Can you spend a Bonus Action in the middle of an attack roll?

[Man_Over_Game]

Been doing some research into this, and I haven't got anything that says you can't, but can you spend your Bonus Action between Attack Roll steps?

A few things that come to mind:

Ranger attacks, sees the roll, spends his BA for Entangling Strike, gets a guaranteed hit in.
Kensei moves away from an enemy, enemy makes an OA, Monk waits to see the roll to see if it hits, spends BA to increase AC by +2 to deflect the attack if possible.
Barbarian moves away from an enemy, enemy makes an OA, Barbarian waits to see the roll, Rages if it hits before damage is dealt.

I've asked the same question on RPG Stack Exchange, with a bunch of sources: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/172441/can-you-spend-a-bonus-action-in-the-middle-of-an-attack

[Keltest]

In general, no. You cant retroactively decide to rage once you see the result of a roll. There are exceptions, but they are explicitly called out.

[Man_Over_Game]

In general, no. You cant retroactively decide to rage once you see the result of a roll. There are exceptions, but they are explicitly called out.

I don't disagree with your statement, but why?



I would like to note that there are multiple powers that state "You can do X after the roll has been made, but before you know the result". Are those powers adding a restriction, or an exception? Does a power need to explicitly state you can use it after a roll in order to do it after the roll, and if that's true wouldn't that imply that there's a rule somewhere that states that you can't use powers after a roll?

[Cikomyr2]

"In the middle of a roll" usually comes into effect explicitly after you saw the roll but before the DM tells you if it succeeded. Like Cutting Words.

In the middle of your own roll is also a bit more flexible because otherwise it's explicitly a Reaction.

On the other hand, I like the Monk being able to use Chi based reactions.

[Keltest]

I don't disagree with your statement, but why?



I would like to note that there are multiple powers that state "You can do X after the roll has been made, but before you know the result". Are those powers adding a restriction, or an exception? Does a power need to explicitly state you can use it after a roll in order to do it after the roll, and if that's true wouldn't that imply that there's a rule somewhere that states that you can't use powers after a roll?

So, you can rage after a roll for an OA perfectly fine, assuming its still your turn. What you cant do is then retroactively apply the results of being raged to that OA. Once the attack is resolved, then its resolved. A DM would probably let you get away with raging before you know the result of the die, because the attack hasnt been resolved yet, but there is no "middle" of an attack roll because its only one step.

[Spiritchaser]

This has only ever come up once for me and I don’t allow it but as far as I know my position has no basis in RAW, only the vague: “that smells like shenanigans” argument.

I wonder what a game would look like if you were allowed to do that?

So yeah... Has anyone tried?

[Man_Over_Game]

So, you can rage after a roll for an OA perfectly fine, assuming its still your turn. What you cant do is then retroactively apply the results of being raged to that OA. Once the attack is resolved, then its resolved. A DM would probably let you get away with raging before you know the result of the die, because the attack hasnt been resolved yet, but there is no "middle" of an attack roll because its only one step.

There's a few concerns with that, though.

One of them is Rage itself as an example, as the "attack" is divided into stages (according to JC):
(1) You make an attack roll. (2) You hit or miss. (3) You roll damage if you hit. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/802204749315485696), and Rage only applies to Damage. If something can interject between steps 1 and 2 (such as Cutting Words), it's reasonable to assume something can interject between steps 2 and 3.

The other is the Shield spell. We know that Shield triggers at the end of Step 2 (you're hit), yet it applies a bonus to AC that is allowed to prevent that step from ever occurring. Sure, Shield is friggin' weird with the fact that it rewinds time to prevent things from happening, but it at least shows that the steps are not hard lines and can be blurred. Rather, there is nothing inherently protecting those 3 steps from being impossible to interfere with other than our own gamer's instinct and assumptions. Unless there is something that says you can't, which is what I'm hoping to find.

Honestly, I'd probably allow it at my tables, not because those powers need buffing, but because it's clever and most instances of those kinds of powers are either defensive in nature (kensei's +2 AC), or something that rarely sees use (Paladin Smite Spells), which I like to see more at tables than the generic max-damage spam.

[Keltest]

There's a few concerns with that, though.

One of them is Rage itself as an example, as the "attack" is divided into stages (according to JC):
(1) You make an attack roll. (2) You hit or miss. (3) You roll damage if you hit. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/802204749315485696), and Rage only applies to Damage. If something can interject between steps 1 and 2 (such as Cutting Words), it's reasonable to assume something can interject between steps 2 and 3.

The other is the Shield spell. We know that Shield triggers at the end of Step 2 (you're hit), yet it applies a bonus to AC that is allowed to prevent that step from ever occurring. Sure, Shield is friggin' weird with the fact that it rewinds time to prevent things from happening, but it at least shows that the steps are not hard lines and can be blurred. Rather, there is nothing inherently protecting those 3 steps from being impossible to interfere with other than our own gamer's instinct and assumptions. Unless there is something that says you can't, which is what I'm hoping to find.

Honestly, I'd probably allow it at my tables, not because those powers need buffing, but because it's clever and most instances of those kinds of powers are either defensive in nature (kensei's +2 AC), or something that rarely sees use (Paladin Smite Spells), which I like to see more at tables than the generic max-damage spam.

Bonus actions are not reactions. Unlike when youre being hit with a regular attack, you can Rage before leaving the space. There isnt any reason to make it work that way for OAs, and as a bonus action you cant do it on somebody else's turn anyway. Presumably, if they wanted it to work that way, they would have used the language to allow it to do so, so as to be consistent with all the other abilities, such as shield, that work that way.

[CorporateSlave]

Been doing some research into this, and I haven't got anything that says you can't, but can you spend your Bonus Action between Attack Roll steps?

Thing is, here are the Attack Roll "steps" per the PHB:

Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

You're not asking to use the Bonus Action in between steps, you're asking to interrupt the last step. Unless the description for an ability specifically states it is acting as an exception to the rule above, I don't how the Bonus Action wording of "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn," is an automatic exception to anything, especially since it is followed by "unless the bonus action's timing is specified".



A few things that come to mind:

Ranger attacks, sees the roll, spends his BA for Entangling Strike, gets a guaranteed hit in.
I would say no way. Ensuring Strike states "The next time you hit a creature with a weapon attack before this spell ends..." You've already hit once the die is rolled, as all modifiers have already been calculated in step 2.


Kensei moves away from an enemy, enemy makes an OA, Monk waits to see the roll to see if it hits, spends BA to increase AC by +2 to deflect the attack if possible.
Is this in a new revision of Kensei? The PHB just states the +2 AC is automatic as long as you made an Unarmed Attack as part of the Attack Action, it doesn't require a Bonus Action to activate?


Barbarian moves away from an enemy, enemy makes an OA, Barbarian waits to see the roll, Rages if it hits before damage is dealt. In this case, I would probably rule that the Rage Bonus Action cannot interrupt Step 3 of the Attack resolution, for similar reasons as the Ensaring Strike example. Once the die is rolled, the rest is forgone - all part of the same Step 3 - barring perhaps some specific Reaction. However, I can see allowing the Rage Bonus Action before a second Attack (by another enemy with an OA, for example). By RAW, you're not interrupting any Attack, you're using a Bonus Action in between Attacks. I also might be convinced to allow the Rage Bonus Action after Step 1 or Step 2, since that doesn't break apart a RAW Step in any way. By RP either case is pretty fitting.

I've asked the same question on RPG Stack Exchange, with a bunch of sources: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/172441/can-you-spend-a-bonus-action-in-the-middle-of-an-attack[/QUOTE]

[Crucius]

Bonus actions are not reactions.

There isn't much definition to be found anyways; they are both a form of action of which you only have one per round. The only definition we can fit to it is observed; reactions seem mostly to trigger, while bonus actions don't. Then again there are bonus actions that function like reactions (commanding strike is triggered) while some reactions function more like regular actions (UA spore druid had some weird non-triggered reaction, though the fact that that was UA probably isn't helping my case here :') I could swear there were other reactions that were odd but I can't recall at this hour). I think the fear spell thread has a big debate about language being descriptive or enforcing rules, I agree with the fact that Reaction means "to do something in response" holds meaning and value as it pertains to the rules, which is why it can be interjected where bonus actions usually cannot.

Anyway, to answer the question: I would like to think that most activities (one attack as a part of an action being an activity for example) are a self-contained thing that are resolved before something else can be done. I would like to think that, however as examples in this thread have shown this is clearly not the case. Bonus actions clearly should not be able to be spent in the middle of an attack roll (designer intent yadayada), but I can't say why from a rules perspective.

[MaxWilson]

I don't disagree with your statement, but why?

Because treating die rolls as discrete events instead of resolution steps during an existing event is extremely gamist (non-diegetic, not based on the narrative) and the other players will roll their eyes at you if you try to interrupt your die-rolling to cast a different spell.

[NaughtyTiger]

You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified,

You can invoke your bonus action at any point on your turn, unless timing is specified.

Nothing specifies that an action is atomic.

