When does the shield master's shove take place?

[Trandir]

Shield Mater's first benefit reads:
"If you take the Attack action on your turn you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield"

It's "If you take" not "after you take" or "when you take" or "during your"
So far I haven't found a single other bonus action that can be used if something happens so I don't know RAW how it should be ruled.

Does anyone knows by RAW when you can try to shove a creature this way?

Bonus: RAI how does your DM rules it or do you rule it?

[Lyracian]

There is some sage advice and Crawford tweets that go back and forth on this.

I think the official rule is you have finish all your attacks before the bonus shove but most people play it once you have made one attack you can shove.

Definitely an ask the DM question

[diplomancer]

Ask the DM. If you are the DM, decide. Whatever you do, don't try to get the answer from the internet unless you are prepared to read hundreds of pages of arguments.

[Trandir]

Ask the DM. If you are the DM, decide. Whatever you do, don't try to get the answer from the internet unless you are prepared to read hundreds of pages of arguments.


There is some sage advice and Crawford tweets that go back and forth on this.

I think the official rule is you have finish all your attacks before the bonus shove but most people play it once you have made one attack you can shove.

Definitely an ask the DM question

Yep I already did but I wanted to know if there was an actual official ruling for that feat. This DM allows to use it after any attack made with the Attack action as well.

[ad_hoc]

Yep I already did but I wanted to know if there was an actual official ruling for that feat. This DM allows to use it after any attack made with the Attack action as well.

There are no half actions. If you perform an action then you perform the entire action (unless a reaction gets used) before using another action.

You can use a Bonus Action to take the Shove after 1 attack but you can't then "go back" and take another attack with the additional attack feature.

Note that the Attack Action has a specific exception to this in regards to movement. You may move about during the action. That doesn't mean you can do everything else during the action too.


Another way to look at it is - Yes, it says 'when you take' and not 'after you take' but if you have taken the action then whatever you do is after it, and if you have not taken it yet then you have not taken it.

There is no action declaration in 5e which puts you in a status of taking an action. You are actually doing it or you aren't in other words. And when you stop doing it then you're finished with doing it.

[HiveStriker]

Shield Mater's first benefit reads:
"If you take the Attack action on your turn you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield"

It's "If you take" not "after you take" or "when you take" or "during your"
So far I haven't found a single other bonus action that can be used if something happens so I don't know RAW how it should be ruled.

Does anyone knows by RAW when you can try to shove a creature this way?

Bonus: RAI how does your DM rules it or do you rule it?
Hi!
Simple.
RAW is "before or after you take Attack action".
RAI (from tweets) is "only after you take the Attack action" (reasoning behind being "you cannot trigger a bonus action 'before the fact').

How I rule it: "before or after", the feature in itself has no bearing or dependency on making a successful attack first (it's actually a classic tactic to engage with a shield bash to block view and try to break balance), and ruling it otherwise is nerfing it unnecessarily imo.
However, I just realize I always put a condition that seemed so natural to me I didn't realize wasn't in text: apparently RAW implies you could Shove a target entirely different than the one(s) of your attacks. But I never saw anyone doing that to be honest, probably explains why I never noticed until now.

[diplomancer]

And so it begins...

[Randomthom]

There are no half actions. If you perform an action then you perform the entire action (unless a reaction gets used) before using another action.

You can use a Bonus Action to take the Shove after 1 attack but you can't then "go back" and take another attack with the additional attack feature.

The PHB specifically states that characters/creatures with more than 1 attack can move between attacks so why not perform their bonus action? You can also perform a reaction mid-way through an action (counterspelling a counterspell while casting a spell) so there is some level of precedent to suggest that the order in which things happen isn't relevant.

You're adding rules that aren't there to support your argument.

At my table, I'm happy for a player to do the shove first provided they take the attack action that turn. That appears to be the RAW interpretation of it since it doesn't use the word "before" or "after". I'm not overly hung-up on RAW at my table but this passes the rule-of-cool threshold without being too crazily OP. I'm sure someone can come up with some build that makes it very OP (goliath str rogue with shield proficiency, expertise in athletics maybe?) that would make it a very strong option but I'm not playing with min-max-munchkins who's primary goal is to ruin my day so I'm ok :)

[ad_hoc]

The PHB specifically states that characters/creatures with more than 1 attack can move between attacks so why not perform their bonus action? You can also perform a reaction mid-way through an action (counterspelling a counterspell while casting a spell) so there is some level of precedent to suggest that the order in which things happen isn't relevant.

You're adding rules that aren't there to support your argument.

At my table, I'm happy for a player to do the shove first provided they take the attack action that turn. That appears to be the RAW interpretation of it since it doesn't use the word "before" or "after". I'm not overly hung-up on RAW at my table but this passes the rule-of-cool threshold without being too crazily OP. I'm sure someone can come up with some build that makes it very OP (goliath str rogue with shield proficiency, expertise in athletics maybe?) that would make it a very strong option but I'm not playing with min-max-munchkins who's primary goal is to ruin my day so I'm ok :)

The game only specifies things you can do.

It does not list all the things you cannot do as the rules would be endless.

JC has explained this in depth.

The 5e rules are meant to be simple and straightforward.

Nesting actions within actions and playing with order of operations and all that sort of stuff is just not congruent with the design.

[Contrast]

RAW is "before or after you take Attack action".

As loathe as I am to get involved...

Keeping in mind that RAW stands for Rules As Written would you mind clarifying where you got the phrase 'before or after you take Attack action' from seeing as you put it in quotation marks presumably you are saying it's a direct quote from the written rules?


To OP: The official stance on this has changed over time. Current official stance is RAW is after, generally speaking however their response has sort of been along the lines of 'kinda who cares, maybe make one attack? ask your DM'. Personally I would prefer them to errata the feat to just remove the reliance on attacking entirely as sword and shield style is kinda underwhelming anyway.

[HolyDraconus]

And so it begins...

....indeed..

[Aimeryan]

The DM has to decide how they will rule on several things to come to a supported ruling:



Is describing what the character wants to do assigned to a particular mechanical function at each step, or is it just required that a valid pathway to that result must exist?
Is the 'If you take...on the turn' causal or restrictive?
Does committing to an action 'take' it?
Are actions atomic?


I'll look at each:


~1~

The problem exists here that you may break the game by requiring the character to do something they cannot do. If you require each descriptive action by the character be assigned to a mechanical function then it looks like this:

Shove [SM] --must take--> Attack [Attack Action]

What happens if you then cannot take the Attack Action? ERROR!!

