Shield mastery: 2 questions

[dehro]

1)The shield master feat in its defensive aspect states that:
"you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you."
The question: if I am the only creature present in the area of effect of an AoC spell or bomb or trap, does this still apply? Say a wizard throws a fireball my way... In principle it wouldn't apply if there were others around me, because it's not targeting only me, but what if I'm the only visible/actual target?
If I were to advance towards a trap alone, in order to make it go off and the trap consists in an explosion of songs kind. Would I be able to negate damage on a successful save on account of being the only one there?
2) are there enough spells with Dex saves where this applies to make it worth for a frontline tank to take the feat? Not so much in comparison to potentially better feats but in a more general sense of creating a tank with the flavor of a moving bastion, full plate and shield and so on

[Damon_Tor]

1)The shield master feat in its defensive aspect states that:
"you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you."
The question: if I am the only creature present in the area of effect of an AoC spell or bomb or trap, does this still apply? Say a wizard throws a fireball my way... In principle it wouldn't apply if there were others around me, because it's not targeting only me, but what if I'm the only visible/actual target?
If I were to advance towards a trap alone, in order to make it go off and the trap consists in an explosion of songs kind. Would I be able to negate damage on a successful save on account of being the only one there?

No. If a spell targets a point in space (as almost all AoE spells do) then you are not the only target of the spell. Spells like Ice Knife and Acid Splash, which explicitly target a creature but can "splash" to others, would be an exception here, and the feat would seem to work.

2) are there enough spells with Dex saves where this applies to make it worth for a frontline tank to take the feat? Not so much in comparison to potentially better feats but in a more general sense of creating a tank with the flavor of a moving bastion, full plate and shield and so on

For the bonus to dex saves portion of the feat, no, not really. However, if you don't have another good way to access an "evasion" ability to take no damage on a successful save, it is useful in that regard.

[LudicSavant]

Basically what Damon_Tor said.

2) are there enough spells with Dex saves where this applies to make it worth for a frontline tank to take the feat? Not so much in comparison to potentially better feats but in a more general sense of creating a tank with the flavor of a moving bastion, full plate and shield and so on

There are only a few single target Dex save spells. Disintegrate, Sacred Flame, Hellish Rebuke, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, and... Immolation. And a couple of spells which can splash to additional targets but don't have to, like Chain Lightning and Acid Splash. Things like Fireball, however, don't target only you even if you're the only person in the AoE; they also target a point in space.

The third bullet point on the other hand will apply to more things. And the utility of the first bullet point is greatly dependent on which of the... at least three... mutually-exclusive Sage Advice interpretations that your DM likes. There's probably more controversy around Shield Master than any other mechanic as a result.

[dehro]

I was going to ask how the shove would work...
Didn't know there was controversy around it.
Would you care to elaborate?

[Vorenus]

There are some who interpret the Feat to mean that you can only take the Bonus Action to shield bash an enemy (and therefore knock the enemy prone) after taking the Attack Action. Meaning you would not be able to knock an enemy down and then attack it. And since the enemy will likely get up before you take your next turn, you will never get to attack it at with Advantage. (Your allies still could, of course. Or you could use an Action Surge, if a Fighter of at least Level 2: First Action: Attack + Bonus Action, followed by Action Surge Attack.)

[MrStabby]

I was going to ask how the shove would work...
Didn't know there was controversy around it.
Would you care to elaborate?

Well there are a few elements.

Your text: you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.

Could be parsed as: you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a (spell) or (other harmful effect that targets only you).

Or: you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a (spell or other harmful effect) that targets only you.

In the former fireball is a spell. It is fine. Also if it were any other effect that targets only you it would also work. IN the latter it is not enough to be a spell that allows a dex save, it must also target only you.

I think the latter reads better and is probably intended but ask your DM how it should be played.



The other controversy is simply about can you use your bonus action to knock someone down before your attack. Initial guidance was that unless specified the bonus action could happen before the action for any effect that wasn't explicit about it (counterspell, flurry of blows). Furthermore, I think there was an explicit tweet calling that you could do this. A couple of years later the question arose again and the answer was reversed. Two contradictory interpretations - which is why it isn't a good idea to look to folks on the internet for a guide for these things. To make things more complex, I don't think they actually put their view in their errata.

Again, play it as it seems right at your table.

[Keravath]

Yep .. the timing of a bash using the shield master bonus action has three interpretations.

1) If you decide to take the attack action during your turn then you can take the bonus action shove with the shield at any time even if you haven't actually attacked because you ARE taking the Attack action.

2) The bonus action shove REQUIRES the character to take the Attack action BEFORE the bonus action becomes available. As a result the character MUST take the Attack action FIRST.

This interpretation has two options ..

A) The Attack action is taken as soon as ONE attack is made. The PHB says taking the Attack action requires making one attack. Extra attack allows taking additional attacks as part of the Attack action. You can move between these attacks and Bonus Actions can be taken at ANY time as long as the conditions to have them have been met. Under this interpretation, you can use the bonus action to shove from Shield Master after having made at least one attack from the attack action.

B) Some folks consider Actions indivisible. As a result, taking the Attack action requires taking ALL possible attacks including extra attacks. In this case, the bonus action shove is not available until After all the attacks of the Attack action have been taken.


----

There is an initial tweet from Jeremy Crawford saying that (1) is the correct interpretation. There is a much later tweet saying that (2b) is the correct interpretation and finally, there is a tweet in which JC says that he would allow (2a) when DMing.

As a result, the lead developer of the 5e rule book has more or less explicitly supported all of the interpretations. From a RAW perspective, (2a) is probably the closest to what the rules actually say but there is a lot of room for argument and discussion so in the end it is up to how the individual DM decides it applies at their table.

[Damon_Tor]

Personally, I've never understood why they decided to require the attack action for the shove in the first place. If I ever had a player who wanted to use the bonus action shove without attacking, I'd let them do it.

[stoutstien]

Personally, I've never understood why they decided to require the attack action for the shove in the first place. If I ever had a player who wanted to use the bonus action shove without attacking, I'd let them do it.

Out side of buffing booming blade even more I agree.

[Damon_Tor]

Out side of buffing booming blade even more I agree.

Booming Blade was a mistake.

[LudicSavant]

I was going to ask how the shove would work...
Didn't know there was controversy around it.
Would you care to elaborate?

All dev commentaries for years consistently supported the notion that if/when abilities let you choose the timing, and could be done before or after the attack action (not just for Shield Master, but for other abilities too!)

Years after release, JC changed his stance in an extended series of tweets, saying that Shield Master requires you to complete all of your attacks (including Extra Attacks) before you can use the bonus action. He also changed the Sage Advice Compendium entries to reflect this (both for Shield Master and also for other things, like Eldritch Knight's War Magic). The reaction at the time was rather... explosive. And we still get 100 page threads on it now and then.

He then issued yet more tweets saying he'd be okay with it going after you complete only some of your attacks, rather than all of them. A third interpretation.

All three of these interpretations of Shield Master's timing are mutually exclusive and which one you pick has a big impact on Shield Master's mathematical and tactical effectiveness (and can mess with the rest of the system, too, since they basically redefine how "if/when" statements work).

[dehro]

gotcha... I shall ask the DM for his ruling before play starts

[stoutstien]

Booming Blade was a mistake.

Agreed. BB would have been a great subclass feature just makes a crappy cantrip

[1Pirate]

1)The shield master feat in its defensive aspect states that:
"you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you."
2) are there enough spells with Dex saves where this applies to make it worth for a frontline tank to take the feat? Not so much in comparison to potentially better feats but in a more general sense of creating a tank with the flavor of a moving bastion, full plate and shield and so on

I’m away from MM at the moment, but there should be enough other Dex effects from there to make this worthwhile depending on the campaign.

[ThePolarBear]

Initial guidance was that unless specified the bonus action could happen before the action for any effect that wasn't explicit about it (counterspell, flurry of blows). Furthermore, I think there was an explicit tweet calling that you could do this.

Sort of true. The tweet about the "guidance" simply re-stated this. This is pretty much verbatim what is the rule in the book about bonus action if one doesn't consider timing to apply to the particular situation.

This is the other one i can think of and is latter down the timeline, keeping consistent with the previous post.

At that point, at least according to the very same sources, question kept propping up.

Two contradictory interpretations which is why it isn't a good idea to look to folks on the internet for a guide for these things. To make things more complex, I don't think they actually put their view in their errata.

There is in the Sage Advice Compendium. Do you think there's a need for the errata? Do you allow someone that has the GWF feat to make a bonus action attack before felling an opponent or scoring a crit?