[Zhorn]

Nothing specifies that an action is atomic.
I would like to roll to attack the venom troll, after a successful hit but before rolling for damage I would like to use my movement to get outside of the radius of its Poison Splash that triggers when it takes damage.

[NaughtyTiger]

I would like to roll to attack the venom troll, after a successful hit but before rolling for damage I would like to use my movement to get outside of the radius of its Poison Splash that triggers when it takes damage.

that's a great argument.
I no longer believe it is a valid argument, because it is expressly forbidden by movement during combat rules.

[Zhorn]

that's a great argument.
When either DMing myself, or discussing with one of my DMs, when discussing rule interpretations or house ruling; I find the fastest way to figure out if something is fair is to intentionally find a way to break/abuse it.

[NaughtyTiger]

When either DMing myself, or discussing with one of my DMs, when discussing rule interpretations or house ruling; I find the fastest way to figure out if something is fair is to intentionally find a way to break/abuse it.

Except that you throw out the baby with the bath water.
MoG identified a number of reasonable cases where it's okay. You found a case where it's not.

That doesn't mean that interpretation isn't RAW.
That doesn't mean that interpretation is bad.
It just means that the DM should rule that corner case isn't allowed.


Someone on this forum vigorously argued that you could use flame blade with extra attack by citing RAW corner cases. Many of his opponents felt that was an abuse of the rules.

[Zhorn]

Someone on this forum vigorously argued that you could use flame blade with extra attack by citing RAW corner cases. Many of his opponents felt that was an abuse of the rules.
Yep, including the guy that made that thread.
^ intentionally no blue text.

In the case of MoG's thread topic, I'm neither for nor against. Just, as you said, highlighting an edge case.
I have not said to not do a thing.

[Man_Over_Game]

Good call on the movement scenario, looks like a good enough reason to me. It makes the most sense to that movement and actions would share the same timing rules, if they otherwise weren't specified. Nullifying game mechanics through timing shenanigans at no real cost doesn't make the game any better.

I could see someone still doing something like Attack-MistyStep-ThornsTrigger, to avoid the retaliation effect, but that's mostly just because I like it more than what the player was going to do otherwise (like another Flaming Sphere or ranged attack), and I consider a level 2 spell slot a big enough resource cost to manipulate the rules compared to 5 feet of movement.

[Willie the Duck]

Been doing some research into this, and I haven't got anything that says you can't, but can you spend your Bonus Action between Attack Roll steps?
I have not exhaustively gone over the rulebooks, but based on my recollection I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything that specifically would exclude the possibility. There are abilities which specify that they can be used in the middle of a resolution procedure, but their existence doesn't explicitly prohibit other abilities from doing so. It strongly hints at designer intent (plus not enforcing such a rule creates some relatively nonsensical outcomes), but none of that makes it a clear rule. I suspect this falls under the broad category of "designers: 'we didn't think we needed to specifically spell that out'" situation.


This has only ever come up once for me and I don’t allow it but as far as I know my position has no basis in RAW, only the vague: “that smells like shenanigans” argument.

I wonder what a game would look like if you were allowed to do that?

So yeah... Has anyone tried?
The venom troll example listed above is a specific case of a general issue: using a bonus-action movement to get out of range of an effect triggered by your actions.


Except that you throw out the baby with the bath water.
MoG identified a number of reasonable cases where it's okay. You found a case where it's not.

That doesn't mean that interpretation isn't RAW.

That is the thing about leaning too heavily on RAW -- at some point RAW has no requirements. It doesn't have to be good. It doesn't have to be bad. It doesn't have to make sense. It can even create logical paradoxes. But at that point it serves no purpose except for us gaming navel-gazers to critique the writing of the system. Which, in this case, I'm really not too invested. Oh, the designers didn't specifically specify that resolution steps were uninterruptible unless clearly mentioned? [unenthusiastic monotone]Oh yeah, that's quite the failure. Ranks right up there with Pun Pun and drown-healing. [/unenthusiastic monotone]

[Man_Over_Game]

.


The venom troll example listed above is a specific case of a general issue: using a bonus-action movement to get out of range of an effect triggered by your actions (or if we broaden this to reactions, just moving out of the way of something mid-resolution).
You could take it a step further. Why limit it to movement allowed by a Bonus Action? Couldn't it just be movement?

[Willie the Duck]

You could take it a step further. Why limit it to movement allowed by a Bonus Action? Couldn't it just be movement?

Pretty much only because that was the question asked. Yes, regular movement, or in certain cases reaction-action movement could also cause chaos if interpreted such that you could spring it mid-action-resolution. I really don't have time to compile all the instances where this could come up because I think it could come up all the time.

