D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat

[5ekyu]

Roy isn't attacking and he, thus, isn't using his shove bonus action. He is moving, which the DM interrupts with a trapdoor, and allows Roy to try another action. But, Roy did take the Attack action. The DM intervened and stopped his intended action. Is that Roy's fault? No.

Suppose Roy was being attacked by a rottin' vermin. He declares his intention to attack the stinkin' vermin that shot Fritz. With the Shield Master feat, he first uses his Shove bonus action to push the rottin' vermin engaging him 5 feet back, allowing him to move without opportunity attack. He moves towards the stinkin' vermin and the DM says "Whoa, there partner! You got yerself a pit trap you just walked over! Better roll that Dex save to jump clear! Oops, ya failed slicker. Sorry, (rolls a die), that's 4 hit points of damage. Guess you won't be attack that stinkin' vermin after all."

"But wait!" says Roy. "I only used part of my move. I still have 20 feet left! Thanks to my Athletic feat, I can climb out without extra move, so I then have 10 feet left and I finish my move to attack that stinkin' vermin!"

"Hmm..." the DM ponders. "I reckon yer right, Roy. Ok, make your attack roll!"

The intent of the Shield Master feat is to allow you to make a Shove "attack" without having you use up an actual "attack" roll. Having it cost you a Bonus action is simply a way to represent that cost in terms of game time, preventing you from using your Bonus action for something else, like Second Wind.

At any rate, a round is only 6 seconds in 5E, so I make my players declare actions before rolling initiative (we roll every round, btw), and you can't change your action when your turn arrives (with certain exceptions like deciding to Dodge or Disengage) If you planned to attack, you can't suddenly switch to casting a spell since you weren't prepared to do it. If you are going to allow players to change actions when their turn arises, why not let them use a bonus action granted by a feat when they want during that turn???

And how would it be any different if Roy simply had two attacks and wanted to use one of those for the Shove attack? He still Shoves the rottin' vermin attacking him back, moves, falls into the pit, climbs out, finishes his move, and attacks the stinkin' vermin. No different except one uses the Bonus Action for the Shove and the other forces the player to utilize one attack granted by his Extra Attack feature.

If a GM house rules actions and initiative do that all actions are declared at the start and cannot change or whatever- then what the RAW of the feat means is irrelevant since its an entirely different combat action system st thst point.

In the 5e gsme, you don't do that. Roy can walk across the floor with malice in his heart towards Fritz, get trspdoored, find himself surrounded by a half dozen Vipers and go "Dodge" to try and avoid poison *because" he has not yet "taken an attack action."

If at the point he got yo 10' the stink vermin vanished or ran from a ready section, Roy could switch to fodge... by 5e... because he had not yet taken the attack action.

And ZYES Roy vould ** use** his first attack of the attack action, taking the attack action, as a shove and then have his remaining attacks **and* another Bonus action shove available.

I can't scribe the scroll into my rituals book before I come across the scroll even tho thst fest says "if" and not explicitly "after" either.

Obviously a GM csn house rule any and all of the gsme.

 

[Bacon Bits]

This is from over five pages back, but it's also from two days ago. I'm scared to even read what y'all have been arguing about. Nothing after post 100 is ever productive anyways.

I think so many things require the attack action to trigger because the want them to be part of an offensive action sequence - not a way to de facto shoe-horn in a "double action" with a bonus section attack and a normal action dodge or dash.

If TWF allowed the bonus section strike even when taking a dodge, that would be a major shift in play for say rogues.

That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that an ability that triggers on an Attack action should also trigger on any other action. I'm saying that you should be allowed to take the Attack action, make no attack rolls, and then do an action triggered by the Attack action. Crawford says you can't do that. I say if you want to do nothing but make an off-hand attack, go for it.

Yes, I did also say that Shield Master should have been written to trigger off more than just the Attack action, but I am not trying to suggest that triggered actions should universally trigger every turn.

