Optimization Shield Bashing [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Willie the Duck

2019-02-06, 01:13 PM

Well, these systems you mentioned are pretty popular, but that's besides the point. I wasn't really looking for a system to emulate, more like emulating real life, where getting hit with a heavy metal plate that's meant to be wieldy isn't something you just shrug off by going back a couple of feet.

Allow me to express what I think would be the 'party line,' as it were. Note that I'm not 100% satisfied with it either, but this is what I think the designers would say (if pinned down on the subject) (put in italics rather than quotes because this is an imaginary quote being what I think they'd say): --

The system emulates real life- you can use a shield as an improvised weapon to deal 1d4 + strength damage (easily life-threatening to a commoner or the like, even with a single blow). That can be accomplished either through the purchase of the Tavern Brawler feat, or through the generalized improvised action rules in the DMG (the same ones which allow you to attempt to disarm a foe, even without the disarm battlemaster feature). Like many real-life actions, the game makes it easier to do with a feat or class feature, while allowing you to do so without in a more DM-gated fashion as well.

As to bashing someone with your shield in combat as a primary combat action rather than an improvised action-that's what the Shield Master feat is for. Other editions (2&3) kind of assumed that shield bashing was kind of a secondary attack. Now with HEMA and the like, we've kind of determined that that's not really what people did with shields (routinely, again shield as improvised weapon was a thing) -- they were more about controlling your opponent's position. Bashing them, sure, but more about trying to control where they were, what angles they could attack you from, and possibly pushing them over (the real powerful use of the grapple-shove maneuver is usually to knock you opponent down, not back 5'), and then delivering a killing blow with your weapon-in-hand (or potentially with the shield as improvised weapon, if you are disarmed).

Mind you, I'm not 100% satisfied with this. I too came from a 2e/3e background, and want the slightly less realistic 'shield as an alternate two-weapon fighting' model. This is genre fiction emulation, not HEMA or the like. Still, they have a shield-bashing build, and (if you ignore the ruling that the grapple shove-to-prone has to occur after the attacks) it is so crazy powerful, it basically salvages the sword&board build. So it's not how you or I would maybe want to implement the build, it is both powerful and realistic.

heavyfuel

2019-02-06, 01:14 PM

Nope! There's nothing stating you do not benefit from the Shield's AC.

So... I do get to keep the bonus? If there's nothing saying I lose my bonus, then I keep it, right?

Yes. It's called "make an attack with your shield while having Tavern Brawler."

People have suggested this. Do I get to keep my AC bonus when making this attack?

Man_Over_Game

2019-02-06, 01:16 PM

So... I do get to keep the bonus? If there's nothing saying I lose my bonus, then I keep it, right?

People have suggested this. Do I get to keep my AC bonus when making this attack?

Yes. You keep your AC when attacking with the shield.

You get the AC bonus from your shield whenever it is Donned (Equipped). To Doff it, it requires a specific action to do so, and attacking with it is possible whether it's Donned or Doffed.

So you wear your shield, you get your +2 AC. You attack while wearing your shield, you still get +2 AC. The only reason not to Don your shield is if you want to hold something that's not your shield in that hand.

RSP

2019-02-06, 01:18 PM

Misterwhisper

2019-02-06, 01:27 PM

I think it would be an improvised weapon attack (so no Prof bonus to the attack), if using it with the Attack Action. You wouldn’t be able to use it with an off-hand bonus action attack, as it’s not a light weapon, unless you had the Dual Wielder Feat.

I don’t see why either use would remove the AC bonus.

Dual wielder has no effect on using a shield.

The AC bonus is only if you are wielding 2 "melee weapons". Which you aren't you are wielding an improvised weapon.

The dual wield ability only effects "one handed melee weapons" which a shield isn't it is still just an improvised weapon.

Drawing and stowing is the same problem, it has no effect on a shield.

If it is not an AL game I would just ask the DM if you could add a Boss or a spike to the shield and make it a 1d6 one handed melee weapon.

Zhorn

2019-02-06, 01:41 PM

I don’t see why either use would remove the AC bonus.
^ this, backed up by this:

"Using a shield to make an improvised attack doesn't deprive you of the AC bonus."
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/17/shield-attack/
Shield bashing is possible, but generally requires a few abilities stacked together.

Shields are non-weapons, so they are treated using improvised weapons. Tavern Brawler if you want proficiency to hit.
Shields do not have the light property, so you'd require Dual Wielder if you want to shield bash while main handing a regular weapon.
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting if you want to have that attack modifier while sword'n'boarding it (though nothing stopping you from main handing a shield on it's own to shield bash)

Pillage a spiked shield off a Lizardfolk (it specifies melee weapon) to go from a 1d4 bludgeoning to a 1d6 piercing (add Tavern Brawler only if your DM rules that proficiency with shield doesn't count), add Fighting Style: Dueling (because why not), and you're doing a one handed sword'n'board equivalent with a free hand for grapples :smallbiggrin:

J-H

2019-02-06, 01:53 PM

Misterwhisper

2019-02-06, 02:00 PM

Zhorn

2019-02-06, 02:02 PM

I get the attraction of shield bashing for damage...but using your bonus action first to shove someone over (with a reasonably good chance of succeeding against all but high-STR monsters), thus gaining advantage on your attacks and all of your allies attacks (which includes a double chance of critting as a result).

Assuming your DM is on the side of allowing you to use the shield master shove for prone before the attack action, to that I then say "why not both?"

Use shield master with the build in http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23689269&postcount=18, so you can shield bash before you shield bash, allowing you to shield bash the shield bashed :smallbiggrin:

Willie the Duck

2019-02-06, 02:09 PM

That doesn't work.

Was shot down about a month ago.

Yes, we know. It's exceedingly contentious. I would not be surprised if it changed.
Although all options, including petitioning the DM for a house rule, should be discussed, I feel that the downstream consequences of the shove-then-attack option are particularly reasonable to discuss, since people have been doing it for years, and the pushback on that ruling seem to be rather noticeable. It's a great build (particularly for the otherwise often ignored Champion), and salvages sword and boarding in a world of PAM-halberders, GWM halberders and greatsworders, and SS longbowmen.

Keravath

2019-02-06, 02:38 PM

Yes, we know. It's exceedingly contentious. I would not be surprised if it changed.
Although all options, including petitioning the DM for a house rule, should be discussed, I feel that the downstream consequences of the shove-then-attack option are particularly reasonable to discuss, since people have been doing it for years, and the pushback on that ruling seem to be rather noticeable. It's a great build (particularly for the otherwise often ignored Champion), and salvages sword and boarding in a world of PAM-halberders, GWM halberders and greatsworders, and SS longbowmen.

Honestly, the feat SAYS that IF you attack you THEN can use the shield to bash. The interpretation allowing this before an attack I think came from another JC tweet early on since otherwise by RAW it never worked.

Also, it only says that you have to TAKE the attack action. It says nothing about completing it. So, if you have the extra attack feature, it is still perfectly ok to attack, THEN bash, then use your extra attack. So all you are losing is the possibility of one attack at advantage vs two if the shield bash to knock prone is successful.

The attack action specifically states that it allows one attack. Class features may enable additional attacks as part of the attack action. However, once you execute that one attack you have taken the attack action and are free to use the shield bash which is now available as a bonus action (bonus actions have no timing restrictions and can take place during actions unless it states otherwise .. in addition, the rules specifically allow for movement between your first attack and any additional attacks from extra attack features).

Finally, WHY does it require you to take the attack action first? Because there are times when something will happen after taking the shield bash that PREVENT you from taking the attack action ... in which case your shield bash was invalid in the first place and could not have been used since you did not take the attack action on your turn.
Examples:
1) Knock an adjacent target prone and move to attack a different higher priority target. Fall in a hidden pit trap, set off a gas trap, trigger a paralysing rune. No attack action ... no shield bash possible but you already took it.
2) Opponent holds an attack for when you try to bash with your shield. You bash, opponent attacks and knocks you to zero hit points. You can't attack so you could not have used shield bash.

There are a number of possible situations where a character uses shield bash and then can't use the attack action and as a result could NOT have used shield bash. The rules for Shield Master do not say "intends to take the attack action" ... they say "takes the attack action".

J-H

2019-02-06, 02:48 PM

Do we all agree that it's a reasonable reading of the rules to attack, use your bonus action to shield bash, and then use extra attacks?

Misterwhisper

2019-02-06, 02:51 PM

Do we all agree that it's a reasonable reading of the rules to attack, use your bonus action to shield bash, and then use extra attacks?

No.

It specifically says it has to be after.

Guy Lombard-O

2019-02-06, 02:53 PM

I wonder if you'd still get the AC bonus for the shield if someone riposted you or otherwise attacked you (sentinel or something) while you were using the shield as a weapon?

Pretty fiddly niche question, but I could see a DM saying no to the AC bonus during the actual attack. Probably not in RAW, I guess?

KorvinStarmast

2019-02-06, 02:54 PM

That doesn't work.

Was shot down about a month ago. It worked for three years, and then Crawford violated the no backsies rule. (Ref to the OoTS comic ...) Not one of his finer moments.

Do we all agree that it's a reasonable reading of the rules to attack, use your bonus action to shield bash, and then use extra attacks? Yes, that's a very reasonable approach, in that it leverages the multiple attacks of Fighters and Paladins and Barbarians.

(Keravath went into more detail, and goodonya).

Misterwhisper

2019-02-06, 02:57 PM

It worked for three years, and then Crawford violated the no backsies rule. (Ref to the OoTS comic ...) Not one of his finer moments.

It never should have worked but people tend to read things they way they need to to get more use of something.

Same thing with flurry of blows, I would love it if I could flurry first and knock someone prone as open hand, but I can’t.

KorvinStarmast

2019-02-06, 02:59 PM

It never should have worked but people tend to read things they way they need to to get more use of something. Sorry, while your opinion is noted, the rules were imprecise enough that it is easily read either way and the ruling that J-H and Keravath both explained in some detail are very sound interpretations of the rules as written.

My DM, on the other hand, when Crawford changed his mind also changed how it worked in our world. So I get fewer attacks with advantage.

The original ruling was tied to bonus actions being taken whenever you want to unless it specified, and it didn't. Flurry Specifies.

RSP

2019-02-06, 03:20 PM

It never should have worked but people tend to read things they way they need to to get more use of something.

Same thing with flurry of blows, I would love it if I could flurry first and knock someone prone as open hand, but I can’t.

It not working, RAW, is based on a metagame concept of combat vs the in-game story of combat.

In-game, characters don’t take “turns”; all the action that occurs during a round occurs during the same 6 seconds. Turns are what the Players use to make sense of that chaotic mess with a structured format.

Looking at combat from the in-game perspective, the character taking the Attack Action is doing so throughout that ~6 second round, they’re partying, feinting and attacking as able during that time.

Compare that to the Player’s perspective where that round takes roughly 5-10 minutes for the DM to go through the npc’s actions and the other players to determine theirs. Whereas the character, from this perspective, stands still for 5 minutes, then moves 10’ and swings a sword once before standing still for another 5 minutes while others conduct their actions.

When a Player announces they’re taking the Attack Action, it doesn’t translate to the in-game character as a single instance of taking one swipe with a sword for 1 second and then doing nothing for the other 5; rather, the in-game Attack Action occurs throughout that ~6 seconds, therefore, there isn’t a “before” or “after” that the bonus action needs to occur. In this sense the “when” the attack action occurs is “during your turn.”

So yes, RAW, you can have the shield bash occur first and stay true to the rule:

“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.”

Did you take the Attack Action on your turn? Yes (though you haven’t resolved the individual attacks yet), as the Player announced that’s what their character is doing over their ~6 seconds of action. Then they start with the shove, and follow on with the individual attacks.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-06, 03:34 PM

Honestly, the feat SAYS that IF you attack you THEN can use the shield to bash. The interpretation allowing this before an attack I think came from another JC tweet early on since otherwise by RAW it never worked.

I am AFB, and working off of a SRD-based wikia (so please correct me if this is wrong), but it looks like it states "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." So it doesn't say if-then. I'm not sure that I'd say that the wording is obvious, were it not for the potential logical paradox of what happens if you lose the ability to take the attack action after you've already used the triggered ability. More on that in a bit.

Also, it only says that you have to TAKE the attack action. It says nothing about completing it. So, if you have the extra attack feature, it is still perfectly ok to attack, THEN bash, then use your extra attack. So all you are losing is the possibility of one attack at advantage vs two if the shield bash to knock prone is successful.

This is a true statement, an argument for it still being a strong feat. I won't disagree, but it does then make the entire attack sequence unnecessarily fiddly. I would much rather see: preferred solution, below.

The attack action specifically states that it allows one attack. Class features may enable additional attacks as part of the attack action. However, once you execute that one attack you have taken the attack action and are free to use the shield bash which is now available as a bonus action (bonus actions have no timing restrictions and can take place during actions unless it states otherwise .. in addition, the rules specifically allow for movement between your first attack and any additional attacks from extra attack features).

What this does, at least to me, is argue that the entire description of the attack sequence should have been more well defined-- with a more generalized discussion of the exceptions for each class and similar situations, rather than relying on the wording in each class feature section or the feat descriptions-- for the benefit of the RAW-hounds and word-parsers amongst us. I say this because the fact that we are here discussing the distinctions between "if..., then..." and "if..., you can..." statements, plus that attack actions can be executed, but not completed, well then I'm just not confident that the actual RAW (if we can resolve it down to a single truly accurate interpretation) is anything but an accidental outcome.

Finally, WHY does it require you to take the attack action first? Because there are times when something will happen after taking the shield bash that PREVENT you from taking the attack action ... in which case your shield bash was invalid in the first place and could not have been used since you did not take the attack action on your turn.

That is a logical paradox. Here's the thing: the possibility of logical paradoxes in interpretation A doesn't prove that alternative B is correct. In fact interpretation A could still be correct. The game rules absolutely could have in them something that creates a logical paradox. There's no rule (regarding rules) that says it can't be the case. It means that some poor DM might end up having to adjudicate one at some point, but it's still not really an argument one way or the other on the subject, excepting an argument on the way one thinks it should be. Which leads me to...

My preferred solution: honestly, I agree that triggered actions ought to have to happen sequentially after the triggering event. In this way I think that Crawford (most recently) ruled correctly. I also think that shield bashing someone down and then attacking them ought to be something that a PC (who expends the right feats, and makes the necessary successful rolls) can do. 1) because it allows the effective shield-basher archetypal character the OP of this thread is looking for, 2) because it makes sword and board a viable fighting style for martials in a feat-using campaign (where they otherwise quickly lose relative output compared to the PAM, GWM, SS, and similar builds otherwise on the option list), and 3) it is not nearly as fiddly as knocking them down after the first attack, or knocking them down at the end and letting your allies be the ones to gain the advantage, or similar game-slowing options. Therefore, I would prefer that Crawford KEEP the 'trigger-first, then triggered-action' ruling, but then CHANGE (errata, with future book printings reflecting) the Shield Master feat, to some wording which preserves the original (ly supported by Crawford) way that the feat worked (possibly starting with the phrase, "by dedicating both your attack and bonus actions to the endeavor, you replace both actions with the following series of events:" and then a description of the old interpretation).

djreynolds

2019-02-06, 03:38 PM

It's sad, but that's Mr Crawford's ruling and it sucks. But oh well.

It's still a useful feat, to set up teammates.

IMO, champion archetype was most hurt by the ruling. Many champion builds used this feat as a keystone.

Alas, no more

Keravath

2019-02-06, 03:41 PM

No.

It specifically says it has to be after.

No. It specifically does NOT state that.

Man_Over_Game

2019-02-06, 03:48 PM

No. It specifically does NOT state that.

