Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Maxperson]

Well, Crawford’s ruling isn’t that the feat specifies a timing for the bonus action, per se. It’s that it sets up a precondition that needs to be satisfied before the bonus action can be used. Where I disagree with Crawford is that a rules precondition necessarily operates as a precondition in the fiction. The wording of the feat suggests to me that as long as you take the Attack action at some point during your turn that you can also take the bonus action shove on the same turn, so taking the Attack action is a precondition at the table but doesn't need to come before the bonus action in the fiction. The fact that Crawford originally ruled this and other bonus actions as working this way also strongly suggests that this was the intended interpretation when it was written.

The wording of the feat does not in any way suggest that you can take the bonus action prior to the action. It explicitly states that IF you take, THEN you shove. Prior to actually taking the action, you have not taken the action, so there is no trigger for Shield Master to work off of.

The feat doesn't require you to shove a creature you've already attacked. You can use your Attack action on one or more creatures and use your bonus action shove on an entirely different creature. I don't believe there's any reason to think there's an intended narrative of setting up an opponent to be shoved.

This is a good point, and just makes game balance more likely to be the reason Shield Master works differently.

If that's true, then why didn't Jeremy Crawford come out and say so? His stated reason for changing his mind on bonus actions is that it's a more literal interpretation of the RAW. I don't see any reason to question his honesty in this regard.

I have no idea why he hasn't come out and said it. He's also correct about it being a more literal interpretation of RAW, but if that's all it was, he would have said something like he did with Disintegrate and Wild Shape. In that ruling he let us know RAI prior to saying that the druid by RAW does in fact dust as soon as the wild shape form hits 0 hit points.

 

[ad_hoc]

Well, Crawford’s ruling isn’t that the feat specifies a timing for the bonus action, per se. It’s that it sets up a precondition that needs to be satisfied before the bonus action can be used. Where I disagree with Crawford is that a rules precondition necessarily operates as a precondition in the fiction. The wording of the feat suggests to me that as long as you take the Attack action at some point during your turn that you can also take the bonus action shove on the same turn, so taking the Attack action is a precondition at the table but doesn't need to come before the bonus action in the fiction. The fact that Crawford originally ruled this and other bonus actions as working this way also strongly suggests that this was the intended interpretation when it was written.

Why do you need to take the 'attack action' at all in the 'fiction'?

Crawford has explained that it is this way to keep the game flowing. The rules are designed to make combat go smoothly and quickly. You also don't get a bonus action until a thing gives that action. So you don't have it to use until you've done the attack action.

 

[Yunru]

until you've done the attack action.

There's that past tense that doesn't exist again.

At any point where you are taking the Attack action, you fulfil the timing, not just at the end.

 

[Hussar]

There's that past tense that doesn't exist again.

At any point where you are taking the Attack action, you fulfil the timing, not just at the end.

So, I could do my shield push between hitting and dealing damage?

Why do additional attacks suddenly change the nature of the Attack Action? Note, no other Actions are divisible either. It's not like I could start casting a cantrip, drop a bonus action spell in the middle of casting the cantrip and then finish casting the cantrip.

Having additional attacks does not mean that the Attack Action suddenly completely changes its nature. Heck, look at the last line of the Attack Action:

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

Note, it doesn't say that Extra Attack suddenly makes the Attack Action plural. It's still a SINGLE action. And, just like every other action, it's not divisible by anything else. Well, to be fair, I suppose you could make the argument for the Dash action, since Dash simply adds additional movement and movement can be interrupted by actions. But, again, that's specific trumping general.

Unless you can find where it says that making multiple attacks changes the Attack Action to the Attack Actions, you really don't have much to work with here.

 

[Yunru]

Note, no other Actions are divisible either. It's not like I could start casting a cantrip, drop a bonus action spell in the middle of casting the cantrip and then finish casting the cantrip.

Ummm... yes they are?
You're example is actually the perfect example:
It's confirmed that you can flip someone the counterbird even if they're flipping you the counterbird while you cast a spell.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ummm... yes they are?
You're example is actually the perfect example:
It's confirmed that you can flip someone the counterbird even if they're flipping you the counterbird while you cast a spell.

