Shield master on twitter

[BookBarbarian]

And if you can't or don't?

Then you can't or don't.

I've been playing it this way since JC's tweet in 2015 so I think it will continue to work.

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.

"

Sure. It is clearer but still somehow less appealing to me.

 

[Oofta]

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).

I will confess I may just be having a cranky Monday, but I think while the scenario you point out is a possibility it's also rare in my experience. It also assumes a very specific order: you go, then your buddy then the enemy. First, the ranged attackers tend to run away, second the tactic would only work if there is one and only one enemy is attacking your buddy. I just don't see the constellations aligning all that often.

 

[BookBarbarian]

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

It also forced you to take the attack action on turns where you bonus action shoved. With all the sweet spells a Tempest Cleric gets that seems a steep cost to pay to remove disadvantage from the Warlock's EBs.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Then you can't or don't.

I don't really see any difference between your version and the version where you take the attack action, and then don't actually make any attacks (yet), and take the bonus action in the middle. JC seems to think that a bonus action in the middle of another action is impossibly confusing.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I don't really see any difference between your version and the version where you take the attack action, and then don't actually make any attacks (yet), and take the bonus action in the middle.

That is exactly my intent. To allow it to function that way but still abide by the intent of the new JC tweet/larger rules about the timings of bonus actions.

JC seems to think that a bonus action in the middle of another action is impossibly confusing.

I think the JC tweet does make for simpler reading of how bonus actions work, but I hate to see some of the power of Shield Master fall by the wayside because of it.

Ultimately I'm starting to agree with Mearls. Bonus actions are feeling clunkier thanever.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ultimately I'm starting to agree with Mearls. Bonus actions are feeling clunkier thanever.

Meh, they're just a name. The clunkiness is coming from trying to make them piggy-back on other actions, which itself is caused by the laughable goal of trying to make people not want to have a bonus action by making them not always available.

If they'd just left them as they were in the previous edition (minor actions) and balanced accordingly, we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[5ekyu]

"If your goal is to be able to move away from an enemy after attacking, the Mobile feat has it all over Shield Master."

No question. Shield master and Mobility are different feats with different abilities provided and giving many different ootions.

 

[5ekyu]

"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."

Paladin has compelled duel, battlemaster has goading attack... Just two off the top of my head sticking with the d10 guys.

Edit actually just some.. Did not look at ranger who is also a d10 guy.

 

[5ekyu]

"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. "

As already answered, i have not made any advocation or claims about the shove back dwarfy thingy. If you choose to limit yourself to that, why you keep somehow chalkenging me to support it is beyond fathoming.

Shield master and shove down are issues i have addressed.

If you have this personal issue with the intersection of dwarven stubby kegs and shove backs... thats not my problem to solve or weigh in on.

 

[5ekyu]

That is exactly my intent. To allow it to function that way but still abide by the intent of the new JC tweet/larger rules about the timings of bonus actions.



I think the JC tweet does make for simpler reading of how bonus actions work, but I hate to see some of the power of Shield Master fall by the wayside because of it.

Ultimately I'm starting to agree with Mearls. Bonus actions are feeling clunkier thanever.

Me, i read mearls comments on that but keeping reading saw his solution idea was to stilk have them, but to hardcode them in everywhere. So instead of bonus action spelks have action spells added so you could cast to get damage and small heal.

So it sounded like either a massive reduction in options **or** a ton more paper and choices for the same net effect.

So, neither appealed to me.