This is a bad ruling as you are completely removing the reason most people take Shield Master

3 thoughts on “This is a bad ruling as you are completely removing the reason most people take Shield Master

  1. Is it permissible, as written, to break up a series of attacks (like those granted by Extra Attack or maybe even Flurry of Blows) with the bonus action? ie, I declare I am attacking my opponent, make an attack roll, then shove with my shield, then take my additional attack rolls.

  2. D. Walker says:

    What I don’t get is why Crawford won’t just errata it.

    Clearly people hate this interpretation. So why does Crawford ride so hard for it?

    Even if he wants to argue that the wording of the feat can ONLY mean this interpretation (which is false – the wording is vague, like much of the wording in 5E thanks to their beloved reliance on “natural language”), the question is, why not just change the wording?

    Clearly Crawford has a reason for wanting to rule to work this way. What is that justification? Because he could easily rewrite the rule. He is not a slave to the language currently used.

    He chooses to KEEP that wording, for some unknown reason he seems unwilling to disclose. Which is bizarre, because for a long time, he DIDN’T have any such reason, because he actually interpretted the rule in the opposite way for years.

Leave a Reply to D. Walker Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.