D&D 5E About Bonus action attacks and shove.

[FormerlyHemlock]

No, assuming you each have 30ft movement, basically every time you successfully shove him over and move more than 15ft away from him (20 as Hemlock mentioned), you have moved out of his reach. Remember, you can move before OR after attacking someone, so your enemy gets up at a cost of 15 ft of their movement and then can only move 15ft further.

Hemlock isn't trying to disagree with you, just throw in an additional defensive strategy you did not see. It's the first time I've noticed it myself actually. A great idea!

I initially noticed this combination when trying to evaluate the ranger's Escape the Horde vs. Multiattack Defense (Multiattack Defense isn't as good as it first seems), then noticed that it also works with Shield Master, Polearm Master, and Trip maneuvers.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't get the motivation necessary to argue with someone that clearly stated their thinking as if you can convince them that they are wrong about how they thought. Baffling.

I shall attempt to recall that speaking to you as if you were a person of open enough mind to entertain new thoughts and potentially even incorporate these thoughts into your own way of thinking is "baffling" to you, and thus an absolute waste of my time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I shall attempt to recall that speaking to you as if you were a person of open enough mind to entertain new thoughts and potentially even incorporate these thoughts into your own way of thinking is "baffling" to you, and thus an absolute waste of my time.

Oh, I entertain new thoughts. I've even freely acknowledged the argument that I disagreed with. I even see why someone can get to that change, if you ignore a bit of English. It actually doesn't bother me that much, and I don't have any issue with it either way except a vague displeasure in the slight abuse of the language.

What I don't get is arguing with me on my statement that I wouldn't have gone there myself. I know, seems impertinent of me to be baffled by people arguing as if they're a better judge of what I would have thought and why than I am, but I may just be broken like that. If that's enough for you to write me off, well, turns out that just doesn't ruin my day.

Happy gaming!

 

[MYV]

No, assuming you each have 30ft movement, basically every time you successfully shove him over and move more than 15ft away from him (20 as Hemlock mentioned), you have moved out of his reach. Remember, you can move before OR after attacking someone, so your enemy gets up at a cost of 15 ft of their movement and then can only move 15ft further.

Hemlock isn't trying to disagree with you, just throw in an additional defensive strategy you did not see. It's the first time I've noticed it myself actually. A great idea!

well, while this is possible in theory, most of the time a sword and board character will want to stay close the the enemies he's trying to tank... moreover you still get an AoO from the enemy, albeit at disadvantage since he's prone.

but yeah, you can use a shove manouver for defensive purposes. I'm not ruling out all the many uses the feats have, i'm just pointing out that shield master is (most of the time) and offensive feat.
while dual wielder is (in some cases) better at defending than shield master.
What really makes a difference is the interpretation of the sage advice on dual wielder.
Clears the intent but doesn't clear the rules around dual wielding with improvised weapons... so still not sure if you can dual wield a shield.

 

[Arial Black]

The TWF rules require certain things in order to make use of them.

First, the initial attack: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand,...."

If your attack meets those requirements then you now have a bonus action, with its own requirements: "...you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon you're holding in the other hand."

Let's break these requirements down.

"When you take the (Attack action) and (attack) with a (light) (melee) (weapon) that you're holding (in one hand)"

In order to generate the bonus action, your initial attack must be an attack granted by taking the Attack action, not any old attack, like an OA or from the Cast a Spell action that gives you an attack.

Next, it must actually be an attack, not something else (like a shove).

Next, the object used to execute the attack must be (light). If you have the Dual Wielder feat you can ignore this pre-req.

Next, the object must be a (melee) weapon. Later in the TWF rules, it says that if either weapon has the 'thrown' property then you may throw the weapon instead of making a melee attack, but this doesn't take away the requirement that the attack must be made with a (melee) weapon, so tough luck for dart throwers.

