D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat

KarinsDad said:

Except it is the same word for word requirement as Extra Attack:

"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to ...

You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified,


The timing of the bonus action isn't anymore specified than the extra attack is. If the criteria for taking the attack action is satisfied for the extra attack, it would seem that it is also satisfied for the bonus action.

Doing otherwise seems too nit picky to me.

If I can attack, move, and attack, it would seem that with the same wording for the two abilities, I could attack, move, bonus shove, move, and attack. The only criteria for the feat that I see is that the attack action must be taken first (but not necessarily completed first). An attack action can be interrupted by movement, interacting with an object, a bonus action, etc. But that attack action was still taken.

Click to expand...

According the JC, the literalist interpretation of the rules is that the only thing that can interrupt an attack action is movement because it's explicitly spelled out that it can.

Whether your PC can interact with an object between attacks is probably a gray area because it's not an action of any sort.

So you couldn't, for example, make an attack cast a bonus action spell and then continue your attack unless the spell specifically states it can.

That's too finicky for me and why I chose to ignore the ruling.

trentonjoe said:

S h i e l d M a s t e r
You use shields not just for protection but also for
offense. You gain the following benefits while you are
wielding a shield:
• If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use
a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet
of you with your shield.
• If you aren’t incapacitated, you can add your shield’s AC
bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against
a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
• If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to
make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half dam -
age, you can use your reaction to take no damage if
you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your
shield between yourself and the source of the effect.


With this feat do you have to attack first? Can you declare the attack action, then use the bonus to shove and then attack?

If so, you can then knock someone prone and attack with advantage.

Click to expand...

If you read under the section on bonus actions (PHB 189):

"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, ..."

Since the bonus action's timing is not specified by the Shield Master feat, you can use the Shove ability as a bonus action before or after the attack as long as when your turn arrives you state you are using the Attack action. Here are two examples showing how the timing of the bonus action would be beneficial in that case:

Example: You state on your turn you are attacking. You use your bonus action to attempt to knock your target prone, and then take your attack at advantage if you succeeded on knocking the target prone.

Example: You state on your turn you are attacking. You attack your target and then use your bonus action to shove it 5 feet away. You then use your movement to move away from the target without provoking an opportunity attack since your are outside of its reach (unless the target's reach was greater than 5 feet, of course).

If the developers meant for you to only shove after attacking, the feat would have been written "After you take the Attack action, you can use a bonus action..." not "If you take the Attack action..." Seems pretty clear to me.

Also, nothing explicitly states you can only move between attacks. It simple says than you can move between attacks, but in no way indicates prohibiting other actions. Especially when if you read under the Shove option for attacking. Without the bonus action, the shove counts as one of your attacks if you have the extra attack feature.

For example, a Fighter with three attacks could use one to shove a target (knocking it prone), attack with advantage (say killing it), then move up to 30 feet, and attack another target.

In another scenario the same Fighter might make an attack, then use one attack to shove and knock a target prone, then use his next to either attack at advantage on the prone target, go back to the first target, or attack a different target completely.

Obviously, the shove option as an attack can interrupt the other normal attacks. There is nothing to state the same Fighter, say as an Eldritch Knight, could not use his bonus action to cast Magic Weapon, even doing so in the middle of extra attacks granted by that feature.

So, again, unless the bonus action's timing is specified under its use, you can use it any time during your turn provided any other conditions for your turn (such as using the Attack action) are met sometime during the turn as well.

As for the Shield Master feat, it basically allows you one Shove at the cost of a bonus action when you are attacking instead of the Shove costing you an attack roll.

Just to give a different example of why I disagree with the most recent version of sage advice.

According to the new strict reading you cannot interrupt an attack action with anything other than movement because movement is specifically called out in the rules.

This means that my Oath of the Ancients paladin can attack, move across the room and continue their attack. However, they cannot make an attack, Misty Step as a bonus action and continue attacking. Because somehow instantaneously teleporting is more strenuous than a quick jog across the battle field. Or something.

Still not 100% clear on if you could attack, pick up an item and attack again according to the rule. I guess it's okay because object interaction is in the nebulous not-any-type-of-action zone.

I just don’t use that interpretation, which has not made it into errata as far I know. It doesn’t make any sense an only hurts the game.

Oofta said:

Just to give a different example of why I disagree with the most recent version of sage advice.

According to the new strict reading you cannot interrupt an attack action with anything other than movement because movement is specifically called out in the rules.

This means that my Oath of the Ancients paladin can attack, move across the room and continue their attack. However, they cannot make an attack, Misty Step as a bonus action and continue attacking. Because somehow instantaneously teleporting is more strenuous than a quick jog across the battle field. Or something.

