(TWF/Monk) *When* you use the Attack Action...

[Cheesegear]

"When you use the Attack Action with an unarmed strike or a Monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a Bonus Action."
"When you take the Attack Action with a Light melee weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon."

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

When is...'When?'

I believe that when you Attack, you use the Bonus Action, at the same time.

However, my players want me to rule otherwise:

1. I have used my Attack Action.
2. Move.
3. I have used my Attack Action on my turn, so now I would like to Bonus Action attack.

They tried to point to 'Breaking up Your Move'.
But I know that's wrong, 'cause that's talking about an Action giving multiple attacks.

What they're talking about/wanting, is is an Action + Bonus Action giving two attacks with a move in the middle.
It doesn't seem broken, so I'm not against it, per se. I just don't know if it's correct.

[prabe]

I've always treated "when" in these contexts to mean "at any time after." If a character has move left after making an attack, they can move before using their bonus action attack (or, in the case of a Monk's Flurry of Blows, between the attacks from the bonus action). Seems defensible to me, and a little more consistent. Then again, I might not be the best person to answer this, since I houserule (or will, if anyone takes it) Shield Master to be actually useful.

[Quietus]

"When you use the Attack Action with an unarmed strike or a Monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a Bonus Action."
"When you take the Attack Action with a Light melee weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon."

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

When is...'When?'

I believe that when you Attack, you use the Bonus Action, at the same time.

However, my players want me to rule otherwise:

1. I have used my Attack Action.
2. Move.
3. I have used my Attack Action on my turn, so now I would like to Bonus Action attack.

They tried to point to 'Breaking up Your Move'.
But I know that's wrong, 'cause that's talking about an Action giving multiple attacks.

What they're talking about/wanting, is is an Action + Bonus Action giving two attacks with a move in the middle.
It doesn't seem broken, so I'm not against it, per se. I just don't know if it's correct.

Your players are correct. You can move at any time during your turn, including in between actions.

[PhantomSoul]

It might help to contrast with a case where you really can't insert anything (as written; I'm not sure any of my groups has been strict about that):


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

(Edit: Emphasis added for clarity)

[CorporateSlave]

I agree with Phantomsoul - absent specific timing such as the word "immediately," "when" most likely just refers to "a Turn during which the Action you have selected is the Attack Action."

I feel like when the RAI wanted it to be "immediately after," the RAW says "immediately after."

[stoutstien]

I agree with Phantomsoul - absent specific timing such as the word "immediately," "when" most likely just refers to "a Turn during which the Action you have selected is the Attack Action."

I feel like when the RAI wanted it to be "immediately after," the RAW says "immediately after."

The problem arises when you gain extra attack. Immediately after could mean before or after each attack which in turn can be broken up with movement. The timing being based on the action declaration never made sense to me.

[Keltest]

The problem arises when you gain extra attack. Immediately after could mean before or after each attack which in turn can be broken up with movement. The timing being based on the action declaration never made sense to me.

Extra attacks are generally considered part of the same action, aren't they? You take the attack action, so you do your 1/2/3/4 attacks, and then you can use anything that keys off of following up on the attack action.

[PhantomSoul]

Extra attacks are generally considered part of the same action, aren't they? You take the attack action, so you do your 1/2/3/4 attacks, and then you can use anything that keys off of following up on the attack action.

They're part of the Action, yes!

[stoutstien]

Extra attacks are generally considered part of the same action, aren't they? You take the attack action, so you do your 1/2/3/4 attacks, and then you can use anything that keys off of following up on the attack action.

It's the paradox of action economy. When is it considered an action is taken?

[Keltest]

It's the paradox of action economy. When is it considered an action is taken?

I don't get the concern. The text says "immediately after" which requires the action to be completed. The extra attacks are all part of the Attack action, per the language used in getting the extra attacks. You aren't getting another attack action, you are expanding what the attack action does. I don't see any ambiguity here. If you have extra attacks, you still only get flurry of blows once, because youre only using the Attack Action once.

[stoutstien]

I don't get the concern. The text says "immediately after" which requires the action to be completed. The extra attacks are all part of the Attack action, per the language used in getting the extra attacks. You aren't getting another attack action, you are expanding what the attack action does. I don't see any ambiguity here. If you have extra attacks, you still only get flurry of blows once, because youre only using the Attack Action once.
"Immediately after the action is TAKEN.."
If taken wasn't there I'd agree it's straight forward but it was included hence the conflict.

[Keltest]

"Immediately after the action is TAKEN.."
If taken wasn't there I'd agree it's straight forward but it was included hence the conflict.

Taking an action is performing an action. I think youre reading an interpretation here that isn't supported by the language. There is no separation between taking the action and carrying it out.

[stoutstien]

Taking an action is performing an action. I think youre reading an interpretation here that isn't supported by the language. There is no separation between taking the action and carrying it out.

Which is a valid interpretation of the rules but it never says that. There's also plenty of times when reactions can sneak in the middle of actions theoretically breaking up the action resolution/declaration point.
Attack> target shield spell> attacker counterspell> attack takes place.

[Keltest]

Which is a valid interpretation of the rules but it never says that. There's also plenty of times when reactions can sneak in the middle of actions theoretically breaking up the action resolution/declaration point.
Attack> target shield spell> attacker counterspell> attack takes place.

Right, but those are reactions. Theyre specifically called out as being able to interrupt. This one is explicitly not. Its after the action. It needs to be completed before you can then use flurry of blows. 5e in general is written with the assumption that people aren't deliberately looking out for ways to make things more complicated than they need to be. The "plain English" reading I believe its referred to.

[Damon_Tor]

My table does away with timing concerns by decoupling most bonus actions from the attack action, including Shield Mastery's shove, Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows. A monk can always make an unarmed attack as a bonus action, and can always spend two ki to make two unarmed attacks as a bonus action, regardless of what else they've done that turn. Similarly, a cleric could take Shield Mastery so he can shove an enemy back 5 feet as a bonus action before he casts a spell at him. And yes, a fighter with the feat is free to use that bonus action before he attacks to prone the other guy and get advantage. If simplicity was a goal when designing 5e, as they've stated, I have no idea why they made these abilities conditional.

Two weapon fighting no longer requires a bonus action at all.

[stoutstien]

Right, but those are reactions. Theyre specifically called out as being able to interrupt. This one is explicitly not. Its after the action. It needs to be completed before you can then use flurry of blows.

Seeing how there's only three actions they could choose from why would they put 'immediately' in there? Reactions have the exception clause built in and if action must be resolved prior to taken any other actions, bonus actions being only thing left, the text is redundant.

Example would be something like second wind which is a bonus action with no timing restraints other than during the turn but is identical if action resolution must be immediate.

[Keltest]

Seeing how there's only three actions they could choose from why would they put 'immediately' in there? Reactions have the exception clause built in and if action must be resolved prior to taken any other actions, bonus actions being only thing left, the text is redundant.

Example would be something like second wind which is a bonus action with no timing restraints other than during the turn but is identical if action resolution must be immediate.

Because it stops you from using the attack action, moving 20 feet to another guy, and then flurrying him, as an example. While you typically only get one action per turn, that doesn't mean the action is the only thing you can do. Compare to the war cleric's ability, which gives them an additional weapon attack as a bonus attack when they take the Attack action. This doesn't come with any qualifiers, so any time after they take the attack action, they can take the bonus action, including after moving or interacting with an object. Im pretty sure this distinction was highlighted earlier in the thread. Qualifiers like "immediately" exist when they want to control the order you do things in somewhat. Absent those qualifiers you are free to resolve your action and anything else you want to do in whichever order you wish.

[stoutstien]

Because it stops you from using the attack action, moving 20 feet to another guy, and then flurrying him, as an example. While you typically only get one action per turn, that doesn't mean the action is the only thing you can do. Im pretty sure this distinction was highlighted earlier in the thread. Qualifiers like "immediately" exist when they want to control the order you do things in somewhat. Absent those qualifiers you are free to resolve your action and anything else you want to do in whichever order you wish.

Wouldn't be an issue either way. Under the breaking up your move text the monk can already move before/between/after the flurry attacks unless a DM is being extremely pedantic and saying that unarmed strikes aren't weapon attacks.

[PhantomSoul]

Wouldn't be an issue either way. Under the breaking up your move text the monk can already move before/between/after the flurry attacks unless a DM is being extremely pedantic and saying that unarmed strikes aren't weapon attacks.

If they were pedantic, they wouldn't say that!*

(That said, from the Flurry of Blows description combined with the phrasing on page 190 of the PHB, it would appear that Flurry of Blows explicitly provides an exception to moving after your Action [hence "immediately"], and that the "Moving Between Attacks" part doesn't risk overriding that anyway because the two Attacks aren't within an Action.)

______________
* ...well, pedantic and right :P

[Keltest]

Wouldn't be an issue either way. Under the breaking up your move text the monk can already move before/between/after the flurry attacks unless a DM is being extremely pedantic and saying that unarmed strikes aren't weapon attacks.

Specific trumps general. In this case, the text says it needs to be immediately after, so you cant move between the end of your attack action and starting the bonus action. Doing anything besides using Flurry disqualifies you from using it.

