Shield Master POLL: Rules as Fun!

I'd rule: Once you declare an Attack action you can use bonus action to shove. You either make your attacks or waste your Action.

dnd4vr said:

Please post your reasoning for voting as you do, but I hope people will not use this as a place to challenge your reasoning.

Click to expand...

No, I don't agree.

My approach is to say that when you declare the Attack action, you are granted an attack (or multiple attacks if you have Extra Attack), which you can then use at any point during your turn. You don't have to take those attacks right away.

So a fighter could declare the Attack action; use a bonus action from Shield Master to shove; take her first attack; use Action Surge to activate a magic item; and finally take her second attack, all while moving around.

Jester David said:

As the DM... fun for whom? I don't like my monsters always being steamrolled by the fighter who knocks them down, attacks twice with advantage, and then lets half the party do the same.
I need my fun too. I want to take my turn in combat.

Click to expand...

There is a simple solution to this problem, which is adding more monsters. The party can have fun locking down the first batch, and I can have fun noshing on their brains with the second batch.

If you've declared you're attacking, as far as I'm concerned that satisfies the trigger. Otherwise it just gets flaky. What if you attack but then can't take your additional attacks for some reason? Does that mean you didn't really attack?

Same thing as with bonus action spells and cantrips; the order does not matter. If my player uses a shield bash as their bonus action the only other action they can take is an attack.

I just don't see it as being that big of a deal and gives the sword-and-board something cool to do and makes the feat worth taking. Without it it doesn't feel like there are any feats for that type of character that really make them feel special.

Asgorath said:

My rule of thumb is pretty simple: if the players want to push the boundaries with things like this, then I just give the same feat to the monsters. Oh, you want to shove first and attack with advantage? Cool, my monsters get to do that as well. I like to add class features to monsters to make them more interesting and powerful, and feats are a simple and easy way to do that.

Click to expand...

This reads as if this isn't the ways its supposed to be. Enemy's should always have the same options as PC characters. At least that how the groups I've played with have done it.

Asgorath said:

My rule of thumb is pretty simple: if the players want to push the boundaries with things like this, then I just give the same feat to the monsters. Oh, you want to shove first and attack with advantage? Cool, my monsters get to do that as well. I like to add class features to monsters to make them more interesting and powerful, and feats are a simple and easy way to do that.

Click to expand...

That sounds so limiting. As the DM, and I can give the monsters any sort of feature I want. It seems like such a waste of potential to give them what the players have.

Like, if I gave an NPC the Shield Master feat, he only gets to knock down one player. But if I give him the Booming Voice of Zeus, he can shout prone everyone around. And this is super easy. Took me a couple seconds. It's easier than giving him a feat or spell, even, since there's nothing for me to look up at any time.

Booming Voice of Zeus (recharge 5-6): bonus action, knocks prone everyone within 30 feet. DC 14 Strength save avoids.

Also I voted with the clear majority.

I'm such a follower

Asgorath said:

My rule of thumb is pretty simple: if the players want to push the boundaries with things like this, then I just give the same feat to the monsters. Oh, you want to shove first and attack with advantage? Cool, my monsters get to do that as well. I like to add class features to monsters to make them more interesting and powerful, and feats are a simple and easy way to do that.

Click to expand...

I saw that in 3e with endless monsters with spiked chains, combat reflexes, and improved trip who managed to enlarge themselves in response to players doing the same.

I don’t like when the game becomes an arm race or develops a metagame of countering options. So I’m certainly not going to house rule it so the players can do that.
Fighters can already rip apart monsters, I don’t need to give them perma-advantage.

Taking away the ability to shove first nerfs the feat, and makes the sword & board style less attractive. The advantage still has to be earned via an opposed roll. If you nerf it, those who care about being effective will choose PAM & GWM instead. Why would you want to encourage everyone to make the same choice?

If you take the bonus action shield shove first, since that is dependant on taking the Attack action this turn, then you have locked yourself into the Attack action. If something happens after the shove that would prevent you from taking the Attack action, or would leave you in a situation where the Attack action is no longer useful, tough! Them's the breaks!

I'm going to attack/shove the baddies. Since the BBEG standing on the edge of a cliff I'll try to shove him off the edge. I'll probably fail, but I'll then attack him twice. But in the unlikely event I succeed I'll move to his wizard henchman and try to kill him. Wow, I did it! The BBEG falls to his death (or did he?) so I turn to the wizard. As it turns out, the wizard was low on HP and had Readied an action to teleport home if the BBEG was defeated. As I turn to the wizard, he disappears. There is no-one in range that I can attack, so I'd rather Cast a Spell instead. Sucks to be me though, because taking the bonus action shield shove locked me into that Attack action, like it or not.

See! It's easy to adjudicate.

The only thing that's unbalanced is the guy who got hit by the shield!

Jester David said:

I saw that in 3e with endless monsters with spiked chains, combat reflexes, and improved trip who managed to enlarge themselves in response to players doing the same.

I don’t like when the game becomes an arm race or develops a metagame of countering options.

Click to expand...

Ooh, yeah. That points to one of the nice side effects of my system of giving the monsters unique features.

Even if I was to do it to one-up what the players were doing (though I don't), it looks like I'm giving the monsters a defining feature, something It's supposed to have, so the players won't be inclined to consider it an arms race.