I was right about Shield Master

[FrogReaver]

Actually, it doesn't. It says you have to take the Attack action first. It doesn't say you have to make the attacks first.


You take the Attack action, which lets you make an attack/attacks. You have taken the Attack action, so you can use your Bonus action to shove, so you do.
Nothing changes.



Which is why I consider nothing he says to be official until it makes it into a book or errata.

Confucius says if there be no attack then there be no attack action.

 

[Yunru]

Confucius says if there be no attack then there be no attack action.

Completely wrong and easily provable, considering said attacks come from already having taken the attack action.

Also not Confucius.

 

[Shiroiken]

This still doesn't affect me, nor anyone else who doesn't follow Organized Play. JC's rulings are generally trash IMO, and I ignore them (especially since I don't use twitter) and suggest others do the same. If they compile his list of rulings into errata, then I will simply homebrew them away. The goal of 5E is to be able to customize it for each group, and JC is not (nor will ever be) in my group.

 

[Oofta]

So...how many things does this break?

It doesn't exactly break shield master--it's still useful to knock someone down for everyone else's sake, even if it's much less useful for the shield master (and while it makes sense from a reading perspective, the power now makes far less sense from a strategy/fighting perspective).

Not to re-litigate the whole issue, but as interpreted by JC, the feat is now kind of pointless in a lot of games. Yes, you can give advantage to your melee buddies, but your ranged party members suffer. Pushing someone around at the end of your turn is useful maybe 1-2% of the time and certainly doesn't justify a feat. The bonus to reflex saves is nice, but also extremely limited.

From a utility standpoint I don't think it was particularly overpowered to take it when you take the attack action (but before you complete the attack action), it merely gave a sword-and-board type PC the ability to get close to GWM/SS type fighters in DPR.

I know I'll continue to rule it the way I always have, I see no reason a bonus action can't be taken before another action is completely resolved.

 

[FrogReaver]

Completely wrong and easily provable, considering said attacks come from already having taken the attack action.

Also not Confucius.

Care to back it up with a rule Mr. Rules Guys?

 

[Yunru]

Care to back it up with a rule Mr. Rules Guys?

Ha! Care to back your claim that the action has to be completed, not merely taken, for the Bonus action? Since not even the tweet says that.

That said, here:

The most Common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
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.

Note that you make an attack with the action, which means before you even make an attack, you've taken the attack action.

"Ah, but you have to make the first attack immediately" you go to say?
Clearly not, since you can take the attack action, then move, then make the first attack.

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon Attack, you can break up your Movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a Fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an Attack, move 15 feet, and then Attack again.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ha! Care to back your claim that the action has to be completed, not merely taken, for the Bonus action? Since not even the tweet says that.

I'll take this diversion as a no. Sad. If you could have shown that I would have been thrilled to death because I much prefer shield master shove before attacks from attack action.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ha! Care to back your claim that the action has to be completed, not merely taken, for the Bonus action? Since not even the tweet says that.

That said, here:


Note that you make an attack with the action, which means before you even make an attack, you've taken the attack action.

"Ah, but you have to make the first attack immediately" you go to say?
Clearly not, since you can take the attack action, then move, then make the first attack.

Illogical. I don't think words mean what you think they do.

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyways, here's a better link to the tweets regarding this matter:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/05/23/clarification-about-bonus-actions/

A lot more tweets making it a lot more clear exactly what is being stated in case you are as ummmm, "CREATIVE" as Yunru...

 

[Krachek]

It is a philosophical debate.

What come first, the action or the idea of the action?
Do the wholeness of the action supersede the wholeness of the bonus action?
What is a round? Do a round can be divided into an infinite number of subrounds?
Do an action exists by its own?
And so on...