Citing an example that is one of the very few stated exceptions on interrupting actions actually undercuts your argument that actions are normally divisible.

Look, to me this is a non-issue. Crawford's ruling only makes sense if the Attack action is indivisible outside of specifically stated exceptions (movement, some reactions, etc.). This is RAW, and an interpretation easily reachable by RAW. Doing lingual gynmastics to blur lines to bith claim RAW and disagree with Crawford is counterproductive at best (as in actualky counterproductive, you could have done something productive instead like make a houserule). I think the RAW here is silly (but RAW) and that it reduces shieldmaster from a good feat to a mediocre one. But, I fixed this already in my games by not tying the extra shive received from advanced training to any other action at all -- it's a freely available bonus action with no timing. Game breakage? Absolutely none.

So, sally forth, Shieldmasters! Get it on with the houserules! Arguing about which words to read thusly and sidewise so tgat you can claim RAW as your shield is foolish -- it can't block swords at all.

 

[Yunru]

Citing an example that is one of the very few stated exceptions on interrupting actions actually undercuts your argument that actions are normally divisible.

It would do, yes, except it's never state as an exception. It's just the resting state of things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It would do, yes, except it's never state as an exception. It's just the resting state of things.

If this is your benchmark, there are no exceptions. This is the exact form of textual twisting I'm talking about.

But, point of fact, the general rules for reactions are clear: they occur after their triggers. Counterspell does explicitly state it interrupts. Hence exception.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Look, to me this is a non-issue. Crawford's ruling only makes sense if the Attack action is indivisible outside of specifically stated exceptions (movement, some reactions, etc.). This is RAW, and an interpretation easily reachable by RAW. Doing lingual gynmastics to blur lines to bith claim RAW and disagree with Crawford is counterproductive at best (as in actualky counterproductive, you could have done something productive instead like make a houserule). I think the RAW here is silly (but RAW) and that it reduces shieldmaster from a good feat to a mediocre one. But, I fixed this already in my games by not tying the extra shive received from advanced training to any other action at all -- it's a freely available bonus action with no timing. Game breakage? Absolutely none.

So, sally forth, Shieldmasters! Get it on with the houserules! Arguing about which words to read thusly and sidewise so tgat you can claim RAW as your shield is foolish -- it can't block swords at all.

Yes - I agree, this is ultimately the most sensible way to think about it.

Don't fall into the trap (as I have done previously) of interpreting houserule < RAW. "Houserule" is not an insult and anyone trying to use it that way overtly or subtly may have need for a little introspection.

At the end of the day, the DM's job is interpreting the RAW anyway. As RL humans, we're all going to bring our own biases to the table, so to speak, in how we interpret and apply the rules. The end goal for our table is to have fun, not debate the rules and hold up the flow of the game.

Here are two examples of how I think about Shield Master at our tables. If these help someone else somehow, great. If not, that's ok too.

Example 1:
Player (level 5 fighter with Shield Master feat): I use my shield to shove the bandit in front of me, then the goblin to my left, and finally the hobgoblin to my right.
DM: Cool... {rolls dice}... do your Strength checks beat a 7, a 3, and a 15?

Note the DM does not ask which is the Bonus Action shove, or insist that the 3rd shove is the bonus action, because... there's no need, right?

Example 2:
Player (same as above): I slash the orc with my sword - 19 to hit for 8 damage.
DM: it's looking pretty rough, but is still up.
Player: Ok, I use my bonus action to shove it to the ground - does a 22 succeed?
DM: I rolled a 15 for the orc, yep.
Player: I hold my sword at the orcs throat and say "surrender!"

Note the DM isn't worried about the extra attack finishing before the bonus action shove happens because... reasons... and here's one: why should a 4th level fighter be able to carry this out but a 5th level fighter could not?

 

[Yunru]

If this is your benchmark, there are no exceptions. This is the exact form of textual twisting I'm talking about.

But, point of fact, the general rules for reactions are clear: they occur after their triggers. Counterspell does explicitly state it interrupts. Hence exception.

I can see there will be no reasoning with you.
There is no rule on actions being indivisible, but you will maintain that they are.
There are examples of actions being divisible, but you will merely claim they're exceptions that prove your imaginary rule.