Crawford waffle...

[NaughtyTiger]

dude, just stop talking about shield master.

Shield master whenever you want. 2015
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

Shield master after the attack action is complete. 2018
https://twitter.com/TahnGoldenmane/status/997510720966316032


Shield master after 1 attack. 2019
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105183657877135360

[Unoriginal]

... So you made a thread to talk about something nobody was talking about right now, to tell them to stop talking about it?

Also, two things:

1) Crawford's twitter no longer counts as official explanations

2) What Crawford authorize as a DM has no impact on what the rules or the intent of the rules are. He changes the game to suit his preferences and needs, like everyone else.

[Aimeryan]

... So you made a thread to talk about something nobody was talking about right now, to tell them to stop talking about it?

Also, two things:

1) Crawford's twitter no longer counts as official explanations

2) What Crawford authorize as a DM has no impact on what the rules or the intent of the rules are. He changes the game to suit his preferences and needs, like everyone else.

Pretty confident that NT was talking about JC, not the forum.

~~~

Was the Shield Master tweets included in the SA Compendium at some point?

[Unoriginal]

Was the Shield Master tweets included in the SA Compendium at some point?

Yes. The current version.

[Millstone85]

Was the Shield Master tweets included in the SA Compendium at some point?
Yes. The current version.Here is what it says.
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.

[NaughtyTiger]

... So you made a thread to talk about something nobody was talking about right now, to tell them to stop talking about it?
Gosh, no. i thought this was much clearer

I made a thread about something that irked me (and several people on other forums were talking about) to whine to the forum about how things would be easier if he would shut up about it



1) Crawford's twitter no longer counts as official explanations
2) What Crawford authorize as a DM has no impact on what the rules or the intent of the rules are. He changes the game to suit his preferences and needs, like everyone else.

1) fully cognizant.
2) what he authorizes as a game creator after the fact has no impact on what the rules are (see above), but people in twitter aren't asking for his personal playstyle (at least in this case)

my comment stands, he is just muddying the water.

[rlc]

I mean, if he's answering a question that somebody asked him, I don't see the problem?
And talking about something 3 times in like 5 years isn't really a lot?

[Aimeryan]

The SAC quote doesn't seem to rule out 'attack, then BA, then extra attacks', so JC's latest tweet on this just clarifies how he would rule it (so, not a houserule).

Personally, I am happy for the BA to go first, since the Attack action does not seem to be responsible for the BA in any way from a roleplaying perspective; by RAW you could, for example, Attack action enemy A, move to enemy B, BA enemy B - in which case, what did the Attack action on enemy A do to allow the BA on enemy B? However, despite seeming sensible it would be a houserule under the SAC ruling.

JC's latest tweet opens up people's eyes to the possibility of 'attack, then BA, then extra attacks', which makes Shield Master far better than 'attack, then extra attacks, then BA'. In my opinion, suggesting possible rulings that are RAW-valid is what JC's tweets always should have been about, rather than official rulings that take possibilities away - glad to see the change in approach.

[PhoenixPhyre]

He specifically talks about that original tweet, calling it a mistake made by replying "while in line at the store", which he then regretted and corrected. It prompted a change in policy, where he only replies while sitting at his desk.


https://youtu.be/ew1dc6VBHhA

[NaughtyTiger]

And talking about something 3 times in like 5 years isn't really a lot?

if the lead designer changes his mind 3 times about the intent of a rule, then you can't point to the designers statements for Rules as Intended.

hell, you can't even trust their interpretation of RAW, because further down is states that Actions are atomic by RAW, when there is no text explicitly supporting that.

edit: i am not the only one...

[Aimeryan]

if the lead designer changes his mind 3 times about the intent of a rule, then you can't point to the designers statements for Rules as Intended.

hell, you can't even trust their interpretation of RAW, because further down is states that Actions are atomic by RAW, when there is no text explicitly supporting that.

but i get it, i am the only one with my panties in a bunch...

Yup, it was things like that which made me really dislike JC's tweets - it was just a constant nibbling away at what was possible by adding in new limitations (and then calling it RAW because his tweets were official). His tweets should have been something to look forward to, not dread.

[No brains]

Pro Tip: If Jeremy Crawford comes to your table and tells you to do Shield Master in a way that's contrary to what your table finds fun and fair, wave your hands in his direction and 'cast Banishment' until he leaves.

I just assume that it's fun and intuitive enough that he knows people will want to play it in the permissive way, but it's too much trouble to re-write the rule in print to authorize anything but the restrictive way. There's probably some protocol to errata that needs to be approved by someone other than him. The rules bureaucracy is probably why we had to wait years to get spears in Polearm Master.

Though I wonder what consequences there would be to allowing a no-condition bonus action shove from Shield Master. If a person is a 'Master' with their shield, what would be bad about them shoving while casting a spell, drinking a potion, dashing, or any other thing that isn't the attack action?

[Aimeryan]

Pro Tip: If Jeremy Crawford comes to your table and tells you to do Shield Master in a way that's contrary to what your table finds fun and fair, wave your hands in his direction and 'cast Banishment' until he leaves.

I just assume that it's fun and intuitive enough that he knows people will want to play it in the permissive way, but it's too much trouble to re-write the rule in print to authorize anything but the restrictive way. There's probably some protocol to errata that needs to be approved by someone other than him. The rules bureaucracy is probably why we had to wait years to get spears in Polearm Master.

Though I wonder what consequences there would be to allowing a no-condition bonus action shove from Shield Master. If a person is a 'Master' with their shield, what would be bad about them shoving while casting a spell, drinking a potion, dashing, or any other thing that isn't the attack action?

Until recently JC's tweets were official - they had the power to change what was a RAW ruling. You could, of course, ignore them (and many did) - but it meant fighting against what was RAW.

Now, only the Sage Advice Compendium (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice) and reprints are official errata.

[JoeJ]

Personally, I'm glad that JC can decide that a previous statement was a mistake and correct it. I'd much rather have him do that than defend every decision to the death and be unwilling to even consider that he might have been wrong.

[MadBear]

yeah.... Glad to not be JC, because there's really no way to make people happy.

[DarkKnightJin]

Though I wonder what consequences there would be to allowing a no-condition bonus action shove from Shield Master. If a person is a 'Master' with their shield, what would be bad about them shoving while casting a spell, drinking a potion, dashing, or any other thing that isn't the attack action?

I wouldn't make an issue about someone wanting to smack someone in the face while chugging a potion or something. Attacking is usually the most 'optimal' thing to do when the enemy is knocked on their butt, anyway..

[Hail Tempus]

I'm of the mind that communications from the designers are persuasive, but not determinative. I've seen a number of their decisions on rules that made me scratch my head (Shield Master, the weird opinion that you only roll 1d4 for Magic Missile, and that the roll determines the damage for all of the darts etc.).

I'm always hesitant about arguments based on legislative intent. If the wording of something is unambiguous (and Shield Master is not ambiguous- there is no requirement in the text of the feat that the attack action be taken before the relevant bonus action, unlike Flurry of Blows), then the opinions of the drafters on what they were really thinking some months or years ago when the drafted the language is not relevant.

[jas61292]

I'm always hesitant about arguments based on legislative intent. If the wording of something is unambiguous (and Shield Master is not ambiguous- there is no requirement in the text of the feat that the attack action be taken before the relevant bonus action, unlike Flurry of Blows), then the opinions of the drafters on what they were really thinking some months or years ago when the drafted the language is not relevant.

You know... it's funny. I agree with the entirety of this... except the part about shield master specifically. Like, I fully agree that intent is irrelevant to RAW if what it actually says is clear. But to me, it is unambiguously clear that you do need to take the attack action to use the shield master bonus action. You don't have a bonus action to use until something gives you one, and this feat makes the attack action give you one, so the attack action must come first.

Of course the fact that two people can both see something as unambiguous, but interpret it in two opposite ways kinda undermines the idea it was unambiguous to begin with.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm of the mind that communications from the designers are persuasive, but not determinative. I've seen a number of their decisions on rules that made me scratch my head (Shield Master, the weird opinion that you only roll 1d4 for Magic Missile, and that the roll determines the damage for all of the darts etc.).

I'm always hesitant about arguments based on legislative intent. If the wording of something is unambiguous (and Shield Master is not ambiguous- there is no requirement in the text of the feat that the attack action be taken before the relevant bonus action, unlike Flurry of Blows), then the opinions of the drafters on what they were really thinking some months or years ago when the drafted the language is not relevant.

And furthermore, IMO, the writer of a game text should strive to be as clear and unambiguous as possible (which is not the same as verbosity) -- ambiguity is a bug, not a feature.

If they realize they made a mistake, or were unclear, then they should openly call it a mistake and issue official errata, not hide behind increasingly tortured parsing of what's on the page and/or claims of "intent".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm of the mind that communications from the designers are persuasive, but not determinative.

That's all they claim to be. They've never claimed to be determinative. Not even the official printed rules themselves claim to be determinative.

And I disagree about this--you can't take the Attack action without making (all) the attacks that go along with it. That's what taking the Attack action means. And the wording is "If you take the Attack action". Not "If you plan to take the Attack action". For the conditional to apply, you have to have already taken the Attack action, which means having taken all the attacks associated with it.

Now unlike flurry of blows, you can take it anytime on your turn after that condition is true. So you can move after taking the last attack (and thus taking the Attack action and allowing the BA to happen), take a Reaction, or even (if you Action Surge or whatever), take a different action. You can't do any of that with flurry of blows.

[Keravath]

Personally, I'm glad that JC can decide that a previous statement was a mistake and correct it. I'd much rather have him do that than defend every decision to the death and be unwilling to even consider that he might have been wrong.

I agree. JC is both a lead game designer and a DM. When something comes up in a game you may rule one way, when you theory craft about it, you might rule another and when you think about it some more you might change your mind yet again.

I don't expect anyone to have every line of the official sources to be memorized in order to try to resolve other folks confusion 100% correctly every time on the spur of the moment.

---

The bottom line is do whatever makes the most sense for your game and players. The only place it becomes an issue is in Adventurers League or other organized play where folks try to stick as close to RAW as possible.

---

In terms of RAW, Shield Master requires the character to take the Attack action in order to take a shield bash as a bonus action. I think everyone at least agrees on that. Most options in 5e that grant an extra bonus action attack of some sort (PAM, GWM, Xbow expert, Martial Arts) all require the character to take the attack action or some event resulting from a specific action from the character.

Does planning to take the attack action count as taking the attack action for the purposes of shield bash? That is pretty much what all the arguing on the different interpretations of the rule boil down to.


Consider great weapon master, if you get a crit or kill a creature you get a bonus action attack. Does any DM allow this bonus action attack before the character takes the Attack action? I think No ... because the character with GWM may not get a crit or kill a creature to trigger the bonus action.

The same reasoning is in the rules for Shield Bash. Allowing a shield bash before taking the Attack action is up to the DM ... however, there are many circumstances which can prevent a character who intends to take the Attack action from actually taking it.

For example, held action by an opponent to cast hold person on the character when they come in to range. If the character shield bashes to start their turn, moves to attack another creature, and is held then they can't take the Attack action and the shield bash isn't possible since they didn't take the attack action. Exactly the same as the bonus action attack granted by GWM not being possible if the pre-condition to enable it is not met.

Finally, the PHB says the following:
"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack."

The Attack action requires making an attack. If you haven't rolled a die, you haven't made an attack and you haven't taken the Attack action. Up until you roll that die you could choose to take any of the other possible actions - Hide, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Cast a Spell. You have only taken the Attack action after you make at least one to hit dice roll. The character may be planning to take the Attack action ... but until they do, nothing that is based on taking the attack action can occur.

e.g. The bonus action attacks from PAM, Crossbow expert, and Martial arts come after the attack action. Same applies to shield bash in my opinion based on RAW but others see it differently ... so just run it however you prefer in your game.

[Hail Tempus]

You know... it's funny. I agree with the entirety of this... except the part about shield master specifically. Like, I fully agree that intent is irrelevant to RAW if what it actually says is clear. But to me, it is unambiguously clear that you do need to take the attack action to use the shield master bonus action. You don't have a bonus action to use until something gives you one, and this feat makes the attack action give you one, so the attack action must come first.

Of course the fact that two people can both see something as unambiguous, but interpret it in two opposite ways kinda undermines the idea it was unambiguous to begin with. My reading of the (unambiguous :smallsmile:) text is that by using the Shield Master bonus action, you're also declaring that you're taking the Attack action that turn. I don't read the rules as requiring you to immediately resolve any action. For example, if you declare you're taking the Dash action, would anyone interpret that to mean you need to use some portion of that move right away?

Another example- you can Ready an action to cast a spell, allowing you to hold a spell until the trigger occurs (or lose the spell slot if it doesn't). I also read that to mean that if you were to cast a spell on your turn and discover that you don't have a legal target, you can use your move to get closer and then release the spell.

So, I don't really buy the argument that some people have made that actions resolve as soon as you declare them. Actions are really just an abstract way to describe what your character is doing in during the 6 seconds of a given turn.

[JoeJ]

My reading of the (unambiguous :smallsmile:) text is that by using the Shield Master bonus action, you're also declaring that you're taking the Attack action that turn. I don't read the rules as requiring you to immediately resolve any action. For example, if you declare you're taking the Dash action, would anyone interpret that to mean you need to use some portion of that move right away?

Another example- you can Ready an action to cast a spell, allowing you to hold a spell until the trigger occurs (or lose the spell slot if it doesn't). I also read that to mean that if you were to cast a spell on your turn and discover that you don't have a legal target, you can use your move to get closer and then release the spell.

So, I don't really buy the argument that some people have made that actions resolve as soon as you declare them. Actions are really just an abstract way to describe what your character is doing in during the 6 seconds of a given turn.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is no such thing as declaring in D&D. You can say, "I'll run over to the first orc and attack with my sword," and then when you're halfway there decide to do something else instead. You can declare you're going to Dash, but that doesn't mean anything until the moment you start actually using the extra movement; before that point you can Attack, or Disengage, or Cast a Spell, or anything else your PC is allowed to do.

So it's not that if you declare you're going to Dash you have to move immediately, it's that until you move beyond your regular movement distance, your declaration that you're going to Dash doesn't mean anything; it was just you thinking out loud.

[samcifer]

Just remember that Crawford waffles because the divots keep the syrup on top when you pour it on much better than those flat old pancakes.

[Hail Tempus]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is no such thing as declaring in D&D. You can say, "I'll run over to the first orc and attack with my sword," and then when you're halfway there decide to do something else instead. You can declare you're going to Dash, but that doesn't mean anything until the moment you start actually using the extra movement; before that point you can Attack, or Disengage, or Cast a Spell, or anything else your PC is allowed to do.

So it's not that if you declare you're going to Dash you have to move immediately, it's that until you move beyond your regular movement distance, your declaration that you're going to Dash doesn't mean anything; it was just you thinking out loud. I disagree with this. Players state what they're doing, and DM's then resolve the results of that. Once you declare an action as a player, you're stuck with it.

Do lots of people really play in a way where players are allowed to cancel out a previously declared action?

[Keravath]

My reading of the (unambiguous :smallsmile:) text is that by using the Shield Master bonus action, you're also declaring that you're taking the Attack action that turn. I don't read the rules as requiring you to immediately resolve any action. For example, if you declare you're taking the Dash action, would anyone interpret that to mean you need to use some portion of that move right away?

Another example- you can Ready an action to cast a spell, allowing you to hold a spell until the trigger occurs (or lose the spell slot if it doesn't). I also read that to mean that if you were to cast a spell on your turn and discover that you don't have a legal target, you can use your move to get closer and then release the spell.

So, I don't really buy the argument that some people have made that actions resolve as soon as you declare them. Actions are really just an abstract way to describe what your character is doing in during the 6 seconds of a given turn.


So ... just a question. A character intends to take the Dash action. They say I'm going to Dash. They move 20' and run into a sticky plant that restrains them.

DM says ... sorry your turn is over ... the plant gets to eat you now because you said you were going to use the Dash action.

They have only moved 20' ... less than the amount of movement they are normally granted in a turn. Their INTENT was to use the Dash action but now they can't. In your game, have they already Dashed because that is what they said they were going to do or would they still have their action available to either Attack the plant or make a grapple check to escape?

Change that to ... a character bashes an adjacent creature with their shield. Runs to attack another opponent but is restrained by a rope trap they didn't see or runs into a glyph that casts hold person. They can't attack anymore. They can't use the Attack action and as a result, based on the way Shield bash is written, they can't have taken a bash with the shield.

Unless in your game taking the Attack action doesn't actually require you to make an Attack?

Could a character in your game stand there bashing someone with a shield using a bonus action every round while taking no other Actions? (I'll **nudge nudge wink wink** attack my imaginary friend (but not really) ... and then keep shield bashing this bloke standing next to me with my shield?)

----

So ... logically does it make sense that a character should have to Attack in order to execute a shield bash. Not really. Why can't they shield bash whenever they want? Why can't a polearm master attack with the butt end whenever they want? Why can't a crossbow expert shoot the bonus action hand crossbow attack first? Why can't a monk do his Martial Arts attack first? Because, in all of these cases, the rules say the character needs to take the Attack Action in order to enable these bonus actions and taking the Attack action is not guaranteed to happen and actually hasn't happened until the point where the character rolls a to hit die.

[JoeJ]

So ... logically does it make sense that a character should have to Attack in order to execute a shield bash. Not really. Why can't they shield bash whenever they want?

