effectively, it's not the player's fault: it's the designers.

I have the sad and difficult duty to inform you that the bolded part is utter crap. But I guess you never really tried to play one.
I hope you have some chance to do so sometime, if you can get one DM to do a few one-shots this could be the simplest and quickest way: ask for one at level 6, then one at level 11, not with the mindset "arf, why did I ever think of playing that crappy archetype" but with the mindset "let's explore all of the 4E awesomeness" and I'm sure you'll find it pretty enjoyable.

[Jerrykhor]

I've got a friend who whines about monks being bad too, but he's comparing it to the paladin, which of course is everything that a monk is not haha.

But seriously though, I see only one problem with his monk: No Mobile feat. And I can't believe he was playing standard human who took ASI at level 4 (I know right?)

[Dalebert]

I've seen this a lot too. If you need a rogue dip, the mobile feat, or reach to make the class combat functional, then it's a strong sign they really should've given it some ability to go into and out of combat i.e. to be a striker.

Well, MotH DO get a limited form of the mobile feat. They can FoB and still disengage for free. Shadow Monks get Shadow Step which can be used the same way in many circumstances without ki. It's just having Mobile makes a monk better. It makes lots of otherwise squishy striker characters better. Sun Souls have ranged attacks so don't need it much. Long Death are tougher so they can manage better without all the running around.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Monk of the Open Hand is flat out the most powerful monk in 5e, especially if you get to 17th level where you will be annihilating with Quivering Palm. Anyone who complains about Open Hand does not understand how to play a monk at all.

[Jerrykhor]

Monk of the Open Hand is flat out the most powerful monk in 5e, especially if you get to 17th level where you will be annihilating with Quivering Palm. Anyone who complains about Open Hand does not understand how to play a monk at all.

Yes, it is probably the only save-or-die abilities left in D&D.

Omae wa mou shindeiru.

[Dalebert]

Monk of the Open Hand is flat out the most powerful monk in 5e, especially if you get to 17th level where you will be annihilating with Quivering Palm. Anyone who complains about Open Hand does not understand how to play a monk at all.

No argument for claim given.

[Alerad]

I don't remember the page, but in the PHB it says that you can resolve your Action, Bonus action and Move in whatever order you want. So provided you are taking the Attack action this turn, you can still use Flurry as a bonus, then resolve your attack. The example in question was Shield master I think, so you can bash first and then attack.

[Mikal]

The PHB explicitly allows you to break up attacks in the attack action. You can attack once, flurry once to knock prone, and get in two more attacks with the enemy prone, and it's entirely by RAW.

Not for Monks.
Flurry of Blows specifically says "immediately after you take your Attack action."

In other words it is specifically an extra attack after your regular attack and standard extra attacks have completed.


I don't remember the page, but in the PHB it says that you can resolve your Action, Bonus action and Move in whatever order you want. So provided you are taking the Attack action this turn, you can still use Flurry as a bonus, then resolve your attack. The example in question was Shield master I think, so you can bash first and then attack.

Specific trumps standard and in this case the specific power says immediately after your Attack action, which means the attack action must be completed.

The standard bonus action extra attack would work the way you intended (depending on how the phb words it) but FoB specifically doesn't.

[EvilAnagram]

Not for Monks.
Flurry of Blows specifically says "immediately after you take your Attack action."

In other words it is specifically an extra attack after your regular attack and standard extra attacks have completed.
Devs have clarified that taking the attack action means declaring you are using your action for that purpose, not completing all attacks available to you. At the very least, once you have made one of your attacks, you have taken the attack action.

[Specter]

No argument for claim given.

There have been plenty of arguments already. But let's try it again.

You can still get advantage after tripping your foe on the fourth attack. Not ideal, but it's still advantage. If your enemy is too hard to hit, you can comfortably attempt a trip attempt and still have three attacks left.

But let's assume that's still too little, and your friend has no interest at all in how the party benefits from his turn. He wants to take credit for all the good stuff. Let's look at the Open Hand Technique in that way:

- Trip
Beyond the advantage on the last attack, you will be faster than 99% of the enemies you face as a monk. That means that if they get tripped, you can walk away from them (disengaging or not - the opportunity attack would still be at disadvantage) and they won't be able to reach you on their turn. This way, you can not only kite your enemy to death, but also reduce his offensive potential to 0.

- Pushing
Works practically the same as above, but also lets you take advantage of natural hazards/traps. If anyone can put a Spike Growth, Wall of Fire or similar, your potential damage has now gone significantly up. Also, freeing yourself from grapples without wasting your action.

- Removing reactions
So long, annoying Wizards who shield/counterspell every round. Monsters who reactive, like Mariliths, will also feel a lot sadder when you're in the room. And no opportunity attacks if you want to go somewhere else in the field, which is good enough on its own.

Open Hand is inherently strategic, and those who learn to use that to its full potential will annoy the DM much more than any uberdamage melee.

[Mikal]

Devs have clarified that taking the attack action means declaring you are using your action for that purpose, not completing all attacks available to you. At the very least, once you have made one of your attacks, you have taken the attack action.

Link stating this works for Flurry of Blows?

