Shield Master feat

[zinycor]

Sup guys, about the Shield Master Feat, As I understand it you can use your bonus action to knock someone and then you can attack that creature, only thing is that once you use your bonus action this way, you commit to attacking.

Is that a correct interpretation?

[Man_Over_Game]

Sup guys, about the Shield Master Feat, As I understand it you can use your bonus action to knock someone and then you can attack that creature, only thing is that once you use your bonus action this way, you commit to attacking.

Is that a correct interpretation?

There are effectively three interpretations that all could be "valid":

You must make a single attack before you can spend the Bonus Action.
You must complete the Attack Action, with all of your Extra Attacks, before you can spend the Bonus Action.
You can take the Bonus Action before you attack, assuming that you only use your Action for the Attack Action.


The Lead Developer has said that the intent of this case is #2, as you have to complete the prerequisite before you can tack on the bonus ability (you have to complete the Attack Action before you're eligible to use the Bonus Action).
Although he'd allow #1 at his table (due to the fact that the Attack Action normally only uses a single attack, and so the character has "completed" the Attack Action after a single attack, with the Extra Attacks coming after).
Most people prefer #3, which works as long as you don't pay attention to what the Lead Developer says.

So the best answer, like in most cases, is to ask your DM.

[ad_hoc]

No, attack action and then bash.

[trctelles]

JC made a post saying that the RAI is that you have to use your FULL attack action (if you have multiple attacks, you have to use them ALL) BEFORE you use your bonus action to shove.

[ad_hoc]

JC made a post saying that the RAI is that you have to use your FULL attack action (if you have multiple attacks, you have to use them ALL) BEFORE you use your bonus action to shove.

Yeah, and except for movement the attack action can't be split up into anything else either.

Do a thing and then do another thing is how 5e is designed.

[Keravath]

JC made a post saying that the RAI is that you have to use your FULL attack action (if you have multiple attacks, you have to use them ALL) BEFORE you use your bonus action to shove.

I think MOG has the best description of the situation.

Jeremy Crawford has said that the intended outcome was (2) - you use all your attacks then can shield bash.

RAW the rules say you have to take the Attack Action and that condition is satisfied after taking one attack which then allows the bonus action shield bash. The rules DO say that bonus actions can be taken any time during the turn if any conditions to have them have been met so there is nothing in the rules that indicates that you have to complete the attack action before shield bashing. Jeremy Crawford has indicated that he would allow this interpretation (1 in MOG's post) at his table.

Some folks think that if you take the Attack action at any point in the turn then you should be allowed to shield bash at any point in the turn even if you haven't attacked yet. Most players like this interpretation best since they can bash first and if successful get any attacks with advantage. However, allowing this relies on interpreting the shield bash rule that says "If you take the attack action you can use your shield to bash as a bonus action" to mean "if you are going to" or "if you plan to" or "if you commit to" ... none of which are in the rules.

The official sage advice ruling is: (these are official from the sage advice compendium - JC's tweets are no longer official).
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

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

This official clarification allows for interpretation (1) or (2) from MOG's post but eliminates option (3). The clarification does NOT say a character needs to complete Attack Action only that they need to take it and that is satisfied as soon as one attack is made.

[darknite]

JC made a post saying that the RAI is that you have to use your FULL attack action (if you have multiple attacks, you have to use them ALL) BEFORE you use your bonus action to shove.

Although previous clarification had the opposite interp. Jeez.

[ad_hoc]

RAW the rules say you have to take the Attack Action and that condition is satisfied after taking one attack which then allows the bonus action shield bash.

If you do something else after taking 1 attack then you have ended your attack action. You don't get to 'save' an additional attack for later.

[Man_Over_Game]

If anyone's interested, here is a very thorough list of references related to the whole Shield Master debate by the awesome V2Blast: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/122412/45619


I'm too lazy/busy to do most of the work of getting all the reference links, but here's all the official info from Jeremy Crawford (Lead Designer), Sage Advice, Errata, or any other WotC source on the topic (Links to these quotes are in the link above):


************************************************** **********

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

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

The old ruling on bonus action timing didn't quiet questions on that timing. Instead, the illogical ruling fueled questions, and it even inadvertently led some fans to think our choice of words like "if" or "when" had super-precise meanings in bonus actions. They don't.

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

No general rule allows you to insert a bonus action between attacks in a single action. You can interrupt a multiple-attack action with a bonus action/reaction only if the trigger of the bonus action/reaction is an attack, rather than the action.

As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows.

The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action. Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form.

[viaFAMILIAR]

If you do something else after taking 1 attack then you have ended your attack action. You don't get to 'save' an additional attack for later.

Can't the attack action be broken up by movement? So why not a bonus action?

[Aimeryan]

If you do something else after taking 1 attack then you have ended your attack action. You don't get to 'save' an additional attack for later.

Nothing says bonus actions end actions in progress, ergo, RAW this is not the case. The DM is free to rule it that way if they wish, of course.

~~~


You can take the Bonus Action before you attack, assuming that you only use your Action for the Attack Action.

This can be accomplished by committing your action before taking the bonus action or the attacks. It doesn't fall foul of the SAC because you do not just intend to take the Attack Action, you already have - you have just not yet taken the attacks granted by doing so. Kind of like paying a shopkeeper for something before the item is handed over to you - you've definitely paid regardless of whether you have received the item or not. Actually, any takeout delivery would be a better analogy.

[Kane0]

Yeah it's a bit fuzzy, just check with your DM. It's not a big deal if you can shove before attacking.

[ThePolarBear]

You must make a single attack before you can spend the Bonus Action.
You must complete the Attack Action, with all of your Extra Attacks, before you can spend the Bonus Action.
You can take the Bonus Action before you attack, assuming that you only use your Action for the Attack Action.


The Lead Developer has said that the intent of this case is #2



The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action. Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form.[/I]

Something doesn't look right to me. The intent is stated to be #1 and RAW to be #2.


This can be accomplished by committing your action before taking the bonus action or the attacks. It doesn't fall foul of the SAC because you do not just intend to take the Attack Action, you already have - you have just not yet taken the attacks granted by doing so.

It was clarified that there's no intended "declaration phase". It has been clarified time and time again that "take" means something more than "i promise" as far as the rules are concerned. In the case of the Attack action you need to actually make an attack, as the action prescribes you to.

And yes, simply stating "i take the attack action" and then not making an attack is not "take the attack action" at all. It is not sufficient to commit to it, you have to take it to a mechanical end. To actually "commit it" and not simply "commit TO it". You need to, at the very least, be in progress of.


Kind of like paying a shopkeeper for something before the item is handed over to you - you've definitely paid regardless of whether you have received the item or not.

And this is kind of "in advance" or "upfront" has to be explicit, like the storm sorcerer feature mentions. There needs to be a "before", and for SM just isn't the case.

Looking from the other side the shopkeeper requires commitment on your part. Unless you pay up, there's no "bonus action" delivery that can be taken.
"If you make an upfront payment, you can have this goods delivered". A promise of payment isn't enough*, just like a promise of attack isn't.

*Let's not get into the complications of what an actual "payment" IRL consists of and the various shenanigans and subsequent problems that are possible :D

[Aimeryan]

It was clarified that there's no intended "declaration phase". It has been clarified time and time again that "take" means something more than "i promise" as far as the rules are concerned. In the case of the Attack action you need to actually make an attack, as the action prescribes you to.

And yes, simply stating "i take the attack action" and then not making an attack is not "take the attack action" at all. It is not sufficient to commit to it, you have to take it to a mechanical end. To actually "commit it" and not simply "commit TO it". You need to, at the very least, be in progress of.

This is an interesting ruling you have - I can see where you are going with it. However, it not RAW, since this is not actually written anywhere. Perfectly fine ruling, though.

[ThePolarBear]

This is an interesting ruling you have - I can see where you are going with it. However, it not RAW, since this is not actually written anywhere. Perfectly fine ruling, though.

Interesting opinion you have here. Except that it is coming from a wrong angle: it's not my ruling.

[Sigreid]

This is one of those questions that you're never going to get agreement on. If you're the DM, rule on how you think it should work. If you're a player, make your case to your DM on how you think it should work.

Seriously, in my opinion "how does your table think it should work?" is a fantastic answer to any "How does X work?" question.

[ad_hoc]

Can't the attack action be broken up by movement? So why not a bonus action?

Movement is a specific exception to the rule.

If actions could be performed in between attacks it would specifically say so.

[Keravath]

Nothing says bonus actions end actions in progress, ergo, RAW this is not the case. The DM is free to rule it that way if they wish, of course.