That's why my main point is that yes by all accounts I can't find any rules specifically excluding this possibility, but I think it was clearly the designer intent, and it is missing because they didn't think they had to specifically state it.

[jas61292]

Nothing specifies that an action is atomic.

While this is technically true, it is important to remember that the rules are written in "plain English" and not heavily coded language. And, by the same logic, nothing in the rules specifies that an action is not atomic.

Personally, I don't think "it doesn't say no so the answer is yes" is an acceptable argument, as that is one that can easily be abused in dozens of other cases and lead to utterly absurd results. Instead, I believe that in each case, you have to look at it remembering that it is "plain English" and go with what seems to be the most logical interpretation. To me, personally, I believe that actions absolutely are atomic.

The rules are largely written in broad strokes and are then exception based. Here are the general rules on movement, but over here is an exception. Here are the general rules on spellcasting, though certain features might give exceptions. This is how the rules are written. And while the problem here may be that there is not explicitly a general rule, I personally believe the general rule is implied through exceptions. The most obvious exception is the ability to break up a multiple attack attack action with movement. If actions were never atomic and could always be broken up, it would be weird to point out a specific example but not state a general rule. I also believe a good example comes into play with reactions.

While there is no general rule on actions being atomic, there is a general rule that reactions must react to something. The firm, stated rule, is that reactions trigger after what they are reacting to. Now, I'm sure we could argue all day about what you can react to (especially with a readied action), but to me personally, the fact that this is explicitly stated means that a reaction cannot react to an attack being made such that you react before the attack roll and/or potential damage roll are made. This is cemented to me due to the fact that things like Shield are given as specific exceptions to the general rule. If every reaction could activate in the middle of an action, you would not need an explicit exception for things like Shield.

Now, of course, these examples are regarding actions and reactions, and say nothing on bonus actions. But what the both do say to me is that, unless specified otherwise, actions are, indeed, atomic. That does not mean it is impossible to interrupt one, but unless something specifically says you can, you can't. I know this somewhat flies in the face of "you can use a bonus action at any time on your turn," but that's what you get with "plain English" rules, and the explicit interacting with the implicit. There may not be one correct answer, but I think atomic actions is the answer that gives the best, and least exploitable, results.

[NaughtyTiger]

MoG,
I guess I don't understand the point of the question.

If you intended what do the rules say, then the rules explicitly state that Bonus Actions can be used at anytime on your turn (unless timing is specified by the bonus action)

If you intended how would you play this, then I would make rulings to block dumb corner cases and allow cases that my players like.

There is absolutely no interpretation of RAW or interpretation of implied rules that can be abused without the consent of the DM.
As I have said time and time again, I don't believe you can play DnD by RAW, it isn't a complete ruleset.

[Man_Over_Game]

MoG,
I guess I don't understand the point of the question.

If you intended what do the rules say, then the rules explicitly state that Bonus Actions can be used at anytime on your turn (unless timing is specified by the bonus action)

If you intended how would you play this, then I would make rulings to block dumb corner cases and allow cases that my players like.

There is absolutely no interpretation of RAW or interpretation of implied rules that can be abused without the consent of the DM.
As I have said time and time again, I don't believe you can play DnD by RAW, it isn't a complete ruleset.

Oh, I agree. It isn't something I'd probably let a player do without talking about it to me first, I was just asking for funsies.

Sometimes just asking weird questions gives you weird answers that make you think about weird solutions to other problems.

For example, I never would have considered asking to use a mobility effect (like Misty Step) to avoid a retaliation effect after hitting something, and it gives me new respect for the Horizon Walker. From there, after considering how mobility could thematically assist with avoiding these kinds of effects (even if they aren't mechanically valid), it made me wonder what other kinds of effects I'd allow as exceptions. In this case, I'd probably extend to the Disengage Action, for the sake of the Monk's Step of the Wind or the Rogue's Cunning Action, to do the same, which pumps new life into Speed/mobility (which is otherwise something wasted on 5e's "Stand there and take it" gameplay).

[Satori01]

The answer to the Thread Question is:
No, unless a particular Bonus Action power had a trigger that specified the timing of "after you hit, but before you roll damage, you can activate X as a Bonus Action".

Technically, an argument can be made that a character with both the Cunning Action and Extra Attack features, can not trigger a Dash movement via Cunning Action, in the middle of breaking up their movement between attacks.

No (Move)- (Attack)-(Bonus Action Dash)-(Extra Attack)-(Move).

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

So does "action" in the cited passage mean any action, including Bonus Actions?

If your DM says no, "action" does not include Bonus Actions..no it is.

