two actions at once

[Samayu]

Is there any situation in the books that allows for two Actions being taken at once by the same creature?

There are non-action "actions" that you can use to modify the action that happens in tandem. But no actual Actions, that I'm aware of.

[Xihirli]

Action Surge and Time Stop?

[Yunru]

Sure, you just need two actions.
You could Cast a Spell to Misty Step during an Attack action, for example.
You could even Action Surge to break down a door during the same.

[Samayu]

Calling an action surge is not an Action. You just get an additional Action if you decide to use the Second Wind feature.

Time stop grants you extra turns.

I believe that if you use the attack action, you cannot cast Misty Step until the Attack Action is complete. If you haven't completed the attack (e.g. if you get two swings and have only used one) you lose the rest of it when you begin your bonus action.

[Yunru]

I believe that if you use the attack action, you cannot cast Misty Step until the Attack Action is complete. If you haven't completed the attack (e.g. if you get two swings and have only used one) you lose the rest of it when you begin your bonus action.

Care to provide any official citations on that?

[Lombra]

I don't think order matters as long as it's not specified and you have the resources needed

[Samayu]

Care to provide any official citations on that?

No. Movement is the only thing I've ever seen spelled out that you can do in the middle of an action.

With all the strict rulings on declaring actions, I don't see how you could break up an action with another action. The official rulings on Flurry of Blows, for example, are very specific. And they talk about Reactions interrupting other actions.

The only example I can think of for a Reaction happening in the middle of another action is when the Reaction triggers on getting hit, and preventing the hit.

[Samayu]

I don't think order matters as long as it's not specified and you have the resources needed

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Arial Black]

I believe that if you use the attack action, you cannot cast Misty Step until the Attack Action is complete. If you haven't completed the attack (e.g. if you get two swings and have only used one) you lose the rest of it when you begin your bonus action.

First, there is no rule that says 'actions are indivisible'.

Second, there is a rule that says you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn.

Why would anyone believe that a written rule is trumped by a 'rule' that does not exist?

[Yunru]

No. Movement is the only thing I've ever seen spelled out that you can do in the middle of an action.Yes, but it's not spelled out as an exception, and both it and the game work the same or smoother with it being a reminder.

With all the strict rulings on declaring actions, I don't see how you could break up an action with another action. Such as...?

The official rulings on Flurry of Blows, for example, are very specific..Flurry of Blows specifically says "immediately after", of course it's limited.

[Samayu]

Flurry of Blows specifically says "immediately after", of course it's limited.

Right, but that's my frame of reference on how actions work. Everything seems so specific.



First, there is no rule that says 'actions are indivisible'.

Second, there is a rule that says you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn.

Why would anyone believe that a written rule is trumped by a 'rule' that does not exist?

Why? Well that's not exactly the question. Your question has the implied answer "what kind of moron would think that?" But the answer to question, "why didn't you realize there is no rule that says actions are indivisible?" is because I'm used to playing games like that. I've been playing this game for years, and never has it occurred to me that it should be done this way. My group solves many disputes over timing by applying rules. Like when there's a held action. Things can get dicey if you're not careful about what's happening when. "You said you're doing this. Unless the other thing specifically says it can interrupt a thing, your thing completes before the other thing starts." So that's why I'm used to thinking like that.

[qube]

Is there any situation in the books that allows for two Actions being taken at once by the same creature?

There are non-action "actions" that you can use to modify the action that happens in tandem. But no actual Actions, that I'm aware of.
Might I ask what your motive is?

You ask a question (is there any situation?), people give answers (time stop, misty step, how RAW works), and then for some strange reason you seem adamant on trying to debunk them. That's quite the odd behavior if you just wanted info.

As is, the answer to the question you answered is yes. Multiple examples & different senarios have been presented to you. If you don't tell us more clearly what it is you're looking for, it's impossible for us to provide you with a suitable answer.


But "I don't like 'm" is not a reply we can't do much with:
it doesn't change RAW,
and (as far as I know) nobody here feels the need to try and change your feelings.

[Tanarii]

nothing says that as a general rule actions can happen in the middle of other actions. There are a few exceptions in the rules that say when specific things happen in relation to other actions, including in the middle of them. But there's no reason to assume that's generally possible.

[JackPhoenix]

First, there is no rule that says 'actions are indivisible'.

Second, there is a rule that says you can take your bonus action whenever you want in your turn.

Why would anyone believe that a written rule is trumped by a 'rule' that does not exist?

Does that mean that paladins in your games can make an attack roll, see if its a natural 20 and then cast one of the BA "x Smite" spells before the GM can declare it's a hit and they should roll for damage?

[Samayu]

Might I ask what your motive is?

You ask a question (is there any situation?), people give answers (time stop, misty step, how RAW works), and then for some strange reason you seem adamant on trying to debunk them. That's quite the odd behavior if you just wanted info.

As is, the answer to the question you answered is yes. Multiple examples & different senarios have been presented to you. If you don't tell us more clearly what it is you're looking for, it's impossible for us to provide you with a suitable answer.


You misunderstand my answer. When confronted with a question like "of course you can do that, why would you think otherwise?" I was explaining why I had thought that. I was not continuing to argue the point.

There was only one example provided that answered my question: "You could Cast a Spell to Misty Step during an Attack action, for example." The only rule that was cited to back this up has been "there is no rule saying you can't." Time Stop doesn't apply since all the extra actions happen in separate turns after the spell goes off.

[Samayu]

nothing says that as a general rule actions can happen in the middle of other actions. There are a few exceptions in the rules that say when specific things happen in relation to other actions, including in the middle of them. But there's no reason to assume that's generally possible.

So you wouldn't allow a Second Wind in between the two swings of an Extra Attack action? "Oops, he deals damage when I hit him!"

[Coffee_Dragon]

So you wouldn't allow a Second Wind in between the two swings of an Extra Attack action? "Oops, he deals damage when I hit him!"

Whether DM X would allow it is one question, but by the rules you cannot. You can of course cut your Attack action short to be safe.

[Yunru]

The only rule that was cited to back this up has been "there is no rule saying you can't."
Right, there's no rule saying you can't, and there's the rules that say you can take actions.
So you can take an action because of the rules that let you take actions, and nothing is prohibiting you from doing so during another action, viola.

Also there has been another rule cited to back it up, although not by me; the one I just mentioned, that lets you take an action (in this case, bonus action).

To add another example of "action within an action":
You use your action to Cast a Spell.
While you are Cast a Spell, an opponent uses their reaction to Cast a Spell: Counterspell.
While they are Cast a Spell (while you are Cast a Spell), you Cast a Spell: Counterspell.

That's not just an action within an action, that's an action within an action within an action.
And are there any rules specifying Counterspell as an exception? Nope, the closest is a bit of fluff.

[Yunru]

Whether DM X would allow it is one question, but by the rules you cannot. You can of course cut your Attack action short to be safe.

Ah I see, "by the rules".
You wouldn't mind quoting said rules then?

[Tanarii]

And are there any rules specifying Counterspell as an exception?Yes, there are. They're in the section for Reaction actions.

[Coffee_Dragon]

That's not just an action within an action, that's an action within an action within an action.

Reactions are not actions. Some reactions explicitly or necessarily interrupt other happenings.

The one way I can think of offhand to nest actions is that you could take a Ready action, then use Action Surge to, say, attack. Something during that action, like another creature's reaction, triggers your reaction, which allows you to take an encapsulated action. This could possibly require some adjudication.

[Yunru]

Reactions are not actions. Some reactions explicitly or necessarily interrupt other happenings.

The one way I can think of offhand to nest actions is that you could take a Ready action, then use Action Surge to, say, attack. Something during that action, like another creature's reaction, triggers your reaction, which allows you to take an encapsulated action. This could possibly require some adjudication.

Cast a Spell is an action. Which you do with your Reaction for Counterspell.


Yes, there are. They're in the section for Reaction actions.

Nope. This is the section for Reactions:

Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you
to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is
an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can
occur on your turn or on someone else’s. The opportunity
attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can’t take another one
until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts
another creature’s turn, that creature can continue its
turn right after the reaction.
Note it says nothing about occurring in between actions. Sorry, try again.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Cast a Spell is an action.

"Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast."

Please learn the basic rules of the game before demanding that others quote them back to you.

[Yunru]

"Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast."

Please learn the basic rules of the game before demanding that others quote them back to you.

And your point is, other than to try and demean someone with an opposing view?

Unless you're trying to argue that reactions are mysteriously different from other actions with regards to being able to interrupt actions, in which case please do show me where in the basic rules, oh wise sage.

[Erys]

So you wouldn't allow a Second Wind in between the two swings of an Extra Attack action? "Oops, he deals damage when I hit him!"

No...

Nor does it matter. Use Second Wind before or after the Attack Action and call it a day.

[Tanarii]

Nope. This is the section for Reactions:

Note it says nothing about occurring in between actions. Sorry, try again.Sorry, try reading it again. Reactions are an instant response to a trigger.

[JackPhoenix]

Unless you're trying to argue that reactions are mysteriously different from other actions with regards to being able to interrupt actions, in which case please do show me where in the basic rules, oh wise sage.

DMG, p252.

[ThePolarBear]

Whether DM X would allow it is one question, but by the rules you cannot. You can of course cut your Attack action short to be safe.


No...

Nor does it matter. Use Second Wind before or after the Attack Action and call it a day.

Yup, you can. "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, [...]"
Between the first and second attack is a perfectly fitting place where to use Second Wind.

You can Misty Step between attacks, too. Or conjure a Spiritual Weapon and make that attack. Or Cunning Action to Dash.
Just like you can drop concentration whenever you want.

And yes, usually it doesn't really matter. But when it matters it's the player that chooses when to do it.

[ImproperJustice]

In this topic, a few individuals attempt to quote the PHB like how some folks quote bible verses.

And they do so not with an attitude of helpful education, but to trt and puff themselves up for their own pride.

I don’t care for it personally. I doubt that I am alone.
I wish people could be a little more friendly on these sorts of things.

[Vogie]

Anyway...

Is there any situation in the books that allows for two Actions being taken at once by the same creature?

There are non-action "actions" that you can use to modify the action that happens in tandem. But no actual Actions, that I'm aware of.

In addition to Action Surge & Haste, the Seeker Warlock's Astral Refuge feature allows them to take two actions, with restrictions.

[Tanarii]

In this topic, a few individuals attempt to quote the PHB like how some folks quote bible verses.

And they do so not with an attitude of helpful education, but to trt and puff themselves up for their own pride.

I don’t care for it personally. I doubt that I am alone.
I wish people could be a little more friendly on these sorts of things.Please allow me to courteously direct you to the following announcement
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1

[Samayu]

In addition to Action Surge & Haste, the Seeker Warlock's Astral Refuge feature allows them to take two actions, with restrictions.

The OP question was whether a creature can take two actions at the same time. Maybe that wasn't phrased correctly. Specifically, can an action be started before the previous action is complete, and then the previous action be resumed? And this is talking about the same creature.