[stoutstien]

If they were pedantic, they wouldn't say that!*

(That said, from the Flurry of Blows description combined with the phrasing on page 190 of the PHB, it would appear that Flurry of Blows explicitly provides an exception to moving after your Action [hence "immediately"], and that the "Moving Between Attacks" part doesn't risk overriding that anyway because the two Attacks aren't within an Action.)

______________
* ...well, pedantic and right :P

I'm more pointing out that if a monk was only using unarmed strikes for their normal attack they could not move because they removed unarmed strikes from the 'weapon' list.

Then there's the balance/narrative conflict concerns. The monk move before normal bonus action martial art strike but spend a ki to make 2 and suddenly they are cemented to the ground.

[Keltest]

I'm more pointing out that if a monk was only using unarmed strikes for their normal attack they could not move because they removed unarmed strikes from the 'weapon' list.

Then there's the balance/narrative conflict concerns. The monk move before normal bonus action martial art strike but spend a ki to make 2 and suddenly they are cemented to the ground.

They can still move after they take the first of the two unarmed strikes from the bonus action. The first one just has to be against a target in range, probably the poor guy you just finished punching the stuffing out of with your attack action. The narrative itself seems pretty clear to me: Flurry is intended to be flavored as a continuation of the last attack of your attack action. You punch somebody, and then spend a ki point to punch them twice more supernaturally quickly.

[stoutstien]

Specific trumps general. In this case, the text says it needs to be immediately after, so you cant move between the end of your attack action and starting the bonus action. Doing anything besides using Flurry disqualifies you from using it.

"Sorry mr. Monk. You can't use flurry of blows because you verbally thank your party member for helping you."

[Keltest]

"Sorry mr. Monk. You can't use flurry of blows because you verbally thank your party member for helping you."

Speaking can be done simultaneously with flurry. Also, if you stop to hold a proper conversation in the middle of a fight, you really have nobody to blame but yourself that you suddenly aren't hitting people.

[Segev]

"Sorry mr. Monk. You can't use flurry of blows because you verbally thank your party member for helping you."

You joke, but stop and think about what is being represented here. The bonus action is turning your one attack into a combo that you’re flowing through in your flurry of blows. This is why it is “immediately after,” not just “when.”

Even in the hammiest of martial arts flicks, Jackie Chan doesn’t stop after one hit to quip, then continue the flow (unless for very specific comedic timing). But talking is a free action; if it’s crucial to get that quip in, make it as part of the flurry rather than expressly stopping to talk then trying to spend the bonus action to flurry.

[stoutstien]

Speaking can be done simultaneously with flurry. Also, if you stop to hold a proper conversation in the middle of a fight, you really have nobody to blame but yourself that you suddenly aren't hitting people.

So can talk but not move even if both fall into the 'non action' category?
I've seen this ruled probably 30 different ways now and none of them are more correct than the others. Hence bad rule formatting. I'm not defending any of them just pointing out it's not nearly as clear as it seems.

[stoutstien]

You joke, but stop and think about what is being represented here. The bonus action is turning your one attack into a combo that you’re flowing through in your flurry of blows. This is why it is “immediately after,” not just “when.”

Even in the hammiest of martial arts flicks, Jackie Chan doesn’t stop after one hit to quip, then continue the flow (unless for very specific comedic timing). But talking is a free action; if it’s crucial to get that quip in, make it as part of the flurry rather than expressly stopping to talk then trying to spend the bonus action to flurry.

Free actions do not exist in 5th edition. There are item interactions that can be used in tangent with other actions or movement but free actions are nonexistent.

[Keltest]

So can talk but not move even if both fall into the 'non action' category?
I've seen this ruled probably 30 different ways now and none of them are more correct than the others. Hence bad rule formatting. I'm not defending any of them just pointing out it's not nearly as clear as it seems.

You can do flurry of blows, or something that isn't flurry of blows. Its a binary. If you want to speak, there is a specific rule that allows you to do so simultaneously to doing the flurry, but within the logic of action order, you started with the flurry and attached some words to it. They don't call it a free action, but speech is specifically called out as being able to be done simultaneously with any action that logically allows for the words being spoken. You wont read a novel, but if you physically have the ability to speak, you can do so.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm more pointing out that if a monk was only using unarmed strikes for their normal attack they could not move because they removed unarmed strikes from the 'weapon' list.

Then there's the balance/narrative conflict concerns. The monk move before normal bonus action martial art strike but spend a ki to make 2 and suddenly they are cemented to the ground.

A weapon attack isn't the same as an attack with a weapon. As far as narrative, it's not that they're cemented, it's that it's an immediate event; it's almost more like a reaction, it just uses your bonus action.

[stoutstien]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/20/can-a-monk-move-between-the-hits-of-flurry-of-blows/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/06/04/can-you-move-inbetween-flurry-of-blows/amp/

Probably 15 more JC quotes on the movement/flurry question.

