Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

I don't disagree with you, but I think "how best to interpret them," in the case of an ambiguous rule, is in the way that most closely resembles what the player actually wants, provided it isn't overpowered.

I don't think that's a valid consideration when it comes to interpreting rules. It's a great consideration to make a ruling to play that way though

 

[FrogReaver]

Um.. it looks like he is to me...since I wrote Shield Punch.

Didn't I specify TWF with sword/shield???

And you can use the shield as an improvised weapon without losing the +2 AC bonus.

Did you read my post, by the way?

Trying to justify your position with even more controversial rulings isn't a wise thing to do. Now we are going to spend another 70+ pages arguing about those controversial rules

Hand crossbows were eventually ruled to require a hand to load them despite the rules not originally stating so. They did this because you have to be able to load the bow to fire it.

Consider this: Suppose a PC keeps his shield raised above his head and not deflecting any blows with it during a fight as a matter of honor to show that he doesn't need the shield to defeat said opponent. Does he gain the +2 Bonus to AC? I would say no. So a character can have a shield equipped and not gain the AC bonus IMO. Does attacking with the shield cause that to happen. That to me is the DM's decision. One logical decision is that attacking with the shield means you aren't defending with it and so it essentially is the same as holding it above your head.

So I don't think you've provided a good example of what you are saying.

By the way, speaking of this, if you can just bonus action with the shield constantly then why even bother with shield master? The obvious answer is that they didn't write the rules with the expectation that TWF would work with shields in any way that would provide the AC bonus, the dueling bonus and the TWF bonus.

 

[epithet]

Trying to justify your position with even more controversial rulings isn't a wise thing to do. Now we are going to spend another 70+ pages arguing about those controversial rules

Hand crossbows were eventually ruled to require a hand to load them despite the rules not originally stating so. They did this because you have to be able to load the bow to fire it.

Consider this: Suppose a PC keeps his shield raised above his head and not deflecting any blows with it during a fight as a matter of honor to show that he doesn't need the shield to defeat said opponent. Does he gain the +2 Bonus to AC? I would say no. So a character can have a shield equipped and not gain the AC bonus IMO. Does attacking with the shield cause that to happen. That to me is the DM's decision. One logical decision is that attacking with the shield means you aren't defending with it and so it essentially is the same as holding it above your head.

So I don't think you've provided a good example of what you are saying.

By the way, speaking of this, if you can just bonus action with the shield constantly then why even bother with shield master? The obvious answer is that they didn't write the rules with the expectation that TWF would work with shields in any way that would provide the AC bonus, the dueling bonus and the TWF bonus.

TWF and dueling are mutually exclusive, but there's no reason I'm aware of to think you can't use a shield as a defense and as an improvised weapon at the same time. It is a thing that was done, historically speaking.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Trying to justify your position with even more controversial rulings isn't a wise thing to do. Now we are going to spend another 70+ pages arguing about those controversial rules

Hand crossbows were eventually ruled to require a hand to load them despite the rules not originally stating so. They did this because you have to be able to load the bow to fire it.

Consider this: Suppose a PC keeps his shield raised above his head and not deflecting any blows with it during a fight as a matter of honor to show that he doesn't need the shield to defeat said opponent. Does he gain the +2 Bonus to AC? I would say no. So a character can have a shield equipped and not gain the AC bonus IMO. Does attacking with the shield cause that to happen. That to me is the DM's decision. One logical decision is that attacking with the shield means you aren't defending with it and so it essentially is the same as holding it above your head.

So I don't think you've provided a good example of what you are saying.

By the way, speaking of this, if you can just bonus action with the shield constantly then why even bother with shield master? The obvious answer is that they didn't write the rules with the expectation that TWF would work with shields in any way that would provide the AC bonus, the dueling bonus and the TWF bonus.

I get all that, but the SA ruling at least is you keep the +2 AC bonus. One of the previous players in our group found it because he was attacking with his warhammer and shield punching every round using the TWF-style and Dual Wielder feat. For anyone reading this, in case you haven't read it:

If you attack with a shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?
Attacking with a shield doesn’t deprive you of the shield’s bonus to AC.

As a DM you can rule it otherwise of course, but I believe that is the "official" ruling.

And that was my point entirely! Ruling Shield Master the way it currently is does make it "why even bother with shield master?" Granted, of course Shield Master has other benefits, but if you primary concern is shoving--it is not the way to go... more's the pity.

 

[Maxperson]

I am not saying the feat is otherwise worthless, but it makes that feature practically so since you can gain the shove capability better through different methods.

I don't agree with you that it's a practically worthless feature as JC is ruling it. A free shove is great, even if it comes at the end of the Attack action. It just means that you are setting the enemy up to be mauled by other party members that come after you, making it more of a tactical feat ability than a personal "I'm bad ass." feat ability. Or cutting down the enemy's mobility. That may not be as satisfying to some people, but tactical advantage is still a huge bonus when used properly.

 

[Maxperson]

LOL of course there are! Have you read this thread? Hmm...? *confuse

TWF with sword/shield using Dual Wielder can:

Shove (attack), Sword (attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Shove (attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Shield punch (bonus TWF), Shove (attack)

He can shove at any point during his turn. Shield Master can only shove at the end.

The shove is free for the Shield Master. What's more, he gets to use his full ability modifier to both of his attacks, where the two-weapon fighter cannot add his, unless it's a penalty, to his off hand swing. That's a pretty nice bonus for the Shield Master, since this edition is about damage dealing. Also, advantage is nice, but it's pretty easy to hit most things without using it.

Lastly, ditch the two-weapon fighter and go with a Great Weapon Master.

Shove, attack at -5 with advantage and +10 damage, BAM!

 

[Maxperson]

Um.. it looks like he is to me...since I wrote Shield Punch.

Didn't I specify TWF with sword/shield???

And you can use the shield as an improvised weapon without losing the +2 AC bonus.

Did you read my post, by the way?

I noticed that, but does a shield count as a light melee weapon?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't agree with you that it's a practically worthless feature as JC is ruling it. A free shove is great, even if it comes at the end of the Attack action. It just means that you are setting the enemy up to be mauled by other party members that come after you, making it more of a tactical feat ability than a personal "I'm bad ass." feat ability. Or cutting down the enemy's mobility. That may not be as satisfying to some people, but tactical advantage is still a huge bonus when used properly.

Well, it isn't free. It still costs you your Bonus action, same as TWF does. It is still useful even as currently ruled. Earlier someone pointed out how great it could be used defensively. So, I don't have much of a problem with it as is except its use to shove an opponent down and attack is overshadowed by TWF with Dual Wielder.

The shove is free for the Shield Master. What's more, he gets to use his full ability modifier to both of his attacks, where the two-weapon fighter cannot add his, unless it's a penalty, to his off hand swing. That's a pretty nice bonus for the Shield Master, since this edition is about damage dealing. Also, advantage is nice, but it's pretty easy to hit most things without using it.

Lastly, ditch the two-weapon fighter and go with a Great Weapon Master.

Shove, attack at -5 with advantage and +10 damage, BAM!

As said, it isn't free. If it was free like Horde Breaker that would be awesome. He does get to use full abilities with both attacks, but so does the TWF guy with TWF-style. We, literally, had a dwarf warhammer/shield guy built this way with TWF-style and Dual Wielder, whacking with the warhammer and shield every round. It was impressive even without him shoving...

I noticed that, but does a shield count as a light melee weapon?

No, which is why, at the very least, you need the Dual Wielder feat. TWF-style isn't necessary, but allows for full ability score bonus with the bonus attack from TWF.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, it isn't free. It still costs you your Bonus action, same as TWF does. It is still useful even as currently ruled. Earlier someone pointed out how great it could be used defensively. So, I don't have much of a problem with it as is except its use to shove an opponent down and attack is overshadowed by TWF with Dual Wielder.

Okay. Free was the wrong word.

As said, it isn't free. If it was free like Horde Breaker that would be awesome. He does get to use full abilities with both attacks, but so does the TWF guy with TWF-style. We, literally, had a dwarf warhammer/shield guy built this way with TWF-style and Dual Wielder, whacking with the warhammer and shield every round. It was impressive even without him shoving...

That sounds really interesting. I may steal that to use some day.

 

[FrogReaver]

I get all that, but the SA ruling at least is you keep the +2 AC bonus. One of the previous players in our group found it because he was attacking with his warhammer and shield punching every round using the TWF-style and Dual Wielder feat. For anyone reading this, in case you haven't read it:

If you attack with a shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?
Attacking with a shield doesn’t deprive you of the shield’s bonus to AC.

As a DM you can rule it otherwise of course, but I believe that is the "official" ruling.

And that was my point entirely! Ruling Shield Master the way it currently is does make it "why even bother with shield master?" Granted, of course Shield Master has other benefits, but if you primary concern is shoving--it is not the way to go... more's the pity.

When we are in a thread that disagrees with official rulings then citing another official ruling that people will disagree with isn't wise.

Shield Master serves as the best option to shove for a shield using character. Mentioning controversial TWF shield shenanigans doesn't change that.