The feat says you have to take the attack action before shoving, not that you just have to have the intention to attack in your brain.
Can you point me to where the feat says this?
It's purely academic for me since none of my players have the feat (yet?) I think if you specified that you have to take and complete the attack action before using the bonus action, that would cripple the feat's functionality. The thing that is so interesting to me about this is that Crawford clearly stated that the bonus action can be taken at any point, even prior to the action. Then over a year later he changed his mind. That is not a clarification. It's a complete reversal. I wonder what it was that he noticed as being problematic in his first ruling that caused him to reverse himself.
His original ruling was how he intended the feat to work. The revised ruling is because he realized that it wasn't consistent with the way it was written. Personally I think the feat should be errata'd to work as intended. I would remove the mention of attack entirely and say if you have the feat and an equipped shield you can use a bonus action to shove.
The feat says you have to take the attack action before shoving, not that you just have to have the intention to attack in your brain.
Can you point me to where the feat says this?
It's purely academic for me since none of my players have the feat (yet?) I think if you specified that you have to take and complete the attack action before using the bonus action, that would cripple the feat's functionality. The thing that is so interesting to me about this is that Crawford clearly stated that the bonus action can be taken at any point, even prior to the action. Then over a year later he changed his mind. That is not a clarification. It's a complete reversal. I wonder what it was that he noticed as being problematic in his first ruling that caused him to reverse himself.
Sure. The second sentence of the feat is "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." (emphasis mine)
His original ruling was how he intended the feat to work. The revised ruling is because he realized that it wasn't consistent with the way it was written. Personally I think the feat should be errata'd to work as intended. I would remove the mention of attack entirely and say if you have the feat and an equipped shield you can use a bonus action to shove.
Right. He "rules laywered" himself. He meant for the feat to work one way (as he expressly stated in his original clarification), then later nit picked the accidental wording insisting that the inadvertent wording made his original intention incorrect. Somehow the accidental wording supercedes his intent. So now we are supposedly stuck with a massive nerf to half of fighterdom for, by his own admission, reasons having nothing to do with game balance. We are to suffer because of legalese.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Bookworm, martial artist, repentant psychic, dried out drug addict, paramedic, pseudo-apostate libertarian, debater, knife maker, SCA basher, professional gamer, speculator, pornographer, and nascent social commentator. ...and I want an uncomplicated life.
RAW makes no such requirement. I don't care for Jeremy's interpretation, so I'll stick with RAW on this one.
But, later on in the second tweet thread you linked, Crawford says "The tweet you're responding to says that a bonus action or a reaction can, in fact, follow an attack inside an action if the bonus action or reaction has a trigger that allows it." That's confusing as hell, but I read it as consistent with my interpretation of the feat (and inconsistent with his) - taking one attack triggers the bonus action, which can then be used inside the rest of the attack action.
Another self-contradiction. I should just stop quoting him.
EDIT: So in review, according to Jeremy, you can use the shield shove before you attack, except that you cannot. Also, you cannot shield shove in the middle of the attack action, except that you can.
I know this is something of a necro, so I do apologise, but I've come across this recently and wanted to weigh in how I houserule this and similar things.
RAL - Rules As Logical.
Remember that the rules are a framework for a roleplaying game and aren't the most important part of the game. Is it reasonable and logical that your character could do this? If yes, I normally allow it.
Your character has "mastered" the art of using a shield. It is absurd to think that in a real scenario, it would be impossible to push someone with your shield unless you've already attacked them. This is utterly illogical and historically absurd. This was literally half of the reason to have a shield. Ask the roman legions. Ask the vikings. Ask renaissance sword+buckler fencers. Ask basically anyone in history to have ever wielded a shield! You push/bash with the shield to create an opening and then cut or thrust with your weapon.
So I allow it for the simple reason that it makes perfect sense.
It's the same reason I allow rapier+dagger to be used with TWF. Same reason I allow two light weapons to be drawn simultaneously. If it's "a thing", then in my games you can usually do it.
I just go with logical rules. If you, the player, a regular human being with no fencing/weapon fighting experience or access to magic can do these things, then a skilled adventurer in a fantasy world sure as sh*t can.
I know this is something of a necro, so I do apologise, but I've come across this recently and wanted to weigh in how I houserule this and similar things.
RAL - Rules As Logical.
Remember that the rules are a framework for a roleplaying game and aren't the most important part of the game. Is it reasonable and logical that your character could do this? If yes, I normally allow it.