The text and the intentions are not in agreement.

[Keltest]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/20/can-a-monk-move-between-the-hits-of-flurry-of-blows/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/06/04/can-you-move-inbetween-flurry-of-blows/amp/

Probably 15 more JC quotes on the movement/flurry question.

The text and the intentions are not in agreement.

No? There is no part of the text that says you cannot move in between flurry of blows, only that you cant move between the last attack of the attack action and the first attack of the flurry. The linked quotes, at least, are specifically talking about the two attacks of the flurry.

[PhantomSoul]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/20/can-a-monk-move-between-the-hits-of-flurry-of-blows/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2018/06/04/can-you-move-inbetween-flurry-of-blows/amp/

Probably 15 more JC quotes on the movement/flurry question.

The text and the intentions are not in agreement.

You can break up attacks within an action.
The bonus action is a separate action; it is immediate as per Flurry of Blows.
You can then break up the bonus action.

RAW you can't move between the last attack of your action and the first attack of Flurry of Blows, consistent with the linked tweets.

(Like I said, though, I don't think I've ever been at a table that was strict about that.)

[stoutstien]

No? There is no part of the text that says you cannot move in between flurry of blows, only that you cant move between the last attack of the attack action and the first attack of the flurry. The linked quotes, at least, are specifically talking about the two attacks of the flurry.

The second one is a very specific occurrence of moving before between attack action and flurry. And he answered with quoting the movement rules instead of saying no.

[PhantomSoul]

The second one is a very specific occurrence of moving before between attack action and flurry. And he answered with quoting the movement rules instead of saying no.

The response matched the question ("Diffrent question, also bonus action, you can flurry of blows a s a monk, but.. can you move inbetween flurry of blows?"), but the example context slipped in a second movement. The response doesn't suggest something other than the explicit question was answered, and the text referred to in the response matches that you can move only between Flurry of Blows hits, not immediately before them.

[Keltest]

The second one is a very specific occurrence of moving before between attack action and flurry. And he answered with quoting the movement rules instead of saying no.

… Right, because any answer would just be paraphrasing them anyway. They can move between any attacks that are part of the same action. Flurry is a separate action that needs to be initiated after the attack action has finished and before you do anything else. That leaves exactly one sequence of two attacks that you cannot move between them for. I still don't understand why youre confused. Flurry is an action, so you can move between the attacks. The attack action is an action (go figure) so you can move between the attacks. Part of the condition for taking the Flurry of Blows bonus action is that it immediately follows an attack action, so you cant do anything else between them. You seem like youre looking for a more complicated explanation than this, but its not really so complicated that it needs one.

[stoutstien]

… Right, because any answer would just be paraphrasing them anyway. They can move between any attacks that are part of the same action. Flurry is a separate action that needs to be initiated after the attack action has finished and before you do anything else. That leaves exactly one sequence of two attacks that you cannot move between them for. I still don't understand why youre confused. Flurry is an action, so you can move between the attacks. The attack action is an action (go figure) so you can move between the attacks. Part of the condition for taking the Flurry of Blows bonus action is that it immediately follows an attack action, so you cant do anything else between them. You seem like youre looking for a more complicated explanation than this, but its not really so complicated that it needs one.

No I'm seeking RTMS (rules that make sense). RAW and RAI on this is unclear. You could be extremely confident in your view of it but doesn't change the vagueness of it.

The fact that they have never definitely said one way the other is very telling that even the designers of the game are unsure. The most definitive answer has been "asked your DM"

[Man_Over_Game]

No I'm seeking RTMS (rules that make sense). RAW and RAI on this is unclear. You could be extremely confident in your view of it but doesn't change the vagueness of it.

The fact that they have never definitely said one way the other is very telling that even the designers of the game are unsure. The most definitive answer has been "asked your DM"

I think it'd be important to consider how a decision may impact certain players who's features may be reliant on these rules.

For example, the Drunken Master would be a lot less fun if you're required to hit all 5 of your targets at the same time, as opposed to utilizing your Disengage movement and +10 movement speed buff to hit multiple targets as you move.

I think the most sensible strategy is to provide the most amount of fun. I think DnD has always had a trend of "Don't let rules trump fun".

[Keltest]

No I'm seeking RTMS (rules that make sense). RAW and RAI on this is unclear. You could be extremely confident in your view of it but doesn't change the vagueness of it.

The fact that they have never definitely said one way the other is very telling that even the designers of the game are unsure. The most definitive answer has been "asked your DM"

What doesn't make sense about it? You keep pointing to different areas of the rules when you say it doesn't make sense, but they don't seem to be saying what you claim they are.

[PhantomSoul]

What doesn't make sense about it? You keep pointing to different areas of the rules when you say it doesn't make sense, but they don't seem to be saying what you claim they are.

