Shield master on twitter

Mistwell · May 17, 2018

doctorbadwolf said:
I'm not sure what's confusing about his answers. Can you elaborate?

Oh, now you want a clarification from ME in this thread, after refusing to clarify earlier yourself? What happened to, "I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything."

Naw, you took your ball and went home. You can't just wander back because you saw the kids having fun and decided to pretend that didn't just happen.

Mistwell · May 17, 2018

5ekyu said:
I am not seeing tortured here...

One says identifies atrack action plus make an attack as the trigger and in that case because an attack is specifically calked out it can be done after just one attack of your x number of attacks.

The other refers to attack action as the trigger, without any reference to a single attack so in that case it is the attack action - not individual attacks. So if you have two attacks at 6th level you can make one attack as an attack action and then bash *or* make two attacks with attack action and bash.

"Bash" referring to the feat bonus action shove thingy.

Extra attack allows you to make more than one attack but neither requires it nor guarantees it.

The trigger for both is "When you take the Attack action".

One of them further specifies "and attack...".

Nothing here says you can nest the bonus action between attacks during that attack action however. Both trigger off an "When you take the Attack action", though one adds a further limiter in addition to that one.

So while the trigger for two weapon fighting is both "take the Attack action" AND "attack", I am not seeing why one would allow the bonus action between attacks in the Attack action and the other would not.

Either an Attack action is composed of all of the attacks contained within an Attack action, or it is not. Unless something specifies different timing, which this does not. A qualification is not itself a different timing for what an Attack action means. I mean, if a bonus action qualification had said, "take the Attack action and you are a half-orc" would that mean you can take the bonus action after all the attacks or between the two attacks if you are a half-orc?

Chaosmancer · May 17, 2018

[MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] , [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] , and Et. Al

Is that it?

I thought people were referring to some specific ruling about Eldritch Knight's War Magic ability. Not just the general "Bonus action spell" thing

Which, yeah, that one can get a bit confusing for people. I've never had an issue with it, but I've seen enough people trip up on that rule to think on potential solutions for my table.

cbwjm · May 17, 2018

Chaosmancer said:
[MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] , [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] , and Et. Al

Is that it?

I thought people were referring to some specific ruling about Eldritch Knight's War Magic ability. Not just the general "Bonus action spell" thing

Which, yeah, that one can get a bit confusing for people. I've never had an issue with it, but I've seen enough people trip up on that rule to think on potential solutions for my table.

I think you might be thinking about the Eldritch Knight's ability to make an attack using their bonus action if they cast a cantrip.

Krachek · May 17, 2018

They let space in the rules on purpose.
They now made clarifications, trying to not remove all the space.
And still we want THE rule, the one without any doubts or possible meaning.

doctorbadwolf · May 17, 2018

Mistwell said:
Oh, now you want a clarification from ME in this thread, after refusing to clarify earlier yourself? What happened to, "I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything."

Naw, you took your ball and went home. You can't just wander back because you saw the kids having fun and decided to pretend that didn't just happen.

LOL wow! That’s some spin.

I mean I never said anything about the thread or the discussion as a whole, but if you can’t handle someone choosing not to further engage on a specific part of a discussion, that’s on you.

Caliban · May 17, 2018

Krachek said:
They let space in the rules on purpose.
They now made clarifications, trying to not remove all the space.
And still we want THE rule, the one without any doubts or possible meaning.

Well, in this specific instance (using the bonus action shove from Shield Master before the attack action) - the Sage had made one ruling that (almost) everyone agreed with, and now he has reversed that ruling. And a lot of people don't agree with his logic for the reversal and are pointing out flaws in that logic, or discrepancies they believe are created as a result.

So we don't really want "the rule", because we already had that (or so we believed). And now the Sage is changing "the rule" (i.e. the clarification he'd made earlier and that we have been using) and is now claiming that the new ruling is the way it was supposed to work all along.

For some of us at least, we don't agree with his new position and don't intend to change our games. It's been the de facto ruling for too long, and worked just fine. We don't care for the disruption caused by trying to change something we didn't have a problem with.

Fortunately for me, none of my AL characters have the Shield Master feat so this doesn't affect them.

Mistwell · May 17, 2018

doctorbadwolf said:
LOL wow! That’s some spin.

I mean I never said anything about the thread or the discussion as a whole, but if you can’t handle someone choosing not to further engage on a specific part of a discussion, that’s on you.

I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything.

Ah now, "I don't want to play with you guys anymore!" becomes "I meant that other game we were playing 5 minutes ago, not this one!"

You might want to pick a definition of that word "anything" and stick with it.

Chaosmancer · May 18, 2018

cbwjm said:
I think you might be thinking about the Eldritch Knight's ability to make an attack using their bonus action if they cast a cantrip.

Yeah, thought people kept talking about some ruling based off of that ability. Was curious what the ruling was since I'd never heard of any "clarification" for it or if there had even been anything said about it on Twitter or the like.

Hriston · May 18, 2018

Chaosmancer said:
Yeah, thought people kept talking about some ruling based off of that ability. Was curious what the ruling was since I'd never heard of any "clarification" for it or if there had even been anything said about it on Twitter or the like.

The ruling on War Magic is in the Sage Advice Compendium. The original ruling appears in the 2016 version of the compendium. Here it is:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).

But in the 2017 version, the ruling was changed to this:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.

This change established that words like when and if specify the timing of a bonus action, which has now been clarified to apply to Shield Master as well.