Your character has "mastered" the art of using a shield. It is absurd to think that in a real scenario, it would be impossible to push someone with your shield unless you've already attacked them. This is utterly illogical and historically absurd. This was literally half of the reason to have a shield. Ask the roman legions. Ask the vikings. Ask renaissance sword+buckler fencers. Ask basically anyone in history to have ever wielded a shield! You push/bash with the shield to create an opening and then cut or thrust with your weapon.
So I allow it for the simple reason that it makes perfect sense.
It's the same reason I allow rapier+dagger to be used with TWF. Same reason I allow two light weapons to be drawn simultaneously. If it's "a thing", then in my games you can usually do it.
I just go with logical rules. If you, the player, a regular human being with no fencing/weapon fighting experience or access to magic can do these things, then a skilled adventurer in a fantasy world sure as sh*t can.
But having Shield Master be restricted to only after attacks doesn't mean you can't do the classic "shield bash followed by weapon attack". If you have Extra Attack (and, let's be honest, most, if not all, characters who would want to "shield bash + attack" will have Extra Attack or something similar), you can use your first attack to Shove, then the rest of your attacks as regular weapon attacks, against the now-prone target. Sure, if you only have two attacks, it's probably better to just attack twice, instead of once with Advantage (unless you have some feature that triggers off Advantage), so this will really only be useful to level 11 and higher Fighters, where two attacks with Advantage are better than three without. But the "but that's not what warriors did in real life! They bashed before they attacked!" argument isn't very strong, given that you can, after all, do it that way, even without the Shield Master Feat.
Additionally, that part of the Feat is still useful: you can use the bonus shove to push the target 5', which can help you disengage w/o losing your attacks, maneuver the enemy into a more advantageous (for your or your party) position, or even shove 'em off a cliff or into a trap.
In any case, I agree the Feat should allow you to bash before attacking, and it's a house rule I would use and approve of.
By the way, the same argument that allows shield bashing between multiple attacks would allow for bashing before attacks: if you're saying you should be able to use your bonus action between attacks because you can use your movement between attacks... you can also use your movement before attacking. Also, as far as I know, there's no requirement that you attack immediately after taking the Attack action, so you could declare and "use" your Attack action, fulfilling the requirement for Shield Master Bash bonus action, take the bonus action, then take the attack(s) allowed by your Attack action. That requires you to interpret "taking an action" as "committing to a course of action" rather than "completing an action", though, which apparently Jeremy Crawford does not agree with (even if his intention was to allow shield bashing before attacking).
Bummed by Shield Master... I kinda built my current character around Shield Master. I had been 'taught' by my daughter's gaming group that bonus actions could be taken in any order in a turn. When first building him, I wanted to make sure, did some searching and found an apparently official ruling on the subject:
Apparently his reason for this ruling has nothing to do with balance or a desire to nerf anything, by his own words, but is him semantically frankly nitpicking. I am feeling very frustrated with this, because it feels like artificial rules lawyering utterly divorced from any semblance of reality. I have personally, on numerous occasions back in my SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) days, stood in battle shoulder to shoulder with weapon and shield fighters, clashing with opposing lines. I have fought in set piece field battles of thousands, as well as woods battles filled with small unit action and fluid movement, and I've witnessed countless shield bashes. Every last stinking one of them was a shield bash followed by weapon strikes. Every one of them. Not a single one was weapon strikes followed by a shield bash.
A shield bash is meant to destabilize an opponent, to knock them off balance, to create an opening for your weapon strikes. You do not wail strikes at a braced and shielded opponent, and then as an afterthought, give them a shield bash. And you most emphatically do not do that and then stand around waiting while they recover before you do some more weapon strikes at them again braced with their shield.
If this ruling stands, I am forced to re-evaluate the whole idea of weapon and shield in D&D. Polearm Mastery with Sentinel is now head and shoulders superior to shield.
Don't go by the ruling, DnD is pretty freeform in the sense that RAW is essentially guidelines, not law
I know this is something of a necro, so I do apologise, but I've come across this recently and wanted to weigh in how I houserule this and similar things.
RAL - Rules As Logical.
Remember that the rules are a framework for a roleplaying game and aren't the most important part of the game. Is it reasonable and logical that your character could do this? If yes, I normally allow it.