[Naanomi]

Link stating this works for Flurry of Blows?
It has been answered both ways on Twitter

https://www.sageadvice.eu/?s=Shield+master+flurry&submit=Search

[Mikal]

It has been answered both ways on Twitter

https://www.sageadvice.eu/?s=Shield+master+flurry&submit=Search

Ok, answered both as a yes and a no on the unofficial page, nothing in the official page... so I'd say that Flurry of Blows still doesn't activate until after the Attack action has completed.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Ok, answered both as a yes and a no on the unofficial page, nothing in the official page...

That's not a yes and a no, that's one "I don't know" and one "I'll act like I didn't understand the question".

[Mikal]

That's not a yes and a no, that's one "I don't know" and one "I'll act like I didn't understand the question".

Regardless, the ability says after the Attack action, which means without anything showing otherwise, you perform the Attack Action first...

[Cybren]

Regardless, the ability says after the Attack action, which means without anything showing otherwise, you perform the Attack Action first...

You can take the attack action, make one attack, move 30 ft, and make another attack. Define to me when "immediately after your action" is. Heck, you can take the attack action, make one attack, move 30 ft, cast a bonus action spell, and then make another attack. People arguing for an overly mechanistic execution of Flurry's wordings seem to be acting outside the spirit of 5Es rules

[Mikal]

You can take the attack action, make one attack, move 30 ft, and make another attack. Define to me when "immediately after your action" is.

Movement isn't a bonus action, or an action by itself. Movement specifically says it can be done between attacks and actions on your turn, up to your movement speed. The Dash action is not a movement action either- it increases the quota of speed allocated to you during your turn.

As such, movement is an apple, bonus actions are oranges.

And as specific trumps general, Flurry of Blows specifically says "immediately after the Attack action", the bonus action for Flurry of Blows must be done after the Attack Action.
Not "Once you declare the Attack Action".
Not "In the middle of the Attack Action".

[Cybren]

Movement isn't a bonus action, or an action by itself. Movement specifically says it can be done between attacks and actions on your turn, up to your movement speed. The Dash action is not a movement action either- it increases the quota of speed allocated to you during your turn.

As such, movement is an apple, bonus actions are oranges.

And as specific trumps general, Flurry of Blows specifically says "immediately after the Attack action".
Not "Once you declare the Attack Action".
Not "In the middle of the Attack Action".

The point is there is no meaningful definition of "immediately after an action" because an action doesn't describe a concrete event, it describes the nature of what a character is doing. There is no point in their turn where "immediately after an attack action" occurs, because the attack action isn't one singular thing.

[Mikal]

The point is there is no meaningful definition of "immediately after an action" because an action doesn't describe a concrete event, it describes the nature of what a character is doing. There is no point in their turn where "immediately after an attack action" occurs, because the attack action isn't one singular thing.

The point is being made using movement, which is not an action, and which specifically says that it can be used in the middle of an action such as an attack.

An action does describe a concrete event- The Attack Action. This is 1-4 attacks (based on the Extra Attack Ability) with a melee or ranged weapon, or spell attack.
A Bonus Action is an action you get from a Class Feature, Spell, or other Ability which lets you take an additional action on your turn. Per the rules (emphasis mine):


You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action.

Flurry of Blow has a specified time- "Immediately after the Attack Action".

This means that Flurry of Blows is activated after the Attack Action. The Attack Action is done once you have made 1-4 attacks (based on the Extra Attack Ability) with a melee or ranged weapon, or a spell attack.

If you have not completed the number of attacks you wish to use with the Attack Action, you cannot use the Bonus Action for Flurry of Blows yet. Period.

Movement has nothing to do with this, and cannot be used as an example because again.
1) Movement is not an action
2) Movement specifically says you can use it at any point during your turn, including between attacks.

The rules are seriously clear on this. You know what an Attack Action entails, and thus know when it ends. You know when the Bonus Action is triggered and how. Arguing based on your above points is simply an invalid base, as it's based on false assumptions and incorrect facts.

And note the difference in wording between the Martial Arts bonus action and Flurry of Blows bonus action. Emphasis again mine.


When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action.


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

Martial Arts says when you use the Attack Action, and thus has no timing on it allowing you to use the Bonus Action at any point as long as you've used the Attack Action.

Flurry of Blows, again, says immediately after you take the Attack Action. Which means the Attack Action has been taken and completed.

[Cybren]

The text of flurry does not not say "after the attack action". Please reread it. It says after you take the attack action. At what point in a sequence of attack, move 30ft, attack again, cast misty step, and attack a final time has an EK11 "taken" the attack action? Likewise at what point has a monk 5 taken the attack action?

[Mikal]

The text of flurry does not not say "after the attack action". Please reread it. It says after you take the attack action. At what point in a sequence of attack, move 30ft, attack again, cast misty step, and attack a final time has an EK11 "taken" the attack action? Likewise at what point has a monk 5 taken the attack action?

In your sequence, the attack action has been taken once the third attack has been done. Attacks and Attack Actions are not the same thing.

While in the middle of the attack action you have

1) Used movement- which is not an action and specifically can be done in the middle of actions on your turn.
2) Used a bonus action with no specific triggering effects in its description required to use that action.

So order of events is...

1) Declare Attack Action.
2) Use 1 of 3 Attacks granted by the Attack Action and Extra Attack
3) Move
4) Use 2 of 3 Attacks granted by the Attack Action and Extra Attack
5) Use a Bonus Action which can be used at any time on your turn because the ability does not have specific timing)
6) Use 3 of 3 Attacks and complete/take the Attack Action.

