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.
I believe the attacks from flurry of blows must be used before your regular attacks granted by your actions. Why? Because it says after the attack action and not after the attacks granted by the attack action.
The attack action is taken before the attacks are actually made. As such the flurry of blows attacks must be used immediately after that action is taken which will place its timing before the attacks actually granted by the attack action.
Does this sound right?
The Attack Action results in 1 or more attacks being performed. I see no evidence that norma/bonus actions can 'nest' inside each other.
Attack Action
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.
Primarchx wrote:
Why?
FrogReaver wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
Incorrect. There's a big difference between:
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn...
AND
If you take an Attack action on your turn...
The timing of the use of the bonus action is explictly defined in the Flurry of Blows - immediately after taking an Attack action. You evaluate the 'IF' statement of the Shield Master bonus action at the end of the turn since there is no timing restriction within the turn provided with respect to taking the bonus action.
FrogReaver wrote:
Not true. You must use the attack action before you can use the shield master bonus attack.
Hamsterkill wrote:
Quoth Crawford:
@J_McGrody: Timing of Shield Master bonus shove. Does “take attack action” mean make 1 or all att rolls 1st? or can shove then attack?
As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action. — Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 21, 2015
But it it does require an action to be taken right? Maybe I'm not remembering the wording correctly
jaelis wrote:
The wording for Shield Master doesn't include "before" or "after". There's no written sequence to it, just that both have to happen. Flurry of Blows specifies that it has to happen "after" the attack action ("immediately" so, though I believe it has been ruled that you can move between the attacks, IIRC)
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
So what is wording of shield master?
FrogReaver wrote:
If ... Then ...
There is no timing requirement. However there is a requirement. That requirement is that the attack action must be taken.
Primarchx wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
So you shove a creature into a trap and the trap explodes, killing you. Now you can't take your attack, and the world ends in a giant blue screen of death 
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Or or you could admit that you obviously didn't read what he said...
Primarchx wrote:
I went for the joke instead. But yeah, I missed that end part.
I would say that I must disagree with Crawford on this one. He is flat wrong that the below should be allowed as the feat is written.
jaelis wrote:
Erm. Did the OP get an answer?
TheNovaLord wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
IMO the discussion answered my question. Your welcome to believe it wasn't. I got all the info I needed for my question to be answered sufficiently for my taste.
TheNovaLord wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
If you take the attack action on your turn then you can make a bonus action attack
IS NOT the same as
If you will take the attack action on your turn then you can make a bonus action attack
----------------------------------------
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the difference.
"If you can reason well, then you can win an argument." doesn't imply that the reasoning takes place before the argument occurs,
"If it improves my career propects then I can work on your project." does not imply that my prospects are improved before I work on the project. Rather the reverse in fact.
But its true the more natural reading to me is the attack would come first.
FrogReaver wrote:
Wow. This is epic rules lawyer-y shenanigans. Followed by pouting and grousing.
Brilliant thread. Thanks for the read!
As for the topic: I find it very clear, the differences in the wording between the shield feat and monk ability. And have had no problem applying them in play, RAW and RAI.
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FighterFan wrote:
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Yeah, but you have a tough chore to claim that a given construction can only be construed in one way. Things are relative and meaning is a bit fuzzy. Not always and not to an arbitrary degree, but you're after a pretty fine shade of gray yourself.
You want to say "If you do X then you can do Y" can only correctly be interpreted as a causal "X happens and that later allows Y to happen." We use if/then in noncausal ways all the time. I think you have to do better then simply asserting that's how you read it, because other people could read it differently.
---
For instance, you could absolutely read it as X proves you are capable of Y. ("If you bench press 200 lbs then you can beat me at arm wrestling.") There's no causal or temporal requirement there. Of course, I think that would be a bad reading of the feat in this case, but it illustrates there's more going on then just parsing that sentence.
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FighterFan wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Ok so, the thread is created to have an argument because that's what Frog does. He then gets proven wrong, which is admits but then turns around and starts arguing grammar and "the meaning of words". Says Crawford is flat wrong (I laughed here) but at the same time is blindly continuing to spew completele nonsense. OH and the Logic 101... So much troll!
