Unarmed Strike as a Weapon implication

[Capellanus]

Since unarmed strike appears as a simple weapon, does this mean that all rules regarding weapon attacks (the Frostbite cantrip is a good example) apply to unarmed strike?

Situation:
PC is hit by Frostbite, on next round they do a Bonus Action unarmed strike to 'eat' the penalty, then a normal attack action without penalty. Thank you for your time!

Be well, friends!

[Coffee_Dragon]

You need to take the Attack action to get the bonus attack, and if you lead with the unarmed attack you don't qualify for TWF. So this doesn't gain you anything.

[JackPhoenix]

Unarmed strike isn't a weapon. It's a mistake in first printing of PHB. Check errata: (https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/PH-Errata.pdf)


Weapons (p. 149). Unarmed strike doesn’t belong on the Weapons table.

[Greywander]

I believe anything that requires an attack roll is either a weapon attack or a spell attack, and an unarmed strike clearly isn't a spell attack. Wording can get a bit fiddly, of course, as some places say something like, "make a melee weapon attack," while others say, "attack with a melee weapon". See, for example, Divine Smite vs. Improved Divine Smite. The former refers only to a "melee weapon attack" while the latter mentions both "melee weapon strikes" and "hit a creature with a melee weapon".

Unarmed strikes aren't listed as light weapons, so you'd need the Dual Wielder feat to use two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes. And that's if your DM allows even that, as Dual Wielder technically only allows you to dual wield weapons that don't have the light property. For example, I would definitely require two actual weapons to get the +1 AC benefit, a fist wouldn't count.

Furthermore, the way Two-Weapon Fighting is worded, it sounds like you have to make an Attack action before you can make a bonus action attack with your off hand. That said, your "off hand" is just the hand you didn't make the Attack action with, so you could use your fist for the main attack and the weapon as your "off hand". ("Off hand" doesn't actually exist in 5e, the rules only state that the bonus action attack has to use a different weapon from the Attack action. If you're dual wielding you can choose either weapon for your Attack action.)

To answer the OP's question, you would of course have to consult your DM, but I would say that an unarmed strike does count as a melee weapon attack. However, it does not count as wielding a weapon, and as such wouldn't received any Fighting Style benefits or the +1 AC from the Dual Wielder feat.

[Afrodactyl]

Yeah, an unarmed strike is a "melee weapon attack" but it isn't an "attack with a melee weapon".

So it qualifies for everything that just needs a melee attack roll to activate, but does not qualify for anything that specifies that you need to actually use a weapon for.

[Coffee_Dragon]

That said, your "off hand" is just the hand you didn't make the Attack action with, so you could use your fist for the main attack and the weapon as your "off hand".

TWF is one of the things that require an actual weapon.

[sophontteks]

You declare that you are taking the attack action, but you can choose the order of attacks. The bonus attack does not need to come after the main attack. See this thread on using the the shield master push as a bonus action before using your main attack:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/51525/shield-master-can-the-shield-push-be-taken-before-an-attack

Reading frostbite. It says weapon attack. It means a non-magical attack that is either ranged or melee. Unarmed is not a weapon, but it is considered a weapon attack, specifically a melee weapon attack.

So, yes you can eat the penalty with your weaker unarmed strike and then hit with your main weapon without penalty.

EDIT: I was assuming you are a monk. If you are not a monk then you can not as you would need a second weapon and unarmed is not a weapon. Just grab a dagger as part of the attack.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You declare that you are taking the attack action, but you can choose the order of attacks. The bonus attack does not need to come after the main attack.

You can choose the order of attacks in an action, but you can't choose the order of conditional actions. To begin with you have no bonus action, so you take the Attack action, carrying out however many attacks it gives. When that is done, you can take another action, such as the bonus action off-hand attack now available (ETA: or Flurry of Blows if you're a monk).

The Shield Master ruling is an older one that contradicts the newer ruling. You can choose which one to use.

[bid]

TWF is one of the things that require an actual weapon.
Even then. Unarmed strike does not have the light property.

[sophontteks]

You can choose the order of attacks in an action, but you can't choose the order of conditional actions. To begin with you have no bonus action, so you take the Attack action, carrying out however many attacks it gives. When that is done, you can take another action, such as the bonus action off-hand attack now available (ETA: or Flurry of Blows if you're a monk).