I see one point of ambiguity... and it's only that Flurry of Blows might override Breaking Up Movement in that "immediately" you make two attacks for Flurry of Blows and therefore can't even split the Flurry of Blows attacks at all (which also makes sense narratively)... but that's not the ambiguity being claimed.

[Keltest]

I see one point of ambiguity... and it's only that Flurry of Blows might override Breaking Up Movement in that "immediately" you make two attacks for Flurry of Blows and therefore can't even split the Flurry of Blows attacks at all (which also makes sense narratively)... but that's not the ambiguity being claimed.

And even if that was the one being claimed, we have a pair of linked responses clarifying what is meant.

[stoutstien]

Yep the fact there is zero official rulings of flurry of blows preventing movement mean your interpretation must be the correct one.

[Segev]

Free actions do not exist in 5th edition. There are item interactions that can be used in tangent with other actions or movement but free actions are nonexistent.

And that changes my point...how? I mean, yes, I know we're close enough to the subject for the "talking is a free action" as a trope thing to be mixed up with a serious discussion of free actions as a type of action, but it's clear what I meant from context, I think: if the talking has no mechanical impact, there's no reason it can't happen while the flurry of blows is being transitioned into as an essential non-action. But if you're actively having to stop to do the chit-chat, to the point that it reasonably interrupts the flow, yes, it nuls the ability to spend a bonus action on flurrying.

I expect the latter situation to be exceptionally rare.

[Keltest]

Yep the fact there is zero official rulings of flurry of blows preventing movement mean your interpretation must be the correct one.

If you need the writers to explain to you literally every single rules interaction, you may want to take a serious step back and ask yourself if youre actually enjoying the game.

At any rate, it doesn't prevent movement. You can still move. You just have to start the flurry before you move. If there isn't an official ruling, its because its not a common enough problem for anybody to feel it needs one.

[stoutstien]

If you need the writers to explain to you literally every single rules interaction, I think maybe D&D isn't the game for you. It doesn't prevent movement. You can still move. You just have to start the flurry before you move. If there isn't an official ruling, its because its not a common enough problem for anybody to feel it needs one.

Let's Google it. Well over 100 different threads covering this exact question is pretty evident that it's anything but clear.

[Yakk]

There is a lot of fuzzy wording in the action/bonus action trigger stuff. They are all worded differently.

Just let PCs take bonus actions/actions in any order and move in between components of them as much as they want. If they take a bonus action first and the action that would permit it becomes impossible, burn the action and possibly resources required.

The largest balance impact from all of the cases I'm aware of is the ability to use shield master to shove someone prone before you make your first iterative attacks, instead of after your first. And that is small enough that getting rid of the rules corner case arguments and issues is so worth it.

I'm aware this disagrees with at least one of JC's tweets and language in more than one bonus action trigger, and I don't really care. Simplicity is well worth that. (Now I could be wrong; find me a case where this results in something significantly more exploitative than the shove+iterate attacks, and I might reconsider).

[Keltest]

Let's Google it. Well over 100 different threads covering this exact question is pretty evident that it's anything but clear.

100 is, frankly not a lot at all compared to how many people play D&D.

Also, since you didn't actually tell me what you googled, I really have no idea if youre even actually looking for the same question, or what youre counting. After all, you claimed the Sage Advice earlier was supporting a different position than it actually was.

[stoutstien]

100 is, frankly not a lot at all compared to how many people play D&D.

Also, since you didn't actually tell me what you googled, I really have no idea if youre even actually looking for the same question, or what youre counting. After all, you claimed the Sage Advice earlier was supporting a different position than it actually was.
I mean it was actually 13,567 Google results of movement and flurry of blows + DnD 5e but hey why not.

I don't see how the sage advice I linked did anything other than purposely avoided directly answering the question. The refusal of them taking a official stance was my point of all of this.

[Keltest]

I mean it was actually 13,567 Google results of movement and flurry of blows + DnD 5e but hey why not.

I don't see how the sage advice I linked did anything other than purposely avoided directly answering the question. The refusal of them taking a official stance was my point of all of this.

The rules ARE the official stance. In this case, there is no clarification needed, the question as asked is answered directly in the text of the rules.

[stoutstien]

The rules ARE the official stance. In this case, there is no clarification needed, the question as asked is answered directly in the text of the rules.
Yes, the movement text and not the Monk's flurry of blows text Accorded to the designers.
But hey, you do you.

[Keltest]

Yes, the movement text and not the Monk's flurry of blows text Accorded to the designers.
But hey, you do you.

Youre going around in circles here. The rules for movement say that you can move between attacks of the same action, or between actions. The text for flurry of blows says that you cant move or do anything else between the end of the attack action and the first attack of the flurry. Since specific trumps general, you end up being able to move between any of the attacks except for the one ending the attack action and the first one of the flurry. It seems pretty straightforward. So I ask again, what part about that is confusing you?

