Shield master on twitter

[doctorbadwolf]

-skipped out semantics. I still don’t care-

What I want is a fun and free-flowing game where incredible heroes accomplish great things due to special talent and training and experience that allows them to overcome incredible odds leading to a positive community. What I don't want is speakers who take the opposite side of things just to take the opposite side of things and completely ignore the obvious directly in front of them that any analysis prove is clearly true. Cognitive dissonance is prevalent enough today, observe the Fox News viewer.

Ah, yes, my actual direct experience is definately just cognitive dissonance.

What a load of dishonest claptrap.

 

[Arial Black]

Consider that you are trying to invent within the rules a difference ebtween "take an attack action" and "making an attack" to allow other stuff to be done ***between those*** and my suspicion is that there are likely a broader problem with that kind of logic scope-wise than just this one aspect.

But first lets look at the attack action rules

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action."

There is no difference in that rule between "taking an attack action" and "making an attack"... making an attack is what the action does. it requires a lot to try and read the Attack action and then see it as not meaning "make an attack" when you take the action.

See, that makes sense, in isolation. If 'taking the Attack action' IS synonymous with 'executing the weapon attack allowed by the Attack action', then a creature with one attack declares/actually attacks simultaneously. That makes sense.

But, if this IS the rule, then it is unavoidable that if the Attack action allows you to execute two attacks (because Extra Attack) then 'declaring the Attack action' and 'executing BOTH attacks' are one and the same thing!

It means that IF the interpretation is that declaring/attacking are the same thing, then BOTH attacks MUST be resolved instantly!

The ONLY way that you can attack/move/draw another weapon/attack someone else 30 feet away later in the round is under the interpretation that 'declaring the Attack action' is NOT one and the same thing as actually 'executing the attacks allowed by the Attack action'!

As JC stated in part of his comments on the subject, the fact that movement between attacks is explicitly allowed does not equate to a universal allowance to insert any bonus action in the middle of the attack action or any action.

The text makes it clear that taking an attack action means making an attack they are not different things that happen at different times.

Since Extra Attacks do not have to be taken all at the same time, and the fact that BOTH attacks must 'happen at the same time' as taking the Attack action, his quote is nonsense.

Also, his sudden insistence that any action, including the Attack action, is 'indivisible', is given the lie by....well...the many, many things in the game which literally can and do occur during other Actions, including (but not limited to): Readied actions, bonus actions that are not triggered by things that happen in a specific order, free object interactions, as well as movement.

Even in this new 'indivisible' interpretation, the Ftr 5/Wiz 3 can move, 'declare' his Attack action (but only ONE of his two attacks 'happen at the same time'!), shoot an arrow, drop his bow, move, draw his sword, cast misty step as a bonus action, move, and then complete his so-called 'indivisible' Attack action by executing his second attack.

Yeah, his cries of "Actions are indivisible!" as the reason that you have to complete your action before you can shield bash are not credible.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fwiw, with it being a reaction casr damage spell that scales as the warlock levels, Rebuke has been more like a common Warlock spell in characters i have seen.

Also ORS is an absolutely lethal spell when it is used to cut off the healer for a few rounds when their healing is extremely critical.

Yeah, I see rebuke all the time. I think maybe some folks here spend more time theorycrafting than playing.

And OSR is an extremely potent spell. I have to wonder about the basic system mastery of anyone who doesn’t see that. I almost feel guilty using it as a DM, unless I’ve got players who are good strategists and built strong characters. OSR lets me completely lock down whichever character I feel will most effectively hinder Team Monster’s tactics and goals. The tank tends to be the target high because they’re good at locking down my MVPs, and because the other high value targets are harder to hit with dex save spells. I’m not speaking on one campaign there, but nearly every campaign.

And that doesn't even get into the rapier and shield dex tanks, or the heavy tanks who have decent dex for reasons other than combat (bc most groups aren’t powergamers), etc.

 

[CM]

So this ruling means you can't throw your light offhand weapon (or shoot your offhand hand crossbow) as a bonus action and then close with an enemy to melee them with your attack action?

Stupid ruling is stupid and will be ignored.

 

[Oofta]

See, that makes sense, in isolation. If 'taking the Attack action' IS synonymous with 'executing the weapon attack allowed by the Attack action', then a creature with one attack declares/actually attacks simultaneously. That makes sense.

But, if this IS the rule, then it is unavoidable that if the Attack action allows you to execute two attacks (because Extra Attack) then 'declaring the Attack action' and 'executing BOTH attacks' are one and the same thing!

It means that IF the interpretation is that declaring/attacking are the same thing, then BOTH attacks MUST be resolved instantly!

The ONLY way that you can attack/move/draw another weapon/attack someone else 30 feet away later in the round is under the interpretation that 'declaring the Attack action' is NOT one and the same thing as actually 'executing the attacks allowed by the Attack action'!



Since Extra Attacks do not have to be taken all at the same time, and the fact that BOTH attacks must 'happen at the same time' as taking the Attack action, his quote is nonsense.