They can. The feat doesn't let you bash with your shield, it let's you bash with your shield as a bonus action. Anybody can do it as a regular action.

edit: In fact, since all it is in game terms is shoving, anybody can use the Attack action to do that even without a shield.

[Vogie]

Just remember that Crawford waffles because the divots keep the syrup on top when you pour it on much better than those flat old pancakes.

Beat me to it.

[Keravath]

I disagree with this. Players state what they're doing, and DM's then resolve the results of that. Once you declare an action as a player, you're stuck with it.

Do lots of people really play in a way where players are allowed to cancel out a previously declared action?

Wouldn't this depend on the specific action?

In the example of Dashing, they aren't moving faster they are just using more of the turn for moving rather than performing another action.

If they have moved 20' out of their 30' movement. They haven't yet Dashed. Lets say a character is thinking of Dashing, they move around a corner and see a bad guy. They decide to attack instead ... or would you force them to Dash as they started out with?

In the games I play in, the Action is not used until it is executed. The player moves either on a grid or describes their movement, the DM describes the scene either verbally or on a map, any new features that happen during the movement or to other changing circumstances are told to the player. The player then decides how to use their action.

For example, the character doesn't actually Dash until they use more than their base movement in which case they declare the Dash action allowing them to have additional movement. Until that happens the character could elect to Attack, Cast a Spell, Dodge, Disengage, Help or whatever seems the most appropriate.

The character's turn is not scripted from the beginning. The character doesn't say, I will move here, shield bash, move again, attack, move again, extra attack. Since that sequence could fail at any point, some of them preventing the attack action from occurring and invalidating the shield bash since (in the games I play in), a character must make an attack roll in order to be considered to have taken the Attack action. Up until the point where they make that Attack roll, a player can change their mind regarding which action their character will take on the turn.

So no ... we don't let folks take back their actions ... but they do NOT declare their use of action until it is actually used so it never becomes a problem.

[Keravath]

They can. The feat doesn't let you bash with your shield, it let's you bash with your shield as a bonus action. Anybody can do it as a regular action.

edit: In fact, since all it is in game terms is shoving, anybody can use the Attack action to do that even without a shield.

Lol. True :) ... but the discussion was aimed at using a bonus action to shield bash granted by the Shield Master feat before taking the Attack action. I don't think anyone is arguing about the ability to Shove a target prone using one of your regular attacks granted by the Attack action.

[Aimeryan]

If you take then BA first and then are for some reason unable to take the Attack action you just lose the ability to take that action. The universe doesn't implode or anything.

Furthermore, your character does not declare actions, it just does what it can. Lets say I do this (no extra attacks):

shove --> attack

Ok, so to be able to do that I used the BA via SM and then the Attack action. But wait! Something happened and I wasn't able to do that the attack, so it looked like this:

shove

Ok, so I just used the Attack action. *shrug*

[PeteNutButter]

dude, just stop talking about shield master.

Shield master whenever you want. 2015
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

Shield master after the attack action is complete. 2018
https://twitter.com/TahnGoldenmane/status/997510720966316032


Shield master after 1 attack. 2019
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105183657877135360

Haahahahahahaha...

Hahahahahahahahhahaha

[Aquillion]

Honestly, they should just errata the shield shove to not require an attack at all. It's not as though it would be overpowered, and it would drastically simplify the feat.

[Hail Tempus]

So ... just a question. A character intends to take the Dash action. They say I'm going to Dash. They move 20' and run into a sticky plant that restrains them.

DM says ... sorry your turn is over ... the plant gets to eat you now because you said you were going to use the Dash action.

They have only moved 20' ... less than the amount of movement they are normally granted in a turn. Their INTENT was to use the Dash action but now they can't. In your game, have they already Dashed because that is what they said they were going to do or would they still have their action available to either Attack the plant or make a grapple check to escape? In my game, they can't take the Attack action, regardless of the fact that they never got to resolve their Dash action. From a fluff perspective, I think of it as the PC putting all of his effort into sprinting, but because he ran into the web or whatever, he doesn't get the full benefit of their efforts.


Change that to ... a character bashes an adjacent creature with their shield. Runs to attack another opponent but is restrained by a rope trap they didn't see or runs into a glyph that casts hold person. They can't attack anymore. They can't use the Attack action and as a result, based on the way Shield bash is written, they can't have taken a bash with the shield.

Unless in your game taking the Attack action doesn't actually require you to make an Attack? I see this no different that the first hypothetical. The player was in the process of taking the Attack action, but something preventing him from doing so, and he never got the benefit of the action.


Could a character in your game stand there bashing someone with a shield using a bonus action every round while taking no other Actions? (I'll **nudge nudge wink wink** attack my imaginary friend (but not really) ... and then keep shield bashing this bloke standing next to me with my shield?) I suppose. I don't see any problem with that, if that's what the player wants to do. He's deliberately choosing to blow his action every turn. It's an odd choice, but it only hurts him.

----


So ... logically does it make sense that a character should have to Attack in order to execute a shield bash. Not really. Why can't they shield bash whenever they want? Why can't a polearm master attack with the butt end whenever they want? Why can't a crossbow expert shoot the bonus action hand crossbow attack first? Why can't a monk do his Martial Arts attack first? Because, in all of these cases, the rules say the character needs to take the Attack Action in order to enable these bonus actions and taking the Attack action is not guaranteed to happen and actually hasn't happened until the point where the character rolls a to hit die. Logically? No, none of that makes sense "in the real world". Someone armed with a polearm in real life could hit you with the butt end without ever using the sharp part.

The point of these restrictions in-game, IMO, is to maintain narrative consistency. A Monk strikes with his staff and kicks his opponent, rather than drinking a potion while headbutting a goblin. Unless the rule specifically says you have to do A followed by B, I don't see any reason to care about the order, as a DM. However, I"m going to interpret your decision to first strike with the butt end of your pole arm or shove with your shield as a decision to also take the Attack action that turn. You don't always have to tell my exactly what action you're taking, but I can draw natural conclusions from your decisions in-game. For example, a PC with a base move of 30 who moves 40 feet on her turn has taken the Dash action, even if they never declared it.

[Aimeryan]

Honestly, they should just errata the shield shove to not require an attack at all. It's not as though it would be overpowered, and it would drastically simplify the feat.

I do find it somewhat irritating that you can do pretty much the same thing but so so much better via PAM:

Shove --> Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> PAM Attack

vs.

Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> SM Shove

Then of course all the other benefits of PAM...

[stoutstien]

Honestly, they should just errata the shield shove to not require an attack at all. It's not as though it would be overpowered, and it would drastically simplify the feat.
Other than buffing scag cantrips more I agree.

[JoeJ]

I do find it somewhat irritating that you can do pretty much the same thing but so so much better via PAM:

Shove --> Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> PAM Attack

vs.

Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> SM Shove

Then of course all the other benefits of PAM...

If you want to shove first with SM it would be:

Shove --> Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> SM Shove somebody else.

[Aimeryan]

If you want to shove first with SM it would be:

Shove --> Attack --> Attack --> Attack --> SM Shove somebody else.

Sure, but the shove at the end is far weaker than another attack. Furthermore, you can contrast it with:

Shove A --> Attack A --> Attack A (Killed) --> Shove B --> PAM Attack B

[Hail Tempus]

Honestly, they should just errata the shield shove to not require an attack at all. It's not as though it would be overpowered, and it would drastically simplify the feat. Agreed. The feat loses a lot of utility otherwise, because if the shover can't take advantage of it on his turn, it only becomes situationaly useful if you have at least one other melee-based character in the party, initiative order lines up correctly etc.

Great Weapon Master and Polearm Fighter don't have any real limitations on their use. Why impose one on this feat?

[JoeJ]

Sure, but the shove at the end is far weaker than another attack. You can contrast it with:

Shove A --> Attack A (Killed) --> Shove B --> Attack B --> PAM Attack B

Shove A --> Attack A (Killed) --> Shove B --> Attack B --> SM Shove C.

The first four things are always going to be identical; the only difference is a bonus action shove vs. a bonus action attack for 1d4. The shove is more powerful if you can coordinate with another team member to take advantage of it, or if you can shove somebody into a hazard of some sort. Otherwise, the attack is more powerful.

[Aimeryan]

Shove A --> Attack A (Killed) --> Shove B --> Attack B --> SM Shove C.

The first four things are always going to be identical; the only difference is a bonus action shove vs. a bonus action attack for 1d4. The shove is more powerful if you can coordinate with another team member to take advantage of it, or if you can shove somebody into a hazard of some sort. Otherwise, the attack is more powerful.

There are only so many targets to get use out of a shove on, especially considering that any target that goes before your other melee allies (probably only one in a typical party) will not be benefited from.

The most useful scenario is where you killed the initial target and only have the BA left while also having a melee ally go before another enemy you can both reach and where other enemies are not able to interfere; then using the BA on a shove is likely to be more beneficial than on an attack. In pretty much all other scenarios the BA attack is preferable (given you have already shoved the target).

[ThePolarBear]

if the lead designer changes his mind 3 times about the intent of a rule

Yay for misrepresentation.

[MountainTiger]

In my game, they can't take the Attack action, regardless of the fact that they never got to resolve their Dash action. From a fluff perspective, I think of it as the PC putting all of his effort into sprinting, but because he ran into the web or whatever, he doesn't get the full benefit of their efforts.


RAW, the Dash action just adds movement; so the action resolves immediately and gives the character more movement regardless of how much they move on a turn. I don't think your ruling here is incorrect.

But it would feel like a weird "gotcha" moment to me in game, since the player intending to Dash is under no obligation to announce their Action before using their normal movement. "Make sure to move before announcing you are using Dash in case you get stopped" is entirely within RAW, but it seems to me to create an undesirably adversarial dynamic between players and DM.

[jas61292]

The main issue I have with the whole "action is a declaration of what you will do this turn," beyond that I see no support for it in the rules, is that it is something I never saw any support for prior to the original, now retracted, Shield Master ruling. To me, this kind of model of actions was something that seemed to have been created out of thin air to justify a ruling that did not jive with the rules as written. While it helped explain that situation, the ruling was also the entire justification for it, and once the Shield Master ruling was corrected, there was really no more support for this model.

If you used this kind of action model before the original, erroneous ruling, then more power to you. But my personal experience would lead me to believe that, without the ruling to support it, it has no basis in the rules.

[NaughtyTiger]

Personally, I'm glad that JC can decide that a previous statement was a mistake and correct it. I'd much rather have him do that than defend every decision to the death and be unwilling to even consider that he might have been wrong.

I would be more forgiving if he weren't such an arrogant prig when answering tweets in the first place.

[Aimeryan]

The main issue I have with the whole "action is a declaration of what you will do this turn," beyond that I see no support for it in the rules, is that it is something I never saw any support for prior to the original, now retracted, Shield Master ruling. To me, this kind of model of actions was something that seemed to have been created out of thin air to justify a ruling that did not jive with the rules as written. While it helped explain that situation, the ruling was also the entire justification for it, and once the Shield Master ruling was corrected, there was really no more support for this model.

If you used this kind of action model before the original, erroneous ruling, then more power to you. But my personal experience would lead me to believe that, without the ruling to support it, it has no basis in the rules.

The original SM text made no requirement of order, only of obligation. Thereby, whether the DM allowed you to 'declare that you will take the action' or 'take the action but hold off on enacting it', the consequences were the same - you shoved then attacked. If you couldn't attack after the shove, you just shoved. No biggie.

[JoeJ]

The main issue I have with the whole "action is a declaration of what you will do this turn," beyond that I see no support for it in the rules, is that it is something I never saw any support for prior to the original, now retracted, Shield Master ruling. To me, this kind of model of actions was something that seemed to have been created out of thin air to justify a ruling that did not jive with the rules as written. While it helped explain that situation, it was also the entire justification for it, and once the Shield Master ruling was corrected, there was really no more justification for it.

If you used this kind of action model before the original, erroneous ruling, then more power to you. But my personal experience would lead me to believe that, without the ruling to support it, it has no basis in the rules.

Yeah. Declaring your character's actions at the beginning of your own turn serves no purpose. In games where declarations are a thing, the round begins with a phase where everybody declares their actions, generally in reverse initiative order, before anybody's actions are resolved. This allows the faster characters to see what the slower ones are trying to do and do something that interrupts them. If nobody can use anybody else's declaration to preempt their actions, then there's absolutely no need to have declarations at all.

[jas61292]

The original SM text made no requirement of order, only of obligation. Thereby, whether the DM allowed you to 'declare that you will take the action' or 'take the action but hold off on enacting it', the consequences were the same - you shoved then attacked. If you couldn't attack after the shove, you just shoved. No biggie.

The issue is not with the SM text. It's the rules on bonus actions. You don't have a bonus action unless something gives you one. SM gives you one, but only if you take the attack action. It is certainly true that if your DM treats actions as permission slips instead of actual, well, actions, that would allow a shove to come before the attacks.

My point though is that there is nothing in the rules themselves to suggest that actions are anything but the actual character taking the specific action, and that the entire permission slip model only exists, in my observation, to achieve the otherwise impossible result that was ruled legal in the first SM ruling. The fact that his ruling has been deemed incorrect removes any and all basis for that model of actions.

You are free to play that way if you want, but I believe you will find no support for it in RAW.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yay for misrepresentation.

If you say someone is being deceptive, you better back it up. Clarify.

My understanding is

1st tweet:
you can bonus action shove before the attacks.

2nd tweet (including further discussion in the chain)
you must finish all attacks, then bonus attack shove

3rd tweet
you must do 1 attack, then you can bonus attack shove, then you can finish attacks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The original SM text made no requirement of order, only of obligation. Thereby, whether the DM allowed you to 'declare that you will take the action' or 'take the action but hold off on enacting it', the consequences were the same - you shoved then attacked. If you couldn't attack after the shove, you just shoved. No biggie.

Taking an action === finishing resolving that action. That's central to the flow of the game. See PHB page 6.

1. DM narrates a situation and asks "what do you do".
2. Player (or players, outside of combat) declares what their character(s) is/are going to do. Player(s) and DM resolve the action(s).
3. DM narrates the changes to the scene due to the action(s) (failed or not) and asks "what do you do".
4. Repeat from step 2.

Only outside of combat can you have multiple parallel actions unresolved at once, and then they have to be from different players. In combat, you're working in turns so you don't get to mix and match. Taking an action is resolving that action. The action is not taken until it resolves, successfully or not. This means you're not locked into your action until the dice are rolled and the results are announced. The game-world is paused while the player and the DM decide how to resolve a proposed action.

There is no separate "declare action" or "take action" stage that does not involve resolving it. That's entirely outside of the rules and violates the most basic rules. Nothing can happen in the game world until you're at step 3, which includes resolving all actions from step 2.

[NaughtyTiger]

Taking an action === finishing resolving that action. That's central to the flow of the game. See PHB page 6.

That is a valid interpretation, but not the only valid interpretation.

[Hail Tempus]

RAW, the Dash action just adds movement; so the action resolves immediately and gives the character more movement regardless of how much they move on a turn. I don't think your ruling here is incorrect.

But it would feel like a weird "gotcha" moment to me in game, since the player intending to Dash is under no obligation to announce their Action before using their normal movement. "Make sure to move before announcing you are using Dash in case you get stopped" is entirely within RAW, but it seems to me to create an undesirably adversarial dynamic between players and DM. My players don't typically declare things like Dash until they need it, so it hasn't really come up. I certainly don't require players to declare everything they're going to do. We play on a grid with miniatures, so they typically just move their minis and tell me what they're going to do. But, once they tell me they're attacking, or casting a spell, or taking the Dash action, I hold them to it.

Barbarian player moves her mini 15'
Tells me she's using her shield bash
Then makes two attacks on the prone enemy, with advantage

Does anyone really see any issues with this sequence, whether from a gameplay perspective or thematically?

[NaughtyTiger]

Does anyone really see any issues with this sequence, whether from a gameplay perspective or thematically?

This was the common interpretation for the first 3 years of play, and it wasn't game breaking, just satisfying.

[jas61292]

I think the actual most important tweet from that most recent set is not the one posted in the OP, but this one:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929?s=19

Basically, the second ruling is still correct, per RAW, but allowing it in the middle is what was intended.

[Aimeryan]

The issue is not with the SM text. It's the rules on bonus actions. You don't have a bonus action unless something gives you one. SM gives you one, but only if you take the attack action [in the same turn].

Emphasis and context added. You take the Attack action in the same turn, you get the Bonus Action. Order is not stated, only obligation.

[NaughtyTiger]

I think the actual most important tweet from that most recent set is not the one posted in the OP, but this one:
Basically, the second ruling is still correct, per RAW, but allowing it in the middle is what was intended.

Except that atomic actions aren't RAW.
Except that he has changed his mind about RAI twice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Emphasis and context added. You take the Attack action in the same turn, you get the Bonus Action. Order is not stated, only obligation.
But you haven't taken the Attack action until you've resolved the attacks. So no bonus action until that happens.

Remember, you don't have a bonus action waiting until something gives it to you. Until the condition is true (you've taken the Attack action and haven't ended your turn yet), the bonus action shove doesn't exist.

[jas61292]

Emphasis and context added. You take the Attack action in the same turn, you get the Bonus Action. Order is not stated, only obligation.