 

[5ekyu]

This is from over five pages back, but it's also from two days ago. I'm scared to even read what y'all have been arguing about. Nothing after post 100 is ever productive anyways.



That isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that an ability that triggers on an Attack action should also trigger on any other action. I'm saying that you should be allowed to take the Attack action, make no attack rolls, and then do an action triggered by the Attack action. Crawford says you can't do that. I say if you want to do nothing but make an off-hand attack, go for it.

Yes, I did also say that Shield Master should have been written to trigger off more than just the Attack action, but I am not trying to suggest that triggered actions should universally trigger every turn.

To be clear - I did not suggest you were saying that - not in the least.

In the post I quoted and this was a reply to you said...

"What his reversal did for me was cause me to ask "what is the purpose of linking the bonus shove to the Attack Action?" I was not able to come up with a particularly persuasive answer, so I simply removed the Attack Action requirement altogether. In my campaign, the Shield Master is now able to dash and bash, or dodge and shove, in addition to shove and attack, which has not proven to be a problem in any way."

As I said in my reply, I think linking these bonus actions to the attack action (specificslly ones that give you bonus attacks) was to prevent them from being combined with other actions like fodge.

So I see an obvious and persuasive reason for that linkage.

Now, they could have tried to link it to an attack but that opens it for questions about reactions, spell attacks, etc.

So it seemed pretty clear to me why one eould tie bonus attacks in general and this in specific to the attack action - it makes it an add to your offense but not a replacement offense when you go other stuff.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

... Nothing after post 100 is ever productive anyways.

...

That is so true! But, since I am a glutton for punishment...

Ultimately, this is simply a DM/group discretion issue.

As Crawford ruled from the current Sage Advice Compendium on a related topic:

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.

So, given this, the intent with Shield Master is that the Attack action should occur before the Bonus action since using the Attack action is what grants the character the ability to make the Bonus action. However, as in the ruling on this quoted issue, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing you to reverse the order. I don't think you are breaking anything by reversing the order for Shield Master. You are, in fact, as my other posts have shown, adding versatility to the feat and making it more worthwhile. Personally, I think they linked the Bonus action to the Attack action because the Shove option is a form of an attack. The feat allows you to Shove without costing you an actual attack roll. Precisely when that Shove can take place, is up to the DM and group IMO.

In addition, for those who play with cyclical initiative, consider this:

If you attack and then use your Bonus action to Shove your target, knocking it prone, it will always get back up since it will have its turn before you will act again, thus denying you advantage on any attack rolls from this ability. True, depending on your order of initiative, you might in this way grant an ally advantage on their attacks against the fallen target, but you will never get it.

As my group's DM, and since we play with declared actions, I am ruling the bonus action can come before, after, or during (in the case of Extra Attacks) the Attack action.

Otherwise, this is getting too close to 200 posts in the thread and I am done with it. Consider the horse beaten to death. Cheers and g'night!

 

[Bacon Bits]

To be clear - I did not suggest you were saying that - not in the least.

In the post I quoted and this was a reply to you said...

"What his reversal did for me was cause me to ask "what is the purpose of linking the bonus shove to the Attack Action?" I was not able to come up with a particularly persuasive answer, so I simply removed the Attack Action requirement altogether. In my campaign, the Shield Master is now able to dash and bash, or dodge and shove, in addition to shove and attack, which has not proven to be a problem in any way."

As I said in my reply, I think linking these bonus actions to the attack action (specificslly ones that give you bonus attacks) was to prevent them from being combined with other actions like fodge.

So I see an obvious and persuasive reason for that linkage.

Yes, obviously they intended to limit it. Yes, by placing a limit on something, they did in fact mean to limit it. However, that's so obvious that it's tautological; it's circular reasoning, which is why it's not persuasive. The mere existence of a rule does not mean that that rule is necessary, useful, or beneficial to the game even if the designers thought it was when they wrote it. Existence of a rule does not mean that it is necessary. You have to show why the game breaks without the rule.