So the starting point is that you have either two actions or an action and a bonus action. There are bonus actions that state they can interrupt an action, and bonus actions that imply this. Can you interrupt your own action without losing the remainder of it?

[Malifice]

Calling an action surge is not an Action. You just get an additional Action if you decide to use the Second Wind feature.

What?

No, Action surge grants you 2 actions in a turn. It has nothing to do with Second wind.

[Arial Black]

Does that mean that paladins in your games can make an attack roll, see if its a natural 20 and then cast one of the BA "x Smite" spells before the GM can declare it's a hit and they should roll for damage?

No. But the reason this cannot be done has nothing to do with any non-existent 'actions are indivisible' rule.

Some things are effectively instantaneous, and since instantaneous means 'an infinitely small, but non-zero, period of time', then 'instantaneous' is by definition indivisible.

A single attack is effectively indivisible. Multiple attacks taking place across your turn and moving between is by definition divisible.

This 'actions are indivisible' thing is not only not a 5e rule, it is unplayable. This should be a clue!

Dash: double the distance you can walk this turn.

Disengage: your movement this turn does not provoke AoAs.

Dodge: if you are attacked at any time from now until the start of your next turn that attack roll has disadvantage.

Attack: you may execute the attacks that you have from now until the end of this turn.

Hide: you become hidden until your Stealth check is beaten, your cover goes away, or you do something to end your hidden condition.

There are two ways to view when an action ends:-

1) 'taking an action' is an instantaneous event, but the effects of that action (movement, not provoking, dodging, executing your attacks, being hidden) have a duration.

2) 'taking an action' is the same thing as the action itself, which means the action itself has a duration, and the action has not ended until that duration expires. Dash, Disengage, Attack start when you 'take the action' and only end when your turn ends. Dodge starts when you take the action and only ends at the start of your next turn. Hide starts when you take the Hide action and only ends when you are discovered, your cover goes away, or if you do something to end it.

If 1) is true, then yes, 'actions are indivisible', but not because there is any such rule but because 'taking an action' is an instantaneous event and you cannot divide 'instantaneous'. However, the effects of that action have a duration, and nothing prevents those effects being divided. This means, regarding Shield Master and its bonus action shove, that your bonus action shove has been generated as soon as you 'took the attack action' and you are now free to use that bonus action whenever you want, even between attacks or before you execute your first attack.

If 2) is true, then the question of whether or not 'actions are indivisible' becomes relevant.

2a) Actions ARE divisible: this means you can cast a bonus action spell while you are in the middle of an action. So you can misty step after you take the Dash action, the Disengage action, the Dodge action, the Attack action, the Hide action, etc. This means that you definitely can take the bonus action shield bash between attacks, and arguably before you execute the first attack.

2b) Actions are NOT divisible: this means that you cannot cast a bonus action spell while you are in the middle of an action. So you could not misty step after you take the Dash action! The Disengage action! The Dodge action! The Attack action! OR the Hide action!

It also means that a rogue who uses Cunning Action to Dash or Disengage as a bonus action before he uses his action for anything, now cannot take his actual action for anything at all! Actions are indivisible, so because his Dash or Disengage started when he took that bonus action and will not end until the end of his turn, his turn is already over before he can use his action for anything!

Also, since some posters are fond of asserting that you can only move between attacks is because there is a clause which says you can, and without such a clause then you could not, this means that you cannot move during any action except the Attack action! If 2b) is true AND that assertion is true, then after you take the Dash, Disengage or Dodge actions, you are not allowed to move!

I contend that 2b) is absurd. There is no reason at all to suppose that you cannot take a bonus action after you Dash, Disengage, Hide or Dodge, and there is no excuse for treating the Attack action differently without a written rule which says so; if you do, that is the fallacy of Special Pleading.

It is also absurd to imagine you cannot move after you take the Dash or Disengage actions! They would become meaningless! This shows that the clause which says you can move between attacks is not a rules exception, it just reminds us that the ability to divide your move is not restricted by multiple attacks, important for players of previous editions who would assume the opposite.

If 2b) is absurd, this leaves either 2a), which certainly allows a bonus action between attacks and arguably allows it before the first attack, and 1) which certainly allows the bonus action between attacks or before your first attack.

[qube]

Reactions are not actions.OK, but technically, bonus actions aren't actions either - making the whole "bonus action during action" =/= "action during action"

sure, it's an unfortunate name, like attack action vs attack, but you can't do things that take an action in a bonus action, and (dispite many people forgetting this), you can't do things that take a bonus action, in an action.

You can't, for example, misty step twice, or, as exampled, you can't use action surge (which grants an action) to second wind (which requires a bonus actionà



Dash: double the distance you can walk this turn.

Disengage: your movement this turn does not provoke AoAs.

Dodge: if you are attacked at any time from now until the start of your next turn that attack roll has disadvantage.

Attack: you may execute the attacks that you have from now until the end of this turn.

Hide: you become hidden until your Stealth check is beaten, your cover goes away, or you do something to end your hidden condition.if this is RAW, then I definately agree these things are divisible (it seems "action" itself is not the act - but starting the act. while starting the act might not be divisible, the act itself is)

[Willie the Duck]

The OP question was whether a creature can take two actions at the same time. Maybe that wasn't phrased correctly. Specifically, can an action be started before the previous action is complete, and then the previous action be resumed? And this is talking about the same creature.

So the starting point is that you have either two actions or an action and a bonus action. There are bonus actions that state they can interrupt an action, and bonus actions that imply this. Can you interrupt your own action without losing the remainder of it?

It was poorly phrased, and you didn't provide context. You capitalized A in 'Action,' which, as Coffee Dragon pointed out, is a gaming term distinct from bonus actions and reactions. Also both being distinct from the general concept of simultaneity. Suffice to say, no one was on the same page on what we were actually talking about.

Specific to the question of : can a creature start and action [general term of action] before their previous action is completed, and then the previous action be resumed and competed?-- by all accounts yes (provided all other requirements be met), there is no rule disqualifying the situation.

Mind you, most actions don't have convenient mid-points, wherein you could move, cast a spell, or otherwise specifically do something action-like (most things are initiated and then resolve, with reactions and things like using Luck feat or choosing to smite having well-established rules of their own about when their decision-windows open and close). Attacking (when you have multiple attacks) is a notable exception. The rules do indicate that you can move in between attacks if you have multiple attacks, so the fact that this is specifically called out can lead to the impression that other actions can't be done, mid-action, but more rule structure would be required to make this the case.


And your point is, other than to try and demean someone with an opposing view?

Unless you're trying to argue that reactions are mysteriously different from other actions with regards to being able to interrupt actions, in which case please do show me where in the basic rules, oh wise sage.
I am going to direct you back to your own comments, if you're looking for where this conversation became adversarial:

Sorry, try again.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Some things are effectively instantaneous, and since instantaneous means 'an infinitely small, but non-zero, period of time', then 'instantaneous' is by definition indivisible.

A single attack is effectively indivisible. Multiple attacks taking place across your turn and moving between is by definition divisible.

It seems we largely agree that when they say you can use a bonus action at any time during your turn, this should be read as "at any time you are otherwise free to decide on a course of action because you're not in the process of resolving something", not "literally at any time like inside of a mechanical quantum or between one syllable coming from the DM's mouth and the next"*.

So the question becomes, do the rules say anything about which things are or aren't divisible, what are the identifying traits or markers of the convenient midpoints that would qualify as additional decision points for (bonus) actions? Do the rules at all invite us to look at various actions and abilities and find where there are or aren't gaps of spare "time"? I would suggest they do not, and that there is no internal timeline of a turn with ticks that the abstract sequence of resolutions in the D&D combat model can (or would try to) map against. Exceptions that break up the ordering are either logically necessary (Absorb Elements inside of your own Fireball) or explicit (movement inside the attack action).

To the extent that Crawford is credited, he writes in SA:


No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.

I assume that he is referring here to bonus actions that necessarily are resolved directly after making an attack and wouldn't make sense outside of that context, much like some reactions.

Also:


There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190). There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest actions/reactions inside each other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create exceptions meant to disrupt them.

This leads me to think 5E means us to use a simple and common action framework of [neutral state] - [choose course of action] - [supply additional specifications, perform checks, resolve consequences, resolve contingencies, update game state, etc.] - [return to neutral state], which is so simple and common that most games that aren't Magic: the Gathering ever bother to spell it out.


The rules do indicate that you can move in between attacks if you have multiple attacks, so the fact that this is specifically called out can lead to the impression that other actions can't be done, mid-action, but more rule structure would be required to make this the case.

I suppose movement between attacks is the main culprit in tempting us to create a linear internal turn timeline, since we intuitively map movement against time. Then once we do this, it seems arbitrary and unreasonable that we should not get to insert other actions wherever we want on this timeline. But I contend this timeline is of our own making, an externality to the rules.




* IT'S FOOTNOTE EXAMPLE WORKSHOP TIME

Example 1, which I think almost nobody ever would allow:


Player: I attack... 21.

DM: It's a hit.

Player: OK, before rolling for damage, I use Cunning Action to hide as a bonus action.

DM: Nani?

Player: Still my turn. Bonus action. Any time. I want sneak attack damage on this sucka.

Example 2, which I bet someone is going to say they'd allow for Rule of Cool or something:


Player: 12 damage.

DM: It's enough to drop it. Now this mob has a death burst ability...

Player: Hup hup. Stop talking. Misty Step out of the blast radius before deducting the hit points.

DM: Nani?

Player: Still my turn. Bonus action. Any time. Sucka.

[Yunru]

It seems we largely agree that when they say you can use a bonus action at any time during your turn, this should be read as "at any time you are otherwise free to decide on a course of action because you're not in the process of resolving something", not "literally at any time like inside of a mechanical quantum or between one syllable coming from the DM's mouth and the next"*.

So the question becomes, do the rules say anything about which things are or aren't divisible, what are the identifying traits or markers of the convenient midpoints that would qualify as additional decision points for (bonus) actions? Do the rules at all invite us to look at various actions and abilities and find where there are or aren't gaps of spare "time"? I would suggest they do not, and that there is no internal timeline of a turn with ticks that the abstract sequence of resolutions in the D&D combat model can (or would try to) map against. Exceptions that break up the ordering are either logically necessary (Absorb Elements inside of your own Fireball) or explicit (movement inside the attack action).

To the extent that Crawford is credited, he writes in SA:



I assume that he is referring here to bonus actions that necessarily are resolved directly after making an attack and wouldn't make sense outside of that context, much like some reactions.

Also:



This leads me to think 5E means us to use a simple and common action framework of [neutral state] - [choose course of action] - [supply additional specifications, perform checks, resolve consequences, resolve contingencies, update game state, etc.] - [return to neutral state], which is so simple and common that most games that aren't Magic: the Gathering ever bother to spell it out.



I suppose movement between attacks is the main culprit in tempting us to create a linear internal turn timeline, since we intuitively map movement against time. Then once we do this, it seems arbitrary and unreasonable that we should not get to insert other actions wherever we want on this timeline. But I contend this timeline is of our own making, an externality to the rules.