That only works if you abstract actions in a way unsupported by the rules. Order is inherent in the rules of bonus actions. You do not have a bonus action to take until something gives you one. Shield master gives you one when you take the attack action. Not when you intend to take the attack action. When you actually take it. Until you take the attack action, you have no bonus action, so you cannot take it first.

[NaughtyTiger]

That only works if you abstract actions in a way unsupported by the rules. Order is inherent in the rules of bonus actions. You do not have a bonus action to take until something gives you one. Shield master gives you one when you take the attack action. Not when you intend to take the attack action. When you actually take it. Until you take the attack action, you have no bonus action, so you cannot take it first.

"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 using your shield."

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand"

"If" doesn't determine "when" is a reasonable interpretation.

[Aimeryan]

But you haven't taken the Attack action until you've resolved the attacks. So no bonus action until that happens.

Remember, you don't have a bonus action waiting until something gives it to you. Until the condition is true (you've taken the Attack action and haven't ended your turn yet), the bonus action shove doesn't exist.

The condition is true - you will be taking the Attack action on that turn. That is the condition, not that you have already taken the Attack action.

[JoeJ]

dude, just stop talking about shield master.

Shield master whenever you want. 2015
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557816721810403329

Shield master after the attack action is complete. 2018
https://twitter.com/TahnGoldenmane/status/997510720966316032


Shield master after 1 attack. 2019
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105183657877135360

In the third tweet he's stating how he does it at his table, not what the rule in the book is.

[jas61292]

"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 using your shield."

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand"

Um... yeah. Exactly. If you take the attack action, you can shove. No one disputes that.

But when you take the attack action, you must attack. If you have not attacked, you have not taken the attack action. And so you have no bonus action to take.

[NaughtyTiger]

In the third tweet he's stating how he does it at his table, not what the rule in the book is.

okay, so you are going with..

i wrote the rule this way, but even i don't play it that way.

[JoeJ]

okay, so you are going with..

i wrote the rule this way, but even i don't play it that way.

He wrote a rule set that is easy for DMs to adapt to individual tables, and then as DM... adapted it to his individual table. The monster!

[NaughtyTiger]

He wrote a rule set that is easy for DMs to adapt to individual tables, and then as DM... adapted it to his individual table. The monster!

2015 He wrote a rule set that is easy for DMs to adapt to individual tables.
2015 He explained a rule in a way that seemed logical to him
2018 He changed the explaination and said it is "illogical" to interpret it differently, started a small war, 7 people died, WotC changed their procedures as a result.
2019 He said he doesn't follow that logical rule...

Actually, yeah, he is kind of a monster.

*illogical is his wording

[MaxWilson]

You know... it's funny. I agree with the entirety of this... except the part about shield master specifically. Like, I fully agree that intent is irrelevant to RAW if what it actually says is clear. But to me, it is unambiguously clear that you do need to take the attack action to use the shield master bonus action. You don't have a bonus action to use until something gives you one, and this feat makes the attack action give you one, so the attack action must come first.

Of course the fact that two people can both see something as unambiguous, but interpret it in two opposite ways kinda undermines the idea it was unambiguous to begin with.

Sure, but the rules never say that the Attack action must be atomic. After you take the Attack action, you have no more action to use (unless you Action Surge or have Haste), but have you made all of your attacks, or just committed to attacking?

It's perfectly reasonable for a DM to rule that you may take the Attack action, take a Shield Master Shove as a bonus action, then make all of your attacks at advantage on the now-prone target. Nothing in the rules forbids it, and it's a perfectly logical fighting style. What you cannot do without violating the rules is to Shield Master Shove as your bonus action and then change your action based on the outcome of the Shove. E.g. you can't Shove and then decide to Dodge because the shove failed, because if you're doing Shield Master Shove that means you already spent your action on Attack.


But when you take the attack action, you must attack. If you have not attacked, you have not taken the attack action. And so you have no bonus action to take.

This is a bit like claiming that if you haven't moved, you haven't taken the Dash action, and we know that this is not true.

[JackPhoenix]

2014 He wrote a rule set that is easy for DMs to adapt to individual tables.
2015 He said what he thought the rule was without checking the books first, or really thinking about it, making a mistake in the process and contradicting actual existing rules
2018 He admitted his earlier mistake and explained how the rule is supposed to work, making it once again compatible with what was originally written in the PHB
2019 He said he adapts the rules to his individual table, exactly as any DM is expected to.

Fixed that for you


Snip

Except taking an attack action means making a melee or ranged attack. Not promising you'll make an attack in the future, or giving you permission to make attacks for the duration of your turn, as some people claimed in the past. Until you've actually made the attack, you haven't took the attack action, and thus don't trigger any abilities that require you to take the attack action, including SM, TWF, PAM and many others.


This is a bit like claiming that if you haven't moved, you haven't taken the Dash action, and we know that this is not true.

Not really. Dash action doubles your movement allowance for the turn, but it's completely independent of you using any of that movement. Attack action requires you to make an attack, because that's what it is.

Edit(s): Damm all those edits!

[NaughtyTiger]

Fixed that for you

geez, at least be courteous enough to highlight the changes so i don't have to scroll.



2014 He wrote a rule set that is easy for DMs to adapt to individual tables.
2015 He said what he thought the rule was, based on what seemed logical, without checking the books first, or really thinking about it, validating a reasonable interpretation of actual existing rules
2018 He admitted his earlier mistake and explained how the rule is supposed to work, but saying it wasn't how the rule was intended to work and muddying what was originally written in the PHB
2019 He said he adapts the rules to his individual table, using a rule he declared as illogical exactly as any DM is expected to, becuase the previous interpretation was unfun


see, now you can see where we disagree.

[Daphne]

Other than buffing scag cantrips more I agree.

SCAG Cantrips are OP anyway, there's a reason WotC didn't print them on XGE.

[ThePolarBear]

If you say someone is being deceptive, you better back it up. Clarify.

I'm saying you are misrepresenting. Not that you are being deceptive. Misrepresentation can be unintentional.


My understanding is

1st tweet:
you can bonus action shove before the attacks.

2nd tweet (including further discussion in the chain)
you must finish all attacks, then bonus attack shove

3rd tweet
you must do 1 attack, then you can bonus attack shove, then you can finish attacks.

Letting aside what those tweets are about: only the third has a chain that mentions intentions (at least that i remember and that i can find in a short amount of time). So,


if the lead designer changes his mind 3 times about the intent of a rule

is a misrepresentation of what has happened, expecially when referring to those tweets.
The first two are about what the rules are (be those tweets correct or incorrect), the third is about what he does at his table, and leads to the further clarification of text vs intentions.



2014 He (and others) wrote a rule set that is easy for DMs to adapt to individual tables.
2015 He said what he thought the rule was, based on what seemed logical going by memory, without checking the books first, or really thinking about it, validating a possible reasonable interpretation of actual existing rules - a particular reading of what "taking an action" means
2018 He admitted his earlier mistake and explained how the rule is supposed to work [AS WRITTEN] and why his earlier tweet was not logical with the text or english language.


Up to here i can follow. I made a couple of changes to better explain how it is from my point of view but then you add:

"but saying it wasn't how the rule was intended to work and muddying what was originally written in the PHB"

I don't follow. He said the earlier tweet, the one from 2015, was illogical given that "if/then" is a timing. By dismantling "take an action" as "declare an action" meaning, and requiring the action to be followed up to be "taken", the "if/then" was no longer possible as a condition: you can't do something that requires a condition if that condition isn't met. Not a single change has to this day made to the text of Shield Master, so i don't get how it is now less "originally written" than before.


2019 He said he adapts the rules to his individual table, using a rule he declared as illogical exactly as any DM is expected to, becuase the previous interpretation was unfun

He says how this is how he runs its table. There's no "because was unfun".
In fact, he keeps separating what the rules say (as, written), what he does as a DM, and a third way, that's more aligned with the intent: the Attack Action is, by default, only comprised of one attack. As long as make one attack with it, you have "taken enough" of the Attack Action - Extra Attack can never be used, and you still would have fulfilled the entirety of what the Attack Action is described to be.

I don't remember a tweet up until that one that mentions "rai" or intentions on this subject, other than prehaps an "intended to go after".

I'm SURE this will lead to "problems".

[JoeJ]

In fact, he keeps separating what the rules say (as, written), what he does as a DM, and a third way, that's more aligned with the intent: the Attack Action is, by default, only comprised of one attack. As long as make one attack with it, you have "taken enough" of the Attack Action - Extra Attack can never be used, and you still would have fulfilled the entirety of what the Attack Action is described to be.

That's how I rule it as well. The Attack action condition is fulfilled once it's impossible for you to not attack. That is, after you've made at least one attack.

[Xetheral]

Of course the fact that two people can both see something as unambiguous, but interpret it in two opposite ways kinda undermines the idea it was unambiguous to begin with.

I agree strongly with that. But a lot of posters seem to take the view that a text can't be ambiguous unless they can be personally convinced of its ambiguity. Evidence of reasonable, unbiased people reading the same text differently apparently doesn't count as persuasive evidence of ambiguity.


That only works if you abstract actions in a way unsupported by the rules. Order is inherent in the rules of bonus actions. You do not have a bonus action to take until something gives you one. Shield master gives you one when you take the attack action. Not when you intend to take the attack action. When you actually take it. Until you take the attack action, you have no bonus action, so you cannot take it first.

I think it's ambiguous whether Shield Master gives you a conditional bonus action or whether Shield Master conditionally gives you a bonus action. It's a subtle distinction, but I think differences on this point my help explain why posters appear to approach interpreting shield master so differently.

To elaborate, under the former approach, a character with Shield Master always has an ability that lets them make a shove with a bonus action on any turn in which they also take the Attack action. Under the latter approach, a character with Shield Master doesn't have any special shoving ability at all until they take the Attack action on a given turn.

Both approaches satisfy the rule that you only have a bonus action to use if something gives you one. But it makes sense to me that posters who are assuming the latter approach are more likely to emphasize the timing.

[No brains]

Just remember that Crawford waffles because the divots keep the syrup on top when you pour it on much better than those flat old pancakes.

Yeah, I may want to 'banish' Crawford, but I'd rather he waffled than pancaked. If he pancaked right in front of me I'd be worried for him. :smallfrown:

[Aquillion]

You know... it's funny. I agree with the entirety of this... except the part about shield master specifically. Like, I fully agree that intent is irrelevant to RAW if what it actually says is clear. But to me, it is unambiguously clear that you do need to take the attack action to use the shield master bonus action. You don't have a bonus action to use until something gives you one, and this feat makes the attack action give you one, so the attack action must come first.

Of course the fact that two people can both see something as unambiguous, but interpret it in two opposite ways kinda undermines the idea it was unambiguous to begin with.I get what you're saying, and I generally agree that some ambiguity is fine (since resolving interesting stuff in interesting ways is part of what a DM is for.)

But this isn't some obscure call - it's a major question about the defining function of the feat. If it's possible to bash first, you should almost always bash first. If you can't, but can bash after one attack, you should almost always bash under one attack. If you have to complete your full attack action, then the basic usage of the feat is substantially weaker. And it's not a small question (it's a question of whether the feat can semi-reliably give you advantage on arbitrary melee attacks or not.)

This is the kind of thing that should have been nailed down unambiguously when the feat was designed, so having replies go back and forth like this is disconcerting.

If these were questions about some obscure interaction or weird situational trick, it would be different. But each of these different answers points to a fundamentally different "basic" use-case for the feat.

(The fact that he said his ruling is "blind" and without regard for the impact it has on the feat is also disconcerting. Like... if the feat is supposed to always grant advantage by letting you knock the enemy down first, it should be errataed in whatever way preserves that functionality, not made near-useless for the sake of slavish devotion to respecting an error in its wording. Breaking the feat for the sake of consistency doesn't make sense to me - the goal should be to preserve its intended functionality.)

[47Ace]

Honestly, they should just errata the shield shove to not require an attack at all. It's not as though it would be overpowered, and it would drastically simplify the feat.

It would basically be a bonus action disengage which is probable well outside of the design intent of the feat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

(The fact that he said his ruling is "blind" and without regard for the impact it has on the feat is also disconcerting. Like... if the feat is supposed to always grant advantage by letting you knock the enemy down first, it should be errataed in whatever way preserves that functionality, not made near-useless for the sake of slavish devotion to respecting an error in its wording. Breaking the feat for the sake of consistency doesn't make sense to me - the goal should be to preserve its intended functionality.)

I feel like every step he's taken since the mistaken 2015 tweet has been in an effort to communicate that the intention was never and has never actually been that you could take the bonus action shove before committing to taking the attack action, which by the rules, requires you to make at least one attack roll.

I'm not convinced that the wording is necessarily wrong, just that with the intended use in mind, prone to misinterpretation.

[No brains]

It would basically be a bonus action disengage which is probable well outside of the design intent of the feat.

I think there's a niche where yes, this could work as a bonus action disengage, but there's so many ways it can go wrong that it's not a guarantee like using an action to disengage.

You need to know your target is there. You need to reach your target. You need to beat your target's athletics check. You need to be wearing a shield. You need to have taken the feat. You need a target who still can't reach you. All this will still only work against that one creature that you knew you could reach and knew had 5' reach of its own. If you have the opportunity and presence of mind to think this way.

Also, getting gud with a shield makes defensive manoeuvers easier. That makes more sense than the fringe benefits of other feats like crossbow expert making every ranged attack work in melee. It would be a happy little accident that doesn't spoil the big picture.

[47Ace]

I think there's a niche where yes, this could work as a bonus action disengage, but there's so many ways it can go wrong that it's not a guarantee like using an action to disengage.

You need to know your target is there. You need to reach your target. You need to beat your target's athletics check. You need to be wearing a shield. You need to have taken the feat. You need a target who still can't reach you. All this will still only work against that one creature that you knew you could reach and knew had 5' reach of its own. If you have the opportunity and presence of mind to think this way.

Also, getting gud with a shield makes defensive manoeuvers easier. That makes more sense than the fringe benefits of other feats like crossbow expert making every ranged attack work in melee. It would be a happy little accident that doesn't spoil the big picture.

Good point, I felt like it was worth pointing out but it does sound similar in power to some of the more fringe benefits of other combat feats.

[LudicSavant]

The redefinition of "if/when" to mean "after the atomic action" in 2018 has some bizarre effects on the rest of the system, for those who are looking at things other than just Shield Master.



After you use the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to cause tendrils of flame to stretch out from your fists and feet. Your reach with your unarmed strikes increases by 10 feet for that action, as well as the rest of the turn.


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.


After you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here
(actions presented there are... basically all the standard uses for your Action, like attack, cast a spell, dodge, help, disengage, etc)



(The fact that he said his ruling is "blind" and without regard for the impact it has on the feat is also disconcerting. Like... if the feat is supposed to always grant advantage by letting you knock the enemy down first, it should be errataed in whatever way preserves that functionality, not made near-useless for the sake of slavish devotion to respecting an error in its wording. Breaking the feat for the sake of consistency doesn't make sense to me - the goal should be to preserve its intended functionality.)

Yeah. It's not just Shield Master either. For example, we have statements from the authors (including JC (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/618267732098715648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E618267732098715648&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F0 7%2F18%2Feldritch-knight-war-magic%2F)) talking about how Eldritch Knight was intended to work prior to 2018 (all saying that they should be able to act in any order), but after the 2018 tweet EKs got changed to reflect the "after" interpretation in the compendium. Even after doing this, the Sage Advice Compendium stresses that it would not break anything to let them do it in the reverse order as a houserule. It unquestionably is more beneficial for the EK to do it in reverse order because of the way their level 10 ability works, and surely WotC is aware of that. So why would they feel a need to stress that? My suspicion is that the ability was designed, playtested, and played for years working that way before the 2018 change.


Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the can-trip, or can it come before? The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The redefinition of "if/when" to mean "after the atomic action" in 2018 has some bizarre effects on the rest of the system, for those who are looking at things other than just Shield Master.

When you use the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to cause tendrils of flame to stretch out from your fists and feet. Your reach with your unarmed strikes increases by 10 feet for that action, as well as the rest of the turn.

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.

When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here

(actions presented there are... basically all the standard uses for your Action, like attack, cast a spell, dodge, help, disengage, etc)
You'll notice for Fangs of the Fire Snake that it allows the bonus to apply on the action that triggered it, it gives a specific exception. It also still works really well with Flurry of Blows. Movement is also specifically something that allows you to break up the attacks in that action with movement.

Choosing the "when" in Actions is a laughable misrepresentation. The "when" refers to your choice to take any action, since you're not even required (and sometimes not allowed) to take an action at all. So yeah, I don't think citing abilities with specific exceptions is really a strong argument. Shield Master has no specific exception so it uses the general ruling.

This isn't to say there aren't any bizzare interactions, but I don't think any of the ones you listed are affected negatively, if at all by this.

Remember that SAC is typically made to answer questions in line with RAW (sometimes nodding towards the RAI) and War Magic is one of those features. They had intended for it to be usable before the spell cast, but with the way that the feature is worded it isn't given any permission to do so. It's the same with Shield Master.

[LudicSavant]

a laughable misrepresentation

Speaking of a laughable misrepresentation, did you just edit the quote in my statement to say something other than what I actually said, and other than what the book actually says? :smallmad:

For movement, my quote was "After." The book's quote is "If." Your quote (falsely attributed to me) is "When."


The "when" refers to your choice to take any action, since you're not even required (and sometimes not allowed) to take an action at all.

Indeed it does, which is the point being made.


You'll notice for Fangs of the Fire Snake that it allows the bonus to apply on the action that triggered it, it gives a specific exception. It also still works really well with Flurry of Blows. Movement is also specifically something that allows you to break up the attacks in that action with movement.

I did in fact notice all of this. However that doesn't stop it from creating a bizarre interaction.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Speaking of a laughable misrepresentation, did you just edit the quote in my statement to say something other than what I actually said, and other than what the book actually says? :smallmad:

For movement, my quote was "After." The book's quote is "If." Your quote (falsely attributed to me) is "When."
I quoted the books, because that's what the books say. They do not say "after".


Indeed it does, which is the point being made.
So your point is that you can change words into different words and have them mean things they weren't intended to mean?


I did in fact notice all of this. However that doesn't stop it from creating a bizarre interaction.
It's not a bizarre interaction, it works exactly as it says.

[LudicSavant]

I quoted the books, because that's what the books say. They do not say "after".' As was pointed out in the very post you just quoted, you did not in fact quote the books.

So you have both misrepresented me (by editing my quote) and misrepresented the books (by saying that they said "when" for movement).

:smallmad:


So your point is that you can change words into different words and have them mean things they weren't intended to mean?

The point is that there is reason to believe that if/when was never intended to mean "after" in the first place, as evidenced by the consistent linguistic strangeness of doing a find/replace for if/when with the words "after," as well as multiple dev statements to that effect.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As was pointed out in the very post you just quoted, you did not in fact quote the books.

So you have both misrepresented me (by editing my quote) and misrepresented the books (by saying that they said "when" for movement).

:smallmad:

I quoted the text exactly as it appears in the book under those features. If it makes you happier, I can take them outside of the quote that you posted. It's just easier to have the correct wording from the books because it's both relevant to the discussion and my own point in that comment.

[LudicSavant]

I quoted the text exactly as it appears in the book under those features.

No, you didn't. As I have now pointed out repeatedly, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge.


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.


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

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, you didn't. As I have now pointed out repeatedly, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge.

I apologize, I'll correct "when" to "if" even though you've said that the two are interchangeable.

The use of "if" in Moving Between Attacks actually makes a lot more sense too, since you're required to complete at least one attack as part of the action to be able to move between your potential extra attacks.

Good catch there, it matches the SAC post on Shield Master.


The point is that there is reason to believe that if/when was never intended to mean "after" in the first place, as evidenced by the consistent linguistic strangeness of doing a find/replace for if/when with the words "after," as well as multiple dev statements to that effect.
Of course it doesn't make sense to apply it to every case, there's no reason that you should.

Shield master specifically makes sense. When you take the attack action, you make a melee or ranged attack, which happens to have its own internal steps. You resolve the melee or ranged attack and you are considered to have taken an attack, meeting the prerequisites (by the base definition of Attack Action, which only accounts for a single attack) for Shield Master.

[LudicSavant]

I apologize, I'll correct "when" to "if" even though you've said that the two are interchangeable.

Did I say that, though? Did I actually say that?

Nope. My actual position is that treating either of those words as meaning "after the atomic action" creates bizarre wordings.

And seriously, using "you've said that the two are interchangeable" as a defense for "I've quoted the exact text of the rules" even when you didn't is just... what the heck are you trying to do here?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Okay, seriously, you need to stop misrepresenting things. First you edit my quotes. Then you say you're quoting the book verbatim when you're not. Now you're claiming that I said if/when are interchangeable when my actual position is that treating if/when as interchangeable with "after" is bizarre.

You coupled "if/when" even when the SAC only mentions "if-then"


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

My intention is not to misrepresent your case, my intention is to clear up your misrepresentation of the rulings we're discussing. The use of "when" instead of "if" under movement between attacks was a sincere mistake that I have corrected.

[LudicSavant]

You coupled "if/when" even when the SAC only mentions "if-then"

And yet the thing I am talking about is Jeremy Crawford's extended twitter discussions, not a single entry in SAC.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And yet the thing I am talking about is Jeremy Crawford's extended twitter discussions, not a single entry in SAC.

You literally quoted the Sage Advice Ruling of War Magic in the first post I responded to.


Yeah. It's not just Shield Master either. For example, we have statements from the authors (including JC (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/618267732098715648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E618267732098715648&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F0 7%2F18%2Feldritch-knight-war-magic%2F)) talking about how Eldritch Knight was intended to work prior to 2018 (all saying that they should be able to act in any order), but after the 2018 tweet EKs got changed to reflect the "after" interpretation in the compendium. Even after doing this, the Sage Advice Compendium stresses that it would not break anything to let them do it in the reverse order as a houserule. It unquestionably is more beneficial for the EK to do it in reverse order because of the way their level 10 ability works, and surely WotC is aware of that. So why would they feel a need to stress that? My suspicion is that the ability was designed, playtested, and played for years working that way before the 2018 change.

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the can-trip, or can it come before? The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.
I'm sorry that I misinterpreted that as Sage Advice.

[NaughtyTiger]

I quoted the books, because that's what the books say. They do not say "after".


Again, if you are gonna pull a Fixed That For You, you should make it VERY clear what you fixed.
That is the second time on a single page that folks have changed quotes without highlighting it the change.

I know it was not intended to deceive, but it is discourteous.

[LudicSavant]

You literally quoted the Sage Advice Ruling of War Magic in the first post I responded to.


I'm sorry that I misinterpreted that as Sage Advice.

Another misrepresentation on your part. You did not reply to my response to Aquillion, you replied to my comments preceding that, which specifically referred to JC's twitter comments in 2018. The response to Aquillion refers to a different statement, made in SAC in 2019.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Again, if you are gonna pull a Fixed That For You, you should make it VERY clear what you fixed.
That is the second time on a single page that folks have changed quotes without highlighting it the change.

I know it was not intended to deceive, but it is discourteous.

I wasn't intending for it to even be a "fixed that for you" I just thought it was appropriate to have a reference to what the rules said in the book.

It was probably a mistake to simply stick them back into where they were in LudicSavant's post but I would be reposting them regardless for reference.


Another misrepresentation on your part. You did not reply to my response to Aquillion, you replied to my comments preceding that.
It's literally the same comment, I even made mention to the War Magic part in my reply.

I'm really beginning to think that you're looking for an excuse to be upset about this, I meant no offense by it.

[Willie the Duck]

Except taking an attack action means making a melee or ranged attack. Not promising you'll make an attack in the future, or giving you permission to make attacks for the duration of your turn, as some people claimed in the past. Until you've actually made the attack, you haven't took the attack action, and thus don't trigger any abilities that require you to take the attack action, including SM, TWF, PAM and many others.

Not really. Dash action doubles your movement allowance for the turn, but it's completely independent of you using any of that movement. Attack action requires you to make an attack, because that's what it is.


In both cases, it literally doesn't have to be the case. Yes, Crawford has indicated that that is how he wants it to be, but it doesn't have to be. Declaring that the action is dedicated to attack could absolutely be the trigger for abilities that require you to take the attack action. There is not specific reason why Dash and Attack can't work identically. Taking the attack action ~=/~= Taking the dash action only because of fiat.

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, if you are gonna pull a Fixed That For You, you should make it VERY clear what you fixed.
That is the second time on a single page that folks have changed quotes without highlighting it the change.

I know it was not intended to deceive, but it is discourteous.

And this whole thing is exactly why "FTFY" is such a pernicious and toxic practice, at "best" it leads to misrepresentation, and at worst it's just plain intellectually dishonest.

If someone disagrees with another person's comment, they should present their disagreement in their own words, and let the other person's words stand as the other person's words.

There is a box that says a person said something -- changing what's in the box, putting something else in that box, other than to trim down to relevant points in clearly indicated fashion, is bad practice no matter what.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In both cases, it literally doesn't have to be the case. Yes, Crawford has indicated that that is how he wants it to be, but it doesn't have to be. Declaring that the action is dedicated to attack could absolutely be the trigger for abilities that require you to take the attack action. There is not specific reason why Dash and Attack can't work identically. Taking the attack action ~=/~= Taking the dash action only because of fiat.

It is in the rules that the Attack Action involves at least one attack.

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.

Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
I would say that this looks like a specific reason to why Dash and Attack work differently as actions.

The attack action requires you to "make one melee or ranged attack" and "making an attack" is well defined in this case.

[LudicSavant]

It's literally the same comment

Here is the post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23793295&postcount=79

As we can see in the post, when coupling "if/when" I am specifically referring to Twitter 2018. I mention that twice in the post. You are mistakenly conflating that with a statement about SAC 2019 in the same post. The SAC 2019 entry is presented to raise a question about the 2018 changes: Why would they feel a need to stress that it would work fine the other way when translating JC's rulings to the SAC?


And this whole thing is exactly why "FTFY" is such a pernicious and toxic practice, at "best" it leads to misrepresentation, and at worst it's just plain intellectually dishonest.

If someone disagrees with another person's comment, they should present their disagreement in their own words, and let the other person's words stand as the other person's words.

There is a box that says a person said something -- changing what's in the box, putting something else in that box, other than to trim down to relevant points in clearly indicated fashion, is bad practice no matter what.

Very much agree.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Here is the post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23793295&postcount=79

As we can see in the post, when coupling "if/when" I am referring to Twitter 2018.

Nuance is important if you want to accurately understand or represent what someone is saying.

I was responding to the entire comment, the entire connected comment. I had cut out the War Magic mention only because I didn't entirely disagree with it and it wasn't entirely relevant to my response. To me that entire post reads as if it was in reference to treating "if/when" as "after". The War Magic portion even directly mentions the 2018 tweets several times.

I'm really not sure how I was supposed to read them as completely unrelated.

EDIT: I also want to make clear that I am not misquoting you further, you're just editting your comments midway through my response. I apologize if the quotes don't match.
EDIT EDIT:


As we can see in the post, when coupling "if/when" I am specifically referring to Twitter 2018. I mention that twice in the post. You are mistakenly conflating that with a statement about SAC 2019 in the same post. The SAC 2019 entry is presented to raise a question about the 2018 changes: Why would they feel a need to stress that it would work fine the other way when translating JC's rulings to the SAC?
Just to be clear, the SAC entry that you quoted (the War Magic one) first appeared in the 2016 SAC.

The Shield Master ruling is new, and on account of requiring "the attack action" instead of "casting a cantrip" it follows different rules and is therefore also necessary to clarify (in my opinion at least).

[LudicSavant]

I was responding to the entire comment, the entire connected comment. I had cut out the War Magic mention only because I didn't entirely disagree with it and it wasn't entirely relevant to my response. To me that entire post reads as if it was in reference to treating "if/when" as "after". The War Magic portion even directly mentions the 2018 tweets several times.

I'm really not sure how I was supposed to read them as completely unrelated.

They are not "completely unrelated." But the 2019 SAC is not the part that conflates if/when and after. The 2018 Twitter conversations are. The 2019 SAC is relevant for a different reason.

Edit:


Just to be clear, the SAC entry that you quoted (the War Magic one) first appeared in the 2016 SAC.

You're wrong.

Here is the 2016 version:


Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature mean the bonus attack comes after you cast the cantrip, or can it come before? The intent is that the bonus attack can come before or after the cantrip. You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action specifies when it must take place (PH, 189).

As you can see, this is a very different rule from the one I quoted from the 2019 SAC.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You're wrong.
That's what I get for reading only the question rather than the answer.

Here is the 2017 (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) version, where it does actually first show up that way.

The bonus action comes after the cantrip, since using your action to cast a cantrip is what gives you the ability to make the weapon attack as a bonus action. That said, a DM would break nothing in the system by allowing an Eldritch Knight to reverse the order of the cantrip and the weapon attack.

[Willie the Duck]

It is in the rules that the Attack Action involves at least one attack.


I would say that this looks like a specific reason to why Dash and Attack work differently as actions.

The attack action requires you to "make one melee or ranged attack" and "making an attack" is well defined in this case.

I stated that it doesn't have to be the case and it doesn't. Quoting a rule clause that it is the case is irrelevant. Yes, the designer of the game made that choice. However, the game would work perfectly well with both dash and attack working under an identical "devoting ones action from your allowed action economy to this endeavor is sufficient to progress/trigger 'if-then'-gated effects" model. You can declare that you are committing the dash action, gain the expanded movement allowance, and then not use it. There is no specific reason why attacking could not work the same way: declare that your capital A Action is devoted to Attack, trigger and resultant 'if attack, then...' clauses, and get to progress them before any attack rolls are made (yet the action is still committed, so you cannot, as MW posits, declare an attack, gain the benefit, and then instead choose to dodge). The game would work with such a system in place.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I stated that it doesn't have to be the case and it doesn't. Quoting a rule clause that it is the case is irrelevant. Yes, the designer of the game made that choice. However, the game would work perfectly well with both dash and attack working under an identical "devoting ones action from your allowed action economy to this endeavor is sufficient to progress/trigger 'if-then'-gated effects" model. You can declare that you are committing the dash action, gain the expanded movement allowance, and then not use it. There is no specific reason why attacking could not work the same way: declare that your capital A Action is devoted to Attack, trigger and resultant 'if attack, then...' clauses, and get to progress them before any attack rolls are made (yet the action is still committed, so you cannot, as MW posits, declare an attack, gain the benefit, and then instead choose to dodge). The game would work with such a system in place.

There is a specific reason, you need to attack "with this action you make a melee or ranged attack". If you don't make a melee or ranged attack, you haven't taken the attack action.

Dashing has no wording that requires you to move, Attack does have wording that requires you to attack. The wording is so specific in fact that it required a seperate set of rules to properly describe.

The rules for casting a spell were so specific that they required an entire chapter to describe.

[Aimeryan]

It is in the rules that the Attack Action involves at least one attack.


The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.

Sure, however, it does not say immediately. If the question is about timing and you provide a quote that does not mention timing...

[ProsecutorGodot]

Sure, however, it does not say immediately. If the question is about timing and you provide a quote that does not mention timing...

Taking hit point damage doesn't say immediately either, are we going to argue that I can promise to take my damage later as soon as I've finished doing what I was planning to do before?

Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature's capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.

While we're at it, being reduced to 0 hit points also doesn't immediately render you dead or unconscious.

Heck, most healing spells don't even say immediately, I'll just hold onto that healing with the promise that I'll use it later. You know, when it's more convenient.

[jas61292]

Sure, however, it does not say immediately. If the question is about timing and you provide a quote that does not mention timing...

Because taking an action is taking an action. Actions resolve immediately unless something says otherwise.

[Willie the Duck]

There is a specific reason, you need to attack "with this action you make a melee or ranged attack". If you don't make a melee or ranged attack, you haven't taken the attack action.

I don't understand why this communication is failing. The if-then clause could have (this is hypothesizing, is that not clear?) been predicated on declaration of action-economy dedication perfectly fine, with the only difference being that situations such as 'shield bash, then attack' would have worked (preserving verisimilitude, since requiring someone to take a swing before making a shove with their shield is nonsensical), while at the same time acheiving Crawford's goal of preserving the integrity of if-then ordering (by, I will state again, subtly altering the triggering mechanism).


Dashing has no wording that requires you to move, Attack does have wording that requires you to attack. The wording is so specific in fact that it required a seperate set of rules to properly describe.

Dashing is an example of how it could have been. You declare dedication of your action to the dash, but are not required to resolve anything at that point. If-then statements can be hung off it as needed. There is not reason why this mechanism could not have been utilized with attack-predicated if-thens.


The rules for casting a spell were so specific that they required an entire chapter to describe.
Yes, spells are a whole smorgasbord of exception-based rules. A whole cavalcade of evidence that a specific situation doesn't have to be the way it is, if the designers had so chosen.

[Aimeryan]

Taking hit point damage doesn't say immediately either, are we going to argue that I can promise to take my damage later as soon as I've finished doing what I was planning to do before?

Sure, if you can get the DM to approve that.



While we're at it, being reduced to 0 hit points also doesn't immediately render you dead or unconscious.

The 'until' is a timing, otherwise, DM approval.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I swear it's like talking to a wall. The if-then clause could have (did you somehow not get the hypothesizing aspect of this after it was stated twice?) been predicated on declaration of action-economy dedication perfectly fine, with the only difference being that situations such as 'shield bash, then attack' would have worked (preserving verisimilitude, since requiring someone to take a swing before making a shove with their shield is nonsensical), while at the same time acheiving Crawford's goal of preserving the integrity of if-then ordering (by, I will state again, subtly altering the triggering mechanism).



