Shield master on twitter

[Mistwell]

OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.

I asked Jeremy this:

"Based on new Bonus Action nesting rulings, 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?"

Jeremy answered:

"The ruling is that the text of a bonus action matters. The precondition for using two-weapon fighting (PH, 195) is making an attack with the Attack action, so if you make an attack with the Attack action, you can now take the bonus action."

I then asked:

"I'm confused. Both Shield Mastery and Two Weapon Fighting use identical precondition language ("when you take the attack action"). You said you have to finish ALL attacks with the attack action first for Shield Mastery...don't you have to do that with two weapon fighting as well?"

Jeremy then answered:

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

I've now replied to that with:

""When you take the Attack action..." can you take an attack action without finishing the attack? I understand making one attack qualifies you to take a bonus attack action thereafter...by why would it allow that bonus attack action during the triggering attack action?"

His answer is forthcoming but I think at this point it's pretty obvious his ruling is not making things clearer and more logical. We're getting to pretty tortured semantics here, not too far off from the "it depends what the definition of "is" is" territory.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

It can also bit when you use reaction spells such as shield or slow fall or counterspell and bonus action casting since you cannot do them both on your turn (with or without action surge.)

So, if i caat fireball and somebody tries to counterspell the cast i can cast counterspell against it.

But if i cast expeditious retreat, healing word or hex etc and someone counterspells them, i cannot counterspell cuz of the bonus actiom plus cantrip limit.

But i could have cast hex, any xantrip and then counterspelled if a counter spell was thrown right after my turn ended.

Like i said, this particular one piece of 1 feat narrative dissonance is small IMO relative to others where the 5e wording creates very specific limitations on sequences.

 

[Dausuul]

It can also bit when you use reaction spells such as shield or slow fall or counterspell and bonus action casting since you cannot do them both on your turn (with or without action surge.)

The bonus action spell limit should be changed to this:

Except for cantrips and spells with a casting time of "1 reaction," you can only cast one spell per turn.

Boom, done. Simple, clean, easy to understand. No more weird corner cases around bonus-action spells. To simplify things even further, it could be changed to this:

absence of text here

It's not at all clear to me that the limit serves any purpose. If it can be got rid of entirely, that's the best solution of all.

 

[Oofta]

OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.

I asked Jeremy this:

"Based on new Bonus Action nesting rulings, 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?"

Jeremy answered:

"The ruling is that the text of a bonus action matters. The precondition for using two-weapon fighting (PH, 195) is making an attack with the Attack action, so if you make an attack with the Attack action, you can now take the bonus action."

I then asked:

"I'm confused. Both Shield Mastery and Two Weapon Fighting use identical precondition language ("when you take the attack action"). You said you have to finish ALL attacks with the attack action first for Shield Mastery...don't you have to do that with two weapon fighting as well?"

Jeremy then answered:

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

I've now replied to that with:

""When you take the Attack action..." can you take an attack action without finishing the attack? I understand making one attack qualifies you to take a bonus attack action thereafter...by why would it allow that bonus attack action during the triggering attack action?"

His answer is forthcoming but I think at this point it's pretty obvious his ruling is not making things clearer and more logical. We're getting to pretty tortured semantics here, not too far off from the "it depends what the definition of "is" is" territory.

The award for stretching the wording of the rule through technical jargon and legalese goes to ... Jeremy Crawford!!!

I mean I appreciate the work the guy has put in, but this is really pushing it. A qualification of what type of weapon you use is now being used to justify timing? When there's no whiff of timing the the two-weapon fighting rule?

Ah well. I've gone from slightly irked by the ruling to actually irked. Heaven forbid he adds more fuel to the fire and I get to well and truly irked.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is when everyone else experiences all align and yours doesn’t and you completely ignore all others and refuse to acknowledge it. You are trying to apply one example to make a general rule instead of actual analysis.

Yes thats Cognitive Dissonance. Calling it claptrap is exactly the response you aa s sufferer if same would have. Thanks for proving it.

You're accusing me of nonsensical things that I've clearly not done.

It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who are not going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.

As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
2. Allow bonus action between attacks, but not before.
3. Allow bonus action between and before attacks.

EDIT: Like @Oofta correctly notes #3 should be any time - essentially the bonus action can be taken before, between and after attacks.

I'd love to see a post with that poll.
Perhaps add a 4th option for people who houserule the feat significantly, even without this ruling?

There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which counterspell is one. So that would justify the double-counterspell scenario.

I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.

No, he's definately wrong. Bonus actions add far more to the game than any rules confusion about a feat takes away from it.

OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.

I asked Jeremy this:

"Based on new Bonus Action nesting rulings, 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?"

Jeremy answered:

"The ruling is that the text of a bonus action matters. The precondition for using two-weapon fighting (PH, 195) is making an attack with the Attack action, so if you make an attack with the Attack action, you can now take the bonus action."

I then asked:

"I'm confused. Both Shield Mastery and Two Weapon Fighting use identical precondition language ("when you take the attack action"). You said you have to finish ALL attacks with the attack action first for Shield Mastery...don't you have to do that with two weapon fighting as well?"

Jeremy then answered:

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

I've now replied to that with:

""When you take the Attack action..." can you take an attack action without finishing the attack? I understand making one attack qualifies you to take a bonus attack action thereafter...by why would it allow that bonus attack action during the triggering attack action?"

His answer is forthcoming but I think at this point it's pretty obvious his ruling is not making things clearer and more logical. We're getting to pretty tortured semantics here, not too far off from the "it depends what the definition of "is" is" territory.

