# Shield master on twitter



## jaelis (May 11, 2018)

Sounds like JC has reversed his ruling on the timing of bonus actions:


> Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn.



https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/994993596989300736

Of course, everyone should ignore that and play as you like. But I guess it's good to know the official position.


----------



## cbwjm (May 11, 2018)

This is pretty much how I would run bonus actions that rely on another action happening anyway so no changes here.


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2018)

That's a very 4e type "Don't rely on the books or sage advice as either can be errata'ed for minor balance reasons at any time" type ruling. Very bad precedent to set.


----------



## Gladius Legis (May 11, 2018)

Yeaaaaaaah ... I'm ignoring that. You don't get to officially rule it one way early on and have everyone play it that way for years, then all of a sudden change it via a tweet.


----------



## lkj (May 11, 2018)

Sounds like it's a change he made a year ago and realized today that he hadn't changed an old tweet on shield master that was contradictory. And while it's annoying, I'd rather if he realizes he made a mistake that he go ahead and let us know.  I don't have my books with me, but my impression is that the change makes it more in line with the book wording. 

AD


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2018)

lkj said:


> Sounds like it's a change he made a year ago and realized today that he hadn't changed an old tweet on shield master that was contradictory. And while it's annoying, I'd rather if he realizes he made a mistake that he go ahead and let us know.  I don't have my books with me, but my impression is that the change makes it more in line with the book wording.
> 
> AD




His stated reason was he felt it was "cheese".
He did not start out saying it was a mistake he said it was a "clarification". As if his prior ruling was somehow "unclear".

This really is the first time I am thinking OK, Crawford is going down that 4e road for minor balance reasons. It leaves me with a sense of mistrust for his decisionmaking now.


----------



## lkj (May 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> His stated reason was he felt it was "cheese".
> He did not start out saying it was a mistake he said it was a "clarification". As if his prior ruling was somehow "unclear".
> 
> This really is the first time I am thinking OK, Crawford is going down that 4e road for minor balance reasons. It leaves me with a sense of mistrust for his decisionmaking now.




I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate why you feel that way. But, for myself, it doesn't seem like a big deal.  He does mention 'cheese' in one of his tweets. But it's a response to someone about the feat and not a justification for the change. He's pretty clear that he'd already made the change before he considered shield master (and I'm sure the old tweet is around there somewhere, so I believe him). 

I'll agree with you on this though-- I wish he would have avoided using 'clarify', since changing a ruling isn't 'clarifying'.  He does say it more clearly in his lat post though:

"In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight."

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216

That makes it pretty clear that he's acknowledging a mistake and calling his own ruling illogical. 

Anyway, I don't think it had to do with balance. I think he realized that his ruling kept contradicting the wording in the game and finally decided it was silly to hang on to it.

AD


----------



## lkj (May 12, 2018)

And this tweet sums up his reasoning further:

"Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling"

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995016512497840134

AD


----------



## Bardbarian (May 12, 2018)

This changes everything! Now DMs will have to decide whether or not to use Sage Advice rulings when running their own games.


----------



## Jester David (May 12, 2018)

The tweet is how I would rule it. That’s the natural language. 
If X then Y, means X comes first. If you take the Attack action, you can do something as a bonus action. That means the action comes first.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 12, 2018)

lkj said:


> Sounds like it's a change he made a year ago and realized today that he hadn't changed an old tweet on shield master that was contradictory. And while it's annoying, I'd rather if he realizes he made a mistake that he go ahead and let us know. ....



 So he's not tweeting errata, he's errata'ing a tweet?







...I am so out of the loop, these days...


----------



## Jester David (May 12, 2018)

Bardbarian said:


> This changes everything! Now DMs will have to decide whether or not to use Sage Advice rulings when running their own games.



This has always been the case. 
Sage Advice has always been the designer’s advice and personal rulings.


----------



## lkj (May 12, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> So he's not tweeting errata, he's errata'ing a tweet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah. It's not errata. It's just a rules interpretation that he's changing. 

'No Player's Handbooks were harmed in the composing of this tweet'

AD


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (May 12, 2018)




----------



## jgsugden (May 12, 2018)

He made a bad call in 2015.  He fixed it in 2017, but we didn not notice.  He reminded us in 2018.  

The rule now makes sense gives the text... so what is the problem?  That he originally made a mistake?  

Yes, I know some people have been making use of the so called cheese for several years.  It was always annoyin when I saw it.  I'm not sad that it will be diminished... but if your table doesn't want it to go away, it should not at your table.  Work it out with your DM.


----------



## TwoSix (May 12, 2018)

The particular problem with the ruling is that it doesn't make any sense that you can't shield bash and then attack, or attack with an off-hand and then the main hand.

Personally, I'm leaning towards just house ruling that if you have an ability that costs a bonus action, you can just do it.  There's no particular action type required to trigger it.  If you have Shield Master, you can just shove as a bonus action.  If you're wielding a light weapon in the off hand, you can make a bonus action attack with it.


----------



## Hriston (May 12, 2018)

I prefer the pre-2017 ruling where the timing of a bonus action was kept flexible, which seems to have been the intent of this rule: "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified". I don't buy the supposed logic of "when you X, you can Y" being interpreted as a hard specification of the timing of Y as coming after X. To me, _when_ in this context just means "roughly at the same time".


----------



## Jester David (May 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> The particular problem with the ruling is that it doesn't make any sense that you can't shield bash and then attack, or attack with an off-hand and then the main hand.



It's a quirk of the phrasing but is hardly the most glaring example of weird logic that arises from the rules. 



TwoSix said:


> Personally, I'm leaning towards just house ruling that if you have an ability that costs a bonus action, you can just do it.  There's no particular action type required to trigger it.  If you have Shield Master, you can just shove as a bonus action.  If you're wielding a light weapon in the off hand, you can make a bonus action attack with it.



But, if it's just a bonus action, can't you then attack with the off-hand weapon or shove with a shield and choose an action other than Attack? Such as Dodge. Or Ready?


----------



## Patrick McGill (May 12, 2018)

It makes sense as far as game logic as written. X if Y, Y needs to be before X can be. If you have the Extra attack feature your attack action is two attacks. Honestly if this had ever arisen as a question at my table that's how I would have ruled it.

From a role playing angle though the whole thing makes no sense at all. Why is there a condition on bashing with your shield? It makes even less sense that the condition is attacking. When you attack someone they normally go defensive. Trying to knock someone down with your shield after already swinging at them is like the worst moment to try to do that, at least it seems that way to me. If it has to have a trigger, it would make more sense as a reaction to getting missed with an attack.


----------



## cbwjm (May 12, 2018)

The best thing about his clarification/correction/whatever, is how much some people are freaking out about it. I've been browsing a thread on reddit, looking at some of the tweets, and man are some people are going crazy over the change.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

Shield master is cheese because of the timing of a chance to knock someone (with size limitations) prone but using Sharp Shooter to attack a target at maximum range behind 3/4 cover without penalty isn’t?

I guess JC likes himself some ranged characters.


----------



## Patrick McGill (May 12, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> The best thing about his clarification/correction/whatever, is how much some people are freaking out about it. I've been browsing a thread on reddit, looking at some of the tweets, and man are some people are going crazy over the change.




I just went and read the reddit thread. Gee whiz are those folks angry.


----------



## jaelis (May 12, 2018)

Yes, it is impressive!


----------



## iserith (May 12, 2018)

Man, that's how I originally called it when the PHB came out but went with the forum consensus. Once again the internet has led me astray. First porn, now this.


----------



## guachi (May 12, 2018)

I created my Twitter account specifically to ask this question. So you can now know my real name if you wanted to as the linked tweet was to my question.

I think it's a dumb rules change and let Crawford know. It puts Shield Master far down the list of useful feats. I'm trying to think of a reason to take this feat and I really can't. Honestly, I think GWM taken by a shield user is a better feat than Shield Master is. And that's sad.


----------



## guachi (May 12, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> The best thing about his clarification/correction/whatever, is how much some people are freaking out about it. I've been browsing a thread on reddit, looking at some of the tweets, and man are some people are going crazy over the change.




People are upset because characters they made that make extensive use of the feat now can't use it anymore. Imagine if your Barbarian could no longer use Reckless Attack or cantrips didn't scale damage with character level, or GWM could no longer use the -5/+10 part of the feat or if Cunning Action now had to be taken after your Attack Action.

Entire characters would be wrecked. Things people did every turn - and enjoyed doing - are now things people can no longer do. I actually had a Shield Master using PC and he was really fun! There's no reason whatsoever to take the feat now. The PC wouldn't even be the same character.

That's why people are upset. It's a core part of basically any PC that takes the feat.


----------



## Caliban (May 12, 2018)

I think the wording of the PHB leaves it open to both interpretations - both his original one, and the one he is using now.   

The feat simply says: "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."    

It leaves the timing of the bonus action vague ("If you use" not "When you use"), simply requiring that you take the attack action at some point on your turn.    It can seem a bit illogical that an optional bonus action can lock you into particular main action - even you are not longer able to take the attack action as a result of the bonus action shove.   (Such as if you shove them out of your melee reach instead of knocking them prone).   I was personally fine with that potential paradox, but apparently he just couldn't handle it anymore.  

A side effect of this ruling that now the bonus action attack from dual wielding and polearm master must take place after you make your regular attacks.  Not that it matters nearly as much in those situations.


----------



## Shiroiken (May 12, 2018)

I generally read Sage Advice and sometimes these twitter rulings, but I generally find myself using the opposite of JC. This was one of the few "rulings" I was okay with, so I'm not surprised he changed it. Rulings not rules, is by far the best philosophy they've put forth.


----------



## lkj (May 12, 2018)

guachi said:


> I created my Twitter account specifically to ask this question. So you can now know my real name if you wanted to as the linked tweet was to my question.
> 
> I think it's a dumb rules change and let Crawford know. It puts Shield Master far down the list of useful feats. I'm trying to think of a reason to take this feat and I really can't. Honestly, I think GWM taken by a shield user is a better feat than Shield Master is. And that's sad.




I can totally see why losing the shove-attack option on the same round would be a bummer. But essentially getting the 'no damage' part of the Rogue's Evasion ability is pretty big. It has saved the fighter in our group multiple times. And getting a shield bonus to Dex Saves is also pretty sweet. 

In other words-- I understand that if you built a character concept around the shove why it would be disappointing. But I don't agree that the Shield Master isn't very useful without it.

AD


----------



## 5ekyu (May 12, 2018)

"From a role playing angle though the whole thing makes no sense at all. Why is there a condition on bashing with your shield?"

There isnt.

With a shield you can make an improvised attack as normal under the rules for attack.
With a shield, you can shove, using your attack action as one of the attacks.

Be clear, shield master does not allow these, they are already there.

Shield master simply **adds** a new set of conditions under which you can use your attack action, get all of its attacks and **also** use your shield for the bonus attack option as described. Your attack action strikes setup the enemy for your bonus bash.

So, not limiting at all - adding more.


----------



## guachi (May 12, 2018)

In my games, I've seen the damage reduction part used once in three years and the dex save bonus used once (by my PC. Sadly, I still failed the save). If it came up more often it'd be fine. But, think about it, you could have spent the ASI raising your Dex instead and get +1 on all Dex saves all the time for everything instead of +2 once in awhile.


----------



## lkj (May 12, 2018)

guachi said:


> In my games, I've seen the damage reduction part used once in three years and the dex save bonus used once (by my PC. Sadly, I still failed the save). If it came up more often it'd be fine. But, think about it, you could have spent the ASI raising your Dex instead and get +1 on all Dex saves all the time for everything instead of +2 once in awhile.




I guess we just have a lot more fireballs and dragon breath and the like in our particular campaign.  Has happened enough that that has become the main feature of shield master for him. Just seems like there are a lot of spells and effects that have a Dex save for half.  

But yeah, obviously, if it doesn't happen much in your game, then less useful.

AD

-- Edit: Though it's worth pointing out that you get the bonus to the Dex save any time you are specifically targetted (and only you) and then the 'no damage' thing whenever it's a save for half. So should be happening on a fair number of Dex saves


----------



## Ansel Darach (May 12, 2018)

His clarification doesn't work the way he thinks it works, taking the attack action will lock what your action is into place, but taking the "attack action" is not and has nothing to do with making an "attack", hence you can take the attack action then use a bonus action for shield master for that knockdown chance following up with your normal attacks after.

At least until they rule you can't move between attacks anymore, oh and that you must immediately make attacks against something within range upon taking the attack action etc etc, seems they don't know how the game they wrote the rules for works sometimes lol.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Shield master is cheese because of the timing of a chance to knock someone (with size limitations) prone but using Sharp Shooter to attack a target at maximum range behind 3/4 cover without penalty isn’t?
> 
> I guess JC likes himself some ranged characters.




thst isn’t cheese by any definition, it’s just the literal point of Sharpshooter. 



guachi said:


> People are upset because characters they made that make extensive use of the feat now can't use it anymore. Imagine if your Barbarian could no longer use Reckless Attack or cantrips didn't scale damage with character level, or GWM could no longer use the -5/+10 part of the feat or if Cunning Action now had to be taken after your Attack Action.
> 
> Entire characters would be wrecked. Things people did every turn - and enjoyed doing - are now things people can no longer do. I actually had a Shield Master using PC and he was really fun! There's no reason whatsoever to take the feat now. The PC wouldn't even be the same character.
> 
> That's why people are upset. It's a core part of basically any PC that takes the feat.



if a mild change to a feat makes them “not th same character”, that isn’t a rules problem, it’s a player problem. 



lkj said:


> I can totally see why losing the shove-attack option on the same round would be a bummer. But essentially getting the 'no damage' part of the Rogue's Evasion ability is pretty big. It has saved the fighter in our group multiple times. And getting a shield bonus to Dex Saves is also pretty sweet.
> 
> In other words-- I understand that if you built a character concept around the shove why it would be disappointing. But I don't agree that the Shield Master isn't very useful without it.
> 
> AD




yah it’s a strong feat regardless.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 12, 2018)

Oh no! 

Now we've got two campaigns to re-play!


----------



## 5ekyu (May 12, 2018)

Ansel Darach said:


> His clarification doesn't work the way he thinks it works, taking the attack action will lock what your action is into place, but taking the "attack action" is not and has nothing to do with making an "attack", hence you can take the attack action then use a bonus action for shield master for that knockdown chance following up with your normal attacks after.
> 
> At least until they rule you can't move between attacks anymore, oh and that you must immediately make attacks against something within range upon taking the attack action etc etc, seems they don't know how the game they wrote the rules for works sometimes lol.



Sorry, but there is nothing not working the wzy he wants or how they think it plays in your examples.

The fact that you can move between attacks says nothing about when you can bonus attack off an attack action. 
They have very specific rules allowing you to move between the attacks, before, after etc right there is the rulebooks.

That specific defined inter-relation says nothing about bonus actions that are dependent on attack actions.


----------



## Arial Black (May 12, 2018)

So my 4th level fighter gets the Shield Master feat. Now I can shield bash, but ONLY if I execute my one attack first.

Okay, so attacking ONCE is the thing that allows me to shield bash, right?

Now I get to 5th level and gain Extra Attack.

Why does one attack no longer allow me to shield bash? Why does it now take two attacks? I'm supposed to be better than I was a level ago, not worse!

What's going on?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 12, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> So my 4th level fighter gets the Shield Master feat. Now I can shield bash, but ONLY if I execute my one attack first.
> 
> Okay, so attacking ONCE is the thing that allows me to shield bash, right?
> 
> ...



You can still take one attack then bash. Nothing has changed there.

But at fifth you gained the new option to take two attacks and bash.

So, it doesnt "take two attacks" just the same old one... But... You can take two before bashing if you want.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 12, 2018)

I really don´t know why you are so angry... he already changed a ruling about bark skin.

about shield master: yes, it is a nerf, but they already stated that the feat was badly designed, because you now have a standard routine that forces the enemy to contest every single round. It was never meant to be used that way. Now, you have the option of shoving after your attack. That will allow you to retreat, shove the enemy into you own friends, shoving them prone if another melee combatant takes its turn after you, and so on.
I´d say there is more bad design in that feat: it is strange that the one bonus depends on the fact that only you are targeted by a spell... why not giving that bonus all the time. Why is it important that you are the sole target of the enemy fireball...?


----------



## cbwjm (May 12, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really don´t know why you are so angry... he already changed a ruling about bark skin.
> 
> about shield master: yes, it is a nerf, but they already stated that the feat was badly designed, because you now have a standard routine that forces the enemy to contest every single round. It was never meant to be used that way. Now, you have the option of shoving after your attack. That will allow you to retreat, shove the enemy into you own friends, shoving them prone if another melee combatant takes its turn after you, and so on.
> I´d say there is more bad design in that feat: it is strange that the one bonus depends on the fact that only you are targeted by a spell... why not giving that bonus all the time. Why is it important that you are the sole target of the enemy fireball...?



What was the ruling about barkskin? Last I heard was that your AC is is set to a minimum of 16 or something though I just treat it as heavy armour and allow a shield bonus if you are using one.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "From a role playing angle though the whole thing makes no sense at all. Why is there a condition on bashing with your shield?"
> 
> There isnt.
> 
> ...




It’s limited by the size condition written into the Shove action, no more than one size larger.   That alone makes shove a limited action as PC lives are filled with huge and larger creatures that are dangerous.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> thst isn’t cheese by any definition, it’s just the literal point of Sharpshooter.
> 
> 
> if a mild change to a feat makes them “not th same character”, that isn’t a rules problem, it’s a player problem.
> ...




 You missed the point of my statement entirely.  JC claimed it was cheese in his tweet.  That he considers it cheese at all compared to SS is absurd.  That’s why I put a ? at the end but I guess you missed it.

Yes the point of SS is that it is a ridiculous feat that is way more OP then shield master ever was.  That’s the point.  

It’s not a mild change either, Shield Master isn’t any good as a feat now and not worth taking.  It was 3 situational benefits in a package that added up to be ok with the right build.  The choices before where SS for ranged (dominant) GW or GW + PAM (excellent) or for shield builds Shield Mastery (not as good as first 2 but fun and still useful.)

Now since you can’t benefit from your own shield bash if the initiative comes out unfavorable your team can’t either as the creature will just stand up before they can go.  That makes it essentially useless.  Shield Mastery was a good feat because you could set up yourself (with the right sized creature and good rolls) and sometimes your teammates

Both SS and GWM and PAM are FAR more powerful now and let the PC who took them benefit directly from taking them with zero conditions, you just use them when you wish. 

And don’t bother to say -5 to hit is a limitation, it isn’t.  There are many ways to mitigate that, and it’s only -3 to hit for SS anyway since the people who take it take archery style also. 

Nothing in Shield Master (or any other feat really) compares to the effective -3/+10 DMG with no range or obstacle limitations in SS in a bounded accuracy game.  

That’s cheese to me by definition.  There is a reason many DM limit it and many threads here call it out as OP and ridiculous.  I have never seen the thread that Shield Master needs to be reigned in or the build guide in which Shield Master is rated “must have.”


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> thst isn’t cheese by any definition, it’s just the literal point of Sharpshooter.
> 
> 
> if a mild change to a feat makes them “not th same character”, that isn’t a rules problem, it’s a player problem.
> ...




 You missed the point of my statement entirely.  JC claimed it was cheese in his tweet.  That he considers it cheese at all compared to SS is absurd.  That’s why I put a ? at the end but I guess you missed it.

Yes the point of SS is that it is a ridiculous feat that is way more OP then shield master ever was.  That’s the point.  

It’s not a mild change either, Shield Master isn’t any good as a feat now and not worth taking.  It was 3 situational benefits in a package that added up to be ok with the right build.  The choices before where SS for ranged (dominant) GW or GW + PAM (excellent) or for shield builds Shield Mastery (not as good as first 2 but fun and still useful.)

Now since you can’t benefit from your own shield bash if the initiative comes out unfavorable your team can’t either as the creature will just stand up before they can go.  That makes it essentially useless.  Shield Mastery was a good feat because you could set up yourself (with the right sized creature and good rolls) and sometimes your teammates

Both SS and GWM and PAM are FAR more powerful now and let the PC who took them benefit directly from taking them with zero conditions, you just use them when you wish. 

And don’t bother to say -5 to hit is a limitation, it isn’t.  There are many ways to mitigate that, and it’s only -3 to hit for SS anyway since the people who take it take archery style also. 

Nothing in Shield Master (or any other feat really) compares to the effective -3/+10 DMG with no range or obstacle limitations in SS in a bounded accuracy game.  

That’s cheese to me by definition.  There is a reason many DM limit it and many threads here call it out as OP and ridiculous.  I have never seen the thread that Shield Master needs to be reigned in or the build guide in which Shield Master is rated “must have.”


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really don´t know why you are so angry... he already changed a ruling about bark skin.
> 
> about shield master: yes, it is a nerf, but they already stated that the feat was badly designed, because you now have a standard routine that forces the enemy to contest every single round. It was never meant to be used that way. Now, you have the option of shoving after your attack. That will allow you to retreat, shove the enemy into you own friends, shoving them prone if another melee combatant takes its turn after you, and so on.
> I´d say there is more bad design in that feat: it is strange that the one bonus depends on the fact that only you are targeted by a spell... why not giving that bonus all the time. Why is it important that you are the sole target of the enemy fireball...?




Forcing some enemies to contest every round isn’t a bad feat design.  Enemies contest against SS, GWM and PAM every round with less chance at success in some cases and for more direct damage, they just contest with AC.  

Look at it this way, GWM and SS users probably outnumber Shield Mastery users 10 to 15 -1 at the tables.  I didn’t check the character guides section for the martial classes before I wrote this but I don’t think I ever saw a recommended Shield Master build except as a niche.  

I don’t think it was a problem that needed correction even if it wasn’t as intended.  I would have changed to wording to allow it.  The feat should have been written “after your attack action completes” if they wanted to be clear.


----------



## jaelis (May 12, 2018)

I don’t think the point was to make the feat weaker, it was to make the rules simpler and easier to interpret. I do agree that the new ruling is the more obvious one. It is also consistent with existing rulings in the Sage Advice document. 

But if you think the old mechanics worked better, keep using them. Just like you could have done all along even if he’d ruled this way from the start. 

Not even AL games are “required” to follow the Twitter rulings.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> You missed the point of my statement entirely.  JC claimed it was cheese in his tweet.  That he considers it cheese at all compared to SS is absurd.  That’s why I put a ? at the end but I guess you missed it.
> 
> Yes the point of SS is that it is a ridiculous feat that is way more OP then shield master ever was.  That’s the point.
> 
> ...



Banning/redesigning GWM and SS is an obvious move by any DM playing with minmaxers.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> It’s limited by the size condition written into the Shove action, no more than one size larger.   That alone makes shove a limited action as PC lives are filled with huge and larger creatures that are dangerous.




Huh? Yes, shove action still retains the limitations it always had. For example, you cannot shove someone who is on another planet.

Shield Master and bonus actions et al have not changed those.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

jaelis said:


> I don’t think the point was to make the feat weaker, it was to make the rules simpler and easier to interpret. I do agree that the new ruling is the more obvious one. It is also consistent with existing rulings in the Sage Advice document.
> 
> But if you think the old mechanics worked better, keep using them. Just like you could have done all along even if he’d ruled this way from the start.
> 
> Not even AL games are “required” to follow the Twitter rulings.




I am not sure because I don’t see how it makes any other rule simpler and easier to interpret.  If JC wanted to he could have worded Shield Master like Monks Flurry of Blows, they didn’t.

I will of course use the old way, it’s makes the feat worth taking as opposed to almost garbage now and players enjoy it.  But then I am the DM that rolls for ability scores, lets rogues use hand axes to sneak attack (the dwarf rogue mini has hand axes) lets fighters use their shield to bash without penalty for a d4 (a trained fighter would learn that as part of using a shield) etc.   None of which has ruined my game.


----------



## Oofta (May 12, 2018)

There is now virtually no reason to take the feat.  Resiliency is far better for improving dexterity saves.  If you want to avoid damage, you should have increased your constitution or taken Durable.  Want to run around avoiding combat?  Should have taken a different class because that's not what my character is there for.  I _want_ to be the focus of attacks.  If I can still attack-shove-attack at 5th level I'm still going to have an opposed roll every round so that buys nothing.

Shield master was one of the few iconic feats designed for tank/sword-and-board characters.  Two weapon fighting?  Dual Weapon is pretty good.  Two-Handed?  Great Weapon and/or Polearm Master especially in combination with Sentinel.  Archer?  The obvious.  

I guess I can still run it the way I want for home games (I've never considered tweets official), but for AL play?  My fighter is now stuck with a feat that buys them basically nothing useful.


----------



## TwoSix (May 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> But, if it's just a bonus action, can't you then attack with the off-hand weapon or shove with a shield and choose an action other than Attack? Such as Dodge. Or Ready?



Sure.  Sounds fun to me.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

Oofta said:


> There is now virtually no reason to take the feat.  Resiliency is far better for improving dexterity saves.  If you want to avoid damage, you should have increased your constitution or taken Durable.  Want to run around avoiding combat?  Should have taken a different class because that's not what my character is there for.  I _want_ to be the focus of attacks.  If I can still attack-shove-attack at 5th level I'm still going to have an opposed roll every round so that buys nothing.
> 
> Shield master was one of the few iconic feats designed for tank/sword-and-board characters.  Two weapon fighting?  Dual Weapon is pretty good.  Two-Handed?  Great Weapon and/or Polearm Master especially in combination with Sentinel.  Archer?  The obvious.
> 
> I guess I can still run it the way I want for home games (I've never considered tweets official), but for AL play?  My fighter is now stuck with a feat that buys them basically nothing useful.




This.


----------



## TwoSix (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I am not sure because I don’t see how it makes any other rule simpler and easier to interpret.  If JC wanted to he could have worded Shield Master like Monks Flurry of Blows, they didn’t.
> 
> I will of course use the old way, it’s makes the feat worth taking as opposed to almost garbage now and players enjoy it.  But then I am the DM that rolls for ability scores, lets rogues use hand axes to sneak attack (the dwarf rogue mini has hand axes) lets fighters use their shield to bash without penalty for a d4 (a trained fighter would learn that as part of using a shield) etc.   None of which has ruined my game.



Yea, 5e is pretty hard to break.  The worst thing balance adjustments like this SM nerf do is change the balance between various PC options, which is often problematic.


----------



## jaelis (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> I am not sure because I don’t see how it makes any other rule simpler and easier to interpret.  If JC wanted to he could have worded Shield Master like Monks Flurry of Blows, they didn’t.



I think that in normal usage, when you say "If you do A, you can do B," it implies that B occurs after A. Otherwise there would be a lot of kids claiming their dessert before cleaning their room 



> I will of course use the old way, it’s makes the feat worth taking as opposed to almost garbage now and players enjoy it.  But then I am the DM that rolls for ability scores, lets rogues use hand axes to sneak attack (the dwarf rogue mini has hand axes) lets fighters use their shield to bash without penalty for a d4 (a trained fighter would learn that as part of using a shield) etc.   None of which has ruined my game.



Sure. But it is far from the only crappy feat, and far even from the worst IMO. In general they did a poor job balancing the feats, I think that if you play with feats you probably ought to adjust them. But I wouldn't say adopting a strained interpretation of the wording is a good way to do that.

Just another example: Elemental Adept is universally judged as terrible. A way to fix it is to interpret the benefit "when you roll damage for a spell you cast that deals damage of that type, you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2" to mean that if you roll 10 damage for you firebolt, it becomes 20. That is a perfectly defensible reading, but IMO not a good idea.


----------



## Jester David (May 12, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Sure.  Sounds fun to me.




It pretty much negates the usefulness of Cunning Action for rogues, since you can do anything with your action rather than just Dash, Disengage, and Hide. 
Or bonus action attack, and Ready to attack again when the enemy acts, doubling your attacks each round with both being granted Sneak Attack. 

And the Tank fighter/ Paladin has a much better tactic. Move forward and offhand attack with his shield then Dodge, making your chances of being hit exceedingly low.


----------



## Oofta (May 12, 2018)

jaelis said:


> I think that in normal usage, when you say "If you do A, you can do B," it implies that B occurs after A. Otherwise there would be a lot of kids claiming their dessert before cleaning their room
> 
> 
> Sure. But it is far from the only crappy feat, and far even from the worst IMO. In general they did a poor job balancing the feats, I think that if you play with feats you probably ought to adjust them. But I wouldn't say adopting a strained interpretation of the wording is a good way to do that.
> ...




But at least elemental adept is useful based on the campaign.  For example in a recent campaign I ran one of the themes was soldiers/monsters infused with red dragon dragon blood so therefore regularly had fire resistance.  So in addition to a minor bump in damage, the feat is still worth taking.  That may not be true for every campaign.

On the other hand, I struggle to think of any value that shield master adds that could not be done better with other feats or just increasing ability scores.  Which is not the end of the world if I could swap out the feat for something else useful or continue playing the way it worked when I chose the feat.  Unfortunately for me the affected character is an AL so I'm SOL depending on my DM.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> You missed the point of my statement entirely.  JC claimed it was cheese in his tweet.  That he considers it cheese at all compared to SS is absurd.  That’s why I put a ? at the end but I guess you missed it.
> 
> Yes the point of SS is that it is a ridiculous feat that is way more OP then shield master ever was.  That’s the point.
> 
> ...




The useage of shield master you liked was cheese, though, and SS isn’t. 

Cheese doesn’t mean “it’s powerful”, it means that something is being used in a way that bends RAI to go beyond what it was meant to do. 

