Shield master on twitter

[Chaosmancer]

The ruling on War Magic is in the Sage Advice Compendium. The original ruling appears in the 2016 version of the compendium. Here it is:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​

But in the 2017 version, the ruling was changed to this:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.​

This change established that words like when and if specify the timing of a bonus action, which has now been clarified to apply to Shield Master as well.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I wondered if it was something simple like that or something more complicated that I was missing out on.

Nothing new here. Same old same old when a clarification hits a potent build tool. Honestly, this is trlame next to most any MMO patch notes release.

"Potent Build Tool"?

Are you saying it as in Shield Master was a really great option? Could you point me to a single guide that gave shield master more than a "meh, if you're already using a shield its fine" type of rating?

I'm not saying I put a lot of stock into online guides (no one had any good advice for doing a Gnome cleric, did it anyways) but a lot of people are upset at Shield Master being nerfed because it was a middle of the road option before.

I imagine it would be similar to a nerf on Mage Slayer, it's really not that highly rated of a feat, it isn't in huge demand, why make it weaker?

Sure, we can talk in circles about how it is a proper RAW reading of the ability, input X get Y yadda yadda yadda, but a lot of us don't really end up parsing our game rules like computer code, so we don't care as much about the exact ordering of events. As long as it works and people have fun that's all that really matters.

 

[5ekyu]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I wondered if it was something simple like that or something more complicated that I was missing out on.






"Potent Build Tool"?

Are you saying it as in Shield Master was a really great option? Could you point me to a single guide that gave shield master more than a "meh, if you're already using a shield its fine" type of rating?

I'm not saying I put a lot of stock into online guides (no one had any good advice for doing a Gnome cleric, did it anyways) but a lot of people are upset at Shield Master being nerfed because it was a middle of the road option before.

I imagine it would be similar to a nerf on Mage Slayer, it's really not that highly rated of a feat, it isn't in huge demand, why make it weaker?

Sure, we can talk in circles about how it is a proper RAW reading of the ability, input X get Y yadda yadda yadda, but a lot of us don't really end up parsing our game rules like computer code, so we don't care as much about the exact ordering of events. As long as it works and people have fun that's all that really matters.

Since i put almost no stock in the various white room, guides etc... Nope... Cannot point you to those for your fix of others agree-ism.

I am one of those crazy types who thinks power and value comes from the intersection of capability and need so i really dont give a rats ass about how other people value x vs y vs z in their games (as far as it relating to mine) and have even less of a concern about white room warriors of excel.

If you want references to how powerful someone else think this feat is, as opposed to how powerful it is actually in your own game, somewhere back in this thrwad a poster who seems to be running in a game whose particulars practically makes the other benefits of SM trivial iirc said it got close to sharpshooter and the great weapon one (the 5/10s iirc) on what we have to assume was the strength of the pre-shove down alone.

But if your position is that its a mid-road not used for power type builds feat and that all this rage has nothing to do with losing a powerful option cuz you know the ones focused on power would not get near the meh, thats fine. Feel free to support that position or whatever.

I know we all can point to many cases where we see such furor and rage over already mediocre options being made more mediocre - likely those drowning out the few quiet peaceful whispers when a powerful option gets nerfed, right?

 

[Mistwell]

I think most of the rage is over the snowball effect ramifications of this ruling, rather than Shield Mastery itself. It feels like one of those old 4e type tweaks of minor power balancing which have fingers of massive annoying changes that filter out into the larger game, that we thought we were done with when 5e arrived.

 

[5ekyu]

"but a lot of us don't really end up parsing our game rules like computer code, so we don't care as much about the exact ordering of events. As long as it works and people have fun that's all that really matters."

Absolutely. As i have said many times, i do not see house rules as second class to RAW, in fact, i put them higher on the pecking order cuz they apply to an actual game in play, to fit that group and setting etc. RAW are built as tools for a generic framework and may or may not suit that group/setting - especially down to the parsed terms level.

Thats why i have advised many time to house rule it as opposed to trying to twist and contort RAW around to skirt or discredit the ruling when you dont like a ruling.

Its easier to house rule to add "after any attack in the action" or even "before or after any attack in the action" to SM in your game, rather than start inventing a difference between "declare action" and "do action" to allow the extra benefits of "do" without the doing.