The Shield Master ruling is an older one that contradicts the newer ruling. You can choose which one to use.
Where is the newer ruling?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Where is the newer ruling?

I don't have a link or an easy way to search for it, but it was a JC follow-up tweet from I think early January. The relevant statement was that there's no formal distinction between taking an action and executing it. This scuttles, to my sense of logic, the idea that you can abstractly "take" an action and selectively invoke parts of resolution but float others until later.

The Shield Master ruling was/is the strongest/just about the only thing in support of that interpretation, but it could be noted that there were contradictions even at that time: I'm pretty sure there was a ruling that the execution of Flurry of Blows can't precede execution of the attack action that grants it (which would be highly beneficial to an Open Hand monk).

I'll try to dig up the tweet later; it seems to me that it got less attention than it deserves among us people who feel inordinately strongly about RPG action frameworks.

Edit: Found it quicker than I expected. It's from September 2017. Here's the relevant exchange:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/910576067999522816

Q: How does Extra Attack factor in? Can you Flurry of Blows after either attack?

JC: Flurry of Blows happens after the Attack action, not after attacks within that action.

Q: Doesn't that force you to do it after the first attack then?

JC: That forces you to do it after all the attacks in the Attack action. Flurry of Blows is after the whole action.

Q: Isn't it after you "take" the attack action? I'm clarifying because this brings into question when exactly you "take" an action, which potentially impacts many rules. Like TWF.

JC: When you take an action, the action happens. There is no abstract "take an action" step that takes place before the action itself.

[sophontteks]

Wow, how strange for them to go against their own ruling so directly. Jeremy didn't need to make any additional rulings since shield bash states "If you take the attack action" as a requirement to the shove. It really didn't leave a lot of guesswork regarding how taking an attack action worked.

Yeah, it does have pretty serious implications for open hand monks and shield masters. Thanks for looking it up.

[JackPhoenix]

Wow, how strange for them to go against their own ruling so directly. Jeremy didn't need to make any additional rulings since shield bash states "If you take the attack action" as a requirement to the shove. It really didn't leave a lot of guesswork regarding how taking an attack action worked.

Yeah, it does have pretty serious implications for open hand monks and shield masters. Thanks for looking it up.

There's a difference in wording between Flurry of Blows and Shield Master:

"Immediately after you take an Attack action" and "If you take an Attack action on your turn". The later doesn't care when you take the action relative to the BA shove, while the former specifies the action must come before FoB.

[sophontteks]

There's a difference in wording between Flurry of Blows and Shield Master:

"Immediately after you take an Attack action" and "If you take an Attack action on your turn". The later doesn't care when you take the action relative to the BA shove, while the former specifies the action must come before FoB.
Ah, interesting, thanks for the clarification.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The difference in wording is irrelevant for this purpose. There is no abstract lookahead, no point in your turn when you "take the Attack action on your turn" but have not actually done it in which to insert the bonus action. If there is, then the same is true for Flurry of Blows - you "take the Attack action on your turn" then trigger and execute FoB - but JC has told us it is not.

[Asmotherion]

Usually, unless you're a Monk, have the Tavern Brawler Feat (or something similar, affecting your Unnarmed Strikes, and giving you proficiency with them) or have some kind of Natural Weapon, I'd give it a no-go.

The reason is, exactly to make the ones who have invested in those abilities feel their worth. For example, a Monk with Magic Initiate I knew specialised in Booming Fists, and it was awesome.

[Unoriginal]

Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.

[bid]

Usually, unless you're a Monk, have the Tavern Brawler Feat (or something similar, affecting your Unnarmed Strikes, and giving you proficiency with them) or have some kind of Natural Weapon, I'd give it a no-go.
1- You're always proficient in unarmed strike.
2- Tavern brawler affects damage and allows a BA-grapple, not a BA-attack.
3- Only TWF (other than monk) allows you to BA-attack,
3a- unarmed strike isn't light,
3b- unarmed strike isn't a weapon.

So, RAW would give it a no-go unless you have a natural weapon that is light. Of which I haven't seen any.

[sophontteks]

what are the odds you think that Jeremy even realizes the contradictory rulings?

[Unoriginal]

what are the odds you think that Jeremy even realizes the contradictory rulings?

There is no contradictory rulings on this subject that I know of. What are you refering to?

[sophontteks]

There is no contradictory rulings on this subject that I know of. What are you refering to?
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...fore-an-attack
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...76067999522816

[Unoriginal]

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...fore-an-attack
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...76067999522816

Those are not contradictory.

The Shield one say that if you take the Attack action during you turn, you can also do the shield bash as a bonus action. It doesn't say you have to do the Attack action first, only during your turn. So you could Attack action, then move, then do the shield bash. Or shield bash, then move, then do the Attack action. You couldn't do the shield bash then Dash or Dodge, for example.

Meanwhile, the Flury one is very clear that you must do the Attack action first, and that the bonus action for Flury must come immediatly after. You could do a grapple, then the Flury, since Grapple takes an Attack action. But you couldn't do the Attack action, then move, then Flury, nor start with the Flury, because the specific rules forbid doing it until the Attack action is done and resolved.

To put that in perspective: saying "If you clean my house with me, you can borrow my car" doesn't mean you have to clean the house first, it means if you commit to do it, you can borrow the car. "You can borrow my car immediatly after you've cleaned my house with me" means that cleaning the house come first.

[sophontteks]

Those are not contradictory.

The Shield one say that if you take the Attack action during you turn, you can also do the shield bash as a bonus action. It doesn't say you have to do the Attack action first, only during your turn. So you could Attack action, then move, then do the shield bash. Or shield bash, then move, then do the Attack action. You couldn't do the shield bash then Dash or Dodge, for example.

Meanwhile, the Flury one is very clear that you must do the Attack action first, and that the bonus action for Flury must come immediatly after. You could do a grapple, then the Flury, since Grapple takes an Attack action. But you couldn't do the Attack action, then move, then Flury, nor start with the Flury, because the specific rules forbid doing it until the Attack action is done and resolved.

To put that in perspective: saying "If you clean my house with me, you can borrow my car" doesn't mean you have to clean the house first, it means if you commit to do it, you can borrow the car. "You can borrow my car immediatly after you've cleaned my house with me" means that cleaning the house come first.

And I don't mean to say your wrong. I actually agree with you, but the grey zone in these rulings is really dubious. What I mean by that is a bunch of nerds could sit around and argue about this for a long time and in the end they probably wouldn't reach a definative conclusion.

[Theodoxus]

I know it's not in the rules, and thus that's where the idea comes from - but to state that a dagger is light, but the hand that holds it, isn't - doesn't make any logical sense. It's literally easier to swing your arm in a striking motion sans dagger than with dagger.

I'm ambivalent about unarmed attacks usable with melee weapon cantrips. Booming Fists sounds fun, and probably not overpowered (at least, if you're capable of unarmed strikes, you're certainly capable of swinging a simple club or staff). Green Flame Fists is even more thematic. Though yes, I understand that this goes against RAW.

Why can't monks (and Tabaxi, et al) have nice things?

[Coffee_Dragon]

To put that in perspective: saying "If you clean my house with me, you can borrow my car" doesn't mean you have to clean the house first, it means if you commit to do it, you can borrow the car. "You can borrow my car immediatly after you've cleaned my house with me" means that cleaning the house come first.

Except JC has told us in uncharacteristically certain terms that the bolded part does not exist in the game as written. There is only not having cleaned the house, and having cleaned the house. Only when the house is cleaned is the condition for borrowing the car fulfilled.

[Unoriginal]

And I don't mean to say your wrong. I actually agree with you, but the grey zone in these rulings is really dubious. What I mean by that is a bunch of nerds could sit around and argue about this for a long time and in the end they probably wouldn't reach a definative conclusion.

There is no grey zone nor dubious rulings.

Really, there is no other possible conclusion unless you start ignoring words.


Except JC has told us in uncharacteristically certain terms that the bolded part does not exist in the game as written. There is only not having cleaned the house, and having cleaned the house. Only when the house is cleaned is the condition for borrowing the car fulfilled.

That's wrong. He said that there is no "take the Action" action separate from the Attack action.

IF you use the Attack action during your turn, you can use the shield bash. It means that if you use the shield bash, you must use the Attack action at some point in your turn.

That's the rules, and that what JC said.


See the difference:

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


As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.


https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/910560028070879232 (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/910560028070879232)



Flurry of Blows can be used right after you take the Attack action, no matter what you did with that action

Flurry of Blows happens after the Attack action, not after attacks within that action.

