D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat

[Sean Culligan]

You people all act like "RAW" is somehow good and "house ruling" is less than. Got news for all of you... they are exactly the same..

I also believe my interpretation is "Rules as Written". I am only using the source books, no external references nor appeals to authority.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Good grief, here I go again...

LOL Exactly!

So because his response does not begin with a simple and emphatic "No" you are arguing against the ruling? He states the ONLY instance when you can use a shove or grapple as a reaction. The final sentence states quite clearly "Take the Ready action if you want to attempt to grapple or shove as a reaction." Since the OA is a reaction, could it be any more obvious?

Crawford doesn't answer "no" to the question. He does however state another instance where it can be used.
But look what he inserted here... "Grappling and shoving are special melee attacks" and then "An opportunity attack is a special reaction"... Coincidence?

The reason I disagree is that he states on PH 195 that grappling and shoving require the attack action. The word "require" is not on page 195.
He later goes on to say it can still be used as a reaction if used as a readied action. A readied action is still not part of a player's attack action so it should not be allowed either if you follow the same logic. (illogic)

There is no coincidence as they aren't the same thing. One is a special melee attack (requiring a check, actually, instead of an attack roll) and the other is a special reaction. Because he uses the word "special" doesn't make them the same as one is a type of melee attack only available as part of an Attack action and the other allows you to make a melee attack as part of a reaction.

The word "require" is not part of grappling or shoving in the PHB, but that is the purpose of sage advice, to answer such questions that arise. He clarifies that those special melee attacks do, in fact, require the attack action! It was a poor wording choice in the PHB that caused issues and thus requires a response.

Also, a readied action is not part of the attack action. If you take a readied action to ready an attack, the attack becomes part of the readied action and becomes a reaction to the triggering event, not the other way around!

Consider this with the Readied action:
Player: "I am watching the guy and if he tries to run away I want to grab him."
DM: "Ok, so you are using the Ready action to ready a grapple if he flees?"
Player: "Yeah, I don't want to grapple him right now, but if he won't answer our questions and runs he is probably the guy we're looking for."
DM: "Sounds good."

Without the Readied action:
Player: "I don't want to kill the guy so I am just only to punch him."
DM: "Fine. Roll your attack. Good, you hit. Damage is 1 plus your Strength mod. On his turn he starts to run away, not Disengaging, so you'll get an Opportunity attack."
Player: "Can I grapple him instead to keep him from getting away?"
DM: "No, you weren't expecting him to run or prepared for it since you were punching him and not in position to grapple. You can try to make another punch, though, before he is out of reach."

I get your logic. There is nothing "wrong" with it, it just isn't the RAW. Consider this example where the DM instead responds:
DM: "Sure, you're close enough you can use the Opportunity attack to try to grab him. Make your Strength check."

I hope you understand I have no issue with you disagreeing with his ruling. The situation could have the DM ruling either way in most cases probably. A lot of people disagree with the official rules on many things. It is one of the best parts of D&D! If I don't like Tieflings or Dragonborn as new races, I am completely within my rights as DM to not allow them (I do, but I don't allow any monster races as PCs at present). Since you disagree with the logic of not allowing shoves and grapples as OA's and are ruling otherwise, what is the real issue? Can't you just accept that you are making this a house-rule? I think many people would be fine with it and depending on the situation it is perfectly logical as well, of course, depending on the situation a DM might not allow it either.

 

[Sean Culligan]

So because his response does not begin with a simple and emphatic "No" you are arguing against the ruling? He states the ONLY instance when you can use a shove or grapple as a reaction. The final sentence states quite clearly "Take the Ready action if you want to attempt to grapple or shove as a reaction." Since the OA is a reaction, could it be any more obvious?

I believe he is not answering the question. He is only quoting rules and likely doing it on purpose so as not to say no. There is one mistake however and that is the word "requires".

There is no coincidence as they aren't the same thing. One is a special melee attack (requiring a check, actually, instead of an attack roll) and the other is a special reaction. Because he uses the word "special" doesn't make them the same as one is a type of melee attack only available as part of an Attack action and the other allows you to make a melee attack as part of a reaction.

Fair enough. I didn't know what to really make of it unless he really does like to trip us up. There is no such thing as a "special reaction" defined in the rulebook.