Dashing is an example of how it could have been. You declare dedication of your action to the dash, but are not required to resolve anything at that point. If-then statements can be hung off it as needed. There is not reason why this mechanism could not have been utilized with attack-predicated if-thens.


Yes, spells are a whole smorgasbord of exception-based rules. A whole cavalcade of evidence that a specific situation doesn't have to be the way it is, if the designers had so chosen.

I understand that they could have worked this way but we also could have just kept playing 1st Edition until the end of time. How the rules could have worked is nice to wish for, but it's not at all relevant. I did understand that as your point, but it's not important when discussing what is.

On that note, I agree, it would be pretty cool if it worked that way. At some tables (mine included) it does work that way. I can disagree with the ruling and also understand that it is correct.

[Max_Killjoy]

Somehow, my comment from the other (interrupt a spellcaster) thread seems somewhat appropriate here too...

Depending on how one reads it and what one considers a valid trigger, that wording "after the trigger finishes" has the potential to negate a lot of the reasons that someone would want to "hold an action".

Imagine saying "I have him covered with my crossbow, if he tries to attack I shoot him" with a readied action. According to what some here are saying, you evidently can't use that to prevent someone from attacking, your shot has to wait until the other character actually finishes their attempt to attack.

And further, according to at least some posts, you evidently can't use a more precise trigger for your readied action to get around that quirk... because only in-system "atomic" events count as triggers, and those cannot be broken up at all.

[Max_Killjoy]

I understand that they could have worked this way but we also could have just kept playing 1st Edition until the end of time. How the rules could have worked is nice to wish for, but it's not at all relevant. I did understand that as your point, but it's not important when discussing what is.

On that note, I agree, it would be pretty cool if it worked that way. At some tables (mine included) it does work that way. I can disagree with the ruling and also understand that it is correct.

"Correct" only in so much as one defines "correct" by "what matches RAW as finely parsed", rather than as "what makes for the most functional ruleset for actual gameplay". The RAW can be broken as hell or lead to horrible unforeseen consequences, and at that point calling RAW "correct" is... not a habit one should get into.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Somehow, my comment from the other (interrupt a spellcaster) thread seems somewhat appropriate here too...

Depending on how one reads it and what one considers a valid trigger, that wording "after the trigger finishes" has the potential to negate a lot of the reasons that someone would want to "hold an action".

Imagine saying "I have him covered with my crossbow, if he tries to attack I shoot him" with a readied action. According to what some here are saying, you evidently can't use that to prevent someone from attacking, your shot has to wait until the other character actually finishes their attempt to attack.

And further, according to at least some posts, you evidently can't use a more precise trigger for your readied action to get around that quirk... because only in-system "atomic" events count as triggers, and those cannot be broken up at all.

The main difference is that "making an attack" is defined as "making an attack roll"


With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.



Spells aren't given the same step by step description so there's a lot more room for debate when they're involved, which is why I personally think that the War Magic feature advice advocates for DM choice very explicitly and the Shield Master ruling (while implicitly advocating DM choice by being part of SAC) does not.


"Correct" only in so much as one defines "correct" by "what matches RAW as finely parsed", rather than as "what makes for the most functional ruleset for actual gameplay". The RAW can be broken as hell or lead to horrible unforeseen consequences, and at that point calling RAW "correct" is... not a habit one should get into.
The ruleset is functional in either form, so your definition of "correct" wouldn't be accurate either.

I don't think this is a very fine parsing either, you're reading the rules as directed by the rules. These specific rules even happen to be in the same chapter and in a neat order.

[JoeJ]

Dashing is an example of how it could have been. You declare dedication of your action to the dash, but are not required to resolve anything at that point.

You're also not required to Dash. You can declare dedication of your action to Dash, move your regular distance and then Attack or Cast a Spell or take any other action. You're committed to an action when you take that action, not when you say you're going to take it at some future time.

[Rhedyn]

I thought the ruling that taking the attack action happens before you actually attack to be inspired and one of the few good Sage Advice to ever exist.

Of course they had to go back on that ruling because Sage Advice can't be good ever.

[JackPhoenix]

You're also not required to Dash. You can declare dedication of your action to Dash, move your regular distance and then Attack or Cast a Spell or take any other action. You're committed to an action when you take that action, not when you say you're going to take it at some future time.

There's no "dedication". You either Dash or don't. If you Dash, it is resolved immediately, your action is spent, your movement allowance for the turn is doubled, and what you do or don't do with it doesn't matter.

[jas61292]

There is no declaring of actions, by RAW. Period. There is only taking actions.

While people are free to play how they want, every interpretation that involves declaring an action separate from taking it is inventing game mechanics. When you take an action, you resolve the entire action immediately, unless a rule says otherwise, such as moving between attacks. That is how the game works. Everything else follows from that.

[Aimeryan]

When you take an action, you resolve the entire action immediately, unless a rule says otherwise, such as moving between attacks. That is how the game works. Everything else follows from that.

You do know you are meant to provide evidence when you make blanket statements like this, right? If not, well, now you know; provide the evidence or retract the statement.

[JoeJ]

There's no "dedication". You either Dash or don't. If you Dash, it is resolved immediately, your action is spent, your movement allowance for the turn is doubled, and what you do or don't do with it doesn't matter.

Yeah, that's my point. Declaring that you're going to Dash, or do anything else, is just thinking out loud. It doesn't mean anything in game terms.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You do know you are meant to provide evidence when you make blanket statements like this, right? If not, well, now you know; provide the evidence or retract the statement.

All the evidence provided has been unsatisfactory, it's there, you just choose not to acknowledge it.

[jas61292]

You do know you are meant to provide evidence when you make blanket statements like this, right? If not, well, now you know; provide the evidence or retract the statement.

I disagree. I'm not making some radical claim. I'm just saying that the rules say what they say. Such as saying that the attack action means making an attack.

You, and others, are the ones claiming the existence of some additional step of declaring actions. This step does not exist in RAW, as far as I am aware, and it is certainly not mentioned in the section on the attack action. You are the one who should be looking to provide evidence that this declaration step exists. As far as I am aware, it does not exist and was only invented by people trying to explain away Crawford's previous, redacted ruling.

[JackPhoenix]

Yeah, that's my point. Declaring that you're going to Dash, or do anything else, is just thinking out loud. It doesn't mean anything in game terms.

Maybe it doesn't, maybe it does. If you say you're going to Dash, the GM is within his right to say "All right, your movement is doubled, and your action for the turn is spend. What do you want to use the movement for?". That's not the case with Attack action, because there are steps to making an attack, namely, you'll need to pick a valid target first, and even then, the attack (and thus the action) doesn't happen until you roll the dice.

[Willie the Duck]

I understand that they could have worked this way but we also could have just kept playing 1st Edition until the end of time. How the rules could have worked is nice to wish for, but it's not at all relevant. I did understand that as your point, but it's not important when discussing what is.

On that note, I agree, it would be pretty cool if it worked that way. At some tables (mine included) it does work that way. I can disagree with the ruling and also understand that it is correct.

I started discussing what could be. That, all by itself, makes it relevant to that specific tangent. If you did not want to contribute, you were not required to. Instead, you tried multiple times to explain how it was wrong, making the reasonable interpretation of your actions to be that you did not understand what was being stated. At this point, though, it doesn't matter. We're all aware of what we're discussing in terms of is/suggested.


I thought the ruling that taking the attack action happens before you actually attack to be inspired and one of the few good Sage Advice to ever exist.

Of course they had to go back on that ruling because Sage Advice can't be good ever.

And it isn't like pre-emptive triggering, in broad strokes, has been abandoned as a concept. For example, Storm Sorcerer's Tempestuous Magic has, "you can use a bonus action on your turn to cause whirling gusts of elemental air to briefly surround you, immediately before or after you cast a spell of 1st level or higher. Doing so allows you to fly up to 10 feet without provoking opportunity attacks." So the base concept of it is apparently okay, just the previous justification that used to be acceptable no longer is.

[stoutstien]

I started discussing what could be. That, all by itself, makes it relevant to that specific tangent. If you did not want to contribute, you were not required to. Instead, you tried multiple times to explain how it was wrong, making the reasonable interpretation of your actions to be that you did not understand what was being stated. At this point, though, it doesn't matter. We're all aware of what we're discussing in terms of is/suggested.



And it isn't like pre-emptive triggering, in broad strokes, has been abandoned as a concept. For example, Storm Sorcerer's Tempestuous Magic has, "you can use a bonus action on your turn to cause whirling gusts of elemental air to briefly surround you, immediately before or after you cast a spell of 1st level or higher. Doing so allows you to fly up to 10 feet without provoking opportunity attacks." So the base concept of it is apparently okay, just the previous justification that used to be acceptable no longer is.
actually what does happen if the storm sorc uses there BA in this way to moves and then is unable to cast a spell?

[JoeJ]

actually what does happen if the storm sorc uses there BA in this way to moves and then is unable to cast a spell?

How would that happen?

[PhoenixPhyre]

And it isn't like pre-emptive triggering, in broad strokes, has been abandoned as a concept. For example, Storm Sorcerer's Tempestuous Magic has, "you can use a bonus action on your turn to cause whirling gusts of elemental air to briefly surround you, immediately before or after you cast a spell of 1st level or higher. Doing so allows you to fly up to 10 feet without provoking opportunity attacks." So the base concept of it is apparently okay, just the previous justification that used to be acceptable no longer is.

Note the wording. "Immediately before or after you..." That's what's required if they want to allow it.

Sure, they could have made that the default. But they didn't, for reasons that JC talked about in the interview I posted up-thread and are unlikely to change globally. So talking about it now is homebrew, and should be marked as such.

Now, personally, I don't care. In my games I'm very loose with timing, because I just don't want to worry about tracking it. I let monks take the Attack action, Martial Arts attack, and then decide to flurry for an additional action (effectively retroactively flurry). If anyone bothered taking Shield Master, I'd let them do it any order as long as they actually could take the Attack action that turn. It doesn't break anything at all. But it's well and thoroughly my own personal house-rule. I know it's not the default, I just don't happen to care. Even though I understand and agree with the reasoning given by JC. It doesn't outweigh my lack of energy to enforce it.

[ThePolarBear]

How would that happen?

Even if unlikely, it's possible with a couple of ready actions or if the SS was somehow out of movement and suddendly somewhere they can't cast spells. A ready action for "when they move" "should" trigger between an eventual 0-5' and 5'-10' movement, not after the full move.

[JoeJ]

Even if unlikely, it's possible with a couple of ready actions or if the SS was somehow out of movement and suddendly somewhere they can't cast spells. A ready action for "when they move" "should" trigger between an eventual 0-5' and 5'-10' movement, not after the full move.

In that case you'll just have to ask your DM what happens.

[detro]

It's pretty well known at this point that Crawford hates Martials and Sorcerers, but loves Wizards.
You shouldn't listen to anything he says involving those topics, because he's biased by default.

[RSP]

You, and others, are the ones claiming the existence of some additional step of declaring actions. This step does not exist in RAW, as far as I am aware, and it is certainly not mentioned in the section on the attack action.

It’s under “How To Play”, in the introduction:

“2. The players describe what they want to do.“

RAW, players do declare what they want their characters to do, this step occurs after the DM describes the environment (step 1).

If a Player describes what they want their character to do, and then “the DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions,” the third step in how the game is played, it would take approval from the DM to then change said declared actions to something else.

Also keep in mind, “this pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions.”

So, RAW, this pattern is true for combat. For instance, the Player states their character will run up and attack the Orc that’s currently 25’ away with their longsword, satisfying that second part of How To Play. The DM, however, describes the results of those actions as the character falling into a pit trap, 10’ before reaching the Orc, which, RAW, brings us to a new circumstance to be described, also known as step 1.

Note, it doesn’t bring us back to step 2 or allow the Player to alter their prior declared actions in the previous step 2.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm not interested in the debate on which of JC's ruling is deemed RAW. What i am interested in is, how would you rule it at your table?

Personally, I'd simply allow a Bonus Action Shield bash, no Ifs and Buts.

[Greywander]

I skimmed the first page then skipped to the last one. I see this question pop up from time to time and I'd like to get my 2 cents in without reading through all 5 pages or starting a new thread.

When you take the Attack action, you're allowed to break up the attack. For example, attack, move, second attack. As such:

Step 1: Declare you are taking the Attack action.
Step 2: Since you are taking the Attack action, you can shove as a bonus action.
Step 3: Shove as a bonus action.
Step 4: Take your remaining attacks (all of them), completing your Attack action.

But what if you change your mind after shoving but before attacking? Okay, sure, you can change your mind, but at that point taking the Attack action is unavoidable. Shoving, sans Shield Master, is done using the Attack action. So you can recoup your bonus action if you change your mind, but you're still locked into the Attack action regardless. Shoving will either be (a) one of your attacks from the Attack action, or (b) your bonus action when you use the Attack action on the same turn. In either case, the very moment you declare a shove means you're using the Attack action that turn. Shield Master only requires that the Attack action be taken on the same turn as the shove. It says nothing about before or after, just that it is the same turn.

Anyone, including JC, is free to decide that this is stupid and that an attack needs to happen before the shove. But this is not what the book says. I don't care what the Sage Advice Compendium says, either, as it directly contradicts the PHB. JC and Sage Advice is full of a bunch of, "No, wait, we changed our minds," which is not what it presents itself as (which is "rules clarifications"). It seems like such a small thing to quibble over, too. Why not just let players have their fun and enjoy knocking people down and stabbing them? The whole point of 5e was to be a bit more relaxed with the rules so that we didn't get bogged down in legal disputes when we should be having fun.

For the record, I also allow slings to be used with shields, as this is both historically accurate and the PHB says nothing about needing two hands to reload. I don't care what JC says, the idea of a one-handed weapon that requires two hands to operate is just inane. I just bring this up (a) because this, specifically, bothers me, and (b) to demonstrate how little regard I feel should be given to JC. It's like when a best seller author goes off the rails and decides they don't need an editor anymore, and suddenly the quality of their books tanks. JC didn't create the game by himself, and neither should he make rulings by himself (at least, that go beyond his own table). Sage Advice should always be just that: advice, not rulings.

[JackPhoenix]

When you take the Attack action, you're allowed to break up the attack. For example, attack, move, second attack.

That's not exactly true.

1) When you take Attack action, you make one attack. That's general rule, and you can't break that up.
2) Extra Attack (and similar abilities) allow you to make two attacks instead of one when you take Attack action. That's a specific exception to the general rule (1) that you can only make one attack, but you still can't break that up.
3) Movement rules allow you to move between attacks if an action allows you to make more than one. That's a specific exception to another specific exception (2), but it's not a blank permission to do anything you want, you can only use the exception to do what it allows (moving between multiple attacks).
4) There are few rules that allow you to take specific bonus action after you attack, but those are again specific exceptions only relevant to the ability itself, not blank permission to take any bonus action between multiple attacks.

The result of 2 and 3 may look similar to what you're saying, but there's a difference in execution.

[Aimeryan]

I skimmed the first page then skipped to the last one. I see this question pop up from time to time and I'd like to get my 2 cents in without reading through all 5 pages or starting a new thread.

When you take the Attack action, you're allowed to break up the attack. For example, attack, move, second attack. As such:

Step 1: Declare you are taking the Attack action.
Step 2: Since you are taking the Attack action, you can shove as a bonus action.
Step 3: Shove as a bonus action.
Step 4: Take your remaining attacks (all of them), completing your Attack action.

But what if you change your mind after shoving but before attacking? Okay, sure, you can change your mind, but at that point taking the Attack action is unavoidable. Shoving, sans Shield Master, is done using the Attack action. So you can recoup your bonus action if you change your mind, but you're still locked into the Attack action regardless. Shoving will either be (a) one of your attacks from the Attack action, or (b) your bonus action when you use the Attack action on the same turn. In either case, the very moment you declare a shove means you're using the Attack action that turn. Shield Master only requires that the Attack action be taken on the same turn as the shove. It says nothing about before or after, just that it is the same turn.

Anyone, including JC, is free to decide that this is stupid and that an attack needs to happen before the shove. But this is not what the book says. I don't care what the Sage Advice Compendium says, either, as it directly contradicts the PHB. JC and Sage Advice is full of a bunch of, "No, wait, we changed our minds," which is not what it presents itself as (which is "rules clarifications"). It seems like such a small thing to quibble over, too. Why not just let players have their fun and enjoy knocking people down and stabbing them? The whole point of 5e was to be a bit more relaxed with the rules so that we didn't get bogged down in legal disputes when we should be having fun.

For the record, I also allow slings to be used with shields, as this is both historically accurate and the PHB says nothing about needing two hands to reload. I don't care what JC says, the idea of a one-handed weapon that requires two hands to operate is just inane. I just bring this up (a) because this, specifically, bothers me, and (b) to demonstrate how little regard I feel should be given to JC. It's like when a best seller author goes off the rails and decides they don't need an editor anymore, and suddenly the quality of their books tanks. JC didn't create the game by himself, and neither should he make rulings by himself (at least, that go beyond his own table). Sage Advice should always be just that: advice, not rulings.

Absolutely agree. I made a (much shorter) version of this at the top of the second page - so you just missed it, heh. There was no refutation to the argument, so...

On the other point, arm-strapped shields allow the use of the shield hand without dropping the shield. 5e uses arm-strapped shields (weirdly, there are no specified centre-gripped shields). While the use of the shield hand for something other than stabilising the shield should have some detrimental effect on your defence, it absolutely should allow for at least holding something else that is not too big - like a sling bullet or sling straps.