Still not 100% clear on if you could attack, pick up an item and attack again according to the rule. I guess it's okay because object interaction is in the nebulous not-any-type-of-action zone.

Click to expand...

That’s a very good reason to dislike the current ruling. I also think it highlights an important unintended consequence of using that justification to support the ruling.

I think my justification about not having a bonus action shove till you have taken the attack action is a much better justification, but the reasoning given above about not putting other actions between attacks is not how 5e was explained to work very early in the edition. It was supposed to be fluid and not needlessly restrictive IMO

M Mearls was right when he said that we would have make better rules if they have avoid the bonus action.

I would ask myself - in RL sword & board combat, would it be possible to slam into an opponent with one's shield first and then attack them? Or must a combatant attack, and only then slam with their shield? Common sense would seem to suggest that a person who has practiced extensively with shields should be sufficiently capable to time when they are going to shield-slam their opponent.

And that's how I would rule on this.

FrogReaver said:

That’s a very good reason to dislike the current ruling. I also think it highlights an important unintended consequence of using that justification to support the ruling.

I think my justification about not having a bonus action shove till you have taken the attack action is a much better justification, but the reasoning given above about not putting other actions between attacks is not how 5e was explained to work very early in the edition. It was supposed to be fluid and not needlessly restrictive IMO

Click to expand...

Except that you could move 30 feet (or more) between attacks. In a round that is only 6 seconds long, moving 30 feet during a combat situation AND attacking two or more times certainly seems like it would be interrupting the fluidity of the turn.

So, for example, a character can move 10 feet, attack, move 5 feet, attack, and then move 15 feet and use the bonus action to shove. Thus the shove follows the complete attack action. But, how is that really any different from a character who moves 10 feet, attacks, moves 5 feet, shoves, and then moves 15 feet to attack again? Or even shoving, moving, attack, move, attack? All the motions are the same, just the order is slightly different.

The problem with examples of trying to put in a bonus spell action (in hindsight I am guilty of this in the earlier post myself), is that regardless of the time to cast the spell, the character is using the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action. Using a feature such as Action Surge would allow the spell to be cast, but then it normally would follow the other actions. However, if for dramatic flare or tactical advantage, I don't think a DM allowing it in between extra attacks provided by that feature would be broken. There is probably a case where it becomes OP to do so, but you are using Action Surge to accomplish this so... *meh*

Krachek said:

M Mearls was right when he said that we would have make better rules if they have avoid the bonus action.

Click to expand...

Definitely have to disagree with that! I love bonus actions and enjoy when my players can use them to effectively augment an encounter. Personally, I wish there were more uses for them and Reactions as well, but that is my opinion.

I can certainly understand, however, why they might be frustrating to others if they don't or can't agree on how they are used.

Oofta said:

According the JC, the literalist interpretation of the rules is that the only thing that can interrupt an attack action is movement because it's explicitly spelled out that it can.

Whether your PC can interact with an object between attacks is probably a gray area because it's not an action of any sort.

So you couldn't, for example, make an attack cast a bonus action spell and then continue your attack unless the spell specifically states it can.

That's too finicky for me and why I chose to ignore the ruling.

Click to expand...

Except that the bonus action rules specify that you can use your bonus action whenever your want (unless it is spelled out otherwise).


Plus:

PHB 190

Other Activity on Your Turn

You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.

You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.


The game is set up to allow the players to do thing in whatever order they wish. I just think that the literalist view of what an attack action is states that it is a melee or ranged attack, and an attack states that it requires an attack roll. So (and this is just my literalist view of it), the first attack has to be done in order for it to be an attack action that is in play, after that, you can do whatever you want, whenever you want on your turn (shy of a specific rule stating otherwise).

I don't actually see gray areas here.

Krachek said:

M Mearls was right when he said that we would have make better rules if they have avoid the bonus action.

Click to expand...

Honestly, this has zero to do with bonus actions. It does not matter whether the extra shove was called a reaction, an action (in a multi-action system) or a farnanglelevy... the problem is the specific rule on the sequence was not made clear enough for some to accept AND the ruling that was in place for so very long was changed.

I personally never thought "if you do x, you can do y" meant y could go before x... so I ignored the early ruling. But I am also ignoring the new "must finish whole action" too because that makes no sense. Then again, I dont see anywhere the "declare action but not take it yet" others see except under ready.

But with all due respect, I have not seen anything from Mearls on what "no bonus action" means that sounded even remotely better than bonus actions.