If a Monk 5 is doing the above but without misty step, then the attack action is over and thus taken after the second attack. While in the middle of the attack action you have
1) Used movement- which is not an action and specifically can be done in the middle of actions on your turn.

So order of events is...
1) Declare Attack Action
2) Use 1 of 2 Attacks granted by the Attack Action and Extra Attack
3) Move
4) Use 2 of 2 Attacks and complete/take the Attack Action

At this point you can
5) Trigger Flurry of Blows.

What you can't do is...
1) Declare Attack Action
2) Use 1 of 2 Attacks granted by the Attack Action and Extra Attack
3) Move
4) Flurry of Blows
5) Use 2 of 2 Attacks and complete/take the Attack Action.

Why? Because you have not taken the Attack Action as it is still in process.

Any Attacks you get via Extra Attack occur in the Attack Action. This means that you cannot take the Bonus Action as the trigger is immediately done after taking the Attack Action, which isn't done if you have not used your Extra Attack, unless you forego the Extra Attack on purpose.

[LordofGoats]

Yes, it is probably the only save-or-die abilities left in D&D.

Omae wa mou shindeiru.

Hehe, I made a character that was basically a half-orc version of Raoh from FOTNS. Good times.

[Coffee_Dragon]

At what point in a sequence of attack, move 30ft, attack again, cast misty step, and attack a final time has an EK11 "taken" the attack action?

Just to note that the question of whether it's legal to take one action inside another (such as cast Misty Step inside the attack action) is a separate issue from whether "taking an action" should be taken to mean "declaring an action" or "executing an action".

[Mikal]

Just to note that the question of whether it's legal to take one action inside another (such as cast Misty Step inside the attack action) is a separate issue from whether "taking an action" should be taken to mean "declaring an action" or "executing an action".

True. I obviously fall on the "executing" side...

[Tanarii]

Just to note that the question of whether it's legal to take one action inside another (such as cast Misty Step inside the attack action) is a separate issue from whether "taking an action" should be taken to mean "declaring an action" or "executing an action".
Is there anything that prevents taking a bonus actions I thoug specified timing inside another action?

But yes, that's the crux of it. The various SA answers on bonus action timing go back and forth. For example:
- Sheild Master can happen at any time, before or after the attack action is resolved.
- an EKs War Magic attack happens after the cantrip cast that spawns it. (This is new clarification at some point, because it always used to be assumed the Shield Master ruling applied)


But here's the thing: the Sheild master ruling was a tweet. The EK ruling that the 'when' matters based on resolution (actually casting the cantrip) is in official SA compendium. IMO that carries more weight, putting the 2015 Sheild Master ruling back into question, as well as impacting how to interpret both the Martial Arts bonus action attack and the Flurry of Blows bonus action attack.

[Mikal]

Is there anything that prevents taking a bonus actions I thoug specified timing inside another action?

If the Bonus Action has specific timing, yes. Ex. Flurry of Blows.

[Cybren]

Just to note that the question of whether it's legal to take one action inside another (such as cast Misty Step inside the attack action) is a separate issue from whether "taking an action" should be taken to mean "declaring an action" or "executing an action".

My contention is there is no such thing as "inside another action". The actions are broad descriptors of what you're using your effort for on the turn, and they needn't be singular contiguous events.

[Mikal]

My contention is there is no such thing as "inside another action". The actions are broad descriptors of what you're using your effort for on the turn, and they needn't be singular contiguous events.

Your contention is incorrect. See previous posts from me, and if you can refute it, feel free to back it up with evidence.

[Tanarii]

If the Bonus Action has specific timing, yes. Ex. Flurry of Blows.
I meant as a general rule. As far as I know, old concepts like 'declaring' and 'resolving', which arose as far back as oD&D but also were critical to understanding how 3e combat worked, aren't really a think any more. As with indivisible actions. Or at least, they tried really hard to make that not a thing.

My wargamer side weeps, but my DM side just wants the game to flow quickly and smoothly, and my player side just wants to feel like I'm a person in a fantasy world as much as possible. So I'm mostly in favor of that, conceptually.

Edit:

My contention is there is no such thing as "inside another action". The actions are broad descriptors of what you're using your effort for on the turn, and they needn't be singular contiguous events.
It does seem like that's what they were going for overall. But bonus actions very specifically talk about 'timing'. So clearly there is some link between the action and specific point of time within a round.

[Mikal]

I meant as a general rule. As far as I know, old concepts like 'declaring' and 'resolving', which arose as far back as oD&D but also were critical to understanding how 3e combat worked, aren't really a think any more. As with indivisible actions. Or at least, they tried really hard to make that not a thing.

My wargamer side weeps, but my DM side just wants the game to flow quickly and smoothly, and my player side just wants to feel like I'm a person in a fantasy world as much as possible. So I'm mostly in favor of that, conceptually.

The general rule notes a Bonus Action occurs whenever during your turn, unless the BA notes otherwise. Rule itself states it plainly.

So you can Misty Step whenever, but Flurry of Blows requires the Attack Action, and only immediately after.

[Cybren]

Your contention is incorrect. See previous posts from me, and if you can refute it, feel free to back it up with evidence.

