Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I was right about Shield Master
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ristamar" data-source="post: 7509873" data-attributes="member: 1207"><p>If we can't even agree on the importance and meaning of scope and trigger as they pertain to Bonus actions, there's little point in continuing this discussion.</p><p></p><p>A turn, in terms of scope, is an abstracted time space that encompasses a set of sequential actions of one character or creature (barring a triggered Reaction). It always occurs. You can't choose to not take a turn. Even when surprised. Even when you're dying. You can't even delay your turn. </p><p></p><p>A Bonus action trigger is a specific circumstance within the abstracted space of your turn that may or may not occur. Even if the trigger occurs, it does not have to be utilized (unlike your turn). </p><p></p><p>You can argue that any Bonus action is technically nested within your turn, but your turn is not an action or an effect trigger. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Movement isn't an action (i.e. there is no "Move" action defined in the rules). It is a form of currency you have that is replenished and spent on your turn at varying costs given your current condition (stunned, slowed, etc), mode (swim, fly, climb, etc), and terrain. And, IIRC, dropping an object is classified as "not an action."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>5e combat, by the official rules, is strictly sequential except in highly limited circumstances (interrupt Reactions like Shield or Counterspell). The old interpretation of Shield Master allowed the Bonus action shove to potentially go out of scope and operate like an interrupt Reaction. It established an unintentional, undesirable precedent for Bonus actions. I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I had thought precedence in the law was often as important as interpretation. </p><p></p><p>I openly acknowledge the old rule wasn't a problem for most groups because its interpretation wasn't abused intentionally or otherwise. Continuing to use it as such won't break the game for the vast majority of people, but Crawford's clarification does fix a popular "bug" in the design and reestablishes the design scope of Bonus actions and Reactions.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: I also openly acknowledge they could have easily chose to reword the feat so it would operate off an Attack trigger on your turn (instead of Attack Action) or even drop the trigger, but the design team doesn't seem inclined to issue much in the way of errata that modifies the written rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ristamar, post: 7509873, member: 1207"] If we can't even agree on the importance and meaning of scope and trigger as they pertain to Bonus actions, there's little point in continuing this discussion. A turn, in terms of scope, is an abstracted time space that encompasses a set of sequential actions of one character or creature (barring a triggered Reaction). It always occurs. You can't choose to not take a turn. Even when surprised. Even when you're dying. You can't even delay your turn. A Bonus action trigger is a specific circumstance within the abstracted space of your turn that may or may not occur. Even if the trigger occurs, it does not have to be utilized (unlike your turn). You can argue that any Bonus action is technically nested within your turn, but your turn is not an action or an effect trigger. Movement isn't an action (i.e. there is no "Move" action defined in the rules). It is a form of currency you have that is replenished and spent on your turn at varying costs given your current condition (stunned, slowed, etc), mode (swim, fly, climb, etc), and terrain. And, IIRC, dropping an object is classified as "not an action." 5e combat, by the official rules, is strictly sequential except in highly limited circumstances (interrupt Reactions like Shield or Counterspell). The old interpretation of Shield Master allowed the Bonus action shove to potentially go out of scope and operate like an interrupt Reaction. It established an unintentional, undesirable precedent for Bonus actions. I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I had thought precedence in the law was often as important as interpretation. I openly acknowledge the old rule wasn't a problem for most groups because its interpretation wasn't abused intentionally or otherwise. Continuing to use it as such won't break the game for the vast majority of people, but Crawford's clarification does fix a popular "bug" in the design and reestablishes the design scope of Bonus actions and Reactions. EDIT: I also openly acknowledge they could have easily chose to reword the feat so it would operate off an Attack trigger on your turn (instead of Attack Action) or even drop the trigger, but the design team doesn't seem inclined to issue much in the way of errata that modifies the written rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I was right about Shield Master
Top