But some folks rather go with the parsing word war shield for their own purposes

 

[5ekyu]

I think most of the rage is over the snowball effect ramifications of this ruling, rather than Shield Mastery itself. It feels like one of those old 4e type tweaks of minor power balancing which have fingers of massive annoying changes that filter out into the larger game, that we thought we were done with when 5e arrived.

We disagree then. It has seemed to me in this thread the rage has bern primarily over the hit to SM. The comments about the follow ons seem to have bern more akin to "find more ways to support the painting of this as bad ruling" and the lack of concern over the broader impact of separating declare action and do action among those trying to find a wzy to keep the shove first alive ppints not to a greater concern from the most prolific or enthusiastic of the shovers.

But, you obviously have you own perception... Certainly about what you see as more than half of the rage being about.

 

[Caliban]

Their credo is build your own game.
considering that, It is perfectly normal that they give opposite advices in sage advice.
You say you don’t want « the rule » but you are also angry that he give an advice against your ruling.
Your ruling is fine, his advice is fine too. That is my point.

What gives you the impression that I'm angry? I've said that before that I understand his logic, I just don't agree with it.

Please don't project your issues onto me.

 

[Arial Black]

If you cast a bonus action spell, the only other spell you can cast that turn is a 1-action cantrip.

An interesting note is that this is a rule that says one thing (if 'bonus action spell' then 'no other non-cantrip spell) but that the rules definitely mean BOTH that AND if 'non-cantrip spell' then 'no bonus action spell'.

It's equivalent to saying 'if Attack Action' then ' bonus action shield bash' means BOTH that AND 'if shield bash (from Shield Master)' THEN 'Attack Action.

It is simply taking the 'when/if' wording to mean 'if you do X this round then you can also do Y this round'.

And we KNOW, beyond doubt, that this is a reasonable interpretation of that wording because JC both interpreted it that way and intended for those words to be interpreted that way.

The fact that he changed his mind later, without changing the wording, does not change the fact that this is a reasonable interpretation of that wording.

Further, JC's reasons for his volte face are absurd: Shield Master knocking prone being 'cheese'(!!!), and 'Actions cannot be nested' despite the many, many legal nesting of Actions within the rules.

 

[5ekyu]

An interesting note is that this is a rule that says one thing (if 'bonus action spell' then 'no other non-cantrip spell) but that the rules definitely mean BOTH that AND if 'non-cantrip spell' then 'no bonus action spell'.

It's equivalent to saying 'if Attack Action' then ' bonus action shield bash' means BOTH that AND 'if shield bash (from Shield Master)' THEN 'Attack Action.

It is simply taking the 'when/if' wording to mean 'if you do X this round then you can also do Y this round'.

And we KNOW, beyond doubt, that this is a reasonable interpretation of that wording because JC both interpreted it that way and intended for those words to be interpreted that way.

The fact that he changed his mind later, without changing the wording, does not change the fact that this is a reasonable interpretation of that wording.

Further, JC's reasons for his volte face are absurd: Shield Master knocking prone being 'cheese'(!!!), and 'Actions cannot be nested' despite the many, many legal nesting of Actions within the rules.

Now just to be clear, the bonus action spell rule establishes an exclusion - that two things cannot both hapoen on the same turn.

That is not at all evidence of what order the "enabling" of added actiins language uses.

To be clear, if something prohibited you from taking an attack action, you dont get to use shield master bonus action shield bash to then unlock the attack action.

So, no, its not two cases of necessary *and* sufficient.

 

[Krachek]

What gives you the impression that I'm angry? I've said that before that I understand his logic, I just don't agree with it.

Please don't project your issues onto me.

Good then, better be amuse by this debate.

 

[Oofta]

What gives you the impression that I'm angry? I've said that before that I understand his logic, I just don't agree with it.

Please don't project your issues onto me.

I'm in the same boat. As I've said many times, I'm irked by the ruling, a little annoyed. Raging? Nah. As written ... err ... interpreted it was a fun feat, but I had other options I seriously debated taking instead. This feat isn't particularly cheesy, some of the games people play with Sentinel and Pole Arm master are far, far worse for example.

As others have said it's more the attitude of having to parse out the meaning of the rules, knowing that certain special phrases in the rules mean more than just what they say. That there's now a creeping sense of gamer-speak, a special code, we must all adhere to because of a tweet.