Also this is the answer to the question:
"Can I move between shooting the 3 rays from Scorching Ray"

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

[RSP]

Also this is the answer to the question:
"Can I move between shooting the 3 rays from Scorching Ray"

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

Scorching Ray isn’t a Weapon Attack so the cited rule does not apply.

To the OP question, I always try to rule in favor of the narrative, and narratively, you can’t separate the successful hit with the damage (barring a specific ability like Abjuration Wizards Ward or Lore Bard’s Cutting Words which specifically allow it and have their own narrative explainations).

[NaughtyTiger]

I would like to roll to attack the venom troll, after a successful hit but before rolling for damage I would like to use my movement to get outside of the radius of its Poison Splash that triggers when it takes damage.

After rereading the rules on movement, I think this is explicitly forbidden.


You can break up your Movement on Your Turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.

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.

The general rule does not say you can move "during your action", except "between attacks". The attack is not over until you roll for damage.

[Zhorn]

After rereading the rules on movement, I think this is explicitly forbidden.

The general rule does not say you can move "during your action", except "between attacks". The attack is not over until you roll for damage.
"Technically"TM it is still between the attacks. That first attack has been made AND a hit is confirmed. A miss isn't any less of an attack for not having a damage roll.

(edit 2: amendment of clarification - the below section is not directed @ a particular poster, and is intended as a general discussion point about the nature of this thread's primary topic. There is no intended accusation of anyone in this thread of being a munchkin)

More on the primary topic, the debate on atomic actions is by it's nature a about munchkin style rules lawyering. To specify you can insert something (actions/bonus actions/ movement/reactions/object interactions) between an attack roll and the associated damage roll that doesn't explicitly state you can do so on the grounds of it not* explicitly forbidding it is to allow all of them under the same logic.
It's all rules abuse.

* edit 1

[MaxWilson]

After rereading the rules on movement, I think this is explicitly forbidden.

Don't you mean "this is not explicitly permitted"? The text you quoted forbids nothing, it merely permits something.

In any case, this thread is really about whether anything breaks if you interpret the rules with maximum permissiveness as it pertains to bonus actions, and you can get to the same place with venom trolls by claiming to spend your bonus action on Dash after hitting the Venom Troll.

(I'm not sure why people accept the Venom Troll as a more ridiculous counterexample than the original example of a paladin casting a Smite spell literally in the middle of resolving his attack, because they're both pretty ridiculous, from a narrative/diegetic perspective. But the important thing is that at least people are thinking the diegesis and not just the words printed in the rulesbook.)


More on the primary topic, the debate on atomic actions is by it's nature a about munchkin style rules lawyering. To specify you can insert something (actions/bonus actions/ movement/reactions/object interactions) between an attack roll and the associated damage roll that doesn't explicitly state you can do so on the grounds of it explicitly forbidding it is to allow all of them under the same logic.
It's all rules abuse.

I wish GitP had a "like" button so I could signal agreement without having to quote the post and inanely add, "Listen to this guy. He speaks truth."

[Amnestic]

In any case, this thread is really about whether anything breaks if you interpret the rules with maximum permissiveness as it pertains to bonus actions, and you can get to the same place with venom trolls by claiming to spend your bonus action on Dash after hitting the Venom Troll.

Dash doesn't move you - it merely increases your move speed, so it's not Bonus Actions you'd need to consider for the Venom Troll example, it's Move actions.


Dash
When you take the Dash action, you gain extra Movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers. With a speed of 30 feet, for example, you can move up to 60 feet on Your Turn if you dash.
Any increase or decrease to your speed changes this additional Movement by the same amount. If your speed of 30 feet is reduced to 15 feet, for instance, you can move up to 30 feet this turn if you dash.

[NaughtyTiger]

Don't you mean "this is not explicitly permitted"?
not sure. prolly.


In any case, this thread is really about whether anything breaks if you interpret the rules with maximum permissiveness as it pertains to bonus actions, and you can get to the same place with venom trolls by claiming to spend your bonus action on Dash after hitting the Venom Troll.

i disagree. there are RAW answers, RAI answers, some yes/no gamebreaking, and a number of answers that claim pointing to the RAW is munchiny and gamist


(I'm not sure why people accept the Venom Troll as a more ridiculous counterexample than the original example of a paladin casting a Smite spell literally in the middle of resolving his attack, because they're both pretty ridiculous, from a narrative/diegetic perspective. But the important thing is that at least people are thinking the diegesis and not just the words printed in the rulesbook.)

you said this before, but casting a smite spell mid-attack is no less narratively immersive than popping a smite or suddenly using bard's inspiration dice. the narrative doesn't know about dice and bonus actions.

