(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.sag...-of-blows/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sag...-of-blows/amp/

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

The text and the intentions are not in agreement.