Shield master on twitter

[SkidAce]

How is taking Shield Master to knock one foe back, maybe, and then moving away a better means of accomplishing this then just being a Rogue or Monk in the first place?

They didn't want to play a monk or rogue?

 

[Ganders]

My reading would be: you forgo an attack, and gain the option to take the bonus action after your attack action is complete

Yes, that's what I meant by the way I reworded it. Anyway, this means that you can no longer forgo your first attack for your friend. Your friend's attack must come after all of your attacks.

 

[5ekyu]

Yet you could never explain why the tactic would ever work, dwarf or no.

In most games, this would just be a pointless tactic that means that the opponent would simply attack someone else, frequently someone with fewer HP and lower AC.

Just as a refresher, here's my logic


Admittedly you're saying knock prone and provoke an opportunity attack is a good idea (I disagree) instead of shoving so B may not apply, but the rest of the options still do.

Maybe you play a game of "tag your it" where the enemy is forced to go after the person that attacked last, but I'm assuming most people don't.

As for "tag you're it" you may be aware of a variety of abilities which create that kind of situation, where attacking someone else incurs disadvantage? Or the idea that in a given situation having them attack someone else might be beneficial in other ways (basher is low hp at risk of ko) or any number of circumstantial circumstances not often found in white rooms but found in actual play.

Those are cases why the tactic "would ever work" which is not the same as "will always work" or "will work in white room."

Other cases include the basher getting out of the way in narrow confined for someone else to move up to strike at the advantaged target so, like say a 2h pally ready to smite.

Other cases could be drawing that OA (if they use it) to open up other opportunities like folks getting past them now that the OA was spent at disadvantage against the shielded guy.

Do you guys not ever use tactics to get enemies to take "obvious" moves that Actually you are wanting to exploit?

Never wanted to drop back into a heal aoe after getting a strike and a shove down

I mean, sure, those dont show up on dpr excel spreadsheets, but they do in other cases, in actual play.

To put it simply, tactics are shaped by and shape choices and capabilities (among other things.) The idea that "while we had the bash before" feat in play, we used it and not the bash after" logic to then leverage the frequency of how much one was chosen is fallacious logic.

"We tend to eat more chicken as opposed to fish" does not mean chicken is better than fish for other especially if chicken is easier to get than fish where you are.

I mean, again and again its run back to "but in one game we see" then rhe gigantic leap to "how can it ever work" etc...

There is a world of gameplay between those and the vast majority of gamers play games everyday in between the extremes folks like to throw out?

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, that's what I meant by the way I reworded it. Anyway, this means that you can no longer forgo your first attack for your friend. Your friend's attack must come after all of your attacks.

"When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike."

The non-ruling is about when bonus actions can be used in relation to the trigger - after.

The non-ruling says nothing about when "forego" happens

The feature says you can forgo one of your attacks (no bonus action required) **and** can spend a bonus action to give a friend a reaction attack.

So, you **can** still forgo your first attack of your attack action but cannot give it to them until your have completed your attack action and spent your bonus. This might be important if triggered effects can play into this.



.

 

[jasper]

And ... again ... the issue for me personally is that it's an AL character. Since he's higher than 4th level he's "locked in".

If I can change my character I have plenty of options. If I wasn't a paladin, charger might be an option, but mounted combat ranks much higher.

AL says Sage Advice is just suggestions. Unless it errata ask the DM. I would allow a rebuild if a lot dm started doing his way.

 

[Dausuul]

If your goal is to be able to move away from an enemy after attacking, the Mobile feat has it all over Shield Master. It doesn't cost your bonus action or require a shield; it's guaranteed to work; it still gets you out of reach of a counterattack, due to the +10 speed; and the +10 speed is useful in a wide variety of situations.

I have a pretty hard time imagining a case where I'd want to build a Shield Master user after this change. I do think the change to bonus action rules was necessary, simply because of the can of worms that is opened up by allowing bonus actions to go back in time. But in my games, at least, I'm going to pair this ruling with house rules to feats like Shield Master:

"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. You can also use this ability if you haven't acted yet this turn; if you do, your next action this turn must be the Attack action."