We can discuss the meaning of "take" as much as we want, but it IS illogical to allow the bonus action before the "take", whatever the meaning you give it, takes place.

Again, play it as it seems right at your table.

Agreed.

All dev commentaries for years consistently supported the notion that if/when abilities let you choose the timing, and could be done before or after the attack action (not just for Shield Master, but for other abilities too!)

True.

Years after release, JC changed his stance in an extended series of tweets, saying that Shield Master

Absolutely not. JC changed his mind MONTHS before that exchange. It produced the text in the Sage Advice Compendium. Months after that, he published the serie of tweets you are mentioning.

He also changed the Sage Advice Compendium entries to reflect this (both for Shield Master and also for other things, like Eldritch Knight's War Magic)

No. It happened the other way around, with months in between.

The reaction at the time was rather... explosive. And we still get 100 page threads on it now and then.

It doesn't help the spreading of misinformation.

He then issued yet more tweets saying he'd be okay with it going after you complete only some of your attacks, rather than all of them. A third interpretation.

Let's get things straighted out, since it is necessary:

What you call the first interpretation is a mistake and should be treated as such. It is deemed illogical, for reasons one can find in the threads

The second interpretation is the "RAW" one. If nothing lets you put something inside an action, you solve the action first.

The third interpretation is the "RAI" one.

All three of these interpretations of Shield Master's timing are mutually exclusive and which one you pick has a big impact on Shield Master's mathematical and tactical effectiveness (and can mess with the rest of the system, too, since they basically redefine how "if/when" statements work).

True, but: one is not an interpretation, it's a mistake. One is the RAW approach, which can cause problems with other parts of the system. The third is the one that explains how, in the specific case and at large when dealing with the Attack Action, the design intent is for SM specifically.

As always, a DM is the only real reference point for a game. If one player is not satisfied, on the internet one can only find arguments. It is not going to affect the game one is playing unless the DM says so.

[LudicSavant]

Let's get things straighted out

Straightened.

It produced the text in the Sage Advice Compendium. Months after that, he published the serie of tweets you are mentioning.

The Shield Master tweets were in 2018. The Shield Master entry in the SAC was put there in 2019. It's marked [New] and everything.

Perhaps you are thinking of the War Magic ruling currently in the SAC, which was put there in 2017, replacing the previous ruling. However, War Magic does use a different wording ("when" rather than "if").

True, but: one is not an interpretation, it's a mistake.

Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He says that the previous interpretation of the rules he presented was mistaken.

Absolutely not. JC changed his mind MONTHS before that exchange.

What exactly is your point meant to be here? This doesn't affect the fact that he changed a ruling that had been in place for years, and presented said change in a controversial series of tweets.

Said change came years after the game was designed and playtested with "if/when" things working a certain way, with the devs (to my knowledge) being very consistent about how it was supposed to work, in multiple sources. Years later, JC changed his tune, saying that it was a "clarification." When people called him out on this, he backpedaled and said it was a "mistake." And people called him out on that too, for reasons I won't get into because there are already a hundred threads on it debating at great length.

Not that any of that silly drama is really relevant to anything here. My point is only that the end result is that there are three commonly used interpretations of the rules so you have to ask the DM how it works at your table. The one in the 2019 SAC is currently considered the "official" version.

Edit: A side note:

It is deemed illogical, for reasons one can find in the threads

Just so you know, the notion that X must occur before Y in "If X then Y" statements is actually a common logical error. Not the other way around. People saying otherwise on Twitter are not logicians.

"The material conditional statement p → q does not conventionally specify a causal relationship between p and q; "p is the cause and q is the consequence from it" is not a generally valid interpretation for p → q). It merely means "if p is true, then q is also true" such that the statement p → q is false only when both p is true and q is false."

"It is important to remember that the connective ‘→’ says only that, if the antecedent is true, then the consequent is true. It says nothing about the causal connection between the two events. "

I don't mind which version of Shield Master you prefer, mind. It just frustrates me that some people in the links you gave are spreading this misconception.

[ThePolarBear]

The Shield Master tweets were in 2018. The Shield Master entry in the SAC was put there in 2019. It's marked [New] and everything.
Perhaps you are thinking of the War Magic ruling currently in the SAC, which was put there in 2017, replacing the previous ruling. However, War Magic does use a different wording ("when" rather than "if").