While I would probably go with generally accepted viewpoint that the shield bash can occur before the actual attack (with the assumption player is in position to make an attack action), I can certainly see FrogReavers point on how it is written doesn't default to this. This ruling makes the attack action part feel artificial. Logically speeking, after you just pushed the creature 5' away from you, what is keeping you from using that space to run away, drink a potion, or any other action. It's only the rule that makes you commited to the attack. I know, logic isn't always accepted over RAW, but it can help look at how well a certain reading works, except when a player thinks a rule is to restrictive or that some fluff should add crunch, then haveing a [thier] logical reasoning is very important. Now, if you look at the Attack Action coming first, there is no logical possible other actions, the shield bash is part of the attack flow made available by the Attack Action.
Like i said, I would probably go with the prevailing interpretation as I don't feel this is an issue worth arguing at table about. If I had rule on it as part of a home game, I would probably go the less restrictive route and just allow you to make a shield bash as a bonus action without any prerequisites.
Wow, this is a good one...
The whole "if, then" thing is amazing, but not applicable to shield master.
The feat doesn't require completing the IF condition prior to the THEN statement.
If it helps you wrap your mind around it, the text can be rewritten as such:
If you take the attack action, you can use a bonus action to shield bash, or you can do anything else you can do with a bonus action this turn.
If you use shield bash as a bonus action, you have to take the Attack action, even if you aren't able to make any attacks with it.
from a logic standpoint, it would look something like:
If attack action is taken, shield bash becomes an available bonus action, increasing your available bonus actions by 1.
If shield bash bonus action is taken, your available actions drop to only one: attack.
There is nothing in the wording of the feat that suggests how the action and bonus action relate to one another regarding timing.
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I also have no problem with the ruling. I just have a problem with people claiming the rules explicitily allow the bonus action to be taken anytime because they don't specify timing.
What the heck do you all think the word "THEN" specifies?
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
randl wrote:
How about this simple compromise:
A player takes the Attack action first on their turn, but before making an attack, they take their bonus action to shield bash, then they shield bash followed by attack.
It satisfies your logic and allows combat to play out the same way regardless of how you interpret the one sentence of the Shield Master Feat.
And of course, there's Jeremy Crawford's sage advice that says you can shield bash before taking the attack action:
Strange discussion considering the thread is supposed to be about flurry of blows.
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
At this point I will have to concede the point since I have really been moving on a tangent that isn't really related to FoB, SM, or even Bonus Action. With the assumption that not all DM's make use of the internet rulings are going to vary from what is generally accepted as "most accurate".
As a Player, how do you handle a situation where the DM makes a ruling that is counter to what you believe is a more accurate ruling?
As a DM, how do you expect a Player to handle a situation where your ruling is counter to what he believes is to be a more accurate ruling?
If haven't guessed, I am a big supporter of rulings over rules, though coming to a greater understanding about what is RAW/RAI is important in making those rules. My own answer to the above is the same, make your case and then accept the final ruling. To that end, I tend to put my foot into it when I see hardline stances as I want a bit more flexibilty in these rulings.
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
The one problem I do have with Shield Bash (and how it relates to FoB) is that it has a unique condition structure for Bonus Actions. It smeems most Bonus Actions fall into two catagories:
1) A power or ability straight up gives you a Bonus Action, such as Bonus Action Spells or Figher's Second Wind.
2) You can a Bonus Action based on an action you make, such as Polearm Master (without the qualifier "and attack with .." would read just like SB) or Tavern Brawler.
No other ability reads if you use this Bonus Action, then you must do this specific action. The closest is on casting Bonus Action Spells you cannot cast non-Cantrip spells. So this can lead to the following rulings:
a) The unique language proves that it should be treated in a unique way, allowing Shield Bash actually happen before the Attack Action resolves.
b) It was intended to fit 2) but made it through editing without the develpers thinking is needed a more strictly worded clause to imply cause and effect.
As a DM, I can certainly see ruling a), but as a player with a character that may use Sheild Bash I need to consider the possibility of b). I can certainly see how other Bonus Actions abiities that fall into 2) (especially FoB and the ability to make prone) would want to be associate with Shield Bash and its timing.
jonathonhawke wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I would say your example has a temporal implication. Clearly you were not given permission to take the car and then pay for it.
Hamsterkill wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Or for that matter:
"You can borrow my lawn mower, if you return it."
Or if you want a documented version:
"You can borrow my mink coat only if you return it in perfect condition."
Not true. You take a loan out which is an agreement you make with a bank or other such institution that they will give you money now and you can pay them over time.
You then take that loan money and pay for the car. That car is then yours. However part of the agreement you made for the loan was that the bank could repossess the car if you do not pay the loan as agreed and that they get to hold the title until you do.
So the end result, you paid the car owner for the car from money the bank gave you.
In this case you have the car because you paid for it. It's still that simple.
Hamsterkill wrote:
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Hah well if he just want to say it can plausibly be read either way, then I'm on his side.
You have some weird ideas about how financing actually works.
Hamsterkill wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I also found the wikipedia article about tense aspect and mood to be enlightening.
So upon further research, there are certain types of conditionals-
Zero Conditionals
Both clauses are in present tense.
(The "if" in these conditionals can typically be replaced with "when")
Ex: If you heat water to 100 degrees, it boils
First Conditionals
Present tense in the if and future tense in the then
If you make a mistake, someone will let you know
Second Conditionals
"Second conditional" refers to the pattern where the condition clause is in the past tense, and the consequence in conditional mood (using would or, in the first person and rarely, should). This is used for hypothetical, counterfactual situations in a present or future time frame (where the condition expressed is known to be false or is presented as unlikely).
If I were rich, there would be plenty of money for this project.
Third Conditionals
"Third conditional" is the pattern where the condition clause is in the past perfect, and the consequence is expressed using the conditional perfect. This is used to refer to hypothetical, counterfactual (or believed likely to be counterfactual) situations in the past
If you had called me, I would have come.
Mixed Conditionals
Not very important for our discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sentence we have seems to be a zero conditional.
"If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try and shove a creature within 5ft of you with your shield."
Both the if clause and the then clause are written in the present tense. No other conditional form follows this pattern.
"Such sentences may be used to express a certainty, a universal statement, a law of science, etc. (in these cases if may often be replaced by when):" As such the "if" in our example could just as easily have been a "when" without changing the meaning at all.
From everything I'm reading, I am 100% gramatically correct in my statements about conditional sentences that are in the form of the one in the shield master feat.
Some important points:
1. The "then" cause in shield master has a modal verb construction, "can use" which gives it the meaning of, "then you have the ability to use..."
1a. This clause implies that something is giving us the ability to use a bonus action attack.
1b. What is giving us the ability to use a bonus action attack granted by shield master? Taking the attack action on our turn.
2. The if in the shield master clause can be replaced with a when without changing the meaning. See the above discussion.
2a. This changes the statement to "When you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to..."
2b. This makes the meaning even more clear, you must first take the attack action on your turn to even have the ability to use a bonus action to shove a creature (with shield master).
randl wrote:
jaelis wrote:
...so much for the devs' clearly stating, on multiple occasions, that the books were written, and intended to be read, with casual wording in mind. Not to be parsed down using dictionary definitions and treatises on grammar.
Shooting “rulings not rules” in the head like this is the only way to put it out of our misery. Yay. Now we can start treating 5e like the last previous editions. I’m gonna go get my Rules Law Degree sheepskin out of mothballs right now and hang it back up on the wall too. This is gonna be awesome!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Well, it's a good thing you were here to correct their wrong with another wrong, right?
What's the ol' saying? Two wrongs do not make a right. But three lefts do.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
He's claiming that it's wrong to cite detailed grammar rules that no one has heard of in order to tell us that our understanding of plain English is incorrect. I tend to agree with him on that.
I'll grant you this: in formal acacemic writing, it would be a mistake to write what they did if the intended meaning was what they claim. A good editor would fix it.
However, I don't really want to read the rules as formal academic writing. In casual language, their usage seems quite reasonable to me. If that means my casual language violates some grammar principles about conditionals, then I'm OK with that.