[ThePolarBear]

Yes, the movement text and not the Monk's flurry of blows text Accorded to the designers.
But hey, you do you.

I just typed "sage advice flurry of blows", first result. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/08/14/does-the-word-immediately-in-the-flurry-of-blows-description-preclude-this-from-happening/)

[stoutstien]

Youre going around in circles here. The rules for movement say that you can move between attacks of the same action, or between actions. The text for flurry of blows says that you cant move or do anything else between the end of the attack action and the first attack of the flurry. Since specific trumps general, you end up being able to move between any of the attacks except for the one ending the attack action and the first one of the flurry. It seems pretty straightforward. So I ask again, what part about that is confusing you?
Yep straight forward. You are correct. Obviously everyone else are morons including the guys who wrote the game.

[Keltest]

Yep straight forward. You are correct. Obviously everyone else are morons including the guys who wrote the game.

The guys who wrote the game who apparently agree with me as well.

[stoutstien]

The guys who wrote the game who apparently agree with me as well.

???? Do you I guess.

[Keltest]

???? Do you I guess.

Did you look at what ThePolarBear linked?

[PhantomSoul]

???? Do you I guess.

That was presumably referring to this:


I just typed "sage advice flurry of blows", first result. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/08/14/does-the-word-immediately-in-the-flurry-of-blows-description-preclude-this-from-happening/)

[Misterwhisper]

I just typed "sage advice flurry of blows", first result. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/08/14/does-the-word-immediately-in-the-flurry-of-blows-description-preclude-this-from-happening/)

Actually Jeremy is just plain wrong anyway, you can't flurry after an attack with a light crossbow anyway because it is not a monk weapon.

[Keltest]

Actually Jeremy is just plain wrong anyway, you can't flurry after an attack with a light crossbow anyway because it is not a monk weapon.

Flurry just requires that you use the attack action, not that it has to be with a monk weapon.

[stoutstien]

That was presumably referring to this:

Yep he said that and earlier he said it didn't matter, ask your DM, and the lack of a target within range doesn't prevent a player from taking an action with an attack component.

[Misterwhisper]

So a drunken master can make 5 flurry attacks but they have to be against different targets AND arms reach of whoever you hit with your second normal attack because you can’t move.


No, that is just stupid.

[Keltest]

Yep he said that and earlier he said it didn't matter, ask your DM, and the lack of a target within range doesn't prevent a player from taking an action with an attack component.

What on earth are you talking about?

[stoutstien]

What on earth are you talking about?

All of the sage advice over the years about flurry. Mostly RaW is the weakest ruling here.

[PhantomSoul]

All of the sage advice over the years about flurry. Mostly RaW is the weakest ruling here.

The Sage Advice you linked gave a different question... have they said something else about Flurry elsewhere?

[ad_hoc]

I agree with Phantomsoul - absent specific timing such as the word "immediately," "when" most likely just refers to "a Turn during which the Action you have selected is the Attack Action."

I feel like when the RAI wanted it to be "immediately after," the RAW says "immediately after."


Just to clarify - There is no 'selecting' an action. There is only doing the action.


The problem arises when you gain extra attack. Immediately after could mean before or after each attack which in turn can be broken up with movement. The timing being based on the action declaration never made sense to me.

The Attack action comprises of those 2 attacks.

Immediately after is immediately after you are finished with the attack action. You have not taken the action until you have taken it.

Breaking up the Attack action with movement is a special exemption. It should not be confused with a general rule of 'splitting' up actions into distinct parts which can be interrupted.

This is also why Shield Master's shove comes after the Attack action. The action needs to be taken for the Bonus Action to be available to be used.

There is no such thing as 'selecting' an action. You have either done the action or you haven't.

[Misterwhisper]

Just to clarify - There is no 'selecting' an action. There is only doing the action.



The Attack action comprises of those 2 attacks.

Immediately after is immediately after you are finished with the attack action. You have not taken the action until you have taken it.

Breaking up the Attack action with movement is a special exemption. It should not be confused with a general rule of 'splitting' up actions into distinct parts which can be interrupted.

This is also why Shield Master's shove comes after the Attack action. The action needs to be taken for the Bonus Action to be available to be used.

There is no such thing as 'selecting' an action. You have either done the action or you haven't.

Actually he went back and changed his mind on that little over a year ago, too many people complained so you can now shield shove before attacking because "You choose when to take a bonus action"

However they did not bother to errata the wording of flurry when they changed it back.

[stoutstien]

The Sage Advice you linked gave a different question... have they said something else about Flurry elsewhere?