Agreed. The issue is not that the feat says you have to attack before you shove, but that a triggered effect must have the trigger occur BEFORE the effect. In other words, the attack must resolve before the BA Shove is available.

Some say this makes sense from a logical/mechanical point of view.
Others say that this doesn't have any basis as a rule.
And others say that the change makes Shield Master worse than SS/Sentinel/PAM/GWM (But I honestly believe these feats are the problem, not the other way around).

JC made the call for mechanical reasons and longevity. Allowing effects to occur before triggers is a really odd way of running a system, and isn't something I'd really like a system to do. "Yes, you can do the BA Shove now, but you have to promise that the only thing you're going to do with your Action is attack with it, M'kay?" I'd much rather have one feat take a minor nerf than creating a long-term balance/logic problem.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-06, 03:49 PM

No. It specifically does NOT state that.

If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action...

Says right there if you take the attack action.

You can’t use a bonus action if you have not taken the attack action yet.

You can’t declare the attack action, use a bonus action dependent on it and then actually attack with the main action.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-06, 03:51 PM

KorvinStarmast

2019-02-06, 03:54 PM

JC made the call for mechanical reasons and longevity. Allowing effects to occur before triggers is a really odd way of running a system, and isn't something I'd really like a system to do. "Yes, you can do the BA Shove now, but you have to promise that the only thing you're going to do with your Action is attack with it, M'kay?" I'd much rather have one feat take a minor nerf than creating a long-term balance/logic problem. We never had that problem at our table.
It was part of a combination maneuver that was a benefit of the feat. (now, it is part of a combination move that sometimes helps my fellow melee fighter get a better hit, and lets me knock some monsters down or away. (The defensive benefit is great when dex saves are required)

It takes a certain uncharitable view of the players to believe that the problem you constructed is actually a problem.

Skylivedk

2019-02-06, 03:57 PM

Agreed. The issue is not that the feat says you have to attack before you shove, but that a triggered effect must have the trigger occur BEFORE the effect. In other words, the attack must resolve before the BA Shove is available.

Some say this makes sense from a logical/mechanical point of view.
Others say that this doesn't have any basis as a rule.
And others say that the change makes Shield Master worse than SS/Sentinel/PAM/GWM (But I honestly believe these feats are the problem, not the other way around).

JC made the call for mechanical reasons and longevity. Allowing effects to occur before triggers is a really odd way of running a system, and isn't something I'd really like a system to do. "Yes, you can do the BA Shove now, but you have to promise that the only thing you're going to do with your Action is attack with it, M'kay?" I'd much rather have one feat take a minor nerf than creating a long-term balance/logic problem.

It's not a minor nerf. It's a huge one. Especially because, Jimmy didn't stop there. He went on to have the ENTIRE Attack Action be done first. Completely unnecessary and uncalled for. My first reaction as a DM (years ago) was that at least one attack roll had to be rolled. I was then convinced by strength of comparison to see that it made very little sense, made it more boring to the player (and especially at low levels) basically forced my players to metagame initiative. Bad solution. Right now the edge case where declaring your combos of attack won't work is... illusions? Readied Thunder Step?? - not a concern. Without SS/Sentinel/PAM/GWM and nothing of significance added in their place (our table has change them to -3/+1d10), martials lack purpose: especially after level 9 they drop off hard. YMMV.

Rerem115

2019-02-06, 04:04 PM

Personally, I think that the bonus action shove shouldn't be tied to the Attack action at all, and I run it that way in my campaigns. I think I'm an edge case, though.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-06, 04:04 PM

Says right there if you take the attack action.

You can’t use a bonus action if you have not taken the attack action yet.

Well honestly, whether you can or can't is really what we're contending. Maybe you can.

You can’t declare the attack action, use a bonus action dependent on it and then actually attack with the main action.

The question is, why not? Is there a specific logical or other game-rule reason why that can't be the way it goes?

JC made the call for mechanical reasons and longevity. Allowing effects to occur before triggers is a really odd way of running a system, and isn't something I'd really like a system to do. "Yes, you can do the BA Shove now, but you have to promise that the only thing you're going to do with your Action is attack with it, M'kay?" I'd much rather have one feat take a minor nerf than creating a long-term balance/logic problem.

I would certainly agree if we're worried about precedence. I like the logic that this presents. But again, I would then alter Shield Master to still allow the old model (somehow, I'm not picky).

And others say that the change makes Shield Master worse than SS/Sentinel/PAM/GWM (But I honestly believe these feats are the problem, not the other way around).

They are here and not going away (honestly, part of me would love it if they did). I've played fighters in a feat-less game before, and honestly you start losing ground to the spellcasters pretty quickly. So, although I'm not really happy that you have to specialize in a certain type of weapon (or weapon+shield) style to compete, nerfing all four of those, plus Shield Master is probably not the best solution either.

Keravath

2019-02-06, 04:09 PM

It not working, RAW, is based on a metagame concept of combat vs the in-game story of combat.

In-game, characters don’t take “turns”; all the action that occurs during a round occurs during the same 6 seconds. Turns are what the Players use to make sense of that chaotic mess with a structured format.

Looking at combat from the in-game perspective, the character taking the Attack Action is doing so throughout that ~6 second round, they’re partying, feinting and attacking as able during that time.

Compare that to the Player’s perspective where that round takes roughly 5-10 minutes for the DM to go through the npc’s actions and the other players to determine theirs. Whereas the character, from this perspective, stands still for 5 minutes, then moves 10’ and swings a sword once before standing still for another 5 minutes while others conduct their actions.

When a Player announces they’re taking the Attack Action, it doesn’t translate to the in-game character as a single instance of taking one swipe with a sword for 1 second and then doing nothing for the other 5; rather, the in-game Attack Action occurs throughout that ~6 seconds, therefore, there isn’t a “before” or “after” that the bonus action needs to occur. In this sense the “when” the attack action occurs is “during your turn.”

So yes, RAW, you can have the shield bash occur first and stay true to the rule:

“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.”

Did you take the Attack Action on your turn? Yes (though you haven’t resolved the individual attacks yet), as the Player announced that’s what their character is doing over their ~6 seconds of action. Then they start with the shove, and follow on with the individual attacks.

This would make sense if the rules said you decide what action you are taking on your turn at the start of your turn. But it doesn't.

"the in-game Attack Action occurs throughout that ~6 seconds, therefore, there isn’t a “before” or “after” that the bonus action needs to occur."

This description is something you are making up. It isn't present in the rules.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first." PHB p189

"You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action." PHB p190

These rules BOTH indicate that movement and actions are sequential not simultaneous. Your approach is interesting and makes sense "you take the attack action for your entire turn" but it isn't what the rules say. If turns worked the way you describe then making a shield bash because you have taken the attack action for your turn WOULD make sense. But the rest of the rules do NOT support that interpretation unless they were re-written to make the turn simultaneous rather than sequential.

By the way, we aren't discussing whether the rules should be different, if a different interpretation would make more sense (I completely agree that I don't see any reason why a character with the Shield Master feat can't just bash with his shield ... but it also doesn't make any sense why a monk can't just use a Martial Arts attack or use flurry of blows ... both the feat and the class feature require taking the attack action in order to trigger the bonus action.

"When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action."

"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."

Pretty much the same wording. The trigger has to happen in order to enable the bonus action. That is just how the rules are written .. maybe that leads to somewhat less realistic situations but if you want to homebrew around it go ahead.

Similarly, all the argument over reactions ... the trigger has to complete in order to allow the reaction unless the description of the reaction effect says otherwise.

All of the rules are written with sequential triggers except for specific cases that outline the exceptions. Why would Shield Master be any different?

Except
-folks would prefer to bash first and get advantage on more attacks
-there doesn't seem to be much logic in requiring the attack before the shield bash (except perhaps game balance)

For example - why wouldn't the character with shield bash ... bash before attacking ... for that matter why wouldn't they just bash and then disengage allowing others to beat on the downed opponent? Logically ... not allowing the bash by itself without taking the attack action makes as much sense as not allowing the shield bash before attacking and yet no one would argue that is against the rules as written)

Keravath

2019-02-06, 04:17 PM

If you take the attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action...

Says right there if you take the attack action.

You can’t use a bonus action if you have not taken the attack action yet.

You can’t declare the attack action, use a bonus action dependent on it and then actually attack with the main action.

Correct. However you CAN use the attack action to make an attack, use a bonus action triggered by taking the attack action (like shield master bash), then take any additional attacks allowed by the extra attack class feature. There is nothing in the rules stating that taking the attack action requires you to also use any extra attack class features before you can use the bonus action provided by taking the attack action. The bonus action provided by shield bash does not say that the Attack action and any additional attacks must be completed before taking the bonus action.

djreynolds

2019-02-06, 04:20 PM

Right, it would like a PAM or TWF using their 1st attack to trip, attack main hand, then attack off hand

So it's reasonable, a fighter could swing, shove, swing and swing

Man_Over_Game

2019-02-06, 05:11 PM

I would certainly agree if we're worried about precedence. I like the logic that this presents. But again, I would then alter Shield Master to still allow the old model (somehow, I'm not picky).

Add a new clause to Shield Master:

If you Shove as part of your Attack Action, you can make a melee weapon attack by spending your Bonus Action.

Rather than trying to find a single clause to fit both scenarios, just have two clauses.

RSP

2019-02-06, 05:11 PM

This would make sense if the rules said you decide what action you are taking on your turn at the start of your turn. But it doesn't.

The game does tell us they happen at the same time, as they occur during the same ~6 seconds.

Here’s the start of the combat section where they discuss rounds and turns:

“A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.”

The 6 seconds of “a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting“ is organized, for the Players and GM, in a structure for us to resolve character actions (small “a” actions as opposed to Actions). In the game world, everything is overlapping during that round.

For instance, two Players each decide to use their Actions to Dash, and each character has 30’ movement. In the in-game world, does one character wait, while the other one runs 60’ then stops, waiting while the other character runs 60’? Would they each spend 3 seconds of the 6 second round running? If 4 more characters did the same thing that round would they each then spend 1 second of the round running 60’? Why are the other characters waiting around the other 5 seconds? They aren’t.

Doing so is the only way to make that round structured sequentially, but that doesn’t change the in-game action.

Keep in mind the basic nature of the game:

“1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.”

In this sense, it’s not sequential, in-game; all six Players describe their character’s actions, which overlap as they move from one place to the other and all occur over the same 6 seconds of the round.

Likewise, if a character is facing an Orc under the effects of a Hold Person spell, they may describe their actions as “I just keep chopping at him with my axe.” The fact that the character can reasonably swing a hand axe more than once at an unmoving target in a 6-second time span doesn’t mean the character gets to make more than one attack roll (they need Extra Attack for that), but the one attack roll doesn’t necessarily relate to just one instance of swinging a weapon, either. (Go back to the above description of combat: “a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork” narratively are all covered by the Attack Action.)

The DM resolves that particular situation and description of the Player’s desired actions as “make an attack roll with Advantage,” per the RAW.

So, again, the game structures combat sequentially, but the in-game narrative actions overlap.

(Side note: look at alternative initiative options like side initiative or speed factor like Merls uses: the rules don’t exclude these yet they all entail Players announcing their actions allay the beginning of the round before turns are even determined.)

"When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action."

"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."

Pretty much the same wording. The trigger has to happen in order to enable the bonus action. That is just how the rules are written .. maybe that leads to somewhat less realistic situations but if you want to homebrew around it go ahead.

“When” is “during your turn”, not a singular instant in the turn. For instance, if the DM asks me “When do you attack?” a logical response is “on my turn.” Logically, a Turn is a period of time that suitably can be the “When”.

Keravath

2019-02-06, 05:27 PM

The game does tell us they happen at the same time, as they occur during the same ~6 seconds.

Here’s the start of the combat section where they discuss rounds and turns:

“A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.”

The 6 seconds of “a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting“ is organized, for the Players and GM, in a structure for us to resolve character actions (small “a” actions as opposed to Actions). In the game world, everything is overlapping during that round.

For instance, two Players each decide to use their Actions to Dash, and each character has 30’ movement. In the in-game world, does one character wait, while the other one runs 60’ then stops, waiting while the other character runs 60’? Would they each spend 3 seconds of the 6 second round running? If 4 more characters did the same thing that round would they each then spend 1 second of the round running 60’? Why are the other characters waiting around the other 5 seconds? They aren’t.

Doing so is the only way to make that round structured sequentially, but that doesn’t change the in-game action.

Keep in mind the basic nature of the game:

“1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.”

In this sense, it’s not sequential, in-game; all six Players describe their character’s actions, which overlap as they move from one place to the other and all occur over the same 6 seconds of the round.

Likewise, if a character is facing an Orc under the effects of a Hold Person spell, they may describe their actions as “I just keep chopping at him with my axe.” The fact that the character can reasonably swing a hand axe more than once at an unmoving target in a 6-second time span doesn’t mean the character gets to make more than one attack roll (they need Extra Attack for that), but the one attack roll doesn’t necessarily relate to just one instance of swinging a weapon, either. (Go back to the above description of combat: “a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork” narratively are all covered by the Attack Action.)

The DM resolves that particular situation and description of the Player’s desired actions as “make an attack roll with Advantage,” per the RAW.

So, again, the game structures combat sequentially, but the in-game narrative actions overlap.

(Side note: look at alternative initiative options like side initiative or speed factor like Merls uses: the rules don’t exclude these yet they all entail Players announcing their actions allay the beginning of the round before turns are even determined.)

“When” is “during your turn”, not a singular instant in the turn. For instance, if the DM asks me “When do you attack?” a logical response is “on my turn.” Logically, a Turn is a period of time that suitably can be the “When”.

I don't really understand why you chose to leave out the two rules citations that specifically indicate that the use of movement and actions is SEQUENTIAL and not simultaneous so I will cite them again.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first." PHB p189

"You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action." PHB p190

These rules BOTH indicate that movement and actions are sequential not simultaneous.

Moving first or action first - NOT simultaneous
Using some movement BEFORE or AFTER your ACTION - NOT simultaneous

Fluff about the chaos of combat is just fluff. You are imagining the rules about simultaneous actions when the rules citations quoted here clearly show actions and movement are sequential. So your entire idea falls apart ... sure, it might be nice if that is what the rules said and you are free to house rule it .. but it is not what the rules currently say.

Keravath

2019-02-06, 05:31 PM

Add a new clause to Shield Master:

If you Shove as part of your Attack Action, you can make a melee weapon attack by spending your Bonus Action.

Rather than trying to find a single clause to fit both scenarios, just have two clauses.

Cool. I think that would put the situation back to where it was in terms of allowing the shield bash as the first action on a turn. Assuming that is what the game designers want.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-06, 05:36 PM

Cool. I think that would put the situation back to where it was in terms of allowing the shield bash as the first action on a turn. Assuming that is what the game designers want.

Might want to add in a clause where you actually are wielding a shield.

Otherwise multiple people will take that and just use a 2hander.

Benny89

2019-02-06, 05:49 PM

If you want to shield bash, you can do it by "roleplaying" while using a RAW mechanic.

Take PAM and use Spear/Q-staff + Shield. PAM gives you bonus attack with back end of weapon that deals 1k4 + Stat. It's blunt damage.

What I do is I roleplay that I hit enemy with Shield instead (because it's kind of stupid to hit enemy with back end of 1 handed spear) in bonus action, which deals same damage, same type of damage etc.

So mechanically I use bonus action to do exactly same damage I would do with PAM, but from roleplay perspective I hit them in face with my shield. Not only it looks cooler (Shield + Spear and hitting with Shield) but it doesn't make any mechanical difference as you do same bonus attack anyway (1k4 + Stat).

At least that's how I shield bash at our table.

