Shield Master bonus action - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Coredump00 Sep 07, 2015 21:49:23	A bunch of DMs at the shop were discussing the timing of the SM Shove action. Without using JC tweets.... how do you justify/explain/etc the allowed timing of the bonus action Shove?
#2 SteveMND Sep 08, 2015 7:20:19	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #2) zingbobco000	SteveMND wrote:
#4 Coredump00 Sep 08, 2015 8:55:15	Hmmm... Shield Master says "if you take the Attack Action", so that means you have to take the attack action first to meet that requirement. What gives you the ability to take your bonus ac without first meeting the 'take Attack Action' criteria? If you do take the Attack Action first... What allows you to 'take the attack action' and not immediately attack? What allows you to take your bonus action during your attack action?
#5 SteveMND Sep 08, 2015 9:53:21	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #5) Coredump00	SteveMND wrote:
#7 Hamsterkill Sep 08, 2015 15:02:45	There's a very, very long and drawn out debate on the grammar and logic of this in the Rules forum. Suffice to say that my position is that condition does not always imply timing. For example, "If you pay for it, you can take this car" more often means you take the car now and then pay it off later. There are a mutltude of far-too-in-depth arguments in support and against this position, though. But you're kind of handicapping this by not allowing JC tweets to clarify what's intended (and there is one that does just that). EDIT: On the paradox offered earlier, I think the standard resolution would simply be to rule that the shove was a standard action retroactively. Basically, if you shove first and don't attack, then it was your standard action. If you shove first and then attack, then the shove was a bonus action.
#8 Coredump00 Sep 08, 2015 17:44:10	Since JC tweets, and Sage Advice, is to be explicitly left out of determining the rules of AL DnD.... I can't use them for this discussion. (They are recommended for DMs to make rulings.....) I play it that the shove can go at anytime....but some of the other DMs didn't see it that way, and were not keen on using the tweets as prima facia evidence.
#9 imaginaryfriend Sep 09, 2015 10:28:36	That's a little weird. The only reason I can see not to use JC's tweet or whatever would be trying to get a no-table-variance ruling. And that seems very unlikely. Unless you have a different reason...?
#10 Kalani Sep 09, 2015 10:35:31	I assume Coredump wishes to avoid bringing Sage Advice/JC tweets into the discussion because of the following ruling: Is Sage Advice an official rules source for Adventurer's League? No. While DMs are under no obligation to use any of the rulings from Sage Advice, they may do so if desired, providing the ruling does not contradict another ruling from any official rules source - such as the Player's Guide or official Adventurer's League FAQ.
#11 imaginaryfriend Sep 10, 2015 22:00:33	I understand that (heck Coredump and I have debated that one into the ground) , but when debating possible DM rulings it's still a viable source of topics or advice rulings. Just one that comes with AL table variance. And its not as if this forum is going to provide a more rigid ruling.. So I don't get it.
#12 Skerrit Sep 09, 2015 20:36:44	There is no official DnDAL rule for this and their will not be, so expect table variation. Do what you think is right for your game. Greg Marks DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
(Reply to #11) Coredump00	imaginaryfriend wrote:
#14 Nevvur Sep 10, 2015 13:42:04	The most compelling argument is "if" does not mean "when" and all that's been said about that. I'm not sure you'll get a more solid argument based purely on the official text. So try another angle... Feats are supposed to be powerful options on par with an ability score increase (though some exceed this, and some fall well below). One reason they may prefer their interpretation is that yours makes the feat more powerful. If you want to counter that reasoning, I would ask them what they are trying to accomplish with their ruling. If the answer is to constrain PC power, I would point out it's not a game-breaking power bump, and it's not the AL DM's job to nerf legal PC options in the first place. Your ruling also promotes teamwork, which is a bonus for everyone at the table. Further, if consistency is a goal, remind them they are enforcing a ruling that is inconsistent with (probably) most other tables in the AL, and drop-in players are more likely to expect your interpretation than theirs.
#15 Hamsterkill Sep 10, 2015 13:17:01	Coredump00 wrote:
#16 Veleria Sep 10, 2015 13:25:36	The key is how the attack acton works in 5e. When a player takes the attack action, they can do other things during the action. The rulebook explicitly says you can move during an attack action for example. The way i see this works is a player takes the attack action locking the action in. They may continue to move or in this case shove while the attack action is active. If something happens that prevents the player from attacking such as the target teleports away as a reaction to the shove, then the player has still taken the attack action, and they lose their attacks without a valid target. So yes they can shove before swinging the weapon but they have committed to the attack action and can not change to a dash or dodge etc. if the situation changes.
#17 Pauper Sep 10, 2015 14:26:53	Veleria basically nails it -- if there's potential confusion over an action paradox (someone taking a bonus action and then not taking the action that would cause the bonus action to trigger), then go ahead and have them declare the action, but not take it until after resolving other things. Though the rules only explicitly allow movement to operate during an action (specifically using the example of a fighter with the Extra Attacks feature moving both before and after his first of two attacks), there's no reason this can't be extended to bonus actions or even reactions. (This actually resolves a potential hole in the rules -- what happens if, say, a goblin readies an action to move away from you with a Dash action when you attack it in melee? If the goblin has more movement than you have left, and you can't take your reaction until after resolving your Attack action, then the goblin escapes, since you can't take the opportunity attack during your Attack action, and you don't have enough movement left to get back into melee range after the goblin's Dash.) -- Pauper
#18 Kalani Sep 10, 2015 15:40:34	Honestly, I think the simple solution is this: Bonus Action: You can take a bonus action that requires the Attack action before declaring your action for the turn. If you do, your action must be the Attack action. If you are prevented from taking the Attack action for any reason, your bonus action is retroactively changed to an appropriate action type. You can now spend your bonus action on something else. I would place some limitations on this depending on the bonus action: Shieldmaster: No additional restriction Warpriest: No additional restriction, although it makes no sense to use the WP bonus attack first. Polearm Master: This action must occur after completing your Attack Action. The reason being that polearms do not deal 1d4 damage normally, and so this attack cannot be retroactively adjusted. Tavern Brawler: This attack requires you to hit with an unarmed attack or improvised weapon. It is exempt from this rule. Overall, the main difference boils down to whether the PC has advantage on their normal attack routine or not.... Honestly, I don't know why so many DMs get so beaten up out of place about PCs having advantage. Gaining advantage is dirt easy even without the bonus action shove. Barbarians for example, have advantage on speed dial as do many rogues (cunning action) depending on situation. If it matters, a single instance of disadvantage negates the benefit.
#19 Coredump00 Sep 10, 2015 19:14:59	I don't think the issue is about 'advantage' or 'balance'.... I think its a matter of a DM trying to follow the rules. When they read the rules it sounds like an If/Then statement. If you Attack Action, Then you can Shove. (more or less) So lets look at this differently.... lets say we interpret the rules that you do have to attack before using the bonus action. What other bonus actions does this effect? Similarly, are there bonus actions worded the same as Flurry of Blows, where is says you must do it after the attack action?
#20 Kalani Sep 10, 2015 19:25:16	Tavern brawler requires you to hit with an attack, so by extension occurs after said attack. With that being said, Tavern Brawler is also an example of a bonus action whose timing may occur during an Attack action - such as if the character hits with their first attack and the character has extra attacks
(Reply to #19) Nevvur	Coredump00 wrote:
#22 RCanine Sep 11, 2015 0:16:29	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #21) Coredump00	Nevvur wrote:
#24 Nevvur Sep 11, 2015 11:57:09	For some reason I'm reminded of climate change deniers. Anyway, using only the PHB text... It is worth noting that of the bonus actions listed in the thread I linked earlier, Shield Master is literally the only one that says "If you take the Attack action," instead of "When you..." (I might be mistaken on the claim it's the only one, but I'm pretty sure). This difference in word choice could be an oversight by the authors, but it may help your case to ask them why the difference if Shield Master is not indeed an outlier to the usual order of operations.
#25 guachi Sep 13, 2015 0:45:38	The timing of the bonus action isn't specified. See flurry of blows for an example of a bonus action that does have its timing specified. And if AL DMs won't take a JC clarification as valid for AL play, I wouldn't bother playing with that DM.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Coredump00