* IT'S FOOTNOTE EXAMPLE WORKSHOP TIME

Example 1, which I think almost nobody ever would allow:



Example 2, which I bet someone is going to say they'd allow for Rule of Cool or something:

Well example 1 wouldn't work, because Sneak Attack in that situation would depend upon advantage on the attack roll, which you've already made and thus can't get advantage on.

Also Crawford's tweets are officially unofficial, making them less official than anyone else's (which are just presumed unofficial) :P

[Coffee_Dragon]

Well example 1 wouldn't work, because Sneak Attack in that situation would depend upon advantage on the attack roll, which you've already made and thus can't get advantage on.

Correct, I forgot not-seen-ness doesn't trigger SA in itself. Maybe the example could be amended to rolling one die for an attack, rolling poorly, hiding as a bonus action and claiming you're still resolving the attack so you are now entitled to a second die. In footnote example workshop we don't know the meaning of too convoluted.


Also Crawford's tweets are officially unofficial, making them less official than anyone else's (which are just presumed unofficial) :P

Still, he's essentially telling us what, in his mind, the rules already say. Which should be something of an intermediate to big deal, again to the extent he's credited with competence.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

2b is absurd, 2a is wrong, and so is 1, but for a different reason than you propably think.

Actions are the same thing as "taking the action", and are *generally* instantaneous, but the effect of the action may have a duration... but unlike what you seem to claim, that doesn't mean the effect of *every* action has a duration. The truth lies somewhere between your 1 and 2a.

Attack is a good example: your claim that "Attack: you may execute the attacks that you have from now until the end of this turn." is patently wrong. Attack action's actual description says "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." "One melee or ranged attack" is instantaneous and indivisible*. Specific rule for Extra Attack says "you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Again, indivisible*. However, ANOTHER specific rule, this time in the Movement section, says that "If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks." That's an exception to the general rule that clearly says that "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action." You can't use Shield Master BA shove "after taking Attack action, but before executing your first attack", because the Attack action *is* the attack. And if you take the BA after the first attack, you won't get the second attack, as the Attack action is over at that point.

*of course, D&D is a game of exceptions, and there are specific exceptions that allow you to break the general rules. Cutting Words allow you to apply penalty to an attack roll after the attack was rolled, but before the result was announced. Shield allows you to avoid a hit that was already made before the damage was rolled. Divine Smite allows you to expend a spell slot to do extra damage after the attack was rolled and resulted in a hit. And many, many others, like the rules for Extra Attack and movement above..

[Willie the Duck]

I would suggest they do not, and that there is no internal timeline of a turn with ticks that the abstract sequence of resolutions in the D&D combat model can (or would try to) map against. Exceptions that break up the ordering are either logically necessary (Absorb Elements inside of your own Fireball) or explicit (movement inside the attack action).

It's a plausible framework. Certainly helpful for simplicity. Where I stand is that this is a proposal. I don't think (at least no one has brought forward) language to determine the truth of the matter, one way or another.


To the extent that Crawford is credited, he writes in SA:

I'm sure we will get the usual hue and cry about Crawford and SA, but regardless, I find that things that make it into SA (as opposed to merely tweets) do so because the original text genuinely is not clear, which is where I'm placing my flag, for the time being.


This leads me to think 5E means us to use a simple and common action framework of [neutral state] - [choose course of action] - [supply additional specifications, perform checks, resolve consequences, resolve contingencies, update game state, etc.] - [return to neutral state], which is so simple and common that most games that aren't Magic: the Gathering ever bother to spell it out.

I would generally assume this to be true. Although the huge number of 'player response' events (decide whether or not to expend a resource, mid-action or action being done to you) that have multiplied since the WotC era started makes me wonder if that's true (and, if true, that there's perfect fidelity between internal goal and external communication).


I suppose movement between attacks is the main culprit in tempting us to create a linear internal turn timeline, since we intuitively map movement against time. Then once we do this, it seems arbitrary and unreasonable that we should not get to insert other actions wherever we want on this timeline. But I contend this timeline is of our own making, an externality to the rules.

Movement between attacks also highlights a case where an action is incomplete, but a specific set of resolutions (of your [neutral state] - [return to neutral state] model) have completed. Attack #1 (of 2+) has resolved (all the way through to damage on, and perhaps check for opponent death), but the attack is not over. I can see vastly different perspectives on appropriateness for bonus actions between attacks than to the more far-fetched examples in your footnotes. After all, if you can move between two opponents between your attacks, why should you not be able to misty step (or rogue bonus-action dash, as a nonmagical example) between them? Or catch you breath (or whatever Second Wind emulates)? Or use your off-hand attack in the middle of your two main attacks? And if you can do those specific examples (because they are part of movement or attacking), why make an exception for only them?

I'm not saying anything should go (as I said, I consider your footnote examples far-fetched, although yes the later maybe on rule-of-cool grounds), but merely that I doubt we'll find a universally satisfactory consistent rule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Spending resources =/= taking actions, bonus actions, or reactions. Anything that does not require the use of one of those three can happen whenever its own triggers allow. Anything that does, defaults to being atomic (because there's no general rule saying otherwise).

Here's the most basic event loop of the game:

State 0: DM describes state of play
State 1: Player describes action (lower-case for generic, not game term)
State 2: Player and DM resolve action
State 3: DM describes changes in state due to action

State 0 -> State 1 -> State 2 -> State 3 -> State 0 (new player, all actions finished) OR State 1 (same player, actions remain)

Note that resolution must come before description of a new state and another opportunity to act. Things like Sneak Attack and Smite are part of State 2, action resolution, not State 1, action specification. Exceptions are exceptional and say so:

Movement during Attack action is allowed by explicit statement. It's not allowed during the Cast a Spell or Use an Object actions, because there is no specific rule providing an exception.

Reactions happen after their trigger is resolved (following the general rule) unless they say otherwise (e.g. shield).

Bonus actions either
1) specify their timing and happen after the triggering event has been resolved.
2) do not specify their timing and can happen whenever State 1 is reached in the state diagram. But they must resolve before anything else can be initiated (except for those explicit exceptions).

Since by default (and thus by general rules) you only have an Action, Movement, and a Reaction (everyone can take an OA, even if they're unarmed), bonus actions have to have specific handling in each one

Some actions have a fixed duration, but are resolved instantaneously. Examples: Dodge. Dash. Cast a Spell (mage armor). These are like toggles--you take the action and the effect is in existence for a certain duration. During that duration you're free to use the rest of your action economy and go around the event loop as many times as you can. You're not casting a spell for 8 hours when you cast mage armor--you cast it as a single action (one event loop) and then it stays active for 8 hours, providing its benefit. Same for Dodge or Dash.

[Arial Black]

Some actions have a fixed duration, but are resolved instantaneously. Examples: Dodge. Dash. Cast a Spell (mage armor). These are like toggles--you take the action and the effect is in existence for a certain duration. During that duration you're free to use the rest of your action economy and go around the event loop as many times as you can. You're not casting a spell for 8 hours when you cast mage armor--you cast it as a single action (one event loop) and then it stays active for 8 hours, providing its benefit. Same for Dodge or Dash.

And here we have the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

You claim that Dodge/Dash are "resolved instantaneously" but last for a certain duration, when we know that they represent things that a creature does either constantly for that period of time of can do on multiple occasions during that period of time.

You also claim that the Attack action, which (with Extra Attack) we know consists of multiple individual attacks that can take place on multiple occasions throughout your turn, is treated as a single event with a single resolution which cannot be interrupted!

All without any written rules support whatsoever! What rules tell you to treat the Attack action as 'indivisible' but allow you to divide all the other actions up how you like?

If you treat Dodge as if it were a cast spell with an instantaneous 'casting' but with a 'duration' within which you can dodge several times, why do you not also treat the Attack action as if it were instantaneously 'cast' with your multiple attacks taking place within its 'duration'?

If you treat the Attack action as something that cannot be divided by other actions/bonus actions, what reason do the rules give you to let you divide Dodge/Disengage/Dash and the rest?

If the section on Breaking Up Your Move: Moving Between Attacks is a RULE which is the only reason you CAN move during the Attack action and without a written rule you would be forbidden from moving during that action, then since neither Dodge nor Dash nor Disengage give you permission to move during those actions, then according to this very same rule then you CANNOT move DURING the duration of your Dodge or Disengage or Dash actions, rendering them meaningless!

This shows that the non-existent, phantom 'actions are indivisible' rule doesn't exist for a reason: that 'rule' would make the game unplayable, IF it existed. Thankfully, it doesn't.

You have no excuse to treat the Attack action differently, and saying it should be is Special Pleading. As soon as you make this fallacy your argument is unsound. Unless you have a written reason that states that these actions are indivisible but those can be divided, you must rule the same way for them all.

And since treating Dash/Dodge/Disengage as indivisible is unplayable, then actions must be divisible!

[PhoenixPhyre]

The basic rules say that each action must be resolved before the next begins. Look at the first chapter of the PHB. Those rules govern all unless something says otherwise.

You have yet to cite anything other than argument by incredulity. And that's a poor idea.

[Theodoxus]

You can't take two actions at once, because you can only take one action and possibly one bonus action a round. Action Surge grants a second action, but you can't use it until your first action is resolved.

Now, if you're asking if you can bookend Extra Attack with a bonus action in between? Sure. Heck, somethings, like the cleave portion of GWM pretty much demand it.

I do prefer the nomenclature from 4th though. Standard Action, Minor Action, Immediate Interrupt vs Immediate Reaction (first stops the action that caused the reaction, second happens after the triggering effect). I do keep Bonus Action, but it requires a trigger - standard 5E bonus actions like Rogue Cunning Action or Monk Patient Defense are moved to minor actions.

It clears up a LOT of ambiguity. Kinda wish Crawford and Mearls hadn't been so damn gun shy to keep concepts from 4th, and instead ignored the good innovations the system had in favor of smoothing ruffled feathers of the snowflake class.

[Arial Black]

The basic rules say that each action must be resolved before the next begins. Look at the first chapter of the PHB. Those rules govern all unless something says otherwise.

You have yet to cite anything other than argument by incredulity. And that's a poor idea.

I'm willing to be convinced by compelling evidence.

Do you have a page number/paragraph/heading for that rule?

[Arial Black]

You can't take two actions at once

Please cite the rule which says so.


because you can only take one action and possibly one bonus action a round.

That doesn't follow! We've been happily playing that we can take a bonus action during an action, as long as it otherwise makes sense. So, you can't do something between a single attack or anything else which is treated as effectively instantaneous in the rules, but there is no rule preventing you from casting misty step as a bonus action while your Dodge action is still going on, and there is no rule stopping you from taking the Attack action while the duration of your Dash bonus action (rogue with Cunning Action) is still going on, and there is no rule stopping you from initiating Rage between attacks.

And why would there be? Why would anyone write a rule restricting things that are so obviously do-able in terms of the sequence of events? If the rules are happy with me slashing my sword into orc A then moving across the room and stabbing orc B (because that is an easily possible sequence of events in our game world), AND they are perfectly happy with me slashing orc A, moving 10 feet to pull a lever, then moving to stab orc B, why would the rules be unhappy with me slashing orc A, moving 10 feet to cast a bonus action spell like hex, and then moving to stab orc B?