The word "require" is not part of grappling or shoving in the PHB, but that is the purpose of sage advice, to answer such questions that arise. He clarifies that those special melee attacks do, in fact, require the attack action! It was a poor wording choice in the PHB that caused issues and thus requires a response.

I don't believe it was poor wording at all. All weapon attacks mention the attack action. All of them. Therefore they are all treated the same.

Also, a readied action is not part of the attack action. If you take a readied action to ready an attack, the attack becomes part of the readied action and becomes a reaction to the triggering event, not the other way around!

This is all true. What I was trying to explain is that since sword swings, shoves and grapples are all melee attacks and part of the attack action then they should all be allowed as an readied action or opportunity attack. (otherwise none of them should be allowed) Again, treat them the same...

I get your logic. There is nothing "wrong" with it, it just isn't the RAW.

I disagree. I think my interpretation is simpler, more flexible and correct.

Tieflings or Dragonborn as new races... I am completely within my rights as DM to not allow them (I do, but I don't allow any monster races as PCs at present).

I can't disagree with you here. Don't forget about the steampunk dudes.

Since you disagree with the logic of not allowing shoves and grapples as OA's and are ruling otherwise, what is the real issue? Can't you just accept that you are making this a house-rule? I think many people would be fine with it and depending on the situation it is perfectly logical as well, of course, depending on the situation a DM might not allow it either.

I guess I don't like the term RAW (Rules as Written) the way it is being presented here. I am interpreting the rules as written. Direct from the books. Call it "official rules" but don't tell me I'm making up "house rules" and not reading the rule as written. House rules implies you don't like something or want to outright change something. I am not doing that. I am quoting the book.

I will go one further and state that there is nothing wrong with the phrasing of the rules as currently written in the PHB. I believe the issue is that people are not properly lumping the categories and sub-categories together, not applying the same standards across categories and not following precedents.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I believe he is not answering the question. He is only quoting rules and likely doing it on purpose so as not to say no. There is one mistake however and that is the word "requires".

I can see that, but to me the word "requires" is a clarification for any doubt as presented in the PHB. For myself, I never even considered allowing a Shove or Grapple as an OA because of reading the same rules in the PHB you have. I see his answer as confirming the intent of the special attacks.

Fair enough. I didn't know what to really make of it unless he really does like to trip us up. There is no such thing as a "special reaction" defined in the rulebook.

True, there are "special reactions" defined. Here his wording could be to differentiate between the special attacks of Shove and Grapple, and that OA is special in that it is specifically done on another's turn. Who knows?

I don't believe it was poor wording at all. All weapon attacks mention the attack action. All of them. Therefore they are all treated the same.

They aren't all treated the same, though. Some require an attack roll, some require an ability check. Also there a spells, such as Green-Flame Blade, where in the process of casting the spell you make a melee attack. That attack is part of the Cast a Spell action, not an Attack action. This is another example of specific trumps general. The entire point of specific trumps general is because often there are actions that are treated differently from the general use. Making a Shove or Grapple are examples of those. His use of the word "require" changes the idea where before in the PHB is uses the word "can".

This is all true. What I was trying to explain is that since sword swings, shoves and grapples are all melee attacks and part of the attack action then they should all be allowed as a readied action. (otherwise none of them should be allowed)

They all can be used a Readied action, but not because they are all melee attacks. Any action can be used as a Ready action. Casting a spell can be, when you hold the magic of the spell and release it upon the trigger event. Using a Dash action if an opponent closes in on you can be a Ready action so you can Dash away before being attacked. Of course, there are other examples, too. Even in the Sage Advice, he specifies that if you want to use those special attacks as a reaction, you do so as by Readying the action.

The real issue isn't the Readied action, though. You interpret that they are allowable as an OA. I've shown reason why they shouldn't be according to my understanding from the PHB and with confirmation from Save Advice and Crawford's answer.

I disagree. I think my interpretation is simpler, more flexible and correct.

Ok. I agree it is simpler and more flexible. "Correct" isn't a good word though because your interpretation is counter to the clarification offered in Sage Advice. Of course, you are also interpreting that differently, too! At any rate, I don't see an issue with it and for myself argued that Shield Master should be able to use his bonus action to knock an opponent prone before making attack rolls. That is counter to Crawford's ruling, and I am fine with it. To me allowing the bonus action first makes sense and is also more flexible, but I don't consider it "correct"--only different.

I can't disagree with you here. Don't forget about the steampunk dudes.

LOL! Yeah, I am much more old school in races I allow and such.

I guess I don't like the term RAW (Rules as Written) the way it is being presented here. I am interpreting the rules as written. Direct from the books. Call it "official rules" but don't tell me I making up "house rules"and not reading the rule as written. House rules implies you don't like something or want to outright change something. I am not doing that. I am quoting the book.

Well said. I apologize if my arguments took that bend, but in fairness you seemed to not be willing earlier to acknowledge the "official rules" supplemented by Crawford's ruling. Of course, as I said before, you are interpreting that ruling different as well... so I suppose the point is moot.

 

[Sean Culligan]

They aren't all treated the same, though. Some require an attack roll, some require an ability check.

Sorry, to clarify I meant treated the same in regards to opportunity attacks & readied actions.

They all can be used a Readied action... The real issue isn't the Readied action, though. You interpret that they are allowable as an OA. I've shown reason why they shouldn't be according to my understanding from the PHB and with confirmation from Sage Advice and Crawford's answer.

I'm glad you caught that. I forgot to add opportunity attack to that reply. I did notice it but you responded before my edit went in.
I still disagree however.


I have no counter points to anything else you said. I believe its all laid out.

The only thing I would like to see in future is the reason "Why?" in answer to these sort of questions. Not a rules answer but a common answer. Is it because of game balance? Reasons like that. The rulings quoted from Crawford don't show that either. Then again I believe he is a slippery devil and may in fact be toying with us.

Why can't you grapple or shove as an opportunity attack?
Why can't a shield master bonus shove attack inside the attack action "if" he takes the attack action?
Why can a Pole arm master get his bonus attack within the attack action "when" he takes the attack action?
Why can a dual wielder get his bonus attack within the attack action "when" he takes the attack action?

To all the experts out there. Don't fall for making things more difficult for the sake of "expertise".

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I will go one further and state that there is nothing wrong with the phrasing of the rules as currently written in the PHB. I believe the issue is that people are not properly lumping the categories and sub-categories together, not applying the same standards across categories and not following precedents.

But there in lies the rub... You can't lump them together IMO because they are different in individual ways. Precedents are fine except when special cases are in consideration, such as shoving and grappling. I also see nothing wrong with the wording in the PHB. Shoving and Grappling a special melee attacks involving contested Strength (Athletics) checks allowed when you use Attack action, just as Two-Weapon Fighting requires the use of a Bonus action when you take the Attack action. Opportunity attack is a reaction that allows a melee attack.

These are all things you can do with melee attacks provided criteria are met: using your reaction for an opportunity attack, using the Attack action along with the Bonus action in the case of two-weapon fighting, and using the Attack action and making a contested Strength (Athletics) check for grappling or shoving.

Opportunity Attack
(later on) "To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature."

Here the OA allows one melee attack as a reaction. If it said "you can take one Attack action" instead of one melee attack, I would COMPLETELY agree with you! But, it doesn't... A melee attack is general and does not, by itself, meet the requirements of using an Attack action which is necessary to grapple or shove (or even two-weapon fight...).

Grappling
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple." If you don't use the Attack action, you can't make a melee attack, which means no grapple, either. The use of "can" simply means it is allowable, you "can" use it do make a grapple.

Shove a Creature
"Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you."

In both instances the use of the Attack action is explicit. Tell me, how can you grapple without the Attack action? It doesn't say "you can make a melee attack into a special melee attack, a grapple." In the case of Shove, it begins with "Using the Attack action," meaning you must use the Attack action, which can only be done on your turn (unless you take the Ready action, as previously discussed).

Yes, grappling and shoving are special melee attacks, but they are a subset of all melee attacks and specific. Because they are specific, the rules aren't exactly the same and these have special conditions. Similarly, there are special conditions for two-weapon fighting and opportunity attacks. If I use Second Wind, I can't two-weapon fight because both require my Bonus action. If I cast Shield, I can't make an opportunity attack when a creature moves out of my reach.

All that being said, I do agree with you in that I see nothing wrong with wanting to make a shove or grapple as an OA under the right circumstances. I just don't see that is what the wording in the PHB implies. Alas, we can agree to disagree on those interpretations.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Sorry, to clarify I meant treated the same in regards to opportunity attacks & readied actions.

