Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

DND_Reborn · Mar 2, 2019

Asgorath said:
No it's not?

Shield Master: "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."

Two-Weapon Fighting: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

Critical difference in bold. TWF explicitly says the bonus action is granted after making a single weapon attack, Shield Master does not. Thus, Shield Master's trigger is the entire Attack action.

I swear, I feel like people aren't reading my entire posts... You quote me but the very first sentence you quoted is "Just so we're clear: I am not arguing about the SA ruling."

I know how SA rules Shield Master works. I am showing scenarios on why I think it should be changed. Also, part of the ruling on Shield Master resolves around other posts about triggering actions (using the Attack action, which you didn't bold BTW) must be completed before the bonus action is activated.

epithet · Mar 2, 2019

Asgorath said:
No it's not?

Shield Master: "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."

Two-Weapon Fighting: "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

Critical difference in bold. TWF explicitly says the bonus action is granted after making a single weapon attack, Shield Master does not. Thus, Shield Master's trigger is the entire Attack action.

No. If "take the Attack Action plus this other thing" doesn't require you to "finish" the Attack Action by making all your Extra Attacks, then "take the attack action" doesn't either. That "and" between "action" and "attack" in your quoted text cannot be read as an "or."

Asgorath · Mar 2, 2019

dnd4vr said:
I swear, I feel like people aren't reading my entire posts... You quote me but the very first sentence you quoted is "Just so we're clear: I am not arguing about the SA ruling."

I know how SA rules Shield Master works. I am showing scenarios on why I think it should be changed. Also, part of the ruling on Shield Master resolves around other posts about triggering actions (using the Attack action, which you didn't bold BTW) must be completed before the bonus action is activated.

I was replying to your last sentence, where you claimed the wording of TWF and Shield Master's bonus actions was the same. The triggering part of the TWF bonus action (i.e. the "if you X" part of "if you X, you can Y") has very different language, that's all I'm saying.

Edit: And again, I'm basing my interpretation on things like this:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/997183256679268352

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

JEC discussed TWF in the Sage Advice video on bonus action timing as well, where he made the intent very clear.

epithet · Mar 2, 2019

Asgorath said:
If this is true, why is the wording of TWF fighting different than Shield Master? TWF is triggered by making an attack with a light weapon, and thus can come between attacks in the Attack action. If Shield Master said "If you take the Attack action on your turn and make an attack with a weapon you hold in one hand, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield" then I'd agree with your interpretation of the trigger.

Edit: Sorry, didn't realize how far behind I was. To be fair, I also think it's perfectly reasonable to allow attack-shove-attack, because at that point you have at least committed yourself to the Attack action. The official ruling doesn't talk about Extra Attack, but once you've made the first attack it's not like you can suddenly switch to a different action.

I do not see how "If Action + attack" can be true after 1 attack, while "If Action" requires all extra attacks as well. Two weapon fighting just adds an additional requirement.

Anyone who thinks that TWF gives a bonus action attack after the first attack with a light weapon, and that bonus action can come before the Extra Attack strikes, disagrees with Jeremy Crawford (just like I do.)

Edit: the tweet linked above proves that Jeremy Crawford also disagrees with Jeremy Crawford.

Asgorath · Mar 2, 2019

epithet said:
I do not see how "If Action + attack" can be true after 1 attack, while "If Action" requires all extra attacks as well. Two weapon fighting just adds an additional requirement.

Anyone who thinks that TWF gives a bonus action attack after the first attack with a light weapon, and that bonus action can come before the Extra Attack strikes, disagrees with Jeremy Crawford (just like I do.)

To be clear, the only thing I object to is the notion that you can declare you'll take the Attack action later on your turn, then use your Shield Master bonus action to shove first and give yourself near-permanent advantage if you have good Athletics. JEC has described the intent of the TWF bonus action on several different platforms, so I'm using his guidance as to the specific timing of that bonus action. I completely agree that a valid reading of TWF would be that the bonus action has to come after the Attack action is done, and you have to have used a light weapon for all the attacks in the Attack action. I would completely disagree with a reading that said TWF lets you do the bonus action attack first, because you declare that you'll take the Attack action later on your turn.

DND_Reborn · Mar 2, 2019

Asgorath said:
I was replying to your last sentence, where you claimed the wording of TWF and Shield Master's bonus actions was the same. The triggering part of the TWF bonus action (i.e. the "if you X" part of "if you X, you can Y") has very different language, that's all I'm saying.

Edit: And again, I'm basing my interpretation on things like this:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/997183256679268352

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

JEC discussed TWF in the Sage Advice video on bonus action timing as well, where he made the intent very clear.

Sorry for the confusion then. I just feel like sometimes people are responding without realizing what I am actually writing about! I understand the confusion, since what I wrote was:

"Because its wording is the same line as the Shield Master feat...."

I meant to write "is in the same line". Typing fast and I skipped a word.

At any rate, though, that just reinforces my point. A fighter with extra attack (not even needing a shield I suppose) using TWF (sword/dagger) can in effect attack twice and shove in any order they choose:

Shove (attack), Sword (attack), Dagger (TWF bonus)
Sword (attack), Shove (attack), Dagger (TWF bonus)
Sword (attack), Dagger (TWF bonus), Shove (attack)

With no feats and no fight style needed, just Extra Attack, this character can shove in a better fashion that a character who took the Shield Master feat and expressly is granted the Shove ability as a feature of it using their bonus action.

It becomes a moot point and a useless feature of the feat. A character with Dual Wielder could Shield punch as the TWF bonus action instead of the Dagger and be more effective at it.

Maxperson · Mar 2, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Just so you know, I agree with you. My point was that using the SA response about Shield Master and further about how the completing Attack actions (including Extra Attack) before bonus actions are done was what prompted this scenario.