~~~


That's not exactly true.

1) When you take Attack action, you make one attack. That's general rule, and you can't break that up.
2) Extra Attack (and similar abilities) allow you to make two attacks instead of one when you take Attack action. That's a specific exception to the general rule (1) that you can only make one attack, but you still can't break that up.
3) Movement rules allow you to move between attacks if an action allows you to make more than one. That's a specific exception to another specific exception (2), but it's not a blank permission to do anything you want, you can only use the exception to do what it allows (moving between multiple attacks).
4) There are few rules that allow you to take specific bonus action after you attack, but those are again specific exceptions only relevant to the ability itself, not blank permission to take any bonus action between multiple attacks.

The result of 2 and 3 may look similar to what you're saying, but there's a difference in execution.

1) Disagree, no rule in place; it is not defined that something can not go between starting the attack and ending the attack. An example of how this may look: Start an overhead chop with a 1H axe in your right hand, shield bash with your shield in your left hand, complete the overhead chop with the axe.

2) As for 1, with the addition of movement.

3) Disagree, no rule in place; movement is not defined as being the sole exception.

4) Any bonus action that specifies it must occur after an attack would indeed need to occur after at least one attack has been made. Disagree with not being able to come between further attacks, however.

[Willie the Duck]

actually what does happen if the storm sorc uses there BA in this way to moves and then is unable to cast a spell?

I'm sure someone has a very well thought through argument with lots of references that they could bring to bear, and we could spend another 5 pages arguing over. From a DM-rulings and 'what I think will actually happen at most tables perspective,' I think most people would rule that the movement has already happened, and you can't change your mind on what you'd do with your action, but the not being able to cast wouldn't retroactively make the movement not happen. Given the long history in various editions of 'spell fizzles' and 'wound up being grappled or not having hands free, etc.' situations, I think it's a little more seamless in most minds.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1) Disagree, no rule in place; it is not defined that something can not go between starting the attack and ending the attack. An example of how this may look: Start an overhead chop with a 1H axe in your right hand, shield bash with your shield in your left hand, complete the overhead chop with the axe.

2) As for 1, with the addition of movement.

3) Disagree, no rule in place; movement is not defined as being the sole exception.

4) Any bonus action that specifies it must occur after an attack would indeed need to occur after at least one attack has been made. Disagree with not being able to come between further attacks, however.

#3: You can't reason that way. An exception based game doesn't do that. You need explicit exceptions, rather than "it doesn't say I can't." You can't reason from the absence of prohibition. Does a particular ability say it's an exception? Then it's an exception. Does it not say it's an exception? Then it's not an exception.

[Aimeryan]

#3: You can't reason that way. An exception based game doesn't do that. You need explicit exceptions, rather than "it doesn't say I can't." You can't reason from the absence of prohibition. Does a particular ability say it's an exception? Then it's an exception. Does it not say it's an exception? Then it's not an exception.

You cannot state you can from absence of prohibition, however, neither can you state you cannot. It is DM-dependent. Furthermore, there is RAW for stating you can take a Bonus Action at any time, which I can go grab if you like?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You cannot state you can from absence of prohibition, however, neither can you state you cannot. It is DM-dependent. Furthermore, there is RAW for stating you can take a Bonus Action at any time, which I can go grab if you like?

