D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat

[Guest 6801328]

Wow. Just caught up.

Sean: what you are saying makes sense logically and perhaps the game should have been written that way. But it wasn't. You must take the attack action to Shove (or Grapple), and an opportunity attack is not an attack action. It's a reaction that allows a melee weapon attack. Not the same thing, as James Glover has been trying to tell you for 3 pages.

So, yeah, if you allow that you're house ruling. I think it's a sensible and harmless house rule, but it's not RAW.

 

[Sean Culligan]

If the wording for the beginning of grappling and shoving was this:

Grapple:
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you do so by using the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."

Shoving:
"By using the Attack action, you can choose to make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you."

I believe they weren't thinking about opportunity attacks when it was written otherwise they would have said "only if" or "only when" to make it crystal clear.
In the case of the shield master feat it should have stated "only after" if that is what was intended.

Because I believe this I have to ask "why not?" These things are not more powerful than raw damage output. They are circumstantial at best. They should be allowed when the circumstance arises. The best time to try to grab a foe or knock them down for instance is when they are attempting to flee. Any rule that works for the player can also work against them so it is not game breaking.

I hate arguing semantics but you could argue that the grapple rule allows you to make an attack action whenever you want. It even starts off with "When you want to grab a creature..."
Player: Well I want to grab the creature now.
DM: Its not your turn.
Player: The rule says "when I want..."

Anyways that's probably a poor example because it does go on to say "the attack action", not "an attack action" but you can see what I am getting at so I won't belabor this one.

 

[Satyrn]

Wow. Just caught up.

Sean: what you are saying makes sense logically and perhaps the game should have been written that way. But it wasn't. You must take the attack action to Shove (or Grapple), and an opportunity attack is not an attack action. It's a reaction that allows a melee weapon attack. Not the same thing, as James Glover has been trying to tell you for 3 pages.

So, yeah, if you allow that you're house ruling. I think it's a sensible and harmless house rule, but it's not RAW.

I can see how [MENTION=6915216]Sean Culligan[/MENTION] gets his ruling from reading the text. All it takes is choosing to read the bolded bit - "Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature" - as an example of when you can make the special attack.

I will say nothing about RAW. You hate Warlords. I want to see the phrase RAW smote from existence by a metagaming paladin.

 

[Sean Culligan]

Here's a question about specific rules overriding general rules.
The opportunity attack states you can make a melee attack. We know that shoves and grapples are types melee attacks because they fall under that section in the rulebook.
Shoves and grapples state such and such about the using the attack action.
Question: Does the specific rule in the opportunity attack section stating you can make a melee attack override the shove and grapple rules about attack action or is it vice versa. Keep in mind that all three of these sections are at the same level as sub-sections of melee attack.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Believe me Sean, I do get your point of view and I think re-wording many things in the PBH and elsewhere would remove much of the confusion or doubt.

With the sole exceptions of the Extra Attack feature and also Two-Weapon Fighting, any attack that can be made using the Attack action could easily be allowed for Opportunity attack as well. I wouldn't want someone taking more than one attack, but attacking with a melee weapon, shove, grapple, or even an attack spell such as a cantrip would be okay IMO.

I am sure there are other possible issues, which might be why they restricted it to only the Attack action for shoving and grappling, and not simply a melee attack, as allowed by an OA.

Honestly, if you think about using a shove to knock an opponent prone as an OA, why bother? They begin to move, you OA them with a shove, knocking them prone, they then use half their move to stand and continue away regardless. The end result: nothing but the creature must use up half its move to stand.

And as I already stated before, I am already house-ruling Shield Master can use the bonus action before making attacks. But I know that is a house-rule and does not follow the official intent.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Here's a question about specific rules overriding general rules.
The opportunity attack states you can make a melee attack. We know that shoves and grapples are types melee attacks because they fall under that section in the rulebook.
Shoves and grapples state such and such about the using the attack action.
Question: Does the specific rule in the opportunity attack section stating you can make a melee attack override the shove and grapple rules about attack action or is it vice versa. Keep in mind that all three of these sections are at the same level as sub-sections of melee attack.

Good point!

However, I'll let other people handle this one... at least for now.

 

[Sean Culligan]

I am sure there are other possible issues, which might be why they restricted it to only the Attack action for shoving and grappling, and not simply a melee attack, as allowed by an OA.

This is what is missing from these official rulings. From what I have seen they are not providing the "why?' and in most cases they simply regurgitate the rules verbatim.
Hmm.. its almost as though they want to foster debate...

 

[Guest 6801328]

If any melee weapon attack was synonymous with an attack action, then you could dual-wield and shove/grapple with your bonus action.

...We know that shoves and grapples are types melee attacks because they fall under that section in the rulebook....

The core of your argument seems to be based on the outline of the PHB. I think the words used trump any implications of their layout and headings/subheadings.

 

[Sean Culligan]

If any melee weapon attack was synonymous with an attack action, then you could dual-wield and shove/grapple with your bonus action.

Dual wield is a bonus action AND it happens within the attack action.
Melee weapon attacks are synonymous with attack actions just like shoves and grapples are as per the below rule.

PHB192 Actions in Combat: Attack - "The most common action to take in combat is the "Attack action", whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action; "you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for rules that govern attacks."

The core of your argument seems to be based on the outline of the PHB. I think the words used trump any implications of their layout and headings/subheadings.

For the most part yes.
Now I am thinking I can add to it with this point that has been brought up a few times already where a specific ruling overrides a more general rule. The opportunity attack specifically says you can make a melee attack. The shove and grapple insinuate they require an attack action (they don't actually say "require"). These are all at the same level of sub-section under the "Melee Attacks" section of the PHB but the opportunity attack rule comes first in the order of operations. If we back it up you can also say that the general rule is that a player gets one attack per turn but that is overridden by extra attacks for certain class levels during the attack action. It is also overridden by other exceptions such as bonus attacks and reactions. The mention of "attack action" is higher in the order and therefore it is a more general rule than the bonus and reaction attack exceptions which are more specific. See what I did there? Attack actions is a more general ruling than opportunity attacks therefore the more specific opportunity attack ruling takes precedence.

What this would mean is that by virtue of the opportunity attack stating that you can make a melee attack as bonus action it overrides the requirement for an attack action for those melee attacks. Normally a regular weapon swing also requires an attack action but the opportunity attack overrides that. Why not the same for shoves and grapples?

 

[Guest 6801328]

See what I did there?

Yes: you read more into the layout of the book than you should. If this was supposed to be an example of "specific overriding general" there would have been actual language explaining that. Certainly they've intentionally left some things vague, but I don't think they used layout to leave obscure hints.

I think the problem is that you are reading the sub-headings under "Melee Attacks" as an enumeration of different kinds of melee attacks, as if "Melee Attacks" is the title of a list, and Opportunity Attacks, Two-Weapon Fighting, Grappling, and Shoving are the four possible ways to make a melee attack. It's not. (I mean, note that just your basic weapon attack is not even one of those sub-headings.) It's a section that contains various rules pertaining to melee combat, as distinguished from ranged combat.

If what you are saying is true...that anything under that heading is considered a "melee attack" and can be used whenever a character is allowed to make a melee attack...then somebody dual-wielding can make TWO opportunity attacks, because "Two-Weapon Fighting" is one of those sub-headings.