The answer is that....there is no such rule.

If there is, cite it.


Action Surge grants a second action, but you can't use it until your first action is resolved.

Still need a rules citation.

[qube]

Exceptions that break up the ordering are either logically necessary (Absorb Elements inside of your own Fireball) or explicit (movement inside the attack action).So ...

Ready action (on a carefully crafted trigger) to do [action X]
Action surge to get an extra action, and perform [action Y]
The condition of your readied action are met during [action Y]
It is logically necessary that your readied action triggers
You use your reaction interrupting [action Y] to perform [action X]

et voila. Action inside Action

or less abstract: an example
ready action: hide after my first attack.
action surge: attack action, with 2 attacks
attack 1 resolves
you have attacked - so now your readied action triggers
you hide, and then you make your second attack

[Coffee_Dragon]

After all, if you can move between two opponents between your attacks, why should you not be able to misty step (or rogue bonus-action dash, as a nonmagical example) between them? Or catch you breath (or whatever Second Wind emulates)? Or use your off-hand attack in the middle of your two main attacks?

I agree, it can feel arbitrary. It can feel less like "woo, I get this extra special allowance to reduce the risk of wasting attacks against multiple opponents" and more like "what the heck, I'm running around but I can't break stride for all the options I normally have when running, are there two kinds of running in the world now". But then of course you don't get those options when using your movement allowance off-turn, either. Granular abstract model don't care, it just takes what it wants.


So ...

Ready action (on a carefully crafted trigger) to do [action X]
Action surge to get an extra action, and perform [action Y]
The condition of your readied action are met during [action Y]
It is logically necessary that your readied action triggers
You use your reaction interrupting [action Y] to perform [action X]

et voila. Action inside Action

Yup, as I wrote on page 1: "The one way I can think of offhand to nest actions is that you could take a Ready action, then use Action Surge to, say, attack. Something during that action, like another creature's reaction, triggers your reaction, which allows you to take an encapsulated action. This could possibly require some adjudication." This trick of course hinges on the exceptionality of reactions.

[ThePolarBear]

That doesn't follow! We've been happily playing that we can take a bonus action during an action, as long as it otherwise makes sense.

So, since "we" (who?) are doing things one way, it's everyone else that is "playing wrong"?


So, you can't do something between a single attack or anything else which is treated as effectively instantaneous in the rules, but there is no rule preventing you from casting misty step as a bonus action while your Dodge action is still going on

There is something preventing you from moving during an action, however. If you consider that the Dash Action or the Dodge Action are continous instead of istantaneous (like, you know, conferring a bonus is), then you can't move until your next turn. You can only move before an action, after an action, or in between attacks if an action has multiple attacks. Since this reading obviously makes the Dash Action unusable, and there is another reading that allows usage of the Dash Action without any problem whatsoever, then it's unreasonable to think that this reading is the correct one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: all emphasis in original; my footnotes are marked by numbers in [square brackets].

PHB pg 6: How to Play describes the basic pattern (event loop) of the game. These are the most general rules for the action economy that exist--everything is covered by them unless a more specific exception applies.


1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves...

2. The players describe what they want to do....The players don't need to take turns[1], but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

Sometimes, resolving a task is easy....Some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.[2]

This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions.


[1] See the later part about combat. Outside of combat this is done in parallel, but always between players, not one player doing multiple things simultaneously.
[2] Note that this is an event loop. Step 2 can't happen again until the previous step 2 has been resolved.

Now turning to page 189, Combat, subsection Your Turn

On your turn you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first[3]....

The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.

Bonus Actions
...
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn[4], unless the bonus action's timing is specified...

[3] Note that it does not say that you can take your action during your move or move during your action. It's either action, then movement or movement, then action. This is modified by the next part I quote.
[4] Same language as before. You're either taking it before your movement and action, between movement and action, or after movement and action. But not during action or movement.

Turning to the Movement and Position section (next page), subsection Breaking Up Your Move:

You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.

Note: before and after. Not during, unless the exception below applies.

Moving between Attacks
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack[5], you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.

[5] Weapon attacks. Not spell attacks. Not any other action. Only, and specifically only weapon attacks. So you can't move between blasts from Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

Now to Reactions (same page, a bit earlier)

Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can happen on your turn or on someone else's....

If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.[6]


[6] This is explicit permission to interrupt another creature's turn, necessary for many reactions to function. But not all reactions do so.
---------------
In conclusion, the rules are very crystal clear here, and have been repeated and reinforced by the developers that this was intended. Unless a specific, explicit exception applies, actions are atomic and cannot be nested inside other, non-resolved actions. This was an explicit, specific design choice to reduce the complexity of a combat round. Appeals to the fiction don't apply here because the whole turn/action economy is already an abstracted game construct that does not map 1:1 onto in-universe actions (a single attack might be multiple feints and parries and one "real" attack; everyone's constantly moving within their space, etc.).

[JackPhoenix]

[5] Weapon attacks. Not spell attacks. Not any other action. Only, and specifically only weapon attacks. So you can't move between blasts from Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

That's actually interesting, because Attack action says "melee or ranged attack", but does not specify if it must be weapon attack or spell attack. That means that (assuming you have some way to deal with loading) you could make multiple attacks with a sling and move between them if you shoot normal bullets, but not if you shoot Magic Stones.

[Willie the Duck]

I do prefer the nomenclature from 4th though. Standard Action, Minor Action, Immediate Interrupt vs Immediate Reaction (first stops the action that caused the reaction, second happens after the triggering effect). I do keep Bonus Action, but it requires a trigger - standard 5E bonus actions like Rogue Cunning Action or Monk Patient Defense are moved to minor actions.

It clears up a LOT of ambiguity. Kinda wish Crawford and Mearls hadn't been so damn gun shy to keep concepts from 4th, and instead ignored the good innovations the system had in favor of smoothing ruffled feathers of the snowflake class.

I would hesitate to attribute the change in nomenclature as a rejection of 4th edition specifically*. I think it comes more from the recognition that the technical jargon used in both 3e and 4e, while having a marginal utility in clearing up ambiguity, had the serious consequences of being off-putting to new and casual gamers. If hyper-accurate language wasn't occasionally the enemy of clear communication for casual communication, we wouldn't have terms like 'legalese' and 'lawyer speak' (and, using a RL example, I have to constantly remind the lawyers in my department to, 'remember your audience,' when crafting communications for the more general public). Thus, I don't think the change in terms is a rejection of the 4e model, so much as the re-acceptance of the BECMI model--make a game that 10-12 year olds, who have never played D&D before, could (and, more importantly, would) pick up and learn to play without adult help.

*Plus, it is 2019. If you are over the age of 18 and still calling other people snowflakes/edgelords/hipsters/etc., you should consider whether you have become that which you dislike.


I agree, it can feel arbitrary. It can feel less like "woo, I get this extra special allowance to reduce the risk of wasting attacks against multiple opponents" and more like "what the heck, I'm running around but I can't break stride for all the options I normally have when running, are there two kinds of running in the world now". But then of course you don't get those options when using your movement allowance off-turn, either. Granular abstract model don't care, it just takes what it wants.

I'm generally okay with 'granular rules-based abstraction of situation makes for occasional reality-emulation errors.' Of course I'm also okay with DM rulings/arbitration. Much of the specific rules as implemented exist for clarity, with a secondary goal of precautious prevention of potential abuse. When DMing, I'm more than okay making rulings that violate those rules as well (the rules exist to serve the game, not the other way around). In the specific case of using dash action in between attacks, I consider that part of the character concept/schtick of a highly mobile melee combatant like swashbuckler or fighter-rogue (or anyone else who both cunning action and 2+ attacks in one round). Being able to move between non-weapon attacks like eldritch blast or scorching ray, otoh, I'm not sure about. Whether these are spells that almost exactly emulate weapon attacks, or are more 'fire and forget' effects is less clear, in-fiction. Plus, the existence of the check for targets in sight at time of casting (so a specific point within the round, where the caster is in a specific location) is a big part of primary difference between spells at weapon attacks (to the point where it is a rare attack spell that doesn't specify that it must target a seen opponent). One of those cases where I'd have one pre-conceived model, but prepared to be convinced otherwise.

[JoeJ]

In the specific case of using dash action in between attacks, I consider that part of the character concept/schtick of a highly mobile melee combatant like swashbuckler or fighter-rogue (or anyone else who both cunning action and 2+ attacks in one round).

It's quite possible to parse the Dash action as instantaneous and separate from the extra movement that it grants. Considered that way, you can't Dash between attacks, but you can Dash before attacking and use the extra movement between attacks because it's just more regular movement.

[CantigThimble]

*Plus, it is 2019. If you are over the age of 18 and still calling other people snowflakes/edgelords/hipsters/etc., you should consider whether you have become that which you dislike.[/SIZE]

Man people are still using the *Current year* argument? Come on, it's 2019. :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's quite possible to parse the Dash action as instantaneous and separate from the extra movement that it grants. Considered that way, you can't Dash between attacks, but you can Dash before attacking and use the extra movement between attacks because it's just more regular movement.

Right. Since you don't have timing restrictions on the Dash action (assuming it's a bonus action due to Cunning Action), you can do it whenever as long as you're not breaking up another action. So you Dash (BA) first. This instantaneously resolves and your available movement for this turn increases by an amount of feet equal to your speed. Then at any time later you can split movement (including that added movement) and attacks (because there's an explicit exception for that one, while there isn't for other splits). Effectively you can "hoist" it to the front of your turn so it has the biggest allowed effect.

Doing it the other way requires you to insert an imaginary "you can split actions" rule, which would make several other rules redundant.

[Yunru]

Doing it the other way requires you to insert an imaginary "you can split actions" rule, which would make several other rules redundant.Doing it your way requires you to insert an imaginary "you can't split actions" rule.

[Xetheral]

[1] See the later part about combat. Outside of combat this is done in parallel, but always between players, not one player doing multiple things simultaneously.
[2] Note that this is an event loop. Step 2 can't happen again until the previous step 2 has been resolved.

I disagree with both of these. For #1, nothing in the text you quoted stops a player from either (a) declaring a compound action where they do multiple things simultaneously, or (b) either the DM or the player interrupting a resolution step with a nested loop relevant to the resolution of the first loop.

Accordingly, I disagree with note 2 completely. The basic pattern of the game is a tool, not a straightjacket. When actions are declared that take time to be performed, nested loops are practically inevitable. More importantly, nothing in the text you've quoted forbids simultaneous or nested loops, and I see no reason to believe that there is a presumption against either.


[3] Note that it does not say that you can take your action during your move or move during your action. It's either action, then movement or movement, then action. This is modified by the next part I quote.
[4] Same language as before. You're either taking it before your movement and action, between movement and action, or after movement and action. But not during action or movement.

I agree with #3, with the caveat that I think it is ambiguous whether the passage you're quoting is intended to be descriptive or proscriptive. Saying that you can move before or after your action is not necessarily the same thing as saying that you can't split your move or move and act concurrently. Here I think the wording supports either interpretation.