I'm glad you caught that. I forgot to add opportunity attack to that reply. I did notice it but you responded before my edit went in.
I still disagree however.

I have no counter points to anything else you said. I believe its all laid out.

All good here.

The only thing I would like to see in future is the reason "Why?" in answer to these sort of questions. Not a rules answer but a common answer. Is it because of game balance? Reasons like that. The rulings quoted from Crawford don't show that either. Then again I believe he is a slippery devil and may in fact be toying with us.

Why can't you grapple or shove as an opportunity attack?
Why can't a shield master bonus shove attack inside the attack action "if" he takes the attack action?
Why can a Pole arm master get his bonus attack within the attack action "when" he takes the attack action?
Why can a dual wielder get his bonus attack within the attack action "when" he takes the attack action?

To all the experts out there. Don't fall for making things more difficult for the sake of "expertise".

To jump back in:

Why can't you grapple or shove as an opportunity attack?

Personally, I think in some situations you should be able to. Obviously if you have a readied action prepared for it, of course. But it would be very circumstantial otherwise IMO. For instance, if a character doesn't have a hand free, would he really have enough time to drop his weapon and grapple before the target moves out of their reach? Maybe allow an Insight or Perception check to judge the target might be moving on their turn and you can react quickly enough if you make the check? Lots of ways to implement it.

Why can't a shield master bonus shove attack inside the attack action "if" he takes the attack action?

Yeah, I total agree with you (I think LOL) on this one. The purpose for the RAI with Shield Master is it allows you to make the shove attack as a bonus action instead of costing you one of your melee attacks. Since a bonus action can be taking anytime during your turn, unless the timing is specified otherwise, I would allow the shove before attacks or during extra attacks or at the end of all attacks the character has that turn.

Why can a Pole arm master get his bonus attack within the attack action "when" he takes the attack action?

To me this is no different than using a bonus action to make an additional attack when two-weapon fighting. Be careful, though, because your question seems to imply he gets his bonus attack as part of the attack action. He must use a bonus action in conjunction with the attack action to get it.

Why can a dual wielder get his bonus attack within the attack action "when" he takes the attack action?
I assume you mean a two-weapon attacker? Dual Wielder as a feat does nothing towards granting a bonus attack in itself. The two-weapon attack uses the bonus action to also gain the additional attack.

I suppose in some of this you are questioning more the need for the attack action? Such as allowing the Shield Master to make a shove as a bonus and use his action to Disengage or some other action? Like knocking your opponent prone with a shove as a bonus, and using Dash and normal movement to run away. In the same spirit, a two-weapon attacker could attack with his off-hand as a bonus action, but Cast a Spell with his action. Am I right in this? Is this the type of thing you are really questioning?

 

[Sean Culligan]

Opportunity Attack
(later on) "To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature."

Here the OA allows one melee attack as a reaction. If it said "you can take one Attack action" instead of one melee attack, I would COMPLETELY agree with you! But, it doesn't... A melee attack is general and does not, by itself, meet the requirements of using an Attack action which is necessary to grapple or shove (or even two-weapon fight...).

Huh?
This is what I meant by categories and sub-categories. Shoving and grappling are literally sub-categories of "Melee Attack" and therefore they are melee attacks as defined by the rules (as well as in reality). Its right there in the book
What do you mean when you say a melee attack is general and doesn't meet the requirements of using an attack action? It is literally the simplest form of an attack action as defined in the books.

Grappling
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple." If you don't use the Attack action, you can't make a melee attack, which means no grapple, either. The use of "can" simply means it is allowable, you "can" use it do make a grapple.

Here again. What is this?

Tell me, how can you grapple without the Attack action?

The same way you can "swing a sword" without the attack action when executing an opportunity attack.
PHB192 - Actions in Combat
Attack - "The most common action to take in combat is the Attack Action, whether you are swinging a sword... etc."

Yes, grappling and shoving are special melee attacks, but they are a subset of all melee attacks and specific. Because they are specific, the rules aren't exactly the same and these have special conditions. Similarly, there are special conditions for two-weapon fighting and opportunity attacks. If I use Second Wind, I can't two-weapon fight because both require my Bonus action. If I cast Shield, I can't make an opportunity attack when a creature moves out of my reach.

