Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 guachi Jan 21, 2015 11:08:59	Mr. Crawford replied to my tweet!!!!!   You can do the bash before or after attacking, your choice.   As many of you argued, it doesn't specify the timing of the bonus action explicitly and that's what Mr. Crawford said.
#2 Noctaem Jan 21, 2015 12:08:18	Yep, good to see this answer being officially given.
(Reply to #2) Nevvur	Noctaem wrote:
#4 Noctaem Jan 21, 2015 18:02:31	An example of that question would be a creature that teleports away (out of reach) when it's attacked by the shield bash.  In that kind of situation, the target is simply no longer within reach.  At that point you can try to move (as per the rules in the PHB) to try to get back into reach to attack the target, but if you can't, you can't attack it.  However what you can do instead is just switch targets.  I believe that when you say ok I use my Action to take the "Attack Action" and then use shield bash before making the attacks granted, you haven't actually chosen the target(s) for the attacks granted by the "Attack Action" itself (multiple if you have the Extra Attack feature).  So you could just attack something else within reach or movement range.  You're not screwed in 5e in this kind of scenario like you could be in 4e for example.
#5 paulstrait Jan 21, 2015 17:57:44	Yeah, there's no reason in the RAW for you to be required not only to declare that you are attacking but who your target is.  Once you shield bash, you are committed to taking the attack action on that turn, even if that means attacking no target (i.e., not taking an action).  You can decide whom to target whenever you want.  I never understood why this became controversial or confusing in anyone's mind...
#6 Noctaem Jan 21, 2015 18:03:28	paulstrait wrote:
#7 guachi Jan 21, 2015 19:17:40	I don't either. There are people out there though like my DM (or maybe soon to be ex-DM. Bad rulings = no fun). There are people who, rather than read and comprehend the language of the rules, put their own beliefs on what they think the rules should be rather than what they are. Shield Mastery bash, at least, was a bit odd. I can understand some confusion. I had some until someone pointed out a similar ability, Flurry of Blows, explicitly said immediately after an attack. So in isolation the rules can be confusing but using other examples certainly helped clarify things for me.   I tweeted Crawford initially back on November 14 about shield mastery as we had a Barabarian with that feat and he was being screwed by the DM. This same DM also ruled that dueling doesn't work with a shield, even if it obviously does. That was also clarified by Crawford (again. He's done it already).
(Reply to #5) Coredump00	paulstrait wrote:
#9 iserith Jan 22, 2015 5:44:01	It seems odd to me to be on the hook to take an Attack action after the bonus action shield shove. If the player does nothing else, okay, the bonus action is effectively the action - carry on. But what if the player opts to take some other kind of action? No can do? Must attack or do nothing? Please to explain it!
#10 Plaguescarred4 Jan 22, 2015 6:05:22	iserith wrote:
#11 Noctaem Jan 22, 2015 6:13:51	iserith wrote:
#12 Yunru Jan 22, 2015 6:25:10	Basically the BAA is just tacked onto the normal Action, so a foe teleporting away from Shield Master's BAA would be the same, in character, as a foe teleporting away from their Attack action.
#13 Noctaem Jan 22, 2015 6:28:46	Yunru wrote:
#14 iserith Jan 22, 2015 6:30:12	Plaguescarred4 wrote:
#15 Noctaem Jan 22, 2015 6:43:09	iserith wrote:
#16 iserith Jan 22, 2015 6:48:56	Noctaem wrote:
#17 Yunru Jan 22, 2015 6:54:13	I'm sure there's some. BAAs like Crossbow Expert's and Polearm Master's would be more problematic, allowing Attack+Hide permastealth builds.
#18 Noctaem Jan 22, 2015 7:09:58	Good to know that bonus actions are also limited to being used on your turn only.  And I can't say I know the intent of why they worded it this way.  It could be so that later they can add options and features without having to worry about previous stuff, or add rules text?  Who knows.
(Reply to #11) Nevvur	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #16) Coredump00	iserith wrote:
#21 guachi Jan 22, 2015 11:19:49	I figure they tied the shove to the attack action because the bonus action is an engagement with a creature, not unlike the actual "shove" action which is used in your attack action. So this precludes you from casting a spell, dashing, disengaging, dodging, helping, or hiding. It doesn't seem, to me, to be overly restrictive  given what effect they seem to be going for. It's just the wording has, apparently, confused many of us!
#22 paulstrait Jan 22, 2015 12:09:08	iserith wrote:
#23 bawylie Jan 22, 2015 19:37:37	I don't see a compelling reason to attach the shield shove to the attack action. Seems ok to me to just let it happen as a bonus action.
#24 KarlB Feb 18, 2015 7:44:39	It's my understanding that, as a general rule, you can do a bonus action if the conditions are met at some point during your turn. The exception is when it's specifically stated as *after*, for example Monk flurry.
#25 Rhenny Feb 18, 2015 8:52:27	Coredump00 wrote:
#26 Aldrin_Swage Feb 23, 2015 13:11:58	Bonus Actions - PHB pg. 198 "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified..."   Shield Master - PHB pg. 170 "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."   Moving Between Attacks - PHB pg. 190 "If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks."   So something like:     First attack on mob next to me -> move 10 ft (incurring op-attack) -> shove mob #2 -> move 15 ft (op-attack w/disadvantage) -> attack 3rd mob     would be valid, if I'm reading those right.   *EDIT: Unless you explicitly discount a shield shove as a "weapon attack" in which case Attack, run, attack, run, shove would still be ok.
#27 FrogReaver Feb 23, 2015 14:10:53	I think the confusion has always been from not separating the idea of using the attack action from actually making an attack.   These rulings make it clear that there is a "phase" where you declare that you will "use a specific action". That declaration phase is is what allows their answer to shield master and without such a declaration phase shield master could not be ruled as such.   This declaration phase goes against iseriths dm style because he wants players to say in game what they do and then he decides if it's a success failure or if dice gets involved.  Having a whole extra phase to declare actions before in game actions are described seems a bit against the grain for that play style.
#28 Orethalion Feb 23, 2015 14:18:14	Aldrin_Swage wrote: