@J_McGrodyTiming of Shield Master bonus shove. Does “take attack action” mean make 1 or all att rolls 1st? or can shove then attack? As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action. As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) January 21, 2015
Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn. #DnD https://t.co/fWqVHYNJS3
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
Whyyyyyy you do this? I did it last year, actually, but my old tweet on Shield Master slipped through the cracks.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
And how does it work with extra attack? Only after the last one is made/forfeiting the right to any attacks you could made but didn't (i.e. Fighter 20 made 2 of 4 possible + bonus action shove, can he still make two more, or he can't RAW)?
— Denis Chikanov (@siziyman) May 11, 2018
What was it supposed to be? How is using a bonus action to knock someone prone and then attack cheesy? It's supposed to be what it is: a way to knock someone prone after your attack. It's essentially a finishing move.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
So a character with shield master would likely never have time to gain advantage from a successful shove she caused?
— GoMart (@ChainParris) May 11, 2018
D&D is a co-op game. Many abilities shine brightest when you use them to set up combos with your allies. #DnD https://t.co/MDcylKQw6r
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
Curious why I changed my ruling on bonus actions? When there's a gray area in the rules, I lean on general rules or exceptions to determine a ruling. My original ruling relied on the general rule, but over time, the weight of the exceptions swayed me to a more logical ruling #DnD https://t.co/lQs9nNnpNf
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
So if I take the attack action, and am able to attack multiple times per attack action, can I bonus action between the attacks like I can with movement? Related: can I take the attack action and then use a bonus action before making any attacks that the attack action grants me?
— Clint Bonds (@clintzbonds) May 11, 2018
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. #DnD https://t.co/5RxDybHHey
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
Why is a bonus action different from movement in this context?
— Justin Melillo (@Cybren) May 11, 2018
There's a rule that allows you to insert movement between your attacks (PH, 190). There's intentionally no rule that allows you to nest actions/reactions inside each other. They are meant to have integrity as processes, except when we create exceptions meant to disrupt them. #DnD https://t.co/oHGY1yJBs8
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
Hang on … "You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified" (PH 189). Are you saying that conditions on the bonus action implicitly specify its timing? That's a big departure from the usual "Take EVERYTHING literally" rule!
— Keith Ammann (@geeniusatwrok) May 11, 2018
If the existence of X is the condition for the existence of Y, X comes before Y. #DnD https://t.co/wyJ5VxgmqA
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
Just to be clear, if a DM prefers the older ruling, is that still a valid way to rule for things like Adventurer's League?
— GeorgeSutherlandHoward (@Acr0ssTh3P0nd) May 11, 2018
Wow. That is a reversal of YEARS of precedent from all WOTC sources on that one. Why the sudden, drastic change after years of people reliably working with the prior ruling which WOTC previously clarified?
— Mark Cronan (@YetiMoose) May 11, 2018
In 2017, I clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium how timing works for a bonus action. The query there is about the Eldritch Knight’s War Magic feature, but as I've stated today, the answer applies universally to bonus actions with triggers. See https://t.co/7uBLqNdn4G #DnD https://t.co/Dp6GtwdmbV
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
Today's clarification makes it so that you can trust your book more than ever before, since I've now eliminated an illogical ruling that actually seeded doubt about the book's text.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
I get that, I'm just curious what the reasoning is. It's making combat a little less cinematic and a little more video gamey in my mind. I can accept this as the official ruling, just curious as to the why part before I change how I rule it at the table.
— Burning_-_ (@BurningBunring) May 11, 2018
In 2017, I changed the ruling on bonus action timing because the old ruling was illogical. The original ruling failed to account for the fact that X relying on Y is a form of timing. The new ruling corrects that oversight. #DnD https://t.co/PMEVVdajsH
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
Wait, so let’s say I’m a level 5 Fighter.
I get that I can’t Attack, Bonus Action(that requires Attack action), Attack.
