Not the Panthers. Sigh.So, who's winning?
*muching on popcorn*
Not the Panthers. Sigh.So, who's winning?
*muching on popcorn*
Sigh, Advice given and advice rejected. Have fun arguing about the meaning of timing. I won't join you down that pointless rabbit hole.
No. When you shoved you took a bonus action that was granted by the attack action, which if you get knocked out before you take it, you never took. You do not actually take the attack action until you attempt to make that first attack. I say attempt, because Sanctuary can stop the attack without stopping the Attack Action.
Beats a pointlessly narrow definition of timing that ignores portions of the game.
Shoving a creature is an attack, so even if you get knocked out after that, you still took the Attack action.
I'm curious. What portions of the game do you think I'm ignoring?
The portions of the game that involve timing that is broader than your excessively narrow scope...
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here.
A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
You know he's not confused, you're just being snide. His point, which is valid in my opinion, is that being a DM ideally involves taking what a player wants his character to do and resolving it using the rules, not setting out arbitrary limitations and conjuring extra timing constraints. If a shield master character shoves first, then takes all the attacks granted by an attack action, then both the attack action and the bonus action from Shield Master were used. If one or more of those attacks is frustrated before it is taken, then it was just the attack action. Hriston's point, if I may speak for him, seems to be that as a human being running a tabletop RPG (and not as a computer,) we are perfectly capable of looking at the character's entire turn instead of constraining ourselves to consider each action, attack, flourish, or 5 feet of movement individually, in isolation, with rigid attention to what must come first.Making an attack does not equal an attack action. You seem to be confused about attacks. ...
I think one of the clearest indications that this new and revised Shield Master comment from Jeremy Crawford is bad advice is that across the dozens of pages of this thread, it seems that most of the people who defend his new interpretation of the rule do so only in theory, while 'confessing' that they would not adhere to it in their own game. Whether 'allowing' the shove to come between attacks, or whenever the character wants, or declaring by house rule that the attack action itself is unnecessary, there don't seem to be a lot of commenters who are eager to use Jeremy's new Shield Master advice in their own game. And why would they? At no point during the years when Jeremy's advice (whether because he was drunk in line at the grocer's or not) was to "take your bonus shove whenever you want it" did the Shield Master feat dominate the game. I think most of us need a much better reason to tell a player he can't string his attacks together the way he wants to on his turn than "Well, see, Jeremy changed his mind, so... sorry."So sure, if you were to come into my game and ask me to let you gimp yourself that badly, I'd probably let you.
Point of oddity (non-space variety)You know he's not confused, you're just being snide. His point, which is valid in my opinion, is that being a DM ideally involves taking what a player wants his character to do and resolving it using the rules, not setting out arbitrary limitations and conjuring extra timing constraints. If a shield master character shoves first, then takes all the attacks granted by an attack action, then both the attack action and the bonus action from Shield Master were used. If one or more of those attacks is frustrated before it is taken, then it was just the attack action. Hriston's point, if I may speak for him, seems to be that as a human being running a tabletop RPG (and not as a computer,) we are perfectly capable of looking at the character's entire turn instead of constraining ourselves to consider each action, attack, flourish, or 5 feet of movement individually, in isolation, with rigid attention to what must come first.
I think one of the clearest indications that this new and revised Shield Master comment from Jeremy Crawford is bad advice is that across the dozens of pages of this thread, it seems that most of the people who defend his new interpretation of the rule do so only in theory, while 'confessing' that they would not adhere to it in their own game. Whether 'allowing' the shove to come between attacks, or whenever the character wants, or declaring by house rule that the attack action itself is unnecessary, there don't seem to be a lot of commenters who are eager to use Jeremy's new Shield Master advice in their own game. And why would they? At no point during the years when Jeremy's advice (whether because he was drunk in line at the grocer's or not) was to "take your bonus shove whenever you want it" did the Shield Master feat dominate the game. I think most of us need a much better reason to tell a player he can't string his attacks together the way he wants to on his turn than "Well, see, Jeremy changed his mind, so... sorry."
Ultimately, the rules are best when they are at their most flexible. There is no way for a set of rules to contemplate every situation in every game, and the magic of tabletop RPGs is that they don't have to. The DM can apply the rules to resolve the acts and efforts of the player characters without having to look at the Actions in Combat section like an instruction manual from Ikea. If, at the end of a shield master's turn, the Attack Action has been taken and a bonus action shove was taken, the conditional described in the feat has been satisfied regardless of the sequence of attacks. The ability to reconcile complex behavior during a combat turn into movement, action, bonus action, and flourish is part of what makes a live D&D game better than playing Baldur's Gate on your PC.