All correct. You get one bonus action only. However you can shove or grapple as a bonus action precisely because these are also attack actions... just like "swinging a sword" is defined as one. (PHB192 see above)

All that being said, I do agree with you in that I see nothing wrong with wanting to make a shove or grapple as an OA under the right circumstances. I just don't see that is what the wording in the PHB implies. Alas, we can agree to disagree on those interpretations.

Fine.

Remember.. and this is key. The definition of an opportunity attack does not say "sword swing, etc." It says "melee attack". Sword Swings, shoves and grapples all fall under melee attack. They are also all defined as "attack actions" (which makes it irrelevant when discussing OA). Therefore... OA away.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Fine.

Remember.. and this is key. The definition of an opportunity attack does not say "sword swing, etc." It says "melee attack". Sword Swings, shoves and grapples all fall under melee attack. They are also all defined as "attack actions" (which makes it irrelevant when discussing OA). Therefore... OA away.

Oy...

Even though they all fall under "Melee attack", and swinging a sword (and other such typical forms of attacking), OA, TWF, Grapple, and Shove are all types of melee attack, however those with sub-sections have special conditions to allow their use. That is why they have sub-sections to deal with those specifics or special conditions. Without those conditions, you can't do them. Why are you ignoring those conditions?

No reaction available? No OA.
No bonus action available? No TWF.
Not using the Attack action? No TWF, no Grapple, no Shove.

I mean, it is right there in front of you for grappling:
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."

Shoving is even more obvious:
"Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you."

Do you want to grab a creature or shove it? Yes.
How do you grab a creature? I can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, known as a grapple.
How do you shove a creature? Using the Attack action, I can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, blah blah blah.

Do you get the idea that the word "can" is used to tell you these are options you get to employ if you are using the Attack action?

Also, where else, anywhere, does it say under any of the other sub-sections of melee attack or main melee attack section that you can make any kind of melee attack into a grapple?

Player: "I want to grapple that creature since it's moving out of my reach."
DM: "You want to grapple?"
Player: "Uh, yeah, that's what I said."
DM: "Ok, can you use the Attack action?"
Player: "Well, no, it isn't my turn. I get an opportunity attack when it moves, though."
DM: "Sure, you get the opportunity attack, but without the Attack action to make the special melee attack, you know, the grapple, you can't do it now as a reaction."

Yes, OA provide a melee attack as a reaction. But it is as a reaction, and you cannot take an Attack action as a reaction, only as an action on your turn.

You are choosing to ignore specific rules over the general rules, and that is not the way the game works. You know (or I hope you do I suppose) that specific rules beat general. Monks don't have proficiency in longswords, but a High Elf always does, so a High Elf Monk could use a longsword with proficiency.

Consider this: a Monk is attacking with his longsword. The DM knows Monks don't have proficiency in longswords and tells the player not to add my proficiency bonus to the attack roll. The player reminds him the monk is a High Elf, and has proficiency with longswords, thus allowing him to add his proficiency bonus to the attack. Later on the Dwarf Wizard purchases a longsword and uses it to attack with. The DM again, informs that player not to add his proficiency bonus to the attack roll. The player responds, "But the Monk could do it." The DM replies that was because the other character is a High Elf and has proficiency in longswords due to his race, thus meeting the requirements to add his proficiency bonus. Dwarves don't have that feature so the player with the Dwarf doesn't get to add the proficiency bonus to the attack roll.

You are assuming that since you can shove or grapple under one circumstance, you should be able to do it under any. That is not the official rules. Making an OA does not allow you an Attack action, it only grants a melee attack as a reaction. Although a shove or grapple is a type of melee attack, they have conditions requiring the use of the Attack action.

As I wrote in the other post, I think at the DMs discretion, he could allow grapples or shoves as OAs under the right circumstances, but he is breaking from the official rules and is completely within his right to do so.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

If the wording for the beginning of grappling and shoving was this:

Grapple:
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you do so by using the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."

Shoving:
"By using the Attack action, you can choose to make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you."

I think those wordings appropriately indicate that you must be using the Attack action in order to grapple or shove.

I hate to think it is really just an issue of semantics, but at this point I don't know what else to think...