Shield master on twitter

[Arial Black]

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

JC himself is totally okay with bonus actions (like misty step) within Attack actions.

View attachment 97602


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

But it wasn't true then either. In 3.5/PF you can certainly take free and swift actions between the attacks of a full attack.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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!

Ahh, gotta love the sweet smell of condescension.

And yet you refuse to answer the direct questions - addressing how your game works differently than games I've been in. I've given several examples and reasoning why I don't think the shove-and-run maneuver would ever work for example.

I do agree that it's 1/3 of the feat. I also think the other 2/3 are pretty pointless as well. Which you've never answered.

 

[Oofta]

JC himself is totally okay with bonus actions (like misty step) within Attack actions.



But it wasn't true then either. In 3.5/PF you can certainly take free and swift actions between the attacks of a full attack.

It's more the attitude of slavish devotion to the letter of the rules than the specific rule.

 

[cbwjm]

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

You also need to look at Reddit. Someone even made a poll asking if the shield bash from shield master should be able to be used before the Attack Action. That's how furious/slightly miffed people are about this clarification.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if someone creates a petition to officially allow the shield bash before the attack action.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You also need to look at Reddit. Someone even made a poll asking if the shield bash from shield master should be able to be used before the Attack Action. That's how furious/slightly miffed people are about this clarification.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if someone creates a petition to officially allow the shield bash before the attack action.

LOL

I would sign it if I ran across it, but wow, that's going the extra mile I think. I'll settle for being slightly annoyed when I read this thread.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

He has not cried actions are indivisible. Thats an invention.

He said iirc in essence bonus actions that are triggered by actions come after that, not before and iirc not during, that there is no general rule counter to that.

But i can certainly see those who want to expand it to support their already reached opinion.

You do not have to like his ruling or bonus actions or heavy armor or reaction casting on hellish rebuke or mint chocolate chip.

I certainly wont tell you otherwise.

But you still come out with the same options... No matter how many posts... Make a house rule, pretend its not the way it is, decide all sage advice is has no meaning or import, decide only the bits of sage advice you approve of have meaning or import, etc.

Unless you play in AL games, its between you and your players.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

My bet is we dont see many white room builds excel soreadsheeting OSR and HR either. Neither Will make high DRP for a 300' sor-pally-locke with unlimited slots?!?

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Just to be clear - that tweet mentioned you inserting action/interactions inside your own actions. It did not limit others being able to interrupt you - like say with reactions.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Yes i am sure of that... But since we responded to a statement about the rarity of and usefulness of certain spells with different conclusions baswmed on our experiences- it seems odd to take that "other tables" style challenge to these observations and not the others... Oh wait... Is this agenda driven challenge those you dont agree with only day?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

People who don't want to engage just don't respond rather than responding with three paragraphs on how they don't want to respond. So...look a monkey it is apparently? Or did you want the final word while telling me you don't want the final word?

I am asking you for examples of what you are talking about. That's not nit picking, and it's not a rhetorical game, it's a simple question which you should expect to receive when you tell people something has happened many times which others say hasn't happened much to them. I also asked for a clarification on something you responded to cryptically. None of that is unreasonable...it just sounds like you were bluffing and got called on it. But maybe not...here is your opportunity to respond. Shall it be more "look a monkey, and also I'm not talking!" or an actual response?