Your character has "mastered" the art of using a shield. It is absurd to think that in a real scenario, it would be impossible to push someone with your shield unless you've already attacked them. This is utterly illogical and historically absurd. This was literally half of the reason to have a shield. Ask the roman legions. Ask the vikings. Ask renaissance sword+buckler fencers. Ask basically anyone in history to have ever wielded a shield! You push/bash with the shield to create an opening and then cut or thrust with your weapon.
So I allow it for the simple reason that it makes perfect sense.
It's the same reason I allow rapier+dagger to be used with TWF. Same reason I allow two light weapons to be drawn simultaneously. If it's "a thing", then in my games you can usually do it.
I just go with logical rules. If you, the player, a regular human being with no fencing/weapon fighting experience or access to magic can do these things, then a skilled adventurer in a fantasy world sure as sh*t can.
But having Shield Master be restricted to only after attacks doesn't mean you can't do the classic "shield bash followed by weapon attack". If you have Extra Attack (and, let's be honest, most, if not all, characters who would want to "shield bash + attack" will have Extra Attack or something similar), you can use your first attack to Shove, then the rest of your attacks as regular weapon attacks, against the now-prone target. Sure, if you only have two attacks, it's probably better to just attack twice, instead of once with Advantage (unless you have some feature that triggers off Advantage), so this will really only be useful to level 11 and higher Fighters, where two attacks with Advantage are better than three without. But the "but that's not what warriors did in real life! They bashed before they attacked!" argument isn't very strong, given that you can, after all, do it that way, even without the Shield Master Feat.
Additionally, that part of the Feat is still useful: you can use the bonus shove to push the target 5', which can help you disengage w/o losing your attacks, maneuver the enemy into a more advantageous (for your or your party) position, or even shove 'em off a cliff or into a trap.
In any case, I agree the Feat should allow you to bash before attacking, and it's a house rule I would use and approve of.
By the way, the same argument that allows shield bashing between multiple attacks would allow for bashing before attacks: if you're saying you should be able to use your bonus action between attacks because you can use your movement between attacks... you can also use your movement before attacking. Also, as far as I know, there's no requirement that you attack immediately after taking the Attack action, so you could declare and "use" your Attack action, fulfilling the requirement for Shield Master Bash bonus action, take the bonus action, then take the attack(s) allowed by your Attack action. That requires you to interpret "taking an action" as "committing to a course of action" rather than "completing an action", though, which apparently Jeremy Crawford does not agree with (even if his intention was to allow shield bashing before attacking).
You talked in circles so much here that I have no idea if you're being pedantic and arguing with me or actually agreeing with me lol
I know this is something of a necro, so I do apologise, but I've come across this recently and wanted to weigh in how I houserule this and similar things.
RAL - Rules As Logical.
Remember that the rules are a framework for a roleplaying game and aren't the most important part of the game. Is it reasonable and logical that your character could do this? If yes, I normally allow it.
Your character has "mastered" the art of using a shield. It is absurd to think that in a real scenario, it would be impossible to push someone with your shield unless you've already attacked them. This is utterly illogical and historically absurd. This was literally half of the reason to have a shield. Ask the roman legions. Ask the vikings. Ask renaissance sword+buckler fencers. Ask basically anyone in history to have ever wielded a shield! You push/bash with the shield to create an opening and then cut or thrust with your weapon.
So I allow it for the simple reason that it makes perfect sense.
It's the same reason I allow rapier+dagger to be used with TWF. Same reason I allow two light weapons to be drawn simultaneously. If it's "a thing", then in my games you can usually do it.
I just go with logical rules. If you, the player, a regular human being with no fencing/weapon fighting experience or access to magic can do these things, then a skilled adventurer in a fantasy world sure as sh*t can.
But having Shield Master be restricted to only after attacks doesn't mean you can't do the classic "shield bash followed by weapon attack". If you have Extra Attack (and, let's be honest, most, if not all, characters who would want to "shield bash + attack" will have Extra Attack or something similar), you can use your first attack to Shove, then the rest of your attacks as regular weapon attacks, against the now-prone target. Sure, if you only have two attacks, it's probably better to just attack twice, instead of once with Advantage (unless you have some feature that triggers off Advantage), so this will really only be useful to level 11 and higher Fighters, where two attacks with Advantage are better than three without. But the "but that's not what warriors did in real life! They bashed before they attacked!" argument isn't very strong, given that you can, after all, do it that way, even without the Shield Master Feat.