[RSP]

you said this before, but casting a smite spell mid-attack is no less narratively immersive than popping a smite or suddenly using bard's inspiration dice. the narrative doesn't know about dice and bonus actions.

Just to add to this: narratively-speaking, the interjection of an Ability between a rolled hit and the subsequent damage roll isn’t “mid-attack”: the Attack is over as soon as it hits. There is no separate instance of damage in the narrative: the game mechanics of “hitting” is concurrent with the mechanic of the “damage roll” in the narrative.

[Cikomyr2]

I think the "oh I cast a bonus action spell between the attack and the damage roll" would have the potential to be abused by paladin and their smiting spells.

[MThurston]

To the original post.

I will give you my example.

Fighter with two attacks.

Makes his first attack.
Takes a bonus action action surge.

The fighter would end up with 3 attacks and not 4.

Warlock with two attacks.

Makes a ranged attack with a bow, then misty steps away. No second shot.

Mage with magic missle.

Casts 2 missiles, misty steps and losses the rest of the missiles.

As for between attack roll and damage roll, nope and nope.

[stoutstien]

I think the "oh I cast a bonus action spell between the attack and the damage roll" would have the potential to be abused by paladin and their smiting spells.
Generally the smite spells are lackluster so while there is potential for abuse with this ruling those spells aren't in any real danger of becoming to powerful.

[Cikomyr2]

Generally the smite spells are lackluster so while there is potential for abuse with this ruling those spells aren't in any real danger of becoming to powerful.

Except if the pally only cast them on crits, and thus do (4d8+3d6) x2 extra damage

[stoutstien]

Except if the pally only cast them on crits, and thus do (4d8+3d6) x2 extra damage

Eh. Paladin doing big damage on crits is already the norm. If they want to spend another spell slot and concentration for a little bit more damage it's nothing to really worry about.
Critical hits are cool but you can't predict or rely on them to occur when you need them.

[Keltest]

Im less concerned about martials getting to play with more powerful toys and more about setting the precedent that you dont have to commit to a course of action until you know it will work.

[RSP]

Mage with magic missle.

Casts 2 missiles, misty steps and losses the rest of the missiles.

Im not sure this exists as the MM spell is Instantaneous and the darts all are created and fire at the same time.

[MThurston]

I thought you could say you are burning a smite after a to hit roll anyway?

[stoutstien]

Im less concerned about martials getting to play with more powerful toys and more about setting the precedent that you dont have to commit to a course of action until you know it will work.

That is my concern as well. I don't think I would normally allow declaring a ba in the middle of another action's resolution.
I do wish that reaction had more standard options though.

[NaughtyTiger]

Fighter with two attacks.
Makes his first attack.
Takes a bonus action.
action surge.
The fighter would end up with 3 attacks and not 4.

Warlock with two attacks.
Makes a ranged attack with a bow,
then misty steps away.
No second shot.

why do you think taking a bonus action after the first attack (but before the extra attack) end the first attack action?

[NaughtyTiger]

(edit 2: amendment of clarification - the below section is not directed @ a particular poster, and is intended as a general discussion point about the nature of this thread's primary topic. There is no intended accusation of anyone in this thread of being a munchkin)

More on the primary topic, the debate on atomic actions is by it's nature a about munchkin style rules lawyering. To specify you can insert something (actions/bonus actions/ movement/reactions/object interactions) between an attack roll and the associated damage roll that doesn't explicitly state you can do so on the grounds of it not* explicitly forbidding it is to allow all of them under the same logic.
It's all rules abuse.

* edit 1

Stating what rules are ACTUALLY WRITTEN DOWN in the book, and pointing out WHICH RULES are NOT WRITTEN DOWN in the book is NOT "munchkining' it is NOT "rule abuse".

Attacks are ATOMIC is a ruling to make the game fit a specific viewpoint. Absolutely nothing wrong with that viewpoint... But it isn't the only valid view point.

[MaxWilson]

Dash doesn't move you - it merely increases your move speed, so it's not Bonus Actions you'd need to consider for the Venom Troll example, it's Move actions.


Dash
When you take the Dash action, you gain extra Movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers. With a speed of 30 feet, for example, you can move up to 60 feet on Your Turn if you dash.
Any increase or decrease to your speed changes this additional Movement by the same amount. If your speed of 30 feet is reduced to 15 feet, for instance, you can move up to 30 feet this turn if you dash.

Good point. I guess it would have to be Misty Step instead of Cunning Action.


Im less concerned about martials getting to play with more powerful toys and more about setting the precedent that you dont have to commit to a course of action until you know it will work.