Next, and most crucially for the shield-bash crowd, the initial attack must be made with a (weapon). It must actually be a (weapon), and a (melee weapon) at that, not any old non-weapon object that you can use to bash someone via the Improvised Weapons rule. Shields are not actual (weapons), even when used as a weapon. This is why Crawford didn't answer the "does the +2 AC from the shield stack with the +1 AC from Dual Wielder" question by saying "no, they don't atack", and instead said "Dual Wielder is for melee weapons, not things like shields".

Lastly, the attack must be made by a melee weapon that is held in only (one hand).

You can certainly use one of your attacks to use your shield as an improvised weapon, but this will not generate that bonus TWF attack.

If you have two attacks, you could use one to make a shield bash and the other to attack with a light melee weapon in one hand, and this second attack would generate the bonus TWF attack.

The bonus TWF attack has its own restrictions. If used, it must be used to (attack)(so no shove) with a (different)(so not the same weapon again, even if you swap hands)(light)(melee)(weapon) in the (other hand)(so you can't drop the sword you used to make the first attack and draw another with the same hand and attack with that).

So even if you had two attacks, shield bashed with one attack then attacked with a sword to generate a bonus TWF attack, you could not use your shield to execute that Bonus attack because it is not a (weapon).

 

[MYV]

The TWF rules require certain things in order to make use of them.

First, the initial attack: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand,...."

If your attack meets those requirements then you now have a bonus action, with its own requirements: "...you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon you're holding in the other hand."

Let's break these requirements down.

"When you take the (Attack action) and (attack) with a (light) (melee) (weapon) that you're holding (in one hand)"

In order to generate the bonus action, your initial attack must be an attack granted by taking the Attack action, not any old attack, like an OA or from the Cast a Spell action that gives you an attack.

Next, it must actually be an attack, not something else (like a shove).

Next, the object used to execute the attack must be (light). If you have the Dual Wielder feat you can ignore this pre-req.

Next, the object must be a (melee) weapon. Later in the TWF rules, it says that if either weapon has the 'thrown' property then you may throw the weapon instead of making a melee attack, but this doesn't take away the requirement that the attack must be made with a (melee) weapon, so tough luck for dart throwers.

Next, and most crucially for the shield-bash crowd, the initial attack must be made with a (weapon). It must actually be a (weapon), and a (melee weapon) at that, not any old non-weapon object that you can use to bash someone via the Improvised Weapons rule. Shields are not actual (weapons), even when used as a weapon. This is why Crawford didn't answer the "does the +2 AC from the shield stack with the +1 AC from Dual Wielder" question by saying "no, they don't atack", and instead said "Dual Wielder is for melee weapons, not things like shields".

Lastly, the attack must be made by a melee weapon that is held in only (one hand).

You can certainly use one of your attacks to use your shield as an improvised weapon, but this will not generate that bonus TWF attack.

If you have two attacks, you could use one to make a shield bash and the other to attack with a light melee weapon in one hand, and this second attack would generate the bonus TWF attack.

The bonus TWF attack has its own restrictions. If used, it must be used to (attack)(so no shove) with a (different)(so not the same weapon again, even if you swap hands)(light)(melee)(weapon) in the (other hand)(so you can't drop the sword you used to make the first attack and draw another with the same hand and attack with that).

So even if you had two attacks, shield bashed with one attack then attacked with a sword to generate a bonus TWF attack, you could not use your shield to execute that Bonus attack because it is not a (weapon).

You are missing what we said at the start of the thread,
You are supposed to attack with your weapona dn bonus attack with your shield as an improvised weapon.
one of the attacks you make with your weapon, can be substituted by a shove if you want.

you still meet all the criteria for TWF

 

[Sezarious]

well, while this is possible in theory, most of the time a sword and board character will want to stay close the the enemies he's trying to tank... moreover you still get an AoO from the enemy, albeit at disadvantage since he's prone.

but yeah, you can use a shove manouver for defensive purposes. I'm not ruling out all the many uses the feats have, i'm just pointing out that shield master is (most of the time) and offensive feat.
while dual wielder is (in some cases) better at defending than shield master.
What really makes a difference is the interpretation of the sage advice on dual wielder.
Clears the intent but doesn't clear the rules around dual wielding with improvised weapons... so still not sure if you can dual wield a shield.

That's a good point about the in game practicality of the shoving defense. I suppose it might potentially work in a running away situation. But what would a party be running from that could be easily shoved... Mmmm, actually maybe mindflayers ? Maybe it could become a new sport, like cow tipping?

Well, as far as I can read from a RAW perspective, nothing, including Crawford's clarification outright clarifies the RAW in a way that prevents you from dual wielding a shield. It's truly either up to you as a DM or up to your DM.

Most people don't think it's OP either, I mean sure, potential AC of 21 or 22 with the defense fighting style or 23 as a Barbarian with con 20 dex 20, but most people say that this is circumvented by the cost.

I've actually made this feat combination for a hoplite style gladiator NPC. Bear Totem Barbarian 3, Rogue Assassin 5, Fighter Champ 6. AC 23

He dual wields a shortsword and an old looted lizardmans spiked shield (1d6).
He has the alert feat to help him go first for his assassin auto-crit thing, rages as his first bonus action, runs in and fights recklessly, giving him advantage.

If the party don't head to the city he is in and get tougher before fighting him, I'm going to give him another 2 fighter levels and the defensive dualist feat. I've given him a weakness however, low strength and low wisdom.... I'm looking forward to what the players think.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's a good point about the in game practicality of the shoving defense. I suppose it might potentially work in a running away situation. But what would a party be running from that could be easily shoved... Mmmm, actually maybe mindflayers ? Maybe it could become a new sport, like cow tipping?

The sword-and-boarder doesn't have to stay close to the enemy. Either the enemy is going to pursue him (in which case stepping back is pure win) or the enemy is going to flee (in which case all he loses is a single opportunity attack that probably wouldn't change any important outcomes) or the enemy is going to overrun and/or bypass him and go straight for the back line. The third outcome is the only one you have to pay attention to, and it works basically the same way with or without stepping back. The main difference is that with shove prone, at least the enemy only gets 45' of movement toward the back line instead of 60'.

Meanwhile, as the sword-and-shield guy is holding the front line, everybody else is killing the enemy with ranged weapons. Having a prone enemy is bad in the sense that it imposes disadvantage on ranged attacks, if there's just that one enemy available, but since the tank has a higher AC than the monster (generally) it still winds up a net advantage for the party. Under some circumstances the ranged guys can also hold their attacks until he stands up; or they can use tricks like heavy obscurement to cancel out their disadvantage. Both approaches turn a successful shove by the tank into pure win for the ranged guys--although you still ideally want a backup line of secondary tanks like zombies between the ranged combatants and the enemy.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You can't bring the tacos until after you come over, though. You couldn't, for instance, bring the tacos and then come over. That you found an example that requires foresight, preparation, and prior work doesn't negate the face that 'when' reads logically as having to occur prior to the completion of the dependant action.

Given the sentence, you can commence the action "bringing the tacos" at the same time as you commence "coming over". There's no exclusivity there. In fact the only part of this that makes the "tacos" action unable to complete before the "come over" action is that "coming over" is an intrinsically necessary part of "bringing the tacos".

If instead the sentence was "when you come over take care of getting tacos", then it would be entirely possible to have tacos delivered prior to coming over. Or after. Or during.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Given the sentence, you can commence the action "bringing the tacos" at the same time as you commence "coming over". There's no exclusivity there. In fact the only part of this that makes the "tacos" action unable to complete before the "come over" action is that "coming over" is an intrinsically necessary part of "bringing the tacos".

If instead the sentence was "when you come over take care of getting tacos", then it would be entirely possible to have tacos delivered prior to coming over. Or after. Or during.

A more elegant paraphrase: "when we play on Wednesday, can you please get pizza?" No one would object if the pizza were there already when play commenced.