Shield master on twitter

[Asgorath]

Nope. If you follow the tweet thread he has further clarifications. Unless specifically stated you can't "nest" bonus actions or reactions in an action.

See my post above. Or here, if you're lazy:
View attachment 97621

Right I saw that, and JC even quoted the tweet I listed above in the discussion that followed that one:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995320128026755073

It's pretty clear to me that JC was talking about bonus actions (or reactions) with explicit triggers only, not bonus actions (or reactions) in general.

For example:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995125099521949696

The tweet you're responding to says that a bonus action or a reaction can, in fact, follow an attack inside an action if the bonus action or reaction has a trigger that allows it.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995132735403442176

Ah ha! Now I get what you're driving at. I was focused on bonus actions with triggers. You're talking about bonus actions without triggers. I'll clarify things! Thanks for your patience.

Edit: Misty Step has no trigger, and can thus be cast at any time as a bonus action. Yes, even between attacks if you have Extra Attacks, based on JC's tweets.

Counterspell is a reaction with an explicit trigger of "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell", and thus as long as that trigger condition is met, you can cast Counterspell (even if it's during your Attack or Cast a Spell action).

 

[Oofta]

Right I saw that, and JC even quoted the tweet I listed above in the discussion that followed that one:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995320128026755073

It's pretty clear to me that JC was talking about bonus actions (or reactions) with explicit triggers only, not bonus actions (or reactions) in general.

For example:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995125099521949696



https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995132735403442176

I see said the blind man, sorry about that and thanks for your patience. Not sure it addresses the whole "nested reaction" thing but maybe I'm just reading something in there that wasn't intended.

Still confusing for things like (off the top of my head) two weapon fighting. I can't attack with my off-hand weapon until after all other attacks are resolved. We've always resolved them in any order the player wanted because frequently the off-hand weapon doesn't do as much damage.

I think I've hit my twitter maximum, especially on something I plan to ignore.

 

[Dausuul]

It's not about interrupting someone else's turn, it's about interrupting your own spell casting action.

I plan on ignoring it, just relaying something I saw in the tweet thread.

Yeah, it's not as if I'm going to apply JC's rulings on this at the table; if there's a consistent rules model behind those calls, I sure can't see it, and I suspect they are just ad hoc efforts to rationalize a bunch of weird outcomes. At this point it's just a mildly amusing parlor game to try and devise a rules model that fits with everything Sage Advice has said.

That said, I think it is plausible (and consistent with the existing SA, which is very clear that you can double-counterspell) to argue that the "disrupt" clause is mean to include all interrupt-reactions, regardless of whose action is being interrupted.

 

[Mistwell]

So now if you have multiple attacks and are two weapon fighting, you can no longer attack with main weapon, attack with off-hand weapon, and attack with main weapon in that order?

All because a few people were confused about a single aspect of a single optional feat, this mess? Not worth it. I don't know what JC is thinking.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As far as polls, i would be interested in how many "bash in any order" or "narrative flow trumps letter" house rulers also house rule away the bonus action spell cantrip limitations?

I've seen people mentioning that cantrip limitation. What exactly is going on with it and why does it need to work in a specific order?

To clarify, I've never had an eldritch knight in one of my games, so I'm a little fuzzy on details of rulings that have affected them.

 

[Asgorath]

So now if you have multiple attacks and are two weapon fighting, you can no longer attack with main weapon, attack with off-hand weapon, and attack with main weapon in that order?

All because a few people were confused about a single aspect of a single optional feat, this mess? Not worth it. I don't know what JC is thinking.

Yes, based on the clarification w.r.t. bonus actions with triggers, the TWF bonus action attack must come after the Attack action is done (which means all attacks from Extra Attack) since the trigger is "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand". This exactly mirrors Shield Master's trigger of "if you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try and shove". It's another example of the "if X, then Y" JC was talking about. If the X in the trigger is the Attack action, then you have to complete that first before the bonus action becomes available.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, it's not as if I'm going to apply JC's rulings on this at the table; if there's a consistent rules model behind those calls, I sure can't see it, and I suspect they are just ad hoc efforts to rationalize a bunch of weird outcomes. At this point it's just a mildly amusing parlor game to try and devise a rules model that fits with everything Sage Advice has said.

That said, I think it is plausible (and consistent with the existing SA, which is very clear that you can double-counterspell) to argue that the "disrupt" clause is mean to include all interrupt-reactions, regardless of whose action is being interrupted.

It seems like the root cause is them trying to "fix" bonus actions - specifically shield master in this case.

The way I view it, if I take an action, I can take my bonus action triggered by that action before the action is resolved. I can use my shield bash after I declare my attack action but before I resolve the first attack. I "interrupt" my attack action just like I can interrupt my spell casting action with counterspell.

The only time I would rule differently is if timing was explicitly called out since according to the rules a bonus action can occur at any time during your turn unless it's specified otherwise.

I ignore twitter for this kind of thing, and take sage advice as just advice. My AL play judge? Who knows.

 

[Asgorath]

I've seen people mentioning that cantrip limitation. What exactly is going on with it and why does it need to work in a specific order?

To clarify, I've never had an eldritch knight in one of my games, so I'm a little fuzzy on details of rulings that have affected them.

What limitation are you talking about exactly? The one that says if you cast a bonus action spell (e.g. Hunter's Mark, Hex, Misty Step) then you can only cast a cantrip as your regular action, or something else?

 

[Dausuul]

I've seen people mentioning that cantrip limitation. What exactly is going on with it and why does it need to work in a specific order?

The limitation is that when you cast a bonus-action spell, you are not allowed to cast any other non-cantrip spells that turn.

It's clunky and counterintuitive at the best of times, but it gets extra weird with Eldritch Knights, because EKs are fighters and thus have access to Action Surge. Action Surge gives you two full actions. So you can Action Surge and throw two fireballs in the same turn. Yet you can't cast fireball and expeditious retreat in the same turn, even if you Action Surge.

 

[Oofta]

The clarification is even more confusing now that I think about it. You can't use a bonus action triggered by the action during the action, but you can use a bonus action not triggered by that action. But you can only "nest" actions if it explicitly says so, as is the case with movement which "allows you to insert movement between your attacks". But then that contradicts other rulings, so now you can interrupt your action with bonus actions even if they are not explicitly called out unless they are triggered by the action because you can't interrupt the action. Except of course you can interrupt the action...except you can't...unless you can...which ignores the PHB which states "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn"...

From one of the tweets on the subject...

There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190).
There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest action/reactions inside each
other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create
exceptions meant to disrupt them