Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[Markh3rd]

Is your argument that 5e wasn't worded perfectly?

That is a given. The game would still be in editing if they were striving for perfection.

The rule is fine. The section on Bonus Actions could have been a bit clearer and there could be some clarification text on some abilities like Shield Master.

Not my argument, just my observation. And I agree with you that it could have been clearer when written.

 

[Hussar]

Lots of cases of things that can happen during that action very clearly dpecified.

Yup, the rules clearly specify exceptions. That's 100% true. If you could drop a bonus action into the middle of other Actions, then they wouldn't need to specify all the exceptions would they?

 

[5ekyu]

So your argument is that it is more powerful if you can shield bash first, therefore it must be correct. That is a white room power gamer argument. The fact that you see no value in knocking down the opponent so other people get advantage is telling.

But this has turned into an endurance test. The same arguments are repeated over and over. I have already pointed out the relevant rules. Others in this thread have posted statements from the lead rule developer. There was the video where he said how it worked and why. Doing all of that over again will not accomplish anything.

So I am pretty comfortable that the weight of evidence is on my side. But that's like, my opinion, man.

Actually I think their point was - in a response to a claim about the *obvious* way it works- to show another take on what was *obvious* yo them.

I might paraphrase it like this...

** Like common sense isn't common, obvious isnt obvious. That's why we have actual rules. **

I mean the PHB would be a lot smaller if it were just supposed to be "just do what is onvious."

 

[ad_hoc]

Not my argument, just my observation. And I agree with you that it could have been clearer when written.

Right, and water is wet.

 

[Markh3rd]

If you take the Attack action on your turn, immediately after you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.

If it was worded like that I would never have started looking for a clarification. To be honest, I wouldn't be here from the way it is worded now but a DM I know mentioned how they "nerfed" the feat recently and it got me to look into it because I was looking at taking the feat on my fighter in AL. But hey, I got to meet all of you guys so I'm glad I came here anyway.

 

[Markh3rd]

"Right. And water is wet."

I'm not following you. Is that sarcasm? Has my statement offended you?

 

[ad_hoc]

"Right. And water is wet."

I'm not following you. Is that sarcasm? Has my statement offended you?

I'm just making an observation.

Water is wet.

 

[Markh3rd]

I'm just making an observation.

Water is wet.

Ahhhhhh. But wet is not water.

 

[Yunru]

I'm just making an observation.

Water is wet.

God don't start that!
(Although I choose to define "wet" as something covered in a liquid, or a liquid that can saturate a solid. Then I laugh at everyone who's arguing over it like language is immutable or something.)

 

[FrogReaver]

It's mostly self evident from the text. I say mostly because the Attack Action ambiguity regarding Shield Master could have been avoided with better writing.

To be more specific, one only has to look at the rules for movement that you already quoted:



You move before and after your action. The Attack action is the obvious exception.

Mostly self evident = they aren't in the rules.