Shield Master is still a good feat. 5ft of forced movement as a bonus is good. It can often put enemies into positions that they can’t escape from without getting rekt, or just give you allies better room to maneuver, make the target unable to OA an ally, break a grapple, etc
Knocking them down is still useful to your allies, and getting back up still costs half their movement, which makes it useful for locking down an enemy that wants past you. And the only way initiative can make it useless is if the enemy goes after you but before any of your allies go. That isn’t exactly going to happen all the time. 

As for the defensive stuff, they should be relevant quite often. You’ve basically got evasion as part of a feat. If it isn’t coming up often for you...sorry your DM isn’t using dex save spells?

Regardless, this doesn’t ruin the feat, it literally just clarified what the rules mean, and discourages cheese.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The useage of shield master you liked was cheese, though, and SS isn’t.
> 
> Cheese doesn’t mean “it’s powerful”, it means that something is being used in a way that binds RAI to go beyond what it was meant to do.
> 
> ...




 No, it made the feat not worth taking.  It’s not nearly as good as evasion, and evasion wouldn’t be worth a feat either.

And yes SS is cheese, the fact they built in doesn’t make it less so.  

If JC really really wanted RAI he would have wrote it that way or changed it years ago as it’s been used that way openly since the PHB came out.  He saw something he didn’t like and changed it, that’s cheese in and of itself.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 12, 2018)

I mean.... it was pretty clear from the wording of the feat that this is the way it was supposed to be ruled so...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Forcing some enemies to contest every round isn’t a bad feat design.  Enemies contest against SS, GWM and PAM every round with less chance at success in some cases and for more direct damage, they just contest with AC.
> 
> Look at it this way, GWM and SS users probably outnumber Shield Mastery users 10 to 15 -1 at the tables.  I didn’t check the character guides section for the martial classes before I wrote this but I don’t think I ever saw a recommended Shield Master build except as a niche.
> 
> I don’t think it was a problem that needed correction even if it wasn’t as intended.  I would have changed to wording to allow it.  The feat should have been written “after your attack action completes” if they wanted to be clear.




You are missing the point. It slows down the game and is boring. GWM and SS has nothing to do with that. Both are also quite overrated. They are especially good in trivial encounters and are actually speeding up the game... My statement was not about balance.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 12, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> What was the ruling about barkskin? Last I heard was that your AC is is set to a minimum of 16 or something though I just treat it as heavy armour and allow a shield bonus if you are using one.




He ruled before that you can add shield bonus or cover. I rule it the same as you, with the exception that it does not reduce your AC to 16 if it was already higher.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The useage of shield master you liked was cheese, though, and SS isn’t.
> 
> Cheese doesn’t mean “it’s powerful”, it means that something is being used in a way that bends RAI to go beyond what it was meant to do.
> 
> ...



Hmm sttike strike bash prone then back off (they can OA at disad if they want) moving your move back and they have to spend half their move to get up and so cannot retaliate is intriguing - or as some would say worthless even if your other allies can daisy chain in for advantaged strikes.

Yup.


----------



## Mistwell (May 12, 2018)

lkj said:


> I can totally see why losing the shove-attack option on the same round would be a bummer. But essentially getting the 'no damage' part of the Rogue's Evasion ability is pretty big. It has saved the fighter in our group multiple times. And getting a shield bonus to Dex Saves is also pretty sweet.
> 
> AD




You're a sword and board user who does not benefit from Dex for attack and damage most of the time. But, you're one of the fighting classes, so you almost certainly have a high strength. IE, you almost certainly have a lower Dex in exchange for the higher Str. 

The rogue ability depends on making your Dex save to begin with. 

Yes, you have the shield bonus to Dex saves now, which helps. But, odds are you still don't have a high enough Dex bonus to depend on the Rogue-like ability to begin with. Only in the unusual cases of a PC who happens to have both a high Str and a high Dex would it be a genuinely rogue-like ability in practice for that PC.

It's not something you'd take as a feat itself. You'd probably prefer the Resilient Feat instead, if that were the purpose of the feat. That way it continues to go up as your proficiency bonus increases over time, and the other benefits of a higher Dex will come as well (such as initiative, and some skill checks). 

It's just...not why people were taking this feat. People were taking it to do something with their bonus actions with a fighter-type, when they had decided to go with the (otherwise sub-optimal) sword and board instead of the big two handed weapon and/or polearm and/or duel wield or Dex fighter. There are ways to use your bonus action with each of those types of builds, and now the bonus action option for the sword and board guy is frequently useless (or even harmful, in a party of ranged attackers beside you).


----------



## jaelis (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> No, it made the feat not worth taking.  It’s not nearly as good as evasion, and evasion wouldn’t be worth a feat either.



Obviously that is a matter of opinion, but taking your position for granted, it just means that the feat, as written, was never worth taking in the first place. JC's comment just clarified that the his original strained reading that make it worthwhile was, in fact, strained.

If your table likes that reading better though, then by all means use it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 12, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> No, it made the feat not worth taking.  It’s not nearly as good as evasion, and evasion wouldn’t be worth a feat either.
> 
> And yes SS is cheese, the fact they built in doesn’t make it less so.
> 
> If JC really really wanted RAI he would have wrote it that way or changed it years ago as it’s been used that way openly since the PHB came out.  He saw something he didn’t like and changed it, that’s cheese in and of itself.




Good thing the pseudo-evasion benefit isn’t the only benefit. 

Shoving as a bonus action after an attack is useful. Few feats are always super useful, most are situational. That doesn’t make them worthless. This one is far from. 

A thing can’t be cheese if it’s working as intended. There is nothing cheesy about SS. Cheese doesn’t mean powerful. You may think it’s too powerful, but (beside the fact you’re wrong IMO) that doesn’t make it cheese. 

The only problem here is people who put too much stock in powergaming. I also enjoy powergaming, but I don’t count things as worthless if I wouldn’t take them when I’m powergaming.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Hmm sttike strike bash prone then back off (they can OA at disad if they want) moving your move back and they have to spend half their move to get up and so cannot retaliate is intriguing - or as some would say worthless even if your other allies can daisy chain in for advantaged strikes.
> 
> Yup.




Lol thst is a thing you could sometimes do, tho there are many other uses that will be relevant more often. Also, against very dangerous enemies, it can save your life, and allow 1-2 rounds where the enemy is subject to attacks but can’t optimally Attack the party. (Either they aren’t good at range or they dash to close with you/your team, burnig their turn on ineffectual actions) 

it can also just help keep an enemy in a “kill box”, without losing out on any of your own attacks. Especially when combined with someone else creating difficult terrain. 

Attack, prone, less tough ally moves away, enemy can’t chase them. Maybe my dm is more tactical than yours, but this sort of thing comes up A LOT when I’m a player, and fairly often when I DM. 

Attack, push, ally is set up to do something awful to them on their turn. 
          Related: Attack, push into an AoE, or into a place where an ally can safely use an AoE


Seriously I don’t understand why people talk about this feat as if the character is working alone. It’s a teamwork feat. Using a shield in 5e is a teamwork fighting style. It’s a good thing. 



Mistwell said:


> Yes, you have the shield bonus to Dex saves now, which helps. But, odds are you still don't have a high enough Dex bonus to depend on the Rogue-like ability to begin with. Only in the unusual cases of a PC who happens to have both a high Str and a high Dex would it be a genuinely rogue-like ability in practice for that PC.
> 
> It's not something you'd take as a feat itself. You'd probably prefer the Resilient Feat instead, if that were the purpose of the feat. That way it continues to go up as your proficiency bonus increases over time, and the other benefits of a higher Dex will come as well (such as initiative, and some skill checks).




The purpose of the feat isn’t just one of the benefits of the feat. Obviously. If all you want is more resilience in one save, you take the hyperspecialised feat for that, but that isn’t why you take SM. That isn’t even a vaguely good comparison. 

The idea that a character with low or average dex doesn’t really benefit from a +2 to some dex saves and no damage on a successful save is...strained.


----------



## Xetheral (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> A thing can’t be cheese if it’s working as intended. There is nothing cheesy about SS. Cheese doesn’t mean powerful. You may think it’s too powerful, but (beside the fact you’re wrong IMO) that doesn’t make it cheese.




I don't think your definition of "cheese" is universally shared. In my experience, whether or not an individual considers a game element to be "cheese" is based on their own subjective sense of notions of "fair play". For some people, using options that they consider overly powerful exceeds what they would consider "fair play" and are thus viewed as "cheese" even if the high power level was intentional on the part of the designers. Your definition of "cheese" would preclude this apparently-common usage of the term.

Further, I don't see any utility to your more-restrictive definition. The emotional response to a game element viewed by an individual as "cheesy" appears to be fairly consistent, even if individuals wildly disagree as to which elements provoke that response. Accordingly, the term appears to have descriptive utility under a broader definition than yours. Restriciting the term, as your definition would, to apply only to non-intended usage of a game element would sacrifice this descriptive utility.


----------



## Oofta (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The useage of shield master you liked was cheese, though, and SS isn’t.
> 
> Cheese doesn’t mean “it’s powerful”, it means that something is being used in a way that bends RAI to go beyond what it was meant to do.
> 
> ...




I've been playing D&D for a few decades now.  Shoving someone after an attack is useful once in a hundred combats.  Does it happen?  I guess.  Does it happen often enough to matter? No. If it's really that useful to push someone around I can always use an attack to to a shove.

Knocking enemies down for my allies is only useful if they go before the enemy, and penalizes them if they are ranged. So once again, not useful.

For defense, the evasion requires a dex save (which my PC is not great at) and uses my reaction.  Because I use a shield I'm protection style which already uses my reaction 90% of the time.

The bonus to reflex is only if I'm the only target.  Resilience is far superior.

So a bonus action to do something I almost never use and could use an attack for anyway, a damage reduction I can't use often, a dexterity bonus that only rarely applies.  

All of that is fine if it had been clear before.  Sword-and-board don't get anything iconic like the other fighting styles, but oh well.  I just wouldn't have taken the feat.  Changing the ruling after it had been state to work the other way is the problem.


----------



## jaelis (May 12, 2018)

Oofta said:


> All of that is fine if it had been clear before.  Sword-and-board don't get anything iconic like the other fighting styles, but oh well.  I just wouldn't have taken the feat.  Changing the ruling after it had been state to work the other way is the problem.



OK, but at your table you play by your DM's ruling. If it is working for you, why change it? If you think the more lenient reading is more natural, why read it any other way?

If you agree that the lenient reading is strained but just like it better, then what is the problem with JC's comment? All he is doing is trying to clarify what the language of the feat means. He is not trying to tell anyone how to play.


----------



## Patrick McGill (May 12, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "From a role playing angle though the whole thing makes no sense at all. Why is there a condition on bashing with your shield?"
> 
> There isnt.
> 
> ...




Good point, I stand corrected.


----------



## Volund (May 12, 2018)

My main issue with the ruling is it eliminates the one resource-free way S&B fighters had to set up their own power attacks, making GWM and SS builds comparatively better. If the bonus action has to follow the Attack action, I would change the feat:

Shield Master

If you take the Attack action on your turn and use one of your attacks to successfully shove a creature or knock it prone, you may use your bonus action to make one additional attack against that creature.


----------



## Satyrn (May 12, 2018)

iserith said:


> Man, that's how I originally called it when the PHB came out but went with the forum consensus. Once again the internet has led me astray. First porn, now this.




I'd say you should stick to the half of the internet devoted to kittens, but that's how I wound up with 2 dozen cats.


----------



## Satyrn (May 12, 2018)

guachi said:


> I created my Twitter account specifically to ask this question. So you can now know my real name if you wanted to as the linked tweet was to my question.
> 
> I think it's a dumb rules change and let Crawford know. It puts Shield Master far down the list of useful feats. I'm trying to think of a reason to take this feat and I really can't. Honestly, I think GWM taken by a shield user is a better feat than Shield Master is. And that's sad.



The paladin in my party survived last session because the "evasion" part of that feat came into play 2 or 3 times against fireball-level damage.


----------



## Satyrn (May 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> You're a sword and board user who does not benefit from Dex for attack and damage most of the time. But, you're one of the fighting classes, so you almost certainly have a high strength. IE, you almost certainly have a lower Dex in exchange for the higher Str.
> 
> The rogue ability depends on making your Dex save to begin with.
> 
> ...




You're answering a post about [MENTION=42037]Ik[/MENTION]j's experience with theory. My experience backs up his, too. Indeed, I find I am regularly surprised by elements of 5e that look useless on paper, but prove vital in play. Or maybe not vital, but useful. Or simply fun.

The most surprising contrast between in-theory expectations and in-play reality came when my table switched to using the standard array (not even point buy) a couple years ago. I have never felt like "all fighters are the same" as I've seen regularly theorized by posters here, for example, and very little else theorized about using standard array ever rings true, either.

The feat has shown itself to be useful - even vital - in my game, on a low dex paladin, because of the evasion feature.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 12, 2018)

If someone online says that a feat is ‘nerfed’ or OP I know that they don’t actually know what they are talking about and that the feat works fine. 

Helps that I’ve see these things in action and they all... work... great.


----------



## Mistwell (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The idea that a character with low or average dex doesn’t really benefit from a +2 to some dex saves and no damage on a successful save is...strained.




Contrast that with the words I wrote, which were: "Yes, you have the shield bonus to Dex saves now, which helps."

Does that match "doesn't really benefit" to you?

I said the *ODDS* are much worse in this scenario. Which is not a "strained" argument at all. You have two other issues going against you: 1) Your Dex was not naturally high because you're a Strength fighter, and 2) that bonus doesn't increase with proficiency bonus increasing. Those make "the odds" worse. You don't get the benefit as often as almost any other PC (because almost every other PC has independent motivation to increase Dex) and also you likely are not a race that benefits from a Dex boost (because you went in as sword and board) and you don't have proficiency in Dex saves like many do.  So yeah, it's not that you don't get any benefit from it (you do, which is what I said), it's that you have much worse odds of getting that benefit than most others.


----------



## Mistwell (May 12, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> You're answering a post about [MENTION=42037]Ik[/MENTION]j's experience with theory. My experience backs up his, too. Indeed, I find I am regularly surprised by elements of 5e that look useless on paper, but prove vital in play. Or maybe not vital, but useful. Or simply fun.
> 
> The most surprising contrast between in-theory expectations and in-play reality came when my table switched to using the standard array (not even point buy) a couple years ago. I have never felt like "all fighters are the same" as I've seen regularly theorized by posters here, for example, and very little else theorized about using standard array ever rings true, either.
> 
> The feat has shown itself to be useful - even vital - in my game, on a low dex paladin, because of the evasion feature.




Not sure why you assumed I was speaking in theory. It's not something I said, or implied, and you never asked me. 

I am answering from my experience. Direct, actual experience for quite some time now, playing a PC with this feat. It's literally his only feat, so I am intimately familiar with it. You can even find other threads around here where I asked for advice on taking the feat before I did.

You know how often the Dex benefit from the shield has benefited my character in an actual roll, over a year period of time? Twice. Neither was life-saving either. Just two ordinary saves made when it would have otherwise failed. That's it. That's how often that has come up in actual play for us, over an entire year.

You know how often it would have been helpful to bash the target AFTER my attack instead of before? I think zero. It would have hurt more than it helped, every time. We have too many ranged attackers in our party. 

In actual, direct experience, this change is causing me to either talk my DM into ditching the feat, or ignore the new ruling. Because we both know this change makes the feat nearly useless to us in actual play.


----------



## Satyrn (May 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Not sure why you assumed I was speaking in theory. It's not something I said, or implied, and you never asked me.
> 
> I am answering from my experience. Direct, actual experience for quite some time now, playing a PC with this feat. It's literally his only feat, so I am intimately familiar with it. You know how often the Dex benefit from the shield has benefited my character in an actual roll, over a year period of time? Twice. Neither was life-saving either. Just two ordinary saves made when it would have otherwise failed.
> 
> You know how often it would have been helpful to bash the target AFTER my attack? I think zero. It would have hurt more than it helped, every time. We have too many ranged attackers in our party. In actual, direct experience, this change is causing me to either talk my DM into ditching the feat, or ignore the new ruling. Because we both know this change makes the feat nearly useless to us in actual play.



It was all the following phrases in bold that came across as theory:



> You're a sword and board user who does not benefit from Dex for attack and damage most of the time. But, you're one of the fighting classes, so* you almost certainly have a high strength*. IE, *you almost certainly* have a lower Dex in exchange for the higher Str.
> 
> The rogue ability depends on making your Dex save to begin with.
> 
> ...



It really didn't look like you were talking about any specific character in play, whereas now you clearly are talking about your experience. It's far more more interesting, so thank you.


----------



## TwoSix (May 12, 2018)

Jester David said:


> It pretty much negates the usefulness of Cunning Action for rogues, since you can do anything with your action rather than just Dash, Disengage, and Hide.
> Or bonus action attack, and Ready to attack again when the enemy acts, doubling your attacks each round with both being granted Sneak Attack.



Rogues can still use Cunning Action to do anything that isn't a combination of off-hand attack + something else, which is pretty good.  And being able to ready an action simply lets a rogue do what was previously gated behind Sentinel or Haste, which doesn't seem like a big deal. 




> And the Tank fighter/ Paladin has a much better tactic. Move forward and offhand attack with his shield then Dodge, making your chances of being hit exceedingly low.



That does seem like a good idea, making tanks more tank like.  

I mean, I hope we're of the same opinion that balance in 5e is hardly so precarious that a slight change to combat tactics for some builds will break the game wide open.  At worst, this change would make some builds stronger, and some others less strong in comparison.


----------



## Krachek (May 12, 2018)

It is amazing that the same company can produce Magic and DnD.
In magic rules are applied with almost 100% accuracy all around the world
And in DND rules are at least slightly different at each table.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 12, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> The paladin in my party survived last session because the "evasion" part of that feat came into play 2 or 3 times against fireball-level damage.




No one would take a feat because it gave you +2 to some saves in some situations for your 5th or 6th stat.  A feat that gave you +2 to Dex saves all the time for the type of PC that would take Shield Master wouldnt be worth it.  Paladins are Str, Chr, Con, Wis, then the rest, barring an odd build.   You could build a Dex based Paladin but I have not seen one in 5e yet,  it even as a proposed build.  If it was a Dex based paladin you wouldn’t take Shield Master, it would be useless.


Why are people defending the change as no big deal when it clearly, by any objective measure, makes the feat worse than an ABI?   Weapon and Board are clearly suboptimal, by a considerable margin, then other choices, this feat closed the gap some but never made it equal to the other options.  

Feats are a limited pool, even if they are allowed.  Why spend a feat on something like this when ABI or other options are out there?  

Are these JC family accounts?


----------



## Oofta (May 12, 2018)

jaelis said:


> OK, but at your table you play by your DM's ruling. If it is working for you, why change it? If you think the more lenient reading is more natural, why read it any other way?
> 
> If you agree that the lenient reading is strained but just like it better, then what is the problem with JC's comment? All he is doing is trying to clarify what the language of the feat means. He is not trying to tell anyone how to play.




The affected character is my AL character.  So similar to Is my DM being fair thread, the rules are (probably) changing midstream.  It would have been different if it had never been "clarified" that a bonus action can happen before or after the attack, then I would have never taken the feat given the luck-of-the-draw DM ruling.  Except it's worse than the aforementioned thread because you can't change anything about your character in AL after 4th level.  Which he is.

If I would have had this ruling before I would have done a different build.  If you've never run this type of character, it probably doesn't seem like a big deal.  But, like @_*Mist*_well, this is my only feat and quite possibly the only one I will ever take.  With it, I still didn't keep up in the damage department which was okay because I had better AC but I was reasonably close.  Now?  Now I just have a feat that will never add any significant benefit to my character.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 12, 2018)

Let me just say fist, to everyone, that I dislike and have little respect for pedantry, and pretty much never consider semantics important outside of formal debate/academic discussions. 

So, if I come across as dismissive toward an argument, that is probably why. 



Xetheral said:


> I don't think your definition of "cheese" is universally shared. In my experience, whether or not an individual considers a game element to be "cheese" is based on their own subjective sense of notions of "fair play". For some people, using options that they consider overly powerful exceeds what they would consider "fair play" and are thus viewed as "cheese" even if the high power level was intentional on the part of the designers. Your definition of "cheese" would preclude this apparently-common usage of the term.
> 
> Further, I don't see any utility to your more-restrictive definition. The emotional response to a game element viewed by an individual as "cheesy" appears to be fairly consistent, even if individuals wildly disagree as to which elements provoke that response. Accordingly, the term appears to have descriptive utility under a broader definition than yours. Restriciting the term, as your definition would, to apply only to non-intended usage of a game element would sacrifice this descriptive utility.




There is a word for that, already. Several, in fact. While I’ve no problem with people defining words differently, there is nothing restrictive about what I said. I’ve simply never encountered “cheese/cheesy/cheesing(the system/game)” being used to mean the same thing as “overpowered”, “broken”, or similar. I’ve only seen it used to suggest that a person is exploiting the system in a “cheesy” manner, ie, a manner that bends or perverts the intention of the thing being used. 

The “bag of rats” is cheese, counterspell is (in some opinions) overpowered. To some people, readying an action to cast dispel magic for when a caster casts a spell can be cheesy-bordering on outright cheating, especially if you exploit the wording and previous DM rulings about readied actions to abuse reaction timing, and effectively counterspell without having it prepared/known. 

I don’t see what is restrictive about the “cheese”/“overpowered” distinction. It just seems more useful than having them mean ge same thing, to me. 




Oofta said:


> I've been playing D&D for a few decades now.  Shoving someone after an attack is useful once in a hundred combats.  Does it happen?  I guess.  Does it happen often enough to matter? No. If it's really that useful to push someone around I can always use an attack to to a shove.
> 
> Knocking enemies down for my allies is only useful if they go before the enemy, and penalizes them if they are ranged. So once again, not useful.
> 
> ...




Knocking people down after/instead of/as part of attacking has been useful in my group literally hundreds of times, between several editions. Doing it without sacrificing any attacks per round, which are *much* more important than your bonus action for nearly any S&B combatant in 5e, is very useful for any group that bothers to strategize as a group. If your group is too range heavy to benefit from it, then using it as you have been sounds rather counter to teamwork. Either you are imposing disadvantage on ally attacks in order to get advantage on your own, or you’re splitting fire to avoid that. 

I guarantee, even in a group that is mostly ranged, in an initiative where the enemy goes right after me, I can use the feat to destroy an enemy while the team is largely unharmed by them (assuming fight where shoving even works at all and we aren’t being swarmed, which just calls for very different tactics). Either I’m knocking them down and then moving away, because they are primarily melee, forcing them to either waste a turn dashing or use their less effective ranged attack while the team safely rains death, or I’m keeping the caster/archer from getting away from me by halving their effective speed per round. Without losing any attacks, which is a big deal for any character. Even a paladin or ranger usually won’t need to be using their bonus most rounds for other stuff, but giveng up a normal attack hurts. A feat that lets you get full use out of shoving without any loss in attack power, plus some defensive abilities, is really nice. 



cmad1977 said:


> If someone online says that a feat is ‘nerfed’ or OP I know that they don’t actually know what they are talking about and that the feat works fine.
> 
> Helps that I’ve see these things in action and they all... work... great.




yep. I’m not too worried about small changes that only really “hurt” in optimized games. 



Mistwell said:


> I said the *ODDS* are much worse in this scenario. Which is not a "strained" argument at all. You have two other issues going against you: 1) Your Dex was not naturally high because you're a Strength fighter, and 2) that bonus doesn't increase with proficiency bonus increasing. Those make "the odds" worse. You don't get the benefit as often as almost any other PC (because almost every other PC has independent motivation to increase Dex) and also you likely are not a race that benefits from a Dex boost (because you went in as sword and board) and you don't have proficiency in Dex saves like many do.  So yeah, it's not that you don't get any benefit from it (you do, which is what I said), it's that you have much worse odds of getting that benefit than most others.




So, the feat helps shore up a weakness in heavy armored characters, making them not dreadful at dex saves? 
Seems pretty good. 

You keep bringing up Resilient. Why do you think it’s relevant here? Does it make you better with a shield? 

It’s almost like different feats serve differing purposes! Crazy!

if you want to be significantly better as succeeding on dex saves, you build for that, one way or another. If you want a small suite of shield benefits to help you better make use of a shield and better fulfill the image of a shield user in fantasy, you build for that. SM accomplishes the thing it’s built to do. 

If what it does isn’t interesting to you, especially if you aren’t subjected to dex saves that often (seriously +2 difference in a very common save comes up *frequently* at my table, I don’t know what to say about it almost never coming up at yours. Statistical probabilities play out IRL in sometimes strange ways), or don’t see the blue in the teamwork aspects of the tactics that take advantage of the feat, that’s fine. Just means it’s not for you, barring houserule. 

That doesn't make this a bad “ruling”.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 12, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The affected character is my AL character.  So similar to Is my DM being fair thread, the rules are (probably) changing midstream.  It would have been different if it had never been "clarified" that a bonus action can happen before or after the attack, then I would have never taken the feat given the luck-of-the-draw DM ruling.  Except it's worse than the aforementioned thread because you can't change anything about your character in AL after 4th level.  Which he is.
> 
> If I would have had this ruling before I would have done a different build.  If you've never run this type of character, it probably doesn't seem like a big deal.  But, like @_*Mist*_well, this is my only feat and quite possibly the only one I will ever take.  With it, I still didn't keep up in the damage department which was okay because I had better AC but I was reasonably close.  Now?  Now I just have a feat that will never add any significant benefit to my character.




Combat is a lot more than how much damage one character does. As a S&B with SM, you can contribute to party damage through tactical useage of the feat, in ways that other fighting styles can’t. S&B isn’t a high DPR build.


----------



## Oofta (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Combat is a lot more than how much damage one character does. As a S&B with SM, you can contribute to party damage through tactical useage of the feat, in ways that other fighting styles can’t. S&B isn’t a high DPR build.




Gee thanks for clarifying that for me.  Not condescending at all.


----------



## Hriston (May 12, 2018)

This happened in 2017 in this ruling from the Sage Advice Compendium:

*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.​
If your DM hasn't already changed the way s/he adjudicates the timing of bonus actions, I don't see why s/he would do it now. As Crawford says here, it doesn't break anything to keep doing it the other way.


----------



## Oofta (May 12, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Knocking people down after/instead of/as part of attacking has been useful in my group literally hundreds of times, between several editions. Doing it without sacrificing any attacks per round, which are *much* more important than your bonus action for nearly any S&B combatant in 5e, is very useful for any group that bothers to strategize as a group. If your group is too range heavy to benefit from it, then using it as you have been sounds rather counter to teamwork. Either you are imposing disadvantage on ally attacks in order to get advantage on your own, or you’re splitting fire to avoid that.
> 
> 
> I guarantee, even in a group that is mostly ranged, in an initiative where the enemy goes right after me, I can use the feat to destroy an enemy while the team is largely unharmed by them (assuming fight where shoving even works at all and we aren’t being swarmed, which just calls for very different tactics). Either I’m knocking them down and then moving away, because they are primarily melee, forcing them to either waste a turn dashing or use their less effective ranged attack while the team safely rains death, or I’m keeping the caster/archer from getting away from me by halving their effective speed per round. Without losing any attacks, which is a big deal for any character. Even a paladin or ranger usually won’t need to be using their bonus most rounds for other stuff, but giveng up a normal attack hurts. A feat that lets you get full use out of shoving without any loss in attack power, plus some defensive abilities, is really nice.



Let me get this straight.  You can "destroy" your enemy by running away, but you aren't being a team player because other people are ranged.  Knocking someone prone guarantees that everyone else is out of their melee range, and that all opponents are melee based.  That provoking opportunity attacks is a great idea.

All opponents have to be melee, never ranged.  Opponents will never go after anyone else in the party because your allies are ranged attackers that stay back from every fight.  But they can't be ranged because then their attacks will be at disadvantage.  So either they must all be spellcasters that have ranged spells that require saving throws, or the opponent has to go immediately after you.  In addition, fights always take place in a wide open area where you have room to disengage.

But again, thanks for the condescending attitude.  Really helps make your case.  I'd never a' thunk of using this - what did you call it - stra-ta-gie?


----------



## Oofta (May 12, 2018)

Just to clarify:  I'm not particularly upset about this change of ruling.  Just a bit annoyed because it's in direct opposition to a previous ruling that I believe has a significant impact on the utility of the feat.   I may talk to my AL group's organizer to see if I can keep playing the way I was told I could play or ask for an unofficial slight rebuild.  Either way I will still enjoy playing my character.

The only annoying thing is people telling me I'm wrong because I'm just not playing the game right.


----------



## Jester David (May 12, 2018)

Krachek said:


> It is amazing that the same company can produce Magic and DnD.
> In magic rules are applied with almost 100% accuracy all around the world
> And in DND rules are at least slightly different at each table.




It's almost like there's a difference between a competitive game played between two players and a cooperative game played with a judge at every table...


----------



## jaelis (May 12, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Just to clarify:  I'm not particularly upset about this change of ruling.  Just a bit annoyed because it's in direct opposition to a previous ruling that I believe has a significant impact on the utility of the feat.   I may talk to my AL group's organizer to see if I can keep playing the way I was told I could play or ask for an unofficial slight rebuild.  Either way I will still enjoy playing my character.
> 
> The only annoying thing is people telling me I'm wrong because I'm just not playing the game right.



