"Honestly, if you believe all options can be powerful, then you can't really decide that people are only upset because they are losing a powerful option. "
Huh?
I am not arrogant enough to assume everyone else shares my views... So yes i can myself not see something one way but believe others do and even that others can get upset over things i dont.
Perhaps more to the point, i xan also believe that things are more (or less) potent in different games, since that "necesdity" part of the intersection will vary, often greatly, between games.
So, no, not seeing the conflict you want to imagine.
The conflict (and man, if you wanted me to reply you should have actually quoted me) is that when I asked if you could point out in any build or strategy guide where Shield Master was considered a "potent build tool".
You dismissed my request because you believe all options are powerful in context and therefore put no stock in those guides.
So, to my understanding, you are declaring the anger is solely because people are upset of losing a powerful option, when you cannot prove that this option was actually all that powerful. In fact, many people have stated that it wasn't all that powerful with the more liberal reading and that adds to their frustrations with this change.
So, if you want to dismiss their frustrations as you seemed to do with myself, it seems you either have to prove your statement about it being a "potent build tool" (which I would say is a tall order) or you need to find some other justification.
"However, I don't think people are twisting and turning the rules language because they need a RAW justification for their rules."
Well, some of the foljs on this very thread have referenced AL and its RAW type restrictions. That added to common observation about the benefits of RAW to some (those running pick up games at flgs etc where house rules are more impractical than for campaign) so... I have to assume that the part of that double clause you disagree with is the twisting part.
If i am wrong, if you dont believe anyone is trying to find RAW justification then by all means clarify that.
So as to twisting and turning... I guess thats subjective and one mans invention of a "declare action" and "do action" out of "take action" is one mans twist and another mans clear language.
Tomato, tomato.
Again with the shadow quoting, seriously, why do you do this?
To the point, I think if I were to put a name to it, I would call it stress testing.
Crawford made a declaration "All actions are indivisible unless stated otherwise" but this doesn't match up with how people have been thinking about or playing 5e. So, they go forth and they begin trying to figure out if what he said actually works or makes sense. And, if they end up finding that this declaration is untrue, then it makes its connected ruling on shield master either false or incomplete.
And it does get to ridiculous points, that why I refer to it as stress testing. IF actions are indivisible and you take the Dodge action can you take a bonus action while Dodging? Clearly you can, does this count as dividing the action or is it that the action of Dodging is a blip?
What I've seen this boil down to is Extra Attacks. This seems to be a serious sticking point within that declared set-up, because it is the highlight action and it is also the one most likely to be divided. So people are trying to figure out, how do things actually end up working if we were to turn the rules to computer code, is declaring an attack good enough to have taken the attack action for the purposes of allowing a triggered bonus action? There are ways that make sense within the system of the game that this could be true, but it seems to be a little forced, so people have been refining it.
There are other people who have been looking at the RAI, and realizing that if this is how things work, then the most commonly used tactic of the "Shield Master" is actually better done by someone not using a shield, which seems wrong.
And,at the end of it, the majority of these people arguing about the RAI and RAW and how Crawford is meant to be interpreted... they are just going to keep playing as they have always played, no justification needed.