~~~



This can be accomplished by committing your action before taking the bonus action or the attacks. It doesn't fall foul of the SAC because you do not just intend to take the Attack Action, you already have - you have just not yet taken the attacks granted by doing so. Kind of like paying a shopkeeper for something before the item is handed over to you - you've definitely paid regardless of whether you have received the item or not. Actually, any takeout delivery would be a better analogy.

As I have already cited ... this is OFFICIALLY not the case. The sage advice compendium which is OFFICIAL rules clarifications states the following:
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/d...Compendium.pdf

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

This makes it very clear that "committing" to the attack action is not sufficient based on RAW, you have to actually attack (which requires making an attack roll - which, if you like, is paying for the attack). However, you are welcome to house rule it however you wish at your table.

[Keravath]

Movement is a specific exception to the rule.

If actions could be performed in between attacks it would specifically say so.

The rules for bonus actions explicitly states:

"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified,"

YOU can choose to take a bonus action (if you have one) at ANY point in your turn. This includes midway through the attack action if you like.

A multiclassed rogue with extra attack could

- attack, move, bonus action hide, extra attack
- attack, move, bonus action disengage, move, extra attack
- attack, move, bonus action dash, move some more, extra attack

... and if the multiclassed rogue happened to have shield master they could
- attack, move, bonus action shield bash, extra attack ... or

YOU choose when to take bonus actions at ANY time during your entire turn.

Another example, a multiclassed cleric with extra attack could
- attack, move, bonus action healing word, move, extra attack

Of course bonus actions and movement could go before and after all of the attacks if you like but bonus actions are allowed at ANY point in your turn - YOU CHOOSE. There is nothing in the rules at all that indicates that you can't take a bonus action during another action.

[ad_hoc]

The rules for bonus actions explicitly states:

"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified,"

YOU can choose to take a bonus action (if you have one) at ANY point in your turn. This includes midway through the attack action if you like.


You can't pause or split up an action.

You do an action, then you do another one.

[Hail Tempus]

It’s amazing how much conflict the Shield Master feat has created.

My argument in favor of allowing the bonus action shove to occur before the attack action is that, even with that interpretation, Shield Master is less powerful than Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter. At most, it makes the weapon and shield build for martials competitive with the other feat-based builds.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This can of worms has been done to death. Welcome to the quarterly argument on "why my shield master ruling is the only correct ruling" argument thread. Tickets are handed out free at the reply button.

MoG has the most down to earth interpretation that you're going to find. It preserves your own sanity to just accept that there are at least 3 interpretations and because of the ambiguous wording of all the associated rules (Making an Attack, Bonus Action Timing and Shield Master) all of them likely have merit.

Ask your DM which they prefer. If they prefer an option you don't like, try to tough it out because out of all the things to argue over this interaction is one where there can truly be no winner until an errata is made to make it absolutely crystal clear.

[DarkKnightJin]

This can of worms has been done to death. Welcome to the quarterly argument on "why my shield master ruling is the only correct ruling" argument thread. Tickets are handed out free at the reply button.

MoG has the most down to earth interpretation that you're going to find. It preserves your own sanity to just accept that there are at least 3 interpretations and because of the ambiguous wording of all the associated rules (Making an Attack, Bonus Action Timing and Shield Master) all of them likely have merit.

Ask your DM which they prefer. If they prefer an option you don't like, try to tough it out because out of all the things to argue over this interaction is one where there can truly be no winner until an errata is made to make it absolutely crystal clear.

Yep. MOG laid it all out on the table in that quick list of options.
Personally, I'd stray to ruling they can bash before the Attack Action, but only if they Attack right after. Basically rolling it into their Attack Action, as it were.
For a more 'strict' ruling, they'd need to make at least 1 attack before they get to try and bash, but they are not required to make ALL their attacks first.

Mostly to avoid the narrative mismatch of why Freddy thr (Variant) Human Fighter can slash and then bash right after one day, then wakes up at lvl5 and suddenly can't bash after a single attack, but need to make 2 attacks before he can bash, now.

To clarify: This is how *I* would rule it at *MY* table.
I am not saying my ruling is the only correct one.
Just to get that out there.

[zinycor]

Thanks guys! I am the GM and I think I'll rule it as number 3 interpretation since it seems more fun. Will this be a problem? Btw I intend to have a couple NPCs also have this feat.

[sithlordnergal]

Thanks guys! I am the GM and I think I'll rule it as number 3 interpretation since it seems more fun. Will this be a problem? Btw I intend to have a couple NPCs also have this feat.

Personally, I don't see there being a problem with it. At most you'll knock someone prone and get advantage on melee attacks while you're within 5 feet of the target which feels like how it should have been done. Otherwise there's no point to that part of the feat. Usually parties only have one, maybe two guys in the front line, so a prone enemy will likely stand up before before anyone else can make use of them being Prone.

[Contrast]

Thanks guys! I am the GM and I think I'll rule it as number 3 interpretation since it seems more fun. Will this be a problem? Btw I intend to have a couple NPCs also have this feat.

As has been mentioned that was the 'official' stance for years before they changed their mind. It didn't break anything, I believe they mostly changed their stance to be more consistent with how they wanted other abilities to work rather than concerns regarding the power level of shield master.

I'm inclined to agree that (1) or (2) make the most sense with how the ability is worded but would have preferred them to just errata the ability to (3).

[MeeposFire]

Thanks guys! I am the GM and I think I'll rule it as number 3 interpretation since it seems more fun. Will this be a problem? Btw I intend to have a couple NPCs also have this feat.

No it will not be a problem. Even in the most recent explanation the reason for the current ruling is more about following the direct wording of the rule as seen by a designer rather than one being more balanced than the other. People on this board get really dramatic about this particular ruling.

As for the NPCs you do not need to give NPCs feats just give them multi attack and make a shield bash be one of the attacks in the multi attack. As an example the hobgoblin warlord has this ability and his shield bash deals damage and knocks enemies down so it is more powerful than the shield master ability. Just a thought.

[ThePolarBear]

YOU can choose to take a bonus action (if you have one) at ANY point in your turn.


unless the bonus action's timing is specified

You simply don't get to choose when there is a timing.


There is nothing in the rules at all that indicates that you can't take a bonus action during another action.


unless the bonus action's timing is specified

If said timing requires that there's no action in progress, then there must be no action in progress. Most of your examples are correct and i see where you are coming from. However your exposition simply isn't because it leaves an important part of the discussion out: It's not that bonus actions can go whenever, it's bonus actions that do not have a specified timing that can go whenever. Those that have a specified timing cannot go whenever, they have to follow the timing.

And the example in regards to SM follows the intent but not the RAW, at least according to JC.

[Keravath]

You can't pause or split up an action.

You do an action, then you do another one.

You can play it however you like at your table but that is explicitly NOT what the rules state with regard to using bonus actions or reactions. Bonus actions can be used at any time in your turn. I don't see how the rule can be read any differently and no where in the rules does it say you have to complete an action before doing anything else including using a bonus action or reaction.

In fact, if you start to cast a spell, an opponent can counterspell and you can use your reaction WHILE casting the spell to counterspell the opponent's counterspell.

If you execute the attack action and an opponent's readied action is triggered you can use your reaction, in the middle of your action, to cast shield.

[Keravath]

You simply don't get to choose when there is a timing.

If said timing requires that there's no action in progress, then there must be no action in progress. Most of your examples are correct and i see where you are coming from. However your exposition simply isn't because it leaves an important part of the discussion out: It's not that bonus actions can go whenever, it's bonus actions that do not have a specified timing that can go whenever. Those that have a specified timing cannot go whenever, they have to follow the timing.

And the example in regards to SM follows the intent but not the RAW, at least according to JC.

I agree with you. If the bonus action timing is specified then you follow it. This is the point of discussion regarding when the bonus action to shield bash becomes available.


However, the person I was replying to was saying that you CAN NOT use ANY bonus actions between an attack and an extra attack of the attack action. Their statement was that you are doing the Attack action which allows movement between attacks and that is all. The rules do NOT say this anywhere. Bonus actions can be taken at ANY time in your turn as long as you have the bonus action available. (Rogue's cunning action and bonus actions spells are good examples). If you have these available you can use them between an attack and any extra attacks of the attack action. There is nothing in the rules saying that you have to complete an action before using a bonus action or reaction. Thus since bonus actions can be taken at any time in your turn this includes between multiple attacks and movement that are part of the attack action.


As always, folks are welcome to homebrew as they like. It is absolutely fine to allow a shield master bash before making any attacks or to prohibit bonus actions during the attack action. However, if folks want to discuss what the books actually say ... then neither of those is the case.

P.S. "If said timing requires that there's no action in progress, then there must be no action in progress." ... I don't know of anywhere in the rule book that says you can't take a bonus action while another action is in progress ... if there was I would agree with you. If the timing of the bonus action stated that there must be no action in progress then absolutely you couldn't take a bonus action during an action. However, to the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong) there is no statement to this effect anywhere in the rule book regarding the usage of bonus actions. The only rules citation I am aware of is "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified" ... for shield master, it can be interpreted that shield bash is not available until after making an attack ... however other bonus actions like cunning action or bonus action spells are available at any time in your turn and there is NO statement I am aware of that says you can't take a bonus action or reaction while you are in the middle of completing another action.

[NaughtyTiger]

I agree with you.

Ha... My favorite thing in this forum is when people don't read your posts and jump to arguing with you. not realizing you are on the same side.

[Keravath]

Ha... My favorite thing in this forum is when people don't read your posts and jump to arguing with you. not realizing you are on the same side.

Yep. My bad :)

[Aimeryan]

As I have already cited ... this is OFFICIALLY not the case. The sage advice compendium which is OFFICIAL rules clarifications states the following:
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/d...Compendium.pdf

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

This makes it very clear that "committing" to the attack action is not sufficient based on RAW, you have to actually attack (which requires making an attack roll - which, if you like, is paying for the attack). However, you are welcome to house rule it however you wish at your table.

The bolded line does not rule out taking the action - in fact, it supports it. You are presupposing I am suggesting that you can just intend to take the action - this is incorrect, my ruling requires you take the action.

The disconnect here is that I would rule taking the action means you no longer have it available for other uses - you have spent your action. You would rule that you need to reap some of the rewards before this is so. Lets use an analogy: you pay for a cake; you hand over the money, you receive (or will receive) the cake. I would rule you have paid for the cake. You would rule that until you have eaten some of the cake you have not paid for it.

Another way of looking at it would be to give players 'action tokens'; the player may take their action by discarding their action token and locking in an action. I feel you would rule that the player still only intends to take the action, where as, I would rule they have taken their action. Whether they have completed their action or not to any degree would be irrelevant to this, as I see it.

~~~

Note: This is all theoretical, anyhow; there is nothing written on what constitutes 'taking an action' and when something conditional upon this has been successfully achieved. As such, it will remain to be DM-specific by default.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yep. My bad :)
not your bad at all. your position was clearly stated...



Aimeryan, I think I understand your argument.
That Player states: I am taking the Attack action; therefore, that requirement is met. I can take the bonus action at any time during my turn.

If that is a correct assessment, then I see 2 problems...
1) Sage Advice clearly states that the intent (now) is that the bonus action shove cannot be ahead of the first attack. (do you agree?)_ Sage Advice isn't a rule, so we shouldn't parse it RAW...
2) if you don't actually make an attack, can you actually say you are taking the attack action? (which you alluded to in by "what constitutes taking an action")

if i misunderstand you, please clarify.

[Contrast]

Lets use an analogy: you pay for a cake; you hand over the money, you receive (or will receive) the cake. I would rule you have paid for the cake. You would rule that until you have eaten some of the cake you have not paid for it.

To put your analogy another way though, you're saying you've paid for the cake once you've thought about paying for the cake and therefore its fine for people to eat cake before they pay for it as long as they think about paying for it afterward beforehand. Other people are saying its better to hold off eating cake until after you've paid for it in case that causes any problems at some point in the future :smallwink:

Honestly though the game works fine either way though as long as players and GM are both on the same page about who is doing what and how its working rules wise. The only issue I would be conscious of is that the game designers apparently don't share your opinion of how actions work so keep that in mind in reading and interpreting potential future rules I guess.

[Chronos]

Yet another place where WotC's design decision to avoid clear, unambiguous language causes problems. Everyone agrees that you need to take the attack action before you can use the shield bash. But the rules nowhere state that you need to roll your attacks immediately upon taking the attack action, and in fact it's quite clear that you don't, because you can still move.

The order of events you want is:
1: Take the attack action.
1a: Maybe use some of your movement, if you want.
2: Bash someone with your shield.
2a: Maybe use some more of your movement, if you want.
3: Roll an attack
3a: Maybe use some more movement, if you want.
4: If you get multiple attacks, repeat 3 (and 3a).

[Aimeryan]

To put your analogy another way though, you're saying you've paid for the cake once you've thought about paying for the cake and therefore its fine for people to eat cake before they pay for it as long as they think about paying for it afterward beforehand. Other people are saying its better to hold off eating cake until after you've paid for it in case that causes any problems at some point in the future :smallwink:

Honestly though the game works fine either way though as long as players and GM are both on the same page about who is doing what and how its working rules wise. The only issue I would be conscious of is that the game designers apparently don't share your opinion of how actions work so keep that in mind in reading and interpreting potential future rules I guess.

That is definitely a problem if the shop owner allows refunds, even after you have eaten the cake! Otherwise, no deal will say the shopkeeper (DM).

Yeah, however people want to rule it is up to them and their players - long as they enjoy the result all is good.

~~~


Yet another place where WotC's design decision to avoid clear, unambiguous language causes problems. Everyone agrees that you need to take the attack action before you can use the shield bash. But the rules nowhere state that you need to roll your attacks immediately upon taking the attack action, and in fact it's quite clear that you don't, because you can still move.

The order of events you want is:
1: Take the attack action.
1a: Maybe use some of your movement, if you want.
2: Bash someone with your shield.
2a: Maybe use some more of your movement, if you want.
3: Roll an attack
3a: Maybe use some more movement, if you want.
4: If you get multiple attacks, repeat 3 (and 3a).

Agreed; relying on a notoriously ambiguous and imprecise language like English alone to make precise and unambiguous rules is crazy - and I'm English, so I would know! Conditions should be clearly defined for success and failure, and techniques like the use of Keywords should be used.

[Yakmala]

I've read the various interpretations of Shield Master and seen Crawford's responses.

At my table, players can Shield Bash as long as they have taken at least one attack as their attack action. This prevents sticky situations such as someone attempting to use their Bonus Action against an enemy that has a reserved action to attack in response to offensive action, leading to the possibility that they player might attempt their bash but, due to damage or other conditions, never get the chance to take their action, potentially violating the core rules of the feat.

Obviously this interpretation favors characters with multiple attacks, but then, such characters make up the vast majority of Shield Master users.

[Chronos]

If you take the attack action, bash someone, and then find that circumstances make it impossible to use any of your attacks, tough, you've wasted your action. You still took it; you just took it under circumstances that don't let you do anything with it.

Aimeryan, the crazy part is that WotC clearly has people who are capable of writing clear language, because they do it in Magic: the Gathering. Nobody has this kind of rules debates in that game: The rules are what they are. Sometimes the rules will result in something weird happening, that maybe wasn't expected, but they work.

[ThePolarBear]

I agree with you. If the bonus action timing is specified then you follow it. This is the point of discussion regarding when the bonus action to shield bash becomes available.

True. And even true-r as i'll make clearer what was my "objection".


However, the person I was replying to was saying that you CAN NOT use ANY bonus actions between an attack and an extra attack of the attack action.

It's worse: it's that you cannot split actions. It's not specific of the attack action or bonus actions. A simple "bonus actions that do not have a timing can go whenever, and "whenever" includes between attacks" would have sufficed, and you did write that some bonus actions can go whenever, at the players choice.


Their statement was that you are doing the Attack action which allows movement between attacks and that is all. The rules do NOT say this anywhere.

I agree, and i did not call you out on that.


Bonus actions can be taken at ANY time in your turn as long as you have the bonus action available.

I'll make myself clearer: this is 100% correct, but also a profound source of possible confusion since "bonus action" is used both for the "action type" and for "feature". And i'll make myself clear: i do not believe you need help to understand what i'm about to write, because i believe you already know.

"SM" grants the ability to spend a "bonus action", but it is also possibly what grants the bonus action (the action type) in the first place!
So, "as long as you have the bonus action availlable" could be confused by someone who doesn't know that bonus actions (the action type) are NOT part of the standard array of options a general character has as far as action economy goes, and simply think that "as long as it is not spent".

Which ends in "But if i have not spent my bonus action, and i'm going to attack, then i can bash because i have my bonus action availlable and bonus actions can go whenever".

That is why i think your post doesn't focus ENOUGH on the fact that access to bonus actions is crucial, even if answering to something unrelated, in a thread about SM. Timing, features and such all are equally fundamental on WHEN you can use the bonus actions, since each bonus action is different. So, relying on a single "if you have have one" i think is insufficient.

One example of a completely strict timing bonus action is the one granted by Flurry of Blows. There's really NO choice on "when" involved there. (arguably with Action Surge yadda yadda, but that's not really what i mean and i think you get it).


If you have these available you can use them between an attack and any extra attacks of the attack action.

Exactly. IF YOU HAVE THEM. I simply think that the important part relevant for this discussion, even when made to answer a tangent post, was not stressed enough. To use the bonus action granted by a feature, you have to have access to the feature, not the action type, both in terms of class access AND conditional feature access.

It's not that bonus actions can go whenever due to being bonus actions, it's bonus actions that do not have a timing do not have a restriction on when those can be used that can be used freely at any time during a turn (which, raw, could also mean a non-sensical dash in between the attack roll and its damage roll... but let's just not go there... :D).


There is nothing in the rules saying that you have to complete an action before using a bonus action or reaction.

It's a bit more complex that that. The game flow assumes to be in a "general" situation with no interruptions to describe mechanics. So, when it describes the Attack Action, or how to make one attack, or a skill check, it doesn't really take into consideration things that could in fact interrupt that flow. "Specific vs General".
This means that it is generally true that actions have a mechanical "ininterruptability" - the attack action is the completeness of the attack because it is "make one attack", and that is a process in and of itself.
I agree however that something that can go at any time can specifically go at any time and there's nothing about unbreakability as a given status if not as a general situational base condition.

The rules are written assuming that a process is followed step by step before the next process begins, but also assuming that the descriptions of the processes are not omnicomprehensive of all (or any) possible exception and still follow the general exclusion based system rule.


Thus since bonus actions can be taken at any time in your turn this includes between multiple attacks and movement that are part of the attack action.

But it's not true that bonus actions can be taken at any time in your turn. That's only true for bonus actions that do not have a timing associated with them. For those bonus actions we do not know, without going into the specifics, when one can take them or if there's choice.
It is not BECAUSE bonus actions can go whenever, even if it is true that some bonus actions can go whenever!

Some bonus actions can be taken in between attacks. Others simply can't as a matter of fact.


P.S. "If said timing requires that there's no action in progress, then there must be no action in progress." ... I don't know of anywhere in the rule book that says you can't take a bonus action while another action is in progress ... if there was I would agree with you.

I should have used a more hypotetical way of writing, since that was the meaning that was intended.


however other bonus actions like cunning action or bonus action spells are available at any time in your turn and there is NO statement I am aware of that says you can't take a bonus action or reaction while you are in the middle of completing another action.

I agree! I would also limit the use of most bonus actions to times when there's no mechanical resolution in progress that would be made "silly" by the use of the bonus action: "I misty step!" "but... we are about to roll the damage of your attack...?!?!?"


Ha... My favorite thing in this forum is when people don't read your posts and jump to arguing with you. not realizing you are on the same side.

Yes, hilarious to assume that there are only two sides.

[mephnick]

It’s amazing how much conflict the Shield Master feat has created.

Probably has something to do with the designer saying one thing...and then years later saying the opposite thing after everyone decided the first thing was more fun.

Don't be a slave to JC's incoherent ramblings, let players use the BA first.

[Man_Over_Game]

It’s amazing how much conflict the Shield Master feat has created.

That's because there's a lot of concern over the topics of:


Shield Master vs. other martial-specific feats (GWM, PAM, Sentinel) in terms of balance and popularity.
JC posted something over Twitter when he was in line at Trader Joe's, and everyone took what he said as fact.
Errata has changed Shield Master in the last couple years.


-OR-


Balance-wise, people want Shield Master to fuel their own attacks because they feel that Shield Master is weaker than most of the martial feats, so they want Shield Master to be used first.
RAI, you can't BA until after a single attack.
RAW, you can't BA until after all of the attacks.



So there's a lot of controversy over the topic. Not because a lot of people are confused over what's "Correct" or "Balanced" or anything, but because everyone has their own idea of what's "right".

Choose which of these is most important:
What the rules say / What the developers say how the game should be played / What your personal opinion is to fix the problem

And then just argue with the other two. Shield Master just happens to get a lot of controversy because those 3 things are all separate. Similar to Twinned Spells, when considering the low popularity of Sorcerer spell lists/known.

But bring up something like Encumbrance, and nobody cares because the rules are clear, there's no RAI that conflicts with the RAW, and everyone unanimously agrees that it almost always makes a game worse to include. Everyone's comfortable with everyone making up their own rulings on it, because so few people care about it. There are a lot of people who care about damage output and getting Advantage on 1 more attack per round, though.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Probably has something to do with the designer saying one thing...and then years later saying the opposite thing after everyone decided the first thing was more fun.

Don't be a slave to JC's incoherent ramblings, let players use the BA first.

Probably best not to call it incoherent ramblings, I think the most recent rulings make a lot more sense.

Not that it matters, no matter what stance Crawford has ever taken, your DM has always had the final say on the matter.

[Contrast]

Errata has changed Shield Master in the last couple years.


Just for clarity, the feat has never been errata'd. Advice on how to interpret it as written has changed but the wording of the feat itself never has.

I'm in the camp that thinks the current ruling makes more sense and prefers to original ruling. I wish they had just changed the wording of the feat to fit the initial ruling rather than changing the ruling to fit the wording of the feat.

Honestly you could do away with the restriction on needing to use your action to attack entirely and I still don't think the feat would be OP.

[mephnick]

Honestly you could do away with the restriction on needing to use your action to attack entirely and I still don't think the feat would be OP.

This is my issue with his ruling. It was always the weakest of the weapon feats, even with the BA being used first.

I think JC really should have looked at that before nerfing it even more when he changed his mind.

[NaughtyTiger]

RAI, you can't BA until after a single attack.
RAW, you can't BA until after all of the attacks.

I think you mistyped, swapping RAI and RAW.

Shield Master feat does not state "you can't use the Bonus Action until after all of the attacks"
No where in the PHB does it state that an action (or the attack action+extra attacks in particular is atomic).
Therefore, that is not RAW.

The designers stated their intention was attack action + extra attacks cannot be broken up. Therefore, that is RAI.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just for clarity, the feat has never been errata'd. Advice on how to interpret it as written has changed but the wording of the feat itself never has.

I'm in the camp that thinks the current ruling makes more sense and prefers to original ruling. I wish they had just changed the wording of the feat to fit the initial ruling rather than changing the ruling to fit the wording of the feat.

Honestly you could do away with the restriction on needing to use your action to attack entirely and I still don't think the feat would be OP.

I agree, I just disagree with the philosophy.

I don't want another "Buy Me, Get Damage" feat. We have enough of those. I would like to see the Shield Master be used for something that makes your shield feel LIKE a shield. Not just another tool to knock someone down with. With the fact that AC gets weaker and weaker over time (due to the fact that hit rates scale faster than AC does), shields aren't generally considered an end-game option. This, and the fact that martial characters are often built around selfish, damage-based playstyles, makes shields (and Shield Master) a very unlikely pick.

Maybe something like this, instead of the Shield Bash:
When you are hit by a weapon attack, you can attempt to parry it with your shield with your Reaction. Add +5 to your AC against the attack. If the attack would miss, it instead hits and deals half of its normal damage.

So a slightly worse Rogue's Evasion.

Went on a tangent again. I agree that changing Bonus Action to be used before the attack wouldn't be a game-changing update. People will still use PAM+GWM+Sentinel and anything else that will give them raw damage output.

[ThePolarBear]

I think you mistyped, swapping RAI and RAW.

No, he didn't. He swapped them in the first post he wrote in this thread. Quote for context:


I'm too lazy/busy to do most of the work of getting all the reference links, but here's all the official info from Jeremy Crawford (Lead Designer), Sage Advice, Errata, or any other WotC source on the topic (Links to these quotes are in the link above): [...]

As DM, I allow the bonus action of Shield Master to happen after you make at least one attack with the Attack action, since making one attack fulfills the action's basic definition (PH, 192). If you have Extra Attack, you decide which of the attacks the bonus action follows.

The simple by-the-book way (RAW) to determine whether you've completed an action is to finish the whole action. Yet you fulfill our design intent (RAI) with the Attack action if you make at least one attack with it, since that is how we define the action in its basic form.

[Sigreid]

2) if you don't actually make an attack, can you actually say you are taking the attack action? (which you alluded to in by "what constitutes taking an action")

if i misunderstand you, please clarify.

This is me speaking, not the person you were asking. But my ruling would be that you could take your bonus action shield bash before your attack action. If you then chose to not perform the attack action your shield bash is your action. I don't care the order so much but you can do one or the other or both together, but you cannot pair the shield bash with any other action.