The flow for interpreting an exception-based ruleset is the following:
1) Do the basic rules say you can do it?
1a) If yes, then it's possible.
1b) If no, go to 2.
2) Is there a specific rule that authorizes it?
2a) If yes, then you can in that one circumstance.
2b) If no, then you can't do it unless the DM makes an exception (basically changing the answer to #2).

Nowhere in here are prohibitions necessary, although they're added to foreclose some meanings. "It doesn't say I can't" is fallacious reasoning in D&D. As is "It doesn't say it's the only exception" (which would be utterly meaningless, since other exceptions could be added later).

So your statement #3 is just flat out false.

And no other RAW helps you there, because you need specific authorization to break up an action with another action. Not absence of prohibition, not "clever" parsing. And the action at hand specifies a timing constraint.

Honestly, I don't care enough to enforce this particular rule at the table. Unless someone tries to argue that it's RAW that they can. Because that's just being a munchkin. And I hate munchkins and semantic arguments. And that's all this is. A semantic argument that complicates things and stirs up trouble for the sake of personal gain.

[Aimeryan]

The flow for interpreting an exception-based ruleset is the following:
1) Do the basic rules say you can do it?
1a) If yes, then it's possible.
1b) If no, go to 2.
2) Is there a specific rule that authorizes it?
2a) If yes, then you can in that one circumstance.
2b) If no, then you can't do it unless the DM makes an exception (basically changing the answer to #2).

Nowhere in here are prohibitions necessary, although they're added to foreclose some meanings. "It doesn't say I can't" is fallacious reasoning in D&D. As is "It doesn't say it's the only exception" (which would be utterly meaningless, since other exceptions could be added later).

So your statement #3 is just flat out false.

And no other RAW helps you there, because you need specific authorization to break up an action with another action. Not absence of prohibition, not "clever" parsing. And the action at hand specifies a timing constraint.

Honestly, I don't care enough to enforce this particular rule at the table. Unless someone tries to argue that it's RAW that they can. Because that's just being a munchkin. And I hate munchkins and semantic arguments. And that's all this is. A semantic argument that complicates things and stirs up trouble for the sake of personal gain.

I agree with most of this, however, the problem you have here is that most of what goes on in standard gameplay is not specifically spelled out in the PHB or DMG - it would simply require encyclopaedia-level material to accomplish this. Therefore, the book explicitly allows the DM to make ruling for that which is not specified to cover this. Therefore, while you can not say "I can because it doesn't say I cannot", neither can you say "You cannot because it doesn't say you can". It is DM dependent. Essentially, no exception is needed because the general is that the DM rules on this.

In regards to SM's shove, the general rule is that Bonus actions can occur at any time, unless the timing is specified. The argument here is if the SM shove's timing is specified, which I and many others have concluded it is not.

[jas61292]

In regards to SM's shove, the general rule is that Bonus actions can occur at any time, unless the timing is specified. The argument here is if the SM shove's timing is specified, which I and many others have concluded it is not.

To me, and probably others, the rules on bonus actions mean that whenever an "if" requirement exists, timing is inherently specified. The reason for this is that bonus actions do not exist normally. Abilities don't just give you options for what to do with your bonus action. They give you the ability to take a bonus action in the first place. If they only unlocked uses for the action I might entertain the idea of retroactive qualification, but the rules as written say that the bonus action simply does not exist until the requirement is met.

To me, the fact that it says "on your turn" is immaterial to timing (though it has meaning I'll address later). If you have not yet attacked, you have no bonus action to take. If you have, you do. Even if by the rule of the ability you would theoretically qualify for the bonus action earlier, that is irrelevant, as you only qualify for it after that earlier time is over.

I've seen numerous metaphors and comparisons on this topic, but the one thing they seem to have in common is that they are all trying to explain away a temporal relationship. That is important, as people often point out, as just because something is implied to be first, doesn't mean it has to be. But what these kind of metaphors and comparisons often forget is that, per the rules, this is a causal relationship.

For example a common one I've seen is the example "if you go to place A, then you should go to place B too." This is brought up to illustrate an example where an if/then statement does not show order. It simply says if you are doing one thing that you should also do another. Order is irrelevant. While there are issues with this example, addressing them is meaningless, as the example itself fails to replicate the rules structure at play. The relationship is not casual.

A better example would be something like "if it rains today, the sidewalk will be wet." This is casual. A does not simply allow for B, it causes it. As such, it must come first. This example is further like the Shield Master car as both have a time period specified in the predicate. Claiming order is irrelevant in a casual relationship is like saying the above statement means that, if it rains in the afternoon, the sidewalk will have been wet in the morning. And this is, of course, illogical.

Furthermore, it should be noted that specifying a time period does not allow for reverse causality. It simply indicates the period during which the casual relationship will be true. That is to say, it is there to limit the "then" part of the statement. For my example statement, this means that, while it must first rain for it to cause the sidewalk to be wet, this only remains true through that day. It raining today does not mean the sidewalk will be wet next week.

Similarly, by saying "on your turn", Shield Master is not saying order is irrelevant; that an attack any time on your turn allows a bonus action shove any time on your turn as well, even before the attack. Rather, it is simply saying that the bonus action that is granted is only applicable this turn. Attacking this round does not grant you a bonus action next round.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To me, and probably others, the rules on bonus actions mean that whenever an "if" requirement exists, timing is inherently specified. The reason for this is that bonus actions do not exist normally. Abilities don't just give you options for what to do with your bonus action. They give you the ability to take a bonus action in the first place. If they only unlocked uses for the action I might entertain the idea of retroactive qualification, but the rules as written say that the bonus action simply does not exist until the requirement is met.

To me, the fact that it says "on your turn" is immaterial to timing (though it has meaning I'll address later). If you have not yet attacked, you have no bonus action to take. If you have, you do. Even if by the rule of the ability you would theoretically qualify for the bonus action earlier, that is irrelevant, as you only qualify for it after that earlier time is over.

I've seen numerous metaphors and comparisons on this topic, but the one thing they seem to have in common is that they are all trying to explain away a temporal relationship. That is important, as people often point out, as just because something is implied to be first, doesn't mean it has to be. But what these kind of metaphors and comparisons often forget is that, per the rules, this is a causal relationship.

For example a common one I've seen is the example "if you go to place A, then you should go to place B too." This is brought up to illustrate an example where an if/then statement does not show order. It simply says if you are doing one thing that you should also do another. Order is irrelevant. While there are issues with this example, addressing them is meaningless, as the example itself fails to replicate the rules structure at play. The relationship is not casual.

A better example would be something like "if it rains today, the sidewalk will be wet." This is casual. A does not simply allow for B, it causes it. As such, it must come first. This example is further like the Shield Master car as both have a time period specified in the predicate. Claiming order is irrelevant in a casual relationship is like saying the above statement means that, if it rains in the afternoon, the sidewalk will have been wet in the morning. And this is, of course, illogical.

Furthermore, it should be noted that specifying a time period does not allow for reverse causality. It simply indicates the period during which the casual relationship will be true. That is to say, it is there to limit the "then" part of the statement. For my example statement, this means that, while it must first rain for it to cause the sidewalk to be wet, this only remains true through that day. It raining today does not mean the sidewalk will be wet next week.

Similarly, by saying "on your turn", Shield Master is not saying order is irrelevant; that an attack any time on your turn allows a bonus action shove any time on your turn as well, even before the attack. Rather, it is simply saying that the bonus action that is granted is only applicable this turn. Attacking this round does not grant you a bonus action next round.

I agree with this. Permissions statements are only active while the condition is true.

"If you clean your room, you can go out and play." Can the child go out to play any time simply by saying "OK, I'll clean my room <sometime>?" Nope. It's the equivalent of the following pseudo-code:



can_act = False;
if (condition) { can_act = True }


There are many ways of specifying timing constraints. An example of a bonus action that does not specify timing beyond "on your turn" (which is redundant since you can't take a bonus action any other time) is Second Wind:

On your turn, you can use a bonus action to regain...

Other examples of unrestricted timing bonus actions are most of the bonus action spells out there.

An example of a restricted bonus action is Improved War Magic:

when you use your action to cast a spell, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.
Unless and until you use your action to cast a spell, this option does not exist. It's greyed out. Illegal action. As soon as you do use your action to cast a spell, you can take this bonus action at any other time on the turn.

So the following is allowed:


Cast 1-action spell.
Move.
BA attack.


But the following is not allowed, as the Bonus action does not exist at this point within the turn.


BA attack.
Cast 1-action spell.


An example of a completely restricted bonus action is flurry of blows:

Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn...
In this case, there can be no other action (speaking generally, including movement) between the completion of the Attack action (ie the point at which the condition is true) and the flurry of blows. No movement, no reactions, nothing. And note that the permission to move between attacks only applies to the Attack action, so by RAW you cannot move between flurry attacks. JC specifically talked about this--it's intentional.

So you can do


Attack action (1 or more attacks)
Flurry of blows (2 attacks)


But you can't do


Attack action (1 or more attacks)
Move
Flurry of blows

OR

Attack action (1 attack)
Flurry of blows
Finish attack action (1 more attack).


To say otherwise is pure magic words semantic argumentation that does not hold water. It's exactly the same kind of special pleading that I hear from my teenage students all the time, and it's just as invalid.

[stoutstien]

Has anyone tried just allowing the ba shove as a feature on shields?

[Toofey]

I've said this a bunch of time but I feel like the Wizard's team has a policy of intentionally giving bad/inconsistent advice to force people to make their own decisions.

[LudicSavant]

Permissions statements are only active while the condition is true.
I think folks on both sides already agree with that.

The argument I see people making is whether the condition to be evaluated as true or false is "have already completed the action" or "have taken or will take the action on their turn."

It is noteworthy that there are examples in 5e where the latter is intended, either explicitly (clarified as such, as in the case of Storm Sorcerer) or via dev commentaries (as in the case of Eldritch Knight, where it's been said that it was designed with the intent that players should take the actions in either order).

[MaxWilson]

Those who think actions must be atomic and that Attack hasn't happened until all attacks have been made must concede also that Cast A Spell must necessarily be atomic too, not happening until a spell is cast... Therefore if you get Counterspelled, you haven't yet Cast A Spell (because then the spell is done and it is too late to Counterspell). What happens if you change your mind at that point and Dodge instead? Does the Counterspeller get their spell slot back?

I don't buy that theory of action resolution. It makes no physical sense, is not supported by the rule text, and creates unnecessary coupling and nonsensical outcomes.

Sorry dudes. My ruling: If you Attack, you're in the process of attacking, even if you have yet to land a blow. You want to shield bash first as part of your attack? If you're a Shield Master, go right ahead.

[Willie the Duck]

To me, and probably others, the rules on bonus actions mean that whenever an "if" requirement exists, timing is inherently specified. The reason for this is that bonus actions do not exist normally. Abilities don't just give you options for what to do with your bonus action. They give you the ability to take a bonus action in the first place. If they only unlocked uses for the action I might entertain the idea of retroactive qualification, but the rules as written say that the bonus action simply does not exist until the requirement is met.

To me, the fact that it says "on your turn" is immaterial to timing (though it has meaning I'll address later). If you have not yet attacked, you have no bonus action to take. If you have, you do. Even if by the rule of the ability you would theoretically qualify for the bonus action earlier, that is irrelevant, as you only qualify for it after that earlier time is over.

I know you said "To me," making it opinion, and thus silly to refute, so I'm not sure how to proceed. The issue I have is that your argument doesn't really support your conclusion -- bonus actions predicated on, and being gated by additional requirement is a causal and logical requirement, but it is not a temporal one. The two are not the same thing. Yes, a causal requirement without temporal requirement has the capacity for paradox, but the potential for paradox does not invalidate the possibility of a non-temporally linear causal progression. It happens all the time, and we just have to adjudicate the results ("you get a free drink with your meal." "Here's your drink, the meal will be up in two minutes." ... "We're sorry, turns out we're out of ____, we can't make your meal"). The two are different uses of the word 'then' in 'if-then' statements, and while they often go together, there is not specific requirement that they do.


I've seen numerous metaphors and comparisons on this topic, but the one thing they seem to have in common is that they are all trying to explain away a temporal relationship. That is important, as people often point out, as just because something is implied to be first, doesn't mean it has to be. But what these kind of metaphors and comparisons often forget is that, per the rules, this is a causal relationship.

Lots of metaphors, yes*. Some apt, and some not. However, it is not clear why this would support your position, as opposed to the contraposition, or more frankly the position that (baring further points), the question is still open.
*Including pseudocode, which is my wheelhouse, but I recognize that it has an implied temporarily (or at least order), as you made if checks as you move down the text.


For example a common one I've seen is the example "if you go to place A, then you should go to place B too." This is brought up to illustrate an example where an if/then statement does not show order. It simply says if you are doing one thing that you should also do another. Order is irrelevant. While there are issues with this example, addressing them is meaningless, as the example itself fails to replicate the rules structure at play. The relationship is not casual.

I really think you got this reverse. If order is irrelevant, that is arguing against your position.


A better example would be something like "if it rains today, the sidewalk will be wet."

That's not a better example to support your position. We do not know shield-bash => attack has this relationship. We only know allowance. We know 'if, then,' but we have not established that it is a temporal progression or not. If attack, then (causal, not temporal) shield bash. We can posit that it the relationship is the same as the rain example, but that's really an example of what we are arguing, and presuming an answer to it is begging the question (assuming the position we are arguing for in the support of said argument).


This is casual. A does not simply allow for B, it causes it. As such, it must come first.

In the case of physics (barring wonky time-travel thought experiments), this is the case. In the grander universe of options (including legal and semantic situations), and particularly In the case of the D&D example, it literally doesn't. You can cause something and have the caused action to happen first.


This example is further like the Shield Master car as both have a time period specified in the predicate. Claiming order is irrelevant in a casual relationship is like saying the above statement means that, if it rains in the afternoon, the sidewalk will have been wet in the morning.

No it literally doesn't. You are presuming a physical causation, and this is a game rule, it literally is not required to follow this progression.


And this is, of course, illogical.

The rain example, certainly, but to me that just showcases that it is a bad example. Saying that Y is a good example of X and then showing an illogical progression in Y only works as an argument against X iff X and Y are actually synonymous.


Those who think actions must be atomic and that Attack hasn't happened until all attacks have been made must concede also that Cast A Spell must necessarily be atomic too, not happening until a spell is cast... Therefore if you get Counterspelled, you haven't yet Cast A Spell (because then the spell is done and it is too late to Counterspell). What happens if you change your mind at that point and Dodge instead? Does the Counterspeller get their spell slot back?

I don't buy that theory of action resolution. It makes no physical sense, is not supported by the rule text, and creates unnecessary coupling and nonsensical outcomes.

