D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat

[ki11erDM]

I can see this being read both ways. When in doubt go with the one that is the most fun. Let the player use the free push anytime during or after the attach action on his/her turn. So you could move 10', use first attack, move 10', use second attack, move 10' at any time during or after.

Makes combat more fun, more dynamic, and increases the enjoyment for those playing with a shield.

 

[Kobold Stew]

If the feat meant 'after you have attacked this turn', it would say so. Instead, it says 'when you take the Attack action'. Attack action is what leads into attacks, but these are separate things, as you can have multiple attacks per turn, the Attack Action just encompasses all of those.

No one is disputing what an Attack action is; the confusion concerns the verb "take":

- it is my turn
- I have not attacked.

Have I taken an attack action? No.

- it is my turn
- I have dodged.

Have I taken an attack action? No.

- it is my turn
- I have attacked a creature.

Have I taken an attack action? Yes.

Given you can use bonus actions whenever,

"unless the bonus action's timing is specified"

I feel confident saying you can declare that you'll be spending your action for this turn on the Attack action, then bonus action the target to the ground, and then move into your actual attacks.

I feel confident that this is not what a plain reading of the rules implies, though it would be a perfectly acceptable house rule.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

- it is my turn
- I have attacked a creature.

Have I taken an attack action? Yes.

No. THE Attack Action. NOT "an attack action". Not "making an attack". Just attacking via some method is NOT "taking THE Attack Action". That is a specific Action. I would say choosing (i.e. stating to the DM) to use THE Attack Action (which makes it your Action for the turn) means you can then trigger this, even if it is before you roll the actual Attacks.

 

[Kobold Stew]

No. THE Attack Action. NOT "an attack action". Not "making an attack". Just attacking via some method is NOT "taking THE Attack Action". That is a specific Action.

Of course it is, which is why I included the possibility (inter alia) of dodge. This does not change the straightforward reading at all...

I would say choosing (i.e. stating to the DM) to use THE Attack Action (which makes it your Action for the turn) means you can then trigger this, even if it is before you roll the actual Attacks.

...whereas this does. There is no parallel that I can see for inserting a bonus action midway through the attack action:

1. choose a target (have I taken the attack action at this point? no).
2. determine modifiers (have I taken the attack action at this point? again, no).
3. resolve the attack (have I taken the attack action after the attack is resolved? yes.).

Your reading inserts the bonus action between 1 and 2 -- and I would say you have not taken the attack action at that point.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Of course it is, which is why I included the possibility (inter alia) of dodge. This does not change the straightforward reading at all...



...whereas this does. There is no parallel that I can see for inserting a bonus action midway through the attack action:

1. choose a target (have I taken the attack action at this point? no).
2. determine modifiers (have I taken the attack action at this point? again, no).
3. resolve the attack (have I taken the attack action after the attack is resolved? yes.).

Your reading inserts the bonus action between 1 and 2 -- and I would say you have not taken the attack action at that point.

I don't buy this "you have to roll before you are considered to be taking the action" reading. I see no justification for it. Taking is taking. If I say "I am taking the Attack Action" with my Action for that round, then I am taking it. Where does this whole "Doesn't count until you roll!!!!" deal come from?

 

[TwoSix]

...whereas this does. There is no parallel that I can see for inserting a bonus action midway through the attack action:

1. choose a target (have I taken the attack action at this point? no).
2. determine modifiers (have I taken the attack action at this point? again, no).
3. resolve the attack (have I taken the attack action after the attack is resolved? yes.).

Your reading inserts the bonus action between 1 and 2 -- and I would say you have not taken the attack action at that point.

Just to be clear, from your reading, would you require the bonus action to happen after all the attacks granted to the character via Extra Attack?

 

[Agamon]

I believe some people are thinking about this too hard. The bash becomes part of your attack sequence, much like an extra attack. You can do it before or after the actual main attack, but if you do the bash first, your committed to attacking.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I believe some people are thinking about this too hard. The bash becomes part of your attack sequence, much like an extra attack. You can do it before or after the actual main attack, but if you do the bash first, your committed to attacking.

Precisely!

 

[the Jester]

I believe some people are thinking about this too hard. The bash becomes part of your attack sequence, much like an extra attack. You can do it before or after the actual main attack, but if you do the bash first, your committed to attacking.

This is my reading of it, too.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I don't buy this "you have to roll before you are considered to be taking the action" reading. I see no justification for it. Taking is taking. If I say "I am taking the Attack Action" with my Action for that round, then I am taking it. Where does this whole "Doesn't count until you roll!!!!" deal come from?

Let's tone down the misrepresentation and hyperbole, please. You know this is not what I said, nor is it the way in which it was said (have I ever used four exclamation points at the end of a single sentence? please.) We disagree, and I find your perspective to be special pleading. It may be what was intended (I don't know), but it's not, I feel, what is said.

Your interpretation is stronger than you seem to believe, however, and can be made without misrepresenting those with whom you disagree.