NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7552871" data-attributes="member: 6777737">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:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Shield Master shove with Attack action</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Shield Master shove with many non-Attack actions</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Any attack-linked bonus action with Attack action</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> 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)</li> </ul>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.</blockquote>

Verification