Also, his sudden insistence that any action, including the Attack action, is 'indivisible', is given the lie by....well...the many, many things in the game which literally can and do occur during other Actions, including (but not limited to): Readied actions, bonus actions that are not triggered by things that happen in a specific order, free object interactions, as well as movement.

Even in this new 'indivisible' interpretation, the Ftr 5/Wiz 3 can move, 'declare' his Attack action (but only ONE of his two attacks 'happen at the same time'!), shoot an arrow, drop his bow, move, draw his sword, cast misty step as a bonus action, move, and then complete his so-called 'indivisible' Attack action by executing his second attack.

Yeah, his cries of "Actions are indivisible!" as the reason that you have to complete your action before you can shield bash are not credible.

According to his tweet, the only thing that can interrupt at attack action is movement because they've specifically said that it can.




I think it's an overly technical nit-pick rule that harkens back to 3.5 or PathFinder.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I see rebuke all the time. I think maybe some folks here spend more time theorycrafting than playing.

And OSR is an extremely potent spell. I have to wonder about the basic system mastery of anyone who doesn’t see that. I almost feel guilty using it as a DM, unless I’ve got players who are good strategists and built strong characters. OSR lets me completely lock down whichever character I feel will most effectively hinder Team Monster’s tactics and goals. The tank tends to be the target high because they’re good at locking down my MVPs, and because the other high value targets are harder to hit with dex save spells. I’m not speaking on one campaign there, but nearly every campaign.

And that doesn't even get into the rapier and shield dex tanks, or the heavy tanks who have decent dex for reasons other than combat (bc most groups aren’t powergamers), etc.

You do know that not everyone plays at your table right? That different people have different experiences? Or that a +2 to a fraction of the spells is not as good as a +1 to Dex and proficiency in all dexterity saves that you would get from Resiliency?

OSR isn't a bad spell, but it can be dispelled, concentration can be broken, and honestly I don't see it used very often by PCs or NPCs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK so no examples (for something you said happened "many" times), tone policing me rather than responding to the arguments made, and no attempt at a refutation of any points made or even respond to a request for clarification on a rational confusion like the difference between "saved him" and "saved his life". Got it.

Let me ask you, if you said, "Which of these 6 spells did you find to be used many times, and/or which traps and terrain challenges did you find to target just one character as opposed to an area?" and I responded with essentially, "I'm not going to tell you, but they come up many times!" how would you reply?

Maybe I should clarify the rules of this game. You get more points for saying, "OK you're right I probably exaggerated that point for effect," than you do for saying, "look, a monkey!"

If you hunk there are points to win, or that I should care about such things, you’ve a strange perspective on the purpose of a discussion.

I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything. I don’t owe you anything, I’m not here to play rhetorical “games”, and I don’t care about nitpicking and other chicanery.

Feel free to ignore me, or just stop trying to engage with a person who has made it clear they don’t care to engage with you, if you don’t like any of that.

 

[Sadras]

Out of curiosity, are we ahead in posts about this topic, or is twitter out-pacing us?

 

[Caliban]

According to his tweet, the only thing that can interrupt at attack action is movement because they've specifically said that it can.

View attachment 97602


I think it's an overly technical nit-pick rule that harkens back to 3.5 or PathFinder.

I agree. Personally, I can't think of any AL DM or home game DM I've played with that even thought about disallowing the use of bonus actions during the attack action. Most often because people forget to cast Hex/Hunters mark until after they make their first attack, but occasionally for other things - like using Misty Step between attacks to reach an opponent when you are out of movement or have a barrier.

I see his logic, and agree that it may be technically correct per RAW. But I'm probably not going to use this ruling simply because we (meaning the groups I've played with) have become so used to allowing bonus actions to be used "inside" the main action. It makes the game more fluid and cinematic, or at least it seems that way to me. (Yes, that means I'm in favor of allowing the Shield Master to do a bonus action trip before making any attacks.)

In this instance, I feel like "RAI" has been determined by the people who play the game, regardless of what the people who wrote the rules meant at the time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You do know that not everyone plays at your table right? That different people have different experiences? Or that a +2 to a fraction of the spells is not as good as a +1 to Dex and proficiency in all dexterity saves that you would get from Resiliency?

no one has argued that Shield Master is a better feat for increasing Dex Saves. Resilient does only that, and yet you and others keep bringing it up as if it makes sense to compare 1/3 of a feat that does multiple things to the entirety of another feat with a singular specific purpose. Of course the single purpose feat will be better at that purpose than the more general feat where part of the feat serves a similar purpose. Obviously. Also irrelevant.
Nothing I said indicated that I think all tables are exactly like mine. Don’t invent crap to put in my mouth.

OSR isn't a bad spell, but it can be dispelled, concentration can be broken, and honestly I don't see it used very often by PCs or NPCs.

You know not everyone plays at your table, right? See, you actually did indicate a lack of that understanding, here. Other people do see it, so the fact that you don’t isn’t particularly telling. We now know what common sense already told us. Ie, some tables use a given spell a lot, while others don’t.

Here’s another truth that shouldn’t need to be pointed out: how your table plays will effect what options seem more or less valuable to players at your table.

Amazing!