I was right about Shield Master
Jester David
Hero
Agreed. I have walked away every internet argument I have been part of feeling like I had lost, even when I had "won". No one wins online except the trolls. It's never worth it...
What has timing?
A revenant for Hallows' Evening?
epithet
Explorer
You're certainly able to rule on the timing however you feel is appropriate as the DM. If you think JC was correct 3 years ago, cool. If you think JC is correct now, cool.
What's not cool is the idea that somehow JC can change his mind on Twitter and somehow magically change the game in any way. His opinion only matters if you care about it. To be clear, whatever ruling you apply to shield master is on you as a DM, you can't blame Crawford. Crawford isn't making rulings, because he's not the DM of your game. He's just stating his opinion.
My ruling, for my game, is that you can make the shield bash after you announce your attack action, but before you make the attacks (or after, or in the middle, I don't care.) It's pretty obviously (to me) the way the Shield Master feat was intended to operate, and it's what makes sense. Crawford's opinion in 2015 was correct, and changing his mind last year is just pedantic nonsense. My ruling is right, because it is my campaign to rule on. If you make a different ruling (which I might not agree with) it is also correct, because it applies to your campaign, not mine.
To his credit, JC works hard to maintain a coherent, integrated system of rules. He's good at weeding out inconsistency, and the 5e rules are remarkably free of contradiction. It is, on some level, a comfort to be able to look up how he intends for a given feature to be implemented. That said, I doubt even JC would expect his intentions or opinions about the meaning of each and every turn of phrase in D&D to all be followed exactly by anyone.
What's not cool is the idea that somehow JC can change his mind on Twitter and somehow magically change the game in any way. His opinion only matters if you care about it. To be clear, whatever ruling you apply to shield master is on you as a DM, you can't blame Crawford. Crawford isn't making rulings, because he's not the DM of your game. He's just stating his opinion.
My ruling, for my game, is that you can make the shield bash after you announce your attack action, but before you make the attacks (or after, or in the middle, I don't care.) It's pretty obviously (to me) the way the Shield Master feat was intended to operate, and it's what makes sense. Crawford's opinion in 2015 was correct, and changing his mind last year is just pedantic nonsense. My ruling is right, because it is my campaign to rule on. If you make a different ruling (which I might not agree with) it is also correct, because it applies to your campaign, not mine.
To his credit, JC works hard to maintain a coherent, integrated system of rules. He's good at weeding out inconsistency, and the 5e rules are remarkably free of contradiction. It is, on some level, a comfort to be able to look up how he intends for a given feature to be implemented. That said, I doubt even JC would expect his intentions or opinions about the meaning of each and every turn of phrase in D&D to all be followed exactly by anyone.
I thought I should let you know that I felt a little dirty clicking "laugh" for your post!
I don't have much at stake in 5e rules interpretation, but I didn't find yours persuasive. (Which is not to say that I agree with what Jeremy Crawford and [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] seem to be saying - read on!)
When you take the attack action, you make an attack doesn't imply that the making of the attack is separate from and subsequent to taking the attack action.
Here's an example sentence to illustrate the point: When you brush your teeth, you move a toothbrush about and across the surface of your teeth so as to remove foreign substances from them. That doesn't mean that the moving of the toothbrush is distinct from the brushing of the teeth. Rather, the former is one constitutive element of the latter. I would suggest that, in the case of an attack action, the same is true - making an attack is constitutive of taking the action.
With regard to the movement example - f 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 - there is neither statement nor implication that the attack action commenced with the first 10' of movement. The natural reading is that the PC moved, then took the attack action (by attacking) and then - as per the bit I've bolded - took some further movement prior to making the second attack which the attack action entitled him/her to make (in virtue of the Extra Attack class feature).
Combining the movement example with the feat wording - If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield - I think that the most natural reading is that (i) you have to make an attack (thereby taking the attack action) and thereby enliven the ability to use a bonus action (ie in effect we interpolate then between "can" and "use"), but that (ii) it can come as soon as the attack action has been taken (ie by making an attack) and that could be before all permitted attacks have been taken.
I can see the argument that the "then" shouldn't be interpolated, but I think not interpolating it creates potential headaches within the context of the D&D framework - eg if I use the bonus action intending to then follow up with the attack action, and after using the bonus action something happens that prevents me taking further actions (eg some reactive ability paralyses me), then my use of the bonus action becomes retrospectively illegal. Which is not insuperable but I think is weird. Interpolating "then" therefore not only establishes a plausible reading of the natural language but also one that works within the context of the way D&D action resolution unfolds in play.
I can't see any plausible argument that one has to make all the attacks to which one is entitled before the ability to use a bonus action is enlivened. Having made an attack, one has taken the attack action (the former, as I have argued, being constitutive of the latter). The fact that you've got more possibilities of making attacks hanging around seems neither here nor there in that respect, and the operation of the movement rules only reinforces that.
So unlike the argument about needing to make an attack, which I think is supported by both language and the place of the rule within the practical context of gameplay, I think the argument about needing to make all attacks is supported neither by language nor the practical context of gameplay. If it is being supported on the basis of some sense of "tidiness" in rules interpretation, that seems quite weak to me. Rules should serve gameplay; gameplay shouldn't be subordinated to some abstract (and I would say ultimately hopeless, in any complex rules framework) goal of tidiness.
That's good advice. (My 4e table had worked out that Weapon Focus didn't help a sorcerer using a dagger as a spell-casting focus to do extra damage long before the words of the rules were changed to make this explicit.)
But - hopefully without completely reopening what I gather is a long/contentious debate - how do those who think you can do the bonus action first, having the intention to attack, handle the case where some reactive ability than paralyses my PC so I can't follow through on my intention, hence don't attack, hence haven't met the triggering condition for a bonus action I already took?
There has already been established precedence differentiating between an "Attack" and the "Attack Action"* which is why he elaborated in his string of tweets that the "clarification" has nothing to do with the balance of Shield Master and everything to do with not nesting a Bonus action within its own trigger. Say what you will about the current efficacy of the feat, it's totally understandable why you'd want to avoid setting a standard with that sort of logical mess.
Since the design team doesn't seem interested in rewriting the printed rules, the feat it isn't likely to be changed in the future despite it only needing a simple edit to have it trigger off of an Attack (akin to a Smite spell) rather than the whole Action. Whether that is good or bad policy is a wholly separate discussion.
FWIW, I think Shield Master remains a decent feat, particularly if you have a magic shield with a bonus to further boost your Dex saves. The clarification might also make Two Weapon Fighting slightly more attractive to those groups that follow the "official" rules yet still want to be able to execute a bonus shove during a string of attacks.
* EDIT: For reference, a great article on the topic from [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION].
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Poll