It was mike who said they can move, before he's responses where not official. The movement question was actually about sanctuary/flurry if the monk flurry and then fails to pass the save. I'd have to wait till I'm home to provide the exact links.

[Keravath]

Taking an action is performing an action. I think youre reading an interpretation here that isn't supported by the language. There is no separation between taking the action and carrying it out.

I think the point of contention is ... "Is there a difference between TAKING an action and COMPLETING an action"? If I have extra attack and I make just one of the attacks then I can certainly say that I have TAKEN the attack action. It may not be completed but I have taken it.

Bonus actions can be gained by TAKING the attack action. Two weapon fighting for example. Flurry of blows though has the unusual wording of "immediately after taking the attack action". Depending on whether you consider TAKING to be the same as COMPLETING this could mean that the additional attacks could come after either the first attack, after the last attack or possibly, as the players choice, immediately after any of the attacks. Ultimately it is a DM call.

To the OP, when something grants a bonus action, the rules on bonus actions state that they can be taken at any time during the turn which would include during or after the attack action or at any time during a move.

[BarneyBent]

Just to complicate this further - is there anything that says you can't move between spending the ki point and making your first flurry attack?

For example, say my monk has a single enemy in front of him, with others further away, and takes the attack action. He immediately chooses to spend a ki point to Flurry. At that point, after the ki is spent but before the bonus action starts, the enemy uses a reaction or legendary action to disengage and move 15 ft away. Can my monk use his movement to follow, and then resolve the flurry? Or is he stuck punching air?

I reckon there's a decent case to be made that yes, you can. That "immediately" refers to the spending of the ki point, so it forces you to make the decision rather than delay, but having made it, you can move before making the next attack.

Notice that the scenario in the linked Sage Advice explicitly says the monk moves before spending the ki, so this interpretation doesn't contradict that. And if you assume the intent is to force the monk to make rapid decisions, not to arbitrarily have them stuck in place between their action and their bonus action (despite being able to move within them) then this interpretation seems much less of a stretch.

[MaxWilson]

I think the point of contention is ... "Is there a difference between TAKING an action and COMPLETING an action"? If I have extra attack and I make just one of the attacks then I can certainly say that I have TAKEN the attack action. It may not be completed but I have taken it.

Bonus actions can be gained by TAKING the attack action. Two weapon fighting for example. Flurry of blows though has the unusual wording of "immediately after taking the attack action". Depending on whether you consider TAKING to be the same as COMPLETING this could mean that the additional attacks could come after either the first attack, after the last attack or possibly, as the players choice, immediately after any of the attacks. Ultimately it is a DM call.

To the OP, when something grants a bonus action, the rules on bonus actions state that they can be taken at any time during the turn which would include during or after the attack action or at any time during a move.

Sometimes the difference is even relevant and important. For example, if I'm a 6th level Paladin concentrating on Wrathful Smite already when I start my turn, I can take the Attack action to make two attacks. If I hit on the first attack, the enemy has to save vs. Wrathful Smite, and if they do I may want to then spend my bonus action on re-casting Wrathful Smite before finishing my attacks, to force the enemy to save again.

Nothing in 5E says I can't use my bonus action in the middle of my attack sequence, and it's a natural interpretation.

[ZiddyT]

Flurry just requires that you use the attack action, not that it has to be with a monk weapon.

Amazes me how many people think they know the game better than the people who wrote it.

[Misterwhisper]

Amazes me how many people think they know the game better than the people who wrote it.

As stupid as it is, he is right. Only the MA bonus attack requires monk weapons.

As dumb as it is an elf can swing a long sword twice at level 5 and then flurry for two unarmed strikes but they can’t just bonus action one unarmed attack.

[ZiddyT]

So a drunken master can make 5 flurry attacks but they have to be against different targets AND arms reach of whoever you hit with your second normal attack because you can’t move.


No, that is just stupid.

You can move between the flurry attacks. You just can't move before activating the flurry (and I presume attacking at least once).

[Keravath]

Actually he went back and changed his mind on that little over a year ago, too many people complained so you can now shield shove before attacking because "You choose when to take a bonus action"

However they did not bother to errata the wording of flurry when they changed it back.

No. The text in the latest version of the sage advice compendium is the following.

"Shield Master[NEW] The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a pre-condition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play"

You must actually make an attack using the attack action to be considered to have "taken" the attack action and thus be eligible for either Shield bash or flurry of blows.

However, JC did tweet that in his game he would allow the shield bash after the first attack of the attack action if a character had the extra attack feature. Neither the sage advice compendium nor the PHB text say that the action must be COMPLETED before earning the bonus action, only that the attack action must be taken. If you have made at least one attack then you have taken the attack action even if it is not completed. This is sufficient to trigger any bonus actions that require "taking" the attack action.