In one of his tweets, JC said that ruling how the feat works is up to the DM, even in AL games. So if it’s been fine to now, there’s no reason to change.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 13, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> That's a very 4e type "Don't rely on the books or sage advice as either can be errata'ed for minor balance reasons at any time" type ruling. Very bad precedent to set.




I gave you XP but I ALSO think that, if the Sage Advice officially rules that the Sage Advice was (is) wrong, that sets a WONDERFUL precedent


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 13, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Gee thanks for clarifying that for me.  Not condescending at all.




If I came across as condescending, I apologize. You literally implied that your character wasn’t useful if they could at least stay close to the damage output of damage focused characters. That is completely false, which I pointed out. Perhaps you didn’t mean to imply that?



Oofta said:


> Let me get this straight.  You can "destroy" your enemy by running away, but you aren't being a team player because other people are ranged.  Knocking someone prone guarantees that everyone else is out of their melee range, and that all opponents are melee based.  That provoking opportunity attacks is a great idea.
> 
> All opponents have to be melee, never ranged.  Opponents will never go after anyone else in the party because your allies are ranged attackers that stay back from every fight.  But they can't be ranged because then their attacks will be at disadvantage.  So either they must all be spellcasters that have ranged spells that require saving throws, or the opponent has to go immediately after you.  In addition, fights always take place in a wide open area where you have room to disengage.
> 
> But again, thanks for the condescending attitude.  Really helps make your case.  I'd never a' thunk of using this - what did you call it - stra-ta-gie?




None of what you just said matches up to anything that I said. How about you either engage honestly with my arguments, or don’t engage at all? 

Or maybe you just failed to understand anything I said, on an even basic level? If so, I’m happy to clarify.

edit: two things to add, here. 

If if I come across condescending, it’s partly a response to your tone in this thread. No one is telling you that you play wrong, we’re just disagreeing with you on the idea hat the feat isn’t a good feat with his ruling. I only care about anyone’s specific experience or how they play as an example to help illuminate their POV. If your playstyle or other factors make a feat terrible for you, ok. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible feat. 

The other thing is, I may have figured out the misunderstanding. The examples I provided are several distinct examples of circumstances wherein the feat is useful. You seem to think that I’m making statements about...every fight, somehow, with each statement? I can’t imagine why, but regardless: each example should be taken as an indipendent use case. 

The feat has different uses against melee enemies than against ranged enemies, and different usage depending on initiative and how much of the party is ranged vs melee. 

I explained these use cases because you seems to be dismissing them out of hand, and in some cases directly ignoring their existence, while saying that this ruling makes the feat bad. So I presented a counter-argument using examples.


----------



## Mistwell (May 13, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, the feat helps shore up a weakness in heavy armored characters, making them not dreadful at dex saves?
> Seems pretty good.
> 
> You keep bringing up Resilient. Why do you think it’s relevant here? Does it make you better with a shield?
> ...




Your're straw-manning me. I was responding to the argument that the Dex benefits make it worth it. For which I said Resilient would be better for that. You removed that context (unsure if it was intentional) and pretended I had said I was responding to the "shield usage" part of it as opposed to the Dex benefits of it.

And the "bad ruling" part of my argument had nothing to do with any of what you're replying to. The "bad ruling" part was purely that I felt it set a terrible precedent to change the ruling mid-stream in the edition, in a very 4e kind of way where players can no longer rely on the rulings of the Sage Advice as they become subject to change suddenly in very meaningful ways, for very little reason (it was not breaking the game to leave the old ruling as it was).

So I don't know if you just hand-waved my argument, or intentionally changed the context to make it seem I was arguing something I didn't, or forgot what I said, or have me confused with someone else. But, you didn't reply to the positions I stated.


----------



## Oofta (May 13, 2018)

So, [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION], will you at least admit that the feat is less useful?

But to address what you think makes it useful, and why I do not think it as useful as other options.

First, the tactic of knocking prone:

If my PC is fighting a melee character, I could knock them prone at the end of my turn and move away.  They will get a free attack, which even if it is at disadvantage, is still not generally a good thing.  However, if I could move away and leave the opponent no viable targets (because they are too far away) this might be worth it.
If I'm fighting a ranged character this tactic just means on their turn they stand and move further away.  Now _I_ can't get to them.  Bad move.
As a team player, knocking opponents prone is only useful for team PC if we have more melee attackers than ranged attackers before the target has their turn.  When I could count myself amongst those getting advantage, the math usually worked out to be in our advantage.
However I don't remember the last time I was in a fight that this would have worked because at least one other PC _would_ have been in range or the space we were fighting in was so constricted that I could not have moved far enough.  So free attack against me, and the opponent just attacks someone else.  Bad move.


So knocking prone after my attacks is a wash in most cases.

I get a +2 to dexterity save if I'm the only target.  OK, a 10% increase in my chance to save vs 1 in 20 spells is not horrible, but Resilient would have given me a minimum 15% increase and it goes up as I get higher levels for all dexterity saves, including those that target multiple people.  Which is the majority of times I make a dexterity save in my experience.  In addition, Resilience is a half feat so I get a +1 to an ability score.

If I make a dexterity save, I take no damage.  This is decent, but not overwhelmingly.  Evasion is more useful for dexterity based characters like rogues.  I don't need to make dexterity saves all that often and if I'm worried about running out of HP I'd be better off with heavy armor master to reduce damage far more often or increasing my HP with a higher constitution or Durability.

It's not completely worthless as a feat with the rule change but there are better options.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 13, 2018)

Li Shenron said:


> > That's a very 4e type "Don't rely on the books or sage advice as either can be errata'ed for minor balance reasons at any time" type ruling. Very bad precedent to set
> 
> 
> 
> ALSO think that, if the Sage Advice officially rules that the Sage Advice was (is) wrong, that sets a WONDERFUL precedent



The very idea of relying on either book or errata when the game is meant as a starting point is a tad silly - The one thing you can be certain of is that you simply must go /somewhere/ from that point. 

It's different with a ruleset that's meant to provide a good play experience or enable an optimization meta-game.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 13, 2018)

Krachek said:


> It is amazing that the same company can produce Magic and DnD.
> In magic rules are applied with almost 100% accuracy all around the world
> And in DND rules are at least slightly different at each table.



Huh? One is a card game with a limted number of interactions of set pieces to have rules for. The other is an rpg with no limit on types of interactions and gazillions of playing pieces.

One is a script to deliver, the other songwriting.


----------



## guachi (May 13, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I guarantee, even in a group that is mostly ranged, in an initiative where the enemy goes right after me, I can use the feat to destroy an enemy while the team is largely unharmed by them (assuming fight where shoving even works at all and we aren’t being swarmed, which just calls for very different tactics). Either I’m knocking them down and then moving away, because they are primarily melee, forcing them to either waste a turn dashing or use their less effective ranged attack while the team safely rains death, or I’m keeping the caster/archer from getting away from me by halving their effective speed per round.




Being able to knock a guy prone after your attack and then moving away in no way "destroys" your opponent. He can still attack you. He just does so at disadvantage. Further, any other creature you are adjacent to can attack you. Also, doing this is just a really poor version of Cunning Action. If you really wanted to do this, just take two levels of Rogue and you can do this successfully all the time. 

If you want to prevent an opponent from moving or running away, take Sentinel. It makes their movement zero. Zero movement is definitely lower than 1/2 movement. The things you described in your paragraph can be better done with some other ability.

I'm with Oofta and Mistwell. I wouldn't take the feat in its current form. I'd rather do something else with my ASI or variant human feat. I mean, I'd rather have Great Weapon Mastery using a sword and shield just for the possible bonus action attack triggering, especially if I had a high chance of a crit or kill on my turn.


----------



## Sleepy Walker (May 13, 2018)

While it seems odd, I think this finally sank home the idea that sage advice and other rulings are really a suggestion.  It is good for people that do not know how all the game systems interact and adventure league (everybody on the same page as soon as possible).  It is not good for groups with DMs who know the interactions and want the game to play a certain, more optimal, way for the group.

Meh, I don't like the new suggested way to play shield master (did not see the earlier change).  Makes little sense from a realism perspective and the power level was acceptable where it was with dynamic bonus action usage. Does makes sense from a RAW perspective and would have been something I would have argued for not that long ago.

I like the more dynamic design and I don't really see where a dynamic bonus action will make a huge difference, with the exception of the eldritch knight. (easily solved with further minor rulings if it gets out of hand)


----------



## Arial Black (May 13, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> You can still take one attack then bash. Nothing has changed there.
> 
> But at fifth you gained the new option to take two attacks and bash.
> 
> So, it doesnt "take two attacks" just the same old one... But... You can take two before bashing if you want.




No, JC is saying that the attack action must be _completed_ before you are allowed to take the bonus bash.

He's saying that attack -> bash -> extra attack is not legal, because Extra Attack is part of the Attack action and Actions are (now, suddenly!) indivisible!


----------



## Jester David (May 13, 2018)

guachi said:


> I'm with Oofta and Mistwell. I wouldn't take the feat in its current form. I'd rather do something else with my ASI or variant human feat. I mean, I'd rather have Great Weapon Mastery using a sword and shield just for the possible bonus action attack triggering, especially if I had a high chance of a crit or kill on my turn.



Except... it's not really a DPR feat. It doesn't compare remotely with Great Weapon Mastery as two of the three bulletpoints are about defence while the third is about controlling an enemy (moving them into position or knocking them down). It serves a very different purpose.


----------



## Satyrn (May 13, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Feats are a limited pool, even if they are allowed. Why spend a feat on something like this when ABI or other options are out there?




I'm guessing this was a rhetorical question, since you've no doubt met many players (in person or in post) who don't make decisions based on concerns for optimization, and you already know one answer is "because it looks like a fun choice."

That's why I took Shield Master for the heavily armored enchanter I created to replace my fallen gnome battlemaster; and it's why that gnome had Martial Adept even though it was clear to me that a Dex boost was definitely a numerically superior choice.

I wound up not playing that enchanter (with a splash of Life cleric for the armor and added paladinyness), though. Instead, I'm playing a halfling moon druid with high physical stats that go wasted because I spend most of my time as a dog.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 13, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> No, JC is saying that the attack action must be _completed_ before you are allowed to take the bonus bash.
> 
> He's saying that attack -> bash -> extra attack is not legal, because Extra Attack is part of the Attack action and Actions are (now, suddenly!) indivisible!



Nicely done... Ignoring the post i quoted to hide the context like 5 pages later.

Bravo!!!!!

Encore!!!!

So other do not have to look back to see and admire your skill...

The post i had quoted setup the (bogus) example of taking the feat at 4th level, being able to make one attack and bash at 4th then leveling up to 5th and then no longer being able to make one attack and bash since now it required two...

My point was of course that it wasnt so...

4th make one attack then bash - legal
5th make one attack then bash equally legal.
 But also added was
5th make two attacks then bash legal.

JC ruled you have to complete the attack action, cannot insert the bash between them but in no way did he require you to take two attacks as part of that attack action.

So the example saying that one attack then bash was no longer legal moving from 4th to 5tth was wrong...

Going to 5th adds 
Two strike then bash

Going to 5th does not add
Strike then  bash then strike

But the 4th level option of  strike(once)  then  bash  is still perfectly legit.

It does not as the post i quoted said "require two swings" to get the bash, but you **can** at 5th take two before bashing.

But again, excellent job at sleight of context.

Ill give you the like for it. Skill should be credited.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> JC ruled you have to complete the attack action, cannot insert the bash between them but in no way did he require you to take two attacks as part of that attack action.



Technically correct but pointless argument hits you for zero!

All I can say is that I think this just illustrates that JC is apparently incapable of considering the implications of his rules clarifications when he makes them. He just spits out an answer to the specific question in front of him, creating absurdities and complexity in it's wake.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> But to address what you think makes it useful, and why I do not think it as useful as other options.
> 
> First, the tactic of knocking prone:




Then don't knock them prone; shove them 5 feet away. Now you can move away without any fear of opportunity attack (unless they have a reach weapon).


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Saeviomagy said:


> Technically correct but pointless argument hits you for zero!
> 
> All I can say is that I think this just illustrates that JC is apparently incapable of considering the implications of his rules clarifications when he makes them. He just spits out an answer to the specific question in front of him, creating absurdities and complexity in it's wake.



I am so very crushed you chose to give me no points that words cannot express it.

But again, since some serm to love ducking context here is the post my comments were in response to where the poster was trying to concoct a link between the number of attacks and the ability to bash and falsely make it look like it requires more after 5th than at 4th.

I can agree completely that trying to base one's argument on number of attacks is fradulent or at the least pointless, that is why i responded after all to that very fraud.

"So my 4th level fighter gets the Shield Master feat. Now I can shield bash, but ONLY if I execute my one attack first.
Okay, so attacking ONCE is the thing that allows me to shield bash, right?
Now I get to 5th level and gain Extra Attack.
Why does one attack no longer allow me to shield bash? Why does it now take two attacks? I'm supposed to be better than I was a level ago, not worse!
What's going on"

You may note the complete hogwash about somehow construing this as being worse at 5th than at rth even tho everything that can be done at 4th is still available - along with the double hit option.

So, again, perhapd checking context is something you should consider looking into before giving out your incredibky valuable points.


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> Then don't knock them prone; shove them 5 feet away. Now you can move away without any fear of opportunity attack (unless they have a reach weapon).




A) my character is a dwarf, so it buys me nothing.
B) you're assuming that even if I was faster that there's room to run away, which is frequently not the case.
C) as I stated, and you conveniently ignore, it's rare in my game that there's not someone close enough for the opponent to get into combat with.
D) in many if not most cases I have to move to get into position the first round.

Conclusion? It's a pointless tactic that buys nothing. If I wanted to hit and run, I'd play a different class.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> A) my character is a dwarf, so it buys me nothing.
> B) you're assuming that even if I was faster that there's room to run away, which is frequently not the case.
> C) as I stated, and you conveniently ignore, it's rare in my game that there's not someone close enough for the opponent to get into combat with.
> D) in many if not most cases I have to move to get into position the first round.
> ...



I am glad tho we have gotten the discusdion focused down to the assessment of how impactful this ruling is to one specific table and its particulars, even for one particular players one character at that - as opposed to making any claims now about its impact anywhere else.


----------



## Eric V (May 14, 2018)

Makes the game less fun (in a way that is not correcting an over-powered maneuver), and so is a bad ruling.

I thought "Rulings, not Rules" was supposed to avoid stuff like this?


----------



## jaelis (May 14, 2018)

Right but I think the point of the twitter answers is not to provide rulings, but just to explicate what the rules actually say.


----------



## Mistwell (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I am glad tho we have gotten the discusdion focused down to the assessment of how impactful this ruling is to one specific table and its particulars, even for one particular players one character at that - as opposed to making any claims now about its impact anywhere else.




The feat is intended primarily for fighters, paladins, barbarians and clerics. Dwarves are pretty popular for that subset of classes. Given dwarves are one of the very few classes that can get a bonus to strength, and sword and board is going to be a strength based build most of the time, it's going to be rather common for a dwarf to be the one fairly likely to be wanting this feat...until now that is. If they push  with the feat and move 25 feet off, their foe will just close again with a 30' most of the time.  If on the other hand they shove with the feat to make the foe use half their move to get up, the foe gets an opportunity attack. It makes escape somewhat easier (the opportunity attack at least is at disadvantage) but escaping is not really what you might describe as a primary element of this feat.

And no, I don't think this is really such a narrow topic as to reduce it down to just his table. If one of the most likely races to be selecting this feat is also the one that loses out on the escape benefit you're prompting, it's certainly in the topic of discussion beyond just his table.


----------



## guachi (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Conclusion? It's a pointless tactic that buys nothing. If I wanted to hit and run, I'd play a different class.




Guy-with-shield likely has a higher AC than his allies and probably doesn't want to run away. And if you wanted to do hit-and-run you can be a Swashbuckler and have 100% success at Disengaging and use no bonus action to do it.

Sure, the feat isn't useless. It actually does things. But you'd be better off with any number of other options. As it stands now, it's about on the level of a 1/2 feat.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The feat is intended primarily for fighters, paladins, barbarians and clerics. Dwarves are pretty popular for that subset of classes. Given dwarves are one of the very few classes that can get a bonus to strength, and sword and board is going to be a strength based build most of the time, it's going to be rather common for a dwarf to be the one fairly likely to be wanting this feat...until now that is. If they push  with the feat and move 25 feet off, their foe will just close again with a 30' most of the time.  If on the other hand they shove with the feat to make the foe use half their move to get up, the foe gets an opportunity attack. It makes escape somewhat easier (the opportunity attack at least is at disadvantage) but escaping is not really what you might describe as a primary element of this feat.
> 
> And no, I don't think this is really such a narrow topic as to reduce it down to just his table. If one of the most likely races to be selecting this feat is also the one that loses out on the escape benefit you're prompting, it's certainly in the topic of discussion beyond just his table.



So all that stuff about how the dex save bonuses and zero vs half etc never, almost never, mattering etc are more universal findings, not just limited to that table/character canpaign and the folks talking about how useful those are in other games are wrong?

Or is it just that the negatives are ok to extrapolate to other tables but the positives have to occur at that one table to count as a rule for this thread?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Makes the game less fun (in a way that is not correcting an over-powered maneuver), and so is a bad ruling.
> 
> I thought "Rulings, not Rules" was supposed to avoid stuff like this?



Yup, that was my take too... On quite a few cases, JC has responded with clear "the rules are this way" but also has provided cases for those along thevlines of "more generous gms might..." And iirc even recently answered a " would you as gm in your game..." that was not what the directvrules answer was. 

The biggest single point in JC posts is not to make eratta in Sage - just clarify the RAW and sometimes give RAI.

Imo this latest explanation is consistent with that idea and approach. Any GM outside of AL can rule otherwise. Whether AL can is not a subject i would opine on sine i do not AL.


----------



## Nadan (May 14, 2018)

Can't a dex character use a rapier to play sword and board?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 14, 2018)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> Then don't knock them prone; shove them 5 feet away. Now you can move away without any fear of opportunity attack (unless they have a reach weapon).




I gave up. If someone wants to view a thing as useless, we could spend a year giving them a actual play examples, and it won’t change their mind.


----------



## Mistwell (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So all that stuff about how the dex save bonuses and zero vs half etc never, almost never, mattering etc are more universal findings, not just limited to that table/character canpaign and the folks talking about how useful those are in other games are wrong?




Hey captain strawman, that quote was not that point at all. You were replying to his dwarf escaping topic. I quoted it that way, and you quoted it that way, it all lined up as being that topic. Why are you pretending it had to do with Dex save issue when everyone can plainly see for themselves it was not?



> Or is it just that the negatives are ok to extrapolate to other tables but the positives have to occur at that one table to count as a rule for this thread?




You can do both, but the quote I was replying to wasn't the point you're pretending it was. Unless you're replying to him by quoting me, in which case I think he might miss it.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I gave up. If someone wants to view a thing as useless, we could spend a year giving them a actual play examples, and it won’t change their mind.



So, you are saying you see using actual play to convince some folks as... Useless?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Nadan said:


> Can't a dex character use a rapier to play sword and board?



Yes, of course, if they have proficiencies. If they chose the right style, could be getting bonus damage too.

Edit to add for inclusiveness... It mat not bea allowed or used  at some tables, just like some tables may limit the feat dex benefits to once every six to seven months cuz of JC tweets and Han Shot First concerns.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Hey captain strawman, that quote was not that point at all. You were replying to his dwarf escaping topic. I quoted it that way, and you quoted it that way, it all lined up as being that topic. Why are you pretending it had to do with Dex save issue when everyone can plainly see for themselves it was not?
> 
> 
> 
> You can do both, but the quote I was replying to wasn't the point you're pretending it was. Unless you're replying to him by quoting me, in which case I think he might miss it.



Just to be clear... Do you know what "?" means?

Just saying i was asking you if that was the case, not "pretending" it was.

Or, are questions not allowed here unless they join the bash the tweet bandwagon?

(That is also a question)

You can contrast it to your post which makes claims and when it asked a question it was about why i did the pretend (which my question did not) and not whether i did it.

I am sure it will be more clear on rereads.


----------



## Immoralkickass (May 14, 2018)

Patrick McGill said:


> I just went and read the reddit thread. Gee whiz are those folks angry.




After reading JC's tweet, I got angry too. Then I remembered that JC is not my DM.


----------



## Mistwell (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Just to be clear... Do you know what "?" means?
> 
> Just saying i was asking you if that was the case, not "pretending" it was.
> 
> ...




We both know what a rhetorical question is. Notice, that's also not a question but a statement. We both know that was not a question you were asking, but rhetorical, and also snarky. Similar to how, "Do you know what "?" means?" is both rhetorical, and snarky. 

If you disagree (see - that's a question) then do please explain how the dex save stuff is *in reply to* the dwarf escaping stuff?


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 14, 2018)

Immoralkickass said:


> After reading JC's tweet, I got angry too. Then I remembered that JC is not my DM.




The problem is that he ends up indirectly being people's DM. It's hard to convince a DM that a feat should be run a particular way because otherwise it may as well not be in the game - the DM has limited time and scope to experiment with options, and tends to have limited play experience to make a good decision as to what is going to be useful to a player. It's substantially easier to convince your DM if someone in authority has said it should be played a certain way.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> We both know what a rhetorical question is. Notice, that's also not a question but a statement. We both know that was not a question you were asking, but rhetorical, and also snarky. Similar to how, "Do you know what "?" means?" is both rhetorical, and snarky.
> 
> If you disagree (see - that's a question) then do please explain how the dex save stuff is *in reply to* the dwarf escaping stuff?



It was a question as to how far and from that possibly how consistent your feeling on the broader applicability (not just one game but bigger) went when so much of the comments offered we cloaked in as *in my own game* wrappers when convenient and portrayed as broder when not. 

It was not about dwarves and your take on what dwarves do this and that, even tho dwarves were a part of it. 

A clue to that might have been, to some, my not mentioning dwarf.

But i will give you a like... The technique of trying to spin someones question into a statement by yourself conjuring it as rhethorical is nicely done!!! 

Kudos for that one.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Saeviomagy said:


> The problem is that he ends up indirectly being people's DM. It's hard to convince a DM that a feat should be run a particular way because otherwise it may as well not be in the game - the DM has limited time and scope to experiment with options, and tends to have limited play experience to make a good decision as to what is going to be useful to a player. It's substantially easier to convince your DM if someone in authority has said it should be played a certain way.



Thats no different from any other house rule or custom rule you want to get thru your gm. 

You could just as well be saying the DMG makes it harder to get your custom race approved cuz they added guidelines.


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> So all that stuff about how the dex save bonuses and zero vs half etc never, almost never, mattering etc are more universal findings, not just limited to that table/character canpaign and the folks talking about how useful those are in other games are wrong?
> 
> Or is it just that the negatives are ok to extrapolate to other tables but the positives have to occur at that one table to count as a rule for this thread?




Were you talking about how I pointed out that the save for half is worth far less than a rogue's evasion?  Because the implication was that they were equivalent. They aren't. Unlike rogues, most PCs that have shield master won't have a high dexterity nor do they have proficiency in dexterity saves.  So _on average_ it buys you significantly less damage reduction than the half feat heavy armor master.  You would be far better off taking the two half feats heavy armor master and resilience.

Shield Master isn't worthless, it's just worth less than other options.


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I am glad tho we have gotten the discusdion focused down to the assessment of how impactful this ruling is to one specific table and its particulars, even for one particular players one character at that - as opposed to making any claims now about its impact anywhere else.




In order for the shove and run tactic to work pretty much all of the following conditions have be met:
A) The rest of your party is ranged, and is more than the enemy's movement speed away after the shove.
B) The PC must move as fast or faster than the enemy.  So too bad dwarves, hope you aren't fighting a monster that has better than your base move.
C) This can be the only enemy threatening you.  No other enemies adjacent when you flee.
D) The enemy either came to you or it's not the first round so you still have your full movement.
E) There's someplace to shove the enemy so they are farther away.  
F) You are  in the open with no obstruction to movement and everyone can use their movement every round to get away without provoking themselves.
G) The monster can't have ranged attacks

Huh.  In all my years decades of playing and DMing I've rarely had a fight that all of these criteria were met.  So this tactic may work at _your_ table, but I don't remember an encounter it would have worked at mine.  I'm old, and may be forgetting one so I'll say the tactic is pointless 99% of the time in my experience.

Kiting the monsters can be a valid tactic if you're a swashbuckler.  If I wanted to use this tactic that's what class I would choose.  I would also be accepting that the monster is probably just going to attack someone else.  Like a guy with high armor class because they have armor and shield.

Last but not least, I don't think the feat is completely worthless, it's just worth less than an ASI or several other feats.


----------



## jaelis (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Last but not least, I don't think the feat is completely worthless, it's just worth less than an ASI or several other feats.



Would you agree, though, that the feat is also worth more than several other feats?

(To be clear, I think that every feat should be comparable to an ASI. But IMO many are not, and I can't get too excited about adding one more to that list.)


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> Would you agree, though, that the feat is also worth more than several other feats?
> 
> (To be clear, I think that every feat should be comparable to an ASI. But IMO many are not, and I can't get too excited about adding one more to that list.)




If I ignore feats that make no sense (i.e. Elemental Adept) I took a quick glance through the feats.  Let's see.  There are several that are better, including half feats.  Athlete is underwhelming but I would still probably get more use out of it and it's a 1/2 feat. Then there are the situational feats.  Dungeon Delver for example depends heavily on the campaign, Actor on the campaign, character and motivations.  

Honestly?  There may be something I'm not seeing but no, I can't think of a worse feat unless I take one that doesn't fit my character and campaign.  What feat(s) do you think would be worse unless you pick a feat that would never make sense for that PC?


----------



## jaelis (May 14, 2018)

I would rate shield master as clearly stronger than any of charger, elemental adept, grappler, keen mind, savage attacker, lightly armored, linguist, or weapon master.

I'd put it in a rough category with athlete, dungeon delver, mage slayer, martial adept, observant, skilled, and spell sniper.


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> I would rate shield master as clearly stronger than any of charger, elemental adept, grappler, keen mind, savage attacker, lightly armored, linguist, or weapon master.
> 
> I'd put it in a rough category with athlete, dungeon delver, mage slayer, martial adept, observant, skilled, and spell sniper.




There is no reason to take elemental adept, lightly armored, weapon master for martial characters.  Grappler doesn't apply to sword-and-board because you don't have a free hand.  Why even include them in the list other than to pad it?

Charger is more useful.  There have been a number of times when it would have given me an attack when all I could do was close to be in melee range (or throw a javelin).  Don't forget it adds extra damage every time you run around to attack someone else as well.

Keen mind I took for one of my characters because of background and fluff.  Also the DM expected players to remember what happened to the PCs 15 minutes ago even though the game was several weeks prior.  So from a mechanical perspective not great, it's more of a niche like Actor.  But if you want to run a Sherlock Holmes type character in an investigation-heavy campaign it's useful.

Linguist falls into the same category as Keen Mind.  It's more of a fluff feat.  Not useful in combat, but useful based on character concept and campaign.


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

Just a quick follow-up on the Charger feat.  Now that I think about it, it's actually a pretty decent feat.

Any time I'm not in melee and there's a bad guy at least 10 feet away (within dash range) I can dash over, either push them further than I can with shield master and close the distance and follow up with any attacks I have remaining.  Or I can dash over, hit them with extra damage then continue my normal attack action.

In many encounters that's an extra attack with bonus damage or getting the bad guy off my wizard after I take care of the mook I was fighting.  Not bad.


----------



## jaelis (May 14, 2018)

OK, my rating is intended to be more general, as in, I don't think any character should take Elemental Adept if they still have room for ASIs in their prime state. (At least, they shouldn't for mechanical reasons.) IE, I think that Shield Master is more useful to a melee character than Elemental Adept is for an arcanist.

If you reject the possibility of making such comparisons, then I guess my list is meaningless to you.

If you are able to see then benefits of charger but not shield master for a melee warrior, then I would suggest you might be approaching the question with some unconscious biases. That said, what do you mean here?


> Don't forget it adds extra damage every time you run around to attack someone else as well.



You only get the damage bonus if you took the dash action.


----------



## jaelis (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Just a quick follow-up on the Charger feat.  Now that I think about it, it's actually a pretty decent feat.
> 
> Any time I'm not in melee and there's a bad guy at least 10 feet away (within dash range) I can dash over, either push them further than I can with shield master and close the distance and follow up with any attacks I have remaining.  Or I can dash over, hit them with extra damage then continue my normal attack action.
> 
> In many encounters that's an extra attack with bonus damage or getting the bad guy off my wizard after I take care of the mook I was fighting.  Not bad.




Right, I think you are misreading the feat. If you've used your action to dash, you don't have any attacks remaining. Or maybe I am looking at a bad copy?


> When you use your action to Dash, you can use a bonus action to make one melee weapon attack or to shove a creature. If you move at least 10 feet in a straight line immediately before taking this bonus action, you either gain a +5 bonus to the attack’s damage roll (if you chose to make a melee attack and hit) or push the target up to 10 feet away from you (if you chose to shove and you succeed).


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> Right, I think you are misreading the feat. If you've used your action to dash, you don't have any attacks remaining. Or maybe I am looking at a bad copy?




Yeah, it's a Monday.  Brain cramp.  It's still useful when I need to close the distance between my PC and the bad guys which seems to happen just about every other combat.  So move/action to dash/bonus attack (with a damage bonus).  It's better than moving then throwing a javelin, especially depending on how picky your DM is about drawing weapons.  