But can I do Attack, Move, Attack?Nothing has changed in how movement works.— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
MY point is the language is different for different but similar rules. Hence the hollabaloo over his stance on shield master today. I actually agree with both sides of the argument. To be super-duper clear: the ruling today on bonus action timing is not about Shield Master. It's about clarifying the logic of triggers for bonus actions in general.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
That does not match reactions I’m seeing. Here, EnWorld, Reddit, DnDBeyond, you pick. Not a lot of “Oh now I can trust my book, prior rule was illogical.” It’s mostly “WTF, what happened to change years of precedent that few had issues with? Was this a commonly reported problem?” The old ruling on bonus action timing didn't quiet questions on that timing. Instead, the illogical ruling fueled questions, and it even inadvertently led some fans to think our choice of words like "if" or "when" had super-precise meanings in bonus actions. They don't.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 11, 2018
To be clear, this means the character with shield master feat must use its available attacks when taking the attack action and once they are used it may then take the bonus action shove granted by shield master? That's correct.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
I also see no logic in your position that a 0-damage shove should be a “finishing move” and not an “opening move”. If D&D is inspired by cinematic moments, why is there some arbitrary restriction that you have to bash BEFORE you slash? It makes no sense. My ruling on bonus action timing has nothing to do with the balance of Shield Master or any other feature that gives you a bonus action. It's about being able to read bonus actions in a natural way, not with an external ruling clouding things.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
"Why did you nerf Shield Master?" some have asked. Here's the summary:
– Nothing has changed in Shield Master.
– I've clarified that bonus action abilities (not just Shield Master) mean it when they say you must do X to do Y. Ignore the old ruling that stated otherwise. #DnD
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
@JeremyECrawford I’m curious what other interaction you believe will be effected by the clarification and how it will improve the game balance?
— Robert Holliday (@DextersDice) May 12, 2018
Official rulings are about helping everyone use the rules in as straightforward a way as possible. We don't balance the game through rulings. We clarify things in an effort to make it easier for DMs to adjudicate the game. #DnD https://t.co/ZG7JTI3coL
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
What about attacking, opening a door (free interaction), and then attacking again? Nothing has changed about how object interactions work.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
This is the tweet. This statement, as you wrote it, seemingly disallows any bonus actions between attacks. Yet no general rule disallows a bonus action between attacks. Your own ruling is confusing. 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.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
It’s not just about shield master or triggered bonus actions when you say that no rule permits a bonus action between multiple attacks.
— WilliamB (@tyr_knight) May 12, 2018
There's a big difference between saying "no rule" and "no general rule." I said the latter.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
That is one of the pitfalls of an exceptions-based game: the distinction between general rules and exceptions. But there's also wonderful liberty and storytelling opportunities created by those exceptions. Because it’s necessary to create rules and also types of rules. Because nothing says simple by having general rules and other rules.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
But you wanted to know where you said no bonus actions between attacks. I identified the phrase. Whether you meant that or not, that’s what you said here.The “general rule” (because it’s not an exception) I’ve quoted twice permits a bonus action (that doesn’t have a specific timing) at any time on your turn. That includes between actions. So your statement that no general rule permits that seems wrong RAW.
— WilliamB (@tyr_knight) May 12, 2018
Ah ha! Now I get what you're driving at. I was focused on bonus actions with triggers. You're talking about bonus actions without triggers. I'll clarify things! Thanks for your patience.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
Players don’t care about “reading in a natural way”, players care about doing cool stuff on their turn. The problem with your ruling is that it destroys Shield Master while making the other heavily abused feats, Sharpshooter and P.A.M, that much more mandatory for action economy. I have changed nothing in Shield Master. Just as in 2014, it still says you can take a bonus action if you take the Attack action. I look forward to continuing to see the feat used in creative ways.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
My tweet below was addressing bonus actions and reactions that have triggers. A bonus action that has no trigger—such as Cunning Action and the misty step spell—can take place whenever you want on your turn (PH, 189). #DnD https://t.co/fpGmdbrh9f
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
Um, that’s not quite it. While that’s how conditional claims work in coding, it’s not as a matter of logic. “If you go outside, then grab an umbrella.” The material conditional just mean the condition needs to be satisfied. It makes no claim about time or causality.D&D combat is sequential, with no action-declaration phase at the beginning. Your turn can also be interrupted by someone’s reaction. Such an interruption could, among other things, incapacitate you, meaning your intention to take a certain action was never fulfilled.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
Sure! I’m just saying we can’t solve this as a matter of the definition of the material conditional. If OP meant “logical” by “within the rules of DND,” sure. BTW, you don’t deserve the flack you’re getting, I don’t think. Keep up the good work! My rulings, and the logic they rely on, are entirely within the context of D&D’s rules.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
There is, indeed, tons of flexibility in how certain things can be ordered in combat. But if one thing is conditional on another, they must happen in order, for intent has no weight in the combat rules, since you could be interrupted at any moment and incapacitated.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
As much as i enjoy the clarifcation this ruling basically makes the part of shield master that everyone enjoys, the ability to possible grant advantage to yourself as a test of strength was the coolest part of the ability 1/2 I understand, but what they were enjoying wasn’t Shield Master. They were enjoying a regrettable tweet of mine from 2015. Nothing in Shield Master supports using it without actually taking the Attack action first.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) May 12, 2018