Sorry dudes. My ruling: If you Attack, you're in the process of attacking, even if you have yet to land a blow. You want to shield bash first as part of your attack? If you're a Shield Master, go right ahead.

I think positions have ossified. I've yet to see an argument that is really even remotely as solid as the arguer thinks it is*. I'm not surprised, given that the designers were using natural language and we're to the point of breaking stuff down by temporal and causal if-thens :-P.
*plus lots of treating points against the opposing position as votes in favor of one's own, as opposed to simply supporting the neutral position of it being an open question.

[Max_Killjoy]

Has anyone just tried playtesting the BA feature(s) of Shield Master, both allowing and forbidding "bash first", to see what effect it had on the actual game?

[Unoriginal]

Has anyone just tried playtesting the BA feature(s) of Shield Master, both allowing and forbidding "bash first", to see what effect it had on the actual game?

Plenty of people did one, the other, or both, and saw the difference.

Allow before, and you get to generate advantage for your own attacks provided the bash is a success, plus you're doing the equivalent of the Help action for all the melee combatants who are attacking this foe, and you're halving said foe's movement speed (should they try to get up).

If the bash come after, you're still doing the equivalent of the Help action for all the melee combatants focusing on this foe and halving the foe's movement speed. You're just not giving yourself advantage on the attacks.

[stoutstien]

Has anyone just tried playtesting the BA feature(s) of Shield Master, both allowing and forbidding "bash first", to see what effect it had on the actual game?
I have ran it 4 different ways now.

1) When 5e first came out I read the feat that the ba shove was only allowed after at least one attack from the attack action has been made.

2) Then I ran it when you can shove before the attack but locks player into taking the attack action.

3) ran it where anyone can just ba shove with the feat

4) removed the shove from the feat and made it a special feature on shields. Added a reaction shove with AoO on feat.

1 and 2 honestly play very similar but 1 feels clunky and 2 just makes for smoother turns.
3 was great until Scag cantrips came out
4 is what I use now and so far all my players have been happy with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Has anyone just tried playtesting the BA feature(s) of Shield Master, both allowing and forbidding "bash first", to see what effect it had on the actual game?

It's been done. Total effect--small. Strongly depends on the party (having mixed melee/range makes it much less use than mostly melee) and the monster.

Honestly, it's the sort of thing that matters only in principle, not practice. Do it however you want. But by the writing of the rules (and the way they've phrased other things), it should be BA bash second.

I find that we all (speaking generically about forum residents, myself very much included) tend to get most worked up about the smallest things. There are very few of these "contentious" cases where the outcome really matters in the broad scheme of things. There are very few true "exploits" in 5e, where a simple ruling makes the difference between OP or not, or vice versa.

And the developers have actually admitted as much--there are a bunch of things marked "the rules say X, but if you do ~X, nothing bad will happen." There are core principles, the modification of which has large effects. Bounded accuracy. The basic adventuring day. The commonality of magic users, at least as PCs[1]. The broad-brush action economy (1 Action, 1 BA, 1 Reaction + movement default, no broad support for action-economy-destruction like in 3e). That's about it, as far as I can tell. The details of the exceptions may or may not cause effects at a single table, but those effects will be table-specific.

I, personally, have never had anyone even consider Shield Master, Pole-arm Master, Great-weapon Master, Sharpshooter, or Crossbow Expert (to name the most commonly-labeled "OP" feats). They recognize that they're powerful, just boring. The forum hive-mind places way more value on DPR numbers than the broader community does, mainly because that's something relatively easy to optimize for.

[JoeJ]

I, personally, have never had anyone even consider Shield Master, Pole-arm Master, Great-weapon Master, Sharpshooter, or Crossbow Expert (to name the most commonly-labeled "OP" feats). They recognize that they're powerful, just boring. The forum hive-mind places way more value on DPR numbers than the broader community does, mainly because that's something relatively easy to optimize for.

And then there are those of us who are annoyed that if you play a bard you have to be either a high elf or a variant human to get any attack cantrips at 1st level. They only get 2 from their class, which obviously means Mending and Prestidigitation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And then there are those of us who are annoyed that if you play a bard you have to be either a high elf or a variant human to get any attack cantrips at 1st level. They only get 2 from their class, which obviously means Mending and Prestidigitation.

At that level, a crossbow is probably even better. But yes. Prestidigitation is an absolute must for any caster that can--otherwise how will you clean your clothes after things have the temerity to bleed on them?

[MaxWilson]

And then there are those of us who are annoyed that if you play a bard you have to be either a high elf or a variant human to get any attack cantrips at 1st level. They only get 2 from their class, which obviously means Mending and Prestidigitation.

Remark:

I always go for Prestidigitation but rarely Mending. Prestidigitation's utility is proactive, but Mending is reactive, based on how often stuff breaks, and it can be just as effective to carry spares. I only take Mending if the intent is to use it to help orphans and widows fix their stuff during downtime.

TLDR; Prestidigitation has far more effect on quality of life than Mending does.

[Cybren]

I think you're underselling how often people who regularly and casually blow things up would happen to discover something around them is broken.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think you're underselling how often people who regularly and casually blow things up would happen to discover something around them is broken.

In the current campaign I'm playing, I do often find things around my broken but the things that I can't simply find a replacement for are often too large or too damaged for Mending to work. For example, we go through a lot of Ropes and Chains during our delves into undermountain but we've got hundreds of lbs of the stuff in a bag of holding, the time taken to cast Mending on it (or the cost/benefit it would have involved for our spellcasters to choose Mending over their current choices) is more valuable than just replacing that length of rope after our trip to the surface. We'd rather just replace the Rope, it's a negligible cost.

I tend to agree that Prestidigitation has greater value than Mending if only for the fact that, as MaxWilson said, it's a lot easier to find uses for Prestidigitation. Mending isn't going to be used nearly as often.

Slight aside, Mending is probably a fantastic cantrip to consider for Artificers as they can switch them out every short rest starting at level 10.

[jas61292]

I think positions have ossified. I've yet to see an argument that is really even remotely as solid as the arguer thinks it is*. I'm not surprised, given that the designers were using natural language and we're to the point of breaking stuff down by temporal and causal if-thens :-P.
*plus lots of treating points against the opposing position as votes in favor of one's own, as opposed to simply supporting the neutral position of it being an open question.

I've read your entire post, but clearly I disagree with most if it, but I think this right here is spot on. Ultimately, I think the root of most disagreements is simply because people are arguing from different premises. Logic and the parsing of rules can tell us the result of a given premises is valid, but it won't tell us if that premises itself is correct.

My position was entirely based on the premise that the default rules of the game are following standard concepts of causality, and not entertaining retrocausality, a concept that only exists in philosophy and quantum physics. D&D, like most fiction, is generally expected to be like reality except as stated. More generally, it is a game of exceptions. It is like reality, except as stated in the rules, and those rules are absolute, except as stated in other rules.

With that in mind, unless started otherwise, one should assume that any game mechanic predicated on some other event happening, must happen after that trigger. Even if the rules don't explicitly say so, this must be the case, otherwise you are rejecting thre very basis of reality in which the game is played. It is only if the rules do explicitly say so (ala the Storm Sorcerer ability) should we be breaking from our basic assumptions.

Now, I'm sure someone we'll disagree. Maybe they do think retrocausality should be the basis of the rules. Hell, maybe someone completely rejects the base fictional premise of "like reality except as stated." But I believe doing either if these would have so many ridiculous impacts that one would not even need to probe the depth of reductio ad absurdum to find illogical results.

[Willie the Duck]

I, personally, have never had anyone even consider Shield Master, Pole-arm Master, Great-weapon Master, Sharpshooter, or Crossbow Expert (to name the most commonly-labeled "OP" feats). They recognize that they're powerful, just boring. The forum hive-mind places way more value on DPR numbers than the broader community does, mainly because that's something relatively easy to optimize for.

Alert, Healer/Inspiring Leader, and Magic Initiate are the most common feats in my games, no contest. The rest are all far behind.

Of the ones you mention, Shield Master has been taken multiple times because it sounds like it would be fun (shove people around every turn), and it is until you realize it is mostly a to-hit boost and crit-fishing setup. Also PAM gets a little play because halberd (and spears, post-PAM-errata) are usually seen as red-headed stepchildren by anyone coming from previous editions ("Hey, they finally did something to salvage my favorite, previously neglected fighter concept? That's wonderful... oh, it's this edition's OP option? Damn!").

Other than that, I do see it as the only way some people will play fighters, and I guess I can see the logic -- extra feats are one of their benefits, and fighters in a feat-less campaign do kind of struggle at times, but for the most part, people then do just treat them as straight-up damage boosts and use their other feats, skills, or background choices to define their characters.


I've read your entire post, but clearly I disagree with most if it, but I think this right here is spot on. Ultimately, I think the root of most disagreements is simply because people are arguing from different premises. Logic and the parsing of rules can tell us the result of a given premises is valid, but it won't tell us if that premises itself is correct.
Good to know, and complete agreement that we are all probably working with differing starting premises. And I will point out that I recognize a mistake I made. I was using causal wrong. However, stand by the position that the supposition that the ruleset is making a causal (rather than gatekeeping/allowative, as I was mistakenly including in causal) link is not factually support, but rather a position to be argued, and the point about whether the rain=>wet sidewalk analogy was in fact apt.

D&D, like most fiction, is generally expected to be like reality except as stated. More generally, it is a game of exceptions. It is like reality, except as stated in the rules, and those rules are absolute, except as stated in other rules.
…
Hell, maybe someone completely rejects the base fictional premise of "like reality except as stated." But I believe doing either if these would have so many ridiculous impacts that one would not even need to probe the depth of reductio ad absurdum to find illogical results.
The logical conclusion of this thread is whether or not one can only shield-push someone after you’ve taken a swing at the, or possibly that the act of commiting the attack having a causal relationship with the ability to make the shield-push. I don’t think anyone gets to claim any level of reality emulation. Nor frankly, that the actual rules (if there is, indeed, any one actual correct ruling) could not, in fact, be ridiculous. There is 3e’s drown-healing, after all, and that by all accounts is as RAW as they come.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Alert, Healer/Inspiring Leader, and Magic Initiate are the most common feats in my games, no contest. The rest are all far behind.

Of the ones you mention, Shield Master has been taken multiple times because it sounds like it would be fun (shove people around every turn), and it is until you realize it is mostly a to-hit boost and crit-fishing setup. Also PAM gets a little play because halberd (and spears, post-PAM-errata) are usually seen as red-headed stepchildren by anyone coming from previous editions ("Hey, they finally did something to salvage my favorite, previously neglected fighter concept? That's wonderful... oh, it's this edition's OP option? Damn!").

Other than that, I do see it as the only way some people will play fighters, and I guess I can see the logic -- extra feats are one of their benefits, and fighters in a feat-less campaign do kind of struggle at times, but for the most part, people then do just treat them as straight-up damage boosts and use their other feats, skills, or background choices to define their characters.

Honestly, I play with mechanics-secondary people. Basically no one in any of my campaigns has really cared about mechanical power. Across 3 groups I currently have the following PCs:

First group (level 8ish):
1. A high elf necromancer wizard. Optimized, right? But she has never cast animate dead.
2. A tiefling moon druid who prefers to go beast and eat people rather than cast spells. Oh, and throws cans of soup.
3. A wood elf AT rogue, who prefers blasting to everything. Favorite item: a 1x/day fireball bracelet. "Stabby-stabby" is his default MO.

Second group (level 5ish):
1. Soulforged (warforged knockoff) divination wizard. Prefers fireballs.
2. Tiefling celestial warlock. Doesn't cast hex. Has agonizing blast and eldritch spear invocations, IIRC.
3. Air Genasi champion fighter. Took an ASI at 4th, wields a greatsword and a bow.
4. A dragonborn war cleric. Hasn't used any of his sub-class features yet. Has used his breath more than just about anything.
5. A halfling Ancients Paladin. Tries to munchkin...mainly ends up being a comedy character.

Third group (level 8ish):
1. Human (Alert) Celestial warlock 2/bard X. Me. Support/skills/face build, basically no big damage spells.
2. Gnome evocation wizard. Fire themed. Favorite spell: fireball. Seeing a trend here?
3. Human (variant, mobile feat) ancestor barbarian. Con-heavy, uses axe and shield. Rarely goes reckless.
4. Half-orc ancients paladin. Finally picked up a 2H weapon. No feats.

By far, Lucky and Mobile are the dominant feat choices. I have yet to see phantasmal force or any of the other "optimized" spells. Saw lots of telekinesis (throwing things off high places is fun) in a previous campaign.

[Willie the Duck]

3. A wood elf AT rogue, who prefers blasting to everything. Favorite item: a 1x/day fireball bracelet. "Stabby-stabby" is his default MO.
...
1. Soulforged (warforged knockoff) divination wizard. Prefers fireballs.
...
2. Gnome evocation wizard. Fire themed. Favorite spell: fireball. Seeing a trend here?


There's a bunch of people that didn't get into D&D to play 'feat and spell selection optimization,' they came to swing from chandeliers, overpower the evil count MadeUpName, and throw around fireballs. :-P :-D

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's a bunch of people that didn't get into D&D to play 'feat and spell selection optimization,' they came to swing from chandeliers, overpower the evil count MadeUpName, and throw around fireballs. :-P :-D

Yup. It's why I think a lot of the caster vs martial debates are overblown. Sure, blasting is "sub-optimal". But for a lot of people, blasting is fun. Rolling huge chunks of dice, getting to waste squads of mooks, seeing big numbers "pop up". 5D chess is way less fun for a lot of people.

I look at my players and wonder how I got these ones and what others are seeing--I see none of the casualness about going to zero that I read about here (for example). I don't see the rules debates, the self-interested PvP/jerk behavior. I have yet to see a murder-hobo. In fact, they're often too careful of NPCs and their health and well-being. If anything, their default is to talk instead of fight even if the monster is clearly insane and hostile. There's a reason "Don't talk to the [evil] dragon" is a by-word in one group. It had tentacles growing out of its back, was in the BBEG's lair (that they'd just dropped a meteor on), and had crazy eyes. Seriously!

[Xetheral]

Remark:

I always go for Prestidigitation but rarely Mending. Prestidigitation's utility is proactive, but Mending is reactive, based on how often stuff breaks, and it can be just as effective to carry spares. I only take Mending if the intent is to use it to help orphans and widows fix their stuff during downtime.

TLDR; Prestidigitation has far more effect on quality of life than Mending does.

Mending is the most important cantrip in the game if encumbrance rules are in play, you use Nets, and have a low strength. Sure, you may never actually cast it on-screen, but it makes the character work. (Admittedly this is a very niche case.)

[JoeJ]

Mending is the most important cantrip in the game if encumbrance rules are in play, you use Nets, and have a low strength. Sure, you may never actually cast it on-screen, but it makes the character work. (Admittedly this is a very niche case.)

Or if you just don't want to have to go buy new clothes every time you get a hole in something.