It's clunky, but it allows Shield Master to function as intended, and it addresses the issue of "What happens if the shove makes it impossible for me to take the Attack action (e.g., by shoving an enemy off a cliff when no other enemies are in reach)?" If you're unwilling or unable to Attack, then you lose your action for the turn.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I think I'm slightly less likely to take the Shield Master feat at a Table ruling this way.


I may houserule the first bullet point of the feat to: "Once per turn you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield provided you also take the attack action in the same turn."

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Yet you could never explain why the tactic would ever work, dwarf or no.

OK, here is an example that came up three or four times in the Out of the Abyss game I play in.

I had a tempest cleric with shield master feat. Also in the game was a warlock with repelling blast. Quite often, foes would get next to the warlock and disturb her eldritch blast casting. Our tactic was for my character to push them 5 feet back and then retreat 5 or 10 feet. The warlock would then cast eldritch blast (no longer at disadvantage) and push the target back 10 feet. She would then retreat her full move behind the cleric. Now, the foe is out of melee range of the warlock. The feat meant I had two chances to push the foe (action and bonus action if the action was resisted).

In that game, the second bullet of shield master came up a total of zero times (how many single-target DEX save spells are there, anyway?). The third bullet point only came up once or twice.

I don't think I ever knocked a foe prone. That would have disadvantaged the two ranged damage dealers (the warlock and an archer).

Overall, my feeling about the feat is "OK". It was nice but very situational.

Additionally, there were other things that competed with the bonus action (healing word, spiritual weapon).

 

[Umbran]

I may houserule the first bullet point of the feat to: "Once per turn you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield provided you also take the attack action in the same turn."

And if you can't or don't?

The natural language ruling makes for clear causality, such that you never have to consider if you have to retroactively make thing Y not happen because the requirement X did not happen.

"

 

[Oofta]

As for "tag you're it" you may be aware of a variety of abilities which create that kind of situation, where attacking someone else incurs disadvantage?

In 5E? No, I don't know of such an ability. Of course I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules so please enlighten me. I know it's not an option for any of the paladin/fighter builds that I know of. The cavalier has unwavering mark but they have to remain within 5 feet of the target of their mark.

Or the idea that in a given situation having them attack someone else might be beneficial in other ways (basher is low hp at risk of ko) or any number of circumstantial circumstances not often found in white rooms but found in actual play.

Those are cases why the tactic "would ever work" which is not the same as "will always work" or "will work in white room."

Other cases include the basher getting out of the way in narrow confined for someone else to move up to strike at the advantaged target so, like say a 2h pally ready to smite.

Other cases could be drawing that OA (if they use it) to open up other opportunities like folks getting past them now that the OA was spent at disadvantage against the shielded guy.

Do you guys not ever use tactics to get enemies to take "obvious" moves that Actually you are wanting to exploit?

Never wanted to drop back into a heal aoe after getting a strike and a shove down

I mean, sure, those dont show up on dpr excel spreadsheets, but they do in other cases, in actual play.

To put it simply, tactics are shaped by and shape choices and capabilities (among other things.) The idea that "while we had the bash before" feat in play, we used it and not the bash after" logic to then leverage the frequency of how much one was chosen is fallacious logic.

"We tend to eat more chicken as opposed to fish" does not mean chicken is better than fish for other especially if chicken is easier to get than fish where you are.

I mean, again and again its run back to "but in one game we see" then rhe gigantic leap to "how can it ever work" etc...

There is a world of gameplay between those and the vast majority of gamers play games everyday in between the extremes folks like to throw out?

I was addressing the specific attack/shove/run away scenario. Basically I think it would be extremely rare that it would make sense for the front line tank to kite in and out of combat. There are so few scenarios where the enemy will not be able to attack someone. Which you talk around but never address.

Every once in a while shoving someone is useful. Maybe for 1 turn every 50 encounters or so based on my experience. Good thing a shove is an attack, so no feat is necessary.