How many attacks does it take to take the Attack action?

[Yunru]

Dammit, basically every reply I want to either laugh with, or give xp for.

 

[FrogReaver]

In defense of the official ruling, discrete game actions need to be resolved sequentially, so there really is no way to do one thing “when” you do another. One thing must be done either before or after another. That is why I, personally, wouldn’t allow a Shield Master to shield bash before making at least one attack. However, I certainly wouldn’t require them to resolve all of their Attacks before they can shield bash. If you can break up your attacks with movement, you should be able to break them up with shield bash as well.

Considering you can use one of your attacks granted by the attack action to shove an enemy with your shield it’s not like the ruling is preventing you from doing your preferred order, it’s just that it’s not making it mechanically beneficial to do so.

With the current ruling the shield bash is envisioned as a quick shove that you use after attacking and already knocking the enemy a bit off balance. I’m fine with the idea of such a maneuver and that it needs to be done in the proper sequence.

i think it’s less fun that way but I think it’s perfectly sensible to envision the maneuver that way. and then if you want to shield bash on your first attack then shield bash on your first attack with one of your normal attack action attacks. In terms of sensibility.

 

[Satyrn]

Dammit, basically every reply I want to either laugh with, or give xp for.

I got the laugh. Now I want the XP. So I will answer your question.

My table goes with your option 3: "Rule it to merely require they declare they're using their attack action." I think the other DM at my table was running the game the first time this question came up, and I've been more than happy to go along with his ruling. It seems like the most fun, least nitpicky way to handle it.

 

[Satyrn]

Reply #2

Dammit, basically every reply I want to either laugh with, or give xp for.

That means you've started an awesome thread!

 

[iserith]

Here's my ruling:

Don't listen to anything Jeremy Crawford says. Instead, do what makes sense for your table.

 

[iserith]

Dammit, basically every reply I want to either laugh with, or give xp for.

@Satyrn should get to the top of the Laughs Received leaderboard with that Mr. Owl post.

 

[Satyrn]

 

[DEFCON 1]

My methodology for my players is simple...

They know they have an Action, Bonus Action, and a Move. They tell me what they want to do with them and in what order, and so long as any requirements are fulfilled by the end of those three things, I don't care how/why/when they do any of it.

Gametime is too short to get all nitpicky about any of that timing crap.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd run with making a single attack. Until level 5, this means that you do your attack and then do whatever is needed for your bonus action. At level 5 you can attack, do whatever it is you do with your shield using a bonus action, make another attack.

 

[iserith]

This ruling in particular was actually the last straw for me with these "official rulings." That, and watching the guy actually DM.

When 5e was released, we discussed Shield Master and I argued that the words on the page aligned with a ruling that said attacks first, then you get your bonus action shove. It made that part of Shield Master not all that great unless initiative or readied actions lined up well enough for allies to take advantage of the prone condition. I figured that was fair - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, which is about par for the course for 5e. Of course, a ton of people disagreed with me, and that's cool.

Then the "official ruling" came out that, actually, you can do it the way the people who disagreed with me argued. Fair enough, I accepted and adopted that ruling. Only Crawford could know the RAI, after all, even if a plain reading did not suggest to me this was the correct ruling. And now it's inexplicably changed back.

So yeah. I'm done with this guy's rulings. Not because I necessarily disagree with them in all cases but because of the inconsistency. In my view, one of the most important things a DM can do is be consistent as this is part of creating the conditions for players to make informed decisions. As well, having watched him DM, I can't see how you go from the words on the page to the play experience on display. His credibility is shot with me and, because I value that consistency highly, I cannot allow Crawford's rulings to make my game more inconsistent.