Unoriginal

2019-02-06, 06:04 PM

https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA

Crawford speaks of the Shielf Master timing at 23:38

heavyfuel

2019-02-06, 07:55 PM

Yeah, this thread took a turn...

If you want to shield bash, you can do it by "roleplaying" while using a RAW mechanic.

Take PAM and use Spear/Q-staff + Shield. PAM gives you bonus attack with back end of weapon that deals 1k4 + Stat. It's blunt damage.

What I do is I roleplay that I hit enemy with Shield instead (because it's kind of stupid to hit enemy with back end of 1 handed spear) in bonus action, which deals same damage, same type of damage etc.

So mechanically I use bonus action to do exactly same damage I would do with PAM, but from roleplay perspective I hit them in face with my shield. Not only it looks cooler (Shield + Spear and hitting with Shield) but it doesn't make any mechanical difference as you do same bonus attack anyway (1k4 + Stat).

At least that's how I shield bash at our table.

That's pretty nice, too bad it only works with a Quarterstaff

Benny89

2019-02-06, 08:36 PM

Yeah, this thread took a turn...

That's pretty nice, too bad it only works with a Quarterstaff

Nope, with new errata it works with Spears too (PAM, that is).

heavyfuel

2019-02-06, 08:50 PM

Nope, with new errata it works with Spears too (PAM, that is).

That's interesting to know!

Malifice

2019-02-06, 09:37 PM

Does that allow me to benefit from the Shield's AC?

I dont see why not, but there is a Sage advice ruling on this somewhere.

It's not a light weapon though so you cant TWF with it.

That said there is nothing stopping you taking Dual Wielder (for TWF with non light weapons) and Tavern brawler (optional, but grants proficiency) and using your bonus action to bash with the shield when you use the attack action with your main hand.

RSP

2019-02-07, 07:31 AM

I don't really understand why you chose to leave out the two rules citations that specifically indicate that the use of movement and actions is SEQUENTIAL and not simultaneous so I will cite them again.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first." PHB p189

"You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action." PHB p190

These rules BOTH indicate that movement and actions are sequential not simultaneous.

Moving first or action first - NOT simultaneous
Using some movement BEFORE or AFTER your ACTION - NOT simultaneous

Fluff about the chaos of combat is just fluff. You are imagining the rules about simultaneous actions when the rules citations quoted here clearly show actions and movement are sequential. So your entire idea falls apart ... sure, it might be nice if that is what the rules said and you are free to house rule it .. but it is not what the rules currently say.

It’s not “fluff”, it’s the narrative - that which drives the game. You’re still looking at the structure of the game vs the narrative.

Characters, in-game, know nothing of the Attack Action, they’re spending that entire 6 second span of time trying to injure their opponent(s), and most likely trying to kill them.

Look at another rule regarding movement:

“If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.”

If I take the Attack Action, and move between attacks, when is the Attack Action started and when is it over? Did I move during the Attack Action? I had to of, if I moved between attacks. So there is no instant of taking the Attack Action but rather it’s ongoing throughout the movement. Simultaneous to the movement would be another way to describe it.

So, as a Player, am I not allowed, when my turn starts, to describe my character’s actions to my DM as “I’m trying to kill the Orcs with my sword;” which the DM rightly determines equates to taking the Attack Action; then have my character move 20’, attack (that is, make an attack roll) and kill the Orc, then move 10’ and attack a new target (assuming my character has Extra Attack)?

In that situation, in what specific moment did I, the Player, take the Attack Action? When I described my character’s intent? When my DM determined the structure of the narrative deemed it would be the Attack Action I was using? When I made the first attack roll? When I made the second attack roll?

Or did it happen over my entire turn?

I’d say it was when the Player stated what his character is doing that turn. The DM adjudicating that the stated actions required the Attack Action, could be it, but that’s just a formulaic response to the Player’s statements.

If you think it’s when the character is in range of the first Orc, and we get a green light of “okay now is when the Attack Action starts, well then feel free to Shove as a BA, as we’ve now fulfilled the “if you take the Attack Action” requirement of SM.

If you think it’s only at the completion of the second attack, we’ll then how did you make the first, if the Player hadn’t taken the Attack Action yet?

Look at Dodge: “When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage.”

Does Dodge end the moment you say “I Dodge”? Or does your character continue to “focus entirely on avoiding attacks” until the start of their next turn (when, presumable, they start doing something else, or decide to continue avoiding attacks, thereby Dodging again)?

And absent all of this, the question of “When” you do something, can still logically be “on my turn,” again fulfilling the requirements of the RAW.

More to the point, SM uses “if”, not when, so the question is “Are you using the Attack Action on this Turn?” If yes, then you can Shove.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 07:48 AM

Honestly, the feat SAYS that IF you attack you THEN can use the shield to bash. The interpretation allowing this before an attack I think came from another JC tweet early on since otherwise by RAW it never worked. It came from the rules too, Crawford's original (and more correct) tweet simply reconfirmed it.

If X happens does not necessarily mean after X happens, and this not just a nuance of the English language in general but also of the established rules of the game. We can see this in other uses of the "if" wording throughout the game rules, such as the movement system. The section on moving between attacks specifically uses the "if" wording, but expects you to be able to do things triggered by the Attack action before the Attack action has completed, contrary to Crawford's Twitter version of what "if" means.

According to Crawford's (new) tweets, if statements require the entire Attack action to have fully completed (Extra attacks and all) in order to fulfill the "if" statement. If that were true, the "moving between attacks" rules wouldn't work, because in order to meet the condition for moving between attacks, you would have to have no more attacks left to make.

Do we all agree that it's a reasonable reading of the rules to attack, use your bonus action to shield bash, and then use extra attacks?

Crawford has said that you cannot do this. According to him, you must take all of your attacks in order to satisfy the if statement.

However there is a good argument to be made that Crawford's reading of the rules is not reasonable, because "Moving Between Attacks" uses the same wording as Shield Master, and that entire section of rules wouldn't make any sense if, in order to move between attacks, you had to have already used all of your attacks without moving.

Your reading of the rules is more consistent than Crawford's.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-07, 08:24 AM

It came from the rules too, Crawford's original (and more correct) tweet simply reconfirmed it.

If X happens does not necessarily mean after X happens, and this not just a nuance of the English language in general but also of the established rules of the game. We can see this in other uses of the "if" wording throughout the game rules, such as the movement system. The section on moving between attacks specifically uses the "if" wording, but expects you to be able to do things triggered by the Attack action before the Attack action has completed, contrary to Crawford's Twitter version of what "if" means.

According to Crawford's (new) tweets, if statements require the entire Attack action to have fully completed (Extra attacks and all) in order to fulfill the "if" statement. If that were true, the "moving between attacks" rules wouldn't work, because in order to meet the condition for moving between attacks, you would have to have no more attacks left to make.

Crawford has said that you cannot do this. According to him, you must take all of your attacks in order to satisfy the if statement.

However there is a good argument to be made that Crawford's reading of the rules is not reasonable, because "Moving Between Attacks" uses the same wording as Shield Master, and that entire section of rules wouldn't make any sense if, in order to move between attacks, you had to have already used all of your attacks without moving.

Your reading of the rules is more consistent than Crawford's.

Movement is not an action at all it has its own rules

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 08:26 AM

Movement is not an action at all it has its own rules

I didn't say that movement is an action. Check the post again.

Movement is not an Action, attacking is an Action, which (according to Crawford) must be fully completed, including Extra Attack, in order for "if you take the Attack action" to be considered triggered.

The rules for moving between attacks use the "if you take the Attack action" wording.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-07, 08:27 AM

That said there is nothing stopping you taking Dual Wielder (for TWF with non light weapons) and Tavern brawler (optional, but grants proficiency) and using your bonus action to bash with the shield when you use the attack action with your main hand.

There's some contention based on whether the "one-handed melee weapons" term in Dual Wielder works, based on whether an improvised weapon, used in one hand and in melee, is a "one-handed melee weapon."

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 12:50 PM

Crawford has said that you cannot do this. According to him, you must take all of your attacks in order to satisfy the if statement.

However there is a good argument to be made that Crawford's reading of the rules is not reasonable, because "Moving Between Attacks" uses the same wording as Shield Master, and that entire section of rules wouldn't make any sense if, in order to move between attacks, you had to have already used all of your attacks without moving.

Actually, the wording of the movement section is a good argument for Crawford being correct in this. The text on p. 190 of the PHB explicitly says that you can move between attacks if you have Extra Attack. Shield Master does not have that text, nor does anything else that I can think of. IOW, it's not a general rule that you can do things between attacks, it's a rule that you can do one specific thing (move) between attacks.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 12:55 PM

The text on p. 190 of the PHB explicitly says that you can move between attacks if you have Extra Attack. Shield Master does not have that text, nor does anything else that I can think of. IOW, it's not a general rule that you can do things between attacks, it's a rule that you can do one specific thing (move) between attacks.

The issue isn't about specific v. general; we're already referencing the specific case (e.g. the text on pg.190 for moving between attacks). The problem is that JC's tweets redefine what "if" means, and the specific clarification on pg190 you're referencing uses an if statement, and therefore its meaning is changed by Crawford's tweets.

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

The intended meaning of this is pretty clear; you're supposed to be able to move between attacks during your attack action, rather than after it.

However, according to JC's Twitter redefinition of how if statements work, in order for you to do anything after the comma, you have to fully complete that action, including all extra attacks. Ergo, using JC's definition (where "if you take an action" means "after the entire action completes"), this sentence would read...

"After you completely take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement by moving between those attacks."

Which of course doesn't really parse, suggesting that JC's definition of "if you take an action" doesn't fit.

Or in other words, this is sufficient evidence to claim that "if" does not mean "after."

Keravath

2019-02-07, 01:12 PM

It’s not “fluff”, it’s the narrative - that which drives the game. You’re still looking at the structure of the game vs the narrative.

Characters, in-game, know nothing of the Attack Action, they’re spending that entire 6 second span of time trying to injure their opponent(s), and most likely trying to kill them.

Look at another rule regarding movement:

“If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.”

If I take the Attack Action, and move between attacks, when is the Attack Action started and when is it over? Did I move during the Attack Action? I had to of, if I moved between attacks. So there is no instant of taking the Attack Action but rather it’s ongoing throughout the movement. Simultaneous to the movement would be another way to describe it.

So, as a Player, am I not allowed, when my turn starts, to describe my character’s actions to my DM as “I’m trying to kill the Orcs with my sword;” which the DM rightly determines equates to taking the Attack Action; then have my character move 20’, attack (that is, make an attack roll) and kill the Orc, then move 10’ and attack a new target (assuming my character has Extra Attack)?

In that situation, in what specific moment did I, the Player, take the Attack Action? When I described my character’s intent? When my DM determined the structure of the narrative deemed it would be the Attack Action I was using? When I made the first attack roll? When I made the second attack roll?

Or did it happen over my entire turn?

I’d say it was when the Player stated what his character is doing that turn. The DM adjudicating that the stated actions required the Attack Action, could be it, but that’s just a formulaic response to the Player’s statements.

If you think it’s when the character is in range of the first Orc, and we get a green light of “okay now is when the Attack Action starts, well then feel free to Shove as a BA, as we’ve now fulfilled the “if you take the Attack Action” requirement of SM.

If you think it’s only at the completion of the second attack, we’ll then how did you make the first, if the Player hadn’t taken the Attack Action yet?

Look at Dodge: “When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage.”

Does Dodge end the moment you say “I Dodge”? Or does your character continue to “focus entirely on avoiding attacks” until the start of their next turn (when, presumable, they start doing something else, or decide to continue avoiding attacks, thereby Dodging again)?

And absent all of this, the question of “When” you do something, can still logically be “on my turn,” again fulfilling the requirements of the RAW.

More to the point, SM uses “if”, not when, so the question is “Are you using the Attack Action on this Turn?” If yes, then you can Shove.

First off, I want to say I like the way you want to play it. Logically, it makes narrative sense.

The problem is it doesn’t conform to the way the rules seem to be written with actions being atomic. The rule allowing for movement between attacks within the attack action is a good example. If actions were simultaneous with movement you would not need that rule since it would be implicit that you could move at any time.

Also, under your interpretation are bonus actions also simultaneous? Why would actions be simultaneous but bonus actions not be? Both are actions. Also the cast a spell action .. are you casting the spell throughout your turn? Does the spell complete at any time during your turn or only at the end? If all actions arebsimultaneus then the character would be spending the full turn casting .. how does that affect spell targeting? What about casting a bonus action spell and an action cantrip spell? Do they happen at the same time during the “chaos“ of the 6 second round?

Basically, I don’t see the rules supporting actions being simultaneous over the entire turn .. you can sort of imagine it working for the attack action but not for the rest.

Using your dodge example, the character moves and suffers an op attack then the character says I am taking the dodge action this turn .. so suddenly all op attacks have to be retconned because actions are simultaneous and taking the dodge action must then be extended back to the start of the turn.

Anyway, your ideas are interesting but I can’t agree that your interpretation is a correct reading of the rules as written.

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 01:14 PM

The issue isn't about specific v. general; we're already referencing the specific case (e.g. the text on pg.190 for moving between attacks). The problem is that JC's tweets redefine what "if" means, and the specific clarification on pg190 you're referencing uses an if statement, and therefore its meaning is affected by Crawford's tweets.

"If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."

According to JC's redefinition of how if statements work, in order for you to do anything after the comma, you have to fully complete that action, including all extra attacks. Ergo, using JC's definition (where "if you take an action" means "after the entire action completes"), this sentence would read...

"After you completely take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement by moving between those attacks."

Which of course doesn't really parse, suggesting that JC's definition doesn't fit.

Or in other words, this is sufficient evidence to claim that "if" does not mean "after."

Specifics beat generals, always. That the movement-specific rules allow you to move between attacks when using the Attack action with Extra Attacks does not mean that you can do whatever between attacks, nor that you can move in-between casting the rays of Eldritch Blast.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 01:17 PM

Specifics beat generals, always. That the movement-specific rules allow you to move between attacks when using the Attack action with Extra Attacks does not mean that you can do whatever between attacks, nor that you can move in-between casting the rays of Eldritch Blast.

I did not say anything about there being a general rule about doing things between attacks. I didn't mention any general rules at all. Your point has nothing to do with the issue I am actually pointing out, which is that Crawford's Tweet has changed the definition of the terms in the specific rule, therefore changing the meaning of that rule. Please do not conflate my statements with a completely unrelated argument.

What I actually claimed is that "if you take the attack action" does not mean "after your attack action, including all extra attacks, has fully completed." As evidence, I submitted that the rule on page 190 would be rendered nonsensical if you replaced the words "if you take the attack action" with the new Twitter definition for those words.

If JC's new Twitter definition of "If you take an attack action" as "after your attack action, including all extra attacks, has fully completed" were correct, then the rule on 190 would be equivalent to "After you make all of your extra attacks, you may move between attacks." Which doesn't make sense, because after you make all your attacks you wouldn't have any attacks left to move between. Which suggests that his new Twitter 'clarification' is off.

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 01:39 PM

I did not say anything about there being a general rule about doing things between attacks. I didn't mention any general rules at all. Your point has nothing to do with the issue I am actually pointing out, which is that Crawford's Tweet has changed the definition of the terms in the specific rule, therefore changing the meaning of that rule.

What I actually claimed is that "if you take the attack action" does not mean "after your attack action, including all extra attacks, has fully completed," and that the movement rule on page 190 is an explicit example of this.

If JC's new Twitter definition of "If you take an attack action" as "after your attack action, including all extra attacks, has fully completed" were correct, then the rule on 190 would be equivalent to "After you make all of your extra attacks, you may move between attacks." Which doesn't make sense, because after you make all your attacks you wouldn't have any attacks left to move between. Which suggests that his new Twitter 'clarification' is off.