Additionally, that part of the Feat is still useful: you can use the bonus shove to push the target 5', which can help you disengage w/o losing your attacks, maneuver the enemy into a more advantageous (for your or your party) position, or even shove 'em off a cliff or into a trap.
In any case, I agree the Feat should allow you to bash before attacking, and it's a house rule I would use and approve of.
By the way, the same argument that allows shield bashing between multiple attacks would allow for bashing before attacks: if you're saying you should be able to use your bonus action between attacks because you can use your movement between attacks... you can also use your movement before attacking. Also, as far as I know, there's no requirement that you attack immediately after taking the Attack action, so you could declare and "use" your Attack action, fulfilling the requirement for Shield Master Bash bonus action, take the bonus action, then take the attack(s) allowed by your Attack action. That requires you to interpret "taking an action" as "committing to a course of action" rather than "completing an action", though, which apparently Jeremy Crawford does not agree with (even if his intention was to allow shield bashing before attacking).
You talked in circles so much here that I have no idea if you're being pedantic and arguing with me or actually agreeing with me lol
Hahaha! Sorry... it happens. TL;DR: "the feat should work that way (as in "can bash before attacking") because that's how they did it IRL" doesn't hold water, because you can still do that anyway, by using your first attack to Shove, then the rest of your attacks to attack with a weapon, even without having the Shield Master feat. But I do agree that the Shield Master Feat should allow a shield bash before or between attacks, and not just after attacks.
So it's obviously a different situation, given that this is a free addition, not a bonus action, but Divine Smite clearly contradicts the statement that prerequisite must come before effect:
when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage
This requires that you have made the attack, landed it, and then retroactively decide that you are adding a Smite to the attack, something that logically must have been executed first, or at worst at the exact same time...
My understanding is that taking the "Attack action" means that you are using your turn to attack, and you can then do all of the associated actions therein. If you take the attack action, then shield bash someone off of a cliff, and there's no one left to attack... Tough luck, that was your "Attack action". Similarly if a character who has extra attacks takes the "Attack action" they can execute multiple melee weapon attacks in that action, spread about in their turn as they see fit. If there is nothing in range after the first hit (because it died, or fell off of a cliff again...) then the action is complete.
Not sure if I can clearly define this as "rules as written" or "rules as intended" but at least it seems to be precedent for how "Attack action" works in a way that means the Shield Bash can come first.
So it's obviously a different situation, given that this is a free addition, not a bonus action, but Divine Smite clearly contradicts the statement that prerequisite must come before effect:
It doesn't. The prerequisite for Divine Smite is hitting with an attack, and confirming whether your attack roll hits or misses happens before you roll damage. You confirm the hit, you declare you're smiting, and then you roll the attack's damage plus Divine Smite damage.
My understanding is that taking the "Attack action" means that you are using your turn to attack, and you can then do all of the associated actions therein.
D&D doesn't have an action declaration phase. The Attack action happens precisely when you make the attack it allows you to make. That's why the rules also say you can use parts of your movement both before and after you take your action.
If you take the attack action, then shield bash someone off of a cliff, and there's no one left to attack... Tough luck, that was your "Attack action".
This can't actually happen, since you can't shield bash someone off a cliff before you've attacked.
Similarly if a character who has extra attacks takes the "Attack action" they can execute multiple melee weapon attacks in that action, spread about in their turn as they see fit. If there is nothing in range after the first hit (because it died, or fell off of a cliff again...) then the action is complete.
Sure. But if there's nothing else for you to attack, there's also nothing to bash with your shield, so the uncertainty of "is my action complete yet?" doesn't really matter.
The way Extra Attack is written really complicates what would otherwise be a straightforward, atomic action. It would've been simpler if it worked like the Haste spell; something along the lines of "If you take the Attack action during your turn, you can take that action one additional time before your turn ends." For whatever it's worth, RAI you can say you took the action after you make your first attack. But you can't benefit from having taken an action until you've actually taken it.
If you take the attack action, then shield bash someone off of a cliff, and there's no one left to attack... Tough luck, that was your "Attack action".
This can't actually happen, since you can't shield bash someone off a cliff before you've attacked.
Similarly if a character who has extra attacks takes the "Attack action" they can execute multiple melee weapon attacks in that action, spread about in their turn as they see fit. If there is nothing in range after the first hit (because it died, or fell off of a cliff again...) then the action is complete.
Sure. But if there's nothing else for you to attack, there's also nothing to bash with your shield, so the uncertainty of "is my action complete yet?" doesn't really matter.
