Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 7570323" data-attributes="member: 6787503">The question is whether the condition specifies a timing for the bonus action. I don't think it does. If you want to regard it as specifying a timing, i.e. after the Attack action has been taken, there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it's the best reading for the game.The word then wouldn't add anything to the meaning, IMO. It's implicit in the structure of the sentence.Here's an interesting tweet from Jeremy in this regard: Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical rulingThis doesn't sound like someone who forgot about his original ruling or tweeted it in error. It sounds like someone who has changed his mind. If the RAI was for Shield Master to give you a finishing move, then why did he originally rule against that? Did he change his mind twice?Do you realize this is a loaded question? I'm obviously not ignoring what Jeremy Crawford said about Shield Master.</blockquote>