Your post isn't a proof of anything. It's a bunch of bullet points arguing your reading of the rules and not itself factually relevant. In fact, arguing you haven't "taken" the attack action until completing all the attacks in it is obviously wrong, and you obviously think it is wrong, because you wouldn't allow a fighter to take two thirds of their attacks and then use their action for something else.

[Mikal]

Your post isn't a proof of anything. It's a bunch of bullet points arguing your reading of the rules and not itself factually relevant.

Good thing I said posts as in plural. Since before that one post I noted the specific wording on the Attack Action and Bonus Actions. You know, one of the posts which was a reply to you.

The post you're talking about is a reply to a hypothetical situation, with examples based on the rules as shown in the books, following the specific wording on the Attack Action and Bonus Actions.

I'm sorry that I'm repeating that I posted about the specific wording on the Attack Action and Bonus Actions, but since you focused on one post when I originally said posts as in multiple, I figured this would help you to understand that adding an 's' to post means more than 1 post should be looked at.

[Cybren]

Good thing I said posts as in plural. Since before that one post I noted the specific wording on the Attack Action and Bonus Actions. You know, one of the posts which was a reply to you.

The post you're talking about is a reply to a hypothetical situation, with examples based on the rules as shown in the books, following the specific wording on the Attack Action and Bonus Actions.

I'm sorry that I'm repeating that I posted about the specific wording on the Attack Action and Bonus Actions, but since you focused on one post when I originally said posts as in multiple, I figured this would help you to understand that adding an 's' to post means more than 1 post should be looked at.

Would you prefer that i said all your posts were wrong instead of one specific post?

[Mikal]

Would you prefer that i said all your posts were wrong instead of one specific post?

As long as you provide evidence to as why they're wrong yes, just like I provided evidence as to why I was right.
And your opinion is not evidence, if you were thinking of using that, just like my opinion isn't.

[Cybren]

As long as you provide evidence to as why they're wrong yes, just like I provided evidence as to why I was right.
And your opinion is not evidence, if you were thinking of using that.

I mean, I've made my case. There's nothing more to add- I think if you're arguing for an overly mechanistic reading of the rules you're missing the forest for the trees in 5E. Never, at any particular point, have you given a compelling argument as to why "taking" an action requires you to finish executing it, when the presentation of the rules explicitly allows actions to be sequences of events broken up over the course of your turn.

[Mikal]

I mean, I've made my case. There's nothing more to add

You made your cause with faulty evidence which has been refuted, and you haven't refuted the evidence I presented.



I think if you're arguing for an overly mechanistic reading of the rules you're missing the forest for the trees in 5E. Never, at any particular point, have you given a compelling argument as to why "taking" an action requires you to finish executing it, when the presentation of the rules explicitly allows actions to be sequences of events broken up over the course of your turn.

So in other words, you have no actual evidence to back this up, just what you "think". I'll accept that as a concession since you've stated pretty plainly you're just posting your opinion. Which, in your game, feel free to use. Just don't claim it as the correct interpretation of RAW please.

[Cybren]

You made your cause with faulty evidence which has been refuted, and you haven't refuted the evidence I presented.




So in other words, you have no actual evidence to back this up, just what you "think". I'll accept that as a concession since you've stated pretty plainly you're just posting your opinion. Which, in your game, feel free to use. Just don't claim it as the correct interpretation of RAW please.
I'm not entirely sure if this post isn't intentional self-parody. Like, you do realize your entire argument hinges on a very specific reading of what "taking an action" means that isn't itself ever directly stated in the rules, right? That your posts are no less predicated on your opinion than mine are?

[Mikal]

I'm not entirely sure if this post isn't intentional self-parody. Like, you do realize your entire argument hinges on a very specific reading of what "taking an action" means that isn't itself ever directly stated in the rules, right? That your posts are no less predicated on your opinion than mine are?

A reading backed up by the reading of all the rules, and not just my opinion yes. It's called making a claim, and backing it up with evidence, which I have done.
Feel free to show me where it's a wrong interpretation and we can debate it. Which means providing evidence refuting my claim and not just what you think.

[Cybren]

A reading backed up by the reading of all the rules, and not just my opinion yes. It's called making a claim, and backing it up with evidence, which I have done.
Feel free to show me where it's a wrong interpretation and we can debate it. Which means providing evidence refuting my claim and not just what you think.

I don't know that i have to show where you're wrong if you've never actually demonstrated where in the rules it says "taking" an action requires executing every part of it.

[EvilAnagram]

A reading backed up by the reading of all the rules, and not just my opinion yes. It's called making a claim, and backing it up with evidence, which I have done.
Feel free to show me where it's a wrong interpretation and we can debate it. Which means providing evidence refuting my claim and not just what you think.

You can explicitly break up an attack action's attacks after you take the attack action. Provide RAW showing that this is not the case for FoB.

[Mikal]

I don't know that i have to show where you're wrong if you've never actually demonstrated where in the rules it says "taking" an action requires executing every part of it.

I've shown what the attack action entails. It's making an attack roll or rolls with a weapon or spell attack. If you have the Extra Attack ability, then your Attack action is making all weapon attacks for which you are entailed to within that action. To make those attacks you need to
a) Choose your target
b) Determine modifiers
c) Resolve the attack

If you still have extra attacks from the attack action, and have not chosen to forego them, the Attack Action is still ongoing. As the Action is ongoing, then you cannot take a bonus action that must be done immediately after taking the Attack Action, as the Attack Action itself is not fully taken yet.


