Shield master on twitter

[Mistwell]

"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.

Oh come on, now you're spinning. If an action helps everyone, it has less of a cost than if it helps only a sub-group. Saying "Well, you have the choice" doesn't change it from having less utility than something that helps everyone. That's like saying a spell which heals one person for 10 hp is identical in utility to a spell that heals 5 people 9hp each, because "Well, you have the choice". The second spell has a lot more utility, and while there will be scenarios where the first spell is better than the second, on-balance it's fair to say the second will have more utility more often.

I get the sense you've staked out a position of "This feat is fine with this new ruling" and have gone from that premise to tailoring any answer you give as "how can I best defend this new status quo" rather than more objectively respond to each issue that's raised. Because I feel like your more typical posts on ENWorld would not have taken the type of bent you just took. It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling".

 

[5ekyu]

Oh come on, now you're spinning. If an action helps everyone, it has less of a cost than if it helps only a sub-group. Saying "Well, you have the choice" doesn't change it from having less utility than something that helps everyone. That's like saying a spell which heals one person for 10 hp is identical in utility to a spell that heals 5 people 9hp each, because "Well, you have the choice". The second spell has a lot more utility, and while there will be scenarios where the first spell is better than the second, on-balance it's fair to say the second will have more utility more often.

I get the sense you've staked out a position of "This feat is fine with this new ruling" and have gone from that premise to tailoring any answer you give as "how can I best defend this new status quo" rather than more objectively respond to each issue that's raised. Because I feel like your more typical posts on ENWorld would not have taken the type of bent you just took. It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling".

i will observe "has a steep cost attached to it" is not the same as a limited utility.

Did you miss all the guys arguing that if you backed off the enemy would just attack someone else?

"it is not good all the time" is not a "cost" to using the ability - its not a penalty - anymore than saying "some creatures are immune to cold" is a "steep cost" to cone of cold (or that its possible to hit allies with it *if* you choose to.)

Shove down will be used when it is helpful, or thought to be, just as cone of cold would be.

of course, a Gm can house rule that knock downs from this feat dont impose disadvantage if they feel its so steep a cost or that cone of cold doesn't hurt allies or whatever.

 

[5ekyu]

"It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling"."

To this in specific - i have said more times than i care to count in this thread that i think house ruling the feat to be knockdown first is a fine house rule for those who want it.

I recently posted to be clear that i do not hold house rules as second class to RAW.

If you choose to see that and ignore it to support your impression of what is going on in my mind when it suits you - not a thing i can do about that.

But the simple fact is - none of use can change RAW or change the JC rulings and their status as something semi-official... so what is left is house rule or "psudo-house-rule thru "imaginative re-reading" -which IMO and IMX is a fool's gambit. At a tabel where you control house rules, the house rule is easier. At a table where you dont trying to shoehorn in "delcare an attack action" is the same as "take an attack action" and "neither means actually taking an attack" will be more likely to get the GM evil-eye for its obvious twists and turns to get something in that is not explicitly there or even close to meeting the common language use or common sense use tests.

This feat IMO is not worth blowing up a lot of things by allowing "effects" to go before "causes" as a general unstated principle that has magnificent scope. If you dont like the feat, change the feat only - not a score of other things which will follow from thet effect=pre=cause conjuration when it gets applied elsewhere.

The "can i twist RAW instead of house rule" is a trap, not a solution.

At least, in my experience it is.

 

[OB1]

I think the miss by JC here is in not allowing the bonus to come in the middle of the attack action, same as movement can. I understand why the bonus needs to come after an attack, it’s the attack itself that sets up the quick shield bash, but I don’t understand why it needs to come after all attacks.

Given the new clarification of RAI I’d say the feat should now be changed to read, after making a melee attack, you can use a bonus action to shove with your shield.

Either that or add a line in multi attack feature that you can insert any type of action between the attacks, movement, bonus, or haste action.

 

[Oofta]

"It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling"."

To this in specific - i have said more times than i care to count in this thread that i think house ruling the feat to be knockdown first is a fine house rule for those who want it.

I recently posted to be clear that i do not hold house rules as second class to RAW.

If you choose to see that and ignore it to support your impression of what is going on in my mind when it suits you - not a thing i can do about that.

But the simple fact is - none of use can change RAW or change the JC rulings and their status as something semi-official... so what is left is house rule or "psudo-house-rule thru "imaginative re-reading" -which IMO and IMX is a fool's gambit. At a tabel where you control house rules, the house rule is easier. At a table where you dont trying to shoehorn in "delcare an attack action" is the same as "take an attack action" and "neither means actually taking an attack" will be more likely to get the GM evil-eye for its obvious twists and turns to get something in that is not explicitly there or even close to meeting the common language use or common sense use tests.

This feat IMO is not worth blowing up a lot of things by allowing "effects" to go before "causes" as a general unstated principle that has magnificent scope. If you dont like the feat, change the feat only - not a score of other things which will follow from thet effect=pre=cause conjuration when it gets applied elsewhere.

