Shield master on twitter

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Ok, but you realize that by your definition of power and value coming from "how powerful is it in the situation that is the game you are playing in"... that all options are "Potent Build Tools"?


I mean, I would be really hard pressed to think of an option that could not be powerful in the specific contest of a game and or party, so your dismissiveness towards the people getting upset makes even less sense.


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. Any option would be powerful, so losing anything would make them upset. If you want to defend your position because some people give more weight to certain options than you feel is necessary, then you also have to acknowledge that many of those people who give that weight were not giving that weight to Shield Master.

I mean, maybe you can be dismissive and inclusive at the same time, but I would find that a very hard position to keep.

"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

Okay, can I just ask something first. Why do you keep quoting people with quotation marks instead of the quote function? I've noticed it dozens of times in this thread and I can't help but wonder what the purpose is. If you want to respond to something I said but don't want people to know I said it... why even bother with the quotes?


Onto Houserules.

I agree with you. I also have no problem with houserules and don't see them as "lesser rules" in any way. However, I don't think people are twisting and turning the rules language because they need a RAW justification for their rules.

There is no way to debate this ruling in terms of "are we limiting the abuse of an ability" because there is zero evidence that using Shield Master to knock an enemy prone first was abusive of the rules. As we were discussing earlier, this was not an option that topped the charts or even got talked about a lot before this ruling.

However, some of the rules language being used to justify this clarification on Shield Master may have larger consequences for the game. For example, this idea of indivisible actions that can be divided by bonus actions unless the bonus action says it cannot divide the action. This is confusing and concerning if it ends up becoming the default accepted way of looking at the game. It also may inform future design decisions and thus is important for us to figure out.

Plus, let us be honest here, a lot of people who get on the Internet to talk DnD love arguing semantics. We have an excessive number of highly educated people in fields that require that type of thinking, and it breeds a certain atmosphere around the game.

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.

I think that nested action thing is becoming a real sticking point for me. There are more bonus actions that can be taken within an attack action than there are bonus actions that cannot. When the specific rule outnumbers the general rule by that large of margin, you may be looking at the wrong general rule.

 

[smbakeresq]

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.

So if you take Dual Weapon Mastery feat you can attack with your Shield interspersed with your regular attacks and Shove with as a substitute for an attack with yourself but if you take Shield Mastery feat you cant Shove with your Shield until all your attacks are over ? I guess the though is shoving someone is getting your shoulder behind your shield and then ramming into them.


Now I think he is just trying to justify his ruling and his long ago held idea that he failed to clarify in the first place.


In the wording for Monk and their Flurry of Blows it says "use" the attack action. To me that means use, it doesn't mean "use and complete all attacks."

 

[Satyrn]

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.

I know you play at tables that might listen to these tweets. You have my sympathy.

 

[Mistwell]

So if you take Dual Weapon Mastery feat

I am not familiar with that feat. Which one is that?

 

[smbakeresq]

The trigger for both is "When you take the Attack action".

One of them further specifies "and attack...".

Nothing here says you can nest the bonus action between attacks during that attack action however. Both trigger off an "When you take the Attack action", though one adds a further limiter in addition to that one.

So while the trigger for two weapon fighting is both "take the Attack action" AND "attack", I am not seeing why one would allow the bonus action between attacks in the Attack action and the other would not.

Either an Attack action is composed of all of the attacks contained within an Attack action, or it is not. Unless something specifies different timing, which this does not. A qualification is not itself a different timing for what an Attack action means. I mean, if a bonus action qualification had said, "take the Attack action and you are a half-orc" would that mean you can take the bonus action after all the attacks or between the two attacks if you are a half-orc?

I "assume" that since he added "and attack" he was cutting off the concept of Shove and Grapple and a few other things that can replace an actual attack in the Attack action. I don't know though.


I think its splitting hairs.

 

[smbakeresq]

I am not familiar with that feat. Which one is that?

Dual Wielder. I have played so many editions they all blend unless I have the book in front of me.

In my game if you use that feat you can use your shield to bash with. The only people who take it are Strength based dual wield fighters, essentially they turn down a d8 weapon for a d4 weapon and +2 to defense.


If you now use JC ruling on Shield Master its almost not worth playing a Martial class with a shield. Better off and more fun to dust off that d12 that rarely gets used.

 

[guachi]

I feel immortalized.

I mean, my first ever tweet has, like Helen, launched a thousand threads across the internet.

I'm sorry (not sorry) about tweeting JC in the first place. It's not quite on the level of creating a meme or something. But I'll take my internet fame where I can get it.

 

[guachi]

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.

The thing I take most offense at is his thinking that Shield Bash then Attack is "cheese". It directly insults people playing D&D in a manner they find both fun and not unbalancing. No one anywhere was complaining about Shield Master being overpowered. Perhaps correctly powered - this is the balance a combat feat should be vice GWM or SS.

His "cheese" comment borders on badwrongfun. It's honestly not something I thought I'd ever thought I see from Crawford or Mearls. The legalistic parsing is irritating. The "cheese" comment is insulting.

 

[Oofta]

I feel immortalized.

I mean, my first ever tweet has, like Helen, launched a thousand threads across the internet.

I'm sorry (not sorry) about tweeting JC in the first place. It's not quite on the level of creating a meme or something. But I'll take my internet fame where I can get it.

Curse you to heck Guachi! May you spend eternity mildly uncomfortable for the moderate inconvenience you have caused us!

 

[BookBarbarian]

Dual Wielder. I have played so many editions they all blend unless I have the book in front of me.

In my game if you use that feat you can use your shield to bash with. The only people who take it are Strength based dual wield fighters, essentially they turn down a d8 weapon for a d4 weapon and +2 to defense.


If you now use JC ruling on Shield Master its almost not worth playing a Martial class with a shield. Better off and more fun to dust off that d12 that rarely gets used.

Wouldn't you also need the Tavern Brawler feat to get proficiency for attacking with a shield as an improvised weapon?