Shield master on twitter

[Oofta]

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.

Not sure how you're getting two fireballs in one turn, but yes it does make sense that if you are casting more than one spell on your turn that they both have to be easy to cast.

As far as the rogue, to a certain degree it's balance. It's also simple to remember and easy to understand.

I doubt many people who casually read the rules would even consider that you couldn't hit with your primary weapon and secondary weapon in any order you choose.

Bonus actions are already confusing enough for most people and it's probably one of the clunkiest aspects of 5E. This ruling just makes it even clunkier.

[EDIT] An even more confusing example is that I can no longer attack, misty step and attack. But I could attack, move my speed and attack. The spell has absolutely nothing to do the attacks, why can't I do it between my attacks?

From a narrative perspective it's just goofy. I can attack, walk across the room and attack but I can't attack, snap my fingers and attack? Huh?

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Do you have a source for that? If he did say that, it's directly contradicted by the Sage Advice compendium, which gives an example of counterspelling an enemy's counterspell to force your own fireball through. Since counterspell interrupts the target spell, the original action (the fireball) is still in progress, so you are taking a reaction during your action.

Disallowing bonus actions during actions is one thing, but you have to be able to take reactions, or all kinds of stuff breaks.

 

[Oofta]

Do you have a source for that? If he did say that, it's directly contradicted by the Sage Advice compendium, which gives an example of counterspelling an enemy's counterspell to force your own fireball through. Since counterspell interrupts the target spell, the original action (the fireball) is still in progress, so you are taking a reaction during your action.

Disallowing bonus actions during actions is one thing, but you have to be able to take reactions, or all kinds of stuff breaks.

It's in the twitter thread, and yes I agree it seems to contradict previous sage advice.

 

[Dausuul]

It's in the twitter thread, and yes I agree it seems to contradict previous sage advice.

There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which counterspell is one. So that would justify the double-counterspell scenario.

I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.

 

[Asgorath]

An even more confusing example is that I can no longer attack, misty step and attack. But I could attack, move my speed and attack. The spell has absolutely nothing to do the attacks, why can't I do it between my attacks?

The Shield Master tweet was specifically talking about bonus actions with triggers. Misty Step has no trigger, and thus you can cast it whenever you want. JC even explicitly tweeted about this:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995134313841676288

The clarification was only for "if X, then Y" triggers, to make it clear that the intent is that all of X has to be done before you can do Y, so in the case of Shield Master you have to complete the Attack action before the bonus action is available.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995127728016773120

 

[Oofta]

There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which counterspell is one. So that would justify the double-counterspell scenario.

I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.

I don't see anything in the verbiage of counterspell that specifically states that it can interrupt another action, which according to the tweet is a requirement. The trigger is a reaction when you see someone else casting a spell but that's it.

Pretty much all reactions have something like that, there's nothing "special" about this particular reaction yet somehow it's an exception? Because you happened to read the sage advice column?

I can see but disagree with the bonus action being triggered by another action. The new ruling seems to contradict the verbiage in the PHB that says you don't care about timing unless specifically stated.

But I can't "nest" an action with other bonus actions or reactions? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Oofta]

The Shield Master tweet was specifically talking about bonus actions with triggers. Misty Step has no trigger, and thus you can cast it whenever you want. JC even explicitly tweeted about this:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995134313841676288

The clarification was only for "if X, then Y" triggers, to make it clear that the intent is that all of X has to be done before you can do Y, so in the case of Shield Master you have to complete the Attack action before the bonus action is available.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995127728016773120

Nope. If you follow the tweet thread he has further clarifications. Unless specifically stated you can't "nest" bonus actions or reactions in an action.

See my post above. Or here, if you're lazy:

 

[Dausuul]

I don't see anything in the verbiage of counterspell that specifically states that it can interrupt another action, which according to the tweet is a requirement. The trigger is a reaction when you see someone else casting a spell but that's it.

It isn't explicitly stated, but it's impossible for counterspell to work otherwise. If counterspell doesn't interrupt the target spell, then it follows the normal reaction rules, and takes place immediately after the triggering event; which means the spell has already resolved.

 

[SkidAce]

There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which counterspell is one. So that would justify the double-counterspell scenario.

I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.

My take away (not directed at you) is bonus actions are fine until you try to parse them like computer code.

For us (and I know, everyone's exp is different) its fairly simple and we like them.

 

[Oofta]

It isn't explicitly stated, but it's impossible for counterspell to work otherwise. If counterspell doesn't interrupt the target spell, then it follows the normal reaction rules, and takes place immediately after the triggering event; which means the spell has already resolved.

It's not about interrupting someone else's turn, it's about interrupting your own spell casting action.

I plan on ignoring it, just relaying something I saw in the tweet thread.