This ruling presupposes the ruling that any character with a shield but not the feat could perform a shield bash as their action.

[NaughtyTiger]

my ruling would be that you could take your bonus action shield bash before your attack action. If you then chose to not perform the attack action your shield bash is your action. I don't care the order so much but you can do one or the other or both together, but you cannot pair the shield bash with any other action..

Exactly. There is no way not to fulfill the prerequisite. If for some reason you cant attack after the bash, then bash WAS you attack.

[Arial Black]

You can only take a bonus action if you actually have that bonus action to take.

You do not have a bonus action shield bash to take, even if you have the Shield Master feat, until you take the Attack Action In Combat.

Note that neither 'take an attack' nor 'take all of your attacks' is what grants you the shield bash! It is 'taking the Attack ACTION' that grants that bonus action shield bash.

Therefore, the moment you 'take the Attack action', this allows you to:-

* execute your allowed attacks

AND

* execute your shield bash

...simultaneously! In that, although you are simultaneously allowed to take either or both, you have to actually execute them one at a time!

Even if you are (narratively) doing two things simultaneously (such as stabbing two foes simultaneously if you have a weapon in each hand), you must RESOLVE each thing one at a time.

And who gets to choose in what order two narratively simultaneous game elements are resolved? That's right, the acting player!

Therefore, the Shield Master, simultaneously gaining the ability to take and resolve their attacks and take and resolve their shield bash by dint of 'taking the Attack action' gets to choose the order these things are resolved, and can therefore choose to resolve the shield bash before resolving any of their attacks.

[ad_hoc]

Therefore, the moment you 'take the Attack action', this allows you to:-

* execute your allowed attacks

AND

* execute your shield bash

...simultaneously! In that, although you are simultaneously allowed to take either or both, you have to actually execute them one at a time!

There is no 'action state'. Doing the thing is taking the action.

You haven't taken the attack action until you have actually attacked.

There is no declare actions step before action resolution in 5e. Resolution is the act of taking the action.

JC has been very clear on this.

[Coffee_Dragon]

There is no 'action state'. Doing the thing is taking the action.

You haven't taken the attack action until you have actually attacked.

There is no declare actions step before action resolution in 5e. Resolution is the act of taking the action.

JC has been very clear on this.

You are entirely correct. Prepare for it not to make a difference.

[Arial Black]

There is no 'action state'. Doing the thing is taking the action.

Therefore, if I actually attack AND shield bash simultaneously, I am 'doing the thing'.

Not that I agree with your assertion (or JC's!) that 'doing the thing is taking the action', because if you have Extra Attack and choose to attack (and slay) the orc, and then move 30 feet and attack the troll, which 'doing the thing' was 'taking the Action'? If I resolve the first attack, have I 'taken the action' yet? If 'yes', then the action is over and I cannot take my second attack. If 'no' then after that first attack is resolved, since I have not 'taken the Attack action' yet then I'll take the Cast A Spell action and scorching ray that troll.

Which is it? Have I 'taken the action' or not?

[Chronos]

If that were the case, then moving in between attacks would be nonsensical. Suppose a 5th-level fighter has just pulverized the goblin next to him, and is now moving across the battlefield to do so to another goblin. That's possible, right? Well, what's his status at the time that he's crossing the battlefield? Is he currently taking the attack action? Clearly not, because he's not at that moment attacking anything. Did he already take the attack action? No, because he hasn't yet done all of what a 5th-level fighter does when taking that action. Has he not yet taken the attack action? In that case, how did he attack the first goblin? There's no way to make that interpretation work.

[Arial Black]

If that were the case, then moving in between attacks would be nonsensical. Suppose a 5th-level fighter has just pulverized the goblin next to him, and is now moving across the battlefield to do so to another goblin. That's possible, right? Well, what's his status at the time that he's crossing the battlefield? Is he currently taking the attack action? Clearly not, because he's not at that moment attacking anything. Did he already take the attack action? No, because he hasn't yet done all of what a 5th-level fighter does when taking that action. Has he not yet taken the attack action? In that case, how did he attack the first goblin? There's no way to make that interpretation work.

EXACTLY! Thank you!

'The Attack action' and 'executing an attack' are related but different things!

Now, imagine a player at the table telling the DM what their character is doing, including the Actions In Combat the PC is taking and whether it is an action or a bonus action. What is the point where the 'action' has been done and cannot be taken back (without a ret-con)?

To show what I mean, in the game of chess as soon as you touch a piece (where that piece has a legal move) then you cannot 'un-touch' it; you are committed to moving that piece (in a legal way). You can move it to square A1, then change your mind and move it to A6, then change your mind and move it to D1, as long as you keep hold of that piece. As soon as you let go of that piece, then if that was a legal move, you cannot change your mind.

In D&D, you could say, "I'm attacking the owlbear. Y'know what? I'm going to attack the bulette instead. Nah, forget it! I'm casting fireball!"

At what point can the player change their mind, and at what point is it too late and your action/attack/whatever has happened and you can't take it back?

For me (and I think most games work this way), as soon as you actually execute the thing, whether by rolling an attack roll or the enemy had rolled their save or whatever, then you cannot see the result of your roll/action/whatever and change your mind, having seen the result.

Therefore, if you only have this specific bonus action if you take this specific action, then if you take that bonus action (shield bash) first then you are simultaneously taking the action (Attack) even if you are resolving the shield bash first.

This is not a problem. You cannot execute the shield bash you got from the SM feat first and then change your mind about the action you take any more than you can make the first of your two attacks then decide to take the Cast A Spell action instead.

So what if circumstances mean you cannot execute those attacks? Tough! 'Taking the Attack action' is not the same thing as executing those attacks.

[RSP]

You haven't taken the attack action until you have actually attacked.

There is no declare actions step before action resolution in 5e. Resolution is the act of taking the action.

JC has been very clear on this.

RAW disagrees:

“1. The DM describes the environment...
2. The players describe what they want to do. Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

If the rules state “the players describe what they want to do”, and that said description occurs prior to the DM taking those descriptions and deciding how they’re resolved, how is that not a declaration of actions step before action resolution?

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP
Quoting this but replying to the conversation as a whole.

The attack action follows a specific rule. I'd cite it, but I already have done so ad nauseum in several of the other threads that all of the same posters here have continued arguing the same exact points.

There will be no convincing people, I'd hoped that this thread could avoid the same doomed fate as the previous ones with an answer of "here are the 3 accepted rulings, use your favorite" but it has already begun the ridiculous downward spiral into "yea but my favorite is the only correct ruling".

It's ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous that it is consistently the same users. Here's a few examples.1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585650-Clarification-on-Shield-Master-Feat/page4) 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583844-Crawford-waffle&highlight=Shield+Master) 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?558521-JC-Update-on-bonus-actions/page9&highlight=Shield+Master)

The same group of posters have been looking for excuses to argue about Shield Master for over a year.

And no, the irony is not lost on me that I am bundled nice and tight with this group. We clearly can't be trusted to maintain civil discourse when Shield Master comes up.

[NaughtyTiger]

It's ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous that it is consistently the same users. Here's a few examples.

You appear in those posts as well, arguing....

I take umbrage that i appear at the top of the list, considering i consistently argue that thwre are multiple correct interpretations, many times against you solidly entrenched for "there can be only ne"

[RSP]

Quoting this but replying to the conversation as a whole.

The attack action follows a specific rule. I'd cite it, but I already have done so ad nauseum in several of the other threads that all of the same posters here have continued arguing the same exact points.

There will be no convincing people, I'd hoped that this thread could avoid the same doomed fate as the previous ones with an answer of "here are the 3 accepted rulings, use your favorite" but it has already begun the ridiculous downward spiral into "yea but my favorite is the only correct ruling".

It's ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous that it is consistently the same users. Here's a few examples.1 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585650-Clarification-on-Shield-Master-Feat/page4) 2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?583844-Crawford-waffle&highlight=Shield+Master) 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?558521-JC-Update-on-bonus-actions/page9&highlight=Shield+Master)

The same group of posters have been looking for excuses to argue about Shield Master for over a year.

And no, the irony is not lost on me that I am bundled nice and tight with this group. We clearly can't be trusted to maintain civil discourse when Shield Master comes up.

Why is this not civil discourse? Why do you see an issue with people using these boards to discuss 5e rules? Why do you see a problem with my correcting someone, that, RAW, there is a declaration phase of the game for Players?

Did you really just post this to complain about people using this site and these boards the way they were intended?

[ProsecutorGodot]

You appear in those posts as well, arguing....

I take umbrage that i appear at the top of the list, considering i consistently argue that thwre are multiple correct interpretations, many times against you solidly entrenched for "there can be only ne"

The list is in no particular order. I don't recall ever saying that only one interpretation was correct, only explaining my reasoning for why I believe one interpretation over another. I was also quite clear that I'm very aware of my own part in this ongoing debate.


Why is this not civil discourse? Why do you see an issue with people using these boards to discuss 5e rules? Why do you see a problem with my correcting someone, that, RAW, there is a declaration phase of the game for Players?

Did you really just post this to complain about people using this site and these boards the way they were intended?

It's civil now but we have a habit of extending this into 10+ pages of repeating the same exact argument. Three threads (that I managed to find) where this argument has already happened. What's the point in repeating it when OP is already satisfied?

[NaughtyTiger]

The list is in no particular order. I don't recall ever saying that only one interpretation was correct, only explaining my reasoning for why I believe one interpretation over another. I was also quite clear that I'm very aware of my own part in this ongoing debate.

glad it was unintended, but it sure looks like you are calling out Rsp29a, NaughtyTiger, and Secret Fire...

there are threads where you have picked a side and would hear of no other, we even PM'd a detente about one.

[zinycor]

One thing that remains constant is that at these forums most people only care about the op's question at the beginning. After that, is only discussion for the sake of discussion.

[ProsecutorGodot]

glad it was unintended, but it sure looks like you are calling out Rsp29a, NaughtyTiger, and Secret Fire...

there are threads where you have picked a side and would hear of no other, we even PM'd a detente about one.

Can't argue that, I'm hoping to avoid that sort of thing happening again. Not off to a great start.

[Aimeryan]

To be fair, the OP (zinycor) posted that he would probably go with the most permissive interpretation, however, then asked a follow up question - which has been the subject of debate in this thread, thereafter. Well, sort of, in an indirect way.

The only other way to answer such questions would be to have a policy of only linking old threads as answers, thereby stifling the potential for new debate on the subject (unless you necro those old threads).

[ProsecutorGodot]

To be fair, the OP (zinycor) posted that he would probably go with the most permissive interpretation, however, then asked a follow up question - which has been the subject of debate in this thread, thereafter. Well, sort of, in an indirect way.

The only other way to answer such questions would be to have a policy of only linking old threads as answers, thereby stifling the potential for new debate on the subject (unless you necro those old threads).

I'd be all for it assuming there was any new information to be had. As it stands, Shield Master is in the same state it was since the Sage Advice compendium update and there have been at least two threads before this one arguing the same three (or more) interpretations with the same consistent rules citations.

It wasn't my intention to imply that new debate shouldn't be allowed, just that this isn't new debate. Probably poor form on my part, apologies for that.

[Aimeryan]

I'd be all for it assuming there was any new information to be had. As it stands, Shield Master is in the same state it was since the Sage Advice compendium update and there have been at least two threads before this one arguing the same three (or more) interpretations with the same consistent rules citations.

It wasn't my intention to imply that new debate shouldn't be allowed, just that this isn't new debate. Probably poor form on my part, apologies for that.

Fair. Perhaps we are all just hoping inspiration will strike when we are going over the same arguments as before, or perhaps that someone new will wade into the discussion with some incredible new argument to put forth.

Somewhat on that note, in the vein of Man_Over_Game's post:


I agree, I just disagree with the philosophy.

I don't want another "Buy Me, Get Damage" feat. We have enough of those. I would like to see the Shield Master be used for something that makes your shield feel LIKE a shield. Not just another tool to knock someone down with. With the fact that AC gets weaker and weaker over time (due to the fact that hit rates scale faster than AC does), shields aren't generally considered an end-game option. This, and the fact that martial characters are often built around selfish, damage-based playstyles, makes shields (and Shield Master) a very unlikely pick.

Maybe something like this, instead of the Shield Bash:
When you are hit by a weapon attack, you can attempt to parry it with your shield with your Reaction. Add +5 to your AC against the attack. If the attack would miss, it instead hits and deals half of its normal damage.

So a slightly worse Rogue's Evasion.

Went on a tangent again. I agree that changing Bonus Action to be used before the attack wouldn't be a game-changing update. People will still use PAM+GWM+Sentinel and anything else that will give them raw damage output.

I do like the idea of the Shield Master feat being more defensive in nature; the way it is now, in practice the feat actually just adds an attack, since if you want the defensive part of shoving someone, you can give up an attack to do that. If you put the SM shove first then you have a very slightly stronger result than if you use PAM with a 1H (disregarding other feat benefits):

Shove (SM Bonus Action) - Attack - Extra Attacks
vs.
Shove - Extra Attacks - Slightly Weaker Attack (PAM Bonus Action)

Of course, PAM can be used with a 2H and GWM, so...

Anyhow, so something different would be quite interesting for the feat - something defensive. What about if the feat let you use your reaction to add your proficiency to your AC until your next turn?

Kind of like the Shield spell; it would be a lot weaker at early levels (+2 vs. +5), but resourceless (which at early levels is actually important) - while at very high levels it would be slightly stronger (+6 vs. +5), but the resource cost of a level 1 spell at this point is minor anyway.