The way Extra Attack is written really complicates what would otherwise be a straightforward, atomic action. It would've been simpler if it worked like the Haste spell; something along the lines of "If you take the Attack action during your turn, you can take that action one additional time before your turn ends." For whatever it's worth, RAI you can say you took the action after you make your first attack. But you can't benefit from having taken an action until you've actually taken it.
Shoving is part of the Attack action, and doesn't require a free hand. If you shove someone off of a cliff or out of range with your shield, and you have no other viable targets for attack (even after moving), then you have simply taken the Attack action, used one of your attacks to shove, and perhaps lost any remaining attacks. In that case you would still have your bonus action left, should you have any other way to use it.
And to be honest, this is probably the one and only time I think Jeremy Crawford deserves any of the criticism that gets directed at him. The rules for bonus actions states:
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.
Because nothing was changed in the wording of the feat (such as changing the word "when" to "after"), at my table if you shove someone to the ground and then want to swing your sword at him, clearly you are taking the attack action. If you have the Shield Master feat then, as written, the initial shove can be done as a bonus action, leaving you with all of the attacks you would normally get from taking the Attack action.
Shoving is part of the Attack action, and doesn't require a free hand.
Sorry. I thought you were talking about the Shield Master shove. Yeah, you could shove someone off a cliff with the Attack action and then have no one else to attack.
Because nothing was changed in the wording of the feat (such as changing the word "when" to "after"), at my table if you shove someone to the ground and then want to swing your sword at him, clearly you are taking the attack action. If you have the Shield Master feat then, as written, the initial shove can be done as a bonus action, leaving you with all of the attacks you would normally get from taking the Attack action.
I really don't understand what you're saying here.
The initial shove can't be done as a bonus action if you haven't taken the Attack action yet, because "If you do X, you can do Y" implies you have to do X before you can do Y.
Shoving is part of the Attack action, and doesn't require a free hand.
Sorry. I thought you were talking about the Shield Master shove. Yeah, you could shove someone off a cliff with the Attack action and then have no one else to attack.
Because nothing was changed in the wording of the feat (such as changing the word "when" to "after"), at my table if you shove someone to the ground and then want to swing your sword at him, clearly you are taking the attack action. If you have the Shield Master feat then, as written, the initial shove can be done as a bonus action, leaving you with all of the attacks you would normally get from taking the Attack action.
I really don't understand what you're saying here.
The initial shove can't be done as a bonus action if you haven't taken the Attack action yet, because "If you do X, you can do Y" implies you have to do X before you can do Y.
What I am saying is this: Shove is one option covered under the attack action. If someone decides to shove their opponent to the ground, clearly they have committed to the Attack action. And if that person has the Shield Master feat, then they can (having committed to the Attack action) elect to use their bonus action to achieve that shove, and still use the full number of attacks granted to them by the Attack action. I'm saying this because the feat uses the language "when you take the Attack action" (and not "after"), and that the rules around bonus actions specify that "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified..."
Bummed by Shield Master... I kinda built my current character around Shield Master. I had been 'taught' by my daughter's gaming group that bonus actions could be taken in any order in a turn.
[snip]
If this ruling stands, I am forced to re-evaluate the whole idea of weapon and shield in D&D. Polearm Mastery with Sentinel is now head and shoulders superior to shield.
Or take Dual Wielder and choose to use the shield as an improvised weapon. (Your DM will probably rule that you lose the +2 AC -- you don't have a shield anymore -- but you will get +1 AC from Dual Wielder).
Shoving a Creature
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
[snip]
If you succeed, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.
Now, use your shield to make a shove attack. Use your Bonus Action from Dual Wielder to attack with your weapon. Sure, you don't get to add your ability modifier to your weapon damage, and you're at -1AC, but you can fix that with a couple of fighting styles.
His original ruling was how he intended the feat to work. The revised ruling is because he realized that it wasn't consistent with the way it was written. Personally I think the feat should be errata'd to work as intended. I would remove the mention of attack entirely and say if you have the feat and an equipped shield you can use a bonus action to shove.
Sure. The second sentence of the feat is "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." (emphasis mine)
Right. He "rules laywered" himself. He meant for the feat to work one way (as he expressly stated in his original clarification), then later nit picked the accidental wording insisting that the inadvertent wording made his original intention incorrect. Somehow the accidental wording supercedes his intent. So now we are supposedly stuck with a massive nerf to half of fighterdom for, by his own admission, reasons having nothing to do with game balance. We are to suffer because of legalese.
