NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7575156" data-attributes="member: 6795602">As long as the attack action is comes before the actually attacking (as the sanctuary example helped reveal) then you can take the attack action, shield master shove, attack then attack again.  Nothing in our interpretation goes against this quote.I agree.  But the attack action happens before your actual attacks.  That's the key to piecing it back together.Because the sanctuary discussion revealed that you can take the attack action and never actually attack.Because the disengage discussion revealed that you must take the disengage action and have it end before you can move again.The individual evidences may not be wholly convincing.  I get that.  But the evidences all considered as a whole together definitely make a strong case that the actions in general and more importantly, the attack action all happen before the attacks it provides.Sanctuary proves otherwise.  You don't make an attack with sanctuary, you lose your attack.   Okay, then I'll just shield master shove after choosing the target for my attack.  You agree I can take the shove anytime on my turn after I've taken the attack action right?  And since I've taken the attack action after choosing my target then I should be able to shield bash before determining modifiers and resolving the attack right?Do you have a rule or any evidence for this?  Our side has provided evidence that actions come before their effects, including the attack action.  What supports your belief that it doesn't?No.  As long as you have taken the attack action then whether you actually can attack or not is irrelevant.  In our scenario it would be take attack action.  shield master shove.  get stunned.  SHOOT I lost my attacks.  DM reviews situation and finds nothing that broke the rules as the attack action was taken before the shield master shove.I can't answer for Arial but I don't want to be able to use it on my turn.  I wanted to be right.  My original belief had always been that the rules only allow the shield master shove after the attacks.  I was thrilled when JC joined my side.  So no, I don't want to use shield master after the attack action.  I would much rather have been right.However, I have found compelling evidence in this thread that I was wrong.Bad arguments deserve that response.  The argument in this case is very persuasive.Yep, even if JC had been right in this case then I would have houserulled it.  But my reason was that I'd played it by his original ruling for so long that I wasn't changing it now.  It is nice knowing I don't have to houserule it though.</blockquote>

Verification