D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat

[Paraxis]

Two weapon fighting is worded the same way, so whatever ruling you use for that at your table be consistent with this feat.

I have no issue with the bonus action happening before the attack action is resolved, so that you could shield bash first or attack with your off hand dagger first because you are sure that the enemy doesn't have much h.p left.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Just to be clear, from your reading, would you require the bonus action to happen after all the attacks granted to the character via Extra Attack?

I'm honestly not sure. By a strict reading of the rules, perhaps yes.

I've not thought through the implications of why the rules phrase extra attack as they do, though, nor how the extra attack interacts with the other abilities in the PHB.

 

[Larrin]

I can see both sides of the argument, and in these cases I try and line it up with the "feel" of the system. This is of course subjective, but I think developing a cohesive feel for rules can help make judgement calls more satisfying. I'm still getting a 'feel' for how 5e (for lack of a better word) _wants_ actions to work, so this is just a first thoughts response on an idea that probably has deeper implications.

Attack actions already have some interesting features in that you can break them up, trade them out in many ways. I think the "feel" of attack actions is that they are fluid and adaptable, to be changed out on the fly, and split up and rearranged to fit the story of the fight, not a button you push and wait the animation to finish.

In fact, I think maybe the way actions are capable of working in 5e is perhaps much more fluid than previous editions. There is a side bar about "what actions you can pair with a move action", and basically makes you able to gloss over a lot of things by just saying "i did it while i was moving" or even "I did it because I was able to move". I wonder if your actions on your turn are kind of suppose to be a soup: the actions you take give you the ingredients, but you kinda mix them up during the turn.

Maybe in 5e, when a shield basher takes his turn he gets 30ft of movement, some little action that can be pair with the movement,2 attacks with a weapon, a bonus action with a shield. He can stir those things up and do them in what ever order he wants. Maybe thats the sort of experience 5e wants/allows the player to have. On your turn you make a yummy Action Soup (tm) out of all your available actions in whatever order makes sense to you, the story and your DM.

*shrug* Not sure if this is how it can/should/may work, a good thing, a bad thing, or even a sane concept, but I do feel like 5e is trying to change bits of how action economy works, and the order in which you can take your shield bash is a poster child for the sorts of questions that can reveal some of the less obvious functionality of these differences (if they exist).

 

[trentonjoe]

Yeah, I originally thought it was a cheesy way to try to get advantage every round but now I am starting to buy the fluid action, feel of the game argument.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In fact, I think maybe the way actions are capable of working in 5e is perhaps much more fluid than previous editions. There is a side bar about "what actions you can pair with a move action", and basically makes you able to gloss over a lot of things by just saying "i did it while i was moving" or even "I did it because I was able to move". I wonder if your actions on your turn are kind of suppose to be a soup: the actions you take give you the ingredients, but you kinda mix them up during the turn.

This is a really good argument, and it makes sense to me of this perspective. Thanks.

 

[Pentegarn]

It seems pretty obvious that you have to TAKE an attack action to gain the bonus action. Once the action is taken, the bonus action can be taken before or after any extra attacks since an attack action has been taken.

But it really doesn't matter the way rules are written (no matter how obvious), or the way I interpret it. Most players are going to take advantage of any loopholes or vagueness they can find in a game system to interpret the rules the way they WANT to interpret them, and exploit anything they can. And if that's the way they enjoy playing at their table, that's fine, but I don't see the need in trying to justify exploiting the rules to others that aren't buying it.

It's just the way of things these days. It's why so many players now feel the rules have to spell everything out for them, down to the smallest detail. Legit players just have to hope for a DM that will see through the BS and not allow exploitation to build and break his game.

 

[1of3]

It seems pretty obvious that [...]

I'm surprised you can still say that after several people have argued for each side.

My interpretation would be that you have to take some part of your attack action at least, so make your first attack roll, grapple or other maneuver.

But apparently that is not obvious.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let's tone down the misrepresentation and hyperbole, please.

Brutal irony/PKB for you to say that to me, given I asked the same from you, and you refused, a few weeks back. Still, peace and love is more my motto than "No quarter given!", so, sure. I'm not knowingly misrepresenting you, though, that's just my reading. I genuinely don't understand why people don't think any action is "taken" until, essentially, a roll is a made. It flies in the face of basic logic, for me. The action is "taken" when the player and DM agree that that's the Action the PC is taking this round. As soon as you're locked into it, anything related triggers, so long as it makes sense.

I'm surprised you can still say that after several people have argued for each side.

My interpretation would be that you have to take some part of your attack action at least, so make your first attack roll, grapple or other maneuver.

But apparently that is not obvious.

Indeed not, and I can't even make sense of that. It's not even literalist, it's saying "An Action isn't taken until part of that Action has game mechanic effect", which, frankly, seems to fly in the face of the looser rules of 5E, and to my mind, basic logic, and further, isn't, as far as I can tell, RAW or RAI or Rules-as-Implied, even. I'm genuinely not seeing where it comes from.

The guy you were responding to seems to be demanding "loophole-free" rules, and that's unreasonable, I feel, because 5E has intentionally set things up so the DM does have a role in deciding how things work at his table. Honestly, I feel like forcing people to take the Attack action THEN roll at least one attack is a strange way of doing it which overcomplicates things and slows the game down. It's certainly not some sort of serious "EXPLOIT!!!!" to allow the bash to come first.

 

[1of3]

I see take action in opposite to declare action. If it was meant to be taken at any time, I would have used that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I see take action in opposite to declare action. If it was meant to be taken at any time, I would have used that.

I literally don't understand what you are saying here.