That forces you to do it after all the attacks in the Attack action. Flurry of Blows is after the whole action.

When you take an action, the action happens. There is no abstract "take an action" step that takes place before the action itself.

There is NO contradiction. Flurry of Blows is a special bonus action that can only happen right after the Attack action, as the Flurry of Blows' text says:


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.


Meanwhile, as JC said, the shield bash is a normal bonus action which can be used any time in the turn, if the Attack action also happens in said turn.

[Contrast]

But you couldn't do the Attack action, then move, then Flury, nor start with the Flury, because the specific rules forbid doing it until the Attack action is done and resolved

Moving isn't any type of action and Sage Advice says you can move between all attacks.

Sage advice 1 (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/20/can-a-monk-move-between-the-hits-of-flurry-of-blows/)
Sage advice 2 (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/02/29/can-monk-move-between-all-attacks/)

It seems to be the main difference here is if I shove someone off a cliff as a bonus action with no-one else in range, the current interpretation requires me to swing my sword wildly at the air (or pointlessly chuck away a thrown weapon which is out of range) instead of just passively using my action to 'attack' and doing nothing. Are there any other implications I've not thought of?

If not, excuse me if I ignore it. :smalltongue:

[Coffee_Dragon]

IF you use the Attack action during your turn, you can use the shield bash. It means that if you use the shield bash, you must use the Attack action at some point in your turn.

That's the rules, and that what JC said.

At no point in the rules does it talk about abstract commitments or locking in future actions. That was already the fatal weakness of the permission slip model before the September tweet: it's not supported by a natural reading.

Your two points contradict each other. If "taking the attack action on your turn" refers to an abstract condition encompassing the whole turn for Shield Master, then the specification "immediately after" makes no sense for Flurry of Blows. It then takes special pleading that FoB means something else with the same words. The permission slip model avoided this by separating declaration and execution, which is what's been denied.

[sophontteks]

At no point in the rules does it talk about abstract commitments or locking in future actions. That was already the fatal weakness of the permission slip model before the September tweet: it's not supported by a natural reading.

Your two points contradict each other. If "taking the attack action on your turn" refers to an abstract condition encompassing the whole turn for Shield Master, then the specification "immediately after" makes no sense for Flurry of Blows. It then takes special pleading that FoB means something else with the same words. The permission slip model avoided this by separating declaration and execution, which is what's been denied.

His arguement is that the IF statement is promisary. He can do the bonus action first so long as the attack comes after. I agree as they did rule that you can push first and its the only instance where they used this if statement.

By the way, this is the grey zone I mentioned :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

At no point in the rules does it talk about abstract commitments or locking in future actions. That was already the fatal weakness of the permission slip model before the September tweet: it's not supported by a natural reading.

Your two points contradict each other. If "taking the attack action on your turn" refers to an abstract condition encompassing the whole turn for Shield Master, then the specification "immediately after" makes no sense for Flurry of Blows. It then takes special pleading that FoB means something else with the same words. The permission slip model avoided this by separating declaration and execution, which is what's been denied.

Those are not the same words. One say "it happens during your turn", the other "it happens immediately after you do the Attack action".

Those are different statements that you are conflating for no reason.

The shield bash is a regular bonus action, which as JC said can happen before or after the Attack action.

Flurry of Blows has a specific rule that makes it happen immediately after the Attack action.

That's it.




By the way, this is the grey zone I mentioned :smallbiggrin:

It's not a grey zone, the rules are direct and clear about Flurry of Blows, and JC confirms it: first the Attack action happens entirely, THEN you can use the Flurry.

Contrarily to "most bonus actions", which don't have that restriction.

[Asmotherion]

1- You're always proficient in unarmed strike.
2- Tavern brawler affects damage and allows a BA-grapple, not a BA-attack.
3- Only TWF (other than monk) allows you to BA-attack,
3a- unarmed strike isn't light,
3b- unarmed strike isn't a weapon.

So, RAW would give it a no-go unless you have a natural weapon that is light. Of which I haven't seen any.

Well, a moment of silence for the houserule we've been using unknowingly 'till now at my table then. Still, we might as well keep it, since it kinda makes sence. Most people couldn't pack a decent punsh if they tryed. It's harder to hit in actual combat than one would think.

[Coffee_Dragon]

His arguement is that the IF statement is promisary. He can do the bonus action first so long as the attack comes after. I agree as they did rule that you can push first and its the only instance where they used this if statement.

By the way, this is the grey zone I mentioned :smallbiggrin:

Well, obviously it's hard to argue conclusively when you get down to this level, but I'm disinclined to think that the difference between "when" and "if" amounts to some implied functional distinction. Why then would he preface the answer with "As with most bonus actions"? Wouldn't it be more instructive to go, "The bonus action of Shield Master, as you can tell from the use of 'if' instead of 'when', is different from most others"?

I suppose part of my incredulity comes of approaching the subject from discussing the permission slip model, which hinged on the premise that there is this elaborate intended abstract framework that's not laid out anywhere but can be selectively inferred from various phrasings and rulings. Otherwise I might not have been as wary of inferring rules from minor variations in wording.

By the way, if it counts for anything, the Martial Arts monk section uses both "when" and "if" under one bullet point in order to refer to what is clearly the exact same thing.

[sophontteks]

Yeah, your right. IF statements do not work that way, at all. In unnamed's example, the statement was false. It was bad english that was missing the key word "If you promise". I took logic courses and they were very clear on how the if statement works.

But, the monks are written strictly as after the attack action, shield push is not, and assuming proper english in 5e is probably a mistake. I will just go with the rulings, make jokes at the terrible wording, and move on.

EDIT: Welllllll. Maybe if works like this. All that matters is that both statements are true, right? So if its all in the same turn, its all in the same time, and the if statement is satisfied. I mean, that is the trick with turn-based games vs. realtime.

[Coffee_Dragon]

But, the monks are written strictly as after the attack action, shield push is not, and assuming proper english in 5e is probably a mistake.

I take the "immediately after" qualification to impose a limitation on the relative timing of Attack, FoB, and any actions that might conceivably follow. In other words, it's not related to the question of at what point bonus actions become available. If it was intended as a modifier of a general bonus action functionality that isn't independently typed out anywhere, that would be a terrible way to write a game, so I'm just reluctant to assume that.


I will just go with the rulings, make jokes at the terrible wording, and move on.

Seems very reasonable.

[JackPhoenix]

By the way, if it counts for anything, the Martial Arts monk section uses both "when" and "if" under one bullet point in order to refer to what is clearly the exact same thing.

We're not talking about Martial Arts, though, which run on the same general bonus action ruling as Shield Master, but on Flurry of Blows, which clearly states the required order of actions. You may do MA bonus action attack before or even between Attack action attacks, but you can do Flurry of Blows only Immediately after the action, not even move allowed in that case.

[Eric Diaz]

I know it's not in the rules, and thus that's where the idea comes from - but to state that a dagger is light, but the hand that holds it, isn't - doesn't make any logical sense. It's literally easier to swing your arm in a striking motion sans dagger than with dagger.

"Light" and "heavy", curiously enough, have nothing to do with weight - they mean "small" and "big" according to RAW.

Which means... you're still right! :smallbiggrin:

I am not sure anything would break by treating your hands as simple, light, finesse weapons... Maybe some implications on sneak attacks that I'm not seeing. Barring something unexpected, I'd allow it.

[JackPhoenix]

"Light" and "heavy", curiously enough, have nothing to do with weight - they mean "small" and "big" according to RAW.

Which means... you're still right! :smallbiggrin:

I am not sure anything would break by treating your hands as simple, light, finesse weapons... Maybe some implications on sneak attacks that I'm not seeing. Barring something unexpected, I'd allow it.

Striking an opponent with your fist isn't that much easier than stabbing him: you have shorter reach, so you'll need to get closer, and your attacks are less effective, which means you'll have to aim for more vulnerably body parts.. And unarmed strike isn't just punches... it's attack with any body part: kicks, headbutts, elbow strikes...

[sophontteks]

Striking an opponent with your fist isn't that much easier than stabbing him: you have shorter reach, so you'll need to get closer, and your attacks are less effective, which means you'll have to aim for more vulnerably body parts.. And unarmed strike isn't just punches... it's attack with any body part: kicks, headbutts, elbow strikes...
Yeah, this is very true. Punching someone in a swordfight is not recomended. then again dual wielding as a whole isn't recommended either.

[Eric Diaz]

Striking an opponent with your fist isn't that much easier than stabbing him: you have shorter reach, so you'll need to get closer, and your attacks are less effective, which means you'll have to aim for more vulnerably body parts.. And unarmed strike isn't just punches... it's attack with any body part: kicks, headbutts, elbow strikes...

I am guessing I agree with you, but I don't see the point you're making. I'd allow it based on 'rule of cool", unless there is some mechanical downside to it. Is it realists? No more or less than dagger versus spear, I guess.

[sophontteks]

I am guessing I agree with you, but I don't see the point you're making. I'd allow it based on 'rule of cool", unless there is some mechanical downside to it. Is it realists? No more or less than dagger versus spear, I guess.
I'm sure you'd put your foot down when your greatsword-wielding barbarian uses an unarmed strike to kick their opponent as a bonus action. :smallbiggrin:

[bid]

Well, a moment of silence for the houserule we've been using unknowingly 'till now at my table then. Still, we might as well keep it, since it kinda makes sense. Most people couldn't pack a decent punch if they tried. It's harder to hit in actual combat than one would think.
No surprise here.

The first print PHB followed your houserule until the errata came.:smallwink:

[Theodoxus]

I'm sure you'd put your foot down when your greatsword-wielding barbarian uses an unarmed strike to kick their opponent as a bonus action. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe not... but I'd like my longbow using Tabaxi to be able to claw out the eyes of the idiot who ran up on him, as a bonus action...

[Eric Diaz]

I'm sure you'd put your foot down when your greatsword-wielding barbarian uses an unarmed strike to kick their opponent as a bonus action. :smallbiggrin:

Technically, this wouldn't be possible, even if, as I've said, I allow unarmed attacks as simple, finesse, light weapons... because the greatsword is not a light weapon.

OTOH... I have to confess... I kinda like the idea! :wink:

It's probably doable with some combination of kensei and barbarian...

EDIT: Nope, kensei cannot use greatsword... why oh WHY?

[sophontteks]

Technically, this wouldn't be possible, even if, as I've said, I allow unarmed attacks as simple, finesse, light weapons... because the greatsword is not a light weapon.

OTOH... I have to confess... I kinda like the idea! :wink:

It's probably doable with some combination of kensei and barbarian...

EDIT: Nope, kensei cannot use greatsword... why oh WHY?
Yeah. I like the idea too. We need a spartan kick feat now.

[JackPhoenix]

I am guessing I agree with you, but I don't see the point you're making. I'd allow it based on 'rule of cool", unless there is some mechanical downside to it. Is it realists? No more or less than dagger versus spear, I guess.

Point is that I should've aimed that on the post you've quoted, but I was... ahem... tired and too lazy to click on the previous page of the discussion :smallredface:

[Logosloki]

My favourite implication of the Unarmed Strike as a weapon (until it got errata'd boo! hiss!) was that you could make your fist a pact weapon at level 3. Not that it is a great option, tavern brawler helps slightly. But you could do it and the pact of blade allows you to choose the look of the weapon you summon so you could make your unarmed strikes into so many good RP options (unarmed strike isn't just fist so you could grow goat legs for all it cares and it would be baller).

[Coffee_Dragon]

We're not talking about Martial Arts, though

The point was made that "if" and "when" should be ascribed formal weight. I'm not claiming any significance to the Martial Arts section except for how it may reflect on that argument.


but on Flurry of Blows, which clearly states the required order of actions. You may do MA bonus action attack before or even between Attack action attacks, but you can do Flurry of Blows only Immediately after the action, not even move allowed in that case.

I agree that the "immediately after" in FoB is a constraint on when FoB can be taken relative to the preceding Attack and any other actions. I think everyone is agreed that if it means anything at all, it means that. I disagree that it additionally has any implications for the general case of whether a bonus action can be taken before the action that enables it.

I also disagree with two other things that I bolded in your quote. First, that one action can be taken inside another (in this case, a bonus action between attacks comprising an Attack action). There is nothing in the rules to say or support this, and JC's September tweet rather stresses the opposite. When you take an action, the action happens, and happens in its entirety.

Second, that you "can't even move" before resolving the attacks of FoB, if that's what you're saying. The movement section is clear that movement, which is not an action, can be used "inside" actions that involve multiple attacks, of which FoB is one. There is no indication that it works differently in this regard. That is to say, movement does not violate "immediateness" of an action of which it is an integrated part.

