Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Shield master on twitter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7424024" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>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".</p><p></p><p>You dismissed my request because you believe all options are powerful in context and therefore put no stock in those guides. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again with the shadow quoting, seriously, why do you do this?</p><p></p><p>To the point, I think if I were to put a name to it, I would call it stress testing. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7424024, member: 6801228"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Shield master on twitter
Top