Why do you think that Crawford's clarification for something that is NOT the specific movement rules affect the specific movement rules?

Crawford made a clarification, explaining what is generally the case about the attack action more in details. The movement rules specifically says otherwise, and that it's possible to move between Exta attacks (and no amount of what Crawford wrote changed this specific). Ergo, the movement rules are the specific that ignores the general of Crawford's clarification.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 01:44 PM

Why do you think that Crawford's clarification for something that is NOT the specific movement rules affect the specific movement rules?

Crawford defined what the words "if you take a certain kind of action" means. Those words are in the specific movement rules. What aren't you following here?

The movement rules specifically says otherwise The movement rules do not, in fact, say that "if you take a certain kind of action" means something different. They simply say what happens "if you take a certain kind of action." In this case, what happens "if you take an action with more than one weapon attack."

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 01:45 PM

I did not say anything about there being a general rule about doing things between attacks. I didn't mention any general rules at all. Your point has nothing to do with the issue I am actually pointing out, which is that Crawford's Tweet has changed the definition of the terms in the specific rule, therefore changing the meaning of that rule. Please do not conflate my statements with a completely unrelated argument.

What I actually claimed is that "if you take the attack action" does not mean "after your attack action, including all extra attacks, has fully completed." As evidence, I submitted that the rule on page 190 would be rendered nonsensical if you replaced the words "if you take the attack action" with the new Twitter definition for those words.

If JC's new Twitter definition of "If you take an attack action" as "after your attack action, including all extra attacks, has fully completed" were correct, then the rule on 190 would be equivalent to "After you make all of your extra attacks, you may move between attacks." Which doesn't make sense, because after you make all your attacks you wouldn't have any attacks left to move between. Which suggests that his new Twitter 'clarification' is off.

He didn't change the meaning of anything. "If you take the attack action" means after you finish taking it, except in the one case that explicitly says otherwise. That is a textbook example of specific beating general. Granted that may not make perfect sense within the fiction, but Crawford is not being inconsistent in explaining the rules.

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 01:49 PM

Crawford defined what the words "if you take the attack action" mean. Those words are in the specific movement rules. What aren't you following here?

The movement rules do not, in fact, say that "if you take the attack action" means something different. They simply say what happens "if you take the attack action."

No, they do not. The movement rules talk about of taking "an action that includes more than one weapon attack".

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, among them the Attack action with the Extra attacks class feature or the Multiattack action, you can move between attacks.

Nothing is contradicted or changed by Crawford's ruling, and the movement rules are the specific that beats his general clarification.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 01:50 PM

He didn't change the meaning of anything. "If you take the attack action" means after you finish taking it, except in the one case that explicitly says otherwise.

Nowhere in the rules on page 190 does it say that "if you take the attack action" means anything different than it always does, and certainly not explicitly.

If "if" actually means "after," then the page literally reads

"After you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks." And that's it. That's the whole rule.

Nowhere on the page is there any statement resembling "if/after means something different in this specific case" or anything of the sort.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-07, 02:09 PM

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 02:13 PM

Maybe it would be beneficial if someone could find that actual text blocks (including the tweet) in question and post them (such that we're all at least looking at the same words before we draw conclusions)?

The exact text block is:

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.

If (as JC claims in his most recent tweets, contradicting years of precedent on the matter by various WotC sources including himself) the word "if" means "after" it would read as

After you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.

Keravath

2019-02-07, 02:13 PM

Why do you think that Crawford's clarification for something that is NOT the specific movement rules affect the specific movement rules?

Crawford made a clarification, explaining what is generally the case about the attack action more in details. The movement rules specifically says otherwise, and that it's possible to move between Exta attacks (and no amount of what Crawford wrote changed this specific). Ergo, the movement rules are the specific that ignores the general of Crawford's clarification.

Keep in mind that JC's suggestions are no longer considered official rules clarifications.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?579766-Sage-Advice-Compendium-Update

"Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

Whether "take the attack action" will eventually be interpreted to mean
- taking at least one attack
- taking all possible attacks that are part of the attack action (thus completing the attack action)
- deciding to take the attack action on your turn whether or not any attacks have yet been made

... will depend on what official errata IF ANY are eventually released. JC expressed a preference for interpreting it as completing the attack action. I think the rules as written support the idea of taking at least one attack and others think that "take the attack action" is a narrative intent that could apply for the entire turn.

Each of these has a different effect on effects triggered by conditions including Shield Master and perhaps even moving between attacks or the triggers of held actions or spells.

For example, if you state that you are holding an action until an opponent attacks ... does this now mean that the opponent must complete all of their attacks before your held action triggers? (I don't know any DM who would run it this way but JC's suggested interpretation might lead some to conclude that is the way he is suggesting it be run).

The bottom line on this discussion would tend to be .. play it how you like at your table.

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 02:15 PM

Nowhere in the rules on page 190 does it say that "if you take the attack action" means anything different than it always does

Right. And what it always means is that you're done taking it. Except in the one case that tells you otherwise.

sophontteks

2019-02-07, 02:41 PM

Crawford made two rulings. One for it, and a more recent one against it. D&d was not written using logical arguments, so its pointless arguing over how an "if" statement works. I think it should have been written using logical arguments, but it wasn't.

In 5e the DM makes rule clarifications. JC clarifies his intention. Since JC actually went both ways just talk to the DM about it.

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 02:55 PM

Crawford made two rulings. One for it, and a more recent one against it.

In a recent interview he said that the first ruling was made while waiting in line at Trader Joe's and not thinking about the game. He's since stopped responding to rules questions under conditions like that.

I 5e the DM makes rule clarifications. JC clarifies his intention. Since JC actually went both ways just talk to the DM about it.

I completely agree with that. And regardless of what JC says or doesn't say, the DM should do what they think is best for their game.

RSP

2019-02-07, 03:00 PM

Maybe it would be beneficial if someone could find that actual text blocks (including the tweet) in question and post them (such that we're all at least looking at the same words before we draw conclusions)?

Here’s the SA answer that’s being referred to:

“The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

That last part being the issue that now “The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

So LudicSavant would seem to have the right of it and the breaking up movement line should now read:

“After you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.”

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 03:08 PM

So LudicSavant would seem to have the right of it and the breaking up movement line should now read:

“After you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.”

No, it shouldn't read that because that would be very poor English, and JC's tweet does not do anything to affect the movement rules.

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 03:12 PM

Here’s the SA answer that’s being referred to:

“The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

That last part being the issue that now “The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

So LudicSavant would seem to have the right of it and the breaking up movement line should now read:

“After you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.”

No, it should NOT read it that way, because the movement rule is a specific, aka an exception to the general "if--->then".

Willie the Duck

2019-02-07, 03:13 PM

No, it should NOT read it that way, because the movement rule is a specific, aka an exception to the general "if--->then".

Could you include the text you are referencing?

RSP

2019-02-07, 03:14 PM

No, it shouldn't read that because that would be very poor English, and JC's tweet does not do anything to affect the movement rules.

He specifically calls out the other uses of “if” in the PHB: “This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

So the line “If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks;” fits the “sort of if-then setup” requisite he proposes.

Therefore, if=must be satisfied before the “then.” So the sentence should now read “after you take an action...” because JC specifically stated that’s the case when using “if” in that manner throughout the rules.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 03:14 PM

Here’s the SA answer that’s being referred to:

“The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a precondition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action.
This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

That last part being the issue that now “The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

So LudicSavant would seem to have the right of it and the breaking up movement line should now read:

“After you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks.”

Yeah. In addition to this, he made several more tweets about the nature of "if" statements throughout the rules, including saying that all Extra Attacks had to be completed to consider an if statement triggered and that this applies to all instances of the wording in the rules.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-07, 03:15 PM

No, it should NOT read it that way, because the movement rule is a specific, aka an exception to the general "if--->then".

It is actually not even an exception because it is not an action at all, it is simply movement.

The idea of putting a bonus action in the middle of an attack action because movement can be broken up so why not an attack action is just people grasping at straws to get some more power.

RSP

2019-02-07, 03:17 PM

No, it should NOT read it that way, because the movement rule is a specific, aka an exception to the general "if--->then".

You’re not dealing with a “General Rule” of the 5e game, you’re dealing with the designer stating how we should all read the rules.

Does it make sense? No: I think that’s the entire reason we’re having this discussion.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-07, 03:22 PM

It is actually not even an exception because it is not an action at all, it is simply movement.

The idea of putting a bonus action in the middle of an attack action because movement can be broken up so why not an attack action is just people grasping at straws to get some more power.

You really want this to be about someone else trying to game the system, rather than an actual dispute about what the rule is. Why? Couldn't it be that people really think that the rules say otherwise? Isn't 'bunch of gamers butting heads over what the rules actually are' vaguely embarrassing enough?

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 03:24 PM

You’re not dealing with a “General Rule” of the 5e game, you’re dealing with the designer stating how we should all read the rules.

Does it make sense? No: I think that’s the entire reason we’re having this discussion.

*sigh*

For the last time, nothing about what Crawford talked about has any impact on the situation presented under the movement rules.

The movement rules specifically authorizes to move in-between attacks. It supersedes any rules or rulings or interpretation saying that usually, the Attack action needs to be finished before you start something else.

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 03:33 PM

He specifically calls out the other uses of “if” in the PHB: “This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

Yes.

So the line “If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks;” fits the “sort of if-then setup” requisite he proposes.

Therefore, if=must be satisfied before the “then.” So the sentence should now read “after you take an action...” because JC specifically stated that’s the case when using “if” in that manner throughout the rules.

Obviously not. The if still must be satisfied, and the rest of the sentence tells you, in this case, when it is.

If you don't like the ruling don't use it, but playing gotcha games with phrases taken out of the context of the whole sentence doesn't help anything.

Hail Tempus

2019-02-07, 03:38 PM

RSP

2019-02-07, 04:50 PM

Obviously not. The if still must be satisfied, and the rest of the sentence tells you, in this case, when it is.

If you don't like the ruling don't use it, but playing gotcha games with phrases taken out of the context of the whole sentence doesn't help anything.

Thank you for allowing me not to use the rule if I don’t like it (I was really worried about that); but this isn’t a gotcha game, and I’ve added in all the relevant context.

LudicSavant pointed out how the movement rule works under the new official standard Sage Advace sets. Someone else asked for the relevant rule. I posted it and agreed that Ludic’s reading with the new rule is correct, which it is.

Sage Advice (which is official) tells us the “if-then” kind of statements throughout the rules of 5e are meant to be read as “only after the ‘if’ is satisfied.”

So the “if” statement of “If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack” must be satisfied in its entirety before the “then” component can be used. That is, whatever action grants you multiple attacks must be fully completed before you can break up your movement. The SA even adds in that intent does not qualify, so in this case, intending to take another attack after moving is a clear violation of having completed the action.

Again, not stating anything regarding how I, or anyone else, should play that rule, I’m just showing how the SA official ruling is stating how to read it. I’ve also agreed that it now makes no sense with the given example, but that doesn’t change how the SA impacts the rule.

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 04:59 PM

Sage Advice (which is official) tells us the “if-then” kind of statements throughout the rules of 5e are meant to be read as “only after the ‘if’ is satisfied.”

Unless there is something in the statement explicitly contradicting that.

Specific trumps general statements. ALWAYS.

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 05:16 PM

Sage Advice (which is official) tells us the “if-then” kind of statements throughout the rules of 5e are meant to be read as “only after the ‘if’ is satisfied.”

As a universal statement, this is incorrect.

So the “if” statement of “If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack” must be satisfied in its entirety before the “then” component can be used. That is, whatever action grants you multiple attacks must be fully completed before you can break up your movement.

If there were nothing in the text that stated otherwise, this would be correct, but there is. You're taking individual phrases out of context, which is not the right way to read any text.

RSP

2019-02-07, 08:28 PM

As a universal statement, this is incorrect.

Then please, tell me what this means:

“Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules de- signer, Jeremy Crawford.”

To me, it sounds like a pretty clear statement of Sage Advice being official.

And

“This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

sounds like it covers any if-then that appears in the rules of 5e. The use of “must” here isn’t indicating a grey area where it’s “sometimes”

If there were nothing in the text that stated otherwise, this would be correct, but there is. You're taking individual phrases out of context, which is not the right way to read any text.

It’s not out of context. JC clearly says, before you can have the “then” statement, you must completely fulfill any “if” statement.

What other context is there?

Unoriginal

2019-02-07, 08:46 PM

It’s not out of context. JC clearly says, before you can have the “then” statement, you must completely fulfill any “if” statement.

What other context is there?

It's out of context because you are ignoring the part of the rule that says "this specific thing can be done before the 'if' of this particular statement is completed".

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 09:21 PM

Then please, tell me what this means:

“Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules de- signer, Jeremy Crawford.”

To me, it sounds like a pretty clear statement of Sage Advice being official.

And

“This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play.”

sounds like it covers any if-then that appears in the rules of 5e. The use of “must” here isn’t indicating a grey area where it’s “sometimes”

It’s not out of context. JC clearly says, before you can have the “then” statement, you must completely fulfill any “if” statement.

What other context is there?

This has been gone over several times already. I no longer believe that you're arguing in good faith, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

LudicSavant

2019-02-07, 10:00 PM

Malifice

2019-02-07, 10:36 PM

There's some contention based on whether the "one-handed melee weapons" term in Dual Wielder works, based on whether an improvised weapon, used in one hand and in melee, is a "one-handed melee weapon."

The rules for improvised weapons allow a DM to treat an improvised weapon as a weapon listed in the melee weapon list.

A shield is almost certainly a club.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-07, 11:11 PM

The rules for improvised weapons allow a DM to treat an improvised weapon as a weapon listed in the melee weapon list.

A shield is almost certainly a club.

I will not dispute that this is a reasonable interpretation. At the level of hair-splitting this thread has become, I doubt 'almost certainly' will be sufficient at this point. :smalltongue:

Snowbluff

2019-02-07, 11:25 PM

There's some contention based on whether the "one-handed melee weapons" term in Dual Wielder works, based on whether an improvised weapon, used in one hand and in melee, is a "one-handed melee weapon."

There's no contention. There's at least 2 ways that a Shield is a one handed melee weapons, both by virtue of being a weapon (all weapons are melee or ranged weapons) when used as an improvised weapons (improvised weapons are only counted as weapons when you attack with them), and by being similar to the Spiked Shield lizardfolk use as an improvised weapon.

Blood of Gaea

2019-02-07, 11:50 PM

To reiterate the best way to do shield solves is now to take Polearm Master, and flavor normal attacks as a shield bash, then just use your extra attack and bonus action smack to do your attacks.

The main downside to this is lowering your dice rolls, but it comes with the advantage of having one of the better offensive feats anyways.

Shield Master is now basically just a half-decent defensive feat with a small bit of utility.

JoeJ

2019-02-07, 11:59 PM

To reiterate the best way to do shield solves is now to take Polearm Master, and flavor normal attacks as a shield bash, then just use your extra attack and bonus action smack to do your attacks.

The main downside to this is lowering your dice rolls, but it comes with the advantage of having one of the better offensive feats anyways.

Unfortunately, the only polearm you can use with a shield is quarterstaff, which only does 1d6 damage and doesn't have the reach property.

LudicSavant

2019-02-08, 12:07 AM

Unfortunately, the only polearm you can use with a shield is quarterstaff, which only does 1d6 damage and doesn't have the reach property.

That's incorrect. Here are the rules:

You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benetits:
When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack.
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.