I entirely disagree with #4. There is no language in the section you quoted on bonus actions that mentions being taken before or after your action. Instead, the permissive language "you choose" suggests to me that taking a bonus action during an action or movement is usually totally fine (unless a specific ability says otherwise).


[5] Weapon attacks. Not spell attacks. Not any other action. Only, and specifically only weapon attacks. So you can't move between blasts from Eldritch Blast or Scorching Ray.

As with #3, I agree, but think it is ambiguous whether the text you quote is descriptive or proscriptive. It's possible the intent was to point out that you can move between weapon attacks, rather than to emphasize you can't move during any other action.



[6] This is explicit permission to interrupt another creature's turn, necessary for many reactions to function. But not all reactions do so.

I agree. I don't see how this supports your conclusion, however.


In conclusion, the rules are very crystal clear here, and have been repeated and reinforced by the developers that this was intended. Unless a specific, explicit exception applies, actions are atomic and cannot be nested inside other, non-resolved actions. This was an explicit, specific design choice to reduce the complexity of a combat round. Appeals to the fiction don't apply here because the whole turn/action economy is already an abstracted game construct that does not map 1:1 onto in-universe actions (a single attack might be multiple feints and parries and one "real" attack; everyone's constantly moving within their space, etc.).

Since I disgaree with your interpretations of the text you're using to support your conclusion, it's probably no surprise that I also can't agree with your conclusion. :) We're reading the same text but (particularly with #1, #2, and #4) have very different ideas of what it means.

Also, the rules exist to help adjudicate what a character can and can't do in the fiction, so if a particular interpretation produces problematic results, I think it's perfectly fine to use that problematic result as evidence against that interpretation.

For example, consider an object large- or cumbersome-enough to require the Use an Object Action to manipulate it, such as a hinged city gate, a battering ram, or an unconscious body. Under your interpretation where moving is forbidden during an action (other than between weapon attacks), characters can't push city gates closed, rush a door with a battering ram, or drag unconscious allies out of danger. I consider all of those things to be basic adventurer activities, and any interpretation that forbids them I consider problematic.

----------

On a player's turn their character in the fiction is likely to do multiple things (often simultaneously), many of which require abstract resolution via game mechanics. Except for abilities whose resolution order is explicitly stated (e.g. Flurry of Blows, reactions), I let the player choose any order in which to resolve the game mechanics that is consistent with the fiction. (If the order happens to be irrelevant for the actions in question, they all resolve simultaneously). I think this approach is perfectly consistent with descriptive readings of the text you quoted for #3 and #5, and is more in-keeping with design goals favoring smoother gameplay than worrying about how long specific actions take to ensure that there is never any simultaneity unless there is a rule explicitly permitting it.

[Willie the Duck]

Man people are still using the *Current year* argument? Come on, it's 2019. :smalltongue:

Now that was funny!
(although I was offering honest advice, I think using such terms makes you look, I don't know, vaguely sophomoric, and was trying to say so in a non-confrontational way).


Doing it the other way requires you to insert an imaginary "you can split actions" rule, which would make several other rules redundant.

I'm a strong believer in the framework that game designers need to (or frankly don't need to, but perhaps 'ought to') attempt some level of doctrinal purity when it comes to rule structure. Once it reaches the hands of the DM, judgment calls and the like ought to be on the table with these things. At the table, I would rule that Dash is 'effectively simply adding an additional value to your total movement, equal to your base movement... unless someone finds an abuse to that logic I deem unacceptable,' and thus it can be included in the normal rules for moving before, during, or after attacks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Since I disgaree with your interpretations of the text you're using to support your conclusion, it's probably no surprise that I also can't agree with your conclusion. :) We're reading the same text but (particularly with #1, #2, and #4) have very different ideas of what it means.


Since my interpretations have been stated in interviews to be the intended ones, it doesn't really matter if you agree or not. This was the intent of the rules.



Also, the rules exist to help adjudicate what a character can and can't do in the fiction, so if a particular interpretation produces problematic results, I think it's perfectly fine to use that problematic result as evidence against that interpretation.

For example, consider an object large- or cumbersome-enough to require the Use an Object Action to manipulate it, such as a hinged city gate, a battering ram, or an unconscious body. Under your interpretation where moving is forbidden during an action (other than between weapon attacks), characters can't push city gates closed, rush a door with a battering ram, or drag unconscious allies out of danger. I consider all of those things to be basic adventurer activities, and any interpretation that forbids them I consider problematic.


Holding objects is not an action. Picking them up may be. So it's an action to pick up the battering ram (or the body) and movement to move it. You can't move while you're picking it up, but that action resolves instantaneously. Same with moving a heavy gate--your action is getting it moving (which does not require movement in and of itself).



On a player's turn their character in the fiction is likely to do multiple things (often simultaneously), many of which require abstract resolution via game mechanics. Except for abilities whose resolution order is explicitly stated (e.g. Flurry of Blows, reactions), I let the player choose any order in which to resolve the game mechanics that is consistent with the fiction. (If the order happens to be irrelevant for the actions in question, they all resolve simultaneously). I think this approach is perfectly consistent with descriptive readings of the text you quoted for #3 and #5, and is more in-keeping with design goals favoring smoother gameplay than worrying about how long specific actions take to ensure that there is never any simultaneity unless there is a rule explicitly permitting it.

There's already a huge abstraction layer in combat, so deciding when things happen on a turn is already a bit weird and disconnected from the fiction. Because all of it's happening at once over the whole round.

Remember the default is that you get movement and an action. Bonus actions and reactions are already exceptions to the basic flow and so need their own specific rules. The default is (by the rules quoted) that they act exactly like Actions, which have been clarified by developers to be atomic. This was specifically done to prevent people from trying to game the action economy for power purposes. What they explicitly don't want is people trying to juggle the order of actions to produce maximum output, or feeling bad that they "wasted" a bonus action by not taking it in the "right order".

Now in a real game I let people declare non-conflicting things together just fine. That's to speed up resolution of independent pieces of the turn. Heck, I'll let them remember at the end of their turn that they needed to rage first and won't dock them the damage. That's what I mean by "hoisting" the bonus actions to the front. But when people try to munchkin the action economy, that's when I put my foot down. Anything that needs resolution (ie anything that doesn't resolve automatically by its own explicit rules) needs separate confirmation.

Often that's because there are factors influencing the resolution that the player doesn't (and can't) know about. Enemy reactions (such as hellish rebuke). Environmental conditions that have specific triggers. Etc. If they just presume and do everything at once, then we have to back out the turn and it ends up wasting lots and lots of time and causes needless confusion.

Edit:

I'm a strong believer in the framework that game designers need to (or frankly don't need to, but perhaps 'ought to') attempt some level of doctrinal purity when it comes to rule structure. Once it reaches the hands of the DM, judgment calls and the like ought to be on the table with these things. At the table, I would rule that Dash is 'effectively simply adding an additional value to your total movement, equal to your base movement... unless someone finds an abuse to that logic I deem unacceptable,' and thus it can be included in the normal rules for moving before, during, or after attacks.

That was my point as well. The Dash action isn't an action that requires resolution and it has no timing restrictions--it auto resolves to "your available increases by your base speed until the end of your turn". It's a toggle switch. So if you can Dash and take another action (Action Surge or Cunning Action or Step of the Wind or...), you can always Dash first and then act like normal later (including using that extra movement between attacks, etc). So no matter when you say it during your turn, it was in effect from the beginning of your turn.

[Arial Black]

So, since "we" (who?) are doing things one way, it's everyone else that is "playing wrong"?

If you read the quote to which this was my reply, Theo says that the reason "You can't take two actions at once" is "because you can only take one action and possibly one bonus action a round".

That does not follow! There is nothing intrinsic about the fact that you usually get one Action and one bonus action per round that prevents another rule giving a second action OR that prevents a bonus action happening during an action.

It's not that 'we are playing right therefore everyone who plays differently is wrong', it's that 'we have been playing happily this way since 5e started, so any assertion that it is not possible to play this way has been demonstrated to be false'.


There is something preventing you from moving during an action, however. If you consider that the Dash Action or the Dodge Action are continous instead of istantaneous (like, you know, conferring a bonus is), then you can't move until your next turn. You can only move before an action, after an action, or in between attacks if an action has multiple attacks. Since this reading obviously makes the Dash Action unusable, and there is another reading that allows usage of the Dash Action without any problem whatsoever, then it's unreasonable to think that this reading is the correct one.

Yes! And that correct reading is that Moving Between Attacks is descriptive, not proscriptive! Because, as you so rightly point out, reading that as proscriptive results in certain actions being unusable!

[Arial Black]

Xetheral has provided an excellent breakdown of all this, so I won't just repeat everything here. I will make some points though.


Note: all emphasis in original; my footnotes are marked by numbers in [square brackets].

PHB pg 6: How to Play describes the basic pattern (event loop) of the game. These are the most general rules for the action economy that exist--everything is covered by them unless a more specific exception applies.

2. The players describe what they want to do....The players don't need to take turns[1], but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.

As the game is (proudly!) written in 'natural language', occasionally the writer wants to use a word that has a specific game jargon meaning in its non-jargon, natural language sense. One such word is 'action'. It has a natural language meaning of 'doing something', and a specific game jargon meaning, as in "You get one Action each turn". In this case, the game jargon word 'action' is short for 'Action In Combat', as on p.192 of the PHB.

But when it says, at the very beginning of the book when it is telling complete newbies on what the game looks like, well before Chapter 9: Combat where Actions In Combat are described, "The players describe what they want to do....The players don't need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions" is most certainly not the game jargon Actions In Combat! It is the general, natural language meaning of 'what do you do?'.

But they provide a way for us, the readers, to know which way they are using that word: context. If they are discussing a game rule and how it is used during a combat round, then it might say, "As an action, you can touch a creature and...". In context, this is the game jargon Action In Combat.


In conclusion....

Your conclusion therefore is fruit of a poisoned tree. The base of your assertion is that this initial description of the game for newbies is a 'rule' which, when looked at sideways, could be made to seem as if it disallows nested Actions In Combat....but this is simply not an accurate reading of that section.

And what's more, your claim that "these are the most general rules for the action economy which exist", even if it were true, would mean that "you can use your bonus action whenever you like in your turn" must be a less general, more specific rule, and 'specific trumps general'.

So, I find your claim that 'actions are indivisible' is an actual written rule to be not proven.

[Arial Black]

It's quite possible to parse the Dash action as instantaneous and separate from the extra movement that it grants. Considered that way, you can't Dash between attacks, but you can Dash before attacking and use the extra movement between attacks because it's just more regular movement.

Using the same logic, it is equally possible to parse the Attack action as instantaneous and separate from the individual attacks that it grants. Considered that way, taking a bonus action between attacks does not actually divide the Attack action in any way.

The thing is, without a written rule granting an exception, ALL of the Actions In Combat must be treated the same way re: divisibility.

Either ALL the Actions In Combat are divisible, OR they are ALL indivisible.

Either 'taking an Action' is considered to to be an instantaneous thing with long lasting effects for ALL Actions In Combat, OR they are ALL considered to have a duration.