Let's set that aside for a moment.

Your argument here seems to be based on the fact that you think a shove action is equivalent to an attack.

I do not believe that. Yes, you can trade an attack for a shove, but you can't do the reverse. It's one way only, and it's a trade down in power and utility. A shove deals zero damage, while an attack does damage. A shove works on a limited subset of creatures. An attack basically works on everything essentially always (with very limited exceptions proving the rule). Shove is clearly a less powerful ability than an attack is in general -- this is easy to judge just by comparing the number of shoves to the number of attack rolls that occur in your games -- so shove is, at best, situationally useful. A character with Shield Master will often not use their bonus action to shove, IMX, and in that case that ability of the feat provides no benefit. I do not equate using Dodge and Shove together as being remotely similar as using Dodge and Attack together. I think one is minimally useful at best, and the other is significantly more useful.

Therefore, yes, I have no problem at all allowing Shield Master's shove ability to be used as a bonus action when the character takes actions other than Attack.

However, that does not mean that I think there should be a general rule where all Attack-linked bonus actions should be allowed after any given action taken.

And that is exactly what I read when you say this:

If TWF allowed the bonus section strike even when taking a dodge, that would be a major shift in play for say rogues.

This statement inaccurately represents what I'm saying by assuming that my exception for one feat must be a general rule for all Attack-linked bonus actions. That is not what I'm saying at all, so this example is entirely unpersuasive of any point you were trying to make with it.

To be clear, this is what I could allow with very little fear of abuse:

• Shield Master shove with Attack action
• Shield Master shove with many non-Attack actions
• Any attack-linked bonus action with Attack action
• Any attack-linked bonus action with Attack action even if there are no targets to attack (i.e., "Do Nothing") as long as the bonus action still makes sense (i.e., it doesn't refer to a creature you attacked this turn or similar)

I understand that Crawford thinks that a master of shield tactics shoving with a shield requires that you also swing a sword at somebody. I don't buy that. I also don't buy the idea that the game breaks if you allow someone to take the Attack action and make no attack rolls and then use an Attack-linked bonus action.

Hell, I don't even buy the idea that you can't choose to take no regular Action and use two [non-Attack- or other action-linked] bonus actions in one turn as long as you're not taking the same bonus action twice. I'm sorry Crawford, but if I can make an attack and cast Shillelagh together in 6 seconds and the attack takes longer, and I can make an attack and cast Healing Word together in 6 seconds and the attack takes longer, then I can certainly see that I could cast Shillelagh and Healing Word together in 6 seconds, too. The general rule of "what can you do in 6 seconds" should still apply especially when the actions taken are neither disruptive of game balance nor prone to abusive play.

Maybe Crawford thinks this is more complicated to let the rules be more flexible than what they have now. Maybe it is for new players. I do not think it does, however. I think it adds a lot of needless rules burden and needless restrictions. I think all that discourages creative and natural play.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes, obviously they intended to limit it. Yes, by placing a limit on something, they did in fact mean to limit it. However, that's so obvious that it's tautological; it's circular reasoning, which is why it's not persuasive. The mere existence of a rule does not mean that that rule is necessary, useful, or beneficial to the game even if the designers thought it was when they wrote it. Existence of a rule does not mean that it is necessary. You have to show why the game breaks without the rule.

Let's set that aside for a moment.

Your argument here seems to be based on the fact that you think a shove action is equivalent to an attack.

I do not believe that. Yes, you can trade an attack for a shove, but you can't do the reverse. It's one way only, and it's a trade down in power and utility. A shove deals zero damage, while an attack does damage. A shove works on a limited subset of creatures. An attack basically works on everything essentially always (with very limited exceptions proving the rule). Shove is clearly a less powerful ability than an attack is in general -- this is easy to judge just by comparing the number of shoves to the number of attack rolls that occur in your games -- so shove is, at best, situationally useful. A character with Shield Master will often not use their bonus action to shove, IMX, and in that case that ability of the feat provides no benefit. I do not equate using Dodge and Shove together as being remotely similar as using Dodge and Attack together. I think one is minimally useful at best, and the other is significantly more useful.

Therefore, yes, I have no problem at all allowing Shield Master's shove ability to be used as a bonus action when the character takes actions other than Attack.

However, that does not mean that I think there should be a general rule where all Attack-linked bonus actions should be allowed after any given action taken.

And that is exactly what I read when you say this:



This statement inaccurately represents what I'm saying by assuming that my exception for one feat must be a general rule for all Attack-linked bonus actions. That is not what I'm saying at all, so this example is entirely unpersuasive of any point you were trying to make with it.

To be clear, this is what I could allow with very little fear of abuse:

• Shield Master shove with Attack action
• Shield Master shove with many non-Attack actions
• Any attack-linked bonus action with Attack action
• Any attack-linked bonus action with Attack action even if there are no targets to attack (i.e., "Do Nothing") as long as the bonus action still makes sense (i.e., it doesn't refer to a creature you attacked this turn or similar)

I understand that Crawford thinks that a master of shield tactics shoving with a shield requires that you also swing a sword at somebody. I don't buy that. I also don't buy the idea that the game breaks if you allow someone to take the Attack action and make no attack rolls and then use an Attack-linked bonus action.

Hell, I don't even buy the idea that you can't choose to take no regular Action and use two [non-Attack- or other action-linked] bonus actions in one turn as long as you're not taking the same bonus action twice. I'm sorry Crawford, but if I can make an attack and cast Shillelagh together in 6 seconds and the attack takes longer, and I can make an attack and cast Healing Word together in 6 seconds and the attack takes longer, then I can certainly see that I could cast Shillelagh and Healing Word together in 6 seconds, too. The general rule of "what can you do in 6 seconds" should still apply especially when the actions taken are neither disruptive of game balance nor prone to abusive play.

Maybe Crawford thinks this is more complicated to let the rules be more flexible than what they have now. Maybe it is for new players. I do not think it does, however. I think it adds a lot of needless rules burden and needless restrictions. I think all that discourages creative and natural play.

So much - let's be generous- apparent confusion in this I hardly know where to begin.

"I understand that Crawford thinks that a master of shield tactics shoving with a shield requires that you also swing a sword at somebody. "

Actually as JEC has said, you can shove with a shield without swinging a sword at them first - its represented in the rules as using an attack to shove.

Everytime someone paints this as a question of "can I use shove first?" they are doing or revealing either confusion orbintentionsl misdirection.

If you can take the attack action and your target is legal to shove then you can shove... as an attack as part of the attack sction.

What is being defined here is when you can by dint of this feat get allowed a bonus action shove in addition to an attack action.

As for tautology... again you said you did not see a reason why it was limited to go with attack actions and I pointed out why I thought this feat and others made a fairly consistent case of limiting bonus sction offense to only getting granted whrn you took an offensive bonus action as well. To me, not opening up willy nilly offensive bonus at-wills with non-offensive actions seems really good and sound design. If it doesnt to you, if that's in the list of reasons you dismissed as not worth noting, that's fine - we play very different gsmes.

As for the power of shove vs the power of attacks, the games I run are not solo games but gtoup gsmes and so there I'd not this overly simplistic accounting of who will get up before whom that says that a shove at the end of your action is gonna be useless.

In fact, I have seen shoves in a group setting to be very strong. A strong shove character getting a bonus shove st the end of their attacks can knock down a foe, often a weaker foe, allowing another to strike with advsantage and that can be big if the follow-up guy has some heavy damage potential like smites or sneak or even special effects like hex or maybe their attack hits the vulnerabilities. I recall fondly a session where my character handed the only-dagger-that-mattered to the hulking cleric-warrior and the used help to let her hit, falling the foe.

If I had been a bonus action shove built character, it could have been stronger giving her multiple shots with advantage over the turn.