Still a decent feat for  a swashbuckler who can just run away without provoking - dash/bonus attack with extra damage/move out of range.


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> OK, my rating is intended to be more general, as in, I don't think any character should take Elemental Adept if they still have room for ASIs in their prime state. (At least, they shouldn't for mechanical reasons.) IE, I think that Shield Master is more useful to a melee character than Elemental Adept is for an arcanist.
> 
> If you reject the possibility of making such comparisons, then I guess my list is meaningless to you.




I don't reject the possibility.  I thought we were comparing apples to apples.  What other feat makes sense for a sword-and-board fighter, which is what _I_ asked in the question you were responding to.  If you're going to move the goalposts, let me know.

Elemental adept can be useful based on the campaign.  In a recent campaign I ran, at higher levels the majority of bad guys had fire resistance (red dragon blood infusions turning them into half-dragons).  So yes, for the fire based spell caster it was a worthwhile feat.

Just like dungeon delver is not great unless you are a rogue and do a lot of dungeon crawls.  

Depending on campaign and character those feats are quite a bit more useful.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Huh? Yes, shove action still retains the limitations it always had. For example, you cannot shove someone who is on another planet.
> 
> Shield Master and bonus actions et al have not changed those.




I never said they did, the person I was responding to claimed the shove action was super useful. The point was that Shield Master always had limitations preventing it from being a really good feat on par with GWM, PAM, SS.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Were you talking about how I pointed out that the save for half is worth far less than a rogue's evasion?  Because the implication was that they were equivalent. They aren't. Unlike rogues, most PCs that have shield master won't have a high dexterity nor do they have proficiency in dexterity saves.  So _on average_ it buys you significantly less damage reduction than the half feat heavy armor master.  You would be far better off taking the two half feats heavy armor master and resilience.
> 
> Shield Master isn't worthless, it's just worth less than other options.




Correct.  IMO, the way the game is now is feats have four tiers:

1.  those that are equal to or worth more than a main ability increase (optimization or fun wise);
2.  those that you take after your max your main stat;
3.  and those that are just worth little but have some value;
4.  and those that are garbage like Martial Weapon Proficiency.  

Shield Mastery was composed of two from category 3 (the situational save bonuses) and the situational bonus action usage to maybe get advantage which was probably in the middle of category 2 and 3.  Added together it would solidly be in category 2 or the bottom of category 1 because it was fun to use and certainly worth roleplaying as "I will try to bash the Grimlock off the ledge with bonus action and then attack the other grimlock with my regular attack" or "I bash the Troll into the lava by the Fire Giant's forge" are fun.  But its useless against huge or larger creatures, and was never a guarantee. Even the Grimlock I used in my example has a +5 bonus to Athletics checks, the Troll would be +4.  

To try to shove prone to get advantage attacking a Prone creature is certainly worth a Paladin's bonus action so they can try to crit for a Divine Smite, but Paladins don't have a lot of pressure on their bonus actions.


You don't shove to get away, you disengage or just eat the OppAtt and run.  The people who take Shield Master are the ones that should be standing there blocking the enemy so the others can get away, then they do something that allows you to escape like dropping a grease spell on the spaces between the Shielder and the enemy.  Your an adventurer, running away is last resort type stuff.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Yeah, it's a Monday.  Brain cramp.  It's still useful when I need to close the distance between my PC and the bad guys which seems to happen just about every other combat.  So move/action to dash/bonus attack (with a damage bonus).  It's better than moving then throwing a javelin, especially depending on how picky your DM is about drawing weapons.
> 
> Still a decent feat for  a swashbuckler who can just run away without provoking - dash/bonus attack with extra damage/move out of range.




The problem with Charger is it only works for PC's who have only one attack for their action, you are switching your attack action to an attack as a bonus action with a rider. The people who would take charger are martial types who have more than one attack at later levels who lose more then they gain. Its just another feat that makes me wonder what games the writer plays in.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 14, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I'm guessing this was a rhetorical question, since you've no doubt met many players (in person or in post) who don't make decisions based on concerns for optimization, and you already know one answer is "because it looks like a fun choice."
> 
> That's why I took Shield Master for the heavily armored enchanter I created to replace my fallen gnome battlemaster; and it's why that gnome had Martial Adept even though it was clear to me that a Dex boost was definitely a numerically superior choice.
> 
> I wound up not playing that enchanter (with a splash of Life cleric for the armor and added paladinyness), though. Instead, I'm playing a halfling moon druid with high physical stats that go wasted because I spend most of my time as a dog.




Do you have fun ruining the rest of the parties chance of success by trying to make less than useful party members?  Forcing the other players to play around your PC?  

I can see why gnome battlemaster is listed as "fallen."  


Your paragraph explains the previous 3057 posts of yours.  "Its all so very clear to me now, the whole thing," as the quote goes.  (Bonus XP if you can pick the Movie its from)


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> The problem with Charger is it only works for PC's who have only one attack for their action, you are switching your attack action to an attack as a bonus action with a rider. The people who would take charger are martial types who have more than one attack at later levels who lose more then they gain. Its just another feat that makes me wonder what games the writer plays in.




I agree that I wouldn't rank charger it as high as other feats, depending on the DM and typical encounter distance it's in your 2-3 range.

I would still rank it above shield master if you can only shove after taking all attacks.  If you can attack/knock prone/attack with advantage then shield master is probably slightly better.  But that's not what JC said.  According to the tweet you have to take your complete attack action before you can shove.

In most cases shoving someone away after you attack just makes it easier for them to reposition on their turn and almost never makes sense.  Knocking them prone might help or hurt your allies depending on sequence and party makeup.


----------



## jaelis (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I agree that I wouldn't rank charger it as high as other feats, depending on the DM and typical encounter distance it's in your 2-3 range.
> 
> I would still rank it above shield master if you can only shove after taking all attacks.  If you can attack/knock prone/attack with advantage then shield master is probably slightly better.  But that's not what JC said.  According to the tweet you have to take your complete attack action before you can shove.
> 
> In most cases shoving someone away after you attack just makes it easier for them to reposition on their turn and almost never makes sense.  Knocking them prone might help or hurt your allies depending on sequence and party makeup.




Well, at any rate as a player you have a nice simple solution then... just ask your DM that in light of JC's ruling, can you swap out Shield Master for Charger?


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> Well, at any rate as a player you have a nice simple solution then... just ask your DM that in light of JC's ruling, can you swap out Shield Master for Charger?




And ... again ... the issue for me personally is that it's an AL character.  Since he's higher than 4th level he's "locked in".

If I can change my character I have plenty of options.  If I wasn't a paladin, charger might be an option, but mounted combat ranks much higher.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> Well, at any rate as a player you have a nice simple solution then... just ask your DM that in light of JC's ruling, can you swap out Shield Master for Charger?




To me if you DM says I am going by that rule I would just ask for a rebuild using PAM or GWF.  

Shield Master also encourage party tactics and cooperation, which the game needs more of not less.  Once your monk starts rolling 4 attacks with advantage against a target Mr. Shield Master Paladin(my current PC in Age of Worms campaign) just proned she will stick to you like glue.  The Bard and the Wizard just see it coming so they try to divide the enemy until the tag team finishes with walls and fogs and such.  Its just fun to work together.


----------



## guachi (May 14, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I gave up. If someone wants to view a thing as useless, we could spend a year giving them a actual play examples, and it won’t change their mind.




That's not an actual play example. It's a theorycraft example. It's only an actual play example if you had people who used it in their games.

We have multiple people in this very thread who have played Shield Master PCs for extended lengths of time who say that the other features aren't that useful to them and if they had wanted to play that way (knock back and run) they'd have just played a different PC.

How is taking Shield Master to knock one foe back, maybe, and then moving away a better means of accomplishing this then just being a Rogue or Monk in the first place?


----------



## Ganders (May 14, 2018)

Now a bard with Battle Magic must make his weapon attack *after* he casts his spell.  Which means sheathing a sword in order to free a hand for spellcasting is a problem.  I presume that it's ok to draw a weapon after the spell but before the bonus action, but can imagine other rulings.  Anyway, that's all probably intentional. 

But much more interesting is a battlemaster's Commander's Strike, since it's the only other thing that triggers on 'take the attack action' like Shield Master does.  Apparently the option to use Commander's Strike doesn't exist until after you attack (bonus actions don't always exist, you aren't entitled to one unless something triggers it).  But once you've attacked, it may be too late to forgo one of your attacks.  Bit of Catch-22 there.  Maybe it needs to be reworded to "and forgo one of your attacks, you can" rather than "you can forgo one of your attacks and".


----------



## jaelis (May 14, 2018)

Ganders said:


> But much more interesting is a battlemaster's Commander's Strike, since it's the only other thing that triggers on 'take the attack action' like Shield Master does.  Apparently the option to use Commander's Strike doesn't exist until after you attack (bonus actions don't always exist, you aren't entitled to one unless something triggers it).  But once you've attacked, it may be too late to forgo one of your attacks.  Bit of Catch-22 there.  Maybe it needs to be reworded to "and forgo one of your attacks, you can" rather than "you can forgo one of your attacks and".




Interesting point. The wording is:


> When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.



My reading would be: you forgo an attack, and gain the option to take the bonus action after your attack action is complete. I don't think forgoing your attack is somehow part of the bonus action.


----------



## Satyrn (May 14, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Do you have fun ruining the rest of the parties chance of success by trying to make less than useful party members?  Forcing the other players to play around your PC?
> 
> I can see why gnome battlemaster is listed as "fallen."



When I first built him, I pictured him as a Han Solo type - a selfish, roguish smuggler who could pull his weight in a fight. While he was alive, he was easily pulling his own weight despite me making some suboptimal character building choices because 

1) my fellow players don't heavily, carefully optimize their characters.
2) It's really hard to make an ineffective 5e character
3) you're wrong about the effect of my choices on the rest of my fellow players

The only reason he died was because after picking up a pair of blasters (wand-guns, really), I pulled a Han Solo and charged headlong into a room full of stormtroopers.

Fun times.


----------



## guachi (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> Would you agree, though, that the feat is also worth more than several other feats?
> 
> (To be clear, I think that every feat should be comparable to an ASI. But IMO many are not, and I can't get too excited about adding one more to that list.)




There are few martial combat feats that are worse than Shield Master. It probably reduces the user's damage as otherwise he could increase his main stat. And single weapon users are already at the bottom of the heap. Its damage reduction probably isn't as useful as just being a dex fighter/ranger/whatever and increasing dexterity.

I think the only feat I'd take Shield Master over is probably Savage Attacker. With a d8 weapon it increases average damage of one attack by 1.3125. Shield Master is probably more useful than that. But that's about it.

If I wanted to be a defensive fighter I might take something like Mountain Dwarf Fighter, point buy a 17 Strength, point by an odd Dexterity or Wisdom, take Heavy Armor Master at level 4 and get an 18 Strength, and then at level 6 take Resilient Wisdom/Dexterity.

Or I'd take X/Rogue and take the Sentinel feat and use a shield.

Though I suppose you could be a Hunter Ranger and use the Shield push after your Attack action to maneuver a foe so you could use the free extra attack. I wonder how the timing on that would work. And if a foe was already within 5 feet I suppose you could knock it prone and then get your extra attack.


----------



## Mistwell (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> It was a question as to how far and from that possibly how consistent your feeling on the broader applicability (not just one game but bigger) went when so much of the comments offered we cloaked in as *in my own game* wrappers when convenient and portrayed as broder when not.
> 
> It was not about dwarves and your take on what dwarves do this and that, even tho dwarves were a part of it.
> 
> ...




Of course you mentioned dwarf. It's in the thing you quoted (which was not **my** take by the way - you were responding to someone else), and the response with the mention of 25', and the entire issue of escaping with the feat. 

I think you might have lost your own thread here mate. Did you not realize the argument you were responding to, or are you just trying to distract from talking about the issue (for the third time in a row now I think)?

If it's the later, you might as well talk about it. It's not like this is going away. You made an argument about the "escape" feature of the feat, you've been challenged on it by multiple people now, and changing the topic isn't advancing your position at this point. Unless you're just granting the escape feature isn't as good as you were making it out to be.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Of course you mentioned dwarf. It's in the thing you quoted (which was not **my** take by the way - you were responding to someone else), and the response with the mention of 25', and the entire issue of escaping with the feat.
> 
> I think you might have lost your own thread here mate. Did you not realize the argument you were responding to, or are you just trying to distract from talking about the issue (for the third time in a row now I think)?
> 
> If it's the later, you might as well talk about it. It's not like this is going away. You made an argument about the "escape" feature of the feat, you've been challenged on it by multiple people now, and changing the topic isn't advancing your position at this point. Unless you're just granting the escape feature isn't as good as you were making it out to be.



Hilarious.

Again, i did not advocate for the 25'dwarf back off thing. So, maybe if you want someone ro defend however "good" you perceive they were making it out to be, you should speak to them. 

I did at one point directly bring up the shove down, back off (allowing the disadvantaged OA) noting there the half move up prevents them closing to strike again (normal movenent assumptions) and that still works with 25'dwarf move so... Again not really dwarf centered. 

So, if you need ro conjure staunch advocates of the shove back maneuver power to spar with after conjuring how many dwarves can dance on the head of the pin into that mix, you need to look elsewhere.


----------



## Oofta (May 14, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I did at one point directly bring up the shove down, back off (allowing the disadvantaged OA) noting there the half move up prevents them closing to strike again (normal movenent assumptions) and that still works with 25'dwarf move so... Again not really dwarf centered.




Yet you could never explain why the tactic would ever work, dwarf or no.  

In most games, this would just be a pointless tactic that means that the opponent would simply attack someone else, frequently someone with fewer HP and lower AC.

Just as a refresher, here's my logic


Oofta said:


> In order for the shove and run tactic to work pretty much all of the following conditions have be met:
> A) The rest of your party is ranged, and is more than the enemy's movement speed away after the shove.
> B) The PC must move as fast or faster than the enemy.  So too bad dwarves, hope you aren't fighting a monster that has better than your base move.
> C) This can be the only enemy threatening you.  No other enemies adjacent when you flee.
> ...




Admittedly you're saying knock prone and provoke an opportunity attack is a good idea (I disagree) instead of shoving so B may not apply, but the rest of the options still do.

Maybe you play a game of "tag your it" where the enemy is forced to go after the person that attacked last, but I'm assuming most people don't.


----------



## SkidAce (May 14, 2018)

guachi said:


> How is taking Shield Master to knock one foe back, maybe, and then moving away a better means of accomplishing this then just being a Rogue or Monk in the first place?




They didn't want to play a monk or rogue?


----------



## Ganders (May 14, 2018)

jaelis said:


> My reading would be: you forgo an attack, and gain the option to take the bonus action after your attack action is complete




Yes, that's what I meant by the way I reworded it.  Anyway, this means that you can no longer forgo your first attack for your friend.  Your friend's attack must come after all of your attacks.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Yet you could never explain why the tactic would ever work, dwarf or no.
> 
> In most games, this would just be a pointless tactic that means that the opponent would simply attack someone else, frequently someone with fewer HP and lower AC.
> 
> ...



As for "tag you're it" you may be aware of a variety of abilities which create that kind of situation, where attacking someone else incurs disadvantage? Or the idea that in a given situation having them attack someone else might be beneficial in other ways (basher is low hp at risk of ko) or any number of circumstantial circumstances not often found in white rooms but found in actual play.

Those are cases why the tactic "would ever work" which is not the same as "will always work" or "will work in white room."

Other cases include the basher getting out of the way in narrow confined for someone else to move up to strike at the advantaged target so, like say a 2h pally ready to smite.

Other cases could be drawing that OA (if they use it) to open up other opportunities like folks getting past them now that the OA was spent at disadvantage against the shielded guy.

Do you guys not ever use tactics to get enemies to take "obvious" moves that Actually you are wanting to exploit?

Never wanted to drop back into a heal aoe after getting a strike and  a shove down 

I mean, sure, those dont show up on dpr excel spreadsheets, but they do in other cases, in actual play.

To put it simply, tactics are shaped by and shape choices and capabilities (among other things.) The idea that "while we had the bash before" feat in play, we used it and not the bash after" logic to then leverage the frequency of how much one was chosen is fallacious logic.

"We tend to eat more chicken as opposed to fish" does not mean chicken is better than fish for other especially if chicken is easier to get than fish  where you are.

I mean, again and again its run back to "but in one game we see" then rhe gigantic leap to "how can it ever work" etc...

There is a world of gameplay between those and the vast majority of gamers play games everyday in between the extremes folks like to throw out?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 14, 2018)

Ganders said:


> Yes, that's what I meant by the way I reworded it.  Anyway, this means that you can no longer forgo your first attack for your friend.  Your friend's attack must come after all of your attacks.



"When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike."

The non-ruling is about when bonus actions can be used in relation to the trigger - after.

The non-ruling says nothing about when "forego" happens

The feature says you can forgo one of your attacks (no bonus action required) **and** can spend a bonus action to give a friend a reaction attack.

So, you **can** still forgo your first attack of your attack action but cannot give it to them until your have completed your attack action and spent your bonus. This might be important if triggered effects can play into this. 



.


----------



## jasper (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> And ... again ... the issue for me personally is that it's an AL character.  Since he's higher than 4th level he's "locked in".
> 
> If I can change my character I have plenty of options.  If I wasn't a paladin, charger might be an option, but mounted combat ranks much higher.



AL says Sage Advice is just suggestions. Unless it errata ask the DM. I would allow a rebuild if a lot dm started doing his way.


----------



## Dausuul (May 14, 2018)

If your goal is to be able to move away from an enemy after attacking, the Mobile feat has it all over Shield Master. It doesn't cost your bonus action or require a shield; it's guaranteed to work; it still gets you out of reach of a counterattack, due to the +10 speed; and the +10 speed is useful in a wide variety of situations.

I have a pretty hard time imagining a case where I'd want to build a Shield Master user after this change. I do think the change to bonus action rules was necessary, simply because of the can of worms that is opened up by allowing bonus actions to go back in time. But in my games, at least, I'm going to pair this ruling with house rules to feats like Shield Master:

"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.* You can also use this ability if you haven't acted yet this turn; if you do, your next action this turn must be the Attack action.*"

It's clunky, but it allows Shield Master to function as intended, and it addresses the issue of "What happens if the shove makes it impossible for me to take the Attack action (e.g., by shoving an enemy off a cliff when no other enemies are in reach)?" If you're unwilling or unable to Attack, then you lose your action for the turn.


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 14, 2018)

I think I'm slightly less likely to take the Shield Master feat at a Table ruling this way.


I may houserule the first bullet point of the feat to: "Once per turn you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield provided you also take the attack action in the same turn."


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (May 14, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Yet you could never explain why the tactic would ever work, dwarf or no.



OK, here is an example that came up three or four times in the Out of the Abyss game I play in.

I had a tempest cleric with shield master feat. Also in the game was a warlock with repelling blast. Quite often, foes would get next to the warlock and disturb her eldritch blast casting. Our tactic was for my character to push them 5 feet back and then retreat 5 or 10 feet. The warlock would then cast eldritch blast (no longer at disadvantage) and push the target back 10 feet. She would then retreat her full move behind the cleric. Now, the foe is out of melee range of the warlock. The feat meant I had two chances to push the foe (action and bonus action if the action was resisted).

In that game, the second bullet of shield master came up a total of zero times (how many single-target DEX save spells are there, anyway?). The third bullet point only came up once or twice.

I don't think I ever knocked a foe prone. That would have disadvantaged the two ranged damage dealers (the warlock and an archer).

Overall, my feeling about the feat is "OK". It was nice but very situational.

Additionally, there were other things that competed with the bonus action (healing word, spiritual weapon).


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> I may houserule the first bullet point of the feat to: "Once per turn you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield provided you also take the attack action in the same turn."




And if you can't or don't?

The natural language ruling makes for clear causality, such that you never have to consider if you have to retroactively make thing Y not happen because the requirement X did not happen.

"


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> As for "tag you're it" you may be aware of a variety of abilities which create that kind of situation, where attacking someone else incurs disadvantage?




In 5E?  No, I don't know of such an ability. Of course I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules so please enlighten me.  I know it's not an option for any of the paladin/fighter builds that I know of.  The cavalier has unwavering mark but they have to remain within 5 feet of the target of their mark.



5ekyu said:


> Or the idea that in a given situation having them attack someone else might be beneficial in other ways (basher is low hp at risk of ko) or any number of circumstantial circumstances not often found in white rooms but found in actual play.
> 
> Those are cases why the tactic "would ever work" which is not the same as "will always work" or "will work in white room."
> 
> ...




I was addressing the specific attack/shove/run away scenario.  Basically I think it would be extremely rare that it would make sense for the front line tank to kite in and out of combat.  There are so few scenarios where the enemy will not be able to attack _someone_.  Which you talk around but never address.  

Every once in a while shoving someone is useful.  Maybe for 1 turn every 50 encounters or so based on my experience.   Good thing a shove is an attack, so no feat is necessary.


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 15, 2018)

Umbran said:


> And if you can't or don't?




Then you can't or don't. 

I've been playing it this way since JC's tweet in 2015 so I think it will continue to work.



Umbran said:


> The natural language ruling makes for clear causality, such that you never have to consider if you have to retroactively make thing Y not happen because the requirement X did not happen.
> 
> "




Sure. It is clearer but still somehow less appealing to me.


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> OK, here is an example that came up three or four times in the Out of the Abyss game I play in.
> 
> I had a tempest cleric with shield master feat. Also in the game was a warlock with repelling blast. Quite often, foes would get next to the warlock and disturb her eldritch blast casting. Our tactic was for my character to push them 5 feet back and then retreat 5 or 10 feet. The warlock would then cast eldritch blast (no longer at disadvantage) and push the target back 10 feet. She would then retreat her full move behind the cleric. Now, the foe is out of melee range of the warlock. The feat meant I had two chances to push the foe (action and bonus action if the action was resisted).
> 
> ...




I will confess I may just be having a cranky Monday, but I think while the scenario you point out is a possibility it's also rare in my experience.  It also assumes a very specific order: you go, then your buddy then the enemy.  First, the ranged attackers tend to run away, second the tactic would only work if there is one and only one enemy is attacking your buddy.  I just don't see the constellations aligning all that often.


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 15, 2018)

Greenstone.Walker said:


> Additionally, there were other things that competed with the bonus action (healing word, spiritual weapon).




It also forced you to take the attack action on turns where you bonus action shoved. With all the sweet spells a Tempest Cleric gets that seems a steep cost to pay to remove disadvantage from the Warlock's EBs.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 15, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> Then you can't or don't.



I don't really see any difference between your version and the version where you take the attack action, and then don't actually make any attacks (yet), and take the bonus action in the middle. JC seems to think that a bonus action in the middle of another action is impossibly confusing.


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 15, 2018)

Saeviomagy said:


> I don't really see any difference between your version and the version where you take the attack action, and then don't actually make any attacks (yet), and take the bonus action in the middle.




That is exactly my intent. To allow it to function that way but still abide by the intent of the new JC tweet/larger rules about the timings of bonus actions. 



Saeviomagy said:


> JC seems to think that a bonus action in the middle of another action is impossibly confusing.




I think the JC tweet does make for simpler reading of how bonus actions work, but I hate to see some of the power of Shield Master fall by the wayside because of it.

Ultimately I'm starting to agree with Mearls. Bonus actions are feeling clunkier thanever.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 15, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> Ultimately I'm starting to agree with Mearls. Bonus actions are feeling clunkier thanever.




Meh, they're just a name. The clunkiness is coming from trying to make them piggy-back on other actions, which itself is caused by the laughable goal of trying to make people not want to have a bonus action by making them not always available.

If they'd just left them as they were in the previous edition (minor actions) and balanced accordingly, we wouldn't be in this mess.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

"If your goal is to be able to move away from an enemy after attacking, the Mobile feat has it all over Shield Master."

No question. Shield master and Mobility are different feats with different abilities provided and giving many different ootions.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

"In 5E? No, I don't know of such an ability. Of course I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules so please enlighten me. I know it's not an option for any of the paladin/fighter builds that I know of. The cavalier has unwavering mark but they have to remain within 5 feet of the target of their mark."

Paladin has compelled duel, battlemaster has goading attack... Just two off the top of my head sticking with the d10 guys.

Edit actually just some.. Did not look at ranger who is also a d10 guy.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

"I was addressing the specific attack/shove/run away scenario. Basically I think it would be extremely rare that it would make sense for the front line tank to kite in and out of combat. There are so few scenarios where the enemy will not be able to attack someone. Which you talk around but never address. "

As already answered, i have not made any advocation or claims about the shove back dwarfy thingy. If you choose to limit yourself to that, why you keep somehow chalkenging me to support it is beyond fathoming. 

Shield master and shove down are issues i have addressed.

If you have this personal issue with the intersection of dwarven stubby kegs and shove backs... thats not my problem to solve or weigh in on.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> That is exactly my intent. To allow it to function that way but still abide by the intent of the new JC tweet/larger rules about the timings of bonus actions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Me, i read mearls comments on that but keeping reading saw his solution idea was to stilk have them, but to hardcode them in everywhere. So instead of bonus action spelks have action spells added so you could cast to get damage and small heal. 

So it sounded like either a massive reduction in options **or** a ton more paper and choices for the same net effect. 

So, neither appealed to me.


----------



## Mistwell (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "In 5E? No, I don't know of such an ability. Of course I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules so please enlighten me. I know it's not an option for any of the paladin/fighter builds that I know of. The cavalier has unwavering mark but they have to remain within 5 feet of the target of their mark."
> 
> Paladin has compelled duel, battlemaster has goading attack... Just two off the top of my head sticking with the d10 guys.
> 
> Edit actually just some.. Did not look at ranger who is also a d10 guy.




Hmm this feat plus Goading Attack would make for a sweet combination. A lot has to go right for it to work. Attack has to hit, they have to miss their saving throw, and then you have to succeed with their shove. But, when it works, it would be pretty effective. But...still couldn't work with a dwarf, or someone wearing heavy armor, unless you are willing to accept an opportunity attack that wasn't otherwise going to happen (though it would be at disadvantage at least).


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "I was addressing the specific attack/shove/run away scenario. Basically I think it would be extremely rare that it would make sense for the front line tank to kite in and out of combat. There are so few scenarios where the enemy will not be able to attack someone. Which you talk around but never address. "
> 
> As already answered, i have not made any advocation or claims about the shove back dwarfy thingy. If you choose to limit yourself to that, why you keep somehow chalkenging me to support it is beyond fathoming.
> 
> ...




it's worse for dwarves, but it's the same issue with other races.  Unless the fighter doing it is the only melee based character, it just means the target will attack someone else.

Yes, there are some limited resources that give disadvantage.  I had forgotten about compelled dual because it's not a very good spell. The only one that can attack the target is the paladin, it's concentration, there's a saving throw every round, etc.  I've never played a battlemaster and the guy who played one in our group never used it (or only used it once or twice and realized it wasn't worth while).

Like I said.  I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules.

But let's leave it at this.  We disagree. I think other feats are worth far more for the majority of characters.  Shoving and running isn't going to work because there will probably be someone in range for most groups.  Yes you could keep them locked down for a round or two using limited resources, but that's all ... a round or two.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Hmm this feat plus Goading Attack would make for a sweet combination. A lot has to go right for it to work. Attack has to hit, they have to miss their saving throw, and then you have to succeed with their shove. But, when it works, it would be pretty effective. But...still couldn't work with a dwarf, or someone wearing heavy armor, unless you are willing to accept an opportunity attack that wasn't otherwise going to happen (though it would be at disadvantage at least).



Giving someone an OA at disad against the armor and shield guy to deprive them of attack action againt that guy when their turn comes *or* they take disadvantage against others... thats a trade i would usually be happy with.

But again, just one option of many.

Edit.. But can you explain the "or someone wearing heavy armor" reference?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

"it's worse for dwarves, but it's the same issue with other races. Unless the fighter doing it is the only melee based character, it just means the target will attack someone else."

Outside of excel spreadsheets, picking who the enemy attacks when its beneficial is often considered extremely useful. 

Last time i checked the same 4 out of 5 dentists thought focusing damage on targets instead of spreading it from round to round on different targets was as good as sugar-less gum.

I think the 5th dentist had excel open but cannot confirm.

As for there being better feats for the majority of characters, of course. That is true of every feat - without exception even before we get to vagaries for tactics and groups and campaigns. 

GWM is not good for non-two-handed/hvy (whatever) melee guys, ranged guys or most spellers - a majority.

Sharpshooter - similar 

Shield master... Yup...

No feat is best for a majority of the characters - barring a very limited pool of "charscters".





,


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "it's worse for dwarves, but it's the same issue with other races. Unless the fighter doing it is the only melee based character, it just means the target will attack someone else."
> 
> Outside of excel spreadsheets, picking who the enemy attacks when its beneficial is often considered extremely useful.
> 
> ...




I don't use spreadsheets to plan characters, or justify my opinion.  I _have_ explained why your tactics don't work in real world games.  Give it a rest.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 15, 2018)

guachi said:


> That's not an actual play example. It's a theorycraft example. It's only an actual play example if you had people who used it in their games.
> 
> We have multiple people in this very thread who have played Shield Master PCs for extended lengths of time who say that the other features aren't that useful to them and if they had wanted to play that way (knock back and run) they'd have just played a different PC.
> 
> How is taking Shield Master to knock one foe back, maybe, and then moving away a better means of accomplishing this then just being a Rogue or Monk in the first place?




Good for them? 

My actual play experience (not sure where you got the impression that my examples are theorycrafting) is that the examples I gave make the feat very useful, and we’ve never rule it the way you guys were. 

I’ve also seen the +2 to dex saves on a “low” dex character (never seen dex below 10, so maybe “average” is a better term) save the character many times during 5e’s run, with and without having a reaction to spare on the other effect. 

The shove effect allows tactics that normally would require sacrificing damage in order to use, and it has turned the tide of battle at my table, in the uses I mentioned, as well as others. I’ve had characters save others by locking down an enemy that would be willing to risk the opportunity attack to get to the healer or mage, combo shove and difficult terrain to lock an enemy in place while the DPR characters could survive tangling with an enemy glass canon, push an enemy into a dangerous zone, etc. 

there isnt anything theoretical about it.


----------



## Eric V (May 15, 2018)

Nerfing this feat this way is a bit of a downer because it was one of the feats for a particular play style for martials, and it no longer keeps up.

Ranged: Sharpshooter
Heavy Weapon: Heavy Weapon Master
Two-Weapons: Dual Wielder
Sword-and-board: Shield Master

The above 3 enhance their respective styles much more than the now-clarified Shield Master feat does, and that's too bad. :/


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

Eric V said:


> Nerfing this feat this way is a bit of a downer because it was one of the feats for a particular play style for martials, and it no longer keeps up.
> 
> Ranged: Sharpshooter
> Heavy Weapon: Heavy Weapon Master
> ...



I thibk it actually depends on what you think the sword and board style *is*. The difference between shove before hits and shove after hits is how often the sword and boarder can get their own damage attacks with advantage on their own... I.e.  basically DPR. 

Some see *higher dpr* as not in the sword and board style... 

For those, the style can be more protective in nature, more defensive in nature even to some degree more controlling in nature.

All of those style elements still remain as part of the feat.

Perhaps what the temporary bad ruling did was to turn a defensive style feat into a dpr style feat (with added defense to boot) and that was a mistake, a bug, not a designed intent and verse given and ring of wishes guaranteed right.


----------



## Eric V (May 15, 2018)

Eh, maybe.

Considering the fight is won when the opponent has no hp left though, the role of the martial guy is to lower the opponent's hp, no?  In that vein, dpr is important, yes?

The other 3 all add dpr; it was nice that sword-and-board got that option as well.

If one doesn't think that's what S&B *is* then one simply doesn't take the feat, right?  I mean, it's a feat, not a class feature.


----------



## jaelis (May 15, 2018)

I would like a feat like this:

*Shield Maestro*
- When you attack with a shield, you can add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll. A shield is considered an improvised weapon doing 1d4 damage.
- When you are wielding a shield and take the attack action, you can use a bonus action to attack with your shield or to shove an opponent.
- While wielding a shield, if you are subjected to an effect that allows a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can add your shield's AC bonus to your saving throw.


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

jaelis said:


> I would like a feat like this:
> 
> *Shield Maestro*
> - When you attack with a shield, you can add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll. A shield is considered an improvised weapon doing 1d4 damage.
> ...




Would you consider a shield viable for two weapon fighting?  If you hit with a shield do you still get your AC bonus?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some love for the sword-and-board crowd but I also don't want to see feats that replace older feats that are flat out better.

As far as DPR, I can only speak for myself.  I took protection fighting style because I can give disadvantage if someone attacks an ally, my build doesn't have to be all about DPR.  However, as it stands in my experience the feat isn't very useful in my experience (YMMV).  Having the flexibility to shove or knock prone before or after the attack is what made the feat work IMHO.  The other riders have minimal impact.

So I'm left with a feat that doesn't buy me much (again, YMMV I just don't see it) and nothing "iconic" for the sword-and-board fighting types like the other fighting styles.  Oh well.


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 15, 2018)

Saeviomagy said:


> Meh, they're just a name. The clunkiness is coming from trying to make them piggy-back on other actions, which itself is caused by the laughable goal of trying to make people not want to have a bonus action by making them not always available.
> 
> If they'd just left them as they were in the previous edition (minor actions) and balanced accordingly, we wouldn't be in this mess.




Yes, that's the clunkiness. Making them available every turn for some classes but not others, some weapon types, but not others strongly incentivizes some ways of playing over others. On top of that, taking some of the weaker options and adding unnecessary qualifiers. It's a mess.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (May 15, 2018)

Okay.  I declare an Attack action.  The use my Bonus Action.  Then execute my attacks.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

Warmaster Horus said:


> Okay.  I declare an Attack action.  The use my Bonus Action.  Then execute my attacks.



Not a bad house rule for some... But the book feat doesn't say you get the bonus action on declaring, does it?


----------



## Warmaster Horus (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Not a bad house rule for some... But the book feat doesn't say you get the bonus action on declaring, does it?




_If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feel of you with your shield._

It says nothing about actually attacking, just taking the Action.  There's even further nuance when you look at when Bonus actions can be taken and how Attacks can be split between moves, etc.


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Not a bad house rule for some... But the book feat doesn't say you get the bonus action on declaring, does it?




From DndBeyond



> You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, *unless the bonus action's timing is specified*, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.




The Shield Master feat


> If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.




To me, the feat does not specify timing, that would require "After you take complete the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action..." or something similar.

JC's ruling is different.


----------



## jaelis (May 15, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Would you consider a shield viable for two weapon fighting?  If you hit with a shield do you still get your AC bonus?



No to the first (it is not a "weapon") but yes to the second, when you use it as an improvised weapon.


----------



## Dausuul (May 15, 2018)

Oofta said:


> To me, the feat does not specify timing, that would require "After you take complete the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action..." or something similar.



So, you are essentially arguing that the bonus action can be taken, not before or after, but _during_ the regular action?

...You know, now I think about it, that does seem to solve the problem. You start the Attack action; as soon as you do, a bonus action drops into your lap; you use the bonus action; and then you complete the Attack action. You aren't getting your bonus action _before_ you take the Attack action, so no time-traveling is involved, but you do get to shove before making any actual attacks, which is the point of the exercise.

And it doesn't even require a house rule, just a broader interpretation of the possible meanings of the word "timing."


----------



## jaelis (May 15, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> So, you are essentially arguing that the bonus action can be taken, not before or after, but _during_ the regular action?
> 
> ...You know, now I think about it, that does seem to solve the problem. You start the Attack action; as soon as you do, a bonus action drops into your lap; you use the bonus action; and then you complete the Attack action. You aren't getting your bonus action _before_ you take the Attack action, so no time-traveling is involved, but you do get to shove before making any actual attacks, which is the point of the exercise.
> 
> And it doesn't even require a house rule, just a broader interpretation of the possible meanings of the word "timing."




It implies that you can generally interrupt your attacks with a bonus action. I don't know of any trouble that would cause but it is probably worth thinking about. Could you interrupt with another full action (ie when using haste or action surge?)

I took this as the rationale for JC's original interpretation. My impression is that he reversed it because it seemed complicated, not because of any mechanical problem.


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> So, you are essentially arguing that the bonus action can be taken, not before or after, but _during_ the regular action?
> 
> ...You know, now I think about it, that does seem to solve the problem. You start the Attack action; as soon as you do, a bonus action drops into your lap; you use the bonus action; and then you complete the Attack action. You aren't getting your bonus action _before_ you take the Attack action, so no time-traveling is involved, but you do get to shove before making any actual attacks, which is the point of the exercise.
> 
> And it doesn't even require a house rule, just a broader interpretation of the possible meanings of the word "timing."




Right.  The timing is not specified, it's pretty well established you can interrupt actions with movement and vice versa.

At the very least you could start the attack action / make a single attack / take your bonus action / take subsequent attacks.

The way I interpret it is that on any turn you take the attack action you can also take the bonus action.  Before or after it doesn't matter as long as you are taking the attack action.  Not really much different than casting a bonus spell and casting a cantrip.  

That's how I plan on ruling when I DM anyway.  Timing is not specified therefore it doesn't matter.


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 15, 2018)

Warmaster Horus said:


> Okay.  I declare an Attack action.  The use my Bonus Action.  Then execute my attacks.




This is what JC says shouldn't be happening, you should declare the attack action, resolve it (including extra attacks), then use the bonus action triggered by the attack action.

But... 



jaelis said:


> My impression is that he reversed it because it seemed complicated, not because of any mechanical problem.




I think this is true.


----------



## guachi (May 15, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Good for them?
> 
> My actual play experience (not sure where you got the impression that my examples are theorycrafting) is that the examples I gave make the feat very useful, and we’ve never rule it the way you guys were.




My comment had zero to do with your actual play examples. The comment was in reference to Greenstone.Walker giving a theorycrafting example of pushing a creature 5 feet. Your response  (to Greenstone.Walker) that I replied to used a modal verb "could give actual play examples" which implies possibility not actuality.

So I got that impression because of understanding English grammar. 

In any event, the +2 dex save benefits are low compared to simply increasing Dexterity. You will save 5% more of the time on spells that target only you but 5% less often on every other Dex save. 5% of the time with Shield Master you will be tied with a creature you would otherwise beat in initiative by 1. Mathematically, one out of 20 of those +2 saves are saves you otherwise would have missed compared to just taking a dex increase. And those one of 20 times are probably outnumbered by the one of 20 times you would have made a different dex save (or dex check, or attack roll) by simply increasing dexterity.

Alternatively, you might be a fighter (ranger, barb, paladin) who, at level 4, increases your main stat (dex or str) to 18 instead of taking shield master. In this case your damage will be about 20% higher taking a stat increase.


----------



## Mistwell (May 15, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve also seen the +2 to dex saves on a “low” dex character (never seen dex below 10, so maybe “average” is a better term) save the character many times during 5e’s run, with and without having a reaction to spare on the other effect.




It's only against, "a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you." That's not too common. A whole lot of the dex save spells are area attacks or at least target more than one target, which don't apply.


----------



## Mistwell (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I thibk it actually depends on what you think the sword and board style *is*. The difference between shove before hits and shove after hits is how often the sword and boarder can get their own damage attacks with advantage on their own... I.e.  basically DPR.




You're ignoring the "shove between attack actions" issue. It doesn't have to be about DPR to be bothered by that aspect. Lots of non-DPR reasons to want to move some, attack (or grapple), shove (bonus), move some more, attack (or grapple/shove again), finish move.  There was utility to allowing the shove come at any time in the series of events, provided you used the attack action at some point, which disappears with this ruling and yet may have little to do with damage per round and a lot to do with battlefield control.

It's also illogical. You can shove with your shield as one attack, and then attack with your sword as your second attack, currently in the game with no issue. Why would the bonus action *have to* come after the attack action first, when the game already assumes you can do it in the other order if you have multiple attacks? And why would it have to come after a SERIES of attack actions instead of in-between when you can move in-between attack actions?


----------



## Caliban (May 15, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> This is what JC says shouldn't be happening, you should declare the attack action, resolve it (including extra attacks), then use the bonus action triggered by the attack action.
> 
> But...
> 
> ...




Maybe.  Or maybe he decided it was too effective if it allows you [a chance] to give yourself advantage on all your melee attacks every turn, and reversed his prior ruling for that reason.


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> It's only against, "a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you." That's not too common. A whole lot of the dex save spells are area attacks or at least target more than one target, which don't apply.




Which is why I think it's so rarely useful.  Yes, you get a +2 vs disintegrate, but other than that how many spells are there that target one creature that require a dex save?  If a sorcerer uses Twin Spell and targets me with Disintegrate does it work?  Can I get the +2 vs Scorching Ray if all rays target me?  What about Fireball?  Can I protect myself if I'm the only one in the area but it doesn't work if someone else happens to be caught in the burst 30 feet away?  

The damage reduction is also problematic for any character that uses their reaction for other things.

In any case I think the feat went from a solid 8 on the desirability rating down to a 1.


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 15, 2018)

Caliban said:


> Maybe.  Or maybe he decided it was too effective if it allows you to give yourself advantage on all your melee attacks every turn



 Only if you succeed on the Athletics check







Caliban said:


> , and reversed his prior ruling for that reason.
> 
> View attachment 97534




It is possible, but i think that is fundamentally a bad line of reasoning. 

Giving yourself advantage if you succeed at the same time as giving any ranged allies disadvantage already has a steep cost attached to it. 

It was a good feat in certain scenarios, but never OP.

Frankly it shakes my confidence in JC as a designer more if he felt SM needed a nerf, than if it was a casualty of clearing up bonus action triggers.


----------



## Caliban (May 15, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> Only if you succeed on the Athletics check




Thank you for that vital piece of information.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

Warmaster Horus said:


> _If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feel of you with your shield._
> 
> It says nothing about actually attacking, just taking the Action.  There's even further nuance when you look at when Bonus actions can be taken and how Attacks can be split between moves, etc.





Let me be clear... when i say something is a fine house rule, that is not meant with deraogatory intent. i do not see house rules as second class to RAW. 

But, to me, even without clarity from official sources, it is not productive to twist and mangle RAW to shoehorn in extra edge cases rather than just house ruling it under what amounts to basically a "it is not strictly forbidden" kind of opening.

Consider that you are trying to invent within the rules a difference ebtween "take an attack action" and "making an attack" to allow other stuff to be done ***between those*** and my suspicion is that there are likely a broader problem with that kind of logic scope-wise than just this one aspect.

But first lets look at the attack action rules

"With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks. 
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action."

There is no difference in that rule between "taking an attack action" and "making an attack"... making an attack is what the action does. it requires a lot to try and read the Attack action and then see it as not meaning "make an attack" when you take the action.

As JC stated in part of his comments on the subject, the fact that movement between attacks is explicitly allowed does not equate to a universal allowance to insert any bonus action in the middle of the attack action or any action. 

The text makes it clear that taking an attack action means making an attack they are not different things that happen at different times.

But let me ask you this - how far does the "take an action" vs "does what the action says" go?

I cast eldritch blast and get to make three beam attacks... can i move between them? Can i also cast a bonus action spell between the attacks, seeing one resolved, bonus action spell, then the others? I can take bonus actions any time right and if there is a presumtpion that that include "in the middle of another action" than well, how about then?

on a very broad scale, there are a lot of really odd or even paradoxical cases that slam all thru the rules is a general assessment of using bonus actions before the thing that earns the bonus action is imagined in the rules - by trying to create a difference between "taking the action" and "doing what the action does" is read into the rules.

*It is IMO infinitely more direct, cleaner and more efficient to simply add a house rule that allows it in the case of this one feat than to take an axe to the "take an action" to cut it into "declare an action" and "do the stuff in the action."
*

its trying to fix a hangnail; with a chainsaw and for me - i have zero desire t make that kind of broad scope of a decision without reading thru the rulebooks for every other "when you take..." and "declare not same as..." etc... especially given the fact that extra turns and extra actions can be taken as well so if there is an opening between declare and act and effects can precede cause...


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

"Giving yourself advantage if you succeed at the same time as giving any ranged allies disadvantage already has a steep cost attached to it. "

No, it doesnt. 

Cuz, you have the choice. You know your allies and the scene. 

If you see it as better to let allues pelt it with range rather than knock it down, you **wont do it**.

If there are other targets for them, or they can close to 5' to gain advantage so there is no disad - then pull back perhaps if its AO was burned as you backed off (hah)  - etc etc there is no drawback at all. 

"I might br dumb when i choose it" is not a drawback of the ability - just the character.


----------



## Mistwell (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Giving yourself advantage if you succeed at the same time as giving any ranged allies disadvantage already has a steep cost attached to it. "
> 
> No, it doesnt.
> 
> ...




Oh come on, now you're spinning. If an action helps everyone, it has less of a cost than if it helps only a sub-group. Saying "Well, you have the choice" doesn't change it from having less utility than something that helps everyone. That's like saying a spell which heals one person for 10 hp is identical in utility to a spell that heals 5 people 9hp each, because "Well, you have the choice". The second spell has a lot more utility, and while there will be scenarios where the first spell is better than the second, on-balance it's fair to say the second will have more utility more often.

I get the sense you've staked out a position of "This feat is fine with this new ruling" and have gone from that premise to tailoring any answer you give as "how can I best defend this new status quo" rather than more objectively respond to each issue that's raised. Because I feel like your more typical posts on ENWorld would not have taken the type of bent you just took. It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling".


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Oh come on, now you're spinning. If an action helps everyone, it has less of a cost than if it helps only a sub-group. Saying "Well, you have the choice" doesn't change it from having less utility than something that helps everyone. That's like saying a spell which heals one person for 10 hp is identical in utility to a spell that heals 5 people 9hp each, because "Well, you have the choice". The second spell has a lot more utility, and while there will be scenarios where the first spell is better than the second, on-balance it's fair to say the second will have more utility more often.
> 
> I get the sense you've staked out a position of "This feat is fine with this new ruling" and have gone from that premise to tailoring any answer you give as "how can I best defend this new status quo" rather than more objectively respond to each issue that's raised. Because I feel like your more typical posts on ENWorld would not have taken the type of bent you just took. It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling".




i will observe "has a steep cost attached to it" is not the same as a limited utility. 

Did you miss all the guys arguing that if you backed off the enemy would just attack someone else? 

"it is not good all the time" is not a "cost" to using the ability - its not a penalty - anymore than saying "some creatures are immune to cold" is a "steep cost" to cone of cold (or that its possible to hit allies with it *if* you choose to.)

Shove down will be used when it is helpful, or thought to be, just as cone of cold would be.

of course, a Gm can house rule that knock downs from this feat dont impose disadvantage if they feel its so steep a cost or that cone of cold doesn't hurt allies or whatever.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

"It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling"."

To this in specific - i have said more times than i care to count in this thread that i think house ruling the feat to be knockdown first is a fine house rule for those who want it.

I recently posted to be clear that i do not hold house rules as second class to RAW.

If you choose to see that and ignore it to support your impression of what is going on in my mind when it suits you - not a thing i can do about that.

But the simple fact is - none of use can change RAW or change the JC rulings and their status as something semi-official... so what is left is house rule or "psudo-house-rule thru "imaginative re-reading"  -which IMO and IMX is a fool's gambit. At a tabel where you control house rules, the house rule is easier. At a table where you dont trying to shoehorn in "delcare an attack action" is the same as "take an attack action" and "neither means actually taking an attack" will be more likely to get the GM evil-eye for its obvious twists and turns to get something in that is not explicitly there or even close to meeting the common language use or common sense use tests.

This feat IMO is not worth blowing up a lot of things by allowing "effects" to go before "causes" as a general unstated principle that has magnificent scope. If you dont like the feat, change the feat only - not a score of other things which will follow from thet effect=pre=cause conjuration when it gets applied elsewhere.

The "can i twist RAW instead of house rule" is a trap, not a solution.

At least, in my experience it is.


----------



## OB1 (May 15, 2018)

I think the miss by JC here is in not allowing the bonus to come in the middle of the attack action, same as movement can. I understand why the bonus needs to come after an attack, it’s the attack itself that sets up the quick shield bash, but I don’t understand why it needs to come after all attacks.

Given the new clarification of RAI I’d say the feat should now be changed to read, after making a melee attack, you can use a bonus action to shove with your shield. 

Either that or add a line in multi attack feature that you can insert any type of action between the attacks, movement, bonus, or haste action.


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "It seemed a sort of gamist-type response - as if the game you're playing is "defend the ruling"."
> 
> To this in specific - i have said more times than i care to count in this thread that i think house ruling the feat to be knockdown first is a fine house rule for those who want it.
> 
> ...




Or it could just be that some people disagree with JC's ruling.  I think it's now _more_ confusing because the feat does not state timing.  In addition saying you can't do something until the action is complete is just ... I dunno ... very rules-lawyery?  More controlling than the general feel of 5E?  Feels like a 3.5 or PathFinder ruling that I was trying to get away from?

The other aspect of this is that you seem to be hell-bent on refusing to admit that the feat is now less useful than it was based on JC's previous ruling.

I know how I will run it at my table, whether that's house-rule, rules interpretation, fetta cheese ruling or whatever you want to call it doesn't really matter.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 15, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> It's only against, "a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you." That's not too common. A whole lot of the dex save spells are area attacks or at least target more than one target, which don't apply.




Do you literally think that I don’t already have that information? Do expect people to explicitly spell out the benefits of the feat every post, or something?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 15, 2018)

Oofta... Where is it in dispute that some dont like the ruling? If everyone agreed with the ruling, why the thread?

That ine disagrees with the ruling is a separate issue to the question of "so what"?

As for this...

"The other aspect of this is that you seem to be hell-bent on refusing to admit that the feat is now less useful than it was based on JC's previous ruling"

I have never said it was as goid now as befire. I am pretty sure on more than one occasion i referenced what could be. Vs what now is...

Are you somehow confused into believing that i have claimed think its as good now as it was in the between time? 

My comnents have been focused mostly on what it can and cannot do... Ways to change it if not happy,  problems with twisting raw far out of shape to intentionally get around the ruling, etc...

But i dont think i have come anywhere near ssying it was as powerful now as it was under the what JC called "cheese" pre-bash.


----------



## Oofta (May 15, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Oofta... Where is it in dispute that some dont like the ruling? If everyone agreed with the ruling, why the thread?
> 
> That ine disagrees with the ruling is a separate issue to the question of "so what"?
> 
> ...




Well,let's just leave it at this.  I don't think that it's as good as you seem to think it is.  Perhaps I'm mistaken or misunderstand how useful you think it is.

Based on my experience, I don't see the point of taking the feat if I'm playing a game using this ruling.  That's just my opinion, different people seem to see uses and benefits I simply don't.  The incredibly minimal benefit you get doesn't IMHO justify a feat, some of the tactics mentioned to justify it's value don't seem to work.

But that's just me.  The ruling is what it is, I'll either use it or not as I see fit.  I don't need to justify or clarify what type of rule it is beyond that.


----------



## Mistwell (May 15, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Do you literally think that I don’t already have that information? Do expect people to explicitly spell out the benefits of the feat every post, or something?




Yes I literally thought you didn't already know that because you said that particular aspect of the feat, "save[d] the character many times during 5e’s run". It's six spells this aspect applies to, and of those six not all of them are life threatening and definitely most are not very common spells. 

The six spells: Disintegrate, Enervation (Xanathars), Hellish Rebuke (a fairly rare Warlock first level spell), Immolation (Xanathars and I think Elemental Evil), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (which wouldn't be a life or death situation most of the time), and Sacred Flame.  I mention sources because you specified "during 5e's run", and in the first couple of years the odds are only disintegrate and sacred flame could have threatened a life, and sacred flame is a pretty weak cantrip to be threatening character lives "many times". 

What are the odds you come across that small subset of spells, 1) many times, 2) where a +2 bonus is the difference in the saving throw, and 3) where a failed save would have killed the character but a successful save would not? You have to admit, that doesn't seem as likely as you not being aware of that limitation, from my perspective.

Now there are non-spell effects which can threaten a character life, and target just one character, and call for a dex save, and have the save made by that +2 margin. But they're not all that common either (most are similar to an avalanche and target an area rather than a particular single character), and it would be hard to quantify them because they are particular to a campaign. It's certainly not something I could know in advance about your personal campaigns.


----------



## SkidAce (May 15, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> So, you are essentially arguing that the bonus action can be taken, not before or after, but _during_ the regular action?
> 
> ...You know, now I think about it, that does seem to solve the problem. You start the Attack action; as soon as you do, a bonus action drops into your lap; you use the bonus action; and then you complete the Attack action. You aren't getting your bonus action _before_ you take the Attack action, so no time-traveling is involved, but you do get to shove before making any actual attacks, which is the point of the exercise.
> 
> And it doesn't even require a house rule, just a broader interpretation of the possible meanings of the word "timing."




Since rounds are six seconds ,and everything is vaguely happening at the same time, that's the way we have always interpreted it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 15, 2018)

guachi said:


> My comment had zero to do with your actual play examples. The comment was in reference to Greenstone.Walker giving a theorycrafting example of pushing a creature 5 feet. Your response  (to Greenstone.Walker) that I replied to used a modal verb "could give actual play examples" which implies possibility not actuality.
> 
> So I got that impression because of understanding English grammar.




So, you apparently don’t understand conversational English, but want to sound off about English grammar. 

If a person says “I could give X”, it means they have X. 

Further, i didn’t respond to you, so responding to me as if I did makes no sense.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 15, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Yes I literally thought you didn't already know that because you said that particular aspect of the feat, "save[d] the character many times during 5e’s run". It's six spells this aspect applies to, and of those six not all of them are life threatening and definitely most are not very common spells.
> 
> The six spells: Disintegrate, Enervation (Xanathars), Hellish Rebuke (a fairly rare Warlock first level spell), Immolation (Xanathars and I think Elemental Evil), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (which wouldn't be a life or death situation most of the time), and Sacred Flame.  I mention sources because you specified "during 5e's run", and in the first couple of years the odds are only disintegrate and sacred flame could have threatened a life, and sacred flame is a pretty weak cantrip to be threatening character lives "many times".
> 
> ...




Edit: removed statements that don’t contribute anything. 

Meanwhile, traps and hazards target dex more often than anything else, IME, and none of those spells are rare. 

I also don’t think I said that a failed save would have killed the character. I said the feat saved them. You know those are distinct statements, right?


----------



## Mistwell (May 16, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah, I think you just like being condescending, and thus seek out interpretations of others’ posts that “justify” that behavior for you.




I am not, but you should not have asked if you didn't want an answer to the question. I honestly assumed you were not aware of those limitations, because your statement seemed to lack credibility without that explanation and I assumed you were credible. 



> Meanwhile, traps and hazards target dex more often than anything else, IME, and none of those spells are rare.




Very few target just one character, as opposed to an area or group. And, that's also campaign-specific, so not something I'd know about your campaigns. 



> I also don’t think I said that a failed save would have killed the character. I said the feat saved them. You know those are distinct statements, right?




You said that particular aspect of the feat saved the character many times. So no, I am not seeing how you distinguished it as something different from saving their life. I am pretty sure you didn't mean it saved their appetite, for example 

So tell us which of the six spells came up "many" times, where the +2 bonus is what "saved" them. Or is it all campaign-specific unusual traps and hazards which only target one character that you thought I'd know about your campaign before making that statement? And I am serious. Give us a top 10 scenarios, since it happened so often for you. That sounds interesting (and I honestly mean that, I'd like to hear about those scenarios you encountered).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 16, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I am not, but you should not have asked if you didn't want an answer to the question. I honestly assumed you were not aware of those limitations, because your statement seemed to lack credibility without that explanation and I assumed you were credible.



 great example of what I was talking about



> Very few target just one character, as opposed to an area or group. And, that's also campaign-specific, so not something I'd know about your campaigns.



Okay. 




> You said that particular aspect of the feat saved the character many times. So no, I am not seeing how you distinguished it as something different from saving their life. I am pretty sure you didn't mean it saved their appetite, for example



 You really can’t see where your tone makes it hard to believe that you are arguing in good faith?



> So tell us which of the six spells came up "many" times, where the +2 bonus is what "saved" them. Or is it all campaign-specific unusual traps and hazards which only target one character that you thought I'd know about your campaign before making that statement? And I am serious. Give us a top 10 scenarios, since it happened so often for you. That sounds interesting (and I honestly mean that, I'd like to hear about those scenarios you encountered).




Maybe you didn’t see the post where I stated that I’ve given up trying to engage with this? No examples will change your mind. Why bother?


----------



## Oofta (May 16, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Maybe you didn’t see the post where I stated that I’ve given up trying to engage with this? No examples will change your mind. Why bother?




You have made some pretty grandiose claims.  I'd be curious on why, for example, the shove tactic works for you and why you think it can "destroy" the enemy because I just don't see it.  [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] may be a bit harsh, but at the same time you've made claims that don't seem to add up.

For example with the shove and walk away (assuming shover has same movement rate as shovee) it simply wouldn't work very well.  So I've got to wonder if you play theater of the mind, have the same group and DM, always play in wide open spaces, etc.

I can see a few scenarios, assuming that PC Sam (who has shield master) shoves an Orc and then moves away.  Other PCs in the group include Monty the Monk and Randy the Ranger.

Scenario 1: Orc has a buddy Bob, also adjacent to Sam before the shove.  Bob gets an opp attack if Sam runs away.  No good.

Scenario 2: Orc, no longer able to get to Sam goes after Monty who is within 30 feet after the shove and attacks him instead.  Monty has a lower AC than Sam.  No good.

Scenario 3:Orc, no longer able to get to Sam, Monty or Randy moves and dashes to get next to Randy so he has disadvantage on his ranged attacks.  No good.

Scenario 4: Sam can't get far enough away because there's limited space.  No good.

Scenario 5: Orc has javelins.  He throws them then runs away so Sam can't reach him on his turn.  No good.

Scenario 6: Orc, now able to move freely because there's no one adjacent, runs to get help.  No good.

Even if you throw in disadvantage for the orc to hit someone other than Sam (which is only possible for a few turns because it requires limited resources), it doesn't really matter much.  Hitting Monty or Randy with disadvantage isn't that much worse than trying to hit Sam who probably has the highest AC in the group.  Throw in a handful of other monsters, slightly limit distances and I don't see that you could pull this off very often.

If I'm missing something, please correct me or give real world examples because I see extremely little utility to the feat from a shove standpoint.  The shove and run away would be incredibly rare.  Shoving someone is a valid technique once in a while, but you don't need a feat for it.

The take no damage if you make a a dexterity save is nice but in most cases you aren't going to get the +2.  For my characters that would take this feat, that means I save about 25% of the time.  It just doesn't add up to that much avoided damage, certainly far less than Resilient would buy.

You make what seem to be extreme claims and then don't want to give details and wonder why people question?


----------



## Mistwell (May 16, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> great example of what I was talking about
> 
> 
> Okay.
> ...




OK so no examples (for something you said happened "many" times), tone policing me rather than responding to the arguments made, and no attempt at a refutation of any points made or even respond to a request for clarification on a rational confusion like the difference between "saved him" and "saved his life". Got it.

Let me ask you, if you said, "Which of these 6 spells did you find to be used many times, and/or which traps and terrain challenges did you find to target just one character as opposed to an area?" and I responded with essentially, "I'm not going to tell you, but they come up many times!" how would you reply?

Maybe I should clarify the rules of this game. You get more points for saying, "OK you're right I probably exaggerated that point for effect," than you do for saying, "look, a monkey!"


----------



## smbakeresq (May 16, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you apparently don’t understand conversational English, but want to sound off about English grammar.
> 
> If a person says “I could give X”, it means they have X.
> 
> Further, i didn’t respond to you, so responding to me as if I did makes no sense.




Actually if a person says "I could give X" it does not mean they have X.  It could mean they have X, but not necessarily.  What it does indicate about the speaker is the one (or more) of the following:

  1.  They have X and might give it you.
  2.  They do not have X but could acquire it at a later date and give it you.
  3.  A willingness to give you X in exchange for some other consideration.
  4.  They want to see what they will give you if you gave them X, i.e. an offer to entice a counter-offer to see what your position is on X.
  5a.  That they believe X might has some value to you.  
  5b.  That they know X has no value to you but want you to believe that the speaker believes X has value to you.

5 is the most important and %100 true.  What the speaker is surely indicating among all the possibilities is that they believe that X has value to you.  If they believe X had zero value to you and they want you to believe that they think X has value to you, the speaker has indeed created value in X to you.  

Either way, it is now clear that X has value to you, either you want X for its value or you know the speaker believes you want X for value, which is valuable information.




What I want is a fun and free-flowing game where incredible heroes accomplish great things due to special talent and training and experience that allows them to overcome incredible odds leading to a positive community.  What I don't want is speakers who take the opposite side of things just to take the opposite side of things and completely ignore the obvious  directly in front of them that any analysis prove is clearly true.  Cognitive dissonance is prevalent enough today, observe the Fox News viewer.


----------



## Arial Black (May 16, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I can agree completely that trying to base one's argument on number of attacks is fradulent or at the least pointless, that is why i responded after all to that very fraud.
> 
> "So my 4th level fighter gets the Shield Master feat. Now I can shield bash, but ONLY if I execute my one attack first.
> Okay, so attacking ONCE is the thing that allows me to shield bash, right?
> ...




As a 4th level warrior-type, I get 1 attack when I take the Attack action. If I have a feat which lets me take a bonus action if I take the Attack action, then the feat lets me do something MORE than if I don't have the feat. The feat makes me 'better'.

If that 4th level warrior took, say, +2 Str instead of that feat, he would also be 'better' than if he hadn't. Feats/ASIs make you 'better'.

Now the +2 Str version levels up to 5th and now gets the Extra Attack feature. Now, his Attack action lets him attack twice instead of once. This makes him 'better'; exactly 1 attack 'better'.

But the version who took the feat (the new interpretation of Shield Master) is not made 'better' when levelling up and getting Extra Attack! 'Better' would be getting one more attack AND the bonus action, _every time!_ But now, if the situation is that you want to shield bash the adjacent foe off a cliff and then move to another foe 30 feet away and use your 2nd attack, you can't! You have to use EITHER _both_ attacks and then shove, and _lose_ the option to move to his mate and attack him. That attack doing pointless damage anyway because the fall from the cliff will kill him anyway. OR you attack, shove (just like you could do without Extra Attack), but you would *lose* your extra attack!

This is not 'better'! It _should_ be 'better'. It _was_ 'better' with the 'either order' interpretation, it was less good but still 'better' if you can take your bonus action after one attack, but it is quantifiably *not* 'better' if you have to choose between the shield bash or extra attack when you should be able to do both.

Just to illustrate: imagine that the version who took +2 Str instead of the feat had to choose whether to take 2 attacks OR add +2 Str, _but not both in the same round_. That would be obviously absurd. Well, this ruling is also absurd, but the absurdity is less obvious.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 16, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Well,let's just leave it at this.  I don't think that it's as good as you seem to think it is.  Perhaps I'm mistaken or misunderstand how useful you think it is.
> 
> Based on my experience, I don't see the point of taking the feat if I'm playing a game using this ruling.  That's just my opinion, different people seem to see uses and benefits I simply don't.  The incredibly minimal benefit you get doesn't IMHO justify a feat, some of the tactics mentioned to justify it's value don't seem to work.
> 
> But that's just me.  The ruling is what it is, I'll either use it or not as I see fit.  I don't need to justify or clarify what type of rule it is beyond that.



We agree.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 16, 2018)

Fwiw, with it being a reaction casr damage spell that scales as the warlock levels, Rebuke has been more like a common Warlock spell in characters i have seen. 

Also ORS is an absolutely lethal spell when it is used to cut off the healer for a few rounds when their healing is extremely critical. 

"The six spells: Disintegrate, Enervation (Xanathars), Hellish Rebuke (a fairly rare Warlock first level spell), Immolation (Xanathars and I think Elemental Evil), Otiluke's Resilient Sphere (which wouldn't be a life or death situation most of the time), and Sacred Flame."


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 16, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> -skipped out semantics. I still don’t care-
> 
> What I want is a fun and free-flowing game where incredible heroes accomplish great things due to special talent and training and experience that allows them to overcome incredible odds leading to a positive community.  What I don't want is speakers who take the opposite side of things just to take the opposite side of things and completely ignore the obvious  directly in front of them that any analysis prove is clearly true.  Cognitive dissonance is prevalent enough today, observe the Fox News viewer.




Ah, yes, my actual direct experience is definately just cognitive dissonance. 

What a load of dishonest claptrap.


----------



## Arial Black (May 16, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Consider that you are trying to invent within the rules a difference ebtween "take an attack action" and "making an attack" to allow other stuff to be done ***between those*** and my suspicion is that there are likely a broader problem with that kind of logic scope-wise than just this one aspect.
> 
> But first lets look at the attack action rules
> 
> ...




See, that makes sense, in isolation. If 'taking the Attack action' IS synonymous with 'executing the weapon attack allowed by the Attack action', then a creature with one attack declares/actually attacks simultaneously. That makes sense.

But, if this IS the rule, then it is unavoidable that if the Attack action allows you to execute two attacks (because Extra Attack) then 'declaring the Attack action' and 'executing BOTH attacks' are one and the same thing! 

It means that IF the interpretation is that declaring/attacking are the same thing, then BOTH attacks MUST be resolved instantly!

The ONLY way that you can attack/move/draw another weapon/attack someone else 30 feet away later in the round is under the interpretation that 'declaring the Attack action' is NOT one and the same thing as actually 'executing the attacks allowed by the Attack action'! 



> As JC stated in part of his comments on the subject, the fact that movement between attacks is explicitly allowed does not equate to a universal allowance to insert any bonus action in the middle of the attack action or any action.
> 
> The text makes it clear that taking an attack action means making an attack they are not different things that happen at different times.




Since Extra Attacks do not have to be taken all at the same time, and the fact that BOTH attacks must 'happen at the same time' as taking the Attack action, his quote is nonsense.

Also, his sudden insistence that any action, including the Attack action, is 'indivisible', is given the lie by....well...the many, many things in the game which literally can and do occur _during_ other Actions, including (but not limited to): Readied actions, bonus actions that are not triggered by things that happen in a specific order, free object interactions, as well as movement.

Even in this new 'indivisible' interpretation, the Ftr 5/Wiz 3 can move, 'declare' his Attack action (but only ONE of his two attacks 'happen at the same time'!), shoot an arrow, drop his bow, move, draw his sword, cast _misty step_ as a bonus action, move, and then complete his so-called 'indivisible' Attack action by executing his second attack.

Yeah, his cries of "Actions are indivisible!" as the _reason_ that you have to complete your action before you can shield bash are not credible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Fwiw, with it being a reaction casr damage spell that scales as the warlock levels, Rebuke has been more like a common Warlock spell in characters i have seen.
> 
> Also ORS is an absolutely lethal spell when it is used to cut off the healer for a few rounds when their healing is extremely critical.




Yeah, I see rebuke all the time. I think maybe some folks here spend more time theorycrafting than playing. 

And OSR is an extremely potent spell. I have to wonder about the basic system mastery of anyone who doesn’t see that. I almost feel guilty using it as a DM, unless I’ve got players who are good strategists and built strong characters. OSR lets me completely lock down whichever character I feel will most effectively hinder Team Monster’s tactics and goals. The tank tends to be the target high because they’re good at locking down my MVPs, and because the other high value targets are harder to hit with dex save spells. I’m not speaking on one campaign there, but nearly every campaign. 

And that doesn't even get into the rapier and shield dex tanks, or the heavy tanks who have decent dex for reasons other than combat (bc most groups aren’t powergamers), etc.


----------



## CM (May 17, 2018)

So this ruling means you can't throw your light offhand weapon (or shoot your offhand hand crossbow) as a bonus action and then close with an enemy to melee them with your attack action?

Stupid ruling is stupid and will be ignored.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> See, that makes sense, in isolation. If 'taking the Attack action' IS synonymous with 'executing the weapon attack allowed by the Attack action', then a creature with one attack declares/actually attacks simultaneously. That makes sense.
> 
> But, if this IS the rule, then it is unavoidable that if the Attack action allows you to execute two attacks (because Extra Attack) then 'declaring the Attack action' and 'executing BOTH attacks' are one and the same thing!
> 
> ...




According to his tweet, the _only_ thing that can interrupt at attack action is movement because they've specifically said that it can. 





I think it's an overly technical nit-pick rule that harkens back to 3.5 or PathFinder.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah, I see rebuke all the time. I think maybe some folks here spend more time theorycrafting than playing.
> 
> And OSR is an extremely potent spell. I have to wonder about the basic system mastery of anyone who doesn’t see that. I almost feel guilty using it as a DM, unless I’ve got players who are good strategists and built strong characters. OSR lets me completely lock down whichever character I feel will most effectively hinder Team Monster’s tactics and goals. The tank tends to be the target high because they’re good at locking down my MVPs, and because the other high value targets are harder to hit with dex save spells. I’m not speaking on one campaign there, but nearly every campaign.
> 
> And that doesn't even get into the rapier and shield dex tanks, or the heavy tanks who have decent dex for reasons other than combat (bc most groups aren’t powergamers), etc.




You do know that not everyone plays at your table right?  That different people have different experiences?  Or that a +2 to a fraction of the spells is not as good as a +1 to Dex and proficiency in _all_ dexterity saves that you would get from Resiliency?

OSR isn't a bad spell, but it can be dispelled, concentration can be broken, and honestly I don't see it used very often by PCs or NPCs.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> OK so no examples (for something you said happened "many" times), tone policing me rather than responding to the arguments made, and no attempt at a refutation of any points made or even respond to a request for clarification on a rational confusion like the difference between "saved him" and "saved his life". Got it.
> 
> Let me ask you, if you said, "Which of these 6 spells did you find to be used many times, and/or which traps and terrain challenges did you find to target just one character as opposed to an area?" and I responded with essentially, "I'm not going to tell you, but they come up many times!" how would you reply?
> 
> Maybe I should clarify the rules of this game. You get more points for saying, "OK you're right I probably exaggerated that point for effect," than you do for saying, "look, a monkey!"




If you hunk there are points to win, or that I should care about such things, you’ve a strange perspective on the purpose of a discussion. 

I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything. I don’t owe you anything, I’m not here to play rhetorical “games”, and I don’t care about nitpicking and other chicanery. 

Feel free to ignore me, or just stop trying to engage with a person who has made it clear they don’t care to engage with you, if you don’t like any of that.


----------



## Sadras (May 17, 2018)

Out of curiosity, are we ahead in posts about this topic, or is twitter out-pacing us?


----------



## Caliban (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> According to his tweet, the _only_ thing that can interrupt at attack action is movement because they've specifically said that it can.
> 
> View attachment 97602
> 
> ...




I agree. Personally, I can't think of any AL DM or home game DM I've played with that even thought about disallowing the use of bonus actions during the attack action.  Most often because people forget to cast Hex/Hunters mark until after they make their first attack, but occasionally for other things - like using Misty Step between attacks to reach an opponent when you are out of movement or have a barrier. 

I see his logic, and agree that it may be technically correct per RAW.  But I'm probably not going to use this ruling simply because we (meaning the groups I've played with) have become so used to allowing bonus actions to be used "inside" the main action.  It makes the game more fluid and cinematic, or at least it seems that way to me.  (Yes, that means I'm in favor of allowing the Shield Master to do a bonus action trip before making any attacks.) 

In this instance, I feel like "RAI" has been determined by the people who play the game, regardless of what the people who wrote the rules meant at the time.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> You do know that not everyone plays at your table right?  That different people have different experiences?  Or that a +2 to a fraction of the spells is not as good as a +1 to Dex and proficiency in _all_ dexterity saves that you would get from Resiliency?



 no one has argued that Shield Master is a better feat for increasing Dex Saves. Resilient does only that, and yet you and others keep bringing it up as if it makes sense to compare 1/3 of a feat that does multiple things to the entirety of another feat with a singular specific purpose. Of course the single purpose feat will be better at that purpose than the more general feat where part of the feat serves a similar purpose. Obviously. Also irrelevant. 
Nothing I said indicated that I think all tables are exactly like mine. Don’t invent crap to put in my mouth. 



> OSR isn't a bad spell, but it can be dispelled, concentration can be broken, and honestly I don't see it used very often by PCs or NPCs.




You know not everyone plays at your table, right? See, you actually did indicate a lack of that understanding, here. Other people do see it, so the fact that you don’t isn’t particularly telling. We now know what common sense already told us. Ie, some tables use a given spell a lot, while others don’t. 

Here’s another truth that shouldn’t need to be pointed out: how your table plays will effect what options seem more or less valuable to players at your table. 

Amazing!


----------



## Arial Black (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> According to his tweet, the _only_ thing that can interrupt at attack action is movement because they've specifically said that it can.




JC himself is totally okay with bonus actions (like _misty step_) within Attack actions. 



> View attachment 97602
> 
> 
> I think it's an overly technical nit-pick rule that harkens back to 3.5 or PathFinder.




But it wasn't true then either. In 3.5/PF you can certainly take free and swift actions between the attacks of a full attack.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> no one has argued that Shield Master is a better feat for increasing Dex Saves. Resilient does only that, and yet you and others keep bringing it up as if it makes sense to compare 1/3 of a feat that does multiple things to the entirety of another feat with a singular specific purpose. Of course the single purpose feat will be better at that purpose than the more general feat where part of the feat serves a similar purpose. Obviously. Also irrelevant.
> Nothing I said indicated that I think all tables are exactly like mine. Don’t invent crap to put in my mouth.
> 
> 
> ...




Ahh, gotta love the sweet smell of condescension.

And yet you refuse to answer the direct questions - addressing how your game works differently than games I've been in.  I've given several examples and reasoning why I don't think the shove-and-run maneuver would ever work for example. 

I do agree that it's 1/3 of the feat.  I also think the other 2/3 are pretty pointless as well.  Which you've never answered.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> JC himself is totally okay with bonus actions (like _misty step_) within Attack actions.
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't true then either. In 3.5/PF you can certainly take free and swift actions between the attacks of a full attack.




It's more the attitude of slavish devotion to the letter of the rules than the specific rule.


----------



## cbwjm (May 17, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Out of curiosity, are we ahead in posts about this topic, or is twitter out-pacing us?




You also need to look at Reddit. Someone even made a poll asking if the shield bash from shield master should be able to be used before the Attack Action. That's how furious/slightly miffed people are about this clarification.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if someone creates a petition to officially allow the shield bash before the attack action.


----------



## Chaosmancer (May 17, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> You also need to look at Reddit. Someone even made a poll asking if the shield bash from shield master should be able to be used before the Attack Action. That's how furious/slightly miffed people are about this clarification.
> 
> At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if someone creates a petition to officially allow the shield bash before the attack action.




LOL

I would sign it if I ran across it, but wow, that's going the extra mile I think. I'll settle for being slightly annoyed when I read this thread.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> See, that makes sense, in isolation. If 'taking the Attack action' IS synonymous with 'executing the weapon attack allowed by the Attack action', then a creature with one attack declares/actually attacks simultaneously. That makes sense.
> 
> But, if this IS the rule, then it is unavoidable that if the Attack action allows you to execute two attacks (because Extra Attack) then 'declaring the Attack action' and 'executing BOTH attacks' are one and the same thing!
> 
> ...



He has not cried actions are indivisible. Thats an invention. 

He said iirc in essence bonus actions that are triggered by actions come after that, not before and iirc not during, that there is no general rule counter to that.

But i can certainly see those who want to expand it to support their already reached opinion.

You do not have to like his ruling or bonus actions or heavy armor or reaction casting on hellish rebuke or mint chocolate chip.

I certainly wont tell you otherwise.

But you still come out with the same options... No matter how many posts... Make a house rule, pretend its not the way it is, decide all sage advice is has no meaning or import, decide only the bits of sage advice you approve of have meaning or import, etc.

Unless you play in AL games, its between you and your players.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah, I see rebuke all the time. I think maybe some folks here spend more time theorycrafting than playing.
> 
> And OSR is an extremely potent spell. I have to wonder about the basic system mastery of anyone who doesn’t see that. I almost feel guilty using it as a DM, unless I’ve got players who are good strategists and built strong characters. OSR lets me completely lock down whichever character I feel will most effectively hinder Team Monster’s tactics and goals. The tank tends to be the target high because they’re good at locking down my MVPs, and because the other high value targets are harder to hit with dex save spells. I’m not speaking on one campaign there, but nearly every campaign.
> 
> And that doesn't even get into the rapier and shield dex tanks, or the heavy tanks who have decent dex for reasons other than combat (bc most groups aren’t powergamers), etc.



My bet is we dont see many white room builds excel soreadsheeting OSR and HR either. Neither Will make high DRP for a 300' sor-pally-locke with unlimited slots?!?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> According to his tweet, the _only_ thing that can interrupt at attack action is movement because they've specifically said that it can.
> 
> View attachment 97602
> 
> ...



Just to be clear - that tweet mentioned you inserting action/interactions inside your own actions. It did not limit others being able to interrupt you - like say with reactions.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> You do know that not everyone plays at your table right?  That different people have different experiences?  Or that a +2 to a fraction of the spells is not as good as a +1 to Dex and proficiency in _all_ dexterity saves that you would get from Resiliency?
> 
> OSR isn't a bad spell, but it can be dispelled, concentration can be broken, and honestly I don't see it used very often by PCs or NPCs.



Yes i am sure of that... But since we responded to a statement about the rarity of and usefulness of certain spells with different conclusions baswmed on our experiences- it seems odd to take that "other tables" style challenge to these observations and not the others... Oh wait... Is this agenda driven challenge those you dont agree with only day?


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> If you hunk there are points to win, or that I should care about such things, you’ve a strange perspective on the purpose of a discussion.
> 
> I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything. I don’t owe you anything, I’m not here to play rhetorical “games”, and I don’t care about nitpicking and other chicanery.
> 
> Feel free to ignore me, or just stop trying to engage with a person who has made it clear they don’t care to engage with you, if you don’t like any of that.




People who don't want to engage just don't respond rather than responding with three paragraphs on how they don't want to respond. So...look a monkey it is apparently? Or did you want the final word while telling me you don't want the final word?

I am asking you for examples of what you are talking about. That's not nit picking, and it's not a rhetorical game, it's a simple question which you should expect to receive when you tell people something has happened many times which others say hasn't happened much to them. I also asked for a clarification on something you responded to cryptically. None of that is unreasonable...it just sounds like you were bluffing and got called on it. But maybe not...here is your opportunity to respond. Shall it be more "look a monkey, and also I'm not talking!" or an actual response?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> It's more the attitude of slavish devotion to the letter of the rules than the specific rule.



Well, from what i have seen of Sage since the beginning, the ***intent*** has been to not make new rules in sage. Sage has seemed to try to just explain RAW and let actual rule change be in eratta. 

At times he has made a point of giving the RAW and then also give references to "a gm,might allow" or "a generous gm might.." Or even what he might allow in his games...

Which seemed to be his way of acknowledging the limitations of strictly RAW.

So, this is not anything new... Sage focus on syricter RAW than some - not by a long shot - but now for some its a problem cuz they dislike the specific choice.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> You also need to look at Reddit. Someone even made a poll asking if the shield bash from shield master should be able to be used before the Attack Action. That's how furious/slightly miffed people are about this clarification.
> 
> At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if someone creates a petition to officially allow the shield bash before the attack action.



Do they still do those white house petitions? Or did that go out in 2017. It was only like 250000 needed?


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Just to be clear - that tweet mentioned you inserting action/interactions inside your own actions. It did not limit others being able to interrupt you - like say with reactions.




Right ... I think.  According to JC a PC _can _take reactions during their turn, but not while taking an action.  So once that fighter starts their attack action, the can attack or move.  No reactions, no bonus actions.

I'm not going to run my games because while it may be technically correct, it's just too much of a text-parsing technicality.  It doesn't make sense that a fighter could attack, move thirty feet, continue attacking but not have time to misty step...until they're done attacking.  Or that they must complete all their attacks with their primary weapon before hitting with an off-hand weapon.

It's the kind of thing that people that don't follow this kind of stuff would be completely baffled by.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> no one has argued that Shield Master is a better feat for increasing Dex Saves. Resilient does only that, and yet you and others keep bringing it up as if it makes sense to compare 1/3 of a feat that does multiple things to the entirety of another feat with a singular specific purpose...




I was thinking about this again and just wanted to clarify something.  I mean, I've already clarified it multiple times but you ignore it.  Which you will probably do for this as well.

The reason I keep bringing up Resilient is because it's the far better choice that replaces 2/3s of shield master.  It gives you a bigger bonus that keeps increasing as you level and gives them to all dexterity saves.  You are going to avoid far more damage with Resilience because it will work for more than just the handful of spells that target only you.  Saving 1/2 on every fireball, breath weapon, etc will average out to a lot more than taking no damage once in a blue moon.

It will also, of course, mean you are more likely to make your save on Otiluke's Resilient Sphere ... you make it sound like shield master will make you immune to the spell which is laughable.  Most PCs (not all of course) are probably going to fail their dex save around 80% of the time.  Reducing that to failing 70% of the time doesn't really matter that much.  Resiliency will eventually give that PC a 50% chance to succeed (or more depending on the bump to dex).

Which leaves ... is shoving someone after your attacks worth more than a +1 to Dexterity?  I would say no.  Like a lot of people I dump my lowest number into dexterity because that low number has to go somewhere (I know, I know your sword and board guy has a 20 dex but he's the exception).  So a +1 to dex has a really good chance of upping that number to the next even number giving me another +1 to dexterity saves and an increase to my initiative.  Not bad.

But shoving after my attack?  Almost never worth it.  In those 2% of encounters when shoving is useful I'll sacrifice an attack.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ah, yes, my actual direct experience is definately just cognitive dissonance.
> 
> What a load of dishonest claptrap.




It is when everyone else experiences all align and yours doesn’t and you completely ignore all others and refuse to acknowledge it.  You are trying to apply one example to make a general rule instead of actual analysis.

Yes thats Cognitive Dissonance.  Calling it claptrap is exactly the response you aa s sufferer if same would have.  Thanks for proving it.


----------



## Sadras (May 17, 2018)

It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who *are not* going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.

As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
2. Allow bonus action between attacks, but not before.
3. Allow bonus action between and before attacks.

EDIT: Like [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] correctly notes #3 should be any time - essentially the bonus action can be taken before, between and after attacks.


----------



## Krachek (May 17, 2018)

Sadras said:


> It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who *are not* going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.
> 
> As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
> 1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
> ...




DnD "all you can eat" buffet.
Each players may apply one, all or none of these rules.
Generous DM may allow players to apply another rule.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 17, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> As a 4th level warrior-type, I get 1 attack when I take the Attack action. If I have a feat which lets me take a bonus action if I take the Attack action, then the feat lets me do something MORE than if I don't have the feat. The feat makes me 'better'.
> 
> If that 4th level warrior took, say, +2 Str instead of that feat, he would also be 'better' than if he hadn't. Feats/ASIs make you 'better'.
> 
> ...




Your example is correct.  Think about it in “reality” also, the game world reality.  You are a combat type and fighting someone with a shield and weapon and know how to bash someone with a shield.  You fight in a continuous sequence of weapon attacks interspersed with blocking blows with your shield and lashing out with your shield. 

In game terms you are using your attack action and bonus shield bash in some order that will never always be all attacks first then bonus action, then all attacks and then bonus action, etc. 

You don’t fight in “rounds” or “turns.”  Those are constructs places in the game to make it manageable.  Right now you can take most actions (including bonus actions) interspersed with attacks as you wish except Shield Master.

In addition, the Shield Master bonus action is already an action you can use in a standard attack action, it is just giving you an additional use of it in limited circumstances.  It’s not creating anything new or overpowering.

Let the combat flow as it would within the reality of your world.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Sadras said:


> It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who *are not* going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.
> 
> As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
> 1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
> ...




Obviously I'm #3.  I don't want to parse the exact wording of text and have a half hour debate about this kind of stuff.  Shield Bash does not specify timing so therefore it can happen on any time during my turn.

As [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] wrote ... in the narrative of the fight it makes no sense that you can't smack someone around with your shield any time you are attacking someone.  Turns, bonus actions, actions are all just constructs we need to implement because we need to simplify combat to a system that we can reasonably resolve with the roll of a handful of dice.  

The letter of the rules should not force the narrative flow of combat.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

As far as polls, i would be interested in how many "bash in any order" or "narrative flow trumps letter" house rulers also house rule away the bonus action spell cantrip limitations?

I mean is not being able to bash before or during swings with this feat more narratively disruptive that a two action in a turn caster being allowed to cast two fireballs but not a fireball and an expedition retreat? 

Or a rogue being able to get a second sneak attack in a round (OA) but only if its not on his turn following a sneak? 

5e seems a game with a lot of rule specific letter of the things that seriously impact the (mis)shape of combat narrative.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> As far as polls, i would be interested in how many "bash in any order" or "narrative flow trumps letter" house rulers also house rule away the bonus action spell cantrip limitations?
> 
> I mean is not being able to bash before or during swings with this feat more narratively disruptive that a two action in a turn caster being allowed to cast two fireballs but not a fireball and an expedition retreat?
> 
> ...




Not sure how you're getting two fireballs in one turn, but yes it does make sense that if you are casting more than one spell on your turn that they both have to be easy to cast.

As far as the rogue, to a certain degree it's balance.  It's also simple to remember and easy to understand.

I doubt many people who casually read the rules would even consider that you couldn't hit with your primary weapon and secondary weapon in any order you choose.  

Bonus actions are already confusing enough for most people and it's probably one of the clunkiest aspects of 5E.  This ruling just makes it even clunkier.

[EDIT] An even more confusing example is that I can no longer attack, misty step and attack.  But I could attack, move my speed and attack.  The spell has absolutely nothing to do the attacks, why can't I do it between my attacks?

From a narrative perspective it's just goofy. I can attack, walk across the room and attack but I can't attack, snap my fingers and attack?  Huh?


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Right ... I think.  According to JC a PC _can _take reactions during their turn, but not while taking an action.  So once that fighter starts their attack action, the can attack or move.  No reactions, no bonus actions.



Do you have a source for that? If he did say that, it's directly contradicted by the Sage Advice compendium, which gives an example of _counterspelling_ an enemy's _counterspell_ to force your own _fireball_ through. Since _counterspell_ interrupts the target spell, the original action (the _fireball_) is still in progress, so you are taking a reaction during your action.

Disallowing bonus actions during actions is one thing, but you have to be able to take reactions, or all kinds of stuff breaks.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> Do you have a source for that? If he did say that, it's directly contradicted by the Sage Advice compendium, which gives an example of _counterspelling_ an enemy's _counterspell_ to force your own _fireball_ through. Since _counterspell_ interrupts the target spell, the original action (the _fireball_) is still in progress, so you are taking a reaction during your action.
> 
> Disallowing bonus actions during actions is one thing, but you have to be able to take reactions, or all kinds of stuff breaks.




It's in the twitter thread, and yes I agree it seems to contradict previous sage advice.


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> It's in the twitter thread, and yes I agree it seems to contradict previous sage advice.



There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which _counterspell_ is one. So that would justify the double-_counterspell_ scenario.

I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.


----------



## Asgorath (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> An even more confusing example is that I can no longer attack, misty step and attack.  But I could attack, move my speed and attack.  The spell has absolutely nothing to do the attacks, why can't I do it between my attacks?




The Shield Master tweet was specifically talking about bonus actions with triggers.  Misty Step has no trigger, and thus you can cast it whenever you want.  JC even explicitly tweeted about this:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995134313841676288

The clarification was only for "if X, then Y" triggers, to make it clear that the intent is that all of X has to be done before you can do Y, so in the case of Shield Master you have to complete the Attack action before the bonus action is available.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995127728016773120


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which _counterspell_ is one. So that would justify the double-_counterspell_ scenario.
> 
> I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.




I don't see anything in the verbiage of counterspell that specifically states that it can interrupt another action, which according to the tweet is a requirement.  The trigger is a reaction when you see someone else casting a spell but that's it.