You can explicitly break up an attack action's attacks after you take the attack action. Provide RAW showing that this is not the case for FoB.

Yes, you can break it up with
a) movement (which is not an action in and of itself, and is a quality of movement, not the Attack Action)
b) a Bonus Action not requiring specific timing.
c) 'free'/misc. actions such as item interaction, speaking, etc.

As Flurry of Blows is neither A nor B nor C, it doesn't qualify.
As I already stated, if you'd bothered to read my previous posts.
And technically, you are breaking up an attack action's attacks while taking the action. The action isn't completed until all attacks are taken.

[Dalebert]

There have been plenty of arguments already. But let's try it again.

Yes and I have been responding to them throughout the thread. Still thank you for expounding but we're just repeating. I've conceded that those features you expounded on are good things but my point remains that they're substantially mitigated by forcing the effects to happen after his two primary attacks. For instance, taking reactions away is great, but substantially mitigated by the fact he has at most one attack left to then use on another creature if he uses that to disengage for free to attack another creature.

We're really deep into subjectivity here as to how good the 3rd level feature is and how bad the 6th and 10th level features are, but my point remains that 6 and 10 are horrible. 3 is not nearly as good as it ought to be considering that (IMHO), and 17 is very decent but most characters will never get there so it hardly makes up for all of that.

[Cybren]

I've shown what the attack action entails. It's making an attack roll or rolls with a weapon or spell attack. If you have the Extra Attack ability, then your Attack action is making all weapon attacks for which you are entailed to within that action. To make those attacks you need to
a) Choose your target
b) Determine modifiers
c) Resolve the attack

If you still have extra attacks from the attack action, and have not chosen to forego them, the Attack Action is still ongoing. As the Action is ongoing, then you cannot take a bonus action that must be done immediately after taking the Attack Action, as the Attack Action itself is not fully taken yet.



Yes, you can break it up with
a) movement (which is not an action in and of itself, and is a quality of movement, not the Attack Action)
b) a Bonus Action not requiring specific timing.
c) 'free'/misc. actions such as item interaction, speaking, etc.

As Flurry of Blows is neither A nor B nor C, it doesn't qualify.
As I already stated, if you'd bothered to read my previous posts.
And technically, you are breaking up an attack action's attacks while taking the action. The action isn't completed until all attacks are taken.
Whether or not the action is completed is not relevant to the question of if the action has been taken

[Mikal]

Whether or not the action is completed is not relevant to the question of if the action has been taken

Great. Where's your evidence?

[Cybren]

Great. Where's your evidence?

Words and what they mean

[Mikal]

Words and what they mean

So in other words... you got nothing. Thanks. I'll be ignoring you until you have something substantive to add regarding this.

[Cybren]

So in other words... you got nothing. Thanks. I'll be ignoring you until you have something substantive to add regarding this.

You've never actually shown why taking means completing, and it was pointed out to you you haven't shown taking to mean completing, your response is to say that I haven't proven that taken doesn't mean completing. I'm not sure why you say I'm the one who has nothing

[Tanarii]

Words and what they mean
Indeed. For those who want to divide actions into two steps, declaring & resolving, per older editions, the question becomes:
- does taking mean the player declaring use of a meta-object, enabling the resolution in game to proceed?
- does taking mean the PC resolving the action in-game?

Personally I don't think it's intended to divide it up, that taking an action is the entire act of the player declaring and then proceeding to resolve across their turn. So you cannot place any timing value on it as a general rule.

Of course, the specific rule in question says 'immediately after'. If taking an action is not divisible into declaring/resolving, that defaults to after resolving.

[Cybren]

Indeed. For those who want to divide actions into two steps, declaring & resolving, per older editions, the question becomes:
- does taking mean the player declaring use of a meta-object, enabling the resolution in game to proceed?
- does taking mean the PC resolving the action in-game?

Personally I don't think it's intended to divide it up, that taking an action is the entire act of the player declaring and then proceeding to resolve across their turn. So you cannot place any timing value on it as a general rule.

Of course, the specific rule in question says 'immediately after'. If taking an action is not divisible into declaring/resolving, that defaults to after resolving.

Yeah and someone on twitter showed me this crawford tweet, which backs up it having to be done after all the attacks: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/910576067999522816

I still, however, find it farcical that mikal was arguing he was using PROOF and everyone else only had OPINIONS in his reading of the rules.

[Coffee_Dragon]

My contention is there is no such thing as "inside another action". The actions are broad descriptors of what you're using your effort for on the turn, and they needn't be singular contiguous events.

I don't reckon this is a rare contention, and I can't recall that the PHB actually offers clarity on the atomicity of actions - it doesn't seem to be the 5E way. It's more of a "the exception demonstrates the rule" deal, e.g. we are specifically told movement can split up the attack action, so it could be inferred that a) things other than movement cannot split up actions, and/or b) movement cannot split up actions other than attacking.

More on topic, I'm getting the impression that on an abstractified 3-character party scale of glass cannon - skill/support - tank, monks occupy kind of an awkward middle ground: not a skill monkey, not a face, not a tank, but combat support requiring another dedicated combat role. It seems the wizard and rogue will be unimpressed if the monk swats the ogre then runs away 35 feet to the northwest. But it could fit into something like a rogue/AT/bard-monk-cleric/paladin/fighter team?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Yeah and someone on twitter showed me this crawford tweet, which backs up it having to be done after all the attacks: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/910576067999522816

Also holy heck just look at JC taking a huge crap all over the permission slip model.

[ProsecutorGodot]

pg 192-193 phb
"With this action you make one melee or ranged attack. See making an attack section for rules that govern attacks. Certain features such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action"

This states that all attacks made are part of the same action. The making an attack section states the following:

"Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target
2. Determine modifiers
3. resolve the attack

Also related is that Extra Attack states that "whenever" you take the attack action you can take a second (third or fourth in the fighter's case). We know that the wording on FoB states that it happens "immediately after" the attack action.

I personally would read "whenever" and "immediately after" to have different intentions and say that FoB can only happen after you've resolved all of the attack in your attack action, but I can understand why the point is so contentious. Even with the information that an attack must be resolved for the action to be completed, it never states how many attacks need to be resolved before you've taken the action, only how many it takes to complete the action.

In the end, we end up right back at the first page of the thread.


Some people consider "after the attack action" to not be equal to "after executing the attacks granted by the attack action". Your roommate could talk to his DM.

Unless someone can find a direct and completely unambiguous clarification of the ruling* I see no reason for it not to be a DM's discretion sort of thing. Even though I believe that FoB should happen after, I'd probably let it slide at the table because I don't see anything wrong with letting them do it in either order.

*looks like it was confirmed by JC and I feel like I've wasted time doing all this research

[Coffee_Dragon]

looks like it was confirmed by JC

Well, "confirmed" is probably overstating it - there's still the matter of all the tweets on things like Shield Expert that gave credence to the permission slip model and are contradicted by this one.

[Tanarii]

Well, "confirmed" is probably overstating it - there's still the matter of all the tweets on things like Shield Expert that gave credence to the permission slip model and are contradicted by this one.which are potentially contradicted by the SA document saying that War Magic requires the cantrip to come first. I say potentially, because using a cantrip requires actually casting the cantrip, so to do something 'when' you do it requires it to be resolved after the cantrip is resolved. IMO.

Which sucks because based on the Sheild Master tweets, I'd been allowing my EK players to rotate it as Attack-Cantrip. That'd allow them to immediately trigger Edlritch Strike on the same turn once they hit level 10. I wasn't aware of the SA document ruling.

[Specter]

Yes and I have been responding to them throughout the thread. Still thank you for expounding but we're just repeating. I've conceded that those features you expounded on are good things but my point remains that they're substantially mitigated by forcing the effects to happen after his two primary attacks. For instance, taking reactions away is great, but substantially mitigated by the fact he has at most one attack left to then use on another creature if he uses that to disengage for free to attack another creature.

We're really deep into subjectivity here as to how good the 3rd level feature is and how bad the 6th and 10th level features are, but my point remains that 6 and 10 are horrible. 3 is not nearly as good as it ought to be considering that (IMHO), and 17 is very decent but most characters will never get there so it hardly makes up for all of that.

Agreed on level 10, but I'm quite fond of Wholeness of Body. Levelx3/day is exactly what a d8 class wants. The sad part is that multiclassing kills it.

[Arial Black]

Also holy heck just look at JC taking a huge crap all over the permission slip model.

If he always thought of the game working that way, how did he ever think that Shield Master could be done either way round?

The Permission Slip model evolved after observing how JC said things work; things like Shield Master.

Even if 'taking an action' and 'declaring your action' are one and the same, this doesn't tell us the precise timing of exactly when the Attack action has been 'taken'.

Let's say you are a 20th level fighter with Extra Attack, so your Attack action gets you 4 attacks. So, on your turn you say that you 'take the Attack action' and then resolve your 1st attack. Surprise, the baddy you thought would take you all day to kill died after the first blow. There are no other enemies, so your other three attacks have no target.

So, have you 'taken the Attack action' at that point? If 'taking the action' requires you to take ALL of those four attacks, then no you haven't. I'm not doing anything else; who's turn is it now? Oh, it's still my turn, because my action hasn't finished yet. So the campaign is forever frozen in time until I attack, what, the corpse three more times? I refuse to desecrate a corpse. So my turn never ends.

Or how about this: after the first attack, have I 'taken the Attack action' yet? If not, then I'll use my action to cast fireball. What do you mean I don't get two actions? You just told me that I did not take the Attack action! So I'll take the Cast A Spell action instead, thank you very much!

After the first attack, I either have or have not 'taken the Attack action'? Which is it?

[Tanarii]

So, have you 'taken the Attack action' at that point? If 'taking the action' requires you to take ALL of those four attacks, then no you haven't. I'm not doing anything else; who's turn is it now? Oh, it's still my turn, because my action hasn't finished yet. So the campaign is forever frozen in time until I attack, what, the corpse three more times? I refuse to desecrate a corpse. So my turn never ends.That seems like some seriously twisted logic. If a player chooses to intentionally discard the rest of their action, they've finished taking the action.

Apprently, it's not rocket of science here. Or any other kind of science. Or math. As much as I naturally look at things like 'rules' as if they were, clearly JC doesn't think we're supposed to in this case.

So for Flurry of Blows:
You take the action, which includes resolving it completely, using anything up to what the action allows. Then immediately after that, you take the bonus action to Flurry of Blows. And per the specific rule for movement, you can move in between any and all of the attacks involved.

That doesn't even necessarily contradict his Shield Master tweets so long as we note that Shield Master feat doesn't say "after you take the Attack Action" but rather "when you take the Attack action". When can mean "as" not necessarily "after". In which case you resolve both in any order you like.

[mgshamster]

I wonder if JC has a master plan of giving contradictory advice, just to force people to think for themselves and decide for themselves, rather than relying on what the rules say.

Remember the over-arching philosophy of the edition: Rules over Rules.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Remember the over-arching philosophy of the edition: Rules over Rules.

Almost complete RPG system in 3+ books. Some patching and rigging required.

[Cybren]

That seems like some seriously twisted logic. If a player chooses to intentionally discard the rest of their action, they've finished taking the action.

Apprently, it's not rocket of science here. Or any other kind of science. Or math. As much as I naturally look at things like 'rules' as if they were, clearly JC doesn't think we're supposed to in this case.

So for Flurry of Blows:
You take the action, which includes resolving it completely, using anything up to what the action allows. Then immediately after that, you take the bonus action to Flurry of Blows. And per the specific rule for movement, you can move in between any and all of the attacks involved.

That doesn't even necessarily contradict his Shield Master tweets so long as we note that Shield Master feat doesn't say "after you take the Attack Action" but rather "when you take the Attack action". When can mean "as" not necessarily "after". In which case you resolve both in any order you like.

Iunno i still think "taking" the action has only occurring after all of the action has been executed reads rather counter-intuitively. I'll accept that that's what they intended, though.

[mgshamster]

Almost complete RPG system in 3+ books. Some patching and rigging required.

Lol. Damn typos. "Rulings over Rules."

But yeah rigging and patching were most definitely required in the early editions. And this edition it trying to emulate the old school feel.

D&D is all about using your imagination and creativity. It's not about following every last little rule in the game to ensure it's "properly" played. Use your brain, use your imagination, use your creativity. Come up with cool things.

This isn't chess. This isn't a war game.

It's a game of imagination. The rules can help facilitate it, but they shouldn't hinder it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Let's say you are a 20th level fighter with Extra Attack, so your Attack action gets you 4 attacks. So, on your turn you say that you 'take the Attack action' and then resolve your 1st attack. Surprise, the baddy you thought would take you all day to kill died after the first blow. There are no other enemies, so your other three attacks have no target.

So, have you 'taken the Attack action' at that point?

Yes, because as I said before the order of making each individual attack in your action is to (a)select a target (b)determine modifiers and (c)resolve the attack. If you've resolved an attack and there are no longer any valid targets then the action would be considered taken and done with.

Interesting thing to note about the wording in Shield Master, Extra Attack and FoB is that they all have a single word difference that I think sets a perfect time frame of when you're allowed to take the bonus actions associated with Shield Master and FoB.

Shield Master states "if" which would mean that you can state your intention to attack a target and use the bonus action prior to resolving the attack, or even after since the only prerequisite is that you are taking the attack action on your turn rather than any other full action.

Extra Attack states "whenever" which would mean that until the attack action has been entirely resolved you hold the opportunity to attack between 2 and 4 times using this feature. Also note that you do not have to use all of your extra attack but choosing not to or being unable to will end your attack action.

Flurry of Blows states "immediately after" which indicates that the attack action has to be taken completely prior to using this bonus action, and referring to the rules of both extra attack and making an attack we know that all attacks involved in your attack action must be resolved in order for the attack action to be considered taken.

I believe that even single word differences like this are completely intentional to convey that the prerequisites are different even if they are incredibly similar. I also believe that having rather concrete rulings on each of these is a solid support on why each ruling makes sense. They don't contradict each other, they set up a proper explanation for the order of events.

All that said, I feel the need again to say that even though using FoB after your full attack action seems to be the proper intended way to do it, the rules are always up to the DM's discretion and I would personally allow it regardless.

[Tanarii]

Iunno i still think "taking" the action has only occurring after all of the action has been executed reads rather counter-intuitively. I'll accept that that's what they intended, though.
I have to fight my wargamer side to look at it that way myself. I mean, declaring vs resolving being separate steps is something that was explicitly part of the D&D rules for a long time.


But yeah rigging and patching were most definitely required in the early editions. And this edition it trying to emulate the old school feel.

D&D is all about using your imagination and creativity. It's not about following every last little rule in the game to ensure it's "properly" played. Use your brain, use your imagination, use your creativity. Come up with cool things.

This isn't chess. This isn't a war game.

It's a game of imagination. The rules can help facilitate it, but they shouldn't hinder it.
If it really was trying to emulate the old-school feel, it'd be a war game combat system that was a tangle mess of rules, with the idea that you're supposed to use your imagination and creativity and rigging and patching layered on top of that. :smallamused:

As much as I liked 2e, I never did like that it instilled in so many people a kind of "it's a roleplaying game, it's not supposed to be a war game" mentality that is now looked back on as "old-school". Old-school = war game converted into playing with one character then running them through random dungeons and published modules, with theoretical freedom to do whatever you want in a home campaign including something something story layered on top

[Coffee_Dragon]

Shield Master states "if" which would mean that you can state your intention to attack a target and use the bonus action prior to resolving the attack, or even after since the only prerequisite is that you are taking the attack action on your turn rather than any other full action.