Sep 07, 2015 21:49:23

A bunch of DMs at the shop were discussing the timing of the SM Shove action.

Without using JC tweets.... how do you justify/explain/etc the allowed timing of the bonus action Shove?

SteveMND

Sep 08, 2015 7:20:19

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #2)

zingbobco000

SteveMND wrote:

Coredump00

Sep 08, 2015 8:55:15

Hmmm...

Shield Master says "if you take the Attack Action", so that means you have to take the attack action first to meet that requirement.

What gives you the ability to take your bonus ac without first meeting the 'take Attack Action' criteria?

If you do take the Attack Action first...

What allows you to 'take the attack action' and not immediately attack?

What allows you to take your bonus action *during* your attack action?

SteveMND

Sep 08, 2015 9:53:21

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #5)

Coredump00

SteveMND wrote:

Hamsterkill

Sep 08, 2015 15:02:45

There's a very, *very* long and drawn out debate on the grammar and logic of this in the Rules forum. Suffice to say that my position is that condition does not always imply timing. For example, "If you pay for it, you can take this car" more often means you take the car now and then pay it off later. There are a mutltude of far-too-in-depth arguments in support and against this position, though.

But you're kind of handicapping this by not allowing JC tweets to clarify what's intended (and there is one that does just that).

EDIT: On the paradox offered earlier, I think the standard resolution would simply be to rule that the shove was a standard action retroactively. Basically, if you shove first and don't attack, then it was your standard action. If you shove first and then attack, then the shove was a bonus action.

Coredump00

Sep 08, 2015 17:44:10

Since JC tweets, and Sage Advice, is to be explicitly left out of determining the rules of AL DnD.... I can't use them for this discussion. (They are recommended for DMs to make rulings.....)

I play it that the shove can go at anytime....but some of the other DMs didn't see it that way, and were not keen on using the tweets as prima facia evidence.

imaginaryfriend

Sep 09, 2015 10:28:36

That's a little weird. The only reason I can see not to use JC's tweet or whatever would be trying to get a no-table-variance ruling. And that seems very unlikely. Unless you have a different reason...?

#10

Kalani

Sep 09, 2015 10:35:31

I assume Coredump wishes to avoid bringing Sage Advice/JC tweets into the discussion because of the following ruling:

Is Sage Advice an official rules source for Adventurer's League?

No. While DMs are under no obligation to use any of the rulings from Sage Advice, they may do so if desired, providing the ruling does not contradict another ruling from any official rules source - such as the Player's Guide or official Adventurer's League FAQ.

#11

imaginaryfriend

Sep 10, 2015 22:00:33

I understand that (heck Coredump and I have debated that one into the ground) , but when debating possible DM rulings it's still a viable source of topics or advice rulings. Just one that comes with AL table variance. And its not as if this forum is going to provide a more rigid ruling.. So I don't get it.

#12

Skerrit

Sep 09, 2015 20:36:44

There is no official DnDAL rule for this and their will not be, so expect table variation. Do what you think is right for your game.

Greg Marks

DnDAL Associate Resource Manager

(Reply to #11)

Coredump00

imaginaryfriend wrote:

#14

Nevvur

Sep 10, 2015 13:42:04

The most compelling argument is "if" does not mean "when" and all that's been said about that. I'm not sure you'll get a more solid argument based purely on the official text.

So try another angle... Feats are supposed to be powerful options on par with an ability score increase (though some exceed this, and some fall well below). One reason they may prefer their interpretation is that yours makes the feat more powerful. If you want to counter that reasoning, I would ask them what they are trying to accomplish with their ruling. If the answer is to constrain PC power, I would point out it's not a game-breaking power bump, and it's not the AL DM's job to nerf legal PC options in the first place. Your ruling also promotes teamwork, which is a bonus for everyone at the table. Further, if consistency is a goal, remind them they are enforcing a ruling that is inconsistent with (probably) most other tables in the AL, and drop-in players are more likely to expect your interpretation than theirs.