Pretty much all reactions have something like that, there's nothing "special" about this particular reaction yet somehow it's an exception?  Because you happened to read the sage advice column?

I can see but disagree with the bonus action being triggered by another action.  The new ruling seems to contradict the verbiage in the PHB that says you don't care about timing unless specifically stated.  

But I can't "nest" an action with other bonus actions or reactions?  Makes no sense to me.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> The Shield Master tweet was specifically talking about bonus actions with triggers.  Misty Step has no trigger, and thus you can cast it whenever you want.  JC even explicitly tweeted about this:
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995134313841676288
> 
> ...




Nope.  If you follow the tweet thread he has further clarifications.  Unless specifically stated you can't "nest" bonus actions or reactions in an action.

See my post above.  Or here, if you're lazy:


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> I don't see anything in the verbiage of counterspell that specifically states that it can interrupt another action, which according to the tweet is a requirement.  The trigger is a reaction when you see someone else casting a spell but that's it.



It isn't explicitly stated, but it's impossible for _counterspell_ to work otherwise. If _counterspell_ doesn't interrupt the target spell, then it follows the normal reaction rules, and takes place immediately after the triggering event; which means the spell has already resolved.


----------



## SkidAce (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which _counterspell_ is one. So that would justify the double-_counterspell_ scenario.
> 
> I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.




My take away (not directed at you) is bonus actions are fine until you try to parse them like computer code.

For us (and I know, everyone's exp is different) its fairly simple and we like them.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> It isn't explicitly stated, but it's impossible for _counterspell_ to work otherwise. If _counterspell_ doesn't interrupt the target spell, then it follows the normal reaction rules, and takes place immediately after the triggering event; which means the spell has already resolved.




It's not about interrupting someone else's turn, it's about interrupting your own spell casting action.

I plan on ignoring it, just relaying something I saw in the tweet thread.


----------



## Asgorath (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> Nope.  If you follow the tweet thread he has further clarifications.  Unless specifically stated you can't "nest" bonus actions or reactions in an action.
> 
> See my post above.  Or here, if you're lazy:
> View attachment 97621




Right I saw that, and JC even quoted the tweet I listed above in the discussion that followed that one:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995320128026755073

It's pretty clear to me that JC was talking about bonus actions (or reactions) with explicit triggers only, not bonus actions (or reactions) in general.

For example:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995125099521949696



> The tweet you're responding to says that a bonus action or a reaction can, in fact, follow an attack inside an action if the bonus action or reaction has a trigger that allows it.




https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995132735403442176



> Ah ha! Now I get what you're driving at. I was focused on bonus actions with triggers. You're talking about bonus actions without triggers. I'll clarify things! Thanks for your patience.




Edit: Misty Step has no trigger, and can thus be cast at any time as a bonus action.  Yes, even between attacks if you have Extra Attacks, based on JC's tweets.

Counterspell is a reaction with an explicit trigger of "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell", and thus as long as that trigger condition is met, you can cast Counterspell (even if it's during your Attack or Cast a Spell action).


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Asgorath said:


> Right I saw that, and JC even quoted the tweet I listed above in the discussion that followed that one:
> 
> https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995320128026755073
> 
> ...




I see said the blind man, sorry about that and thanks for your patience.   Not sure it addresses the whole "nested reaction" thing but maybe I'm just reading something in there that wasn't intended.

Still confusing for things like (off the top of my head) two weapon fighting.  I can't attack with my off-hand weapon until after all other attacks are resolved. We've always resolved them in any order the player wanted because frequently the off-hand weapon doesn't do as much damage.

I think I've hit my twitter maximum, especially on something I plan to ignore.


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> It's not about interrupting someone else's turn, it's about interrupting your own spell casting action.
> 
> I plan on ignoring it, just relaying something I saw in the tweet thread.



Yeah, it's not as if I'm going to apply JC's rulings on this at the table; if there's a consistent rules model behind those calls, I sure can't see it, and I suspect they are just ad hoc efforts to rationalize a bunch of weird outcomes. At this point it's just a mildly amusing parlor game to try and devise a rules model that fits with everything Sage Advice has said.

That said, I think it is plausible (and consistent with the existing SA, which is very clear that you can double-_counterspell_) to argue that the "disrupt" clause is mean to include all interrupt-reactions, regardless of whose action is being interrupted.


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2018)

So now if you have multiple attacks and are two weapon fighting, you can no longer attack with main weapon, attack with off-hand weapon, and attack with main weapon in that order?

All because a few people were confused about a single aspect of a single optional feat, this mess? Not worth it. I don't know what JC is thinking.


----------



## Chaosmancer (May 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> As far as polls, i would be interested in how many "bash in any order" or "narrative flow trumps letter" house rulers also house rule away the bonus action spell cantrip limitations?




I've seen people mentioning that cantrip limitation. What exactly is going on with it and why does it need to work in a specific order?

To clarify, I've never had an eldritch knight in one of my games, so I'm a little fuzzy on details of rulings that have affected them.


----------



## Asgorath (May 17, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> So now if you have multiple attacks and are two weapon fighting, you can no longer attack with main weapon, attack with off-hand weapon, and attack with main weapon in that order?
> 
> All because a few people were confused about a single aspect of a single optional feat, this mess? Not worth it. I don't know what JC is thinking.




Yes, based on the clarification w.r.t. bonus actions with triggers, the TWF bonus action attack must come after the Attack action is done (which means all attacks from Extra Attack) since the trigger is "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand".  This exactly mirrors Shield Master's trigger of "if you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try and shove".  It's another example of the "if X, then Y" JC was talking about.  If the X in the trigger is the Attack action, then you have to complete that first before the bonus action becomes available.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> Yeah, it's not as if I'm going to apply JC's rulings on this at the table; if there's a consistent rules model behind those calls, I sure can't see it, and I suspect they are just ad hoc efforts to rationalize a bunch of weird outcomes. At this point it's just a mildly amusing parlor game to try and devise a rules model that fits with everything Sage Advice has said.
> 
> That said, I think it is plausible (and consistent with the existing SA, which is very clear that you can double-_counterspell_) to argue that the "disrupt" clause is mean to include all interrupt-reactions, regardless of whose action is being interrupted.




It seems like the root cause is them trying to "fix" bonus actions - specifically shield master in this case.

The way I view it, if I take an action, I can take my bonus action triggered by that action before the action is resolved.  I can use my shield bash after I declare my attack action but before I resolve the first attack.  I "interrupt" my attack action just like I can interrupt my spell casting action with counterspell.

The only time I would rule differently is if timing was explicitly called out since according to the rules a bonus action can occur at any time during your turn unless it's specified otherwise.  

I ignore twitter for this kind of thing, and take sage advice as just advice.  My AL play judge?  Who knows.


----------



## Asgorath (May 17, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I've seen people mentioning that cantrip limitation. What exactly is going on with it and why does it need to work in a specific order?
> 
> To clarify, I've never had an eldritch knight in one of my games, so I'm a little fuzzy on details of rulings that have affected them.




What limitation are you talking about exactly?  The one that says if you cast a bonus action spell (e.g. Hunter's Mark, Hex, Misty Step) then you can only cast a cantrip as your regular action, or something else?


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> I've seen people mentioning that cantrip limitation. What exactly is going on with it and why does it need to work in a specific order?



The limitation is that when you cast a bonus-action spell, you are not allowed to cast any other non-cantrip spells that turn.

It's clunky and counterintuitive at the best of times, but it gets extra weird with Eldritch Knights, because EKs are fighters and thus have access to Action Surge. Action Surge gives you two full actions. So you can Action Surge and throw two _fireballs_ in the same turn. Yet you can't cast _fireball_ and _expeditious retreat_ in the same turn, even if you Action Surge.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

The clarification is even more confusing now that I think about it.  You can't use a bonus action triggered by the action during the action, but you can use a bonus action not triggered by that action.  But you can only "nest" actions if it explicitly says so, as is the case with movement which "allows you to insert movement between your attacks".  But then that contradicts other rulings, so now you can interrupt your action with bonus actions even if they are not explicitly called out unless they are triggered by the action because you can't interrupt the action.  Except of course you can interrupt the action...except you can't...unless you can...which ignores the PHB which states "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn"... 

From one of the tweets on the subject...


> There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190).
> There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest action/reactions inside each
> other.  They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create
> exceptions meant to disrupt them


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2018)

OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.

I asked Jeremy this:

"Based on new Bonus Action nesting rulings, if you have multiple attacks and are two weapon fighting, you can no longer attack with main weapon, attack with off-hand weapon, and attack with main weapon in that order?"

Jeremy answered:

"The ruling is that the text of a bonus action matters. The precondition for using two-weapon fighting (PH, 195) is making an attack with the Attack action, so if you make an attack with the Attack action, you can now take the bonus action."

I then asked:

"I'm confused. Both Shield Mastery and Two Weapon Fighting use identical precondition language ("when you take the attack action"). You said you have to finish ALL attacks with the attack action first for Shield Mastery...don't you have to do that with two weapon fighting as well?"

Jeremy then answered:

"They don't have the same wording. Shield Master refers to the Attack action, whereas two-weapon fighting refers to making an attack with the Attack action."

I've now replied to that with:

""When you take the Attack action..." can you take an attack action without finishing the attack? I understand making one attack qualifies you to take a bonus attack action thereafter...by why would it allow that bonus attack action during the triggering attack action?"

His answer is forthcoming but I think at this point it's pretty obvious his ruling is not making things clearer and more logical.  We're getting to pretty tortured semantics here, not too far off from the "it depends what the definition of "is" is" territory.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> The limitation is that when you cast a bonus-action spell, you are not allowed to cast any other non-cantrip spells that turn.
> 
> It's clunky and counterintuitive at the best of times, but it gets extra weird with Eldritch Knights, because EKs are fighters and thus have access to Action Surge. Action Surge gives you two full actions. So you can Action Surge and throw two _fireballs_ in the same turn. Yet you can't cast _fireball_ and _expeditious retreat_ in the same turn, even if you Action Surge.



It can also bit when you use reaction spells such as shield or slow fall or counterspell and bonus action casting since you cannot do them both on your turn (with or without action surge.) 

So, if i caat fireball and somebody tries to counterspell the cast i can cast counterspell against it. 

But if i cast expeditious retreat, healing word or hex etc and someone counterspells them, i cannot counterspell cuz of the bonus actiom plus cantrip limit. 

But i could have cast hex, any xantrip and then counterspelled if a counter spell was thrown right after my turn ended.

Like i said, this particular one piece of 1 feat narrative dissonance is small IMO relative to others where the 5e wording creates very specific limitations on sequences.


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> It can also bit when you use reaction spells such as shield or slow fall or counterspell and bonus action casting since you cannot do them both on your turn (with or without action surge.)



The bonus action spell limit should be changed to this:

_Except for cantrips and spells with a casting time of "1 reaction," you can only cast one spell per turn._

Boom, done. Simple, clean, easy to understand. No more weird corner cases around bonus-action spells. To simplify things even further, it could be changed to this:

_absence of text here_

It's not at all clear to me that the limit serves any purpose. If it can be got rid of entirely, that's the best solution of all.


----------



## Oofta (May 17, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.
> 
> I asked Jeremy this:
> 
> ...




The award for stretching the wording of the rule through technical jargon and legalese goes to ... Jeremy Crawford!!!

I mean I appreciate the work the guy has put in, but this is really pushing it.  A qualification of what type of weapon you use is now being used to justify timing?  When there's no whiff of timing the the two-weapon fighting rule?

Ah well.  I've gone from slightly irked by the ruling to actually irked.  Heaven forbid he adds more fuel to the fire and I get to well and truly irked.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> It is when everyone else experiences all align and yours doesn’t and you completely ignore all others and refuse to acknowledge it.  You are trying to apply one example to make a general rule instead of actual analysis.
> 
> Yes thats Cognitive Dissonance.  Calling it claptrap is exactly the response you aa s sufferer if same would have.  Thanks for proving it.



You're accusing me of nonsensical things that I've clearly not done. 



Sadras said:


> It would be interesting to see via a poll, for those of us who *are not* going to follow the new ruling/clarification, will we allow the bonus action only after an initial attack (1 attack) or before any attacks are made.
> 
> As I see it there are three positions available to tables:
> 1. Follow the Rules per JC, bonus action permitted only after full attack action occurs.
> ...



I'd love to see a post with that poll. 
Perhaps add a 4th option for people who houserule the feat significantly, even without this ruling? 



Dausuul said:


> There is that "exceptions meant to disrupt them" clause, though. I presume he's talking about "interrupting" reactions, of which _counterspell_ is one. So that would justify the double-_counterspell_ scenario.
> 
> I guess my big takeaway from all this is that Mike Mearls is absolutely right to want to get rid of bonus actions. They're a mess.



No, he's definately wrong. Bonus actions add far more to the game than any rules confusion about a feat takes away from it. 



Mistwell said:


> OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.
> 
> I asked Jeremy this:
> 
> ...




I'm not sure what's confusing about his answers. Can you elaborate? 

Two weapon fighting allows you to attack as a bonus action after making _an attack _with the attack action. That seems completely clear, to me. That's explicitly different from "when you use the attack action". 

If the wording says you can do Y because you've done X, you can't do Y unless you've already done X. In the case of TWF, X is making an attack with the attack action. So, going strictly by the wording, you can make an attack with the attack action, use your bonus action to make an offhand attack, and then either make another attack, grapple, shove, or anything else you can do that "replaces" a normal attack with the attack action.

On the other hand, SM allows you to shove as a bonus action "after you use the attack action", which means that the entire attack action must resolve before you can use a bonus action to shove. If it used the "attack as part of the attack action" wording, you'd be able to "nest" it within the attack action, but you'd still not be able to bonus-shove and then attack twice.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.
> 
> I asked Jeremy this:
> 
> ...



I am not seeing tortured here...

One says identifies  atrack action plus make an attack as the trigger and in that case because an attack is specifically calked out it can be done after just one attack of your x number of attacks.

The other refers to attack action as the trigger, without any reference to a single attack so in that case it is the attack action - not individual attacks. So if you have two attacks at 6th level you can make one attack as an attack action and then bash *or* make two attacks with attack action and bash. 

"Bash" referring to the feat bonus action shove thingy.

Extra attack allows you to make more than one attack but neither requires it nor guarantees it.


----------



## Dausuul (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, he's definately wrong. Bonus actions add far more to the game than any rules confusion about a feat takes away from it.



It isn't this one feat alone. It's this feat, _and_ two-weapon fighting (which apparently now permits any sequence of main hand/off hand attacks _except_ one that starts with the off hand... but check back in an hour, I expect the next tweet will change things again), _and_ bonus-action spellcasting, _and_ the confusion that arises when people want to take two bonus actions instead of bonus/regular (a thing that makes intuitive sense but is not allowed by the rules)... and on and on.

No one issue is a big deal. But collectively, they're a pain. Bonus actions are a crude, hacky implementation of 4E's minor actions. The next edition should either bring back minor actions in full, or abolish them altogether.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> The bonus action spell limit should be changed to this:
> 
> _Except for cantrips and spells with a casting time of "1 reaction," you can only cast one spell per turn._
> 
> ...



I would disagree entirely.

I think the bonus action limit should be removed and the limit be put on quickened netamagic.

My take was that its "true" design was to fit quickened into the BA without allowing dbl fireball et al.

So, they would up hamstringing the baby along with the bathwater by putting the restriction on bonus action casting instead of quickened.

But i am ***certain*** all the narrative dissonance shield master problem guys have bedn bugging thier AL gms on the bonus action dissonance all along cuz that narrative dissonance thing is what bugs them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2018)

Dausuul said:


> It isn't this one feat alone. It's this feat, _and_ two-weapon fighting (which apparently now permits any sequence of main hand/off hand attacks _except_ one that starts with the off hand... but check back in an hour, I expect the next tweet will change things again), _and_ bonus-action spellcasting, _and_ the confusion that arises when people want to take two bonus actions instead of bonus/regular (a thing that makes intuitive sense but is not allowed by the rules)... and on and on.
> 
> No one issue is a big deal. But collectively, they're a pain. Bonus actions are a crude, hacky implementation of 4E's minor actions. The next edition should either bring back minor actions in full, or abolish them altogether.




Trading an Action for a bonus action isn't intuitive at all. It's just a thing you're used to from other games. The rest of that isn't even a problem with bonus actions, but with a small handful of very specific rules that could have been worded better.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 17, 2018)

Oofta said:


> The award for stretching the wording of the rule through technical jargon and legalese goes to ... Jeremy Crawford!!!
> 
> I mean I appreciate the work the guy has put in, but this is really pushing it.  A qualification of what type of weapon you use is now being used to justify timing?  When there's no whiff of timing the the two-weapon fighting rule?
> 
> Ah well.  I've gone from slightly irked by the ruling to actually irked.  Heaven forbid he adds more fuel to the fire and I get to well and truly irked.



I can understand that but... Since i think he has been clear about the intent of the gains expected out of shield master (his cheese tweet) my bet if that if they decided to make this an eratta instead of a sage thing that eratta would be to make it explicit in shield master that you cannot do its bash before the attacks.

The more it goes on the more clear it is that its a balance move being squeezed into sagery delivery, not a case of going wild on letter of the law and ending up some place odd.


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm not sure what's confusing about his answers. Can you elaborate?




Oh, now you want a clarification from ME in this thread, after refusing to clarify earlier yourself? What happened to, "I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything."

Naw, you took your ball and went home. You can't just wander back because you saw the kids having fun and decided to pretend that didn't just happen.


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> I am not seeing tortured here...
> 
> One says identifies  atrack action plus make an attack as the trigger and in that case because an attack is specifically calked out it can be done after just one attack of your x number of attacks.
> 
> ...




The trigger for both is "When you take the Attack action".

One of them further specifies "*and *attack...".

Nothing here says you can nest the bonus action between attacks during that attack action however. Both trigger off an "When you take the Attack action", though one adds a further limiter in addition to that one.

So while the trigger for two weapon fighting is both "take the Attack action" AND "attack", I am not seeing why one would allow the bonus action between attacks in the Attack action and the other would not. 

Either an Attack action is composed of all of the attacks contained within an Attack action, or it is not. Unless something specifies different timing, which this does not. A qualification is not itself a different timing for what an Attack action means.  I mean, if a bonus action qualification had said, "take the Attack action and you are a half-orc" would that mean you can take the bonus action after all the attacks or between the two attacks if you are a half-orc?


----------



## Chaosmancer (May 17, 2018)

[MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] , [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] , and Et. Al

Is that it?

I thought people were referring to some specific ruling about Eldritch Knight's War Magic ability. Not just the general "Bonus action spell" thing

Which, yeah, that one can get a bit confusing for people. I've never had an issue with it, but I've seen enough people trip up on that rule to think on potential solutions for my table.


----------



## cbwjm (May 17, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> [MENTION=6921966]Asgorath[/MENTION] , [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] , and Et. Al
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> ...




I think you might be thinking about the Eldritch Knight's ability to make an attack using their bonus action if they cast a cantrip.


----------



## Krachek (May 17, 2018)

They let space in the rules on purpose.
They now made clarifications,  trying to not remove all the space.
And still we want THE rule, the one  without  any doubts or possible meaning.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 17, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Oh, now you want a clarification from ME in this thread, after refusing to clarify earlier yourself? What happened to, "I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you of anything."
> 
> Naw, you took your ball and went home. You can't just wander back because you saw the kids having fun and decided to pretend that didn't just happen.




LOL wow! That’s some _spin_. 

I mean I never said anything about the thread or the discussion as a whole, but if you can’t handle someone choosing not to further engage on a specific part of a discussion, that’s on you.


----------



## Caliban (May 17, 2018)

Krachek said:


> They let space in the rules on purpose.
> They now made clarifications,  trying to not remove all the space.
> And still we want THE rule, the one  without  any doubts or possible meaning.




Well, in this specific instance (using the bonus action shove from Shield Master before the attack action) - the Sage had made one ruling that (almost) everyone agreed with, and now he has reversed that ruling.    And a lot of people don't agree with his logic for the reversal and are pointing out flaws in that logic, or discrepancies they believe are created as a result. 

So we don't really want "the rule", because we already had that (or so we believed).  And now the Sage is changing "the rule" (i.e. the clarification he'd made earlier and that we have been using) and is now claiming that the new ruling is the way it was supposed to work all along.  

For some of us at least, we don't agree with his new position and don't intend to change our games.  It's been the de facto ruling for too long, and worked just fine.   We don't care for the disruption caused by trying to change something we didn't have a problem with. 

Fortunately for me, none of my AL characters have the Shield Master feat so this doesn't affect them.


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> LOL wow! That’s some _spin_.
> 
> I mean I never said *anything* about the thread or the discussion as a whole, but if you can’t handle someone choosing not to further engage on a specific part of a discussion, that’s on you.






> I thought I made it clear earlier in the thread that I’ve given up trying to convince you *of anything*.




Ah now, "I don't want to play with you guys anymore!" becomes "I meant that other game we were playing 5 minutes ago, not this one!"

You might want to pick a definition of that word "anything" and stick with it.


----------



## Chaosmancer (May 18, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I think you might be thinking about the Eldritch Knight's ability to make an attack using their bonus action if they cast a cantrip.




Yeah, thought people kept talking about some ruling based off of that ability. Was curious what the ruling was since I'd never heard of any "clarification" for it or if there had even been anything said about it on Twitter or the like.


----------



## Hriston (May 18, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, thought people kept talking about some ruling based off of that ability. Was curious what the ruling was since I'd never heard of any "clarification" for it or if there had even been anything said about it on Twitter or the like.




The ruling on War Magic is in the Sage Advice Compendium. The original ruling appears in the 2016 version of the compendium. Here it is:
*
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 intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​
But in the 2017 version, the ruling was changed to this:
*
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.​
This change established that words like _when_ and _if_ specify the timing of a bonus action, which has now been clarified to apply to Shield Master as well.


----------



## Krachek (May 18, 2018)

Caliban said:


> Well, in this specific instance (using the bonus action shove from Shield Master before the attack action) - the Sage had made one ruling that (almost) everyone agreed with, and now he has reversed that ruling.    And a lot of people don't agree with his logic for the reversal and are pointing out flaws in that logic, or discrepancies they believe are created as a result.
> 
> So we don't really want "the rule", because we already had that (or so we believed).  And now the Sage is changing "the rule" (i.e. the clarification he'd made earlier and that we have been using) and is now claiming that the new ruling is the way it was supposed to work all along.
> 
> ...




Their credo is *build* *your own game.*
considering that, It is perfectly normal that they give opposite advices in sage advice.
You say you don’t want « the rule » but you are also angry that he give an advice against your ruling.
Your ruling is fine, his advice is fine too. That is my point.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (May 18, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Ah now, "I don't want to play with you guys anymore!" becomes "I meant that other game we were playing 5 minutes ago, not this one!"
> 
> You might want to pick a definition of that word "anything" and stick with it.




Oh Mistwell, I’m sorry, I really am, but nothing you ever say is going to make me far at all about semantics.


----------



## Hriston (May 18, 2018)

Of interest to me is that the original 2016 ruling primarily addresses intent (RAI), which is how I prefer to align my interpretations of the rules. The 2017 ruling's emphasis on RAW indicates that even though these rules didn't end up as intended, it would be too much work to fix them now, so it isn't going to happen.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 18, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The trigger for both is "When you take the Attack action".
> 
> One of them further specifies "*and *attack...".
> 
> ...



You may now want to expand the meaning further than JC did and dismiss (or pretend he did not make) the answrr about the difference but that does not change the results. 

Take an attack action or use the attack action type language has been used to separate out "choices" that can only be done as part of that action, as opposed to any time you get an attack. 

A good example would include shove/trip and grapple - which (perhaps triggering those hoardes of narrative dissonsnce victims) by the "letter of the rules") one can do only when one uses the attack action and not when one uses the reaction OA or even presumably things like the reaction sttike at 5' moves from whatever that style is called.

Point being the includion of limiting you to the attack action has a number of different results, has meaning outside of the can you insett bonus actions.

On the other hand, adding in specific reference to **an attack** adds more... Because that references one of the attacks... 

You may choose to see that as **only** an additional limit but clearly it can also be seen as an additional specification. 

You choice obviously supports the conclusion you wanted, but the fact is one set of text references only the attack action while the other references the armttack action **and** an attack within that action. 

At this point, not wanting to give more credence than is deserved for forum ragers, i will state that IMO because this does change a previous sage ruling, i hope they choose to rather quickly get this into actual eratta or at least into the compendium. 

Not that either has to matter to a GM who house rules (including pick and choosers)  and dont put RAW and official sources on any pedestal above their own choices.


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2018)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh Mistwell, I’m sorry, I really am, but nothing you ever say is going to make me far at all about semantics.




I think the word you're looking for is "care" by the way....speaking of semantics.


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Not that either has to matter to a GM who house rules (including pick and choosers)  and dont put RAW and official sources on any pedestal above their own choices.




For what it is worth, my DM's reaction was, "this feat was not overpowered in any way to begin with, and in fact it's not even coming up as often as I thought it might, so I really don't care when you use the bonus action."


----------



## 5ekyu (May 18, 2018)

Krachek said:


> They let space in the rules on purpose.
> They now made clarifications,  trying to not remove all the space.
> And still we want THE rule, the one  without  any doubts or possible meaning.



Its always been common that whenever a rule is changed or clarified or whatever some of those who liked what the new ruling prevents or dont like what the new ruling enables find all sorts of direct and indirect ways to fault the new ruling, even if those faults are things they accept for other rules where they like the results.

Nothing new here... the original ruling gave the feat more power, so much that builds were for some framed around it. Its expected some wont take it quietly.

The key is of course, one of the lines of attack is the *not official enough* or "advise not rule" sage advice status which is funny to me since it is one sage ruling reversing a previous sage ruling.

I can only imagine what one of these guys would have said a month ago to having someone in AL tell them they did not believe sage ruling and so they did not accept the original one - would they have bern "yup, sage is just advice, no problem"? Or would they have pushed the case of how it should be applied to AL due to the sage status?



Nothing new here. Same old same old when a clarification hits a potent build tool. Honestly, this is trlame next to most any MMO patch notes release.


----------



## Arial Black (May 18, 2018)

Hriston said:


> The ruling on War Magic is in the Sage Advice Compendium. The original ruling appears in the 2016 version of the compendium. Here it is:
> *
> 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 intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​
> But in the 2017 version, the ruling was changed to this:
> ...




When reading the PHB without the 'benefit' of the tweets/Sage Advice, it is just as reasonable to interpret 'when/if' to mean 'when/if you take this action *this round*', so both Action and bonus action must be chosen together but the timing withing the round of the execution of each element of those actions is up to the player.

How do I know that this interpretation is 'reasonable'?

Because that is the interpretation and the intention that JC himself had from the time he wrote the PHB until the 2017 errata.


----------



## Undrhil (May 18, 2018)

For the people who don't like "If you do X then you can do Y" as a reasoning for the Shield Master shield bash to come after the attack action, then allow me to point you to another quirky Bonus Action thing: 

If you cast a bonus action spell, the only other spell you can cast that turn is a 1-action cantrip.

That's a paraphrase but the basic premise of that rule.

So, what happens if you want to cast Fireball and then Misty Step?  You can't do it.  You can cast Fireball, but some magical force prevents you from then casting Misty Step.  Or you can cast Misty Step and because you "cast an expedient spell" you are unable to cast anything more than Fire Bolt.

However, if you are a Fighter with Action Surge who happens to have spellcasting tendencies, you can cast Fireball, use Action Surge, and cast another leveled spell... just not a bonus action spell.


----------



## cbwjm (May 18, 2018)

Undrhil said:


> For the people who don't like "If you do X then you can do Y" as a reasoning for the Shield Master shield bash to come after the attack action, then allow me to point you to another quirky Bonus Action thing:
> 
> If you cast a bonus action spell, the only other spell you can cast that turn is a 1-action cantrip.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I ignore the 'bonus action spell + cantrip only' rule so in my games, if a player wants to fireball then misty step, they can or if a sorcerer wants to lay down a couple of fireballs, go for it!


----------



## Chaosmancer (May 18, 2018)

Hriston said:


> The ruling on War Magic is in the Sage Advice Compendium. The original ruling appears in the 2016 version of the compendium. Here it is:
> *
> 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 intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).​
> But in the 2017 version, the ruling was changed to this:
> ...





Okay, thanks for clarifying. I wondered if it was something simple like that or something more complicated that I was missing out on. 





5ekyu said:


> Nothing new here. Same old same old when a clarification hits a potent build tool. Honestly, this is trlame next to most any MMO patch notes release.





"Potent Build Tool"? 

Are you saying it as in Shield Master was a really great option? Could you point me to a single guide that gave shield master more than a "meh, if you're already using a shield its fine" type of rating? 

I'm not saying I put a lot of stock into online guides (no one had any good advice for doing a Gnome cleric, did it anyways) but a lot of people are upset at Shield Master being nerfed *because* it was a middle of the road option before. 

I imagine it would be similar to a nerf on Mage Slayer, it's really not that highly rated of a feat, it isn't in huge demand, why make it weaker?

Sure, we can talk in circles about how it is a proper RAW reading of the ability, input X get Y yadda yadda yadda, but a lot of us don't really end up parsing our game rules like computer code, so we don't care as much about the exact ordering of events. As long as it works and people have fun that's all that really matters.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 18, 2018)

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay, thanks for clarifying. I wondered if it was something simple like that or something more complicated that I was missing out on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since i put almost no stock in the various white room, guides etc... Nope... Cannot point you to those for your fix of others agree-ism.