Cogently argued, sir.

[NaughtyTiger]

Im less concerned about martials getting to play with more powerful toys and more about setting the precedent that you dont have to commit to a course of action until you know it will work.

Minor quibble. The precedent is already there (smite, lucky feat, bardic inspiration, maneuvers , shield-ish), this would be expanding it to additional events.

[Man_Over_Game]

Minor quibble. The precedent is already there (smite, lucky feat, bardic inspiration, maneuvers , shield-ish), this would be expanding it to additional events.

I kinda like that conceptualization of it. Sure, it gives more power to things like Mobile, but honestly retaliation effects just needed to be Opportunity Attacks anyway. There's not any real reason that superpowers have to be the only means of dodging an effect, other than "it's allowed to ignore the rules because its magic".

"Sorry, you must be this magical to play this game". Nah, no thanks.

[clash]

Ok so just a warning this is a rant and will probably come across more offensive than intended.

This thread is ridiculous and the point is moot.

"Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage."

On a hit you roll damage. Even if you were allowed to misty step out of the way, of an attack you still take the damage, you have already been hit. Even if you could move before rolling damage, again you have already been hit. If your hit, you take the damage.

Even if monk could increase his ac as bonus action between getting hit and taking damage, he still takes the damage because he has already been hit. All of these abilities specifically apply for stuff that happens after them.

For the smite spells: "The next time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration" if you already hit the guy then the smite spell cant apply to this attacks damage even if you could cast it between rolling damage. It applies the next time you hit after casting the spell.

Barbarian rage is the only one that would actually work even if you did allow it because it gives you resistance to the damage.

But again this entire argument is nonsensical. No sane dm is going to interpret that ruling as valid as the entire game is so obviously built around that not being a correct ruling.

My apologies if I sound rude but I am having trouble taking this thread in good faith, given the premise.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ok so just a warning this is a rant and will probably come across more offensive than intended.

This thread is ridiculous and the point is moot.

"Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage."

On a hit you roll damage. Even if you were allowed to misty step out of the way, of an attack you still take the damage, you have already been hit. Even if you could move before rolling damage, again you have already been hit. If your hit, you take the damage.

Even if monk could increase his ac as bonus action between getting hit and taking damage, he still takes the damage because he has already been hit. All of these abilities specifically apply for stuff that happens after them.

For the smite spells: "The next time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration" if you already hit the guy then the smite spell cant apply to this attacks damage even if you could cast it between rolling damage. It applies the next time you hit after casting the spell.

Barbarian rage is the only one that would actually work even if you did allow it because it gives you resistance to the damage.

But again this entire argument is nonsensical. No sane dm is going to interpret that ruling as valid as the entire game is so obviously built around that not being a correct ruling.

My apologies if I sound rude but I am having trouble taking this thread in good faith, given the premise.

I appreciate the bluntness. However...


There are already mechanics available for avoiding an attack that's already been rolled. Most of them interact after the roll has been made, but before the hit has been confirmed, although there is at least one example of avoiding an attack that has already been confirmed to have hit (through Shield). Point is, these are already very common possibilities, and stating that the steps between "Attack Roll" -> "Damage Received" are not able to be interacted with is untrue.

Whether or not they can be interacted with as a general rule is the point of discussion, and even then most of these scenarios are edge-cases that are generally rewarded as part of a special power (Misty Step as a level 2 spell slot, special feature of Kensei, Paladin Spell Smites are generally not taken as options, etc). Most of these instances aren't any more effective than the alternate powers/choices you'd be able to make instead. Even the case of using Disengage to move to avoid a reaction-based attack isn't unreasonable, as most means of using Disengage in the same turn you attack either requires a spell/feature/resource.

So not only is it plausible, it's also reasonable. What's a reason to not do it, other than "The rules kinda imply that we shouldn't...as long as you aren't using these 10 or so features"?

[MaxWilson]

Ok so just a warning this is a rant and will probably come across more offensive than intended.

This thread is ridiculous and the point is moot.

"Resolve the Attack. You make the Attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause Special Effects in addition to or instead of damage."

On a hit you roll damage. Even if you were allowed to misty step out of the way, of an attack you still take the damage, you have already been hit. Even if you could move before rolling damage, again you have already been hit. If your hit, you take the damage.

Even if monk could increase his ac as bonus action between getting hit and taking damage, he still takes the damage because he has already been hit. All of these abilities specifically apply for stuff that happens after them.

For the smite spells: "The next time you hit with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration" if you already hit the guy then the smite spell cant apply to this attacks damage even if you could cast it between rolling damage. It applies the next time you hit after casting the spell.