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
jaelis wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
randl wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
randl wrote:
LOL Am I the only one who realizes that the Devs added these little Easter eggs of contentious English solely to troll the parse-y rules lawyers?
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
I also wanted to point out one problem with not having the shield master bonus action attack have a timing specified.
"If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action..."
If this sentence doesn't entail timing then you would be able to use the bonus action it grants on any of your turns after you took an attack action on your turn. Since (as some claim) there is no timing specified on when you can use the bonus action.
So we all agree that the feat specifies timing for the bonus action attack. Some just limit the timing to "anytime on your current turn". Others like me limit the timing to "when you take the attack action on your current turn".
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
randl wrote:
I think the phrase "on your turn" in the shield master feat clause may be causing some people confusion.
Let's look at a similar sentence without that phrase:
"If you take the attack action, you can use a bonus action to..."
Can everyone agree that such a sentence has an order. Such a sentence doesn't give permission for the bonus action to be used until you have taken the attack action. Right? Can we at least agree on that?
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
For anyone claiming that the shield master feat doesn't include timing I want to ask:
Does that feat allow you to take the attack action on turn one and then on turn 2 to take the dodge action and make a bonus action shove attack?
If you say it does not allow that and that the bonus action attack must be on the same turn that the attack is made or is intended to be made then you are admitting that the feat specifies a timing. (Although you may disagree with me on the exact timing it specifies you must admit that it does specifiy some kind of timing).
Suck on them apples! (All of you that claimed the feat didn't specifiy any timing)
I think that a majority might accept this wording:
"During any turn that includes an Attack action by the character, the character may also use a Bonus action to make a Shove attack."
jonathonhawke wrote:
Does it imply timing other than "During the turn"?
jonathonhawke wrote:
Then I don't think there is any way of reconciling your parsing with the belief held by others that the bonus action attack can come before the Attack action attack.
jonathonhawke wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
i.e. Casual English != Formal English
jonathonhawke wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
Where in the rules does it state that any action you take on your turn affects what actions you can take during another one of your turns? (excluding spell effects, which are not relevent to the discussion at hand)
jonathonhawke wrote:
If I'm not mistaken everyone views the two weapon fighting text as having timing because it uses the word when. I am correct here right?
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.
This can just as easily be written the follwoing way and it keeps the same meaning
If 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.
See how those two sentences mean exactly the same? (On a sidenote this isn't surprising since formal english says they should).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Now why some believe that it is wrong to replace the "if" in the shield master text with a when is beyond me. We have an example above of if and when being able to be interchanged.
"If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to..." vs "When you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to..."
These sentences convey the same meaning. Both formally and informally.
---------------------------------------------------------
So can we finally admit there is timing involved?
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ObeseBoyWonder wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
This thread makes me want to track down and read this...
...so I can get a better grasp of exactly what's going on here.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
So basically what this discussion has boiled down to is that:
I claim "when" and "if" can be interchanged in conditional statements.
I claim that the timing of the bonus action is derived from the "if...then" statement
The other side claims that
"if" and "when" cannot be interchanged in conditional statements without changing the meaning.
The timing of the bonus action is derived from other rules external to the feats and abilities that grant the bonus action.
That's pretty much where we are at.
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I will say I worded my last response badly.
For now, I will just reiterate that the "if... then" constrution does not always imply a temporal requirement because it does not always express a causality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Causality_contrasted_with_conditionals
Thus the argument is over whether the rule is stating direct cause and effect relationship or simply a conditional one. Which we have no way of knowing from the words alone. It is ambiguous. Zero conditionals can be used to represent either.
Actually upon further thought....
"on your turn" does have the connotation of "on your current turn"
So I don't mind admitting it should be read and understood that way. This insight does disprove my thoughts on the attack action being able to be taken on any turn.
So shield master would read something like:
"if you take the attack action on your current turn you can use a bonus action to shield bash"
Some further thoughts:
1. Satisfying the condition on set forth in the shield master feat gives you the ability to use a bonus action to shield bash.
2. Do you even have the ability to use a bonus action to shield bash before the the condition set forth in the shield master feat is satisfied?
2a. If you do have that ability what granted it to you?
2b. If you do not have that ability why don't you?