JoeJ

2019-02-08, 12:50 AM

That's incorrect. Here are the rules:

Yeah, that's what I was looking at. What part of that were you thinking disagrees with what I posted?

edit: Ah, I see. Your version includes spear; my PHB only said glaive, halberd, and quarterstaff. I assume spear was added in errata? And unfortunately, that doesn't really help, since the spear is also a 1d6 weapon without reach.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-08, 07:45 AM

There's no contention.

Really? I ask because it has been contended (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23689165&postcount=11) at least once in this thread along.

There's at least 2 ways that a Shield is a one handed melee weapons, both by virtue of being a weapon (all weapons are melee or ranged weapons) when used as an improvised weapons (improvised weapons are only counted as weapons when you attack with them), and by being similar to the Spiked Shield lizardfolk use as an improvised weapon.

As I said to Malifice, this is a reasonable interpretation (one that I would support, even). It is not so supported by RAW that it would be the only reasonable position, such that it still would need to pass muster in front of the DM (well and beyond that everything has to pass muster with the DM). Both of your supports are arguable. Improvised weapons used in melee might be melee weapons, or melee weapons are those things on the chart in the PHB listed as melee weapons (a point of contention already thrown about when unarmed attacks have and have not been on that list). Likewise a shield is similar to a spiked shield, but a spiked shield has spikes--making it's weapon-like quality significantly more straightforward.

So again, I am generally in support of your interpretation. However, when you make an absolute like 'There's no contention,' I really think the situation has to be a lot more cut and dry than the one we have here.

RSP

2019-02-08, 09:25 AM

It's out of context because you are ignoring the part of the rule that says "this specific thing can be done before the 'if' of this particular statement is completed".

It’s not out of context. The rule didn’t change to now say “This is an exception to the “if” rule and the second part of this rule can specifically be done before the first.” The ruling now reads: after you complete all your attacks, you can go and move between those attacks. That doesn’t make sense.

You’re ignoring what Sage Advice says. Cool, but don’t argue that your ignoring of that SA is official.

RSP

2019-02-08, 09:30 AM

This has been gone over several times already. I no longer believe that you're arguing in good faith, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

Ah, the old “you’re wrong even though you stated a logical argument and I can’t counter it, but you must be a troll so I’m not responding other than to say ‘you’re wrong.’”

Again, interpret the SA opening in a way that it isn’t official, if you can’t do that, then just concede you were wrong. Rather than accusing me of not arguing in good faith, why don’t you try to defend your position.

Unoriginal

2019-02-08, 09:35 AM

It’s not out of context. The rule didn’t change to now say “This is an exception to the “if” rule and the second part of this rule can specifically be done before the first.” The ruling now reads: after you complete all your attacks, you can go and move between those attacks. That doesn’t make sense.

You’re ignoring what Sage Advice says. Cool, but don’t argue that your ignoring of that SA is official.

I am not ignoring Sage Advice. The rule didn't change, it was ALWAYS an exception.

There was NOTHING in 5e that implied you could do things between attacks, EXCEPT that part of the movement rules. Which is why it's an exception. The Sage Advice just says, as a general rule, you can't do stuff triggered by the action until the action is completed, but it doesn't change the specific rule that says that in this one case, you can do movement before the action is completed.

It's not "that doesn't make sense". It only stop making sense if you try to affirm that a general statement beats a specific rule, like you've been doing to do for several pages now.

5e isn't a bloody rigid-legalese-and-exact-word bs. People have to accept that exceptions take precedence over the usual, as it makes sense they do.

Hail Tempus

2019-02-08, 09:53 AM

My experience is that a lot of people came to the same conclusion your group did before there was any Sage Advice on the matter either way. Yeah, and Crawford's ruling is a net negative for gameplay and fun, and it doesn't add anything positive. Allowing a sword and board fighter to attempt to shove as a bonus action isn't overpowered, and requires investment in Strength, Athletics and using up one ASI. It's also the only feat that creates synergy for the dueling fighting style, and it fits the fighting style thematically (using your shield to push your opponent seems like a pretty smart tactic). And compared to feats like GWM and SS, it's hardly overpowered.

I mean, we can spend all day trying to dissect the wording of the feat. The more important question, IMO, is: how does gutting Shield Master make the game more fun?

Keravath

2019-02-08, 10:02 AM

Here is the quote from the latest Sage Advice on Shield Master.

"Shield Master[NEW]
The Shield Master feat lets you shove someone as a bonus action if you take the Attack action. Can you take that bonus action before the Attack action? No. The bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat has a pre-condition: that you take the Attack action on your turn. Intending to take that action isn’t sufficient; you must actually take it before you can take the bonus action. During your turn, you do get to decide when to take the bonus action after you’ve taken the Attack action. This sort of if-then setup appears in many of the game’s rules. The “if” must be satisfied before the “then” comes into play"

This text does NOT say anywhere that you have to complete the attack action before using the Shield master bonus action. It only says that the bonus action becomes available AFTER taking the attack action. Taking the attack action requires taking at least one attack ... that is it. The attack action may include other attacks and movement but you WILL have taken the attack action after taking at least one attack.

So the interpretation that you could take one attack, shield bash, then take any additional attacks (with movement possible between any of those) is consistent with both the rules in the PHB and this sage advice quote.

Logically (from a reality perspective), limiting the shield bash in such a way doesn't make much sense. I agree with the folks who think that intending to attack and then following through if possible should be sufficient to trigger shield bash. However, that isn't how the rules are currently written (for ANY additional bonus action attacks triggered by taking the attack action ... e.g. monk martial arts and flurry of blows).

In additon, I can see how allowing an initial shield bash makes the Shield Master feat more powerful than it perhaps should be since if successful it allows the attacker to make all their attacks with advantage.

From a balance perspective, I think using one attack to enable shield bash which might give advantage on any additional attacks is a somewhat reasonable balance trade off while still giving some immediate benefit to the character with the feat. Without that, the usefulness of using the shield bash to knock an opponent prone will depend entirely on party composition and initiative order ... which is too much meta gaming in my opinion.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-08, 10:20 AM

5e isn't a bloody rigid-legalese-and-exact-word bs.

I am all for this. This was supposed to be the rulings over rules edition. However, both sides of this point you are arguing over have been acting as though it were. Not one, both.

In additon, I can see how allowing an initial shield bash makes the Shield Master feat more powerful than it perhaps should be since if successful it allows the attacker to make all their attacks with advantage.

From a balance perspective, I think using one attack to enable shield bash which might give advantage on any additional attacks is a somewhat reasonable balance trade off while still giving some immediate benefit to the character with the feat. Without that, the usefulness of using the shield bash to knock an opponent prone will depend entirely on party composition and initiative order ... which is too much meta gaming in my opinion.

I think, once we get out of what-does-it-say and into a what-should-it-say imagine-spot, I prefer the idea of the initial bash. There's not specific good reason (of the maintaining verisimilitude vein) why you need to swing once before bashing, rather than bashing at any specific point in your swinging. From a smooth gameplay perspective, and assuming the opponent gets up every turn, having it be swing-once-without-advantage... make check... if-success-swing-rest-of-attacks-with-advantage is just too fiddly. I say, reword the feat (in this imagine-spot) to allow the initial shove, and then rebalance things there (however needed, although even then it still just makes sword and board competitive with GWM, PAM, and SS (and only up until you run into a bevy of un-prone-able enemies).

Misterwhisper

2019-02-08, 10:51 AM

I am all for this. This was supposed to be the rulings over rules edition. However, both sides of this point you are arguing over have been acting as though it were. Not one, both.

I think, once we get out of what-does-it-say and into a what-should-it-say imagine-spot, I prefer the idea of the initial bash. There's not specific good reason (of the maintaining verisimilitude vein) why you need to swing once before bashing, rather than bashing at any specific point in your swinging. From a smooth gameplay perspective, and assuming the opponent gets up every turn, having it be swing-once-without-advantage... make check... if-success-swing-rest-of-attacks-with-advantage is just too fiddly. I say, reword the feat (in this imagine-spot) to allow the initial shove, and then rebalance things there (however needed, although even then it still just makes sword and board competitive with GWM, PAM, and SS (and only up until you run into a bevy of un-prone-able enemies).

Personally I think the feat should make you more defensive. Such as:

o If during your attack action you successfully knock an enemy prone you may make one bonus attack with a one handed weapon.

o You may use a bonus action to increase the level of cover you have by one step up to a maximum of 3/4 cover. (none becomes 1/2, 1/2 becomes 3/4)

o If you are benefiting from cover you have resistance to damage that is cause by a spell with targets an area that you are included in.

Aimeryan

2019-02-08, 11:48 AM

One of my players took Shield Master when we started playing STK, before the Crawford tweet in question. Most of the party (and me) are lawyers IRL, so we tend to overanalyze the wording of the rules. Looking at the plain text of the Shield Master feat, there's no requirement that the Attack action be taken first, only that it be taken on your turn. So, we all concluded that you can shove then attack. The wording isn't ambiguous, and the opinion of the drafter isn't relevant when there's no ambiguity. If the designers had wanted to limit the shield shove after an Attack, they should have written the feat that way.

As a DM, when the player in question uses her shield to shove, that means that the only thing she can do with her Action is Attack.

I agree with this; no order is applied to the text, only limitations on what can be performed.

I also agree with the others that put forth that actions within a turn are not instantaneous and do not prohibit other actions from taking place. A good example is the Dodge action, which lasts until your next turn and does not prohibit other actions (action surge'd actions, bonus actions, reactions, etc.).

Furthermore, I agree with those pointing out that the meaning of 'If you take' must preclude that of completing an action since it would render the movement between attacks clause nonsensical. The only requirement I see here is that you no longer have that action available to use on something else, because you have taken it. It doesn't surprise me they have explicitly denied JC's tweets to be official.

Hail Tempus

2019-02-08, 12:50 PM

I agree with this; no order is applied to the text, only limitations on what can be performed.

I also agree with the others that put forth that actions within a turn are not instantaneous and do not prohibit other actions from taking place. A good example is the Dodge action, which lasts until your next turn and does not prohibit other actions (action surge'd actions, bonus actions, reactions, etc.).

Furthermore, I agree with those pointing out that the meaning of 'If you take' must preclude that of completing an action since it would render the movement between attacks clause nonsensical. The only requirement I see here is that you no longer have that action available to use on something else, because you have taken it. It doesn't surprise me they have explicitly denied JC's tweets to be official. Honestly, the line in Shield Master should simply say:

"You can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

I don't really see why the shove needs to be tied to an attack. Dodge as your action, shove as your bonus action. Shove as your bonus action, cast a spell as your action. Whatever.

stoutstien

2019-02-08, 03:15 PM

Honestly, the line in Shield Master should simply say:

"You can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

I don't really see why the shove needs to be tied to an attack. Dodge as your action, shove as your bonus action. Shove as your bonus action, cast a spell as your action. Whatever.

i agree. other than maybe booming blade i cant see one combo that is above the curve. booming blade then shove away could be nasty.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-08, 03:18 PM

i agree. other than maybe booming blade i cant see one combo that is above the curve. booming blade then shove away could be nasty.

Forcing movement does not trigger BB.

Snowbluff

2019-02-08, 03:47 PM

Really? I ask because it has been contended (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23689165&postcount=11) at least once in this thread along.
There's a difference between an honest contention and wasted breath.

As I said to Malifice, this is a reasonable interpretation (one that I would support, even). It is not so supported by RAW that it would be the only reasonable position, such that it still would need to pass muster in front of the DM (well and beyond that everything has to pass muster with the DM). Both of your supports are arguable. Improvised weapons used in melee might be melee weapons, or melee weapons are those things on the chart in the PHB listed as melee weapons (a point of contention already thrown about when unarmed attacks have and have not been on that list). Likewise a shield is similar to a spiked shield, but a spiked shield has spikes--making it's weapon-like quality significantly more straightforward.

So again, I am generally in support of your interpretation. However, when you make an absolute like 'There's no contention,' I really think the situation has to be a lot more cut and dry than the one we have here.

You really have to make up definitions and ignore what the text is saying to rule otherwise. That's what makes it RAW.

In fact, the driving force for the RAI that JC came up to say when an improvised weapon is a weapon being conditional, is not that it's not a RAW ruling, but that it breaks how other effects, like the Dueling Style being dysfunctional for Sword and Board fighters. That is to say, dual wielding a shield to make attacks is more legal than benefiting from Dueling Style while holding a shield.

Hail Tempus

2019-02-08, 03:50 PM

What this thread shows is that the first clause in the Shield Master feat might be the worst written passage in the PHB. We've spent like 4 pages arguing what the word "if" means.

Snowbluff

2019-02-08, 03:58 PM

What this thread shows is that the first clause in the Shield Master feat might be the worst written passage in the PHB. We've spent like 4 pages arguing what the word "if" means.

Yeah, between being just generally messy in that term and not just letting you bash people with prof and then doing damage it's a travesty.

stoutstien

2019-02-08, 06:23 PM

Forcing movement does not trigger BB.

I should have been more specific. you cast booming blade then shove them away so you can freely walk away without worrying about provoking an attack of opportunity. It's as powerful as a rogue using booming blade/ cunning action.

JackPhoenix

2019-02-08, 09:51 PM

Personally I think the feat should make you more defensive.

The "shove after attack" RAI *is* defensive. Everyone focuses on using it offensively to get advantage, but you can go through your attack routine, push the enemy away and freely move without provoking OA. Even better, if the enemy has the same movement speed as you, the extra 5' distance means they can't reach you using just their movement and need to Dash to catch up.

I agree with this; no order is applied to the text, only limitations on what can be performed.

I also agree with the others that put forth that actions within a turn are not instantaneous and do not prohibit other actions from taking place. A good example is the Dodge action, which lasts until your next turn and does not prohibit other actions (action surge'd actions, bonus actions, reactions, etc.).

Does it, though? You can read Dodge as an action that give you short-term buff, without being some sort of "non-instantaneous action". Like Shield... you aren't casting it continuously for its entire duration. You can cast Shield on your turn, and still move and use your action and bonus action normally (but you can't cast BA spell).

Aimeryan

2019-02-09, 06:17 PM

Does it, though? You can read Dodge as an action that give you short-term buff, without being some sort of "non-instantaneous action".

The problem there is that you could then say the exact same thing for the Attack action - it gives you a short term buff that allows you to make X number of attacks (where X is modified by Extra Attacks).

JackPhoenix

2019-02-09, 07:57 PM

The problem there is that you could then say the exact same thing for the Attack action - it gives you a short term buff that allows you to make X number of attacks (where X is modified by Extra Attacks).

Except Attack action isn't "you gain x benefit for y time" or "you can make a weapon attacks until x happens", it's "you make one weapon attack".

Aimeryan

2019-02-09, 08:58 PM

Except Attack action isn't "you gain x benefit for y time" or "you can make a weapon attacks until x happens", it's "you make one weapon attack".

I mean, neither is Dodge, so... what is your point? Whatever you end up going with for Dodge you go with for Attack, and vice versa.

The point many of us make is that actions occurring while other actions occur has precedence and is not forbade anywhere.

JackPhoenix

2019-02-09, 09:45 PM

I mean, neither is Dodge, so... what is your point? Whatever you end up going with for Dodge you go with for Attack, and vice versa.

The point many of us make is that actions occurring while other actions occur has precedence and is not forbade anywhere.

Um... have you read what Dodge does? "Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage" *is* "You gain x benefit for y time". "You make one melee or ranged attack" isn't.

Aimeryan

2019-02-10, 04:01 PM

Um... have you read what Dodge does? "Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage" *is* "You gain x benefit for y time". "You make one melee or ranged attack" isn't.