However, if the player describing what they want their character to do only requires a valid pathway to doing so then even if the Attack action later becomes non-usable it is still fine; a valid pathway still existed:

Shove [SM] --> Attack [Attack Action]
Or
Shove [Attack Action]

Basically, if the character shoved, does it matter to the DM if it was the Shield Master feat that provided the shove or the Attack Action, if both were valid at the time? If the Attack Action cannot later be taken then it can simply be held that the character made the shove with the Attack Action because that was the only valid way it could have been done.


~2~

A causal 'If you take...on the turn' means the shove can not occur before the Attack Action is taken. Otherwise, if restrictive then it merely requires that you later take the Attack Action.


~3~

If the player can just commit to an action, i.e., it is spent, no longer available for other things, then have they taken that action? It can be ruled that the player can say something along the lines of 'I take my Attack Action', then follow up by saying 'I use my bonus action from Shield Master to shove', then 'I take my attacks given to me by the Attack Action'.

The idea here is that they can not then decide to use their action for some other purpose - it has already been taken, even if no attacks were made (or even can be made).

Otherwise, if the player must make some attacks in order to have been ruled as taking the Attack Action then the shove cannot come before any attacks.


~4~

If actions are ruled as atomic then the whole Attack Action must occur before any other action. Hence, all attacks then shove.

If actions are not ruled as atomic then the bonus action shove can occur as soon as it is decided the Attack Action has been taken.


~~~

You'll find arguments supporting which way to rule on each of these in other threads; merely pointing out what needs to be considered. You can, of course, instead just make a ruling specific to the Shield Master shove - it may be inconsistent with other similar rulings, however.

As a note regarding balance, the Shield Master feat is largely considered weaker than the other fighter style feats even if ruled in the most generous way. In particular, the Polearm Master feat allows you to shove first then attack - and it isn't even designed for this purpose.

[Keravath]

There are no half actions. If you perform an action then you perform the entire action (unless a reaction gets used) before using another action.

You can use a Bonus Action to take the Shove after 1 attack but you can't then "go back" and take another attack with the additional attack feature.

Note that the Attack Action has a specific exception to this in regards to movement. You may move about during the action. That doesn't mean you can do everything else during the action too.


Another way to look at it is - Yes, it says 'when you take' and not 'after you take' but if you have taken the action then whatever you do is after it, and if you have not taken it yet then you have not taken it.

There is no action declaration in 5e which puts you in a status of taking an action. You are actually doing it or you aren't in other words. And when you stop doing it then you're finished with doing it.

I know this has been argued to death already ...

However, citing the rule on bonus actions ...

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

You CHOOSE when to take a bonus action on your turn.

The rules DO NOT say that actions are indivisible. This is not in the rules. If you believe it is then please cite a quotation for me.

There are MANY example where you can take a reaction while performing an action which clearly indicates that actions are not considered indivisible in general. e.g. You can cast counterspell as a reaction while performing a cast a spell action with a different spell.

The rules specifically spell out movement as ONE of the things you can do between the first Attack granted by the Attack action and any additional attacks granted by having the Extra Attack FEATURE.

The Attack action itself gives you ONE attack. Features allow you to make additional attacks when taking the Attack action.

"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."

"EXTRA ATTACK
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

There is NOTHING in any of this that says you can NOT do other things during your action. In addition, the interacting with objects section specifically lists things that you may be able to do in tandem with your movement and action. "In tandem" is usually interpreted to mean "at the same time as" but a DM would rule on whether a particular interaction would be appropriate in tandem with an attack action. e.g. I grab the rope and swing close to the monster so I can hit it with my mace. Object interaction WHILE making an attack.

"INTERACTING WITH OBJECTS AROUND YOU: Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:"

A DM is free to run their game however they wish. However, RAW, there is NO support for the idea that the Attack action is indivisible. A Valor bard of level 6+ could move/attack/move/cast healing word/move/attack/move. This is COMPLETELY allowed by RAW since a bonus action can be taken when YOU choose unless the timing is otherwise specified and that INCLUDES between attacks taken as a result of an Attack action with some feature granting additional attacks.

I just don't know where folks get the idea that Actions are indivisible, that you can't take reactions or bonus actions during an Attack action with multiple attacks. The rules don't say that anywhere.

[HiveStriker]

As loathe as I am to get involved...

Keeping in mind that RAW stands for Rules As Written would you mind clarifying where you got the phrase 'before or after you take Attack action' from seeing as you put it in quotation marks presumably you are saying it's a direct quote from the written rules?


To OP: The official stance on this has changed over time. Current official stance is RAW is after, generally speaking however their response has sort of been along the lines of 'kinda who cares, maybe make one attack? ask your DM'. Personally I would prefer them to errata the feat to just remove the reliance on attacking entirely as sword and shield style is kinda underwhelming anyway.
I didn't get the phrase and that was the point. Most bonus action or reactions usually specify the timing of their execution when their trigger depends on another decision or kind of action, or their wording strongly hints at the necessity of taking action before bonus action (example Commander Strike, Monk's Unarmed Attack).

Shield Master doesn't have, it doesn't even require you to use bonus action against one of the creatures you attacked. So there is no particular reason why there should be a specific order.
Similar example: War Magic which has similar wording: if you limit it to weapon attack AFTER casting cantrip/spell, it's very limiting. If you allow it before, it synergizes with Eldricht Strike.

(I'm also pretty sure there are abilities that say black on white that bonus action have to be taken after the trigger, but no time to look for it).

RAI probably comes from the fact that, if you want to strictly read every similar bonus action feature...
- For some bonus action it would feel clunky because you could technically take them before the Attack/spell because they have similar wording, although the gut feeling is that it should come after (typically: Commander's Strike).
- More importantly, it could theorically allow loopholes of players that announce use of bonus action then decide not to take the action that would trigger it which would lead to a totally incoherent situation.
So they would need to reword many abilities if they wanted to make different rulings about "conditional bonus action" and be crystal clear whether they can be taken before or after.
Considering the work, it feels more logical to just say "hey, you obviously need to 'fulfill the trigger' before bonus action can be enabled".

Thing is, in my games, none of those two "risks" would ever appear. Even in the latter case, should it arrive because honest misunderstanding or mistake, I'll simply say as a DM "hey, tough luck, you cannot change midway, you'll see this through, period. Don't worry, everyone makes mistake, your pary will help you make it up".
And several of my friends would find it immersion-breaking. Because in fine, action and bonus action are just ways to translate ideas into mechanics. For them, first thought is an "image" of what you're gonna do "I'm gonna pummel that guy down" or "I'm gonna roast those people" then it's translated into mechanics. :)
So to be honest I really don't care about RAI on that point. Any ambiguity is taken care of in session 0, that usually works.

[ad_hoc]

- More importantly, it could theorically allow loopholes of players that announce use of bonus action then decide not to take the action that would trigger it which would lead to a totally incoherent situation.

There is no 'announcing' or 'declaring'.

You either do the action or you don't. The action has only been taken when it has been taken. That means an action has only occurred after it has happened.

People are inserting a lot of complication into the game. Apply Occam's Razor to the rules and it should make a lot more sense. The rules are written to be intuitive and straightforward.

Having phases to action taking and setting conditions based on announcements and splicing actions and so on are antithetical to the design. Instead, what is the straightforward way to read it? When you have taken the attack action you can take a bonus action shove. Simple.

[BoringInfoGuy]

There is no 'announcing' or 'declaring'.

You either do the action or you don't. The action has only been taken when it has been taken. That means an action has only occurred after it has happened.

People are inserting a lot of complication into the game. Apply Occam's Razor to the rules and it should make a lot more sense. The rules are written to be intuitive and straightforward.

Having phases to action taking and setting conditions based on announcements and splicing actions and so on are antithetical to the design. Instead, what is the straightforward way to read it? When you have taken the attack action you can take a bonus action shove. Simple.
The catch with a simple game design is people tend to add non existent rules to it.

The Rules As Written state that when you have the Extra Attack feature, you can move between attacks.

There is no additional rules written to say that while moving between attacks, you are restricted from doing anything you could normally do during your move. However, some do interpret the rules as if it says “When moving between attacks, you can not do anything other than move until you finish the attack action”.

That rule does not exist. Rules about what you can do while moving - as noted above - do.

[Yakmala]

Is there any other question that comes up more than this one?

Regardless, here is how I run it at my tables...

You must declare your attack action, and take at least one attack. After that, you can shove if you like with the bonus action, before taking your additional attacks.

I run it this way because there are numerous other examples in the rules of things you can do between attacks, such as moving or performing object interactions. For example, lets say you were a fighter with three attacks. You could shove one target with your first attack, move to a second target, use your object interaction to draw a weapon, attack the target with your second attack, move again, drop the weapon for free, then grapple a third target.

[Benny89]

RAW all you need to do is make attack action during your turn. RAW it doesn't say it needs to be before or after shove. As long as you will do Attack Action during your turn- you can chose whenever to do shove.

And that is how I run it and I allow Bonus Action Shove into Attack Action as I think its the only thing that can make people play sword n board warrior instead of another PAM GWM or SS XBE...

RAI? As many as there are DMs....

[Sigreid]

RAW, you attack and then shove.

At the table I play at, but if you shove your action is an attack action, whether you take it before or after and cannot be changed.

[Hail Tempus]

....indeed..If anyone here has played Call of Cthulhu, threads like this are probably what a Sanity Check are for.

[Contrast]

Yep I already did but I wanted to know if there was an actual official ruling for that feat. This DM allows to use it after any attack made with the Attack action as well.

Just realised no-one answered this explicitly - the question is covered in the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) which states you cannot use the bonus action before you attack.


I didn't get the phrase and that was the point.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that was the point? My point was you probably shouldn't pretend you're directly quoting the rulebook when you're not. That kinda thing is a) misleading and b) only weakens your arguments when someone points it out.

Anyway gl hf evetyone, I'm out :smalltongue:

[Speely]

Sort of a white-gold/blue-black dress question, and as others have said, it's best to just interpret the wording as you like or go with whatever your DM rules. I don't consider Sage Advice official... It's advice, not errata.

How I run it: You can shove before or after your Attack action, but if something prevents you from taking the Attack action after you shove, you lose your action.

Additional house rule (not that you asked for it) : If you shove before your Attack action and fail, you have Disadvantage on your now-required Attack action.

Works out well and adds some risk vs reward to choosing a safer or deadlier timing of the shove.

[Damon_Tor]

As a DM, I officially houserule the feat to remove the requirement that the attack action be used at all. Avoids this whole discussion. A Warlock wants to be able to use a bonus action to shove an enemy away with his shield before he hits them with an eldritch blast? Sure, why not? What does swinging a sword with the other hand got to do with the ability to shove a guy with your shield?

For an edition that's supposed to be written for simplicity, they complicated some stuff unnecessarily.

[stoutstien]

As a DM, I officially houserule the feat to remove the requirement that the attack action be used at all. Avoids this whole discussion. A Warlock wants to be able to use a bonus action to shove an enemy away with his shield before he hits them with an eldritch blast? Sure, why not? What does swinging a sword with the other hand got to do with the ability to shove a guy with your shield?

For an edition that's supposed to be written for simplicity, they complicated some stuff unnecessarily.

Even better, put the ba shove on the shield as a special property and replace that bulletin on the feat into gives a bonus to the shove when you do attack before a shield bash.

[Hail Tempus]

As a DM, I officially houserule the feat to remove the requirement that the attack action be used at all. Avoids this whole discussion. A Warlock wants to be able to use a bonus action to shove an enemy away with his shield before he hits them with an eldritch blast? Sure, why not? What does swinging a sword with the other hand got to do with the ability to shove a guy with your shield?

For an edition that's supposed to be written for simplicity, they complicated some stuff unnecessarily.
Yeah, there are a lot of people who are strangely invested in making Shield Master worse.

There is literally nothing broken or bad about interpreting shield master as:

“As a bonus action, you can make a shove attack if you are wielding a shield”

[Jerrykhor]

Yeah, there are a lot of people who are strangely invested in making Shield Master worse.

There is literally nothing broken or bad about interpreting shield master as:

“As a bonus action, you can make a shove attack if you are wielding a shield”

More like, there are a lot of people who are strangely invested in winning Shield Master RAW arguments.

[Speely]

More like, there are a lot of people who are strangely invested in winning Shield Master RAW arguments.

It's the Holy Grail of current D&D controversy. There always has to be at least one thing.

[Tanarii]

Sort of a white-gold/blue-black dress question,
There's a right answer, but if you look at in the wrong light, you'll end up at the wrong answer? :smallamused:



Similar example: War Magic which has similar wording: if you limit it to weapon attack AFTER casting cantrip/spell, it's very limiting. If you allow it before, it synergizes with Eldricht Strike.

Fwiw the Sage Advice Compendium says War Magic is after, but you don't break anything from allowing it before.

Does the “when” in the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic fea- ture 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.

IIRC this SAC entry was changed from whatever order you like to this at some point.

[Greywander]

Haven't read the whole thread, but this is somewhat of an ongoing can of worms. There's generally three possible interpretations:

BA shove can be done before attacking. As long as you take the Attack action on the same turn, you can shove before attacking. This is the RAW, in my opinion. Also, shoving normally requires taking the Attack action anyway, so the moment you shove means you're locked into the Attack, whether or not you decide to use your bonus action.
BA shove can happen after one attack. You have to attack before you can shove, but Extra Attacks can happen afterwards. This seems to be a commonly accepted houserule for this issue. Possibly a happy middle ground.
BA shove happens after all attacks. You have to fully complete the Attack action, including Extra Attacks, before you can shove. Crawford has gone back and forth on this one, but I think this is the current "official" interpretation.

[ThePolarBear]

Yep I already did but I wanted to know if there was an actual official ruling for that feat. This DM allows to use it after any attack made with the Attack action as well.

There are. It's in the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf). - link to the current version.

"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. In-tending 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 af-ter 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."

Edit: i totally missed that Contrast already answered. Sorry.

[Zhorn]

There's generally three possible interpretations
Four if you count
BA shove can happen after one attack. You have to attack before you can shove, and doing so ends your Attack Action.

I'm personally not fond of this one, but it's the interpretation built off Attack Actions not being able to be divided up by anything except movement (for some reason?)

[diplomancer]

The whole problem is that, not only is the RAW ambiguous ("when" does not mean, logically, "if you have taken it before", but coloquially it may), even the RAI is impossible to know. This is because the guy who designed the rules has given, in different moments of time, different interpretations of both RAW and RAI.

The RAIBJCT (Rules As Interpreted By Jeremy Crawford Today) is no bonus action shove before the attack action is completed. How relevant that is to your table varies from DM to DM.

[NaughtyTiger]

My point was you probably shouldn't pretend you're directly quoting the rulebook when you're not. That kinda thing is a) misleading and b) only weakens your arguments when someone points it out.

for what it's worth, i read it as stating a viewpoint, not a quote from the PHB. the use of quote separated the interpretation of the rule from the text discussing the interpretation, more of a formatting decision than a quote.

[LtPowers]

"when" does not mean, logically, "if you have taken it before"

Yes, it does. If you haven't taken the action yet, then the conditional clause ("when you take") has not yet been satisfied.


Powers &8^]

[diplomancer]

Yes, it does. If you haven't taken the action yet, then the conditional clause ("when you take") has not yet been satisfied.

No it doesn't. "After you take" (which is actually in the text for flurry of blows) does. Isn't this fun?

I don't think that, when the book was published in 2014, the ambiguity was deliberate, so as to let DMs decide. I am pretty sure that, 5 years and hundreds of pages of arguments later, if the developers intended "only 1 true interpretation", they would have errated it by now to "after you take", or even "after you have finished".

[Willie the Duck]

There are. It's in the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf). - link to the current version.

"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. In-tending 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 af-ter 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."

Edit: i totally missed that Contrast already answered. Sorry.

Interesting. This is new-ish. Anyone know when this went into the SAC? Previously it had just been a Crawford tweet, which WotC does not declare to be part of the official rules/ruling structure.


As loathe as I am to get involved...
Agreed. Part of me feels like the original wording was a subtle Aposematism mechanism -- making people who care overly about 'being right on the internet' reveal themselves.


To OP: The official stance on this has changed over time. Current official stance is RAW is after, generally speaking however their response has sort of been along the lines of 'kinda who cares, maybe make one attack? ask your DM'. Personally I would prefer them to errata the feat to just remove the reliance on attacking entirely as sword and shield style is kinda underwhelming anyway.

Honestly, yes. Initial bashing/shoving is definitely not overpowered (particularly in a game with readily abusable -5/+10 cheese or the like), yet I understand WotC's motivation regarding if-then triggers.Let them have a clear and consistent way to handle the ordering for actions triggered by other actions (with exceptions clearly spelled-out in-text, as with Storm Sorcerer's Tempestuous Magic specifying "immediately before or after you cast [the triggering] spell"), yet still allow bash-then-attack.

[ThePolarBear]

Interesting. This is new-ish. Anyone know when this went into the SAC? Previously it had just been a Crawford tweet, which WotC does not declare to be part of the official rules/ruling structure.

It should have been added as of January 2019 - due the [NEW] tag and that being the last time we had a Sage Advice Compendium release :D.

The change to War Magic ruling was antecedent to this release and based on the exact same ideas behind the tweets on Shield Master. That particular change to the actual Sage Advice Compendium is dated as early as 2017 (can't say if August, September or October - the link to the document was changed to point to the latest one leaving no trace of change. But the August page (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-references-august-2017) mentions revising some old answers (thing that happened already in 2015, so already not unprecedented), and with the 2.0 document of 2017 already having the change... (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) i would say August (don't mind the url. The date is in the fine print - WotC and links are always a mess). June 2016 (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-june-2016) for the first iteration "before or after", with the exact same rationale as the first "Shield Master" tweet. For reference: the SM tweet that caused the uproar is dated May 2018. (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/994993596989300736)

Edit: And if you are curious: yes, i have a lot of time right now. I've a broken foot so i've got nothing better to do right now. :D
Jokes aside - i already did this research out of interest back in 2018 - had a lot of time back then too :D



Agreed. Part of me feels like the original wording was a subtle Aposematism mechanism -- making people who care overly about 'being right on the internet' reveal themselves.

I simply believe in his own admission at making at mistake. Not that it changes anything, really.

[Damon_Tor]

There are. It's in the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf). - link to the current version.

"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. In-tending 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 af-ter 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."

Edit: i totally missed that Contrast already answered. Sorry.

It's worth noting that this still doesn't make it clear whether you can use it after the attack action has begun but before the attack action has concluded, ie, between attacks.

Again, the simplest solution is just to remove the need to make the attack action at all.

[NNescio]

The whole problem is that, not only is the RAW ambiguous ("when" does not mean, logically, "if you have taken it before", but coloquially it may), even the RAI is impossible to know. This is because the guy who designed the rules has given, in different moments of time, different interpretations of both RAW and RAI.

The RAIBJCT (Rules As Interpreted By Jeremy Crawford Today) is no bonus action shove before the attack action is completed. How relevant that is to your table varies from DM to DM.

The RAW uses the word "If", not "When".

Also, interpreting either as allowing "Before..." is problematic (at least in this specific case involving Shield Master) because it will lead to a rules contradiction if you are rendered unable to take the Attack action as a direct consequence of taking the Shield Master bonus action shove. Like say, getting downed by a Remorhaz's Heated Body when shield bashing. (or a readied attack that hits [or readied spell/reaction ability etc.], from anyone, if the DM chooses to interpret the shield shove as "not touching".)

(Plus interpreting "if" as "also before..." is flagrantly against the definition of the word both in logic and in colloquial speech, anyway.)

There is still room for ambiguity, however, but that relies on inserting the bonus action shove within the Attack action itself (before the actual attacks within the Attack action), which technically isn't prohibited by the rules.

(Though my position with regard to this line of reasoning is similar to ad_hoc's. But I accept there is ambiguity here.)

[Willie the Duck]

The RAW uses the word "If", not "When".

Also, interpreting either as allowing "Before..." is problematic (at least in this specific case involving Shield Master) because it will lead to a rules contradiction if you are rendered unable to take the Attack action as a direct consequence of taking the Shield Master bonus action shove.

Well, here's another wrench in the works when discussing RAW -- the official rule in place of a thing don't actually have to not cause contradiction or paradox. Something can be the official rule and yet cause a contradiction under one scenario or another. That can mean that a designer hadn't thought through all potential downstream consequences of a rule, but that doesn't stop them from making it the rules as they stand.

[Stone-Ears]

Bah, here goes folks trying to nerf the shield master feat again. It's not even the best fighter feat there is out there but folks still insist on nerfing it by not allowing the shield bash before you stab with your sword. It's a classic and common tactic and to make this impossible makes absolutely no sense at all.

Why would I stab and then shove when I can shove and then stab?

[NaughtyTiger]

Aposematism mechanism
dang it, i had to look this up on the interwebs.

[Trandir]

Bah, here goes folks trying to nerf the shield master feat again. It's not even the best fighter feat there is out there but folks still insist on nerfing it by not allowing the shield bash before you stab with your sword. It's a classic and common tactic and to make this impossible makes absolutely no sense at all.

Why would I stab and then shove when I can shove and then stab?

Not related but what feats are there that supports the sword and board fighting style?

[Tanarii]

Interesting. This is new-ish. Anyone know when this went into the SAC? Previously it had just been a Crawford tweet, which WotC does not declare to be part of the official rules/ruling structure.Shortly after the final Crawford tweet reversal on the matter.

But EK War Magic was "after" (or possibly IIRC changed to "after") long before that, so the precedent was there that "when you take" means "after you take" before Crawford reversed position on Shield Master.

Purely IMO, "when you take" means "after you take", or at least "as you take", in common english parlance. Of course, at that point it becomes a question of if Actions are declarations or resolutions.
Edit: Same for "if you take". That's functionally the same thing, it also means either "after you take" or "as you take" in terms of resolving.

[NaughtyTiger]

it will lead to a rules contradiction if you are rendered unable to take the Attack action as a direct consequence of taking the Shield Master bonus action shove. Like say, getting downed by a Remorhaz's Heated Body when shield bashing.

in that case, the bonus action shield master shove is retconned to the Attack action. no change in narrative, no change in the mechanics.


For what it's worth, it isn't "if you take ...", it's "if you take ... on your turn".

[diplomancer]

The RAW uses the word "If", not "When".

Also, interpreting either as allowing "Before..." is problematic (at least in this specific case involving Shield Master) because it will lead to a rules contradiction if you are rendered unable to take the Attack action as a direct consequence of taking the Shield Master bonus action shove. Like say, getting downed by a Remorhaz's Heated Body when shield bashing. (or a readied attack that hits [or readied spell/reaction ability etc.], from anyone, if the DM chooses to interpret the shield shove as "not touching".)

(Plus interpreting "if" as "also before..." is flagrantly against the definition of the word both in logic and in colloquial speech, anyway.)

There is still room for ambiguity, however, but that relies on inserting the bonus action shove within the Attack action itself (before the actual attacks within the Attack action), which technically isn't prohibited by the rules.

(Though my position with regard to this line of reasoning is similar to ad_hoc's. But I accept there is ambiguity here.)

Thank you for the correction, I was misremembering. The problem now is that an if-then statement does not, logically, imply temporal causality either.

As to doing a bonus action shove and then being rendered unable to take the Attack action for whatever reason, that would only be a problem if a shove was not a possible way of taking the Attack Action.

If you shove your enemy and right afterwards are unable to do anything else, it makes no difference whether you shoved him with the Attack action or with the Bonus Action shove of shield master.

[JoeJ]

Bah, here goes folks trying to nerf the shield master feat again. It's not even the best fighter feat there is out there but folks still insist on nerfing it by not allowing the shield bash before you stab with your sword. It's a classic and common tactic and to make this impossible makes absolutely no sense at all.

Nothing is made impossible. With or without the feat, you can definitely shove and then stab. You shove using the attack action, then stab using an extra attack of the attack action. The Shield Master feat doesn't let you shove with your shield, it lets you shove with your shield as a bonus action (and also improves your Dexterity saving throws.)

[ThePolarBear]

Thank you for the correction, I was misremembering. The problem now is that an if-then statement does not, logically, imply temporal causality either.

The "if-then" (material conditional) in logic doesn't represent the "if-then" English language use, however. Conditional sentences like the ones used in the phb do imply causality in English.


As to doing a bonus action shove and then being rendered unable to take the Attack action for whatever reason, that would only be a problem if a shove was not a possible way of taking the Attack Action.

Yes, retconning can work. But.


If you shove your enemy and right afterwards are unable to do anything else, it makes no difference whether you shoved him with the Attack action or with the Bonus Action shove of shield master.

I agree and disagree at the same time. It might make a difference - what makes it impossible to take an action might not prevent taking a bonus action. Thus it could be possible to shove with an bonus action but not with an action, making it possible to be able to shove with a bonus action, unable to do so with an action, and unable to retcon.

[Tanarii]

Thank you for the correction, I was misremembering. The problem now is that an if-then statement does not, logically, imply temporal causality either.
It doesn't? It certainly does in English and in Programming / Scripting.

[LtPowers]

No it doesn't. "After you take" (which is actually in the text for flurry of blows) does. Isn't this fun?

I don't see the difference from a logical standpoint.

Taking the Attack action is a prerequisite for getting the bonus action option. If you haven't taken the Attack action, you haven't fulfilled the prerequisite.


Powers &8^]

[diplomancer]

It doesn't? It certainly does in English and in Programming / Scripting.

In "If there's smoke, then there's fire" it's not the smoke that causes the fire.

Suppose you are seeing a film about a 5e combat. You don't hear the players talking, you just see the results. There's a hoplite (spear and shield) warrior. He bashes with the shield, attacks the enemy with his spear, then makes another attack with the butt of the spear.

What happened? Was it a polearm master character with extra attack? Was it an 11th level fighter and the DM flavored his 3rd attack as being a butt hit (perhaps the player rolled poorly for damage). Or was it a Shield Master character with extra attack, under the more benevolent interpretation, the last attack flavored like the 11th level fighter?

And, more important, does it make any difference?

[BoringInfoGuy]

Accepting the Sage Advice Compendium ruling that the Attack Action needs to be taken - not just declared - to qualify for the if / then requirement to use the Shield Master bonus action shove, I try to imagine why that would be needed in universe.

If you could see what your character saw, how would it look? How would a bonus action shove look different than a standard action shove?

What I end up imagining is that the characters with the Shield Master feat training have learned a technique to quickly follow an Attack with a shove. The Attack creates the opening, the bonus action is the follow through. Taking advantage of any momentary loss of balance or opening as the foe either takes or avoids / blocks a blow. To an observer, it would probably look like a single seamless attack.

Without the Shield Master training, you don’t know how to use your shield to follow through on your attack. Without the initial attack, there is nothing to follow through on.

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

for the most part, you can do that without the "training" already.

[Tanarii]

In "If there's smoke, then there's fire" it's not the smoke that causes the fire.You trying to conflate causality with temporal flow.

Besides, your statement is false, which is why the causality also fails.

It's also not the same kind of if-then statement. It's not if-then-do.

[Aimeryan]

Accepting the Sage Advice Compendium ruling that the Attack Action needs to be taken - not just declared - to qualify for the if / then requirement to use the Shield Master bonus action shove, I try to imagine why that would be needed in universe.

If you could see what your character saw, how would it look? How would a bonus action shove look different than a standard action shove?

What I end up imagining is that the characters with the Shield Master feat training have learned a technique to quickly follow an Attack with a shove. The Attack creates the opening, the bonus action is the follow through. Taking advantage of any momentary loss of balance or opening as the foe either takes or avoids / blocks a blow. To an observer, it would probably look like a single seamless attack.

Without the Shield Master training, you don’t know how to use your shield to follow through on your attack. Without the initial attack, there is nothing to follow through on.

The issue with this is that the shove can happen after 30ft of movement against a completely different target - there is no reason to particularly conclude the attack on the distant first target caused an opening some time later on the second target. It certainly wouldn't be reliable. It also wouldn't make sense that this is the only way to create the opening - that the movement by itself (a 'charge' as such) could not also do this. Lorewise, it just doesn't hold water.

Now, if the written text stated an attack must occur and then immediately following it, on the same target, the shove could then be used as a bonus action, sure.

[Aimeryan]

You trying to conflate causality with temporal flow.

Besides, your statement is false, which is why the causality also fails.

It's also not the same kind of if-then statement. It's not if-then-do.

The statement chosen being false doesn't actually matter. However, technically smoke is the byproduct of fire, so the statement is correct. Regardless, lets not get sidetracked, here.

'If A, then B' statements only implies that one being true necessitates that the other is true - it does not confer order.

~~~

Note, do not assume this means I rule one way or the other - it merely means I see validity in the argument.


//Darn, double post - meant to merge them, eh.

[Zhorn]

And so it begins...

....indeed..
That's assuming it ever ended to begin with
https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a4006193836_16.jpg

there are a lot of people who are strangely invested in winning Shield Master RAW arguments.
And none of them will ever be satisfied so long as others claim that an interpretation different to their own is the official raw version.

...but in programming...
...applying formal English...
...according to formal logic...
...in scripting...
...if we apply technical legalese...
... stop... just stop. This is a game designed for ages 12 and up. It does not need a tertiary level of formal education to understand or engage in.

Contrast and ThePolarBear have both already linked to the official ruling. But because people love to jump in to the middle of threads and ignore everything but the latest post;


https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Shield Master
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."

With the following context tweet on RAW vs RAI

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105204044610428929
"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."
For a section of the player base, this is infuriating because it does not align with their views on the matter.
House rule it!
It's okay to not agree with the official rules, and it is also okay to not play by them. Be the DM and you can decide what goes at your table.

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/739205901257609216
"House rules—the search for what's fun for a particular group—do, indeed, overrule official rulings."
Preferring a particular method does not mean it must become the new official, nor that everyone else must conform to your way of play.
There's the way according to RAW, a slightly different way according to RAI, and a few other ways people play at their own table.
They are different.
And it is fine.

Good luck and have fun!

[NaughtyTiger]

... stop... just stop. This is a game designed for ages 12 and up. It does not need a tertiary level of formal education to understand or engage in.

phb should contain a primer on formal logic, you know, nothing over 30 pages though

[FrancisBean]

More like, there are a lot of people who are strangely invested in winning Shield Master RAW arguments.

Am I the only one who is tempted to switch sides every time the thread comes up again? :smallwink:

[Zhorn]

phb should contain a primer on formal logic, you know, nothing over 30 pages though

I seriously hope this was meant to be in blue text. Becasue with how these Shield Master threads tend to go, you can never tell :smallconfused:

[Aimeryan]

Contrast and ThePolarBear have both already linked to the official ruling. But because people love to jump in to the middle of threads and ignore everything but the latest post;


With the following context tweet on RAW vs RAI

For a section of the player base, this is infuriating because it does not align with their views on the matter.
House rule it!
It's okay to not agree with the official rules, and it is also okay to not play by them. Be the DM and you can decide what goes at your table.

This is the official JC's intent ruling, at the current time (i.e., OJCRAI). It is not the official written ruling (i.e., RAW). It is also not the unofficial JC's intent ruling (i.e., UJCRAI); he changed his mind yet again since the SAC.

It is not a house rule if you rule as written. If you rule as written does not match the advice in SAC it simply means you do not agree with the advice in the SAC - nothing to do with being a house rule.

[Contrast]

It is not the official written ruling

Err...


Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium

Like it or not the SAC is the official ruling on how you should interpret the rules. As Zhorn says that means diddly squat in your home games where you can play by whatever rules you like (edit - and the SAC does note you're not bound by its rulings /edit) but it does mean that in situations where you should expect official rulings to be important (AL primarily) then you should expect the DM to rule by the SAC ruling.

[Chronos]

The game only specifies things you can do.

It does not list all the things you cannot do as the rules would be endless.

That would lead to a radically different game from D&D. Can your character stick out their tongue at someone, or flip them the bird? I'm pretty sure that most characters have done things like that, at some point in their careers. Can you cite the rule that allows tongue-sticking or bird-flipping?

But in any event, the rules do cover Shield Master. The feat gives conditions under which the bonus action can be used, but doesn't say anything about timing. So we use the normal rules for timing for bonus actions, which say they can be used at any time during your turn.

[Zhorn]

That would lead to a radically different game from D&D. Can your character stick out their tongue at someone, or flip them the bird? I'm pretty sure that most characters have done things like that, at some point in their careers. Can you cite the rule that allows tongue-sticking or bird-flipping?
It's a bit long for a quote, but the reference is in the section:


Part 3: Master of Rules
...
"The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."
...



But in any event, the rules do cover Shield Master. The feat gives conditions under which the bonus action can be used, but doesn't say anything about timing. So we use the normal rules for timing for bonus actions, which say they can be used at any time during your turn.
The timing is in the precondition in order to take the bonus action, and the Attack Action isn't 'taken' until at least one attack is made with it.
Please refer to: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600738-When-does-the-shield-master-s-shove-take-place/page2&p=24213648#post24213648

Nesting actions within actions and playing with order of operations and all that sort of stuff is just not congruent with the design.
It's splitting hairs territory when you can split up attacks of the Attack action with movement, but cannot insert bonus actions.
As JackPhoenix pointed out to me in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600841-Teleportation-Circles-Permanence); tweets on their own are not official, so the tweet claiming only movement can break up the Attack action is not official. The books on their own don't state such a restriction (as far as I know), nor does the Sage Advice Compendium. If you know otherwise, please cite the page reference (I do genuinely want to know the references that can correct any misconceptions I may have).

[Aimeryan]

Err...



Like it or not the SAC is the official ruling on how you should interpret the rules. As Zhorn says that means diddly squat in your home games where you can play by whatever rules you like (edit - and the SAC does note you're not bound by its rulings /edit) but it does mean that in situations where you should expect official rulings to be important (AL primarily) then you should expect the DM to rule by the SAC ruling.

Written, that is what you were missing. There are a number of different ruling methods; Ruling As Written (RAW), Ruling As Intended (RAI), Ruling As Balanced (RAB), etc. SAC are official Rulings As Intended by Jeremy Crawford (who is not the only writer, so a number of rules may have nothing to do with him). What is written in the PHB, DMG, etc., can only be changed via an errata - SAC does not change rulings based on what is written in those.

[Tanarii]

But in any event, the rules do cover Shield Master. The feat gives conditions under which the bonus action can be used, but doesn't say anything about timing."If .. then {do}" is a statement of timing.

[NaughtyTiger]

"If .. then {do}" is a statement of timing.

it can be a statement of timing.
it can be a promise (also a concept in programming)
it can be a statement of probability

however, i concede it is moot cuz sage advice clarifies that now it is intended as a statement of timing.

[Zhorn]

Well, this ran out of steam a little faster than usual...
Same time next month? :smallsmile:

[Monster Manuel]

Personally I would prefer them to errata the feat to just remove the reliance on attacking entirely as sword and shield style is kinda underwhelming anyway.

This is the best answer. Taking away the reliance on taking a specific action simplifies the whole deal without adding anything game-breaking. A bonus action shove when taking the dodge action is not a deal-breaker. A bonus action shove while rushing at someone with a dash action is cool. A bonus action shove when casting a spell could be tricky; useful for getting out of melee range when threatened, maybe. But you've got a caster who blew an ASI on Shield Master, so, I say go for it.

"When wearing a shield and not carrying an item in both hands, you can make a Shove as a bonus action". That's how I would have liked to see it written, but no one at my table has ever taken the feat, so...

[HiveStriker]

for what it's worth, i read it as stating a viewpoint, not a quote from the PHB. the use of quote separated the interpretation of the rule from the text discussing the interpretation, more of a formatting decision than a quote.
Finally someone that properly reads posts. XD

That was exactly that indeed. :)

it can be a statement of timing.
it can be a promise (also a concept in programming)
it can be a statement of probability

however, i concede it is moot cuz sage advice clarifies that now it is intended as a statement of timing.

I think this is the takeway to sum up the whole of the debate. GG

[Garresh]

Four if you count
BA shove can happen after one attack. You have to attack before you can shove, and doing so ends your Attack Action.

I'm personally not fond of this one, but it's the interpretation built off Attack Actions not being able to be divided up by anything except movement (for some reason?)


You missed another possible interpretation, the retroactive tally method. Basically if someone with extra attack and shield master attacks and shoves, they can decide after if they wanted it to be a bonus action, or their regular action. That way they can decide after 2 attack rolls if they want their 3rd attack roll or to cast a spell with their bonus action.

Edit: I recommend everyone keep a sheet used in Chess notation to track moves, especially if there's a fighter with action surge.

Edit 2: If lawyers can get involved in D&D, why not welcome accountants?

[Zhorn]

You missed another possible interpretation, the retroactive tally method. Basically if someone with extra attack and shield master attacks and shoves, they can decide after if they wanted it to be a bonus action, or their regular action. That way they can decide after 2 attack rolls if they want their 3rd attack roll or to cast a spell with their bonus action.
This is less of an interpretation of the rules and more just playing fast an loose with them for you tables preference on what falls under what action (which if it works for your table, all the more power to you).
My response (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600738-When-does-the-shield-master-s-shove-take-place/page2&p=24210611#post24210611) and Greywander's earlier post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600738-When-does-the-shield-master-s-shove-take-place&p=24210503#post24210503) are more about trying to adhere to the wording of the feat in what are the commonly understood restrictions that the wording establishes.

Any time on same turn that you will take the Attack action (Attack action declared, but not yet taken).
On your turn after you've made all attacks with the Attack action (Attack action taken and completed in full).
On your turn after you've made one attack with the Attack action, with remaining attacks allowed after the shove (Attack action taken in part, still accessible after the shove).
On your turn after you've made one attack with the Attack action, where remaining attacks are nor allowed after the shove (Attack action taken in part and concluded prior to the shove).


However you run your retroactive method, it will match to one of those four listed versions.

[Trandir]

Not entirely related but I don't fell like creating another thread about the same feat. The second benefint from shield master looks quite restrictive.
It works only on Dex save spells or effects that target only you, right?
I am not very experienced but those seems pretty rare occurances.

[Zhorn]

Not entirely related but I don't fell like creating another thread about the same feat. The second benefint from shield master looks quite restrictive.
It works only on Dex save spells or effects that target only you, right?
I am not very experienced but those seems pretty rare occurances.

It can depend on your DM. Dex saves are a pretty standard go-to for traps, so if you DM loves traps as much as Fred Jones does, you'll see that dot point get used a lot.

[Trandir]

It can depend on your DM. Dex saves are a pretty standard go-to for traps, so if you DM loves traps as much as Fred Jones does, you'll see that dot point get used a lot.

