Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019

[FrogReaver]

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.

This discussion is not one about whether it's overpowered. Why even bring that up?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

If you want to use a shield and shove there aren't better methods of shoving than shield master.

 

[epithet]

This discussion is not one about whether it's overpowered. Why even bring that up?

Because it was brought up that JEC doesn't intend for the feat to give near-permanent advantage to characters with high athletics. My response was an overly verbose version of "who cares?"

 

[epithet]

If you want to use a shield and shove there aren't better methods of shoving than shield master.

That's true as long as you reject Jeremy Crawford's guidance.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because it was brought up that JEC doesn't intend for the feat to give near-permanent advantage to characters with high athletics. My response was an overly verbose version of "who cares?"

One of the biggest arguments had about shield master was to just allow it because it's not overpowered. It'd be good to skip anything of semblance to that in a discussion about what the rules actually allow and how to best interpret them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you want to use a shield and shove there aren't better methods of shoving than shield master.

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's true as long as you reject Jeremy Crawford's guidance.

Even if you don't how else do you propose to shove while using a shield?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

But the TWF guy isn't using a shield. He's losing out on that nice +2 AC. Seriously after complaining people don't read what you say, you read a 1 line sentence and miss the part that said "IF YOU WANT TO USE A SHIELD". I don't get people.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But the TWF guy isn't using a shield. He's losing out on that nice +2 AC. Seriously after complaining people don't read what you say, you read a 1 line sentence and miss the part that said "IF YOU ARE USING A SHIELD". I don't get people.

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?

 

[epithet]

One of the biggest arguments had about shield master was to just allow it because it's not overpowered. It'd be good to skip anything of semblance to that in a discussion about what the rules actually allow and how to best interpret them.

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.