It is still an action you are taking, not a spell effect or something akin (bolded for emphasis):

When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks.

ad_hoc

2019-02-10, 05:09 PM

djreynolds

2019-02-10, 05:42 PM

Don't know if this helps the conversation

@JeremyECrawford With the shield master feat and extra attacks as a fighter, can i attack, shield master shove, attack?

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford

Yes.

@mikemearls Can I use the bonus action provided by Shield Master before I execute any attacks from the Attack action? And beween attacks?

Mike Mearls @mikemearls

yes

Now obviously this is before the "SHIELDGATE" came along, but I mean you could kill someone and have to move 30 ft to attack again.

And like others have said this is a serious commitment, where a player needs max strength, the feat, and either had to dip rogue/bard or be human/half-elf/half-orc, and the only thing it does is let you hit with a 1d8 weapon and perhaps a splash of sneak attack

It really was the one build where a champion could "own it" and the reality is it doesn't work versus huge creatures.... where as thorn whip could pull a dragon and EB with repelling could push one.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-10, 06:40 PM

But it doesn't say 'if you will take the attack action' it says 'if you take the attack action then' which means you need to have taken it. There is no declare actions step.

Maybe there's been an update, but mine has, "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," so there is no 'then,' and the apparent qualifier is that there must be an attack action on the turn, not a direct 'if-then' that would imply order. I can totally see how a group of lawyers* would not consider the wording to cut and dry support any given interpretation.
*as a personal position, I think we shouldn't identify ourselves as having relevant careers or expertise unless we are willing to back that up (which I do not suggest, as doxing is a real thing).

RSP

2019-02-10, 11:26 PM

First off, I want to say I like the way you want to play it. Logically, it makes narrative sense.

The problem is it doesn’t conform to the way the rules seem to be written with actions being atomic. The rule allowing for movement between attacks within the attack action is a good example. If actions were simultaneous with movement you would not need that rule since it would be implicit that you could move at any time.

Thanks. The game is a narrative, storytelling game at its heart and the rules are there to help us structure that story and resolve character actions. When looking at the rules while keeping that in mind, it can help interpret rules back into the narrative.

Actions are simultaneous with movement, at times, and other times are not. Running up to an enemy to attack them would be moving, then attacking.

However, look at Trickery Domain’s Invoke Duplicity:

“As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the illusion up to 30 feet to a space you can see, but it must remain within 120 feet of you.”

Can you and the illusion move at the same time? Or, as you suggest, do they each have to be singular moments in time (that is, you move, then it moves (using your BA), then you move, then you cast (but cast through its location)? Would it not clearly show itself to be an illusion if it just ceased movement when outside of your turn? How much of your 6 second round is it’s movement during your BA? How much is your movement? How much is your casting?

Many spells have similar set ups, particularly the illusion ones.

Also, under your interpretation are bonus actions also simultaneous? Why would actions be simultaneous but bonus actions not be? Both are actions. Also the cast a spell action .. are you casting the spell throughout your turn? Does the spell complete at any time during your turn or only at the end? If all actions arebsimultaneus then the character would be spending the full turn casting .. how does that affect spell targeting? What about casting a bonus action spell and an action cantrip spell? Do they happen at the same time during the “chaos“ of the 6 second round?

Basically, I don’t see the rules supporting actions being simultaneous over the entire turn .. you can sort of imagine it working for the attack action but not for the rest.

I hopefully answered this with the above.

Edit: also keep in mind, BA are Actions, so if one is simultaneous, the other is as well. This is easily seen with something like the Monk’s Patient Defense: if the character is focusing on defense, it doesn’t matter if it’s a BA or an Action, it still runs simultaneous with other stuff the character is doing that Turn.

Using your dodge example, the character moves and suffers an op attack then the character says I am taking the dodge action this turn .. so suddenly all op attacks have to be retconned because actions are simultaneous and taking the dodge action must then be extended back to the start of the turn.

It doesn’t retcon a turn; the Dodge Action would start when the character begins to “focus entirely on avoiding attacks.” Again, they can do that and move, simultaneously: one doesn’t lose the Dodge Action, or stop focusing on defense, just because they move.

Apologies for the delay in getting this response done.

langal

2019-02-11, 12:34 AM

It is still an action you are taking, not a spell effect or something akin (bolded for emphasis):

What about -

If you take a plane flight, you can choose to upgrade to first class.

I generally agree that the action "should" come first, but it is ambiguous.

If it said "if you took or had taken the attack action" then it would be different.

The fact that Crawford ruled it the other way a few years ago means the ambiguity obviously extends to the rule makers themselves.

Malifice

2019-02-11, 12:35 AM

So its official now via Sage Advice.

You can use the Bonus action shove from the SM feat during the Attack action (but only after making at least one attack as part of that action).

Its weird that you cant [start the Attack action], [make Bonus action shove] then [take your attacks], and instead you have to [start the Attack action], [make at least one attack as part of that action], then [make Bonus action shove] and then [finish the Attack action].

It's like the rules form the view the Attack action doesnt 'start' until you make at least one attack with it.

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 12:39 AM

It's like the rules form the view the Attack action doesnt 'start' until you make at least one attack with it.

Of course. What else would count as the attack action if not making an attack?

Malifice

2019-02-11, 12:49 AM

Of course. What else would count as the attack action if not making an attack?

I take the Attack action. Before resolving my first attack (as part of that action), I want to shield bash as a bonus action.

Why must you wait until the first actual attack of the Attack action is resolved in order to be considered to be 'taking the Attack action'?

Why cant you shield bash after declaring the Attack action, and while performing the Attack action, but before resolving one of your attacks allowable during that action?

I get that those are the rules. I just think it's strange parsing.

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 12:58 AM

I take the Attack action. Before resolving my first attack (as part of that action), I want to shield bash as a bonus action.

Why must you wait until the first actual attack of the Attack action is resolved in order to be considered to be 'taking the Attack action'?

Why cant you shield bash after declaring the Attack action, and while performing the Attack action, but before resolving one of your attacks allowable during that action?

I get that those are the rules. I just think it's strange parsing.

Declaring the action? There's no declaring anything. You take the action when you take it. If you haven't attacked anything yet, then you haven't taken the attack action.

JackPhoenix

2019-02-11, 12:59 AM

It is still an action you are taking, not a spell effect or something akin (bolded for emphasis):

Casting a spell (or using a class ability that give you some short-term benefit) is also an action you're taking.

The quote is just fluff, and it's not actually true. You can still move and take reactions and other actions (bonus or normal granted through Action Surge or Haste). If you're, say, Hasted monk 9/EK fighter 11, you can Dodge as BA and still use your free object interaction to draw a weapon, make up to 7 attacks, move about 90' and cast Shield when you provoke OA, so you clearly aren't "focusing entirely on avoiding attacks".

Malifice

2019-02-11, 01:05 AM

Declaring the action? There's no declaring anything. You take the action when you take it. If you haven't attacked anything yet, then you haven't taken the attack action.

Why is there a pause in the middle of the action [between attack 1 and 2 for a PC with extra attack] but no pause before or after those attacks?

Do actions or abilities taken 'during your movement' such as the Evasive Footwork Battlemaster manouver also require you to move some arbitrarily small distance before using the manouver?

Like a centimetre?

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 02:07 AM

Why is there a pause in the middle of the action [between attack 1 and 2 for a PC with extra attack] but no pause before or after those attacks?

Because you can't logically fulfill the condition "if you take the attack action" without taking the attack action. JC was concerned about a character taking the bonus action and then having something happen to prevent them from taking the qualifying action, which would mean that the character could not have taken the bonus action they just took.

Do actions or abilities taken 'during your movement' such as the Evasive Footwork Battlemaster manouver also require you to move some arbitrarily small distance before using the manouver?

Like a centimetre?

In what circumstances would there be a meaningful difference between yes and no?

Malifice

2019-02-11, 02:10 AM

Because you can't logically fulfill the condition "if you take the attack action" without taking the attack action. JC was concerned about a character taking the bonus action and then having something happen to prevent them from taking the qualifying action, which would mean that the character could not have taken the bonus action they just took.

But they've already taken the action, they just havent resolved any of the attacks yet (or via this new ruling, they have taken the action and only resolved one of the attacks so far).

In what circumstances would there be a meaningful difference between yes and no?

In order to avoid attacks of opportunity, or triggering Booming blade damage and so forth.

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 02:29 AM

But they've already taken the action, they just havent resolved any of the attacks yet (or via this new ruling, they have taken the action and only resolved one of the attacks so far).

How have they taken the action? You take the attack action when you attack something.

In order to avoid attacks of opportunity, or triggering Booming blade damage and so forth.

An OA always occurs just before the target leaves your reach, so after they've been moving for a bit. Unless you know something that specifically says that it happens before the AC boost from Evasive Footwork, it would come after.

The damage from triggering BB is not affected by AC, so the exact timing of EF doesn't matter.

opaopajr

2019-02-11, 08:23 AM

I never had a problem with this conditional phrasing. And since attacking can be "broken up," as can movement, I see no problem. :smallsmile: As long as you finish the base condition, you are fine.

i.e. Move a little, attack, move some more to another enemy, BA SM:shove, Action Surge Attack, move away out of reach, drop prone, crawl with remaining movement to a table with snacks, drop weapon, interact with environ: snag a snack cake from said table. :smalltongue: Next round I'm stuffin' this whole snack cake in my mouth!

RSP

2019-02-11, 09:14 AM

How have they taken the action? You take the attack action when you attack something.

In your games, do characters wait around for five minutes while Players decide what to do? Or do the characters, in-game, fight for ~6 seconds when their Players are committed to the Attack Action? Do characters make just one swipe at another in a 6-second period and then stand around, frozen, waiting for other characters to do stuff? Or do all actions by all characters take place during the same ~6 seconds?

Or is your in-game character experiencing “a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting”?

Willie the Duck

2019-02-11, 09:19 AM

Declaring the action? There's no declaring anything. You take the action when you take it. If you haven't attacked anything yet, then you haven't taken the attack action.

How have they taken the action? You take the attack action when you attack something.

Well, as langal stated, 'If you take a plane flight, you can choose to upgrade to first class,' is a perfect example of why you do not need to have the enabling clause occur first. Yes, JC could have been worried about something occurring during the shield bash that would disqualify the attacks that would trigger it, but that itself isn't actually a situation that would disqualify a rule. There is no rule (regarding rules) that they can't potentially create a paradoxical situation. If that were to come up, the DM might have to make a ruling (such as, "well, you can't use your action for anything else. Which is fine. The bonus action rules allow the possibility of getting multiple actions per turn, not a guarantee").

Anyways, while there are no examples that I know of in the game, but there absolutely could be 'declaring an action'-type effects. Something along the lines of (in out theoretical rework of the feat), "if the PC commits their action to an attack action, they can use their bonus action to..." For that matter, a feat absolutely could be rolled up into the attack action, perhaps like, "During an attack action that the PC makes, they may use their bonus action to..."

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 12:36 PM

In your games, do characters wait around for five minutes while Players decide what to do?

Certainly not. When it's your turn you either say what you're doing or ask a question to clarify the situation. If you're not ready to do that, your character dodges and the next player is up. (That rule applies to NPCs too.)

Hail Tempus

2019-02-11, 01:04 PM

Because you can't logically fulfill the condition "if you take the attack action" without taking the attack action. JC was concerned about a character taking the bonus action and then having something happen to prevent them from taking the qualifying action, which would mean that the character could not have taken the bonus action they just took.
What’s the problem there, though? If the PC can’t use his Attack for some reason, he’s out of luck and doesn’t get to use his action for anything that round. It’s no different than casting a spell and then realizing you don’t have a legit target. You lose the action and the spell slot and we move on to the next PC or NPC in the initiative order.

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 01:25 PM

What’s the problem there, though? If the PC can’t use his Attack for some reason, he’s out of luck and doesn’t get to use his action for anything that round. It’s no different than casting a spell and then realizing you don’t have a legit target. You lose the action and the spell slot and we move on to the next PC or NPC in the initiative order.

You only get a bonus action if something says that you do. The feat could have been written to give you a bonus action shove every round, but for whatever reason the devs decided not to do that. You only get the bonus action shove if you attack. No attack, no bonus action shove.

Xetheral

2019-02-11, 01:52 PM

Of course, if you shove first and then can't take the Attack Action, no paradox is created: instead, you simply used your Attack Action, rather than a bonus action, for the original shove.

ThePolarBear

2019-02-11, 01:53 PM

What about -

If you take a plane flight, you can choose to upgrade to first class.

I generally agree that the action "should" come first, but it is ambiguous.

The sequencing is unambiguous (the second part is consequence of the first), what's ambiguous is what "take a plane" is, so expectations might differ.
Conditional statements, expecially implicative with declarative sentences, are quite fixed in presentation:

If/when x (present tense), (present tense)
to represent a always valid, general, timeless implication between the clause and consequence that has a clear sequence.

Without clause, there's no consequence.

If you register, you can claim your entry package (it's not enough to quit halfway)
If you cash in your chips, you can take that prize (it's not going to be given until you have handed all the chips)

Obviously and naturally, to speed things up, sometimes people might take a more relaxed approach to the situation; The person in front of you while you are registering is prepararing your entry package, and might even let you take it and put into your bag in between signatures, or while counting the chips a person might be reaching and handling the plush bear to your daughter.

And even then, sometimes people will react differently to an unexpected situation; the "register" person will probably try to stop you if you try to go away with the package while not having completed the registration, but the people handling the plushie might still let you go and look the other way if there are a couple of chips missing.

That's what causes people to be confused. It's so natural to expect a natural proceeding that a "mechanical" one can be unexpected, as is a different take on the meaning of the clause.

Thinking about it a little more, i am quite sure that "everyone" that used the "bash then attack", at the very least in the beginning, either started with "i take the attack action, that lets me..." until the group got used to this use that it became commonplace (cementing the idea of clear sequentiality of the phrase, but a different take on... take:D) or tried to do so and got stopped for explanations (which goes to the first case after explanation).
Yeah, there are the cases of discussions, DM that do not question at all... but i hope it's clear what i mean :D

RSP

2019-02-11, 02:54 PM

Certainly not. When it's your turn you either say what you're doing or ask a question to clarify the situation. If you're not ready to do that, your character dodges and the next player is up. (That rule applies to NPCs too.)

So if I tell my DM that my character is “going to kill the Orc,” and my DM decides that is best represented by using the Attack Action, and my character is currently within melee range of an Orc, does my character spend the entirety of the ~6 seconds trying to kill the Orc, or do they simply swing their sword once and then stand still for ~5 seconds?

Likewise, if I state my character is going to focus on defense and avoiding any incoming attacks, does he only do that at one specific point in time, or is he doing that throughout the ~6 seconds of the round?

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 03:44 PM

So if I tell my DM that my character is “going to kill the Orc,” and my DM decides that is best represented by using the Attack Action, and my character is currently within melee range of an Orc, does my character spend the entirety of the ~6 seconds trying to kill the Orc, or do they simply swing their sword once and then stand still for ~5 seconds?

I'm not understanding what you're getting at. If you attack the orc you can, of course, also move, interact with an object, and take any bonus actions that you have. Narrate that however you like, but trying to map the fiction too closely onto rules that abstract actions into rounds and turns is not likely to be good for much besides comedy.

Likewise, if I state my character is going to focus on defense and avoiding any incoming attacks, does he only do that at one specific point in time, or is he doing that throughout the ~6 seconds of the round?

If you mean you're dodging, that lasts until the start of your next turn.

RSP

2019-02-11, 04:07 PM

I'm not understanding what you're getting at. If you attack the orc you can, of course, also move, interact with an object, and take any bonus actions that you have. Narrate that however you like, but trying to map the fiction too closely onto rules that abstract actions into rounds and turns is not likely to be good for much besides comedy.

