Shield Master POLL: Rules as Fun!

[Oofta]

Also I voted with the clear majority.

I'm such a follower

Give in to the dark side. We have cookies!

 

[Asgorath]

That sounds so limiting. As the DM, and I can give the monsters any sort of feature I want. It seems like such a waste of potential to give them what the players have.

Like, if I gave an NPC the Shield Master feat, he only gets to knock down one player. But if I give him the Booming Voice of Zeus, he can shout prone everyone around. And this is super easy. Took me a couple seconds. It's easier than giving him a feat or spell, even, since there's nothing for me to look up at any time.

Booming Voice of Zeus (recharge 5-6): bonus action, knocks prone everyone within 30 feet. DC 14 Strength save avoids.

To each their own. Feats are simple in that they require no design work, and players understand how they work. It's not the only option I use, but I do like the whole "add class levels" idea in general.

 

[Satyrn]

Give in to the dark side. We have cookies!

I don't think that warning complies with EU regulations. What are the cookies used for?

 

[Oofta]

I don't think that warning complies with EU regulations. What are the cookies used for?

Our cookies are made of by keebler elves and are nothing but yummy goodness. No need for government overreach here!

 

[Gladius Legis]

As the DM... fun for whom? I don't like my monsters always being steamrolled by the fighter who knocks them down, attacks twice with advantage, and then lets half the party do the same.
I need my fun too. I want to take my turn in combat.

Two simple solutions to this:
a) More enemy units in battle, since you can only use that shield shove once per round, or
b) More Huge enemies, since shove can only be done to one size larger. If said Fighter wants to shove a Huge enemy, then the Wizard needs to invest a spell slot and their concentration on Enlarge.

So, yeah, rule of fun is the same as rules as written: bonus action after the competition of the trigger. In this case, the trigger is pretty clearly "the attack action".

Which demonstrably makes that feat an inferior investment of an ASI. Making it not fun for the players.

 

[Jester David]

Two simple solutions to this:
a) More enemy units in battle, since you can only use that shield shove once per round, or
b) More Huge enemies, since shove can only be done to one size larger. If said Fighter wants to shove a Huge enemy, then the Wizard needs to invest a spell slot and their concentration on Enlarge.

If I have to redesign most of my encounters because of a single option in a single feat, that rules option is broken.

Which demonstrably makes that feat an inferior investment of an ASI. Making it not fun for the players.

Disagree.
The feat gives you a bonus to Dexterity saves, which is huge, and evasion via the shield, which is even better. Those two benefits alone are worth a feat.
Being able to shove as a bonus action, let alone shove and knockdown, is gravy. Heck, the main benefit of that is getting an enemy five feet away from your allies.


That so many people think being able to trip enemies BEFORE attacking is worth advocating this hard for, tells me that the options is probably too strong and is better off nerfed.
Without even having to look at the book. I can tell you that when gamers argue this hard that an option is fine and not game breaking and easy for a DM to work around... it usually needs to be hit by a +2 bar of nerfing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Disagree.
The feat gives you a bonus to Dexterity saves, which is huge, and evasion via the shield, which is even better. Those two benefits alone are worth a feat.

Heh... not if we don't have enemies that cast spells that often, it ain't.

Being able to shove as a bonus action, let alone shove and knockdown, is gravy. Heck, the main benefit of that is getting an enemy five feet away from your allies.

And for some of us, the gravy is actually the meat.

That so many people think being able to trip enemies BEFORE attacking is worth advocating this hard for, tells me that the options is probably too strong and is better off nerfed.

Really? If you run games as such that the bonus to DEX saves and the evasion parts of the feat are the actual meat and the shove is the gravy, I have a hard time believing you actually think the shove part needs to be nerfed.

Why would anyone nerf gravy? Gravy should be nerfless.

 

[Gladius Legis]

If I have to redesign most of my encounters because of a single option in a single feat, that rules option is broken.

So all your encounters are an entire party against a single enemy of Large size or smaller?

Disagree.
The feat gives you a bonus to Dexterity saves, which is huge,

Only against things that target only you. Most of the nasty and major DEX-save things target multiple party members. So, no, it's not "huge." It's situational at best.

and evasion via the shield, which is even better. Those two benefits alone are worth a feat.

It's a neat side benefit. Most definitely not worth a feat all by itself.

Heck, the main benefit of that is getting an enemy five feet away from your allies.

That's ... an utterly worthless thing to do.

That so many people think being able to trip enemies BEFORE attacking is worth advocating this hard for, tells me that the options is probably too strong and is better off nerfed.

Or maybe it's because putting the shove at the end of the entire attack action truly does make the feat not worth an ASI investment, and makes the sword-and-shield style pale even more in comparison to polearms, two-handed weapons and any and all ranged combat, all of which have feat support even better than a Shield Master that would let you knock prone and attack after.

Without even having to look at the book. I can tell you that when gamers argue this hard that an option is fine and not game breaking and easy for a DM to work around... it usually needs to be hit by a +2 bar of nerfing.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Satyrn]

I can tell you that when gamers argue this hard that an option is fine and not game breaking and easy for a DM to work around... it usually needs to be hit by a +2 bar of nerfing.

It doesn't need nerfing. It caused zero problems when it was used at my table the way the majority answered for this poll.

I totally suggest not handing out +2 weapons though. Those are a nuisance, mere number inflation that are nothing to the game in terms of fun options.

 

[Jester David]

Based on what evidence?

Based on every message board discussion I have had over an option in the last twenty years.

It's fine.
Translation: It's not fine.

It's totally balanced.
Translation: It's broke A.F.

That's how it works by RAW.
Translation: There's no formal rule against it.

That's how it works by RAI.
Translation: That's how I really, really want it to work

It's not a big deal.
Translation: I will burn this message board/ gametable/ store to the ground if I have to.

It's a game. Why does logic matter?
Translation: I just found a way to put a square peg in a round hole… sideways.

It's easy to work around this.
Translation: If you have trouble, it's your fault.

It's never caused problems at my game.
Translation: If you have problems you’re a terrible GM.

It's easy to build encounters to overcome this.
Translation: You'll be redesigning every single encounter for the rest of the campaign

You want me to have fun, don't you?
Translation: I have no strong argument, and must resort to emotional blackmail


They’re all the same.