I don't see how that follows if we take the latest tweet as a given. When you state your intention to take the attack action is when you resolve the attack action, because they are the same thing. If you are free to do anything else, such as take a bonus action, that means you are not taking the attack action. Either it already happened or it didn't yet happen, there is no third state.

[mgshamster]

I have to fight my wargamer side to look at it that way myself. I mean, declaring vs resolving being separate steps is something that was explicitly part of the D&D rules for a long time.


If it really was trying to emulate the old-school feel, it'd be a war game combat system that was a tangle mess of rules, with the idea that you're supposed to use your imagination and creativity and rigging and patching layered on top of that. :smallamused:

As much as I liked 2e, I never did like that it instilled in so many people a kind of "it's a roleplaying game, it's not supposed to be a war game" mentality that is now looked back on as "old-school". Old-school = war game converted into playing with one character then running them through random dungeons and published modules, with theoretical freedom to do whatever you want in a home campaign including something something story layered on top

Ha! Spot on, brother!

Of course, there's so many older editions now that "old school" can have a spectrum of meanings. :)

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't see how that follows if we take the latest tweet as a given. When you state your intention to take the attack action is when you resolve the attack action, because they are the same thing. If you are free to do anything else, such as take a bonus action, that means you are not taking the attack action. Either it already happened or it didn't yet happen, there is no third state.
If you use the bonus action from Shield Master first thing on the turn and use your full action to attack afterwards you're well within the terms as read and intended. You can use the bonus action from Shield Master at any time in your turn as long as your full action is your attack action. What I stated was simply an example of how Shield Master's bonus action can happen at any time on the turn so long as you take the attack action rather than any other action on your turn. Saying that you will "take" the attack action on your turn doesn't mean that you have "taken" the attack action on your turn but it does fill the prerequisite for Shield Master. This also means that you can't use the bonus action for Shield Master if doing so would prevent you from taking the attack action. The only reason you even stated your intent to attack in this instance is so the DM knows you aren't going against what is intended.

Both FoB and Shield Master require you to "take" and resolve an attack action on your turn but only FoB specifies that it must be immediately after the attack action is "taken", this is why Shield Master can happen at any time and FoB can not.

The tweet in question doesn't do anything about the "permission slip" model associated with Shield Master because the conditions for using FoB are different.

This is the same principle as War Magic allowing the bonus action strike before because the only valid turn option afterwards is to use your full action to cast a cantrip and if you're choosing to use the strike afterwards, well it doesn't even need an explanation.

Just to clarify, Shield Master's bonus action can be used at any time as long as by the end of your turn an attack action has been resolved. Flurry of Blows gives a specific timing of immediately after the attack action has been resolved, which we know entails all uses of the extra attack feature as well. The conditions are different.

I'm sorry if this seems repetitive or rambly but I'm struggling to find any way to make my point more clear.

[Tanarii]

Saying that you will "take" the attack action on your turn doesn't mean that you have "taken" the attack action on your turn but it does fill the prerequisite for Shield Master.According to JC that's exactly what when you take an action, that's exactly what it means.

Edit: That doesn't mean that "when you take the Attack action on your turn" precludes the taking of the Shield Master bonus action from being taken simultaneously though. Per my post above. It just means there's not separation between "will take" (declaring action) and "have taken" (resolution). There is only "take".

[Coffee_Dragon]

Saying that you will "take" the attack action on your turn doesn't mean that you have "taken" the attack action on your turn but it does fill the prerequisite for Shield Master. This also means that you can't use the bonus action for Shield Master if doing so would prevent you from taking the attack action. The only reason you even stated your intent to attack in this instance is so the DM knows you aren't going against what is intended.

So if I understand you correctly, the proposed way to salvage Old Permission Slip (OPS) as New Permission Slip (NPS) is:

1) The formal "take/declare an action" step conceptualized in the OPS framework, now discredited, is exchanged for an in-formal declaration - a nod between player and DM that is basically none of the rules' business - which does enable contingent abilities. The action framework kinda spaces out for a bit and then checks back for overall validity at the end of the turn.

The main mechanical difference being that:

2) It is not allowed in NPS not to take the informally declared action while you can still do so, or to intentionally land yourself in a position where the action cannot be taken - not in adherence to the rules, but honouring your nod to the DM. (Presumably it is still possible to wind up incapable of taking the declared action through events beyond your control.) In OPS this was not strictly necessary because you had already gained your contingent abilities in a formal transaction, so you were perfectly within your right to toss away the permission slip.

I grant you there is a logic to this, but one that's drifting further and further away from how game rules should be written and interpreted. A major weakness of OPS was that you couldn't really derive it from a natural reading of the rulebook, but at least it didn't rely on retroactive justification. After JC's "taking an action is taking an action, dammit" declaration, which is perfectly consistent with such a natural reading, it seems to me that attempts to shift the whole taking an action thing up one level of abstraction have no good claim on intent (unless it is one assumed to be inconsistent). Basically the logic is, "JC said there's no prelude to taking an action, but what if we have one anyway and call it something else and don't tell anyone." It is suspect.