I'm not sure what's confusing about his answers. Can you elaborate?

Two weapon fighting allows you to attack as a bonus action after making an attack with the attack action. That seems completely clear, to me. That's explicitly different from "when you use the attack action".

If the wording says you can do Y because you've done X, you can't do Y unless you've already done X. In the case of TWF, X is making an attack with the attack action. So, going strictly by the wording, you can make an attack with the attack action, use your bonus action to make an offhand attack, and then either make another attack, grapple, shove, or anything else you can do that "replaces" a normal attack with the attack action.

On the other hand, SM allows you to shove as a bonus action "after you use the attack action", which means that the entire attack action must resolve before you can use a bonus action to shove. If it used the "attack as part of the attack action" wording, you'd be able to "nest" it within the attack action, but you'd still not be able to bonus-shove and then attack twice.

 

[5ekyu]

OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.

I asked Jeremy this:

"Based on new Bonus Action nesting rulings, 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?"

Jeremy answered:

"The ruling is that the text of a bonus action matters. The precondition for using two-weapon fighting (PH, 195) is making an attack with the Attack action, so if you make an attack with the Attack action, you can now take the bonus action."

I then asked:

"I'm confused. Both Shield Mastery and Two Weapon Fighting use identical precondition language ("when you take the attack action"). You said you have to finish ALL attacks with the attack action first for Shield Mastery...don't you have to do that with two weapon fighting as well?"

Jeremy then answered:

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

I've now replied to that with:

""When you take the Attack action..." can you take an attack action without finishing the attack? I understand making one attack qualifies you to take a bonus attack action thereafter...by why would it allow that bonus attack action during the triggering attack action?"

His answer is forthcoming but I think at this point it's pretty obvious his ruling is not making things clearer and more logical. We're getting to pretty tortured semantics here, not too far off from the "it depends what the definition of "is" is" territory.

I am not seeing tortured here...

One says identifies atrack action plus make an attack as the trigger and in that case because an attack is specifically calked out it can be done after just one attack of your x number of attacks.

The other refers to attack action as the trigger, without any reference to a single attack so in that case it is the attack action - not individual attacks. So if you have two attacks at 6th level you can make one attack as an attack action and then bash *or* make two attacks with attack action and bash.

"Bash" referring to the feat bonus action shove thingy.

Extra attack allows you to make more than one attack but neither requires it nor guarantees it.

 

[Dausuul]

No, he's definately wrong. Bonus actions add far more to the game than any rules confusion about a feat takes away from it.

It isn't this one feat alone. It's this feat, and two-weapon fighting (which apparently now permits any sequence of main hand/off hand attacks except one that starts with the off hand... but check back in an hour, I expect the next tweet will change things again), and bonus-action spellcasting, and the confusion that arises when people want to take two bonus actions instead of bonus/regular (a thing that makes intuitive sense but is not allowed by the rules)... and on and on.

No one issue is a big deal. But collectively, they're a pain. Bonus actions are a crude, hacky implementation of 4E's minor actions. The next edition should either bring back minor actions in full, or abolish them altogether.

 

[5ekyu]

The bonus action spell limit should be changed to this:

Except for cantrips and spells with a casting time of "1 reaction," you can only cast one spell per turn.

Boom, done. Simple, clean, easy to understand. No more weird corner cases around bonus-action spells. To simplify things even further, it could be changed to this:

absence of text here

It's not at all clear to me that the limit serves any purpose. If it can be got rid of entirely, that's the best solution of all.

I would disagree entirely.

I think the bonus action limit should be removed and the limit be put on quickened netamagic.

My take was that its "true" design was to fit quickened into the BA without allowing dbl fireball et al.

So, they would up hamstringing the baby along with the bathwater by putting the restriction on bonus action casting instead of quickened.

But i am ***certain*** all the narrative dissonance shield master problem guys have bedn bugging thier AL gms on the bonus action dissonance all along cuz that narrative dissonance thing is what bugs them.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It isn't this one feat alone. It's this feat, and two-weapon fighting (which apparently now permits any sequence of main hand/off hand attacks except one that starts with the off hand... but check back in an hour, I expect the next tweet will change things again), and bonus-action spellcasting, and the confusion that arises when people want to take two bonus actions instead of bonus/regular (a thing that makes intuitive sense but is not allowed by the rules)... and on and on.

No one issue is a big deal. But collectively, they're a pain. Bonus actions are a crude, hacky implementation of 4E's minor actions. The next edition should either bring back minor actions in full, or abolish them altogether.

Trading an Action for a bonus action isn't intuitive at all. It's just a thing you're used to from other games. The rest of that isn't even a problem with bonus actions, but with a small handful of very specific rules that could have been worded better.

 

[5ekyu]

The award for stretching the wording of the rule through technical jargon and legalese goes to ... Jeremy Crawford!!!

I mean I appreciate the work the guy has put in, but this is really pushing it. A qualification of what type of weapon you use is now being used to justify timing? When there's no whiff of timing the the two-weapon fighting rule?

Ah well. I've gone from slightly irked by the ruling to actually irked. Heaven forbid he adds more fuel to the fire and I get to well and truly irked.

I can understand that but... Since i think he has been clear about the intent of the gains expected out of shield master (his cheese tweet) my bet if that if they decided to make this an eratta instead of a sage thing that eratta would be to make it explicit in shield master that you cannot do its bash before the attacks.

The more it goes on the more clear it is that its a balance move being squeezed into sagery delivery, not a case of going wild on letter of the law and ending up some place odd.