[greenstone]

I'm sure you'd put your foot down when your greatsword-wielding barbarian uses an unarmed strike to kick their opponent as a bonus action. :smallbiggrin:

The greatsword-wielding barbarian can always use their Action to kick their opponent. If she has Extra Attack then she can kick them and smack them with the sword.

[DarkKnightJin]

Welp, you guys talked me into wanting to maoe a character based off of Regal from Tales of Symphonia. Or maybe Sanji from One Piece.
I'll probably wind up combining the 2 to make it more my own character.

Just uses kicks for combat. What I've taken from this thread is that I should get special greaves to act as a 'weapon' to use Booming Blade on, or talk with the DM to allow him to Booming Kick with the feet being the 'weapon' component.

[Zalabim]

I also disagree with two other things that I bolded in your quote. First, that one action can be taken inside another (in this case, a bonus action between attacks comprising an Attack action). There is nothing in the rules to say or support this, and JC's September tweet rather stresses the opposite. When you take an action, the action happens, and happens in its entirety.
The rule is that you can take a bonus action at any time during your turn if it has no other specific timing requirement. An Eldritch Knight might make an attack to finish off one enemy, then Misty Step before reaching the next one. A ranger might finish one opponent then apply Hunter's Mark to the next one before continuing their attacks. A wolf totem barbarian that uses their ability to knock an enemy prone is certainly expected to use that bonus action in the middle of attacking. The rules broadly give permission to use your bonus action during any part of your turn and in some cases will explicitly require that the bonus action is used in the middle of your action.

[Coffee_Dragon]

The rules broadly give permission to use your bonus action during any part of your turn and in some cases will explicitly require that the bonus action is used in the middle of your action.

Where does it say that? Can you give examples of the latter?

[Zalabim]

Where does it say that? Can you give examples of the latter?

Bonus actions are described on PHB page 189. The barbarian subclass is on PHB page 50.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Bonus actions are described on PHB page 189. The barbarian subclass is on PHB page 50.

Thanks. I have read the section on p189 before and obviously don't consider myself to disagree with anything in it. I assume on p50 you're referring to the level 14 wolf ability? It looks to me like the normal phrasing of conditional bonus actions with the words rearranged. I will concede that the flavour of knocking someone down with an attack invites an interpretation of the bonus action also mechanically interrupting whatever was going on, but I think it stops short of explicitly violating atomicity of actions, and the ability works mechanically fine without such violation.

[JackPhoenix]

You may move between attacks in Attack action if you have Extra Attack.
You may take reaction between attacks in Attack action, for example if your movement mentioned above provokes OA and you cast Shield.
You may take bonus action between attacks in Attack action, for example if you're totem barbarian with level 14 wolf totem ability that allow you to knock down enemy after you hit them with a weapon, or if you have GWM and crit or reduce someone to 0 hp with the first attack. Or many others such abilities.

There's no "atomicity of actions" you're speaking off.

[Contrast]

Just to reinforce 'atomicity of actions' not being a thing - reactions usually occur after an action. But specific trumps general and counterspell is specific.

If a wizard casts a spell and is counterspelled, the reaction doesn't happen before the action (in which case there would be nothing to counterspell) or after the action (in which case the spell would already have resolved - like mage slayer) but during. If you want to go meta that counterspell could then be counterspelled for a reaction within a reaction within an action!

More generally shield bash with extra attack also lets you attack someone push someone as a bonus action and then attack someone (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/19/can-i-attack-shield-master-shove-attack/).

[Coffee_Dragon]

You may move between attacks in Attack action if you have Extra Attack.

As has been pointed out, movement is not an action and explicitly can be used inside certain actions.


You may take reaction between attacks in Attack action, for example if your movement mentioned above provokes OA and you cast Shield.

True, reactions complicate things (I think most believe you can cast Counterspell while casting a spell, though some also think this is absurd). But this is arguably not indicative of how (bonus) actions are initiated.


There's no "atomicity of actions" you're speaking off.

Would you allow someone to toss a bead from a Necklace of Fireballs in a crowded room and Misty Step away before detonation, or just step out the door and close it?

[Theodoxus]

Would you allow someone to toss a bead from a Necklace of Fireballs in a crowded room and Misty Step away before detonation, or just step out the door and close it?