#15

Hamsterkill

Sep 10, 2015 13:17:01

Coredump00 wrote:

#16

Veleria

Sep 10, 2015 13:25:36

The key is how the attack acton works in 5e. When a player takes the attack action, they can do other things during the action. The rulebook explicitly says you can move during an attack action for example. The way i see this works is a player takes the attack action locking the action in. They may continue to move or in this case shove while the attack action is active. If something happens that prevents the player from attacking such as the target teleports away as a reaction to the shove, then the player has still taken the attack action, and they lose their attacks without a valid target. So yes they can shove before swinging the weapon but they have committed to the attack action and can not change to a dash or dodge etc. if the situation changes.

#17

Pauper

Sep 10, 2015 14:26:53

Veleria basically nails it -- if there's potential confusion over an action paradox (someone taking a bonus action and then not taking the action that would cause the bonus action to trigger), then go ahead and have them declare the action, but not take it until after resolving other things. Though the rules only explicitly allow movement to operate during an action (specifically using the example of a fighter with the Extra Attacks feature moving both before and after his first of two attacks), there's no reason this can't be extended to bonus actions or even reactions.

(This actually resolves a potential hole in the rules -- what happens if, say, a goblin readies an action to move away from you with a Dash action when you attack it in melee? If the goblin has more movement than you have left, and you can't take your reaction until after resolving your Attack action, then the goblin escapes, since you can't take the opportunity attack during your Attack action, and you don't have enough movement left to get back into melee range after the goblin's Dash.)

Pauper

#18

Kalani

Sep 10, 2015 15:40:34

Honestly, I think the simple solution is this:

Bonus Action: You can take a bonus action that requires the Attack action before declaring your action for the turn. If you do, your action must be the Attack action.

If you are prevented from taking the Attack action for any reason, your bonus action is retroactively changed to an appropriate action type. You can now spend your bonus action on something else.

I would place some limitations on this depending on the bonus action:

Shieldmaster: No additional restriction
Warpriest: No additional restriction, although it makes no sense to use the WP bonus attack first.
Polearm Master: This action must occur after completing your Attack Action. The reason being that polearms do not deal 1d4 damage normally, and so this attack cannot be retroactively adjusted.
Tavern Brawler: This attack requires you to hit with an unarmed attack or improvised weapon. It is exempt from this rule.

Overall, the main difference boils down to whether the PC has advantage on their normal attack routine or not.... Honestly, I don't know why so many DMs get so beaten up out of place about PCs having advantage. Gaining advantage is dirt easy even without the bonus action shove. Barbarians for example, have advantage on speed dial as do many rogues (cunning action) depending on situation.

If it matters, a single instance of disadvantage negates the benefit.

#19

Coredump00

Sep 10, 2015 19:14:59

I don't think the issue is about 'advantage' or 'balance'.... I think its a matter of a DM trying to follow the rules. When they read the rules it sounds like an If/Then statement. If you Attack Action, Then you can Shove. (more or less)

So lets look at this differently.... lets say we interpret the rules that you *do* have to attack before using the bonus action. What other bonus actions does this effect?

Similarly, are there bonus actions worded the same as Flurry of Blows, where is says you must do it *after* the attack action?

#20

Kalani

Sep 10, 2015 19:25:16

Tavern brawler requires you to hit with an attack, so by extension occurs after said attack. With that being said, Tavern Brawler is also an example of a bonus action whose timing may occur during an Attack action - such as if the character hits with their first attack and the character has extra attacks

(Reply to #19)

Nevvur

Coredump00 wrote:

#22

RCanine

Sep 11, 2015 0:16:29

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #21)

Coredump00

Nevvur wrote:

#24

Nevvur

Sep 11, 2015 11:57:09

For some reason I'm reminded of climate change deniers.

Anyway, using only the PHB text... It is worth noting that of the bonus actions listed in the thread I linked earlier, Shield Master is literally the only one that says "If you take the Attack action," instead of "When you..." (I might be mistaken on the claim it's the only one, but I'm pretty sure). This difference in word choice could be an oversight by the authors, but it may help your case to ask them why the difference if Shield Master is not indeed an outlier to the usual order of operations.

#25

guachi

Sep 13, 2015 0:45:38

The timing of the bonus action isn't specified. See flurry of blows for an example of a bonus action that does have its timing specified. And if AL DMs won't take a JC clarification as valid for AL play, I wouldn't bother playing with that DM.

Is Sage Advice an official rules source for Adventurer's League?