[Chronos]

Shield Master (even with the permissive interpretation) isn't stronger than Polearm Master, since you're forced to use one of your three "attacks" for a shove. With Polearm Master, you have the option for damage, damage, and more damage.

[RSP]

It's civil now but we have a habit of extending this into 10+ pages of repeating the same exact argument. Three threads (that I managed to find) where this argument has already happened. What's the point in repeating it when OP is already satisfied?

Someone made a claim that there’s no declaration of actions in 5e. I quoted RAW showing there is. The point of doing so was to show the poster, who is making erroneous claims, the specific rules that contradict their statement.

Nothing I posted even stated whether or not I have a side in this debate: I just showed the rules in response to a post.

[Aimeryan]

Shield Master (even with the permissive interpretation) isn't stronger than Polearm Master, since you're forced to use one of your three "attacks" for a shove. With Polearm Master, you have the option for damage, damage, and more damage.

True; if you have advantage from some other source then PAM is more damage.

[patchyman]

Yeah, and except for movement the attack action can't be split up into anything else either.

Do a thing and then do another thing is how 5e is designed.

Note: This comment is not directed at you, but rather at the designers.

This always makes me laugh: Actions cannot be split or interrupted, except for (1) free actions; (2) where otherwise indicated, and (3) that exception (movement) that you use multiple times during each encounter, and without which the game doesn’t flow properly.

[Man_Over_Game]

With PAM youre forced to ise one of the attacks for damage, and cannot use it to Shove.

Thinking about it, PAM is actually better at Shoving.

Shield Master, with BA before the attack:
BA Shove, Attack with Advantage, Attack with Advantage.

PAM, with 10 foot reach:
Shove, Attack with Advantage, BA Attack with Advantage.

The Polearm Master can do the same thing as the Shield Master, assuming both have Extra Attack, and the PAM user can do it from 10 feet away.

[patchyman]

Yet another place where WotC's design decision to avoid clear, unambiguous language causes problems. Everyone agrees that you need to take the attack action before you can use the shield bash. But the rules nowhere state that you need to roll your attacks immediately upon taking the attack action, and in fact it's quite clear that you don't, because you can still move.

I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree that the problem was WOTC’s decision to avoid clear unambiguous language.

The actual problem is:
(1) a rule that makes no sense on the fiction level (what prevents you from shield bashing before you attack?)
(2) a feat that feels relatively weaker than the comparative “martial” feats, which includes some of the strongest feats in the game (GWM, PAM); and
(3) a rule that seems made to nerf a tactic that isn’t excessively powerful to begin with.

[Chronos]

I suppose that if, for some reason, you wanted your turn to consist of three shoves, you could do that with Shield Master, but couldn't with Polearm Master. And that might come up sometimes. But it's going to be far more common that you want to make three attacks.

Note that I'm also not saying that Polearm Master is better than Shield Master. If the polearm guy is using a two-handed polearm and wants to shove with one of his attacks, his other two attacks are going to be 1d10+1d4, while the shield guy is going to be doing 2d8 (an average of 1 more), and the shield guy will also have better AC. Or if the polearm guy is using a shield, then he'll have the same AC, but his two attacks are going to be 1d6+1d4. So there are situations where Shield Master is better, too. And then you have to weigh the pros and cons of each to decide which one you like better overall.

[NaughtyTiger]

Thinking about it, PAM is actually better at Shoving.

Shield Master, with BA before the attack:
BA Shove, Attack with Advantage, Attack with Advantage.

PAM, with 10 foot reach:
Shove, Attack with Advantage, BA Attack with Advantage.

The Polearm Master can do the same thing as the Shield Master, assuming both have Extra Attack, and the PAM user can do it from 10 feet away.

do you shove with the weapon?

[Man_Over_Game]

do you shove with the weapon?

To be honest, that really depends.

Reach is said to only be relevant when you're attacking with the weapon. The thing that muddies this up a bit is that Shoves/Grapples are still considered attacks, just attacks that don't use attack rolls.

But while grappling states that you need "at least one free hand", a Shove makes no mention of using your hands. So whether or not you can Shove is up to your DM. Although the official word is 'No', from the Lead Designer, Jeremy Crawford.

[Chronos]

Why couldn't you Shove with a weapon? Most historical polearm weapons had features specifically designed for tripping.

[Arial Black]

This always makes me laugh: Actions cannot be split or interrupted, except for (1) free actions; (2) where otherwise indicated, and (3) that exception (movement) that you use multiple times during each encounter, and without which the game doesn’t flow properly.

The ironic thing is, the bolded part is not a rule in the book! Yet some people not only pretend that it is, but also pretend that it is so specific that it trumps all the rules that are actually written that say you can!

For example, it is not written that "actions are indivisible", it is written that "you can take your bonus action where you want", yet they insist that the unwritten trumps the written, making it somehow illegal to use your bonus action between attacks....then at the same time say it's perfectly fine to take actions/bonus actions while in the middle of dashing/disengaging/hiding....all the non-attack actions. It's absurd.

[patchyman]

The ironic thing is, the bolded part is not a rule in the book! Yet some people not only pretend that it is, but also pretend that it is so specific that it trumps all the rules that are actually written that say you can!

For example, it is not written that "actions are indivisible", it is written that "you can take your bonus action where you want", yet they insist that the unwritten trumps the written, making it somehow illegal to use your bonus action between attacks....then at the same time say it's perfectly fine to take actions/bonus actions while in the middle of dashing/disengaging/hiding....all the non-attack actions. It's absurd.

Oh, I agree with you, and in my list of “exceptions” I was tempted to add the Sentinel feat as well, which is another big violator of the “actions are indivisible” paradigm (and Ready actions, but that leads to interminable forum threads).

[Man_Over_Game]

Oh, I agree with you, and in my list of “exceptions” I was tempted to add the Sentinel feat as well, which is another big violator of the “actions are indivisible” paradigm (and Ready actions, but that leads to interminable forum threads).

I think the big point here, and with splitting up attacks from your Action, is that "Exceptions Exist".

On the topic of Reactions, from the DMG:

Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction’s description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

So yes, things can be interrupted, except when they can't.

The biggest contributing factor I see to the "splitting of the attack" debate is that there are already several examples of when it's acceptable to do so. But does it really matter how many Exceptions there are, if they're all laid out?

There are many exceptions regarding the Rogue's Sneak Attack and how it can be applied, but does that mean that it should just become a general rule? That all attacks from Rogues are Sneak Attacks, or none are?

[NaughtyTiger]

I think the big point here, and with splitting up attacks from your Action, is that "Exceptions Exist".


Are they exceptions or examples?

I still haven't seen anything that definitively says, attack action can not be split up as a general rule.



Oh, I agree with you, and in my list of “exceptions” I was tempted to add the Sentinel feat as well, which is another big violator of the “actions are indivisible” paradigm (and Ready actions, but that leads to interminable forum threads).

Is Sentinel an exception to "actions are indivisible" or an exception to "reactions happen after a trigger"?