Shield master on twitter

[5ekyu]

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

Well, from what i have seen of Sage since the beginning, the ***intent*** has been to not make new rules in sage. Sage has seemed to try to just explain RAW and let actual rule change be in eratta.

At times he has made a point of giving the RAW and then also give references to "a gm,might allow" or "a generous gm might.." Or even what he might allow in his games...

Which seemed to be his way of acknowledging the limitations of strictly RAW.

So, this is not anything new... Sage focus on syricter RAW than some - not by a long shot - but now for some its a problem cuz they dislike the specific choice.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

Do they still do those white house petitions? Or did that go out in 2017. It was only like 250000 needed?

 

[Oofta]

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.

Right ... I think. According to JC a PC can take reactions during their turn, but not while taking an action. So once that fighter starts their attack action, the can attack or move. No reactions, no bonus actions.

I'm not going to run my games because while it may be technically correct, it's just too much of a text-parsing technicality. It doesn't make sense that a fighter could attack, move thirty feet, continue attacking but not have time to misty step...until they're done attacking. Or that they must complete all their attacks with their primary weapon before hitting with an off-hand weapon.

It's the kind of thing that people that don't follow this kind of stuff would be completely baffled by.

 

[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...

I was thinking about this again and just wanted to clarify something. I mean, I've already clarified it multiple times but you ignore it. Which you will probably do for this as well.

The reason I keep bringing up Resilient is because it's the far better choice that replaces 2/3s of shield master. It gives you a bigger bonus that keeps increasing as you level and gives them to all dexterity saves. You are going to avoid far more damage with Resilience because it will work for more than just the handful of spells that target only you. Saving 1/2 on every fireball, breath weapon, etc will average out to a lot more than taking no damage once in a blue moon.

It will also, of course, mean you are more likely to make your save on Otiluke's Resilient Sphere ... you make it sound like shield master will make you immune to the spell which is laughable. Most PCs (not all of course) are probably going to fail their dex save around 80% of the time. Reducing that to failing 70% of the time doesn't really matter that much. Resiliency will eventually give that PC a 50% chance to succeed (or more depending on the bump to dex).

Which leaves ... is shoving someone after your attacks worth more than a +1 to Dexterity? I would say no. Like a lot of people I dump my lowest number into dexterity because that low number has to go somewhere (I know, I know your sword and board guy has a 20 dex but he's the exception). So a +1 to dex has a really good chance of upping that number to the next even number giving me another +1 to dexterity saves and an increase to my initiative. Not bad.

But shoving after my attack? Almost never worth it. In those 2% of encounters when shoving is useful I'll sacrifice an attack.

 

[smbakeresq]

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

What a load of dishonest claptrap.

It is when everyone else experiences all align and yours doesn’t and you completely ignore all others and refuse to acknowledge it. You are trying to apply one example to make a general rule instead of actual analysis.

Yes thats Cognitive Dissonance. Calling it claptrap is exactly the response you aa s sufferer if same would have. Thanks for proving it.

 

[Sadras]

It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who are not going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.

As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
2. Allow bonus action between attacks, but not before.
3. Allow bonus action between and before attacks.

EDIT: Like [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] correctly notes #3 should be any time - essentially the bonus action can be taken before, between and after attacks.

 

[Krachek]

It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who are not going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.

As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
2. Allow bonus action between attacks, but not before.
3. Allow bonus action between and before attacks.

DnD "all you can eat" buffet.
Each players may apply one, all or none of these rules.
Generous DM may allow players to apply another rule.

 

[smbakeresq]

As a 4th level warrior-type, I get 1 attack when I take the Attack action. If I have a feat which lets me take a bonus action if I take the Attack action, then the feat lets me do something MORE than if I don't have the feat. The feat makes me 'better'.

If that 4th level warrior took, say, +2 Str instead of that feat, he would also be 'better' than if he hadn't. Feats/ASIs make you 'better'.

Now the +2 Str version levels up to 5th and now gets the Extra Attack feature. Now, his Attack action lets him attack twice instead of once. This makes him 'better'; exactly 1 attack 'better'.

But the version who took the feat (the new interpretation of Shield Master) is not made 'better' when levelling up and getting Extra Attack! 'Better' would be getting one more attack AND the bonus action, every time! But now, if the situation is that you want to shield bash the adjacent foe off a cliff and then move to another foe 30 feet away and use your 2nd attack, you can't! You have to use EITHER both attacks and then shove, and lose the option to move to his mate and attack him. That attack doing pointless damage anyway because the fall from the cliff will kill him anyway. OR you attack, shove (just like you could do without Extra Attack), but you would lose your extra attack!

This is not 'better'! It should be 'better'. It was 'better' with the 'either order' interpretation, it was less good but still 'better' if you can take your bonus action after one attack, but it is quantifiably not 'better' if you have to choose between the shield bash or extra attack when you should be able to do both.

Just to illustrate: imagine that the version who took +2 Str instead of the feat had to choose whether to take 2 attacks OR add +2 Str, but not both in the same round. That would be obviously absurd. Well, this ruling is also absurd, but the absurdity is less obvious.

Your example is correct. Think about it in “reality” also, the game world reality. You are a combat type and fighting someone with a shield and weapon and know how to bash someone with a shield. You fight in a continuous sequence of weapon attacks interspersed with blocking blows with your shield and lashing out with your shield.

In game terms you are using your attack action and bonus shield bash in some order that will never always be all attacks first then bonus action, then all attacks and then bonus action, etc.

You don’t fight in “rounds” or “turns.” Those are constructs places in the game to make it manageable. Right now you can take most actions (including bonus actions) interspersed with attacks as you wish except Shield Master.

In addition, the Shield Master bonus action is already an action you can use in a standard attack action, it is just giving you an additional use of it in limited circumstances. It’s not creating anything new or overpowering.

Let the combat flow as it would within the reality of your world.

 

[Oofta]

It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who are not going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.

As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
2. Allow bonus action between attacks, but not before.
3. Allow bonus action between and before attacks.

Obviously I'm #3. I don't want to parse the exact wording of text and have a half hour debate about this kind of stuff. Shield Bash does not specify timing so therefore it can happen on any time during my turn.

As [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] wrote ... in the narrative of the fight it makes no sense that you can't smack someone around with your shield any time you are attacking someone. Turns, bonus actions, actions are all just constructs we need to implement because we need to simplify combat to a system that we can reasonably resolve with the roll of a handful of dice.

The letter of the rules should not force the narrative flow of combat.

 

[5ekyu]

As far as polls, i would be interested in how many "bash in any order" or "narrative flow trumps letter" house rulers also house rule away the bonus action spell cantrip limitations?

I mean is not being able to bash before or during swings with this feat more narratively disruptive that a two action in a turn caster being allowed to cast two fireballs but not a fireball and an expedition retreat?

Or a rogue being able to get a second sneak attack in a round (OA) but only if its not on his turn following a sneak?

5e seems a game with a lot of rule specific letter of the things that seriously impact the (mis)shape of combat narrative.