The game is a storytelling game. They have rules for turn-based Action to facilitate the story, not the other way around.

Remember the basics of the game:

“1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.”

Players can describe what their characters do, and DMs call for what’s needed to resolve that.

So if asked what their character does for roughly ~6 seconds of in-game combat, the Player can say “I just keep beating them with my maul,” and that translates into the Attack Action.

This is the basics of the game: Players can come up with an endless amount of options and the DM figures out how to resolve it, whether with some of the standard Actions, or something else.

The rules are there to facilitate the narrative not to straightjacket Players into 5 options.

If you mean you're dodging, that lasts until the start of your next turn.

Okay so Actions can therefore straddle the entirety of a round, no?

JoeJ

2019-02-11, 04:34 PM

Okay so Actions can therefore straddle the entirety of a round, no?

Actions can take the entire round. Or they can take part of the round. Or they can take no actual time at all, but still stop you from taking other actions (such as taking the Ready action if the trigger does not occur). Some actions can be taken while moving. Other can't, although you can still move before or after them. Some actions can interrupt movement, or be interrupted by it. Actions are a varied lot.

RSP

2019-02-11, 11:48 PM

Actions can take the entire round. Or they can take part of the round. Or they can take no actual time at all, but still stop you from taking other actions (such as taking the Ready action if the trigger does not occur). Some actions can be taken while moving. Other can't, although you can still move before or after them. Some actions can interrupt movement, or be interrupted by it. Actions are a varied lot.

So then Actions are not, by their nature, associated with specific particular moments in time, but rather with the turn they are taken on. So saying “if” you take the Attack Action, the “if” is referring to “if, on your turn, you take the Attack Action...” which is a completely valid reading of the rules (and was what we were told by the devs was the RAI for “if” Rules).

In that way of reading it, you certainly can use the BA Shove from SM, as you’ve committed to taking the Attack Action on your Turn, fulfilling the “if.”

JoeJ

2019-02-12, 12:47 AM

In that way of reading it, you certainly can use the BA Shove from SM, as you’ve committed to taking the Attack Action on your Turn, fulfilling the “if.”

Except that there's no way to be committed to taking the attack action until you attack something.

ThePolarBear

2019-02-12, 04:48 AM

So then Actions are not, by their nature, associated with specific particular moments in time, but rather with the turn they are taken on. So saying “if” you take the Attack Action, the “if” is referring to “if, on your turn, you take the Attack Action...” which is a completely valid reading of the rules (and was what we were told by the devs was the RAI for “if” Rules).

In that way of reading it, you certainly can use the BA Shove from SM, as you’ve committed to taking the Attack Action on your Turn, fulfilling the “if.”

Not having a duration or a specific point in time doesn't mean that there isn't a sequentiality in the mechanics of resolution.

Edit: and it should be apparent that "committing to" is not the same as "take".

RSP

2019-02-12, 05:51 AM

Except that there's no way to be committed to taking the attack action until you attack something.

Um, why not? As a Player, I describe my character’s actions. Why is that not being committed to those actions?

If the DM determines that for some reason the character can not fulfill completing those actions, then the DM determines what happens (not the Player).

So, why wouldn’t the character be committed to their actions at the point when the Player describes those actions?

Not having a duration or a specific point in time doesn't mean that there isn't a sequentiality in the mechanics of resolution.

Edit: and it should be apparent that "committing to" is not the same as "take".

There is still sequentiality in mechanics resolution, obviously. But that doesn’t change the point that the Action can be taken prior to the resolution of said mechanics.

If I say “I try to bribe the guard” I’ve taken that action prior to the Ability Check roll, if called for. If the DM determines there’s no need for a check, and therefore no roll, did the character not try to bribe the guard? If the DM does call for the check, and it fails, did the character not try to bribe the guard?

In both cases, as well as in the case of the roll succeeding, the character tried to bribe the guard before their was any mechanical resolution.

The Player describes the actions of their character. At that point the character’s actions are determined.

The DM determines how to resolve those actions. It’s probably the point when the DM determines if those described actions fit into one of the standard Actions, that the Action is “taken”, though that Action can fill the entirety of the round and may not be immediately resolved mechanically.

So again, the “When is the Action taken” question is answered with “on their Turn”, which is an acceptable way to answer that question.

ThePolarBear

2019-02-12, 06:40 AM

Um, why not? As a Player, I describe my character’s actions.

No, you describe what you wish your character to attempt. There's a difference.

Why is that not being committed to those actions?

" it should be apparent that "committing to" is not the same as "take". "
The problem is not that your character isn't committed to taking. The problem is that "being committed to" is not "take". Until description of what happens is given, the characters still haven't done anything.

There is still sequentiality in mechanics resolution, obviously. But that doesn’t change the point that the Action can be taken prior to the resolution of said mechanics.

Not agreeing with what "take" is has always been the point of contention. It's not something new, nor you are proposing a new take on it.

If I say “I try to bribe the guard” I’ve taken that action prior to the Ability Check roll, if called for. If the DM determines there’s no need for a check, and therefore no roll, did the character not try to bribe the guard? If the DM does call for the check, and it fails, did the character not try to bribe the guard?

No. You did not take anything but the wish to do so. You expressed a wish on what you want your character to attempt. Until the DM determines the need for a check, it the check is possible at all, nothing still has happened. In fact, nothing still has happened for your character until the DM describes what happens.

In both cases, as well as in the case of the roll succeeding, the character tried to bribe the guard before their was any mechanical resolution.

And i have serious questions on how bribing a guard requires things to be sorted with combat rules to begin with.

So again, the “When is the Action taken” question is answered with “on their Turn”, which is an acceptable way to answer that question.

Yes, and as is "before shield bashing", which still happens "on their Turn". And it's still a pointless conversation as long as the terms are ones we agree upon, because it will never go anywhere.

LudicSavant

2019-02-12, 06:52 AM

For those concerned about eeevil minmaxxers scheming to undermine your game and only arguing because they care for nothing but more power for themselves, a reality check:

The people who genuinely care only about making the most powerful character possible don't care about Shield Master. They care about things like coffee sorlockadins, glyph demiplanes, and Sharpshooter.

If the controversy was truly driven by a desire for cheese, then the Sage Advice that's arguably changing the rules to prevent the Coffeelock would be way more controversial than anything about Shield Master.

The reason the Sage Advice about Shield Master is controversial is because the game was apparently designed, playtested, and balanced with if/when statements working a certain way. This has been confirmed by numerous devs (including JC) in response to numerous if/when rules.

After the game was played and enjoyed for years this way, this rule then got changed by one dev, who initially said it was a clarification but later (when pressed about it in the ensuing controversy) said that he changed the rule, and that he did so essentially because he didn't like the semantic logic of it, rather than for balance reasons.

Indeed, even the updated sage advice for the Eldritch Knight's War Magic says that although the official ruling is now that it must happen in order, the DM can decide to allow it to happen before your action without breaking the balance of the game.

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 should come as no surprise, because this is the way it was confirmed to work by the devs and played for years before it got changed, and it wasn't broken back then. If you go back in time and look at all the things that people were complaining about being unbalanced back then, Shield Master and Eldritch Knights don't seem to have been on the guest list.

And indeed, Polearm Masters and Crossbow Experts are still shoving people then following up with the rest of their attack routines, same as they always did (they just do it with Shove (first attack from Attack action)-> Attacks (Extra Attack+bonus action attack). Only the Shield Masters are being left out of that now.

If the concern is simply the semantics or logic of the wording, it seems to me like the more practical solution would have been to issue an errata with a better wording rather than making a hasty change to a wide variety of important mechanics.

JoeJ

2019-02-12, 12:44 PM

Um, why not? As a Player, I describe my character’s actions. Why is that not being committed to those actions?

If the DM determines that for some reason the character can not fulfill completing those actions, then the DM determines what happens (not the Player).

So, why wouldn’t the character be committed to their actions at the point when the Player describes those actions?

Because that's not the way the game is played. There is no declaration of actions, only taking actions. If a player says, "I make two attacks (because they have extra attack) with my sword against the tall orc," and the tall orc dies at the first attack, they're allowed to change their mind and use their second attack against a different target, possibly even moving to reach that target and/or dropping their sword and using a different weapon. They are not committed to using both attacks against the same target if the situation changes.

The feat could have been written to say something like, "Once per round, on your turn, you can use a bonus action to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield. On a round in which you use this bonus action, your only action can be attack." But for whatever reason, that's not what the devs chose to do.

RSP

2019-02-13, 10:51 AM

Because that's not the way the game is played. There is no declaration of actions, only taking actions. If a player says, "I make two attacks (because they have extra attack) with my sword against the tall orc," and the tall orc dies at the first attack, they're allowed to change their mind and use their second attack against a different target, possibly even moving to reach that target and/or dropping their sword and using a different weapon. They are not committed to using both attacks against the same target if the situation changes.

That’s exactly how the game is played. Per the rules:

“1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.”

The Player describes what they want their character to do. How is “I Attack that Orc” not committing to attack the Orc? The Attack hasn’t been resolved, but you have in no way explained how that isn’t committing to those actions.

Now if they succeed in attack and killing the one Orc, they may be able to move and attack another, depending on the situation. I’d imagine most of the time, it’s doable, assuming there’s another enemy within range or the character has adequate movement to get within range.

But remember, the DM decides how to resolve the descriptions the Player gives, including whether to roll for something: “the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.”

It sounds like you believe the Player calls for these rolls. Often times, in games I’ve played in, there is an assumption and the Player will just roll. It’s important to note, particularly when discussing how the rules work, that it’s the DM who determines these things.

RSP

2019-02-13, 11:57 AM

No, you describe what you wish your character to attempt. There's a difference.

Sure but the difference is up to the DM, no? If a Player states they want their character to do something, it’s up to the DM to determine what happens.

So, as far as the Player is concerned, they’re committing to the actions of their characters, no? If a Player describes their intent, and the DM incorporates that intent into the story, they’re committed, regardless as to what actually happens.

For example, if a Player states their character will draw their sword, run up to an Orc and attack it, they’ve committed to that for their character. If there’s a pit trap that they hit en route that the character falls in and lands Prone, that doesn’t change what the character was trying to do.

It would now be up to the DM to decide if the Player gets to choose different actions for their character, or not. I’d rule, and would be fine with a DMing ruling if I’m the Player, that running and the surprise of falling into the pit is the character’s ~6 seconds that Round.

In this scenario, what actions did the character take? What Actions did the DM assign to those actions? Is the Player free to change what their character does after they describe their intent and the DM explains what occurs? Or are they committed to it?

" it should be apparent that "committing to" is not the same as "take". "
The problem is not that your character isn't committed to taking. The problem is that "being committed to" is not "take". Until description of what happens is given, the characters still haven't done anything.

Again, that’s a DM call, no? The Player describes what they want their character to do, but the DM determines what, if any, Actions and rolls are needed.

Not agreeing with what "take" is has always been the point of contention. It's not something new, nor you are proposing a new take on it.

Um, apologies if you’re upset that this isn’t a novel argument for you, I guess.

I guess we should all be thankful you’re taking the time to debate us even though this isn’t new to you.

However, whether it is or isn’t new for you, I don’t see why that diminishes the value of the arguments, as it seems to still have people willing to post on GitP boards to resolve it.

No. You did not take anything but the wish to do so. You expressed a wish on what you want your character to attempt. Until the DM determines the need for a check, it the check is possible at all, nothing still has happened. In fact, nothing still has happened for your character until the DM describes what happens.

Sure, to an extent nothing happens if the DM doesn’t want it to. That’s not what I was trying to say.

The Player describes what they want their character to do. Maybe they say they pull out 10 platinum pieces and say “this should cover the usual entrance fee, no?”

It’s not that the DM is disallowing that to occur, it’s that they call for the roll to determine success or not, so the character takes the actions regardless of whether the dice determine success or failure, or even if no roll is called for.

Likewise, if a character says they attack a creature, the DM can allow that attempt whether or not they call for a roll, and whether or not the attack succeeds or fails.

So again, the resolution of an action isn’t what defines whether an action occurred, it’s how the DM decides to fit the actions into the narrative.

And i have serious questions on how bribing a guard requires things to be sorted with combat rules to begin with.

Well, first the “Combat Rules” are for anytime fast paced action needs to be tracked: “In combat and other fast-paced situations, the game relies on rounds, a 6-second span of time described in chapter 9.”

Second, the basic rules of the game hold whether using those rules or not; unless you’re arguing the Player, not the DM, decides how their actions are resolved during combat.

Yes, and as is "before shield bashing", which still happens "on their Turn". And it's still a pointless conversation as long as the terms are ones we agree upon, because it will never go anywhere.

Again, I guess we all need to be thankful you’ve taken the time. I’m not sure why you post here if you’re just complaining about it being pointless that you do so.

We know “on your turn” is a valid way to answer the question of when the Attack Action is taken, because JC stated that’s what the RAI of the RAW are.

The fact that ~5 years after the rules were published, he decided it was a good idea to officially change how those rules are read, doesn’t change what the RAI were.

He’s his tweet supporting this:

“As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.”

So, in 2015, the RAI were “on your turn” is sufficient. So we know how the RAW was meant to be read. Mearls has supported this reading as well.

But since JC decided to change the official rules, the now-official rules no longer support the RAI, which makes for an awkward rule set and people doing things like posting on these boards.

If you see this as “pointless” then why are you posting here?

JoeJ

2019-02-13, 12:08 PM

So, as far as the Player is concerned, they’re committing to the actions of their characters, no?

No. "Committing to" is not a thing in D&D. Do, or do not. There is no commit.

For example, if a Player states their character will draw their sword, run up to an Orc and attack it, they’ve committed to that for their character. If there’s a pit trap that they hit en route that the character falls in and lands Prone, that doesn’t change what the character was trying to do.

It would now be up to the DM to decide if the Player gets to choose different actions for their character, or not. I’d rule, and would be fine with a DMing ruling if I’m the Player, that running and the surprise of falling into the pit is the character’s ~6 seconds that Round.

You can do whatever you want in your game. RAW, the PC can still use their action to do something else (unless they were incapacitated by the fall, obviously).

JackPhoenix

2019-02-13, 01:43 PM

stoutstien

2019-02-13, 02:09 PM

Willie the Duck

2019-02-13, 02:50 PM

I read most of this thread, glossing over the portions of people having the semantics of the English language. I have a different question regarding this issue. My concern is balance.
Feats are roughly equal to an ASI. Does allowing a player to use the ba shove before their attack(s) make it too strong?
If we look at the other two bulletins on the feat, the pseudo evasion could be worth +1 in a stat, especially on class like paladins who are going to pass more save then fail.
The +2 to Dex saves vs single Target Dex effects is pretty meh honestly. Even if you allow effects that are technically multi target but only hit you to apply.(another one of those poorly written parts of this feat.)
So is shoving before or after worth +1 stat increase?

I would say that a shoving-before version would be in the same broad category of feats as Xbow Expert, GWM, Lucky, PAM, Resilient, Sentinel, Sharpshooter, and Warcaster -- Generally as good* or better than a straight +2 in the builds most relevant stat for a character who might even consider the feat. With the push after the first attack, the feat more resembles Healer, Inspiring Leader, Magic Initiate, etc. -- a certain player with a specific idea in mind can look at the feat, say "I know what I want to do with this," take it and make it the best choice for their ASI. If you were to have to take all of your attacks first, it falls more in the range of Medium Armor Master or Skiled-- it is certainly not useless, but it seems like it might be more for flavor than straight overall usefulness.
*which is to say, you can reasonably argue in both directions of which to take first

ThePolarBear

2019-02-13, 03:28 PM

Sure but the difference is up to the DM, no? If a Player states they want their character to do something, it’s up to the DM to determine what happens.