Either the section on Moving Between Attacks is descriptive OR proscriptive, for ALL Actions In Combat equally.

Deciding for yourself, without rules support, that some actions are divisible and some are not, that some are instantaneous with lasting effects and some are not, that you can move during some actions and not others without needing a written permission, is the fallacy of Special Pleading.

[JackPhoenix]

Using the same logic, it is equally possible to parse the Attack action as instantaneous and separate from the individual attacks that it grants. Considered that way, taking a bonus action between attacks does not actually divide the Attack action in any way.

The thing is, without a written rule granting an exception, ALL of the Actions In Combat must be treated the same way re: divisibility.

Either ALL the Actions In Combat are divisible, OR they are ALL indivisible.

Either 'taking an Action' is considered to to be an instantaneous thing with long lasting effects for ALL Actions In Combat, OR they are ALL considered to have a duration.

Either the section on Moving Between Attacks is descriptive OR proscriptive, for ALL Actions In Combat equally.

Deciding for yourself, without rules support, that some actions are divisible and some are not, that some are instantaneous with lasting effects and some are not, that you can move during some actions and not others without needing a written permission, is the fallacy of Special Pleading.

Weren't you explaining that context matters in the post just above? Actions are indivisible, unless a specific exception makes them divisible. Moving between attack is one such exception, and it applies exactly when the rules say it does: When you make more than one weapon attack with an action. Not when you make spell attacks, not if you can somehow make attacks as non-action (there's no way to do that anyway), and not when you do anything else.

What you're presenting is a false dichotomy.

[Yunru]

Actions are indivisible, unless a specific exception makes them divisible.That is a statement you are making. It is not, in fact, a fact.

Moving between attack is one such exception.As is this.

Neither of those statements are supported by the text.

[JackPhoenix]

That is a statement you are making. It is not, in fact, a fact.
As is this.

Neither of those statements are supported by the text.

Except all the text from the rules that was already mentioned in this thread (multiple times, by multiple people, and that I don't feel the need to repeat yet again) AND statements of intention from the creators themselves.

But I suppose your completely unproven claims to contrary carry heavier weight.

[ThePolarBear]

If you read the quote to which this was my reply, Theo says that the reason "You can't take two actions at once" is "because you can only take one action and possibly one bonus action a round".

Yes, i understand. And you are missing the point of that part of my post. It's not about if Theodoxus is right or wrong. It's about the "So" you used in the post.
He is using a non-sequitur, you are using a non-sequitur. It is not possible "because" we have been playing this way; "we" could have been playing wrong all this time. It's because of other reasons that we can or cannot do it.

Got it? ;D


Yes! And that correct reading is that Moving Between Attacks is descriptive, not proscriptive! Because, as you so rightly point out, reading that as proscriptive results in certain actions being unusable!

No? i do not agree that moving between attacks is simply descriptive. It's proscriptive just like moving before or after actions, just how with Extra Attack at level 5 a paladin cannot choose to make 51 attacks. The system does not list all your "you can't do", but limits to state what you can unless a specific ban is necessary.
"even if it's not written, i can" is not the most reasonable statement, because it could apply to anything: fireball healing, for one.
I do not agree that "Dash action" lasts a turn, or that "Dodge Action" lasts a round.

But anyway, there is a problem with another part of your responses. You say that you cannot put a smite spell between a roll and the declaration "hit or miss", but state that the fact that actions aren't meant to be indivisible isn't part of the game. The two things do not really compute. Making an attack IS part of the Attack action. And making more than one attack via Extra Attack is STILL the same Attack Action, as you do those attacks as part of that action.You are allowing a misty step between the attacks (thus interrupting the action) but not between roll and decision. Either you agree that something, somewhere, is meant to be indivisible, or not. But at this point, you are only disagreeing in what is "unwritten" to be indivisible. Which, by the way, still has to be checked against the "specific vs general".

[Yunru]

Except all the text from the rules that was already mentioned in this threadAll of which has been circumstantial at best, relying on something saying you can do something meaning that you can't otherwise (which isn't how rules work).


AND statements of intention from the creators themselves.Yes, because the lead designers obviously are aware of every single minutiae, especially such edge cases like these.

[Yunru]

YThe system does not list all your "you can't do", but limits to state what you can unless a specific ban is necessary.You're right! Except it's already defined that on your turn you can move and take actions. Which means that unless something contradicts that, you can move during actions. Thus the reminder is merely descriptive, because it doesn't change the established rules at all.

[JoeJ]

Using the same logic, it is equally possible to parse the Attack action as instantaneous and separate from the individual attacks that it grants. Considered that way, taking a bonus action between attacks does not actually divide the Attack action in any way.

As written, it really isn't. One of them is described as giving you something, the other as you doing something. And why is there a rule saying that you can move between attacks? That rule is completely meaningless under your interpretation, just a waste of paper and ink that has no effect on the game.


The thing is, without a written rule granting an exception, ALL of the Actions In Combat must be treated the same way re: divisibility.

No they don't.

[Yunru]

As written, it really isn't. One of them is described as giving you something, the other as you doing something. And why is there a rule saying that you can move between attacks? That rule is completely meaningless under your interpretation, just a waste of paper and ink that has no effect on the game.Who says it's a rule?
It's a reminder because in previous additions it hasn't been possible.

[ThePolarBear]

You're right! Except it's already defined that on your turn you can move and take actions. Which means that unless something contradicts that, you can move during actions. Thus the reminder is merely descriptive, because it doesn't change the established rules at all.

No. You can move BEFORE or AFTER your taking your action. Not during. Again, you don't list what you can't, unless you need a specific ban.
"unless you contradict that fireball doesn't heal, it does" is the same argument. A faulty one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. You can move BEFORE or AFTER your taking your action. Not during. Again, you don't list what you can't, unless you need a specific ban.
"unless you contradict that fireball doesn't heal, it does" is the same argument. A faulty one.

Exactly. If you could move at any time, they'd have said that instead of specifying that you can decide which one to do first. And then you wouldn't need a whole separate section with examples about splitting your move between weapon (specifically called out) attacks. Not spell attacks. What they say is important. You have to read the actual words.

And "the rules don't say I can't" is, as you say, a stupid argument that proves too much.

[JoeJ]

Who says it's a rule?
It's a reminder because in previous additions it hasn't been possible.

But not mentioning anything else you can do, which implies that there isn't anything else you can do.

[Yunru]

No. You can move BEFORE or AFTER your taking your action. Not during.
Find me the rule that says that. Because I can find the rule that says on your turn you can move up to your speed, and that doesn't say "unless you are taking an action."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Find me the rule that says that. Because I can find the rule that says on your turn you can move up to your speed, and that doesn't say "unless you are taking an action."

I quoted it above. It's part of that same passage.

Specifically:


You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.

Not during. And that's important. That whole sentence would be surplus if they really meant you could move at any time. To say nothing of doing other actions at any time.

[JoeJ]

Find me the rule that says that. Because I can find the rule that says on your turn you can move up to your speed, and that doesn't say "unless you are taking an action."

It doesn't need to say that because, at the level the player controls, there simply is no way to break up most actions. To dodge, the player says, "I dodge." That's it. There are no parts of that action to separate; it's just said and resolved. Saying that you want to do something else between the "I" and the "dodge" would be nonsense.

Most other actions are the same way. Only in the case of extra attacks and a small number of spells does an action have multiple parts for the player to distribute. Otherwise you say what you're doing and it's immediately resolved (or, for the Ready action, a trigger is immediately defined, which will cause the action to be resolved if it occurs).

[ThePolarBear]

Find me the rule that says that. Because I can find the rule that says on your turn you can move up to your speed, and that doesn't say "unless you are taking an action."

What PP said. And you can move up to your speed regardless of if you are moving before, after, ONLY before, ONLY after your turn. The phrase is true even if you do not move at all. The fact that you cannot move DURING your action in no way makes what you quote any less true.

[Xetheral]

Since my interpretations have been stated in interviews to be the intended ones, it doesn't really matter if you agree or not. This was the intent of the rules.

You claimed that the rules text you cited supports a specific conclusion. I explained why I disagree with your interpretation of the text and therefore why I disagree that it supports your conclusion.

I was under the impression that your general position is that both the rules text and the developer's statements support your conclusion. Are you withdrawing the former claim and now resting your conclusion entirely on developer statements? If not, then it matters greatly whether others interpret the text you're relying on in the same way you do.

Also, I disagree with you regarding the applicability of the developers' statements to the interpretation of the rules text you quoted, particularly as it relates to #2. I don't see any of the developers' statements as implying that the basic flow of the game prohbits simultaneous or nested declaration/resolution loops. Without that premise being true, your conclusion does not follow.


Holding objects is not an action. Picking them up may be. So it's an action to pick up the battering ram (or the body) and movement to move it. You can't move while you're picking it up, but that action resolves instantaneously. Same with moving a heavy gate--your action is getting it moving (which does not require movement in and of itself).

Holding an object may not be an ongoing action, but dragging an object certainly is. Similarly, a heavy gate may require continual pushing across a considerable distance. Pushing it once and letting it swing closed without moving with it isn't always going to work. Pushing a cart up a hill would be another example where Use an Object requires simultaneous movement to be effective.

I also completely disagree that using a battering ram only requires an action when you first pick it up. I would require the Use an Object Action (and movement) for each run-up-and-strike. (Or, if the ram is hung from a siege frame, I'd require an action and movement to grab the ram and pull it back through it's full travel distance, which could be multiple rounds of movement for a large-enough ram).


There's already a huge abstraction layer in combat, so deciding when things happen on a turn is already a bit weird and disconnected from the fiction. Because all of it's happening at once over the whole round.

Remember the default is that you get movement and an action. Bonus actions and reactions are already exceptions to the basic flow and so need their own specific rules. The default is (by the rules quoted) that they act exactly like Actions, which have been clarified by developers to be atomic. This was specifically done to prevent people from trying to game the action economy for power purposes. What they explicitly don't want is people trying to juggle the order of actions to produce maximum output, or feeling bad that they "wasted" a bonus action by not taking it in the "right order".

(Bold emphasis added.) If you're going to continue to claim the support of the rules text then it's relevant that I disagree with your interpretations of that text. If the rules only support your conclusion based on (your interpretation of) the developers' statements, then ultimately you're relying entirely on those statements as evidence.

To address your broader point, I don't see how making actions atomic does anything to prevent gaming the system. If anything, it makes the system much fiddlier (particularly when trying to distinguisb between an ongoing action and an instaneous one with an ongoing effect) and thus more prone to unusual interactions that can be exploited.


Now in a real game I let people declare non-conflicting things together just fine. That's to speed up resolution of independent pieces of the turn. Heck, I'll let them remember at the end of their turn that they needed to rage first and won't dock them the damage. That's what I mean by "hoisting" the bonus actions to the front. But when people try to munchkin the action economy, that's when I put my foot down. Anything that needs resolution (ie anything that doesn't resolve automatically by its own explicit rules) needs separate confirmation.

Often that's because there are factors influencing the resolution that the player doesn't (and can't) know about. Enemy reactions (such as hellish rebuke). Environmental conditions that have specific triggers. Etc. If they just presume and do everything at once, then we have to back out the turn and it ends up wasting lots and lots of time and causes needless confusion.

So, if a player of a 5th level Barbarian forgets to declare Rage until after their first attack, you'll let them retroactively gain the benefits for the first attack and also gain them for the second attack. Cool, I agree with you there. Can you give me an example of when you wouldn't let the Barbarian player retroactively Rage between attacks?

More broadly, do you have an example of the type of exploitative behavior that your strict interpretation of action timing prevents that my more relaxed approach (described at the end of my last post) would permit?

[Coffee_Dragon]

For example, consider an object large- or cumbersome-enough to require the Use an Object Action to manipulate it, such as a hinged city gate, a battering ram, or an unconscious body.

Stop "using" unconscious bodies! It's 2019!


That was my point as well. The Dash action isn't an action that requires resolution and it has no timing restrictions--it auto resolves to "your available increases by your base speed until the end of your turn". It's a toggle switch. So if you can Dash and take another action (Action Surge or Cunning Action or Step of the Wind or...), you can always Dash first and then act like normal later (including using that extra movement between attacks, etc). So no matter when you say it during your turn, it was in effect from the beginning of your turn.

It technically matters in cases where information is gained after starting an attack. For instance, a monk with Extra Attack is fighting two opponents spaced widely apart. If the first attack drops opponent A, the monk wants to Dash to reach opponent B and deliver the second attack. If A isn't down after two attacks, the monk may want to Flurry.


Holding an object may not be an ongoing action, but dragging an object certainly is. Similarly, a heavy gate may require continual pushing across a considerable distance. Pushing it once and letting it swing closed without moving with it isn't always going to work. Pushing a cart up a hill would be another example where Use an Object requires simultaneous movement to be effective.

I would put a bunch of these, certainly starting to push carts uphill during combat, under improvised actions, not UaO. Which has the nice side effect that the DM/table can/must adjudicate what can/must be involved, like movement. The alternative needlessly stretches the apparent main scope of the Use an Object rules, which is manipulating things like swords, levers and flagons. Would you say driving the cart is Use an Object, and not an improvised action that may or may not involve an ability check? (Frankly I don't know if the rules ever weigh in on that subject, although we know that if we remove the cart and put you directly on one of the yaks, it isn't UaO.)


I also completely disagree that using a battering ram only requires an action when you first pick it up. I would require the Use an Object Action (and movement) for each run-up-and-strike. (Or, if the ram is hung from a siege frame, I'd require an action and movement to grab the ram and pull it back through it's full travel distance, which could be multiple rounds of movement for a large-enough ram).

Not sure if you know, but the DMG has rules for a frame-type ram. It's the only type of siege equipment which doesn't state an action cost to wind up, so I would assume it's one swing per turn, effectively stationary. It also doesn't specify an action type.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would put a bunch of these, certainly starting to push carts uphill during combat, under improvised actions, not UaO. Which has the nice side effect that the DM/table can/must adjudicate what can/must be involved, like movement. The alternative needlessly stretches the apparent main scope of the Use an Object rules, which is manipulating things like swords, levers and flagons. Would you say driving the cart is Use an Object, and not an improvised action that may or may not involve an ability check? (Frankly I don't know if the rules ever weigh in on that subject, although we know that if we remove the cart and put you directly on one of the yaks, it isn't UaO.)


I agree with this. I'd say most "non-standard" actions are actually improvised actions, rather than Use an Object. Which has nice properties such as being flexible, as you say.

The default is improvised. Certain things that come up frequently have more granular rules to smooth/simplify/systematize resolution at the table. But the fall-back, default is "DM decides how to adjudicate it and what's allowed."

[Xetheral]

I would put a bunch of these, certainly starting to push carts uphill during combat, under improvised actions, not UaO. Which has the nice side effect that the DM/table can/must adjudicate what can/must be involved, like movement. The alternative needlessly stretches the apparent main scope of the Use an Object rules, which is manipulating things like swords, levers and flagons. Would you say driving the cart is Use an Object, and not an improvised action that may or may not involve an ability check? (Frankly I don't know if the rules ever weigh in on that subject, although we know that if we remove the cart and put you directly on one of the yaks, it isn't UaO.)

Interesting... I would usually put manipulating swords, levers, and flagons as free object interactions, and only require Use an Object if the player had already used up their free interaction that turn. I tend to reserve Use an Object for the either the big stuff I used in my examples, or else things like Alchemists Fire that specify the action type. It sounds like you have a much narrower view of UaO, and only include things that are simple enough to be a free object interaction and, e.g., Alchemists Fire?

Admittedly, I see UaO as freeform enough that it overlaps with Improvised Actions anyway. The only practical difference I can see would be the Thief's Fast Hands ability. Driving a cart has come up in my game, but not one being driven by a thief, so other than ruling that it takes an action I haven't had to decide whether it was UaO or improvised. I think I'd rule it was UaO, just because I'm fine with the Thief having the unusual ability to drive the cart as a bonus action while also doing something else. In this case, the bonus action UaO would occupy the entire round, and I'd treat all other actions as being simultaneous with it.


Not sure if you know, but the DMG has rules for a frame-type ram. It's the only type of siege equipment which doesn't state an action cost to wind up, so I would assume it's one swing per turn, effectively stationary. It also doesn't specify an action type.

I didn't know that. Thanks! I'll take a look.

[Arial Black]

No. You can move BEFORE or AFTER your taking your action. Not during. Again, you don't list what you can't, unless you need a specific ban.

Brilliant!

Disengage is an Action. You claim that you can move BEFORE or AFTER you 'taking your action', but not DURING.

Fine.

If 'taking your action' is an instantaneous event with long-lasting effects, then you can 'take the Disengage action' and still move because that Action has finished even though its effects are ongoing. It ALSO means that you can 'take the Attack action' and then cast a bonus action spell before you actually attack, for exactly the same reason: that Action has finished even though its effects are ongoing.

If 'taking your action' is the same thing as the effects of your Action, then because the Attack action only ends after you either take your last attack or your turn ends, you cannot either take a bonus action OR move until that action ends. However, there IS a rule that lets you move during your Attack action, between attacks, so you can move, but can't take a bonus action.

However, if this is true then it is ALSO true that the Disengage action lasts as long as its effects last! And since you cannot either take a bonus action OR move until that action ends, and there is NO rule that lets you move during this action, then you CANNOT move during a Disengage action. Which renders it meaningless.

Which is it?

[JoeJ]

Brilliant!

Disengage is an Action. You claim that you can move BEFORE or AFTER you 'taking your action', but not DURING.

Fine.

If 'taking your action' is an instantaneous event with long-lasting effects, then you can 'take the Disengage action' and still move because that Action has finished even though its effects are ongoing. It ALSO means that you can 'take the Attack action' and then cast a bonus action spell before you actually attack, for exactly the same reason: that Action has finished even though its effects are ongoing.

If 'taking your action' is the same thing as the effects of your Action, then because the Attack action only ends after you either take your last attack or your turn ends, you cannot either take a bonus action OR move until that action ends. However, there IS a rule that lets you move during your Attack action, between attacks, so you can move, but can't take a bonus action.

However, if this is true then it is ALSO true that the Disengage action lasts as long as its effects last! And since you cannot either take a bonus action OR move until that action ends, and there is NO rule that lets you move during this action, then you CANNOT move during a Disengage action. Which renders it meaningless.

Which is it?

Neither. "Taking your action" lasts until the player and DM have done everything that the action requires/allows them to do. It has no specific meaning within the fiction.

[Man_Over_Game]

This has weirdly become one of the most passionate disputes I've seen on the forum, despite being about the most mundane sh**.

It's absurdly funny to me. Not trying to be a jacka**, I'm honestly laughing about ironic it is.

[qube]

Neither. "Taking your action" lasts until the player and DM have done everything that the action requires/allows them to do. It has no specific meaning within the fiction.that's not a neither - that the second scenario.

The question was is it


attack action
....v
---- (attack) ----- (attack) -------------
or

....<-attack action-------->
---- (attack) ----- (attack) -------------

[JoeJ]

that's not a neither - that the second scenario.

The question was is it


attack action
....v
---- (attack) ----- (attack) -------------
or

....<-attack action-------->
---- (attack) ----- (attack) -------------

But only with respect to the attack action. Disengage occurs instantaneously, because all that is required for that is for the player to say, "I disengage."

[Coffee_Dragon]

Interesting... I would usually put manipulating swords, levers, and flagons as free object interactions, and only require Use an Object if the player had already used up their free interaction that turn. I tend to reserve Use an Object for the either the big stuff I used in my examples, or else things like Alchemists Fire that specify the action type. It sounds like you have a much narrower view of UaO, and only include things that are simple enough to be a free object interaction and, e.g., Alchemists Fire?

Well, I don't know if I would agree it's much narrower, since that part you qualify with "only" seems like it could encompass most things the game typically cares about adventurers interacting with. The bulkiest things listed among the object interactions seem to be a door and a banner, and it seems kinda reasonable that not every construct or structure should count as an object. At some point you have to either consider the constituent parts which adventurers can actually hold or manipulate to be the objects, or you shift the interaction out of Use an Object, whichever works smoother. In practice it doesn't really matter what you call it at that point, of course, but for the purpose of our highly technical discussion here.

[ThePolarBear]

Disengage is an Action. You claim that you can move BEFORE or AFTER you 'taking your action', but not DURING.

This is rude on so many levels.

I quote, as others have done before me: "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first." - "You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action."

"During" does never appear.


If 'taking your action' is an instantaneous event with long-lasting effects,[...] It ALSO means that you can 'take the Attack action' and then cast a bonus action spell before you actually attack,

This is the thing: "Taking your action" is not an istantaneous event with long lasting effects. Nor a continuous deal that binds you for the rest of your turn. "Taking your action" is variable depending what action you are taking. An undescribed term that needs to adapt to the situation.
"Taking your action" is, for some actions, just a "ok" from the DM. That "ok" confers some boni from that point in time onwards. For others, the determination of an uncertainty is part of what that action is, and taking that action includes that determination.

For Dodge, you really have nothing. "When you take the Dodge action," something happens. "I take the Dodge Action" "ok". Done. Action taken,thus boni acquired. Whatever "taking it" actually means. If we go with a different word, "Spend", you "spent" your action, thus gained something.

For Attack, you have a different bit: "With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack." This part is the important one. It's not "you can, during your turn, make an attack","at any point of your turn" or variation thereof.

For Cast a Spell, it's quite clear that the action is "casting a spell". Taking the action is casting a spell.

It is important, keep it in mind for a moment.


you can 'take the Disengage action' and still move because that Action has finished even though its effects are ongoing.

If we read it as "temporal", the action is over, THEN the effects of having taken the action happen: If, Then.


for exactly the same reason: that Action has finished even though its effects are ongoing.