I would... I can't think of any other situation where I wouldn't allow it. Change "toss a bead" to "shoot a bow". If it works for one, it works for the other.

Unless your point is "would you allow someone to toss a bead into a crowded room and escape the blast effect?" No, the detonation would still occur prior to movement, just like any other spell with an 'instantaneous' duration is resolved before the player's next action.

[JackPhoenix]

As has been pointed out, movement is not an action and explicitly can be used inside certain actions.

True, reactions complicate things (I think most believe you can cast Counterspell while casting a spell, though some also think this is absurd). But this is arguably not indicative of how (bonus) actions are initiated.

True, but it just shows that you can do a lot between attacks in a single Attack action. You can hit someone with attack, if you're wolf totem barbarian, knock him prone with BA, move, provoke OA, cast Shield to protect yourself against the OA and have the Shield Counterspelled by another enemy caster before you make the extra attack. And I could propably fit more if I wanted to.


Would you allow someone to toss a bead from a Necklace of Fireballs in a crowded room and Misty Step away before detonation, or just step out the door and close it?

No on both counts, but I would allow someone to toss a bead into a room and close the door before it explodes if he stands next to it ready to do so. But it's false equivalence: Attack action potentialy consists of multiple "sub-actions", and you can fit different actions (including movement, and moving is an action, even if it isn't an Action in game terms) in between them, but every single attack gets resolved before you get to the next step.

[Coffee_Dragon]

More generally shield bash with extra attack also lets you attack someone push someone as a bonus action and then attack someone (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/19/can-i-attack-shield-master-shove-attack/).

The question of the propriety and validity of that tweet and whether it conflicts with and/or has been superceded by other tweets is pretty much at the core of this discussion. Just to note that there's another one-vs-many thread going on where the one is leaning heavily on an SA ruling, and some of the many are variously arguing that the tweet is clearly a perversion or tweets aren't to be taken seriously anyway. :smallsmile:

I wonder if it would be possible to get JC to (re-)clarify intent on the atomicity of actions with regard to each other. Or if it would actually resolve anything either way.


Unless your point is "would you allow someone to toss a bead into a crowded room and escape the blast effect?" No, the detonation would still occur prior to movement, just like any other spell with an 'instantaneous' duration is resolved before the player's next action.

I imagine a player saying something like, "I initiate this action, and it's clearly not described as instantaneous, so in the space before detonation I want to do this or that quick thing. I can do bonus actions/movement any time I want during my turn, right?"

Note that the Necklace of Fireballs does not cast Fireball, it's just an item that is described as doing something when you interact with it which ends with a Fireball-like detonation. My reason for resolving it all at once would be because it is an action and that's how you resolve actions, but if that's not the reason, what is? I don't see anything in the item description that would make it more instantaneous than the usual stuff you fit into a round, nor am I aware of anything to that effect in the rules specific to magic item use.


True, but it just shows that you can do a lot between attacks in a single Attack action.

Well, mechanically I tend to draw the opposite conclusion from that. If feature A explicitly allows X and Y, and feature B explicitly allows X, then is feature A hinting at a general allowance for Y that isn't written down anywhere else, or is this something that is different, implying a general disallowance?


No on both counts, but I would allow someone to toss a bead into a room and close the door before it explodes if he stands next to it ready to do so. But it's false equivalence: Attack action potentialy consists of multiple "sub-actions", and you can fit different actions (including movement, and moving is an action, even if it isn't an Action in game terms) in between them, but every single attack gets resolved before you get to the next step.

No strict equivalence claimed, just pointing to an opportunity to ask why we make different assumptions for different cases. As you're aware, "sub-actions" aren't a rules thing, though it's easy for us to conceptualize attacks as such. (Although parenthetically I'd note that when people complain about the believability of multiple attacks in a turn, they are not seldom told to consider them as abstractions.) But then if this is good reason to allow other things to be slotted into those gaps and divisions, why aren't we looking into doing the same for other types of actions that have been considered instantaneous and indivisible for reasons of legacy and terminology, even though they are often less so in descriptions in books and at the table?

In Actual Play™ I can definitely see myself asking my DM if I can slot in a quick object interaction or five-foot step in the time that a bead can be lobbed a distance of 60 feet... and maybe more than that if we are supposed to view actions as islands rather than locks in the river of game time.