D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat

[Sean Culligan]

I think the problem is that you are reading the sub-headings under "Melee Attacks" as an enumeration of different kinds of melee attacks, as if "Melee Attacks" is the title of a list, and Opportunity Attacks, Two-Weapon Fighting, Grappling, and Shoving are the four possible ways to make a melee attack. It's not. (I mean, note that just your basic weapon attack is not even one of those sub-headings.) It's a section that contains various rules pertaining to melee combat, as distinguished from ranged combat.

If what you are saying is true...that anything under that heading is considered a "melee attack" and can be used whenever a character is allowed to make a melee attack...then somebody dual-wielding can make TWO opportunity attacks, because "Two-Weapon Fighting" is one of those sub-headings.

Tell me that the heading sections are not laid out in a pattern of main headings and sub sections by virtue of the font size and use of underlining. Tell me that opportunity attacks, two-weapon fighting, grappling and shoving are not melee attacks.

You are right that single weapon attacks is not covered under its own sub-section. Perhaps they should have done so but it is still covered under the main heading of the section.

Your example of an extra two weapon bonus attack doesn't make sense to me. It is allowed as a single bonus attack that can happen within the attack action. Only one bonus attack is allowed. That is clear. It is already allowed as a bonus attack. The question is why aren't the grapples and shoves allowed? Why isn't the shield master bonus shove allowed within the attack action when the two-weapon one is. Two weapon isn't the problem... its the other two.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Tell me that the heading sections are not laid out in a pattern of main headings and sub sections by virtue of the font size and use of underlining. Tell me that opportunity attacks, two-weapon fighting, grappling and shoving are not melee attacks.

You are right that single weapon attacks is not covered under its own sub-section. Perhaps they should have done so but it is still covered under the main heading of the section.

Your example of an extra two weapon bonus attack doesn't make sense to me. It is allowed as a single bonus attack that can happen within the attack action. Only one bonus attack is allowed. That is clear. It is already allowed as a bonus attack. The question is why aren't the grapples and shoves allowed? Why isn't the shield master bonus shove allowed within the attack action when the two-weapon one is. Two weapon isn't the problem... its the other two.

The point is that "Two-Weapon Fighting" is not an example of a "melee attack". It is a rule that relates to making melee attacks.

Whatever, man. This is so unimportant. Game on.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

PHB192 Actions in Combat: Attack - "The most common action to take in combat is the "Attack action", whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action; "you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for rules that govern attacks."

You keep quoting this section. Do you realize this is the general rule, and the sub-sections of OA, TWF, Grapple, and Shove are each separate specifics? Sense you understand that specifics beat general, that is why each case must be dealt with individually.

General rule: as a melee attack you can swing a sword, fire and arrow, etc.
Specific rules:

OA - make a melee attack as reaction when target moves out of reach
TWF - use bonus action to attack with off-hand when using the Attack action
Grapple - the use of the Attack action allows you to make your special melee attack involving a Strength (Athletics) check
Shove - the use of the Attack action allows you to make your special melee attack involving a Strength (Athletics) check

Those are the specific rules that beat the general rule you quote.

Each of those is not a specific rule to override another specific rule, such as your thoughts on OA trumping the use of an Attack action to grapple or shove.

Just something to think over.

 

[Sean Culligan]

You keep quoting this section. Do you realize this is the general rule, and the sub-sections of OA, TWF, Grapple, and Shove are each separate specifics? Sense you understand that specifics beat general, that is why each case must be dealt with individually.

Yes, I understand that. This general rule doesn't beat shove or grapple. Opportunity attack beats them. I quoted this section to show in general how opportunity attack beats the requirement for "attack action" for sword swings. Unfortunately this is the only spot that connects sword swings with attack actions that I can find. It is outside of the "Making an Attack" section and instead lies in the "Actions in Combat" section. It does however have a direct link to the Making an Attack section as you can see in the "attack" sub-section description.

I am sorry if my original point was not clear in this regard. I will have to work harder at conveying my exact meaning.

 

[Mistwell]

By taking a Readied action, you are making a normal Action into a Reaction under a specified trigger and ONLY that defined trigger. Making it a Readied action is an instance of a specific ruling, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, specific trumps general.

Obviously neither of you are taking the time to read Crawrford's official ruling which I quoted in my earlier post, #201. If you aren't willing to acknowledge the official ruling on the RAW, I can't help you. House-rule it however you like, but you are house-ruling it.

Maybe you can't find post #201, so here it is again by Crawford:

Can an opportunity attack be used to make a grapple or a shove?
Grappling and shoving are special melee attacks that require the Attack action (PH, 195). An opportunity attack is a special reaction. Take the Ready action if you want to attempt a grapple or a shove as a reaction.

Maybe that is finally clear enough??? Happy gaming to you both!

You're in a thread about the Shield Mastery feat where the guy you are quoting as the definitive authority on RAW changed his mind 3 years later to do a complete 180 turn on what is RAW. You see the irony of you claiming he's the definitive authority on RAW in this very thread, right?