Sort of. The results of you having taken the action are clearly still there. But again, different actions, different description. Dodge doesn't care what "taking" Dodge is. Cast a spell IS, however, casting the spell. The crux of the problem is only "what is taking the Attack Action, and is the attack a result of having taken the Attack action or is the attack part of the action itself", and as such, taking the action means making an attack.


If 'taking your action' is the same thing as the effects of your Action

It isn't.


because the Attack action only ends after you either take your last attack or your turn ends, you cannot either take a bonus action OR move until that action ends. However, there IS a rule that lets you move during your Attack action, between attacks, so you can move, but can't take a bonus action.

EVEN IF, "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified". It's a SPECIFIC rule that applies to bonus actions. You can do "Misty Step", since it has NO timing specified, at any point during your turn. It doesn't matter if you can't move - a bonus action is not movement, even if it allows you to move - which at that point you might or might not be able to move, depending on description.

And this comes back to the Attack action and Shield Master.
Shield Master has a timing: after you take the Attack Action. It doesn't really matter for this discussion when you can or cannot put bonus actions, because we know there is a timing.
It doesn't matter the Dodge action or any other action that is not the Attack Action, because "taking an action" is dependant on that action.
The only thing that matters is what "taking the Attack Action" involves and when does it end.


Which is it?

Neither. You try to create a general case from taking each single case and apply their rules to each other single case, as if their specific case somehow applied. It doesn't work like that, that's why you end up with impossible solutions. We know that for some action, by a "when, then" reading, once done you gain something and really it doesn't matter what "taking" is. For others, it's not this clear cut.

For both Dodge and Attack you "take an action", but what "take an action" means changes depending on the action you take.

[Arial Black]

This is rude on so many levels.

What is rude about it?


Neither. You try to create a general case from taking each single case and apply their rules to each other single case, as if their specific case somehow applied. It doesn't work like that, that's why you end up with impossible solutions. We know that for some action, by a "when, then" reading, once done you gain something and really it doesn't matter what "taking" is. For others, it's not this clear cut.

For both Dodge and Attack you "take an action", but what "take an action" means changes depending on the action you take.

This is the fallacy of Special Pleading.

With no rules support whatsoever YOU have decided that some actions are treated one way and some the other way. Yet, with the same (lack of) rules support another person could reverse those decisions and have things work the opposite way, and your arguments against them could be used by them to argue against your claim.

Simply put, there are Actions in the game. As elsewhere in the rules, there are GENERAL rules governing them ALL, and SPECIFIC exceptions, written exceptions rather than one's you might imagine, which might apply to that individual action in exactly the way it says it does.

As always in these rules, specific trumps general. In order to do so, there must first be general rules. Next, there must be specific exceptions for those rules.

So, what are the general rules for Actions regarding this debate? I won't even ask you to cite them at this stage; make up whatever general rule you want! But the crucial thing about general rules for Actions (or anything else) is this: they apply to ALL the different Actions (or anything else) UNLESS there is a specific, written exception! There is no rules justification to treat them differently otherwise!

General Rules For Actions

Is there a general rule to the effect that, "Actions are indivisible"? If so, ALL Actions are indivisible UNLESS an Action has a specific, written exception.

Is there a general rule to the effect that, "Actions only end when their effects end"? If so, it applies to ALL Actions UNLESS an Action has a specific, written exception.

Is there a general rule to the effect that, "Movement takes place either before an Action begins or after an Action ends"? If so, it applies to ALL Actions UNLESS an Action has a specific, written exception.

So, you tell me, what are the general rules for Actions in 5e regarding the above?

[ThePolarBear]

What is rude about it?

To make a claim is, generally, to make a statement without proof.
Since proof was provided, MULTIPLE TIMES, it is rude to call it a claim.


This is the fallacy of Special Pleading.

Did you read the rest of the post?

To be a fallacy of Special Pleading, there has to be a generally accepted common case where the exception is raised. There isn't a general case.
To be a fallacy of Special Pleading, there has to be no proof given that there is a difference between the cases, with the only reason given to be "special" is the fact that it is special. Furthermore, the fallacy doesn't interfere with the truth of that "special case" being special or not: it's simply how it is presented. As i have provided, two different actions DO follow different wordings that DO state different procedures. It's not special because it's special. It's special because their own workings tell you to treat them differently.

And that's the whole point of my counter argument. You treat "taking an action" as something that applies in the same way to everything, but provide nothing that backs up that line of thinking and disregard the possibility of not having a general universality of process as not even worth considering.

Again, "since a tomato is red, a tomato is a fruit, all fruits are red" is not a valid logic demonstration. You need to provide a generally accepted fact or logically valid reason why taking the attack action should follow the same rules as taking the dodge action in general. But, because as you put it:


With no rules support whatsoever

You really cannot make a case for a general rule to exist. There's no support about it.
You have decided to treat them as equal, even if they are not, and never even considered the possibility that the actions could be different. You reach an impossible result when faced with a stated intention.

If you treat them as different, you do not reach such an empasse.


As always in these rules, specific trumps general. In order to do so, there must first be general rules. Next, there must be specific exceptions for those rules.

So, what are the general rules for Actions regarding this debate? I won't even ask you to cite them at this stage; make up whatever general rule you want! But the crucial thing about general rules for Actions (or anything else) is this: they apply to ALL the different Actions (or anything else) UNLESS there is a specific, written exception! There is no rules justification to treat them differently otherwise!

If there is nothing, you do not "make it up and slap a this is a specific/general rule sticker on it". What you consider "specific" might very well be the general. There's no general on "taking an action", beside "you can do it on this occasions".
There is nothing to tell us what "Taking an action" in general is. Only that an "action" exists as a concept, that a character normally has one only during its turn, and that use its action to take one of the listed actions or an improvised one.

Again, you cannot build "taking the action" as having general proprieties, because there isn't a single general one about it except that you can do it. And again, if the Dodge action is "instantaneous", it doesn't follow that the Attack action also is. You need to approach each action as its own "general", with each being different and its own "specific", in regards to each other.

"If taking an action is ALWAYS instantaneous" is just as valid as a possibility as "if taking an action is NEVER instantaneous".
But both are just as valid as "if taking an action varies". The problem is not in the possibility. Is in your analysis not recognising that the third is an option, because it leaves the analysis wanting AND leads to results that are impossible.


General Rules For Actions

Is there a general rule to the effect that, "Actions are indivisible"? If so, ALL Actions are indivisible UNLESS an Action has a specific, written exception.

There isn't. There's a stated intent that those are. If you treat it as a rule, then i suppose it exists?
Furthermore, it's not that an action is indivisible unless said action says "i'm divisible!".
Any rule might ignore any other rule, or part of a rule, with no regards. Extra Attack, even if it is not the Attack Action (or an action at all) it modifies the action.


Is there a general rule to the effect that, "Actions only end when their effects end"? If so, it applies to ALL Actions UNLESS an Action has a specific, written exception.

To my knowledge this rule doesn't exist. There's also not even a stated intent about that at least that i know of. So why do you think it exists?


Is there a general rule to the effect that, "Movement takes place either before an Action begins or after an Action ends"? If so, it applies to ALL Actions UNLESS an Action has a specific, written exception.

No.
It sort of exists as you list it, but it doesn't require THE ACTION to be the thing with a written exception. The rule is about movement and how it interacts with actions, and an exception might be (and usually is) written in the thing that provides the exception, not in the thing being modified (again, you don't list all one can't do just as much as you don't list anything someone might be able to with an exception that might come out years after the original publication.)


So, you tell me, what are the general rules for Actions in 5e regarding the above?

The first is not a written rule. It's a stated intent. We can consider it as a rule, if you want, but again falls under the Specific VS General. Any more specific rule can modify a more general rule.
The second doesn't exist as far as i know, quite simply.
The third is a rule about movement. If there is an exception, it will most likely modify the movement (even if it is possible to have an action that states something like "you can move at any time during this action", i guess). You prehaps could turn the phrase around to make the action the subject. But again, any action that includes more than one weapon attack can be segmented by movement, and any other rule that modifies this behaviour is still going to be more specific. It's just a wording difference.

Problem is: i'm contesting your analysis on "Taking an action". Which you are not discussing at all.

[Arial Black]

To make a claim is, generally, to make a statement without proof.
Since proof was provided, MULTIPLE TIMES, it is rude to call it a claim.

Your 'proof' was refuted. Your claim was based on the essay for newbies at the beginning of the PHB which describes play in non-rules terms, where it basically says that players have their characters take their 'actions' (in the non-rules sense of 'do their stuff') and resolve them in turn. Meaning that each player's 'stuff they do' is resolved one-at-a-time. You are reading that as if it were a RULE that (game-term) ACTIONS are resolved one-at-a-time, and using that as if it were a rule that 'Actions are indivisible'!

Here is the actual PHB text from p6:-

From How To Play, and the bolded sequence of:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

...the passage continues:-

"Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which bring the flow of the game right back to step 1.

"This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."

So your use of this passage as 'proof' of your claim that 'actions are indivisible' is erroneous, and anything stemming from that is fruit of a poisoned tree. You don't get to keep referring back to it as if you had provided proof, when all you did was attempt, and fail, to provide that proof.


Did you read the rest of the post?

To be a fallacy of Special Pleading, there has to be a generally accepted common case where the exception is raised. There isn't a general case.

You really cannot make a case for a general rule to exist. There's no support about it.

Okay, so if there is no general rule that 'actions are indivisible', and no specific rule that 'Attack actions are indivisible', then you agree that the bonus action shield shove can take place between the first and second attacks of your Attack action if you have Extra Attack....right?

[ThePolarBear]

Your 'proof' was refuted. Your claim was based on the essay for newbies at the beginning of the PHB which describes play in non-rules terms, where it basically says that players have their characters take their 'actions' (in the non-rules sense of 'do their stuff') and resolve them in turn.

No. You did not even bother to read the quotes provided, to check where those quotes are from, or ask where the quotes are taken from. Not even checking who you are replying to, since my argument was never about the common rules at page 6. You are mixing up arguments and discussions like no tomorrow.

Again, you are being incredibly rude.

I do NOT claim that you cannot move DURING your action, because i provided quotes from the phb to support my argument:
"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first." - This is from "Movement and Position", page 190 PHB
"You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action." - This is from "Breaking up your move", page 190 PHB.

And i have no idea where do you think you read the rest you are saying i'm claiming.


Meaning that each player's 'stuff they do' is resolved one-at-a-time. You are reading that as if it were a RULE that (game-term) ACTIONS are resolved one-at-a-time, and using that as if it were a rule that 'Actions are indivisible'!

I'm not the one doing that. At most, i might see an impossibility for a DM to speak to two people at the exact same time, thus juggling conversations one at a time. But i'm not the one that made that argument, at all.


Okay, so if there is no general rule that 'actions are indivisible', and no specific rule that 'Attack actions are indivisible', then you agree that the bonus action shield shove can take place between the first and second attacks of your Attack action if you have Extra Attack....right?

Are you really that confused? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23729903&postcount=28)

"Me, discussing the flaws in your argument" has nothing do do with "Me, and my opinion on truthfullness of any of your conclusions"
I can disagree on why but agree on what. Your why still doesn't make sense to me.