Shield master on twitter

[Hriston]

When reading the PHB without the 'benefit' of the tweets/Sage Advice, it is just as reasonable to interpret 'when/if' to mean 'when/if you take this action this round', so both Action and bonus action must be chosen together but the timing withing the round of the execution of each element of those actions is up to the player.

How do I know that this interpretation is 'reasonable'?

Because that is the interpretation and the intention that JC himself had from the time he wrote the PHB until the 2017 errata.

I agree! Jeremy Crawford told us what the RAI is on this at least as far back as 2016. His more recent clarifications of his interpretation of the RAW doesn't change that intent. It just means that, unlike in certain other instances where the RAW was judged to have failed to convey the intent and was acknowledged as errata to be corrected, in this instance even though he admits that according to his interpretation the RAW has failed to convey intent, the corrections required would be too sweeping to undertake.

As for me, I'd much rather go with what some consider to be a strained reading of the rules and play the game as it was intended to be played than be bound to an unintended consequence of how the rules happen to be written. Fortunately, we are all free to make this judgment for ourselves!

 

[Eric V]

At the end of the day, everyone is going to rule as they see fit (except maybe AL?) so on a practical side it probably doesn't matter...but it might. I can see a game where no one* thought the feat was "cheese" after seeing it in play, but the DM, after reading the tweet, nerfs it anyway. Hopefully not too many tables have this happen.

It does strike me as being very "non-5e" philosophically, however; I would have expected this level of parsing from 3e and 4e, but not the current edition. :shrug:

*In all my time playing and all the message board perusal, I have not once seen someone talk about this feat as OP or "cheese." JC is the first person I have seen do so. Odd.

 

[Caliban]

At the end of the day, everyone is going to rule as they see fit (except maybe AL?) so on a practical side it probably doesn't matter...but it might. I can see a game where no one* thought the feat was "cheese" after seeing it in play, but the DM, after reading the tweet, nerfs it anyway. Hopefully not too many tables have this happen.

It does strike me as being very "non-5e" philosophically, however; I would have expected this level of parsing from 3e and 4e, but not the current edition. :shrug:

*In all my time playing and all the message board perusal, I have not once seen someone talk about this feat as OP or "cheese." JC is the first person I have seen do so. Odd.

In a home game it probably doesn't matter in the long run - just discuss it with your DM and hopefully they'll either keep doing it the way you are used to, or let you swap the feat out if you really don't like the change.

In AL...it's a bit more problematic. You frequently have a different DM for different games - and the DM's are free to use or ignore the Sage Advice clarifications as they see fit.

Up until now the feat has pretty much worked the same way at all tables (everyone was in general agreement, at least partially due to the earlier Sage Advice ruling). Not anymore - suddenly the way it works may change from game session to game session if you get a different DM and one chooses to use the new ruling and the other prefers the previous ruling. Table variation like that can make players unhappy.

It's not the only feat or ability that has the issue of table variation, but most of them you are aware of it when you choose the ability. This one was changed years after being officially ruled on. So it can be pretty annoying for players with characters that made heavy use of the feat and now suddenly the way it works is uncertain.

 

[smbakeresq]

At the end of the day, everyone is going to rule as they see fit (except maybe AL?) so on a practical side it probably doesn't matter...but it might. I can see a game where no one* thought the feat was "cheese" after seeing it in play, but the DM, after reading the tweet, nerfs it anyway. Hopefully not too many tables have this happen.

It does strike me as being very "non-5e" philosophically, however; I would have expected this level of parsing from 3e and 4e, but not the current edition. :shrug:

*In all my time playing and all the message board perusal, I have not once seen someone talk about this feat as OP or "cheese." JC is the first person I have seen do so. Odd.

Never once has it been considered OP or cheese. Like I said, he probably had someone use it in a game and he is angry about it. Its a "rare" feat, most players go for GWF or SS for the up-front, immediate, visible damage reward. The only build I would even recommend it for it Paladins simply because they have lower CON scores since CHR and WIS is needed, little pressure on their bonus actions, and a chance to get in a doubled smite on a critical hit. You only need to spend one feat and can spend the rest on ABI or inspiring leader.


Cheese is allowing bards to expertise athletics and be the best grapplers, makes perfect sense. I guess they are the fantasy equivalent of pro-wrestlers, like notable Bard Ric Flair. I am sure it was intended that way.