Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 7577384" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>What paradox? If I take the Attack action on my turn, I have satisfied the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature. If I don't take the Attack action, then I have merely shoved a creature (which consumes my action). What's paradoxical about that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let's say I shove a creature. There's no reason to think I must necessarily use a bonus action to do so. So I'm not breaking any rules by shoving a creature. If I then go on to take the Attack action, well then I have satisfied the condition for making the shove-attempt using a bonus action. Otherwise, I didn't use a bonus action at all!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You asked if the shove-attempt should remain unresolved because you can't use a bonus action to do it. That's a stark difference from how a shove-attempt is resolved, whether you use a bonus action or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's nothing paradoxical about being denied the ability to attack. It happens all the time in the game without anyone thinking it's paradoxical. The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one. I would recommend not doing that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They're both SA, but only the original ruling expressed RAI. What evidence do you have for how Jeremy Crawford thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first affects game-balance? In the Sage Advice segment of the 2/1/19 Dragon Talk, he said decisions on the timing of bonus actions were made not for balance reasons, but for smooth game-play. Besides, considering how the Eldritch Knight's War Magic could potentially interact with Eldritch Strike if allowing the bonus action weapon attack to come first, I doubt he thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first is game-breaking if he doesn't think the same thing about War Magic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How exactly have you benefited, though? Without the feat, you can shove a creature, so that in itself isn't a benefit. No, the benefit of the feat is that you can shove a creature AND take the Attack action on the same turn, and if you can't take the Attack action for whatever reason, then you haven't benefited.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that if you never take the Attack action, then you can never use a bonus action to shove a creature. You can still shove a creature without using a bonus action, though, so there's that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, what was intended (RAI) has been stated by the very person you say feels otherwise. On July 6, 2015, he said, "The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip." That's a clear statement of the intent with which the game was designed. The more recent change in the official interpretation is motivated not by a desire to reveal the RAI, but rather to elevate a literalistic interpretation of the RAW over the RAI. A RAI interpretation is still possible with the existing language, though, so I can understand the decision not to issue errata for this. What I don’t like, however, is WotC’s tendency to then defend their uncorrected, ambiguous text by doubling down on the most literalistic interpretation possible. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That’s your interpretation. My interpretation accords with the feat’s intended lack of a timing specification. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I’m curious what part of the official ruling you think I don’t understand? You seem to think that understanding it makes it impossible to disagree with.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 7577384, member: 6787503"] What paradox? If I take the Attack action on my turn, I have satisfied the condition for using a bonus action to shove a creature. If I don't take the Attack action, then I have merely shoved a creature (which consumes my action). What's paradoxical about that? Let's say I shove a creature. There's no reason to think I must necessarily use a bonus action to do so. So I'm not breaking any rules by shoving a creature. If I then go on to take the Attack action, well then I have satisfied the condition for making the shove-attempt using a bonus action. Otherwise, I didn't use a bonus action at all! You asked if the shove-attempt should remain unresolved because you can't use a bonus action to do it. That's a stark difference from how a shove-attempt is resolved, whether you use a bonus action or not. There's nothing paradoxical about being denied the ability to attack. It happens all the time in the game without anyone thinking it's paradoxical. The incongruity seems to arise from assigning a bonus action to the shove-attempt before the condition has been met for using one. I would recommend not doing that. They're both SA, but only the original ruling expressed RAI. What evidence do you have for how Jeremy Crawford thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first affects game-balance? In the Sage Advice segment of the 2/1/19 Dragon Talk, he said decisions on the timing of bonus actions were made not for balance reasons, but for smooth game-play. Besides, considering how the Eldritch Knight's War Magic could potentially interact with Eldritch Strike if allowing the bonus action weapon attack to come first, I doubt he thinks allowing the shield master shove to come first is game-breaking if he doesn't think the same thing about War Magic. How exactly have you benefited, though? Without the feat, you can shove a creature, so that in itself isn't a benefit. No, the benefit of the feat is that you can shove a creature AND take the Attack action on the same turn, and if you can't take the Attack action for whatever reason, then you haven't benefited. I agree that if you never take the Attack action, then you can never use a bonus action to shove a creature. You can still shove a creature without using a bonus action, though, so there's that. No, what was intended (RAI) has been stated by the very person you say feels otherwise. On July 6, 2015, he said, "The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip." That's a clear statement of the intent with which the game was designed. The more recent change in the official interpretation is motivated not by a desire to reveal the RAI, but rather to elevate a literalistic interpretation of the RAW over the RAI. A RAI interpretation is still possible with the existing language, though, so I can understand the decision not to issue errata for this. What I don’t like, however, is WotC’s tendency to then defend their uncorrected, ambiguous text by doubling down on the most literalistic interpretation possible. That’s your interpretation. My interpretation accords with the feat’s intended lack of a timing specification. I’m curious what part of the official ruling you think I don’t understand? You seem to think that understanding it makes it impossible to disagree with. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Sage Advice Compendium Update 1/30/2019
Top