True. What about monsters? Usually a Dex save is called for AoE effects and those do not target

[NaughtyTiger]

Not entirely related but I don't fell like creating another thread about the same feat. The second benefint from shield master looks quite restrictive.
It works only on Dex save spells or effects that target only you, right?
I am not very experienced but those seems pretty rare occurances.

single target dex saves are not that common, but they are painful, beholder for one.

[Aimeryan]

It can depend on your DM. Dex saves are a pretty standard go-to for traps, so if you DM loves traps as much as Fred Jones does, you'll see that dot point get used a lot.

Almost all traps are aoe-based - it is difficult to come across traps that are sophisticated enough to actually target an individual. Those that cast a spell on a target (like glyph of warding) still have to cast one of the few spells that are single-target dex save based.

Once again, this is another part of the SM feat that potential restrictions cause it to under-perform greatly.

[Chronos]

I suppose Disintegrate is a single-target Dex save. But yeah, it doesn't come up much.

[Zhorn]

Almost all traps are aoe-based - it is difficult to come across traps that are sophisticated enough to actually target an individual. Those that cast a spell on a target (like glyph of warding) still have to cast one of the few spells that are single-target dex save based.

Once again, this is another part of the SM feat that potential restrictions cause it to under-perform greatly.

This why I led with "It can depend on your DM", which should pretty much be the tagline for this whole feat. The types of traps they use, the types of spell they favour, the kinds of enemies they use in the story.

How powerful is the shove bonus action in combat? Depends on your DM
How often will I get to add my shield's AC to Dex Saves? Depends on your DM
How often will I get to turn half damage into no damage? Depends on your DM

I like taking Shield Master on all my shield wielding characters. But I always check with my DM a few things ahead of time regarding how they plan to run their game first. If they run their table in a way that makes Shield Master a bad choice; then I build around a different setup without Shield Master.

[Hail Tempus]

Well, this ran out of steam a little faster than usual...
Same time next month? :smallsmile: Well, how much more can be said about this topic?

Because everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, anyway. 😒

[HiveStriker]

Not entirely related but I don't fell like creating another thread about the same feat. The second benefint from shield master looks quite restrictive.
It works only on Dex save spells or effects that target only you, right?
I am not very experienced but those seems pretty rare occurances.


Almost all traps are aoe-based - it is difficult to come across traps that are sophisticated enough to actually target an individual. Those that cast a spell on a target (like glyph of warding) still have to cast one of the few spells that are single-target dex save based.

Once again, this is another part of the SM feat that potential restrictions cause it to under-perform greatly.
I'll have to stop you (and all others) here.
Yeah, the second benefit is restrictive. But imo the true defensive value of Shield Master lies in its third bullet point, that contrarily to second just requires that you are affected by a spell, not that you are the only target, not even you're one of the targets.

You basically spend a reaction to get one instance of Evasion.
Considering that the vast majority of DEX based effects entail damage even on a successful save, this is a very big deal.

In other words, if one was looking to improve chance to save against DEX, it would be probably best to simply push DEX score by 2 points. Sure, it means only +1, but it works every instance, whatever context, plus brings other benefits (+1 to related skills, Initiative).

Also, something to note: second bullet point requires that spell "targets only you". This does NOT mean that the spell must be able to target only one creature. Not. At. All.
It means that, if you're the only guy frontlining, or that you're clustered out precisely to limit the risk of suffering AOE, you'll benefit from the +2 AC even against an Ice Knife (on AOE part), a Shatter, Earth Tremor, Aganazz's Scorcher and other spells that can be nasty and yet have small enough radius or other requirement (like Flaming Sphere) to make them difficult to really use optimally.
Or more dangerous spells like Chain Lightning that *really* incite people to scatter everywhere whenever they have the slightest doubt on whether enemy has it. XD
Or creature's abilities that tend to still be usually close-range abilities.

So, sure, YMMV largely depending on campaign type and setting. But it actually comes more often than you'd think. :)

[Trandir]

I'll have to stop you (and all others) here.
Yeah, the second benefit is restrictive. But imo the true defensive value of Shield Master lies in its third bullet point, that contrarily to second just requires that you are affected by a spell, not that you are the only target, not even you're one of the targets.

You basically spend a reaction to get one instance of Evasion.
Considering that the vast majority of DEX based effects entail damage even on a successful save, this is a very big deal.

In other words, if one was looking to improve chance to save against DEX, it would be probably best to simply push DEX score by 2 points. Sure, it means only +1, but it works every instance, whatever context, plus brings other benefits (+1 to related skills, Initiative).

Also, something to note: second bullet point requires that spell "targets only you". This does NOT mean that the spell must be able to target only one creature. Not. At. All.
It means that, if you're the only guy frontlining, or that you're clustered out precisely to limit the risk of suffering AOE, you'll benefit from the +2 AC even against an Ice Knife (on AOE part), a Shatter, Earth Tremor, Aganazz's Scorcher and other spells that can be nasty and yet have small enough radius or other requirement (like Flaming Sphere) to make them difficult to really use optimally.
Or more dangerous spells like Chain Lightning that *really* incite people to scatter everywhere whenever they have the slightest doubt on whether enemy has it. XD
Or creature's abilities that tend to still be usually close-range abilities.

So, sure, YMMV largely depending on campaign type and setting. But it actually comes more often than you'd think. :)
But I am pretty sure that AoE effects aren't considered targetting you even if you are the only one affected.

Well there was no question that the third benefit was one of the most appealing but now I have another doubt: you use your reaction after you know if you have past the save or before?

[HiveStriker]

But I am pretty sure that AoE effects aren't considered targetting you even iymf you are the only one affected.

Well there was no question that the third benefit was one of the most appealing but now I have another doubt: you use your reaction after you know if you have past the save or before?
Aaaaah. Dang, you're right!!
My bad.

Indeed, for spells such as Ice Knife the target is a creature.
For Fireball and the like it is a point.

So indeed it's up to DM.
Apologies for the mixup.
(/me realizes in shame he and friends have been houseruling second bullet point since eons XD. For our defense, when enemy had only one creature available to target for an AOE, he'd always "target the creature" -technically aiming a point being center mass of the creature- so we never realized we missed the technicality XD).

[NaughtyTiger]

But I am pretty sure that AoE effects aren't considered targetting you even if you are the only one affected.


A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

Only time target is mentioned is referring to a creature affected by fireball.

My interpretation is that a creature is not targetted by fireball, but it is reasonable that someone would say otherwise. (even Hive, though he recanted already)