After other steps that are in there, somewhere. Yes.

So, as far as the Player is concerned, they’re committing to the actions of their characters, no? If a Player describes their intent, and the DM incorporates that intent into the story, they’re committed, regardless as to what actually happens.

And who cares? The rules call for do, or not do. "Committing" isn't a thing.

For example [...] Or are they committed to it?

No committing. A player WANTS their character to draw the sword, to run to the orc, and attack it. They haven't committed to anything, yet, because they STILL don't know how to solve this. The DM will analyze the situation and tell the player: "you get a free item interaction once on each of your turns, so you can draw for free, just once. Then, if you want to go there, you'll need to move x feet. Are you going straight to it? (pointing at a route on the tablemat, if there) Then, you can take the Attack Action and roll for the attack. Seems good, iirc you have enough movement and have not used up anything yet". "Yeah, i like it, let's go. Can i also shout?" "Yup, no problem, short phrases are free, too". "Ok, so i'll shout For NAR..." "...WAAAAH as you take the third step and there's now a giant hole below you. Make a saving throw".

The player will have used their free interaction and enough movement to reach the trap. And that's it. Unless the trap causes some condition that makes the character lose its action, or the DM rules ON THEIR OWN that the character, due to THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION, loses its turn, then the character still has the rest of the movement and its action and the player can choose what to do with the rest of the turn with the resources that are still there to be used in the new situation the character is in.

1 (omitted initial description of what is there in the room and general situation) to 2 (player narrates and DM decides and informs, and RESOLVES what happens - spent interaction, movement) to 3 (new description of situation) to 1 (point 3 is point 1) to point 2 (saving throw) to 3 (description of what happens as a result of the ST, which will become 1) -> 1.... and so on.

Again, that’s a DM call, no? The Player describes what they want their character to do, but the DM determines what, if any, Actions and rolls are needed.

But that's not the perspective i was under the impression you were using. Speaking of how a DM can do it is not really indicative of how "the game is played", just how "one group plays it". Usually, in this discussions, there's an underlying understood implicit that is "the DM can do everything, and this power make it pointless to discuss anything about anything if it's brought up as tentatively objective".
It's not about what a DM can do, but what the rules suggest the DM SHOULD do and what the DM needs to do that.

Sure, to an extent nothing happens if the DM doesn’t want it to. That’s not what I was trying to say.

But that is what is necessary: the game is, for the most part, an exchange of informations between players (including the DM), with external help of source materials for situations, rules, and statistics, and other accessories like pens, paper and dice to keep track of consequences and solve indecisions.

The DM, with no informations, can't create a narrative that is coherent with the rules and the players. And the players cannot make decisions based on informations that their characters should have but they do not.

The Player describes what they want their character to do. Maybe they say they pull out 10 platinum pieces and say “this should cover the usual entrance fee, no?”
It’s not that the DM is disallowing that to occur, it’s that they call for the roll to determine success or not, so the character takes the actions regardless of whether the dice determine success or failure, or even if no roll is called for.
Likewise, if a character says they attack a creature, the DM can allow that attempt whether or not they call for a roll, and whether or not the attack succeeds or fails.
So again, the resolution of an action isn’t what defines whether an action occurred, it’s how the DM decides to fit the actions into the narrative.

To decide how to fit the actions in the narrative, the DM has to know what happens, don't you think? Each singular part of the turn has to happen on its own for the action to be attempted in the first place. We could go down to each and every single chemical reaction on the brain of the character and roll to see if there's or there is not a stroke waiting to happen.

This is where the abstraction of the rules kicks in: you have a limit on what gets "atomized", you are not intended to go down over a certain level of complexity and the rules are written under that assumption: you solve each individual part of the puzzle before the next.

When you step up to the orc, you take each step and solve it. When you take out your weapon, you take out your weapon and solve it. When you finally attack, you solve it. You do not "batch" to solve anything, you take things one at a time. Some times, the DM knows things will be uneventful: a walk where nothing can happen... well, nothing happens. So, it can be solved in one quick swoop.

But things DO solve, because it's self evident that something has to have been completed to be complete: you cannot have something "occurred", until it is no longer "occurring", and to be "occurred" it has to have been resolved, so a method has to have been found and all uncertainities must have been solved.

"He was shot while taking the step" is not the same as "He was shot after having stepped", not in english language too.

There cannot be an "Attack Action" in the narrative of a turn until the character takes and resolves it, but this doesn't mean that there cannot be attacks! A character taking the dodge action might still be, in narrative, launching attacks during the round. Ineffective ones for all purposes, mechanically, that will have no mechanical consequence at all.

Rule wise, however, it's not "a character attacks". It's "takes the Attack Action". Not it's taking, not is about to take. It's a specific english construction with a specific meaning and a specific timing and sequentiality, about specific mechanics.

Well, first the “Combat Rules” are for anytime fast paced action needs to be tracked: “In combat and other fast-paced situations, the game relies on rounds, a 6-second span of time described in chapter 9.”

I don't see an action that is concluded quickly fits with either "combat" or "fast paced situation", and thus requires any form of tracking beside a cursory one.

Second, the basic rules of the game hold whether using those rules or not; unless you’re arguing the Player, not the DM, decides how their actions are resolved during combat.

Arguing about fine timing sequentiality with an example that is not one of fine timing sequentiality is not indicative. Combat rules do not apply to this situation because it's not fast paced, it's not combat and to solve there's no need to fine track sequence of events.
Discussion is about Shield Master, the Attack Action, their ordering. And other similar situations. Bribing a guard MIGHT end up in one of such situations, but it is not one.

And no. A character approaching a guard is not a character bribing a guard. Unless the character is bribing the guard, he isn't doing it. Until it's over, he hasn't done it. And if he did not begin, he still is not bribing, yet.

Again, I guess we all need to be thankful you’ve taken the time. I’m not sure why you post here if you’re just complaining about it being pointless that you do so.

"Just complaining"?

We know “on your turn” is a valid way to answer the question of when the Attack Action is taken, because JC stated that’s what the RAI of the RAW are.

I think you are should really re-read how those ruling were born in the first place. It might give you insight of what JC actually means and what actually has changed over the course of the years.

"As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action."

What changed is not that suddenly Shield Master is not a bonus action, or the text needs to be corrected somewhere in the book.
JC recognised that Shield Master is not one of "most" bonus actions. "When/If" IS a timing, so there's a rule that applies to it as it does for all bonus actions of the same type. You do not get to choose the timing because that rule applies to "most" bonus actions, the non-timed ones.

And this was done not for Shield Master specifically, but it was an overall change that affected all bonus actions since back in 2017 with the release of that sage advice. Shield Master was never one of those "most" bonus actions, because "when/if" is a timing and he failed to recognize it originally. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/995069135905161216)

Also... "Was". "Are" means present. You recognise that RAI has changed.

The fact that ~5 years after the rules were published, he decided it was a good idea to officially change how those rules are read, doesn’t change what the RAI were.

It changes what RAI is now. It acknoledges a mistake made. It might mean that RAI was never meant the other way. Or he just changed idea.

He’s his tweet supporting this: [...]
So, in 2015, the RAI were “on your turn” is sufficient. So we know how the RAW was meant to be read. Mearls has supported this reading as well.
And now it isn't.
But since JC decided to change the official rules the now-official rules no longer support the RAI

Rules didn't change on the topic, rulings did as, arguably, did the official intention behind it.

which makes for an awkward rule set and people doing things like posting on these boards.

The rule has never changed. People have a mind and can make their own decisions. I like to discuss changes, but it's not like i cannot make an opinion about the situation or choose how to play regardless of how and why something was intended to be played.
Awkward are statements like this:

"So, in 2015, the RAI were “on your turn” [...] And now it isn't. [...] the now-official rules no longer support the RAI"

Rules didn't change. There is no "now-official rules" that was not official back then in regards to this situation. Rulings did change, and are still as supported by the text, if not more. Which is: they would be valid for what they are even without a single shred of reference in the text.

If you see this as “pointless” then why are you posting here?

Because i like it. Because it's February. I didn't think i needed to report to you.
Also, and prehaps the most reasonable thing to do, to try and find common ground upon the terms, so that discussion could be attempted on a same-level standing without risking any sort of misunderstanding.

Keravath

2019-02-13, 03:30 PM

That’s exactly how the game is played. Per the rules:

“1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the results of their actions.”

The Player describes what they want their character to do. How is “I Attack that Orc” not committing to attack the Orc? The Attack hasn’t been resolved, but you have in no way explained how that isn’t committing to those actions.

Now if they succeed in attack and killing the one Orc, they may be able to move and attack another, depending on the situation. I’d imagine most of the time, it’s doable, assuming there’s another enemy within range or the character has adequate movement to get within range.

But remember, the DM decides how to resolve the descriptions the Player gives, including whether to roll for something: “the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.”

It sounds like you believe the Player calls for these rolls. Often times, in games I’ve played in, there is an assumption and the Player will just roll. It’s important to note, particularly when discussing how the rules work, that it’s the DM who determines these things.

I think the difference of opinion may come from at exactly what point the player can be treated as "taking the attack action".

Would you agree that using the Shield Master bonus action feature requires the character to take the attack action? (Since that is what the book says).

Your opinion seems to be that the character has taken the attack action in step 2 when they declare what they want to do while others seem to think the attack action does not occur until the DM narrates the result.

Typically, a players action on a turn is resolved in multiple steps. It is several iterations of events/resolutiuon and the player may change their mind on what the course of action will be depending on how each step is resolved.

As an example, the player does not typically say ...
I will shield bash the nearest orc, if that is successful, I will run 20' and hit the orc nearest the wizard. I will then attack that orc a second time if they do not die otherwise I will move 5' further and swing at the next orc.

Instead, the turn is split into segments and each is resolved in turn by description from the DM.

The player says "I will take the attack action so, I will shield bash the nearest orc". The DM asks for a skill check and the bash is successful.
The player says "I will move 20' and attack the orc near the wizard". The DM asks for a dexterity saving throw. The character fails and falls into a hidden 10' deep pit.

They no longer have the movement to reach the orc they planned to attack. The player says "I take the dash action to climb out of the pit". The DM (in your game) says "You can't do that since you are taking the attack action, just swing your sword at the wall of the pit".

Is that correct? Since the player used a shield bash they then MUST take the attack action even if there is no one to attack? They certainly can't take the dash action.

Others think that the character has not taken the attack action until AFTER the DM narrates at least one attack occurring rather than the player stating their intent. In which case, the shield bash becomes available after at least one attack has been resolved and the attack action has been specifically taken.

ThePolarBear

2019-02-13, 03:53 PM

My concern is balance. Feats are roughly equal to an ASI. Does allowing a player to use the ba shove before their attack(s) make it too strong?

Personally i think that the equation is a false one. You do give up an ASI, but it's not necessarily true that a feat is meant to be "equally strong". It's meant to be a different option altogether.
Sure, balancing towards an ASI would be preferrable overall, but i simply do not think it even translates well over some of the "stranger" feats.

That said, i think it won't break anything as long as the other in the game are not going to be complaining about it because going to change their roles and fun significantly. I mean, in an overall ranged party it might be frustrating to have a target always on the ground: "because the melee guy wants advantage, now
i have to always have disadvantage?".
For other groups it might end up spicing up a bit the character of a person that feels that up until now the experience was underwhelming.
It's really more a question of in group fine tuning.

Overall, i think it would not break anything, as long as the DM is capable enough anyway, but I agree that a middle ground choice (after 1 attack) is overall a safer one.

Also, strangely enough, this is, at its core, an issue with english through and through :D

noob

2019-02-13, 03:59 PM

Can a bear be used as a shield for bashing people?

Misterwhisper

2019-02-13, 05:16 PM

Can a bear be used as a shield for bashing people?

No, you can not shield bash bear handed...

Willie the Duck

2019-02-13, 08:38 PM

No, you can not shield bash bear handed...

The bears must instead be grafted to you at the elbow or higher, which is your right.

Misterwhisper

2019-02-13, 08:44 PM

The bears must instead be grafted to you at the elbow or higher, which is your right.

That is bringing quite a force to bear.

Guy Lombard-O

2019-02-13, 09:02 PM

That is bringing quite a force to bear.

This thread got so grizzly I almost didn't come back to check on it. I really couldn't bear to look.

Willie the Duck

2019-02-13, 09:17 PM

That is bringing quite a force to bear.

But it is their right--to bear arms.

Wocka Wocka!

Misterwhisper

2019-02-13, 09:22 PM

This thread got so grizzly I almost didn't come back to check on it. I really couldn't bear to look.

I would not say we are that bad but we are bearly reasonable.

JackPhoenix

2019-02-14, 01:53 AM

But it is their right--to bear arms.

Wocka Wocka!

What about the right to arm bears?

Willie the Duck

2019-02-14, 10:47 AM

What about the right to arm bears?

Well within your rights, but good luck finding a way to do so. After 3e CoDzilla druids, magic enchantments to weapons to allow them to be wielded by creatures without opposable thumbs are unlikely to find their way into this edition. :smalltongue:

RSP

2019-02-15, 09:38 AM

I think the difference of opinion may come from at exactly what point the player can be treated as "taking the attack action".

Maybe this will help illustrate my position:

A) A character moves 60’ (Rogue w/ Cunning Action), then makes one attack at a creature.

B) A character has been in melee combat with a creature for 2 rounds. Each is just attacking the other, mechanically, each is taking the Attack Action on their turn and not moving or using any other abilities.

Is the character in A) spending ~6 seconds in melee combat, parrying and thrusting, or did the majority of their ~6 seconds involving quickly moving towards their target and getting a lone thrust in with their rapier?

Is the character in B) just taking 1 swing with their weapon, then standing idly for about 5 seconds, with their opponent also just standing idly, until they raise their weapon for 1 singular swing? Or are they both throughout the ~6 seconds using footwork, parries, thrusts and feints to try and seriously wound the other?

Would you agree that using the Shield Master bonus action feature requires the character to take the attack action? (Since that is what the book says).

Sure.

Your opinion seems to be that the character has taken the attack action in step 2 when they declare what they want to do while others seem to think the attack action does not occur until the DM narrates the result.

Typically, a players action on a turn is resolved in multiple steps. It is several iterations of events/resolutiuon and the player may change their mind on what the course of action will be depending on how each step is resolved.

As an example, the player does not typically say ...
I will shield bash the nearest orc, if that is successful, I will run 20' and hit the orc nearest the wizard. I will then attack that orc a second time if they do not die otherwise I will move 5' further and swing at the next orc.

Instead, the turn is split into segments and each is resolved in turn by description from the DM.

I agree that turns are resolved in segments.

The player says "I will take the attack action so, I will shield bash the nearest orc". The DM asks for a skill check and the bash is successful.
The player says "I will move 20' and attack the orc near the wizard". The DM asks for a dexterity saving throw. The character fails and falls into a hidden 10' deep pit.

They no longer have the movement to reach the orc they planned to attack. The player says "I take the dash action to climb out of the pit". The DM (in your game) says "You can't do that since you are taking the attack action, just swing your sword at the wall of the pit".

Is that correct? Since the player used a shield bash they then MUST take the attack action even if there is no one to attack? They certainly can't take the dash action.

Others think that the character has not taken the attack action until AFTER the DM narrates at least one attack occurring rather than the player stating their intent. In which case, the shield bash becomes available after at least one attack has been resolved and the attack action has been specifically taken.

Your suggestion is one way a DM could conclude how the character’s actions resolve.

Another could be by saying the shield bash Shove was the Attack Action, and now the Player could use a BA, if they have one available (like if the character is a Rogue and has Cunning Action, in which the character’s available movement increases).

Player describes intended actions, DM determines how those are resolved.