Barbarian rage is the only one that would actually work even if you did allow it because it gives you resistance to the damage.

But again this entire argument is nonsensical. No sane dm is going to interpret that ruling as valid as the entire game is so obviously built around that not being a correct ruling.

My apologies if I sound rude but I am having trouble taking this thread in good faith, given the premise.

FWIW I agree with you. The example is its own refutation.

[clash]

I appreciate the bluntness. However...


There are already mechanics available for avoiding an attack that's already been rolled. Most of them interact after the roll has been made, but before the hit has been confirmed, although there is at least one example of avoiding an attack that has already been confirmed to have hit (through Shield). Point is, these are already very common possibilities, and stating that the steps between "Attack Roll" -> "Damage Received" are not able to be interacted with is untrue.

Whether or not they can be interacted with as a general rule is the point of discussion, and even then most of these scenarios are edge-cases that are generally rewarded as part of a special power (Misty Step as a level 2 spell slot, special feature of Kensei, Paladin Spell Smites are generally not taken as options, etc). Most of these instances aren't any more effective than the alternate powers/choices you'd be able to make instead.

So not only is it plausible, it's also reasonable. What's a reason to not do it, other than "The rules kinda imply that we shouldn't"?

I listed the general rule. If the attack hits roll damage. You are attempting to refute the general rule with specific examples that break the normal rules. Then you are using the specific examples as an arguement for changing the general rule. {scrubbed} .

[Man_Over_Game]

I listed the general rule. If the attack hits roll damage. You are attempting to refute the general rule with specific examples that break the normal rules. Then you are using the specific examples as an arguement for changing the general rule. This is going to be my last reply here {scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

{scrubbed}

[Zhorn]

Stating what rules are ACTUALLY WRITTEN DOWN in the book, and pointing out WHICH RULES are NOT WRITTEN DOWN in the book is NOT "munchkining' it is NOT "rule abuse".I think there's been a bit of a misinterpretation of what I was saying there. I'm talking about trying to insert something between the the attack roll and the associated damage roll when it doesn't say you can do it there, be it an attack of your own or someone else's. Some abilities and rules enable things to happen in those spaces (such as the Lucky feat, Shield spell, and Divine Smite class feature), but those are specific to said abilities, and their existence isn't granting a blanket permission to all actions/bonus actions/movement/reactions/object interactions to be used in the same fashion.
And yes you are right, stating what rules are and are not written down is not munchkining. But trying to circumvent mechanical interactions or gain additional advantages because of wording not expressively forbidding it not existing is heavily leaning in said direction.


Attacks are ATOMIC is a ruling to make the game fit a specific viewpoint. Absolutely nothing wrong with that viewpoint... But it isn't the only valid view point.
Honestly I'm not overly fond of the debates over this. Atomic, non-Atomic. The term isn't used within the rules of 5e (if someone can point to the books using this language and give me a page reference, that'd be appreciated), and trying to pigeonhole attacks into being exactly one of those just comes across as people wanting to make sure their own house interpretations and rulings are taken as RAW-equivalent. I'm happy with saying attacks are both and neither. Attacks have stages that are useful for triggers of mechanics, but unless you have a specific rule allowing something to slot between those phases, they'll just progress from one step to the next without interruptions. Want anything different? Talk it over with your DM.

[NaughtyTiger]

But trying to circumvent mechanical interactions or gain additional advantages because of wording not expressively forbidding it not existing is heavily leaning in said direction.


This would have more weight if the people arguing it were consistent about it.

But the fact is, we all make judgements about how to fill in the gaps, and (this is important) we don't have to be internally consistent.
The same person can say "well it isn't explicitly stated here, so yes" about one rule and say "it isn't explicitly stated, so no" about a different rule (or even about the same rule in a different condition.)

As long as we admit that we aren't internally consistent, then it's okay.


In the case of MoG's thread topic, I'm neither for nor against. Just, as you said, highlighting an edge case.

[Zhorn]

this is no longer true.
eh, that happens. I read other people's comments, and modify my views with the exposure to new information.
Now my view is more "I'd definitely rule against allowing this" but still have the opinion "If you're DMing and want to house rule it this way. Cool, all the more power to you."

[NaughtyTiger]

eh, that happens. I read other people's comments, and modify my views with the exposure to new information.
Now my view is more "I'd definitely rule against allowing this" but still have the opinion "If you're DMing and want to house rule it this way. Cool, all the more power to you."

Yep, I agree a DM can rule it this way, and doesn't have to allow it every case. My issue was the negative language associated with someone interpreting gaps in the RAW a certain way.