I would answer that you do not have that ability because you have not satisfied the condition set forth in the shield master feat and as long as that condition is not satisfied then you do not have the abilitiy to use a bonus action to shield bash.
If you answer that you have that ability and that shield master granted it to you I want to ask how that ability can be granted while the condition set forth in shield master is currently unsatisfied?
In other words if you allow the shield master bonus action to occur before the attack action then there will be a point in time where
You have not taken the attack action on your current turn.
But
You took the shield master bonus action shield bash.
From a rules perspective, It should never be the case at any point in time that the "if" is false and the "then" is true.
FrogReaver wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
this thread... just wow...
Macv12 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
As far as I can tell there have been 3 different possible ways to read the shield master feat text that have been presented in this thead. I shall separate them into causal and conditional models.
Conditional - the "if" being true means the "then" is true.
1a. "If you take the attack action on your turn you can use a bonus action to shield bash on that turn"
Causal - the "if" causes the "then"
1b. "If you take the attack action on your turn you can use a bonus action to shield bash on that turn"
2. "If you promise to take the attack action on your turn you can use a bonus action to shield bash on that turn"
I can see 1b. I'm undecided on whether I can see 2 in the shield master feats case.
I cannot see 1a meaning what most here are claiming it means.
Conditional Argument: Those that want to claim that 1a allows for the bonus action to be used before the attack action are doing so based on looking at the situation after the turn is over. They simply say the conditions were met because after the turn it is true that you took the attack action on your turn and that you shield bashed on your turn. But this "after the turn" analysis doesn't tell the whole story.
There is also the story of what happened during the turn. Let's assume the bonus action is taken at time A and the attack action is taken at time B. Let's also assume that time A occurs before time B. Let's define a time C such that time C falls between time A and time B.
At time C it is false that we took the attack action on our turn and it is true that we used a bonus action to shield bash.
But where did this bonus action to shield bash even come from? At time C we haven't yet met the required if condition to even be granted the ability to use a shield bash bonus action.
***Note that all of this applies to the conditional reading and not just the causal reading.
Macv12 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
There is a Coke machine. If you put a coin in the slot, a can of Coke will be dispensed, and you can do whatever you want with it.
Your plan is to throw a can of Coke at the head of your enemy. If you start your turn next to the Coke machine, but are already carrying a can of Coke and a coin, you have a choice: you can throw that can at the head of your enemy and then put your coin in the slot to get another can from the machine OR you can put your coin in the machine to get a can and then throw either can at the head of your enemy.
On the other hand, if you start your turn next to the Coke machine and have a coin but do not have a can of Coke, there is only one way round to do those things: first, use your coin to get a can of Coke and THEN throw that can at the head of your enemy. You cannot throw the can before you have the can!
This has nothing to do with any restiction on whether or not coins must be inserted before cans may be thrown, and everything to do with the fact that you cannot throw a can if you don't have a can to throw!
If you have an action and a bonus action to take as your turn starts, you can take them in any order (unless the bonus action says otherwise).
The trouble is, although everyone has an action, nobody has a bonus action unless another rule gives you one!
With Shield Master, at the beginning of your turn you do not have a bonus action shove. The only way to get that bonus action shove is to take the attack action. Therefore, before you take the attack action, you do not have a bonus action shove to take.
You cannot promise to put a coin in the Coke machine later, and expect it to dispense a can now. You cannot promise to undertake an attack action later to execute the bonus action shove now, because it's not the promise of a future attack action which grants the bonus action shove, it's actually taking the attack action which grants the bonus action shove.
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
First post or not, I did indeed read through the entire thread before I commented.
I have no quibble with the order in which actions/bonus actions may be taken. My point is that, RAW, you don't have a bonus action to take!
You cannot take a bonus action if you do not have a bonus action, and you do not have one until you take an attack action.
I know what Crawford said, but that's not the rule he wrote down. If he wants it to work that way then he should write the words that mean that.
The rules that we do have are:
* you do not have a bonus action, unless and until another rule gives you one
* if the rule that gets you a bonus action is that you get it if you take a specific action, then you must actually take that action in order to get that bonus action
* therefore, if you haven't actually taken that action yet, then you do not have that bonus action yet
* taking that action is what gets you that bonus action. Promising to take that action at a later time is not the thing that provides that bonus action
How do you guys play TWF? If you take the attack action with a light weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon in your other hand. Does anyone play that you can take your bonus action attack before the attack action that grants it? Why, or why not?
ArialBlack wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
See, I don't believe that TWF, SM or any other ability that grants a bonus action if you take a specified action, grants that bonus until that action is taken. You simply don't have a bonus action to take.
That bonus action doesn't even exist until you take the attack action. The feat requires you to take the attack action, and when you have, you can take a bonus action to shove. Therefore, if you haven't, you don't!
Taking the action is what provides the bonus action. Not promising to take the action later, or even just having the feat. You must take the action, and until you do then you don't have that bonus action.
It really is cause and effect: actuallly taking the attack action brings the option of a bonus shove into existence, and you can't use a bonus action that doesn't exist for you. The cause of that bonus springing into existence is taking the attack action, not promising to take it later. If it worked that way, you could promise to take an attack action later, take the shove first, then not have an enemy to attack. What physically makes you swat at thin air? What thing prevents you from doing something else instead in the game world? The characters are not aware of game rules.
The attack opens up the shove, but you are not forced to actually shove. If a shove opened up an attack, then you would not be forced to attack. But if you read the rule that way, then some force is making you attack, and that is absurd. There is no game force that makes you.
ArialBlack wrote:
It's the 'cause and effect' thing that's bothering me. The rules assume that the laws of physics work the same as they do in our universe, except where the rules change them.
The rules don't assume that things fall up unless they say otherwise, they assume that things fall down. So cause comes before effect, because that's how the universe works (unless you believe that we're expected to understand the game rules by referring to quantum mechanics).
However, I've thought of a way to make it work (shove before attack) while retaining causality.
I've been assuming that 'taking the attack action' literally means 'executing your attacks'. I may be wrong.
When I look at the dash action, taking that action doesn't actually do anything by itself; when you announce that you're taking the dash action, your mini doesn't go anywhere. No, taking the dash action simply allows you to move extra distance during that turn.
Similarly, taking the disengage action doesn't do anything by itself, it just allows you to move without provoking.
Seen in this light, taking the attack action doesn't do anything by itself. It no more instantly makes you execute an attack than taking the disengage action moves your mini. No, taking the attack action simply allows you to execute your allotment of attacks sometime during your turn, whenever you see fit.
This means that you take the attack action (allowing you to execute your attacks at some point in this turn), and this makes the bonus action available (which allows you to shove at some point during your turn).
So, as it should, the cause (attack action) goes before the effect (bonus action), and you can then execute your attacks/shove in any order during your turn. So when you actually execute that shove, you have already taken the attack action even if you haven't yet executed the attacks that this action enables.
So it seems that 'taking the attack action' and 'resolving the attacks enabled by taking the attack action' are treated as different things.
This has consequences for the OP's question about Flurry of Blows. If taking the attack action is a seperate thing to resolving those attacks, and if the Ki has to be spent immediately after taking that action, then that Ki must be spent before any attack is resolved!
That's not how I've been playing it. I've allowed the monk to see how his attack (from his attack action) turned out before he had to make a decision about spending that Ki committing him to that flurry.
'Flurry of Blows' indeed!
ArialBlack, you have sufficiently stated in 3 posts what I've been trying to say this whole thread! Good job!
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
The difference is Causality and the Arrow of Time. When people were saying that the effect came before the cause, that was a problem for me.
Realising that 'taking the attack action' is a seperate thing from 'resolving those attacks' means that cause goes before effect, as it must, but the attacks granted by those actions can be taken later in the turn.
The way you describe making your monks spend the Ki before the attack action attack is consistent with this, but I admit it never occurred to me before this realisation. I'm no wondering if I should enforce that on the monk, since I've been playing the other way up to now.
How do you guys play the timing of Flurry?
ArialBlack wrote:
I agree that this is the way it should be done (thanks to my recent realisation), but have you always played 5th ed monks' Flurry like this? Or did you let them decide after resolving their normal attack?
ArialBlack wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Jamwes wrote: