Shield master on twitter

[doctorbadwolf]

My comment had zero to do with your actual play examples. The comment was in reference to Greenstone.Walker giving a theorycrafting example of pushing a creature 5 feet. Your response (to Greenstone.Walker) that I replied to used a modal verb "could give actual play examples" which implies possibility not actuality.

So I got that impression because of understanding English grammar.

So, you apparently don’t understand conversational English, but want to sound off about English grammar.

If a person says “I could give X”, it means they have X.

Further, i didn’t respond to you, so responding to me as if I did makes no sense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes I literally thought you didn't already know that because you said that particular aspect of the feat, "save[d] the character many times during 5e’s run". It's six spells this aspect applies to, and of those six not all of them are life threatening and definitely most are not very common spells.

The six spells: Disintegrate, Enervation (Xanathars), Hellish Rebuke (a fairly rare Warlock first level spell), Immolation (Xanathars and I think Elemental Evil), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (which wouldn't be a life or death situation most of the time), and Sacred Flame. I mention sources because you specified "during 5e's run", and in the first couple of years the odds are only disintegrate and sacred flame could have threatened a life, and sacred flame is a pretty weak cantrip to be threatening character lives "many times".

What are the odds you come across that small subset of spells, 1) many times, 2) where a +2 bonus is the difference in the saving throw, and 3) where a failed save would have killed the character? You have to admit, that doesn't seem as likely as you not being aware of that limitation, from my perspective.

Now there are non-spell effects which can threaten a character life, and target just one character, and call for a dex save, and have the save made by that +2 margin. But they're not all that common either, and it would be hard to quantify them because they are particular to a campaign. It's certainly not something I could know in advance about your personal campaigns.

Edit: removed statements that don’t contribute anything.

Meanwhile, traps and hazards target dex more often than anything else, IME, and none of those spells are rare.

I also don’t think I said that a failed save would have killed the character. I said the feat saved them. You know those are distinct statements, right?

 

[Mistwell]

Nah, I think you just like being condescending, and thus seek out interpretations of others’ posts that “justify” that behavior for you.

I am not, but you should not have asked if you didn't want an answer to the question. I honestly assumed you were not aware of those limitations, because your statement seemed to lack credibility without that explanation and I assumed you were credible.

Meanwhile, traps and hazards target dex more often than anything else, IME, and none of those spells are rare.

Very few target just one character, as opposed to an area or group. And, that's also campaign-specific, so not something I'd know about your campaigns.

I also don’t think I said that a failed save would have killed the character. I said the feat saved them. You know those are distinct statements, right?

You said that particular aspect of the feat saved the character many times. So no, I am not seeing how you distinguished it as something different from saving their life. I am pretty sure you didn't mean it saved their appetite, for example

So tell us which of the six spells came up "many" times, where the +2 bonus is what "saved" them. Or is it all campaign-specific unusual traps and hazards which only target one character that you thought I'd know about your campaign before making that statement? And I am serious. Give us a top 10 scenarios, since it happened so often for you. That sounds interesting (and I honestly mean that, I'd like to hear about those scenarios you encountered).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am not, but you should not have asked if you didn't want an answer to the question. I honestly assumed you were not aware of those limitations, because your statement seemed to lack credibility without that explanation and I assumed you were credible.

great example of what I was talking about

Very few target just one character, as opposed to an area or group. And, that's also campaign-specific, so not something I'd know about your campaigns.

Okay.

You said that particular aspect of the feat saved the character many times. So no, I am not seeing how you distinguished it as something different from saving their life. I am pretty sure you didn't mean it saved their appetite, for example

You really can’t see where your tone makes it hard to believe that you are arguing in good faith?

So tell us which of the six spells came up "many" times, where the +2 bonus is what "saved" them. Or is it all campaign-specific unusual traps and hazards which only target one character that you thought I'd know about your campaign before making that statement? And I am serious. Give us a top 10 scenarios, since it happened so often for you. That sounds interesting (and I honestly mean that, I'd like to hear about those scenarios you encountered).

Maybe you didn’t see the post where I stated that I’ve given up trying to engage with this? No examples will change your mind. Why bother?

 

[Oofta]

Maybe you didn’t see the post where I stated that I’ve given up trying to engage with this? No examples will change your mind. Why bother?

You have made some pretty grandiose claims. I'd be curious on why, for example, the shove tactic works for you and why you think it can "destroy" the enemy because I just don't see it. [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] may be a bit harsh, but at the same time you've made claims that don't seem to add up.

For example with the shove and walk away (assuming shover has same movement rate as shovee) it simply wouldn't work very well. So I've got to wonder if you play theater of the mind, have the same group and DM, always play in wide open spaces, etc.

I can see a few scenarios, assuming that PC Sam (who has shield master) shoves an Orc and then moves away. Other PCs in the group include Monty the Monk and Randy the Ranger.

Scenario 1: Orc has a buddy Bob, also adjacent to Sam before the shove. Bob gets an opp attack if Sam runs away. No good.

Scenario 2: Orc, no longer able to get to Sam goes after Monty who is within 30 feet after the shove and attacks him instead. Monty has a lower AC than Sam. No good.

Scenario 3:Orc, no longer able to get to Sam, Monty or Randy moves and dashes to get next to Randy so he has disadvantage on his ranged attacks. No good.

Scenario 4: Sam can't get far enough away because there's limited space. No good.

Scenario 5: Orc has javelins. He throws them then runs away so Sam can't reach him on his turn. No good.

Scenario 6: Orc, now able to move freely because there's no one adjacent, runs to get help. No good.

Even if you throw in disadvantage for the orc to hit someone other than Sam (which is only possible for a few turns because it requires limited resources), it doesn't really matter much. Hitting Monty or Randy with disadvantage isn't that much worse than trying to hit Sam who probably has the highest AC in the group. Throw in a handful of other monsters, slightly limit distances and I don't see that you could pull this off very often.

If I'm missing something, please correct me or give real world examples because I see extremely little utility to the feat from a shove standpoint. The shove and run away would be incredibly rare. Shoving someone is a valid technique once in a while, but you don't need a feat for it.

The take no damage if you make a a dexterity save is nice but in most cases you aren't going to get the +2. For my characters that would take this feat, that means I save about 25% of the time. It just doesn't add up to that much avoided damage, certainly far less than Resilient would buy.

You make what seem to be extreme claims and then don't want to give details and wonder why people question?

 

[Mistwell]

great example of what I was talking about


Okay.


You really can’t see where your tone makes it hard to believe that you are arguing in good faith?



Maybe you didn’t see the post where I stated that I’ve given up trying to engage with this? No examples will change your mind. Why bother?

OK so no examples (for something you said happened "many" times), tone policing me rather than responding to the arguments made, and no attempt at a refutation of any points made or even respond to a request for clarification on a rational confusion like the difference between "saved him" and "saved his life". Got it.

Let me ask you, if you said, "Which of these 6 spells did you find to be used many times, and/or which traps and terrain challenges did you find to target just one character as opposed to an area?" and I responded with essentially, "I'm not going to tell you, but they come up many times!" how would you reply?

Maybe I should clarify the rules of this game. You get more points for saying, "OK you're right I probably exaggerated that point for effect," than you do for saying, "look, a monkey!"

 

[smbakeresq]

So, you apparently don’t understand conversational English, but want to sound off about English grammar.

If a person says “I could give X”, it means they have X.

Further, i didn’t respond to you, so responding to me as if I did makes no sense.

Actually if a person says "I could give X" it does not mean they have X. It could mean they have X, but not necessarily. What it does indicate about the speaker is the one (or more) of the following:

1. They have X and might give it you.
2. They do not have X but could acquire it at a later date and give it you.
3. A willingness to give you X in exchange for some other consideration.
4. They want to see what they will give you if you gave them X, i.e. an offer to entice a counter-offer to see what your position is on X.
5a. That they believe X might has some value to you.
5b. That they know X has no value to you but want you to believe that the speaker believes X has value to you.

5 is the most important and %100 true. What the speaker is surely indicating among all the possibilities is that they believe that X has value to you. If they believe X had zero value to you and they want you to believe that they think X has value to you, the speaker has indeed created value in X to you.

Either way, it is now clear that X has value to you, either you want X for its value or you know the speaker believes you want X for value, which is valuable information.




What I want is a fun and free-flowing game where incredible heroes accomplish great things due to special talent and training and experience that allows them to overcome incredible odds leading to a positive community. What I don't want is speakers who take the opposite side of things just to take the opposite side of things and completely ignore the obvious directly in front of them that any analysis prove is clearly true. Cognitive dissonance is prevalent enough today, observe the Fox News viewer.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

As a 4th level warrior-type, I get 1 attack when I take the Attack action. If I have a feat which lets me take a bonus action if I take the Attack action, then the feat lets me do something MORE than if I don't have the feat. The feat makes me 'better'.

If that 4th level warrior took, say, +2 Str instead of that feat, he would also be 'better' than if he hadn't. Feats/ASIs make you 'better'.

Now the +2 Str version levels up to 5th and now gets the Extra Attack feature. Now, his Attack action lets him attack twice instead of once. This makes him 'better'; exactly 1 attack 'better'.

But the version who took the feat (the new interpretation of Shield Master) is not made 'better' when levelling up and getting Extra Attack! 'Better' would be getting one more attack AND the bonus action, every time! But now, if the situation is that you want to shield bash the adjacent foe off a cliff and then move to another foe 30 feet away and use your 2nd attack, you can't! You have to use EITHER both attacks and then shove, and lose the option to move to his mate and attack him. That attack doing pointless damage anyway because the fall from the cliff will kill him anyway. OR you attack, shove (just like you could do without Extra Attack), but you would lose your extra attack!

This is not 'better'! It should be 'better'. It was 'better' with the 'either order' interpretation, it was less good but still 'better' if you can take your bonus action after one attack, but it is quantifiably not 'better' if you have to choose between the shield bash or extra attack when you should be able to do both.

Just to illustrate: imagine that the version who took +2 Str instead of the feat had to choose whether to take 2 attacks OR add +2 Str, but not both in the same round. That would be obviously absurd. Well, this ruling is also absurd, but the absurdity is less obvious.

 

[5ekyu]

Well,let's just leave it at this. I don't think that it's as good as you seem to think it is. Perhaps I'm mistaken or misunderstand how useful you think it is.

Based on my experience, I don't see the point of taking the feat if I'm playing a game using this ruling. That's just my opinion, different people seem to see uses and benefits I simply don't. The incredibly minimal benefit you get doesn't IMHO justify a feat, some of the tactics mentioned to justify it's value don't seem to work.

But that's just me. The ruling is what it is, I'll either use it or not as I see fit. I don't need to justify or clarify what type of rule it is beyond that.

We agree.

 

[5ekyu]

Fwiw, with it being a reaction casr damage spell that scales as the warlock levels, Rebuke has been more like a common Warlock spell in characters i have seen.

Also ORS is an absolutely lethal spell when it is used to cut off the healer for a few rounds when their healing is extremely critical.

"The six spells: Disintegrate, Enervation (Xanathars), Hellish Rebuke (a fairly rare Warlock first level spell), Immolation (Xanathars and I think Elemental Evil), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (which wouldn't be a life or death situation most of the time), and Sacred Flame."