 

[Mistwell]

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. You get no points for playing the game "RAW" or less points for playing with "house rules"... or the other way around. There ARE NO points. Thinking you get to say "I only play RAW!" as though that actually means something? Sorry, but it doesn't. So whether you interpret rules or think you don't HAVE to interpret rules because you see them so clearly that interpretation isn't necessary? It doesn't matter. Your game runs the same either way and no one else cares how you do it.

Attempting to use "Well, what you are using is a house rule" as though that's like an insult? It's ridiculous.

I agree. For 3e it made sense to argue about what the RAW was, because the theme of the game was a rule for every situation. However for 5e, it seems pretty silly. It's a game with intentionally vague rules to encourage every DM to run it the way they think it should work best. Only AL is supposed to be concerned with RAW questions, and even then it's just supposed to be within a reasonable range of acceptable answers. So yeah, there really is no, "That's not RAW but it would make a fine house rule" good argument to be made with this edition. The argument itself isn't RAW

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Yes, I understand that. This general rule doesn't beat shove or grapple. Opportunity attack beats them. I quoted this section to show in general how opportunity attack beats the requirement for "attack action" for sword swings. Unfortunately this is the only spot that connects sword swings with attack actions that I can find. It is outside of the "Making an Attack" section and instead lies in the "Actions in Combat" section. It does however have a direct link to the Making an Attack section as you can see in the "attack" sub-section description.

I am sorry if my original point was not clear in this regard. I will have to work harder at conveying my exact meaning.

Ok, just checking. But I guess that was my point: Opportunity attack doesn't beat them, as it is also a specific rule, not a general one.

OA, along with TWF, Grappling, and Shoving all fall under the Melee Attacks section because they are all forms of melee attacks, with two labeled as "special" because they are a Strength (Athletics) check and not an attack roll. Just as chocolate, angel food, fruit, and pound are all cakes, they are all different and have unique ingredients that make them different. There are other sorts of cakes, of course, just like their are other ways of attacking, such as unarmed or with a weapon. Some do damage directly through attack rolls, others have different effects like knocking someone prone, restraining them, or pushing them back.

I thought that was your intent, I just wanted to confirm it. But at this point, I can't think of any other way to explain it since your interpretation likely isn't going to change. Either way, as your interpretation or a house-rule, I don't think allowing a shove or grapple as an OA will hurt anything. We've discussed at length how depending on the scenario it could be well within the narrative for the DM to permit it.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I agree. For 3e it made sense to argue about what the RAW was, because the theme of the game was a rule for every situation. However for 5e, it seems pretty silly. It's a game with intentionally vague rules to encourage every DM to run it the way they think it should work best. Only AL is supposed to be concerned with RAW questions, and even then it's just supposed to be within a reasonable range of acceptable answers. So yeah, there really is no, "That's not RAW but it would make a fine house rule" good argument to be made with this edition. The argument itself isn't RAW

True. Using the RAW was a force of habit from other edition. After Sean's suggestion, I prefer and will try to use "official rules" moving forward.

 

[Mistwell]

True. Using the RAW was a force of habit from other edition. After Sean's suggestion, I prefer and will try to use "official rules" moving forward.

Except we have situations, like this very thread, where the official ruling drastically changes from one year to another. I mean, BOTH Mearls and Crawford repeatedly ruled you could use the bonus action shove prior to the attack action being taken, in their official rulings. It held that way for three years. Hundreds (probably thousands) of campaigns began and ended in that time frame using their official ruling.

And then one day Crawford just changed it. And without a lot of explanation for why he decided it was necessary to change his ruling. The prior ruling had been closer in time to when he had drafted the rule, so in terms of rules as intended it is more likely his prior ruling was closer to his intent, and given Mearls had made the same official ruling for the same rule back then it really does seem like their original intent was that the bonus action be taken any time prior to or after the attack action.

So I am not sure "official ruling" is always a very meaningful argument for this game either. Not when it can just change years later for mysterious reasons and without any relation to original intent for the rule.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except we have situations, like this very thread, where the official ruling drastically changes from one year to another. I mean, BOTH Mearls and Crawford repeatedly ruled you could use the bonus action shove prior to the attack action being taken, in their official rulings. It held that way for three years. Hundreds (probably thousands) of campaigns began and ended in that time frame using their official ruling.

And then one day Crawford just changed it. And without a lot of explanation for why he decided it was necessary to change his ruling. The prior ruling had been closer in time to when he had drafted the rule, so in terms of rules as intended it is more likely his prior ruling was closer to his intent, and given Mearls had made the same official ruling for the same rule back then it really does seem like their original intent was that the bonus action be taken any time prior to or after the attack action.

So I am not sure "official ruling" is always a very meaningful argument for this game either. Not when it can just change years later for mysterious reasons and without any relation to original intent for the rule.

Maybe he just changed the ruling because he was wrong?