[ZiddyT]

No. The text in the latest version of the sage advice compendium is the following.

"Shield Master[NEW] The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a pre-condition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play"

You must actually make an attack using the attack action to be considered to have "taken" the attack action and thus be eligible for either Shield bash or flurry of blows.

However, JC did tweet that in his game he would allow the shield bash after the first attack of the attack action if a character had the extra attack feature. Neither the sage advice compendium nor the PHB text say that the action must be COMPLETED before earning the bonus action, only that the attack action must be taken. If you have made at least one attack then you have taken the attack action even if it is not completed. This is sufficient to trigger any bonus actions that require "taking" the attack action.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/06/04/can-you-move-inbetween-flurry-of-blows/
Saying he would allow it in his game is not saying that's the RAW. All attacks must be completed for an attack action trigger to occur unless the DM rules otherwise (which is reasonable).

[Segev]

The way I've been running Dread Ambusher for my Ranger is that Dread Ambusher says it triggers as your second attack on the first round of combat. Which means that my Ranger is rolling an attack, then rolling the Dread Ambusher attack, then rolling his extra attack. And sometimes also using a bonus action for an off-hand attack. We have to be very consistent on the Dread Ambusher attack being second or the Ranger's player gets confused about what attacks get which dice.

[CapnWildefyr]

OK, just summarizing the Sage Advice for the OP:
1. Monk attacks.
2. Monk Starts flurry of blows. If desired, monk can move between FOB attacks, or after, but not immediately before.

If the monk has extra attack, then the monk can take FOB after either attack, and can move between the main attacks and between the FOB attacks, as long as FOB starts right after one of the two attacks. (Just to overkill this, only 1 FOB allowed per round.)

Sound about right?
BTW thanks everyone for the SA lookups, it helped!

EDIT: no specific restriction on who FOB targets - just when it must begin.

[Keravath]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/06/04/can-you-move-inbetween-flurry-of-blows/
Saying he would allow it in his game is not saying that's the RAW. All attacks must be completed for an attack action trigger to occur unless the DM rules otherwise (which is reasonable).

RAW says the following:

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

"TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

"SHIELD MASTER
• If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."


"BONUS ACTIONS
You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. ...
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified."

"MOVING BETWEEN ATTACKS
If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

"ATTACK
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action."


This is all RAW has to say on the matter. Depending on how a DM prefers to define the meaning of "TAKING", both interpretation or neither are RAW since this is all that RAW has to say on the matter.

The ATTACK action requires only ONE attack to be made. Using the attack action states specifically that it gives you one attack and that other features like extra attack may give you additional attacks that can be used as part of the attack action.

The rules allow movement between attacks of the attack action. If you have a bonus action available, the rules specifically state that it can be taken at ANY time during your turn. This means that a rogue could dash or disengage between attacks of the attack action (if they have the extra attack feature). A paladin could cast a bonus action smite spell. A cleric could cast healing word between the attacks.

Depending on how the DM chooses to define "Taking" the attack action, bonus actions like shoving using the Shield Master feat, attacking with an off-hand weapon or flurry of blows ALL become available after the first attack of the attack action since Taking the attack action gives you one attack unless you have a feature like extra attack that allows multiple attacks as part of the attack action. NONE of the RAW text says "When you have completed the attack action." ... the text uses "when you take the attack action", "if you take the attack action" and "after taking the attack action". None of which state or imply, after you FINISH or COMPLETE the attack action. As a result, the entire argument boils down to how the DM chooses to define "Taking" in the context of game mechanics. To me, RAW pretty clearly indicates that the attack action has been taken after completing at least one attack. Obviously, other folks think that the RAW interpretation of "Taking" means "have finished their attack action". Neither interpretation is wrong and potentially both could be considered RAW depending on which definition of "Taking" is accepted. Personally, I go for "taking" to mean that the attack action has been taken but not necessarily completed while others go for "taking" to mean the attack action has been completed.

[CorporateSlave]

Just to clarify - There is no 'selecting' an action. There is only doing the action.

There is no such thing as 'selecting' an action. You have either done the action or you haven't.

Geez it gets lawyery around here!

Of course there is such a thing as 'selecting' an Action. What there is not is such a thing as 'Selecting' an Action. (With capitalization generally used by myself in lawyery fashion to denote common usage vs. an actual game term from the RAW)

As in, the player selects the Action their PC will take.

The PC then takes the Action. (which is the part that is rules relevant as you state)

Admittedly I wasn't perfectly clear about that in my post, but what I meant by "you" is the player, not the PC...

So: ..."when" most likely just refers to "a Turn during which the Action you have selected is the Attack Action." The player (Player?) has to decide and choose what Action their PC will do/take/perform/complete on any given Turn after all.