What paradox? If I take the Attack action on my turn, I have satisfied the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature. If I don't take the Attack action, then I have merely shoved a creature (which consumes my action). What's paradoxical about that?
Those examples show the paradox. If you don't take the Attack action, you are not satisfying the requirement in Shield Master which allows the bonus action to begin with. In order to gain the bonus action, you must take the Attack action on your turn. I am showing you exactly how you can be denied your Attack action, thus you have no granted Bonus action. But, oh, wait, you already used it! How can that be since you didn't meet the requirements for it??? THAT is the paradox you seem oblivious to...
Let's say I shove a creature. There's no reason to think I must necessarily use a bonus action to do so. So I'm not breaking any rules by shoving a creature. If I then go on to take the Attack action, well then I have satisfied the condition for making the shove-attempt using a bonus action. Otherwise, I didn't use a bonus action at all!
This is getting laughable. You are basically arguing this: you shove, and if that shove is followed by the Attack action, then you must have used a bonus action to do it because you are using the Attack action now. But, if for some reason, you are denied your Attack action after the shove, then you are just saying your Attack action is what was used for the shove. I'm sorry, but that is pretty bad logic there. You have to decide the source of the ability that allows you to take an action before you use it, not afterwards. You cannot exchange bonus actions for actions and vice versa.
There's nothing paradoxical about being denied the ability to attack. It happens all the time in the game without anyone thinking it's paradoxical. The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one. I would recommend not doing that.
The paradox is that you used a bonus action granted by a feat and then did not satisfy the condition required to earn that bonus action. "The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one." Exactly, THAT is precisely what you ARE doing!
If you want to shove, how are you doing it? Are you using your Attack action to shove? Ok, go ahead. Are you using the bonus action from Shield Master? Sure, but only if you take the Attack action. No problem I suppose--UNLESS you are denied the ability to take the Attack action. Again, paradox.
Suppose you have 1 hit point left and you are facing an orc and a goblin. The orc is going first and the DM decides to Ready the orc's action to Attack if you shove the goblin and knock him prone. You turn comes and you knock the goblin prone using your bonus shove from Shield Master. Since the triggering event occured, the DM has the orc use its reaction to attack you and it hits, knocking you to 0 hit points. You are now unconscious. You used the bonus action from Shield Master, but never used the Attack action that would grant it. Again, paradox. You can't switch what action caused you to shove after the fact.
They're both SA, but only the original ruling expressed RAI. What evidence do you have for how Jeremy Crawford thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first affects game-balance? In the Sage Advice segment of the 2/1/19 Dragon Talk, he said decisions on the timing of bonus actions were made not for balance reasons, but for smooth game-play. Besides, considering how the Eldritch Knight's War Magic could potentially interact with Eldritch Strike if allowing the bonus action weapon attack to come first, I doubt he thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first is game-breaking if he doesn't think the same thing about War Magic.
Except for the fact that he reversed his original ruling on how Shield Master works, so you can doubt it all you want but the evidence of his reversal suggests otherwise.
How exactly have you benefited, though? Without the feat, you can shove a creature, so that in itself isn't a benefit. No, the benefit of the feat is that you can shove a creature AND take the Attack action on the same turn, and if you can't take the Attack action for whatever reason, then you haven't benefited.
Except you have. You gained the shove. What benefit is that to you without your Attack action to follow it? Maybe not much, except if you have allies nearby who can still benefit from it. What benefit the bonus action Shove is without your own personal Attack action is situational.
I agree that if you never take the Attack action, then you can never use a bonus action to shove a creature. You can still shove a creature without using a bonus action, though, so there's that.
Good, we are making progress at least. We agree you can always shove if you have another means of making an attack, such as through the Attack action.
No, what was intended (RAI) has been stated by the very person you say feels otherwise. On July 6, 2015, he said, "The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip." That's a clear statement of the intent with which the game was designed. The more recent change in the official interpretation is motivated not by a desire to reveal the RAI, but rather to elevate a literalistic interpretation of the RAW over the RAI. A RAI interpretation is still possible with the existing language, though, so I can understand the decision not to issue errata for this. What I don’t like, however, is WotC’s tendency to then defend their uncorrected, ambiguous text by doubling down on the most literalistic interpretation possible.
You keep bringing War Magic into this. Maybe that was my fault and I did a while back, I honestly don't remember, but can we agree to keep War Magic out of it? It is a needless complication which cannot prove your point, however much you like to think possible RAI can.
That’s your interpretation. My interpretation accords with the feat’s intended lack of a timing specification.
There is no lack of timing. It is very explicit in the SA for Shield Master. In case you missed this from an earlier post of mine, I will paste it here:
Shield Master
[NEW]
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? "No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play."
The text "During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action." clearly indicates you can decide when to take the bonus action AFTER you've taken the Attack action. The timing has now been specified: after you've taken the Attack action. You are no longer free to take it whenever you want. Also note the use of the word "precondition", pre-, as in before, as in the Attack action. Not after, not simultaneous, before. The Attack action must come before the bonus action shove because it is a precondition
(**** #1 ****).
For further thought, I am pasting yet another post (which I will note, no one refuted in any way):
Okay, so I am about to go to bed and I will make one final attempt to clarify this so Asgorath isn't doing all the work (good job, btw!). From tweets posted by JC and others on May 11, 2018:
#1.
Jonathan Ellis
"What was it supposed to be? How is using a bonus action to knock someone prone and then attack cheesy?"
#2.
Jeremy Crawford
"It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move."
Please note two things in JC's reponse to Mr Ellis's questions.
1. "a way to knock someone prone after your attack." Not after your Attack action, after your
attack. If you have not attacked, you have not satisfied the condition. Taking the Attack action means you are attacking. Until you have resolved the attack, you are not "after" it.
2. "It's essentially a finishing move."
A finishing move. Not a in-the-middle-of-my-attacks move, finishing move.
A later tweet also from May 11, 2018:
(**** #2 ****)
#3.
Jeremy Crawford
"If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise. The action as a whole is the condition."
We all agree (I believe) with the interpretation of the first part, "If taking the Attack action is the condition for something else happening, you must take that action before the other thing can happen, unless the rules state otherwise." The rule for Shield Master is "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature..." We all agree you must take the Attack action in order to gain the benefit of the bonus action--there is no doubt about that.
Now, the case is being argued that you
are taking the Attack action, just not making your attacks yet. This is the point where we deviate so I will continue with the next sentence:
"The action as a whole is the condition."
Since the action as a whole
is the condition, you must take it in its entirety, not piece by piece, in order to satisfy the condition. Trying to take it piece-by-piece as some have reasoned violates that
"The action as a whole is the condition." ruling. Therefore, you
cannot: take the Attack action, bonus action Shove, attack. If you try to do so, you are
not taking the action as a whole, which
is the condition, thus denying yourself the Bonus action with which to Shove.
Therefore you must do the following:
1. Take the Attack action since that is required for the Bonus action as its condition. (No arguments here.)
2. Since the action as a whole is the condition, you must take it and complete it, not break it apart, before you have satisfied the condition.
Once you take the Attack action as a whole (that's the condition from #3 above), you then gain the benefit of the bonus action to Shove. If you don't take the Attack action as a whole, you don't get the bonus action to Shove.
You don't agree with JC's rulings, fine, as always it is up to the DM and the table to play how they see fit. If you do so, however, hopefully you will now understand why it is against the official rules and a house-rule. I don't see why anyone has an issue with that, since many of us play with at least
some house-rules, after all.
Good night!
All the evidence is right there above.
(**** #1 ****). The Attack action must come first, it is the precondition to gaining the bonus action to shove.
(**** #2 ****). The Attack action must be taken in its entirety before you gain the bonus action to shove
I’m curious what part of the official ruling you think I don’t understand? You seem to think that understanding it makes it impossible to disagree with.
The point above indicates you don't understand the official ruling on the timing element of Shield Master, which of course is the entire basis for the point that the shove comes after you've taken the Attack action.
You can disagree with it all you want. Heck,
I don't agree with it, and if that is all this boils down to then what are we wasting all this time for? Just say you house-rule it and be done with it. Is there some reason you don't want to say that? Do you think house-rules are a bad thing?
We've house-ruled it. I can freely say that. Our table doesn't like the official ruling so we allow the attack-shove-extra attack variant that we like. It sort of follows the official rule... you did take the Attack action first, but we just don't follow part 2 that the Attack action must be completed in its entirety. Works for us.
Now, it is late. I've had a long day at work and the next few days will also be long days. If you reply and I don't have time to respond before the weekend, please be patient and accept my apologies.