I am one of those crazy types who thinks power and value comes from the intersection of capability and need so i really dont give a rats ass about how other people value x vs y vs z in their games (as far as it relating to mine) and have even less of a concern about white room warriors of excel.

If you want references to how powerful someone else think this feat is, as opposed to how powerful it is actually in your own game, somewhere back in this thrwad a poster who seems to be running in a game whose particulars practically makes the other benefits of SM trivial iirc said it got close to sharpshooter and the great weapon one (the 5/10s iirc) on what we have to assume was the strength of the pre-shove down alone.

But if your position is that its a mid-road not used for power type builds feat and that all this rage has nothing to do with losing a powerful option cuz you know the ones focused on power would not get near the meh, thats fine. Feel free to support that position or whatever.

I know we all can point to many cases where we see such furor and rage over already mediocre options being made more mediocre - likely those drowning out the few quiet peaceful whispers when a powerful option gets nerfed, right?


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2018)

I think most of the rage is over the snowball effect ramifications of this ruling, rather than Shield Mastery itself. It feels like one of those old 4e type tweaks of minor power balancing which have fingers of massive annoying changes that filter out into the larger game, that we thought we were done with when 5e arrived.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 18, 2018)

"but a lot of us don't really end up parsing our game rules like computer code, so we don't care as much about the exact ordering of events. As long as it works and people have fun that's all that really matters."

Absolutely. As i have said many times, i do not see house rules as second class to RAW, in fact, i put them higher on the pecking order cuz they apply to an actual game in play, to fit that group and setting etc. RAW are built as tools for a generic framework and may or may not suit that group/setting - especially down to the parsed terms level.

Thats why i have advised many time to house rule it as opposed to trying to twist and contort RAW around to skirt or discredit the ruling when you dont like a ruling.

Its easier to house rule to add "after any attack in the action" or even "before or after any attack in the action"  to SM in your game, rather than start inventing a difference between "declare action" and "do action" to allow the extra benefits of "do" without the doing.

But some folks rather go with the parsing word war shield for their own purposes


----------



## 5ekyu (May 18, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I think most of the rage is over the snowball effect ramifications of this ruling, rather than Shield Mastery itself. It feels like one of those old 4e type tweaks of minor power balancing which have fingers of massive annoying changes that filter out into the larger game, that we thought we were done with when 5e arrived.



We disagree then. It has seemed to me in this thread the rage has bern primarily over the hit to SM. The comments about the follow ons seem to have bern more akin to "find more ways to support the painting of this as bad ruling" and the lack of concern over the broader impact of separating declare action and do action among those trying to find a wzy to keep the shove first alive ppints not to a greater concern from the most prolific or enthusiastic of the shovers.

But, you obviously have you own perception... Certainly about what you see as more than half of the rage being about.


----------



## Caliban (May 18, 2018)

Krachek said:


> Their credo is *build* *your own game.*
> considering that, It is perfectly normal that they give opposite advices in sage advice.
> You say you don’t want « the rule » but you are also angry that he give an advice against your ruling.
> Your ruling is fine, his advice is fine too. That is my point.




What gives you the impression that I'm angry?   I've said that before that I understand his logic, I just don't agree with it. 

Please don't project your issues onto me.


----------



## Arial Black (May 18, 2018)

Undrhil said:


> If you cast a bonus action spell, the only other spell you can cast that turn is a 1-action cantrip.




An interesting note is that this is a rule that says one thing (if 'bonus action spell' then 'no other non-cantrip spell) but that the rules definitely mean BOTH that AND if 'non-cantrip spell' then 'no bonus action spell'.

It's equivalent to saying 'if Attack Action' then ' bonus action shield bash' means BOTH that AND 'if shield bash (from Shield Master)' THEN 'Attack Action.

It is simply taking the 'when/if' wording to mean 'if you do X _this round_ then you can also do Y this round'.

And we KNOW, beyond doubt, that this is a reasonable interpretation of that wording because JC both interpreted it that way and _intended_ for those words to be interpreted that way.

The fact that he changed his mind later, without changing the wording, does not change the fact that this is a reasonable interpretation of that wording.

Further, JC's reasons for his _volte face_ are absurd: Shield Master knocking prone being 'cheese'(!!!), and 'Actions cannot be nested' despite the many, many legal nesting of Actions within the rules.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 18, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> An interesting note is that this is a rule that says one thing (if 'bonus action spell' then 'no other non-cantrip spell) but that the rules definitely mean BOTH that AND if 'non-cantrip spell' then 'no bonus action spell'.
> 
> It's equivalent to saying 'if Attack Action' then ' bonus action shield bash' means BOTH that AND 'if shield bash (from Shield Master)' THEN 'Attack Action.
> 
> ...



Now just to be clear, the bonus action spell rule establishes an exclusion - that two things cannot both hapoen on the same turn. 

That is not at all evidence of what order the "enabling" of added actiins language uses. 

To be clear, if something prohibited you from taking an attack action, you dont get to use shield master bonus action shield bash to then unlock the attack action.

So, no, its not two cases of necessary *and* sufficient.


----------



## Krachek (May 18, 2018)

Caliban said:


> What gives you the impression that I'm angry?   I've said that before that I understand his logic, I just don't agree with it.
> 
> Please don't project your issues onto me.




Good then, better be amuse by this debate.


----------



## Oofta (May 18, 2018)

Caliban said:


> What gives you the impression that I'm angry?   I've said that before that I understand his logic, I just don't agree with it.
> 
> Please don't project your issues onto me.




I'm in the same boat.  As I've said many times, I'm irked by the ruling, a little annoyed.  Raging? Nah.  As written ... err ... interpreted it was a fun feat, but I had other options I seriously debated taking instead.  This feat isn't particularly cheesy, some of the games people play with Sentinel and Pole Arm master are far, far worse for example.

As others have said it's more the attitude of having to parse out the meaning of the rules, knowing that certain special phrases in the rules mean more than just what they say.  That there's now a creeping sense of gamer-speak, a special code, we must all adhere to because of a tweet.


----------



## Chaosmancer (May 18, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Since i put almost no stock in the various white room, guides etc... Nope... Cannot point you to those for your fix of others agree-ism.
> 
> *I am one of those crazy types who thinks power and value comes from the intersection of capability and need* so i really dont give a rats ass about how other people value x vs y vs z in their games (as far as it relating to mine) and have even less of a concern about white room warriors of excel.
> 
> ...





Ok, but you realize that by your definition of power and value coming from "how powerful is it in the situation that is the game you are playing in"... that all options are "Potent Build Tools"?


I mean, I would be really hard pressed to think of an option that could not be powerful in the specific contest of a game and or party, so your dismissiveness towards the people getting upset makes even less sense. 


Honestly, if you believe all options can be powerful, then you can't really decide that people are only upset because they are losing a powerful option. Any option would be powerful, so losing anything would make them upset. If you want to defend your position because some people give more weight to certain options than you feel is necessary, then you also have to acknowledge that many of those people who give that weight were not giving that weight to Shield Master.

I mean, maybe you can be dismissive and inclusive at the same time, but I would find that a very hard position to keep.  





5ekyu said:


> "but a lot of us don't really end up parsing our game rules like computer code, so we don't care as much about the exact ordering of events. As long as it works and people have fun that's all that really matters."
> 
> Absolutely. As i have said many times, i do not see house rules as second class to RAW, in fact, i put them higher on the pecking order cuz they apply to an actual game in play, to fit that group and setting etc. RAW are built as tools for a generic framework and may or may not suit that group/setting - especially down to the parsed terms level.
> 
> ...






Okay, can I just ask something first. Why do you keep quoting people with quotation marks instead of the quote function? I've noticed it dozens of times in this thread and I can't help but wonder what the purpose is. If you want to respond to something I said but don't want people to know I said it... why even bother with the quotes?


Onto Houserules. 

I agree with you. I also have no problem with houserules and don't see them as "lesser rules" in any way. However, I don't think people are twisting and turning the rules language because they need a RAW justification for their rules. 

There is no way to debate this ruling in terms of "are we limiting the abuse of an ability" because there is zero evidence that using Shield Master to knock an enemy prone first was abusive of the rules. As we were discussing earlier, this was not an option that topped the charts or even got talked about a lot before this ruling. 

However, some of the rules language being used to justify this clarification on Shield Master may have larger consequences for the game. For example, this idea of indivisible actions that can be divided by bonus actions unless the bonus action says it cannot divide the action. This is confusing and concerning if it ends up becoming the default accepted way of looking at the game. It also may inform future design decisions and thus is important for us to figure out. 

Plus, let us be honest here, a lot of people who get on the Internet to talk DnD love arguing semantics. We have an excessive number of highly educated people in fields that require that type of thinking, and it breeds a certain atmosphere around the game. 





Arial Black said:


> Further, JC's reasons for his _volte face_ are absurd: Shield Master knocking prone being 'cheese'(!!!), and 'Actions cannot be nested' despite the many, many legal nesting of Actions within the rules.





I think that nested action thing is becoming a real sticking point for me. There are more bonus actions that can be taken within an attack action than there are bonus actions that cannot. When the specific rule outnumbers the general rule by that large of margin, you may be looking at the wrong general rule.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 18, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> OK this is getting even more silly on Twitter with Jeremy Crawford.
> 
> I asked Jeremy this:
> 
> ...




So if you take Dual Weapon Mastery feat you can attack with your Shield interspersed with your regular attacks and Shove with as a substitute for an attack with yourself but if you take Shield Mastery feat you cant Shove with your Shield until all your attacks are over ? I guess the though is shoving someone is getting your shoulder behind your shield and then ramming into them.  


Now I think he is just trying to justify his ruling and his long ago held idea that he failed to clarify in the first place.


In the wording for Monk and their Flurry of Blows it says "use" the attack action.  To me that means use, it doesn't mean "use and complete all attacks."


----------



## Satyrn (May 18, 2018)

Oofta said:


> As others have said it's more the attitude of having to parse out the meaning of the rules, knowing that certain special phrases in the rules mean more than just what they say.  That there's now a creeping sense of gamer-speak, a special code, we must all adhere to because of a tweet.



I know you play at tables that might listen to these tweets. You have my sympathy.


----------



## Mistwell (May 18, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> So if you take Dual Weapon Mastery feat




I am not familiar with that feat. Which one is that?


----------



## smbakeresq (May 18, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> The trigger for both is "When you take the Attack action".
> 
> One of them further specifies "*and *attack...".
> 
> ...




I "assume" that since he added "and attack" he was cutting off the concept of Shove and Grapple and a few other things that can replace an actual attack in the Attack action.  I don't know though.


I think its splitting hairs.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 18, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I am not familiar with that feat. Which one is that?




Dual Wielder.  I have played so many editions they all blend unless I have the book in front of me.

In my game if you use that feat you can use your shield to bash with.  The only people who take it are  Strength based dual wield fighters, essentially they turn down a d8 weapon for a d4 weapon and +2 to defense.


If you now use JC ruling on Shield Master its almost not worth playing a Martial class with a shield.  Better off and more fun to dust off that d12 that rarely gets used.


----------



## guachi (May 18, 2018)

I feel immortalized.

I mean, my first ever tweet has, like Helen, launched a thousand threads across the internet.

I'm sorry (not sorry) about tweeting JC in the first place. It's not quite on the level of creating a meme or something. But I'll take my internet fame where I can get it.


----------



## guachi (May 18, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> Further, JC's reasons for his _volte face_ are absurd: Shield Master knocking prone being 'cheese'(!!!), and 'Actions cannot be nested' despite the many, many legal nesting of Actions within the rules.




The thing I take most offense at is his thinking that Shield Bash then Attack is "cheese". It directly insults people playing D&D in a manner they find both fun and not unbalancing. No one anywhere was complaining about Shield Master being overpowered. Perhaps correctly powered - this is the balance a combat feat should be vice GWM or SS.

His "cheese" comment borders on badwrongfun. It's honestly not something I thought I'd ever thought I see from Crawford or Mearls. The legalistic parsing is irritating. The "cheese" comment is insulting.


----------



## Oofta (May 18, 2018)

guachi said:


> I feel immortalized.
> 
> I mean, my first ever tweet has, like Helen, launched a thousand threads across the internet.
> 
> I'm sorry (not sorry) about tweeting JC in the first place. It's not quite on the level of creating a meme or something. But I'll take my internet fame where I can get it.




Curse you to heck Guachi!  May you spend eternity mildly uncomfortable for the moderate inconvenience you have caused us!


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 18, 2018)

smbakeresq said:


> Dual Wielder.  I have played so many editions they all blend unless I have the book in front of me.
> 
> In my game if you use that feat you can use your shield to bash with.  The only people who take it are  Strength based dual wield fighters, essentially they turn down a d8 weapon for a d4 weapon and +2 to defense.
> 
> ...




Wouldn't you also need the Tavern Brawler feat to get proficiency for attacking with a shield as an improvised weapon?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 19, 2018)

"Honestly, if you believe all options can be powerful, then you can't really decide that people are only upset because they are losing a powerful option. "

Huh? 

I am not arrogant enough to assume everyone else shares my views... So yes i can myself not see something one way but believe others do and even that others can get upset over things i dont.

Perhaps more to the point, i xan also believe that things are more (or less) potent in different games, since that "necesdity" part of the intersection will vary, often greatly, between games.

So, no, not seeing the conflict you want to imagine.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 19, 2018)

"However, I don't think people are twisting and turning the rules language because they need a RAW justification for their rules."

Well, some of the foljs on this very thread have referenced AL and its RAW type restrictions. That added to common observation about the benefits of RAW to some (those running pick up games at flgs etc where house rules are more impractical than for campaign) so... I have to assume that the part of that double clause you disagree with is the twisting part.

If i am wrong, if you dont believe anyone is trying to find RAW justification then by all means clarify that.

So as to twisting and turning... I guess thats subjective and one mans invention of a "declare action" and "do action" out of  "take action" is one mans twist and another mans clear language.

Tomato, tomato.


----------



## Chaosmancer (May 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Honestly, if you believe all options can be powerful, then you can't really decide that people are only upset because they are losing a powerful option. "
> 
> Huh?
> 
> ...





The conflict (and man, if you wanted me to reply you should have actually quoted me) is that when I asked if you could point out in any build or strategy guide where Shield Master was considered a "potent build tool".

You dismissed my request because you believe all options are powerful in context and therefore put no stock in those guides. 


So, to my understanding, you are declaring the anger is solely because people are upset of losing a powerful option, when you cannot prove that this option was actually all that powerful. In fact, many people have stated that it wasn't all that powerful with the more liberal reading and that adds to their frustrations with this change. 


So, if you want to dismiss their frustrations as you seemed to do with myself, it seems you either have to prove your statement about it being a "potent build tool" (which I would say is a tall order) or you need to find some other justification. 





5ekyu said:


> "However, I don't think people are twisting and turning the rules language because they need a RAW justification for their rules."
> 
> Well, some of the foljs on this very thread have referenced AL and its RAW type restrictions. That added to common observation about the benefits of RAW to some (those running pick up games at flgs etc where house rules are more impractical than for campaign) so... I have to assume that the part of that double clause you disagree with is the twisting part.
> 
> ...





Again with the shadow quoting, seriously, why do you do this?

To the point, I think if I were to put a name to it, I would call it stress testing. 

Crawford made a declaration "All actions are indivisible unless stated otherwise" but this doesn't match up with how people have been thinking about or playing 5e. So, they go forth and they begin trying to figure out if what he said actually works or makes sense. And, if they end up finding that this declaration is untrue, then it makes its connected ruling on shield master either false or incomplete.  

And it does get to ridiculous points, that why I refer to it as stress testing. IF actions are indivisible and you take the Dodge action can you take a bonus action while Dodging? Clearly you can, does this count as dividing the action or is it that the action of Dodging is a blip? 

What I've seen this boil down to is Extra Attacks. This seems to be a serious sticking point within that declared set-up, because it is the highlight action and it is also the one most likely to be divided. So people are trying to figure out, how do things actually end up working if we were to turn the rules to computer code, is declaring an attack good enough to have taken the attack action for the purposes of allowing a triggered bonus action? There are ways that make sense within the system of the game that this could be true, but it seems to be a little forced, so people have been refining it.


There are other people who have been looking at the RAI, and realizing that if this is how things work, then the most commonly used tactic of the "Shield Master" is actually better done by someone not using a shield, which seems wrong.


And,at the end of it, the majority of these people arguing about the RAI and RAW and how Crawford is meant to be interpreted... they are just going to keep playing as they have always played, no justification needed.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 19, 2018)

"So, to my understanding, you are declaring the anger is solely because..."

See, not sure but not sure at all where you got "solely" out of my positions.

Maybe same place some found the "declare action " and the "actually do action" inside of "take action."

As for how you label stress testing vs twisting etc... Tomato, tomato.

We see this issue differently.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 19, 2018)

"Again with the shadow quoting, seriously, why do you do this?"

It never gets old the notion in disagreements where one side gets around to going after non-issues like format or grammar or whatever.

If one quotes a long multifaceted post fully even when one only wants to address one aspect, one can (as seen on this thread) get push back ***demanding*** that this must mean you are involed with whatever the crap other crazy crap was in the full post.

If one jyst copies out the portion you are engaging, you get called out and questioned for not quoting the way some other guys like and multiple times questioned on it blah blah.

Make you a deal... You feel free to type out your posts with the assurance i wont question your format repeatedly and you let me do the same.

Done.


----------



## Oofta (May 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> If one jyst copies out the portion you are engaging, you get called out and questioned for not quoting the way some other guys like and multiple times questioned on it blah blah.




You do know all you have to do is hit that little button "Reply with Quote" right?  If you only want to quote part of it just delete the rest.  Like I did here?  That's never, ever been "called out" in my experience.  

Leads me to think that at this point you're doing it to troll.

Which considering the fact that you rarely address direct questions wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Mistwell (May 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> "Again with the shadow quoting, seriously, why do you do this?"
> 
> It never gets old the notion in disagreements where one side gets around to going after non-issues like format or grammar or whatever.




Dwelling on what others have done in past arguments concerning grammar is in fact the very thing you're complaining about. It's a non-issue if others have talked about grammar in the past and you raising it is a distraction from the point he raised.

He's bothered because you've circumvented the built in notification system of the message board when you do that. It's not an issue like grammar - it's an issue of responding without the person receiving notice of your response. And in a long thread like this one, it tends to be a tactic where you can essentially "sneak" a response in there that the person you're disagreeing with won't see but others might. It has a sheen of disingenuous to it. Nothing like a grammar issue.



> If one jyst copies out the portion you are engaging, you get called out and questioned for not quoting the way some other guys like and multiple times questioned on it blah blah.




So you're lazy? Quote the sentence with their name in the quote bracket so they know then.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 19, 2018)

Oofta said:


> You do know all you have to do is hit that little button "Reply with Quote" right?  If you only want to quote part of it just delete the rest.  Like I did here?  That's never, ever been "called out" in my experience.
> 
> Leads me to think that at this point you're doing it to troll.
> 
> Which considering the fact that you rarely address direct questions wouldn't surprise me.



Again format wartiors. 

If you don not like the way i type my posts, there is an easy solution.
Edit
Since when is formating the way one chooses trolling? Is there an entitlement for one to pick how other posters format their responses?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 19, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Dwelling on what others have done in past arguments concerning grammar is in fact the very thing you're complaining about. It's a non-issue if others have talked about grammar in the past and you raising it is a distraction from the point he raised.
> 
> He's bothered because you've circumvented the built in notification system of the message board when you do that. It's not an issue like grammar - it's an issue of responding without the person receiving notice of your response. And in a long thread like this one, it tends to be a tactic where you can essentially "sneak" a response in there that the person you're disagreeing with won't see but others might. It has a sheen of disingenuous to it. Nothing like a grammar issue.
> 
> ...



If you dont like the format of my posts, you have a button for that. It will likely be more productive than tossing around questions about others being lazy.


----------



## Oofta (May 19, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Again format wartiors.
> 
> If you don not like the way i type my posts, there is an easy solution.
> Edit
> Since when is formating the way one chooses trolling? Is there an entitlement for one to pick how other posters format their responses?




You've been asked multiple times, politely,  to use the quote function. Ignoring simple request like that seems to be irritating for no reason.  That's all.


----------



## Mistwell (May 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> If you dont like the format of my posts, you have a button for that. It will likely be more productive than tossing around questions about others being lazy.




Three people now have asked you to cut it out. You know what would be more productive than everyone ignoring you over a silly issue like this? Just cut it out. Don't accuse people of trying to change the subject because of some tactic or something - it's a legit issue that you're dismissing. It's just a rudeness issue that you can easily address...so why not address it?


----------



## FrogReaver (May 20, 2018)

@_*Oofta*_

You said: "Ignoring simple request like that seems to be irritating for no reason.  That's all."
I say:  Will you please stop harping over how someone decides they want to attribute your words to you?

It's a simple request afterall...
No reason to ignore it and seem to be irritating for no reason...


----------



## FrogReaver (May 20, 2018)

@_*Mistwell*_

You said: "Don't accuse people of trying to change the subject because of some tactic or something - it's a legit issue that you're dismissing. It's just a rudeness issue that you can easily address...so why not address it?"

I say: As long as your words are attributed correctly then what does it actually matter how that is actually accomplished?  This is much ado about nothing IMO.  In fact it's more rude and even more of an issue that we are even having to take time to address how you are being quoted (because you somehow declare it to be rude).  Goodness Gracious...


----------



## FrogReaver (May 20, 2018)

Getting back to the heart of the thread.

I'm glad Jeremy Crawford came to his senses.  The whole ruling that if/then statements were somehow void of any sequential (aka timing) mechanism has always been beyond me.  That whole notion never made any sense sense.  The only thing I hate is that this corrected ruling has came years later than the initial one.  In fact, I hate the lateness of it so much that I wish the ruling had never been corrected.  I would rather have a bad crazy ruling that I think is wrong and would never truly understand how it was arrived at than going back and trying to fix something after so long that didn't appear to be negatively impacting anyone's game.

My only suspicion (and totally unfounded) is that shield master was becoming to good with crit fishing and possibly was hindering their ability to create new class abilities or items to help enable those kinds of characters.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 20, 2018)

Oofta said:


> You've been asked multiple times, politely,  to use the quote function. Ignoring simple request like that seems to be irritating for no reason.  That's all.



Again, the redefination of trolling into ignoring others requests is highly illuminating.

People who do not comply are not trolls because of it.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 20, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Three people now have asked you to cut it out. You know what would be more productive than everyone ignoring you over a silly issue like this? Just cut it out. Don't accuse people of trying to change the subject because of some tactic or something - it's a legit issue that you're dismissing. It's just a rudeness issue that you can easily address...so why not address it?



Wow... Now its trolling and rudr to not do what others want you to do.

Adds new dimension to the phrase entitlement.


----------



## FrogReaver (May 20, 2018)

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]

I just realized 5ekyu has me blocked so I take it all back.  Give him heck for whatever the heck you desire!!!  Thanks for doing the needful.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 20, 2018)

Has "do what others want or be dermed trolling, lazy, rude been added to the ToS when i wasnt looking?

Seems like either on hell of a sideways ad hominen or distraction or just very confusing and off topic... For so many to pile on.


----------



## cbwjm (May 20, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> Has "do what others want or be dermed trolling, lazy, rude been added to the ToS when i wasnt looking?
> 
> Seems like either on hell of a sideways ad hominen or distraction or just very confusing and off topic... For so many to pile on.




I think it is just a little weird for some when there is a reply with quote button that could have been used. It also doesn't let the original poster know that they have been quoted which means they might miss out on responding. Ultimately though, even though I might think "Why doesn't he use the reply with quote button?", I'm not really all that bothered by it and I certainly wouldn't consider it trolling.


----------



## FrogReaver (May 20, 2018)

cbwjm said:


> I think it is just a little weird for some when there is a reply with quote button that could have been used. It also doesn't let the original poster know that they have been quoted which means they might miss out on responding. Ultimately though, even though I might think "Why doesn't he use the reply with quote button?", I'm not really all that bothered by it and I certainly wouldn't consider it trolling.




Not sure his motivations but it's often much easier on a mobile phone to type out the line or 2 from a post you want to respond to put quotes around it and @whoever to notify them of it and then type your response below.  On PC it's very easy to use the quote feature.

There are other reasons to not use the traditional quote feature as well.  Using actual quotations as opposed to the site quote feature means the conversation can more easily be traced back further than just the immediately preceeding post which can help keep the conversation in focus.  For example If I posted the following



> You said: xyz
> 
> I say: blah blah blah




And you quoted that then it would look like the above.  When I am reading your comment I can easily recall what prompted my comment the next day without trying to search for a needle in a haystack (since clicking the button that is supposed to take you to the post someone quoted using the site feautre doesn't work very often...)

It can also be helpful in pointing out inconsistent or flipflopping comments from another poster.

Anyways, the point is that there are a lot of legitimate reasons someone may choose to quote someone that way.


----------



## Hriston (May 20, 2018)

Arial Black said:


> When reading the PHB without the 'benefit' of the tweets/Sage Advice, it is just as reasonable to interpret 'when/if' to mean 'when/if you take this action *this round*', so both Action and bonus action must be chosen together but the timing withing the round of the execution of each element of those actions is up to the player.
> 
> How do I know that this interpretation is 'reasonable'?
> 
> Because that is the interpretation and the intention that JC himself had from the time he wrote the PHB until the 2017 errata.




I agree! Jeremy Crawford told us what the RAI is on this at least as far back as 2016. His more recent clarifications of his interpretation of the RAW doesn't change that intent. It just means that, unlike in certain other instances where the RAW was judged to have failed to convey the intent and was acknowledged as errata to be corrected, in this instance even though he admits that according to his interpretation the RAW has failed to convey intent, the corrections required would be too sweeping to undertake.

As for me, I'd much rather go with what some consider to be a strained reading of the rules and play the game as it was intended to be played than be bound to an unintended consequence of how the rules happen to be written. Fortunately, we are all free to make this judgment for ourselves!


----------



## Eric V (May 21, 2018)

At the end of the day, everyone is going to rule as they see fit (except maybe AL?) so on a practical side it probably doesn't matter...but it might.  I can see a game where no one* thought the feat was "cheese" after seeing it in play, but the DM, after reading the tweet, nerfs it anyway.  Hopefully not too many tables have this happen.

It does strike me as being very "non-5e" philosophically, however; I would have expected this level of parsing from 3e and 4e, but not the current edition. :shrug:

*In all my time playing and all the message board perusal, I have not once seen someone talk about this feat as OP or "cheese."  JC is the first person I have seen do so.  Odd.


----------



## Caliban (May 22, 2018)

Eric V said:


> At the end of the day, everyone is going to rule as they see fit (except maybe AL?) so on a practical side it probably doesn't matter...but it might.  I can see a game where no one* thought the feat was "cheese" after seeing it in play, but the DM, after reading the tweet, nerfs it anyway.  Hopefully not too many tables have this happen.
> 
> It does strike me as being very "non-5e" philosophically, however; I would have expected this level of parsing from 3e and 4e, but not the current edition. :shrug:
> 
> *In all my time playing and all the message board perusal, I have not once seen someone talk about this feat as OP or "cheese."  JC is the first person I have seen do so.  Odd.




In a home game it probably doesn't matter in the long run - just discuss it with your DM and hopefully they'll either keep doing it the way you are used to, or let you swap the feat out if you really don't like the change. 

In AL...it's a bit more problematic.   You frequently have a different DM for different games - and the DM's are free to use or ignore the Sage Advice clarifications as they see fit.  

Up until now the feat has pretty much worked the same way at all tables (everyone was in general agreement, at least partially due to the earlier Sage Advice ruling).  Not anymore - suddenly the way it works may change from game session to game session if you get a different DM and one chooses to use the new ruling and the other prefers the previous ruling.   Table variation like that can make players unhappy.  

It's not the only feat or ability that has the issue of table variation, but most of them you are aware of it when you choose the ability.  This one was changed years after being officially ruled on.  So it can be pretty annoying for players with characters that made heavy use of the feat and now suddenly the way it works is uncertain.


----------



## smbakeresq (May 22, 2018)

Eric V said:


> At the end of the day, everyone is going to rule as they see fit (except maybe AL?) so on a practical side it probably doesn't matter...but it might.  I can see a game where no one* thought the feat was "cheese" after seeing it in play, but the DM, after reading the tweet, nerfs it anyway.  Hopefully not too many tables have this happen.
> 
> It does strike me as being very "non-5e" philosophically, however; I would have expected this level of parsing from 3e and 4e, but not the current edition. :shrug:
> 
> *In all my time playing and all the message board perusal, I have not once seen someone talk about this feat as OP or "cheese."  JC is the first person I have seen do so.  Odd.




Never once has it been considered OP or cheese.  Like I said, he probably had someone use it in a game and he is angry about it.  Its a "rare" feat, most players go for GWF or SS for the up-front, immediate, visible damage reward.  The only build I would even recommend it for it Paladins simply because they have lower CON scores since CHR and WIS is needed, little pressure on their bonus actions, and a chance to get in a doubled smite on a critical hit.  You only need to spend one feat and can spend the rest on ABI or inspiring leader.


Cheese is allowing bards to expertise athletics and be the best grapplers, makes perfect sense.  I guess they are the fantasy equivalent of pro-wrestlers, like notable Bard Ric Flair.  I am sure it was intended that way.


----------

