So people are wondering something you do first with a bonus action. Paladins cast a smite spell before and attack. Rogues bonus action hidding before attacks. Some examples of the bonus action being used anywhere on a turn.
Now yes shield master says if you do x then you can do y. Well if I attack with a single attack I'm taking the attack action. It does not say you have to complete x before completing y. As such a single attack followed by a shield bash followed by the remainder attacks fills the rule requirement of RAW.
Here we go again. Would a mod please lock this thread? No new information is being introduced, and we're about to have the exact same argument already detailed multiple times in this same thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
By RAW you have to complete X before Y. You can never get an attack on a creature that you shoved by shield master. You also can not break up your multi-attack with a bonus action unless the bonus action specified "attack" rather then "attack action"
By RAW you have to complete X before Y. You can never get an attack on a creature that you shoved by shield master. You also can not break up your multi-attack with a bonus action unless the bonus action specified "attack" rather then "attack action"
So does this mean the old tactic of a Rogue using the bonus disengage first, then zooming around the field before making an attack is no longer valid? How about using misty step to position yourself beside the enemy to make a melee attack? There are specific rules for using bonus action spells then using a cantrip, why then can't shield master, which is a feat, not have a specific rule to allow the shove before an attack?
I get that RAW, the attacks must come first. But D&D has plenty of spells and other actions that have "exemptions" , just wondering why Shield Master can't.
So does this mean the old tactic of a Rogue using the bonus disengage first, then zooming around the field before making an attack is no longer valid? How about using misty step to position yourself beside the enemy to make a melee attack? There are specific rules for using bonus action spells then using a cantrip, why then can't shield master, which is a feat, not have a specific rule to allow the shove before an attack?
I get that RAW, the attacks must come first. But D&D has plenty of spells and other actions that have "exemptions" , just wondering why Shield Master can't.
Shield Master is a specific rule that requires this order of operation. It is not related to casting a spell, or any other feature. Read the thread.
For the love of all that is holy, will a mod PLEASE lock this thread?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Maybe because no one has ever left this thread satisfied? Could be why the mods aren't locking it up all these years.
And yes I read the thread, and up to the very last page no decent resolution has been found. This is a case of "These are the rules because we said so" never mind that it doesn't make sense realistically or logically. But like the other guy said, it's a fantasy game where you shouldn't expect logic nor sense.
Well, it's a case of "here's what the guy in charge of the official rules says the rule means" which carries a little more weight than "we said so". Even with that, a DM can do whatever they want. What else does somebody need? If it works differently at your table, it works differently at your table by DM fiat, like anything else.
I don't see where Shield Master specifically was officially erratta'd. Can you show me that? Either way, it carries more weight than "we said so", which was the point of that sentence. Anyway, the DM can still handle this situation however they want.
As I've said before, what the rules say doesn't really matter. It's your game.
In my games, I allow the BA first, because it makes perfect realistic and logical sense to do so.
Hell, I'd probably just say that you can shove as a bonus action without the requirement to take the attack action at all. The ability to shove as a bonus action is by no means an OP feature, especially when we consider that it's far from guaranteed to work.
I don't see where Shield Master specifically was officially erratta'd. Can you show me that? Either way, it carries more weight than "we said so", which was the point of that sentence. Anyway, the DM can still handle this situation however they want.
That's because it wasn't errata'd, it has always read just how it does today.That being said, the "if-then" structure of Shield Master makes it pretty clear on its own face that RAW you have to do the attack action before you can squeeze a bonus action shove out. No need to dig into intent, the language says it on its face. But the fact that JC at one point issued an "official ruling" otherwise shows how poorly researched and thinly supported the SA tweets often are, and why they cannot substitute for real errata or rules text.
It has an if statement, not an if/then statement. There's a big difference.
EDIT: It's obvious that Jeremy Crawford (eventually) intended the bonus action to follow the attack action. I'm not contesting that. However, you said that RAW says the attack needs to come first. I am disagreeing with that assessment.
The fact that "then" is an omittable word in "if x, [then] y" does not transform the structure of such statements. It's an if-then statement. The only other sort of "if" statement is an if-else statement, which the sentence is not.
The fact that "then" is an omittable word in "if x, [then] y" does not transform the structure of such statements. It's an if-then statement. The only other sort of "if" statement is an if-else statement, which the sentence is not.
I'm trying to think of other situations where a player might want to take a bonus action in the middle of an action. The examples I can think of are pretty irrelevant because the bonus action works just as well before or after the action.
A Monk of at least 5th level (because of Extra Attack class feature) using their Flurry of Blows Since the word “Immediately” is used:
“Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.”
I don't see where Shield Master specifically was officially erratta'd. Can you show me that? Either way, it carries more weight than "we said so", which was the point of that sentence. Anyway, the DM can still handle this situation however they want.
That's because it wasn't errata'd, it has always read just how it does today.That being said, the "if-then" structure of Shield Master makes it pretty clear on its own face that RAW you have to do the attack action before you can squeeze a bonus action shove out. No need to dig into intent, the language says it on its face. But the fact that JC at one point issued an "official ruling" otherwise shows how poorly researched and thinly supported the SA tweets often are, and why they cannot substitute for real errata or rules text.
Are you trying to argue that there is an unwritten temporal requirement to if/then statements? The only requirement in the feat is that the attack action occurs on your turn.
Please consider where you are. Analyzing and discussing details of rules is what we do in this subforum.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So people are wondering something you do first with a bonus action. Paladins cast a smite spell before and attack. Rogues bonus action hidding before attacks. Some examples of the bonus action being used anywhere on a turn.
Now yes shield master says if you do x then you can do y. Well if I attack with a single attack I'm taking the attack action. It does not say you have to complete x before completing y. As such a single attack followed by a shield bash followed by the remainder attacks fills the rule requirement of RAW.
Here we go again. Would a mod please lock this thread? No new information is being introduced, and we're about to have the exact same argument already detailed multiple times in this same thread.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Nope you have to use the attack action in order to trigger the shield shove
By RAW you have to complete X before Y. You can never get an attack on a creature that you shoved by shield master. You also can not break up your multi-attack with a bonus action unless the bonus action specified "attack" rather then "attack action"
never you say?
2 words to prove you wrong:
action
surge
Blank
So does this mean the old tactic of a Rogue using the bonus disengage first, then zooming around the field before making an attack is no longer valid? How about using misty step to position yourself beside the enemy to make a melee attack? There are specific rules for using bonus action spells then using a cantrip, why then can't shield master, which is a feat, not have a specific rule to allow the shove before an attack?
I get that RAW, the attacks must come first. But D&D has plenty of spells and other actions that have "exemptions" , just wondering why Shield Master can't.
Shield Master is a specific rule that requires this order of operation. It is not related to casting a spell, or any other feature. Read the thread.
For the love of all that is holy, will a mod PLEASE lock this thread?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Maybe because no one has ever left this thread satisfied? Could be why the mods aren't locking it up all these years.
And yes I read the thread, and up to the very last page no decent resolution has been found. This is a case of "These are the rules because we said so" never mind that it doesn't make sense realistically or logically. But like the other guy said, it's a fantasy game where you shouldn't expect logic nor sense.
Well, it's a case of "here's what the guy in charge of the official rules says the rule means" which carries a little more weight than "we said so". Even with that, a DM can do whatever they want. What else does somebody need? If it works differently at your table, it works differently at your table by DM fiat, like anything else.
It's no longer the case of "the guy who created the rules said this is how its intended" Shield Master was officially erratted to represent this.
I don't see where Shield Master specifically was officially erratta'd. Can you show me that? Either way, it carries more weight than "we said so", which was the point of that sentence. Anyway, the DM can still handle this situation however they want.
As I've said before, what the rules say doesn't really matter. It's your game.
In my games, I allow the BA first, because it makes perfect realistic and logical sense to do so.
Hell, I'd probably just say that you can shove as a bonus action without the requirement to take the attack action at all. The ability to shove as a bonus action is by no means an OP feature, especially when we consider that it's far from guaranteed to work.
That's because it wasn't errata'd, it has always read just how it does today.That being said, the "if-then" structure of Shield Master makes it pretty clear on its own face that RAW you have to do the attack action before you can squeeze a bonus action shove out. No need to dig into intent, the language says it on its face. But the fact that JC at one point issued an "official ruling" otherwise shows how poorly researched and thinly supported the SA tweets often are, and why they cannot substitute for real errata or rules text.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
True then. True now.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The fact that "then" is an omittable word in "if x, [then] y" does not transform the structure of such statements. It's an if-then statement. The only other sort of "if" statement is an if-else statement, which the sentence is not.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
How is this 11 pages and not yet locked??????
No sir
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A Monk of at least 5th level (because of Extra Attack class feature) using their Flurry of Blows Since the word “Immediately” is used:
“Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.”
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
Are you trying to argue that there is an unwritten temporal requirement to if/then statements? The only requirement in the feat is that the attack action occurs on your turn.You know what, nevermind. I don't care.