BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
This is what JC says shouldn't be happening, you should declare the attack action, resolve it (including extra attacks), then use the bonus action triggered by the attack action.
But...
I think this is true.
Shield master on twitter
This is what JC says shouldn't be happening, you should declare the attack action, resolve it (including extra attacks), then use the bonus action triggered by the attack action.
But...
I think this is true.
My comment had zero to do with your actual play examples. The comment was in reference to Greenstone.Walker giving a theorycrafting example of pushing a creature 5 feet. Your response (to Greenstone.Walker) that I replied to used a modal verb "could give actual play examples" which implies possibility not actuality.
So I got that impression because of understanding English grammar.
In any event, the +2 dex save benefits are low compared to simply increasing Dexterity. You will save 5% more of the time on spells that target only you but 5% less often on every other Dex save. 5% of the time with Shield Master you will be tied with a creature you would otherwise beat in initiative by 1. Mathematically, one out of 20 of those +2 saves are saves you otherwise would have missed compared to just taking a dex increase. And those one of 20 times are probably outnumbered by the one of 20 times you would have made a different dex save (or dex check, or attack roll) by simply increasing dexterity.
Alternatively, you might be a fighter (ranger, barb, paladin) who, at level 4, increases your main stat (dex or str) to 18 instead of taking shield master. In this case your damage will be about 20% higher taking a stat increase.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It's only against, "a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you." That's not too common. A whole lot of the dex save spells are area attacks or at least target more than one target, which don't apply.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You're ignoring the "shove between attack actions" issue. It doesn't have to be about DPR to be bothered by that aspect. Lots of non-DPR reasons to want to move some, attack (or grapple), shove (bonus), move some more, attack (or grapple/shove again), finish move. There was utility to allowing the shove come at any time in the series of events, provided you used the attack action at some point, which disappears with this ruling and yet may have little to do with damage per round and a lot to do with battlefield control.
It's also illogical. You can shove with your shield as one attack, and then attack with your sword as your second attack, currently in the game with no issue. Why would the bonus action have to come after the attack action first, when the game already assumes you can do it in the other order if you have multiple attacks? And why would it have to come after a SERIES of attack actions instead of in-between when you can move in-between attack actions?
Maybe. Or maybe he decided it was too effective if it allows you [a chance] to give yourself advantage on all your melee attacks every turn, and reversed his prior ruling for that reason.
Last edited:
Oofta
Legend
Which is why I think it's so rarely useful. Yes, you get a +2 vs disintegrate, but other than that how many spells are there that target one creature that require a dex save? If a sorcerer uses Twin Spell and targets me with Disintegrate does it work? Can I get the +2 vs Scorching Ray if all rays target me? What about Fireball? Can I protect myself if I'm the only one in the area but it doesn't work if someone else happens to be caught in the burst 30 feet away?
The damage reduction is also problematic for any character that uses their reaction for other things.
In any case I think the feat went from a solid 8 on the desirability rating down to a 1.
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
Only if you succeed on the Athletics check
It is possible, but i think that is fundamentally a bad line of reasoning.
Giving yourself advantage if you succeed at the same time as giving any ranged allies disadvantage already has a steep cost attached to it.
It was a good feat in certain scenarios, but never OP.
Frankly it shakes my confidence in JC as a designer more if he felt SM needed a nerf, than if it was a casualty of clearing up bonus action triggers.
Thank you for that vital piece of information.
Let me be clear... when i say something is a fine house rule, that is not meant with deraogatory intent. i do not see house rules as second class to RAW.
But, to me, even without clarity from official sources, it is not productive to twist and mangle RAW to shoehorn in extra edge cases rather than just house ruling it under what amounts to basically a "it is not strictly forbidden" kind of opening.
Consider that you are trying to invent within the rules a difference ebtween "take an attack action" and "making an attack" to allow other stuff to be done ***between those*** and my suspicion is that there are likely a broader problem with that kind of logic scope-wise than just this one aspect.
But first lets look at the attack action rules
"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action."
There is no difference in that rule between "taking an attack action" and "making an attack"... making an attack is what the action does. it requires a lot to try and read the Attack action and then see it as not meaning "make an attack" when you take the action.
As JC stated in part of his comments on the subject, the fact that movement between attacks is explicitly allowed does not equate to a universal allowance to insert any bonus action in the middle of the attack action or any action.
The text makes it clear that taking an attack action means making an attack they are not different things that happen at different times.
But let me ask you this - how far does the "take an action" vs "does what the action says" go?
I cast eldritch blast and get to make three beam attacks... can i move between them? Can i also cast a bonus action spell between the attacks, seeing one resolved, bonus action spell, then the others? I can take bonus actions any time right and if there is a presumtpion that that include "in the middle of another action" than well, how about then?
on a very broad scale, there are a lot of really odd or even paradoxical cases that slam all thru the rules is a general assessment of using bonus actions before the thing that earns the bonus action is imagined in the rules - by trying to create a difference between "taking the action" and "doing what the action does" is read into the rules.
It is IMO infinitely more direct, cleaner and more efficient to simply add a house rule that allows it in the case of this one feat than to take an axe to the "take an action" to cut it into "declare an action" and "do the stuff in the action."
its trying to fix a hangnail; with a chainsaw and for me - i have zero desire t make that kind of broad scope of a decision without reading thru the rulebooks for every other "when you take..." and "declare not same as..." etc... especially given the fact that extra turns and extra actions can be taken as well so if there is an opening between declare and act and effects can precede cause...
"Giving yourself advantage if you succeed at the same time as giving any ranged allies disadvantage already has a steep cost attached to it. "
No, it doesnt.
Cuz, you have the choice. You know your allies and the scene.
If you see it as better to let allues pelt it with range rather than knock it down, you **wont do it**.
If there are other targets for them, or they can close to 5' to gain advantage so there is no disad - then pull back perhaps if its AO was burned as you backed off (hah) - etc etc there is no drawback at all.
"I might br dumb when i choose it" is not a drawback of the ability - just the character.
No, it doesnt.
Cuz, you have the choice. You know your allies and the scene.
If you see it as better to let allues pelt it with range rather than knock it down, you **wont do it**.
If there are other targets for them, or they can close to 5' to gain advantage so there is no disad - then pull back perhaps if its AO was burned as you backed off (hah) - etc etc there is no drawback at all.
"I might br dumb when i choose it" is not a drawback of the ability - just the character.
