Shield master on twitter

[5ekyu]

No, JC is saying that the attack action must be completed before you are allowed to take the bonus bash.

He's saying that attack -> bash -> extra attack is not legal, because Extra Attack is part of the Attack action and Actions are (now, suddenly!) indivisible!

Nicely done... Ignoring the post i quoted to hide the context like 5 pages later.

Bravo!!!!!

Encore!!!!

So other do not have to look back to see and admire your skill...

The post i had quoted setup the (bogus) example of taking the feat at 4th level, being able to make one attack and bash at 4th then leveling up to 5th and then no longer being able to make one attack and bash since now it required two...

My point was of course that it wasnt so...

4th make one attack then bash - legal
5th make one attack then bash equally legal.
But also added was
5th make two attacks then bash legal.

JC ruled you have to complete the attack action, cannot insert the bash between them but in no way did he require you to take two attacks as part of that attack action.

So the example saying that one attack then bash was no longer legal moving from 4th to 5tth was wrong...

Going to 5th adds
Two strike then bash

Going to 5th does not add
Strike then bash then strike

But the 4th level option of strike(once) then bash is still perfectly legit.

It does not as the post i quoted said "require two swings" to get the bash, but you **can** at 5th take two before bashing.

But again, excellent job at sleight of context.

Ill give you the like for it. Skill should be credited.

 

[Saeviomagy]

JC ruled you have to complete the attack action, cannot insert the bash between them but in no way did he require you to take two attacks as part of that attack action.

Technically correct but pointless argument hits you for zero!

All I can say is that I think this just illustrates that JC is apparently incapable of considering the implications of his rules clarifications when he makes them. He just spits out an answer to the specific question in front of him, creating absurdities and complexity in it's wake.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

But to address what you think makes it useful, and why I do not think it as useful as other options.

First, the tactic of knocking prone:

Then don't knock them prone; shove them 5 feet away. Now you can move away without any fear of opportunity attack (unless they have a reach weapon).

 

[5ekyu]

Technically correct but pointless argument hits you for zero!

All I can say is that I think this just illustrates that JC is apparently incapable of considering the implications of his rules clarifications when he makes them. He just spits out an answer to the specific question in front of him, creating absurdities and complexity in it's wake.

I am so very crushed you chose to give me no points that words cannot express it.

But again, since some serm to love ducking context here is the post my comments were in response to where the poster was trying to concoct a link between the number of attacks and the ability to bash and falsely make it look like it requires more after 5th than at 4th.

I can agree completely that trying to base one's argument on number of attacks is fradulent or at the least pointless, that is why i responded after all to that very fraud.

"So my 4th level fighter gets the Shield Master feat. Now I can shield bash, but ONLY if I execute my one attack first.
Okay, so attacking ONCE is the thing that allows me to shield bash, right?
Now I get to 5th level and gain Extra Attack.
Why does one attack no longer allow me to shield bash? Why does it now take two attacks? I'm supposed to be better than I was a level ago, not worse!
What's going on"

You may note the complete hogwash about somehow construing this as being worse at 5th than at rth even tho everything that can be done at 4th is still available - along with the double hit option.

So, again, perhapd checking context is something you should consider looking into before giving out your incredibky valuable points.

 

[Oofta]

Then don't knock them prone; shove them 5 feet away. Now you can move away without any fear of opportunity attack (unless they have a reach weapon).

A) my character is a dwarf, so it buys me nothing.
B) you're assuming that even if I was faster that there's room to run away, which is frequently not the case.
C) as I stated, and you conveniently ignore, it's rare in my game that there's not someone close enough for the opponent to get into combat with.
D) in many if not most cases I have to move to get into position the first round.

Conclusion? It's a pointless tactic that buys nothing. If I wanted to hit and run, I'd play a different class.

 

[5ekyu]

A) my character is a dwarf, so it buys me nothing.
B) you're assuming that even if I was faster that there's room to run away, which is frequently not the case.
C) as I stated, and you conveniently ignore, it's rare in my game that there's not someone close enough for the opponent to get into combat with.
D) in many if not most cases I have to move to get into position the first round.

Conclusion? It's a pointless tactic that buys nothing. If I wanted to hit and run, I'd play a different class.

I am glad tho we have gotten the discusdion focused down to the assessment of how impactful this ruling is to one specific table and its particulars, even for one particular players one character at that - as opposed to making any claims now about its impact anywhere else.

 

[Eric V]

Makes the game less fun (in a way that is not correcting an over-powered maneuver), and so is a bad ruling.

I thought "Rulings, not Rules" was supposed to avoid stuff like this?

 

[jaelis]

Right but I think the point of the twitter answers is not to provide rulings, but just to explicate what the rules actually say.

 

[Mistwell]

I am glad tho we have gotten the discusdion focused down to the assessment of how impactful this ruling is to one specific table and its particulars, even for one particular players one character at that - as opposed to making any claims now about its impact anywhere else.

The feat is intended primarily for fighters, paladins, barbarians and clerics. Dwarves are pretty popular for that subset of classes. Given dwarves are one of the very few classes that can get a bonus to strength, and sword and board is going to be a strength based build most of the time, it's going to be rather common for a dwarf to be the one fairly likely to be wanting this feat...until now that is. If they push with the feat and move 25 feet off, their foe will just close again with a 30' most of the time. If on the other hand they shove with the feat to make the foe use half their move to get up, the foe gets an opportunity attack. It makes escape somewhat easier (the opportunity attack at least is at disadvantage) but escaping is not really what you might describe as a primary element of this feat.

And no, I don't think this is really such a narrow topic as to reduce it down to just his table. If one of the most likely races to be selecting this feat is also the one that loses out on the escape benefit you're prompting, it's certainly in the topic of discussion beyond just his table.

 

[guachi]

Conclusion? It's a pointless tactic that buys nothing. If I wanted to hit and run, I'd play a different class.

Guy-with-shield likely has a higher AC than his allies and probably doesn't want to run away. And if you wanted to do hit-and-run you can be a Swashbuckler and have 100% success at Disengaging and use no bonus action to do it.

Sure, the feat isn't useless. It actually does things. But you'd be better off with any number of other options. As it stands now, it's about on the level of a 1/2 feat.