Net result is this, in a group game, shove is a support move, not a damage move and can be if used well and with planning as or more powerful than an attack. Too often "analysis" is skewed by focusing on events as if it's a one-on-one fight, when the game was designed for group play.


"Shove is clearly a less powerful ability than an attack is in general -- this is easy to judge just by comparing the number of shoves to the number of attack rolls that occur in your games "

That's just faulty logic. Firebolt is cast more often than fireball but that doesnt mean firebolt is more powerful.

A single shove can allow multiple effects over the turn - setting up advantage strikes, setting up disadvtantage on the downed foe opportunity attack helping escapes or end runs, even simply removing a partial cover issue for friendly attacks against those behind the now prone foe... not to mention movement reduction in cases where that matters.

It's kind of like say "casting bless" vs using the help action. Bless gives multiple allies bonuses to hit and save over multiple turns - to every attack. Help gives one character one attack at advantage. You can likely "help" more than you can cast bless and hey, for one attack only, help may seem more powerful, but bless is overall gonna add a lot more to that combat if used when it matters than help will in spite of it being cast as an action less often.

But we dont have to agree...

After all, maybe your game sees more solo fights where an end of turn bonus shove **is** actually pointless. Maybe in your games the state of tactical play does lead shoves to be seen as somehow weak sauce when it comes to tools that help win fights. If so, maybe lots of house rules help that work out great for you.

Me? Not do much. I disagree with the "indivisible action" part of the various JEC rulings, but I see a great deal of sense and good for the game results in the "attack action" (at least one attack) being required before you earn your bonus attacks for the cases where it is required.

***

One last bit... it's just not true that a rule has to be preventing game breaking for it to be needed or good for the game. If you want to set the bar for *I am right unless it can be proven I break the game* that's fine, but I find there to be a whole lot more nuance and sophistication to games and rules than someone's idea of broken or not.

I use cooking analogies frequently and for instance my burger for supper is not "broken and rendered inedible" if I dont add sauteed mushrooms - but it sure is to me better with them. My cream sauces are not broken without nutmeg, but they are not as good.

Same for games - D&D is likely not broken without the Bless spell or the barbarian class- but it's better with them - to my tastes.

But you enjoy your games, like I will enjoy mine.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

...

I use cooking analogies frequently and for instance my burger for supper is not "broken and rendered inedible" if I dont add sauteed mushrooms - but it sure is to me better with them. My cream sauces are not broken without nutmeg, but they are not as good.

...

Yuk!

Anything with mushrooms is broken IME!

 

[Guest 6801328]

The only thing "broken" about Shield Master is having to make that contested ability check every time its his turn. It's as annoying as the archer rogue who hides after every shot.

 

[Sean Culligan]

A shove is in fact an attack.

Any character can shove as a reaction if they get an attack of opportunity (including the shield master) So what makes the shield master feat special if he is severely limited to when he can use it?

My argument is that the mention of the "attack action" means that these bonus attacks are PART of the attack action. This is the case for Two weapon fighting, Magic weapon as well as for Polearm master. Since it is part of the attack action then the rule is that it can be done in any order.

The mistake people are making is treating a bonus attack as something separate from the attack action. It uses your bonus action but there are no examples of such attacks taking place "outside" of the attack action. I gave three other examples... Shield master shove is no different...

 

[ad_hoc]

A good rule feel obvious, intuitive and is easy to remember.
Bad rule feel illogical, encourage house ruling or debate, and sometimes need a flow chart or a reminder to apply it. Ex.: who remember by heart what are the effect of level 3 of exhaustion?

Yes, this.

5e is designed to be intuitive.

The intuitive way is to just allow any order because it makes the game play smoother and everyone is happy.

When we get into worrying about sequencing events we get into the minutiae of competitive games like MtG. I once had a binder printed out of all the errata and rules clarifications that I brought to tournaments to show judges when something was in contest.