But think about what this means?

Sam took a FEAT (a valuable commodity, I think we can agree!) for Shield Master, as where Todd could be any one wielding two weapons with the Extra attack feature (he doesn't need Two-Weapon Fighting Style or Dual Wielder...).

If you think a single attack from TWF triggers the bonus action to be available and don't believe all the attacks granted by the attack action need be resolved before another action is taken (many argue they have to be), then Todd can:

Shove (attack), Sword (attack), Dagger (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Shove (attack), Dagger (bonus TWF)
Sword (attack), Dagger (bonus TWF), Shove (attack)

I'm fine with that personally. But in that light I think it is ridiculous that the ability granted by Shield Master can only be done by Sam after both attacks.

Finally, consider a Fighter like Sam but without Shield Master. Using the Shield as an improvised weapon (you would need Dual Wielder for this as the Shield is not a Light weapon) and TWF:

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

So a Fighter with Dual Wielder feat is more versatile in how he employs a shield in combat towards shoving a target than a Fighter who has Shield Master... Again, I think that isn't quite right. Oh, well...

There's more, though. That valuable feat also gives the 3e equivalent of evasion AND a boost to the dex save on top of it. What's more, Sam can get two shoves in the round and still attack, since he can shove as an attack, attack and then bonus action shove. If the shove were the only part of the feat, I would agree with you that it's way too restrictive as written and not at all worth it.

DND_Reborn · Mar 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
There's more, though. That valuable feat also gives the 3e equivalent of evasion AND a boost to the dex save on top of it. What's more, Sam can get two shoves in the round and still attack, since he can shove as an attack, attack and then bonus action shove. If the shove were the only part of the feat, I would agree with you that it's way too restrictive as written and not at all worth it.

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.

epithet · Mar 2, 2019

Asgorath said:
To be clear, the only thing I object to is the notion that you can declare you'll take the Attack action later on your turn, then use your Shield Master bonus action to shove first and give yourself near-permanent advantage if you have good Athletics. JEC has described the intent of the TWF bonus action on several different platforms, so I'm using his guidance as to the specific timing of that bonus action. I completely agree that a valid reading of TWF would be that the bonus action has to come after the Attack action is done, and you have to have used a light weapon for all the attacks in the Attack action. I would completely disagree with a reading that said TWF lets you do the bonus action attack first, because you declare that you'll take the Attack action later on your turn.

The thing about the bonus actions from Shield Master and TWF is that they're just attacks. You can make a shove, or a weapon attack without your stat bonus to damage, as part of the Attack Action. (I think most of us would let a player nerf his own attack if he wanted to.) That means that it doesn't matter, at the time the dice are rolled, whether it is a bonus action or not.

There are so very many ways to get advantage in 5e, having almost permanent advantage from a high athletics is not overpowered. It eats your bonus action for the turn, and your dice can (and will) betray you. It isn't guaranteed or free... you took a feat for it, after all. Anyone can shove, the shield master can just burn a bonus action instead of an attack to do it. No big deal.

Ovinomancer · Mar 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
By RAW actions have a duration. That duration is 1 action. A duration of 1 action is a length of time that is greater than instantaneous, because we know that spells that are bonus actions are exceptionally swift.

Okay, I'll go with the duration of an action is an action. Instantaneous isn't the same as an action, though, so actions and instantaneous aren't even in the same category.

Actions do not have a duration. I'm really not sure how else I can say this. You (well, lots of others as well) have decided to add duration to actions when they have none. Not have a duration doesn't mean not taking some fictional time, it just means that a defined duration isn't part of actions at all. Discussing the duration of actions is declaring that you've trumped four sevens with your eight of spades while playing poker. It's nonsense.

You've just declared that the Cast a Spell action, which takes 1 action worth of time, takes zero time and that bonus spells take even less than zero.

Nope, you're not listening. You're hearing me say "actions have no duration" and hearing "the duration of an action is zero." These are not the same thing, at all. I'm saying that actions do not have the quality duration. I don't care what length duration because actions do not even have this quality.

That makes no sense. Each action has a duration of 1 action. If it takes more rounds to do it, it just means that you have to use multiple Cast Actions on multiple turns, each taking 1 action in length, in order to complete the spell.

Exactly right. I wonder if you'll get it, though.

It's RAW. 1 action is in fact a unit of time in combat. Actions take 1 action to complete. That's the rules.

Exactly right. I wonder if you'll get it, though. Hint, this time: instantaneous is completely nonsense when talking about actions. The have a duration of themselves. This is a tautology, which is why the rules do not actually say, anywhere, that the duration of an action is an action. They just talk about actions. You've come up with "actions take 1 action to complete" and declared it RAW. Trivially, it is, because it's a tautology.

They take 1 action. Bonus actions are swifter than that. They didn't write in that actions are 2.4 seconds and bonus actions are .6, if that's what you are looking for. But they absolutely write actions as taking time and bonus actions as taking much less time

Are they? Are all bonus actions swifter? You can, for instance, use the Dash action as a bonus action if you are a rogue with the Cunning Action class ability. Dash take exactly Dash long to complete (another tautology), whether it's an Action or a Bonus Action.

Some spells are listed as swift and so are bonus actions, but this doesn't travel, or really mean much. Bonus actions take 1 bonus action to complete, to reuse the tautology.

How long an action takes isn't anything the rules actually discuss or even care about. On your turn you have an action and a move, and maybe a bonus action. It all fits in your turn, regardless of which specific ones you pick, and your turn always takes up the same amount of time. Actions just do not even care about duration -- it's utterly nonsensical to discuss duration with regard to actions.

Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

epithet

Explorer

Asgorath

Explorer

epithet

Explorer

Asgorath

Explorer

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

epithet

Explorer

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Similar Threads

Related Articles