Bookworm, martial artist, repentant psychic, dried out drug addict, paramedic, pseudo-apostate libertarian, debater, knife maker, SCA basher, professional gamer, speculator, pornographer, and nascent social commentator. ...and I want an uncomplicated life.
Or, you can simply ignore what he says and play as you wish.
EDIT: Are Crawford's tweets law in AL play?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersA massive nerf to half of fighterdom is a bit of an exaggerated claim - don't forget that feats are an optional rule.
I think I have seen one person take shield mastery as a feat out of around 20 fighter characters played.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Pretty much this. Jeremy says, "If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y." So the bonus shove can't come first. Jeremy also says, "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." So you cannot use the bonus action in the middle of the attack action.
RAW makes no such requirement. I don't care for Jeremy's interpretation, so I'll stick with RAW on this one.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But, later on in the second tweet thread you linked, Crawford says "The tweet you're responding to says that a bonus action or a reaction can, in fact, follow an attack inside an action if the bonus action or reaction has a trigger that allows it." That's confusing as hell, but I read it as consistent with my interpretation of the feat (and inconsistent with his) - taking one attack triggers the bonus action, which can then be used inside the rest of the attack action.
Another self-contradiction. I should just stop quoting him.
EDIT: So in review, according to Jeremy, you can use the shield shove before you attack, except that you cannot. Also, you cannot shield shove in the middle of the attack action, except that you can.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I know this is something of a necro, so I do apologise, but I've come across this recently and wanted to weigh in how I houserule this and similar things.
RAL - Rules As Logical.
Remember that the rules are a framework for a roleplaying game and aren't the most important part of the game. Is it reasonable and logical that your character could do this? If yes, I normally allow it.
Your character has "mastered" the art of using a shield. It is absurd to think that in a real scenario, it would be impossible to push someone with your shield unless you've already attacked them. This is utterly illogical and historically absurd. This was literally half of the reason to have a shield. Ask the roman legions. Ask the vikings. Ask renaissance sword+buckler fencers. Ask basically anyone in history to have ever wielded a shield! You push/bash with the shield to create an opening and then cut or thrust with your weapon.
So I allow it for the simple reason that it makes perfect sense.
It's the same reason I allow rapier+dagger to be used with TWF. Same reason I allow two light weapons to be drawn simultaneously. If it's "a thing", then in my games you can usually do it.
I just go with logical rules. If you, the player, a regular human being with no fencing/weapon fighting experience or access to magic can do these things, then a skilled adventurer in a fantasy world sure as sh*t can.
But having Shield Master be restricted to only after attacks doesn't mean you can't do the classic "shield bash followed by weapon attack". If you have Extra Attack (and, let's be honest, most, if not all, characters who would want to "shield bash + attack" will have Extra Attack or something similar), you can use your first attack to Shove, then the rest of your attacks as regular weapon attacks, against the now-prone target. Sure, if you only have two attacks, it's probably better to just attack twice, instead of once with Advantage (unless you have some feature that triggers off Advantage), so this will really only be useful to level 11 and higher Fighters, where two attacks with Advantage are better than three without. But the "but that's not what warriors did in real life! They bashed before they attacked!" argument isn't very strong, given that you can, after all, do it that way, even without the Shield Master Feat.
Additionally, that part of the Feat is still useful: you can use the bonus shove to push the target 5', which can help you disengage w/o losing your attacks, maneuver the enemy into a more advantageous (for your or your party) position, or even shove 'em off a cliff or into a trap.
In any case, I agree the Feat should allow you to bash before attacking, and it's a house rule I would use and approve of.
By the way, the same argument that allows shield bashing between multiple attacks would allow for bashing before attacks: if you're saying you should be able to use your bonus action between attacks because you can use your movement between attacks... you can also use your movement before attacking. Also, as far as I know, there's no requirement that you attack immediately after taking the Attack action, so you could declare and "use" your Attack action, fulfilling the requirement for Shield Master Bash bonus action, take the bonus action, then take the attack(s) allowed by your Attack action. That requires you to interpret "taking an action" as "committing to a course of action" rather than "completing an action", though, which apparently Jeremy Crawford does not agree with (even if his intention was to allow shield bashing before attacking).
Don't go by the ruling, DnD is pretty freeform in the sense that RAW is essentially guidelines, not law
You talked in circles so much here that I have no idea if you're being pedantic and arguing with me or actually agreeing with me lol
Sometimes it be like that :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Hahaha! Sorry... it happens. TL;DR: "the feat should work that way (as in "can bash before attacking") because that's how they did it IRL" doesn't hold water, because you can still do that anyway, by using your first attack to Shove, then the rest of your attacks to attack with a weapon, even without having the Shield Master feat. But I do agree that the Shield Master Feat should allow a shield bash before or between attacks, and not just after attacks.
So it's obviously a different situation, given that this is a free addition, not a bonus action, but Divine Smite clearly contradicts the statement that prerequisite must come before effect:
when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage
This requires that you have made the attack, landed it, and then retroactively decide that you are adding a Smite to the attack, something that logically must have been executed first, or at worst at the exact same time...
My understanding is that taking the "Attack action" means that you are using your turn to attack, and you can then do all of the associated actions therein. If you take the attack action, then shield bash someone off of a cliff, and there's no one left to attack... Tough luck, that was your "Attack action". Similarly if a character who has extra attacks takes the "Attack action" they can execute multiple melee weapon attacks in that action, spread about in their turn as they see fit. If there is nothing in range after the first hit (because it died, or fell off of a cliff again...) then the action is complete.
Not sure if I can clearly define this as "rules as written" or "rules as intended" but at least it seems to be precedent for how "Attack action" works in a way that means the Shield Bash can come first.
My 2 cents.
It doesn't. The prerequisite for Divine Smite is hitting with an attack, and confirming whether your attack roll hits or misses happens before you roll damage. You confirm the hit, you declare you're smiting, and then you roll the attack's damage plus Divine Smite damage.
D&D doesn't have an action declaration phase. The Attack action happens precisely when you make the attack it allows you to make. That's why the rules also say you can use parts of your movement both before and after you take your action.
This can't actually happen, since you can't shield bash someone off a cliff before you've attacked.
Sure. But if there's nothing else for you to attack, there's also nothing to bash with your shield, so the uncertainty of "is my action complete yet?" doesn't really matter.
The way Extra Attack is written really complicates what would otherwise be a straightforward, atomic action. It would've been simpler if it worked like the Haste spell; something along the lines of "If you take the Attack action during your turn, you can take that action one additional time before your turn ends." For whatever it's worth, RAI you can say you took the action after you make your first attack. But you can't benefit from having taken an action until you've actually taken it.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Shoving is part of the Attack action, and doesn't require a free hand. If you shove someone off of a cliff or out of range with your shield, and you have no other viable targets for attack (even after moving), then you have simply taken the Attack action, used one of your attacks to shove, and perhaps lost any remaining attacks. In that case you would still have your bonus action left, should you have any other way to use it.
And to be honest, this is probably the one and only time I think Jeremy Crawford deserves any of the criticism that gets directed at him. The rules for bonus actions states:
Because nothing was changed in the wording of the feat (such as changing the word "when" to "after"), at my table if you shove someone to the ground and then want to swing your sword at him, clearly you are taking the attack action. If you have the Shield Master feat then, as written, the initial shove can be done as a bonus action, leaving you with all of the attacks you would normally get from taking the Attack action.
Sorry. I thought you were talking about the Shield Master shove. Yeah, you could shove someone off a cliff with the Attack action and then have no one else to attack.
I really don't understand what you're saying here.
The initial shove can't be done as a bonus action if you haven't taken the Attack action yet, because "If you do X, you can do Y" implies you have to do X before you can do Y.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
What I am saying is this: Shove is one option covered under the attack action. If someone decides to shove their opponent to the ground, clearly they have committed to the Attack action. And if that person has the Shield Master feat, then they can (having committed to the Attack action) elect to use their bonus action to achieve that shove, and still use the full number of attacks granted to them by the Attack action. I'm saying this because the feat uses the language "when you take the Attack action" (and not "after"), and that the rules around bonus actions specify that "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified..."
Or take Dual Wielder and choose to use the shield as an improvised weapon. (Your DM will probably rule that you lose the +2 AC -- you don't have a shield anymore -- but you will get +1 AC from Dual Wielder).
Now, use your shield to make a shove attack. Use your Bonus Action from Dual Wielder to attack with your weapon. Sure, you don't get to add your ability modifier to your weapon damage, and you're at -1AC, but you can fix that with a couple of fighting styles.
Combine this with Tavern Brawler for extra lolz.
(Edited for spelling)