The "can i twist RAW instead of house rule" is a trap, not a solution.

At least, in my experience it is.

Or it could just be that some people disagree with JC's ruling. I think it's now more confusing because the feat does not state timing. In addition saying you can't do something until the action is complete is just ... I dunno ... very rules-lawyery? More controlling than the general feel of 5E? Feels like a 3.5 or PathFinder ruling that I was trying to get away from?

The other aspect of this is that you seem to be hell-bent on refusing to admit that the feat is now less useful than it was based on JC's previous ruling.

I know how I will run it at my table, whether that's house-rule, rules interpretation, fetta cheese ruling or whatever you want to call it doesn't really matter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Do you literally think that I don’t already have that information? Do expect people to explicitly spell out the benefits of the feat every post, or something?

 

[5ekyu]

Oofta... Where is it in dispute that some dont like the ruling? If everyone agreed with the ruling, why the thread?

That ine disagrees with the ruling is a separate issue to the question of "so what"?

As for this...

"The other aspect of this is that you seem to be hell-bent on refusing to admit that the feat is now less useful than it was based on JC's previous ruling"

I have never said it was as goid now as befire. I am pretty sure on more than one occasion i referenced what could be. Vs what now is...

Are you somehow confused into believing that i have claimed think its as good now as it was in the between time?

My comnents have been focused mostly on what it can and cannot do... Ways to change it if not happy, problems with twisting raw far out of shape to intentionally get around the ruling, etc...

But i dont think i have come anywhere near ssying it was as powerful now as it was under the what JC called "cheese" pre-bash.

 

[Oofta]

Oofta... Where is it in dispute that some dont like the ruling? If everyone agreed with the ruling, why the thread?

That ine disagrees with the ruling is a separate issue to the question of "so what"?

As for this...

"The other aspect of this is that you seem to be hell-bent on refusing to admit that the feat is now less useful than it was based on JC's previous ruling"

I have never said it was as goid now as befire. I am pretty sure on more than one occasion i referenced what could be. Vs what now is...

Are you somehow confused into believing that i have claimed think its as good now as it was in the between time?

My comnents have been focused mostly on what it can and cannot do... Ways to change it if not happy, problems with twisting raw far out of shape to intentionally get around the ruling, etc...

But i dont think i have come anywhere near ssying it was as powerful now as it was under the what JC called "cheese" pre-bash.

Well,let's just leave it at this. I don't think that it's as good as you seem to think it is. Perhaps I'm mistaken or misunderstand how useful you think it is.

Based on my experience, I don't see the point of taking the feat if I'm playing a game using this ruling. That's just my opinion, different people seem to see uses and benefits I simply don't. The incredibly minimal benefit you get doesn't IMHO justify a feat, some of the tactics mentioned to justify it's value don't seem to work.

But that's just me. The ruling is what it is, I'll either use it or not as I see fit. I don't need to justify or clarify what type of rule it is beyond that.

 

[Mistwell]

Do you literally think that I don’t already have that information? Do expect people to explicitly spell out the benefits of the feat every post, or something?

Yes I literally thought you didn't already know that because you said that particular aspect of the feat, "save[d] the character many times during 5e’s run". It's six spells this aspect applies to, and of those six not all of them are life threatening and definitely most are not very common spells.

The six spells: Disintegrate, Enervation (Xanathars), Hellish Rebuke (a fairly rare Warlock first level spell), Immolation (Xanathars and I think Elemental Evil), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (which wouldn't be a life or death situation most of the time), and Sacred Flame. I mention sources because you specified "during 5e's run", and in the first couple of years the odds are only disintegrate and sacred flame could have threatened a life, and sacred flame is a pretty weak cantrip to be threatening character lives "many times".

What are the odds you come across that small subset of spells, 1) many times, 2) where a +2 bonus is the difference in the saving throw, and 3) where a failed save would have killed the character but a successful save would not? You have to admit, that doesn't seem as likely as you not being aware of that limitation, from my perspective.

Now there are non-spell effects which can threaten a character life, and target just one character, and call for a dex save, and have the save made by that +2 margin. But they're not all that common either (most are similar to an avalanche and target an area rather than a particular single character), and it would be hard to quantify them because they are particular to a campaign. It's certainly not something I could know in advance about your personal campaigns.

 

[SkidAce]

So, you are essentially arguing that the bonus action can be taken, not before or after, but during the regular action?

...You know, now I think about it, that does seem to solve the problem. You start the Attack action; as soon as you do, a bonus action drops into your lap; you use the bonus action; and then you complete the Attack action. You aren't getting your bonus action before you take the Attack action, so no time-traveling is involved, but you do get to shove before making any actual attacks, which is the point of the exercise.

And it doesn't even require a house rule, just a broader interpretation of the possible meanings of the word "timing."

Since rounds are six seconds ,and everything is vaguely happening at the same time, that's the way we have always interpreted it.