"When" or "if" is indifferent for the purpose of the Zero Conditional construction used in both sentences. It makes NO DIFFERENCE. The "change" to War magic is the exact same that is given to Shield Master, since it is the underlying logic that was changed for both.

Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He says that the previous interpretation of the rules he presented was mistaken.

It's like saying that "the sun is an ant" is true. If it is a mistake, it cannot be an interpretation, since an interpretation is an explanation of the meaning of something. If it is incorrect, it can only be an incorrect intepretation: a mistake.

What exactly is your point meant to be here? This doesn't affect the fact that he changed a ruling that had been in place for years, and presented said change in a controversial series of tweets.

Order is what is changed. Reasons for the controversy is what changed.
The explosion of "controversy" came months after the change not because the reason why the change was enacted was illogical, but because people were used to play in one way, and suddenly they were told by someone who doesn't have really an effect on their game that the text was being used incorrectly.

"But we played in this way" and "But you said it worked in the other way" are not good reasons not to straighen out a mistake.

Said change came years after the game was designed and playtested with "if/when" things working a certain way

Considering that i doubt you have and can provide factual proof that the playtest went that way everywhere, i reserve a healthy dose of skepticism.

Expecially given that the first tweet that i can find on the argument is from 2015, and the books have been released starting from 2014.

Furthermore we need to consider that someone somewhere had to tamper JC enough with how the "illogical" ruling worked.

And you can believe me or not, but i had groups of people looking at me funny when i said "well, it's like this, apparently" on the very same issue with the "old ruling". Multiple times.

Years later, JC changed his tune, saying that it was a "clarification." When people called him out on this, he backpedaled and said it was a "mistake."

PR being PR. You can choose to believe him or not. If you don't, you have no reason to believe one tweet over the other simply because the tweet is from him, however.

Just so you know, the notion that X must occur before Y in "If X then Y" statements is actually a common logical error. Not the other way around. People saying otherwise on Twitter are not logicians.

No, sorry, it isnt.

Or better, it is if we were talking about any possible reason to be able to possibly shove as a bonus action, no matter the source.
The "Shield Master controversy" however focuses ONLY on SM as the possible source of the bonus action. This is PLENTY CLEAR to anyone that reads anything about it, as it is the fact that there's no consideration on the fact that you can, really, take any action at all and so on.
It is, speaking of logical analysis, a biconditional.

This means that the "if" is really an "If and only if", which makes the whole discussion you posted completely misguided.

Yes, formal logics and written sentences do not align perfectly, and any text about applying logical analysis to written works makes clear that one has to pay close attention to what the text is about, because the written "if", colloquially and outside of formal environments, can and will refer to both the logic "if" and the logic "if and only if".

We are talking about gaining a bonus action due to Shield Master. You cannot gain a BA due to Shield Master unless you fulfill the conditions placed on Shield Master.

[Chronos]

Part of the difficulty is that people don't phrase the interpretations correctly. Everyone agrees that you have to take the Attack action before you shove. That's not the problem. The problem is that people disagree on whether you need to roll your attacks as soon as you take the attack action. Many of us rule that you can take the attack action (which probably entitles you to two attacks), then take the Shove bonus action, then roll your shove, and then roll your two attacks.

As for the pseudo-evasion bit, not only are there very few single-target dex-save spells, but of those that exist, most already have you taking no damage on a save.

[LudicSavant]

If it is a mistake, it cannot be an interpretation

If it is incorrect, it can only be an incorrect intepretation: a mistake.

These statements contradict each other. If a mistake is an incorrect interpretation, it is therefore an interpretation. QED.

{Scrubbed}

No, sorry, it isnt.

I really don't know what else to say if you're just going to respond with "nuh-uh" to basic principles of logic, supported with qualified sources.

I guess... good luck "correcting" every logician on the planet and convincing them that if statements always demonstrate a causal relationship?

[Damon_Tor]

As for the pseudo-evasion bit, not only are there very few single-target dex-save spells, but of those that exist, most already have you taking no damage on a save.

There are two wholly separate defensive benefits to shield mastery: one that adds your shield's defensive bonus to dex saves where you are the only target, and the other which allows you to use your reaction to take no damage from a dex save where you succeed. The second benefit doesn't require you to be the only target of the effect.

[ad_hoc]

Part of the difficulty is that people don't phrase the interpretations correctly. Everyone agrees that you have to take the Attack action before you shove. That's not the problem. The problem is that people disagree on whether you need to roll your attacks as soon as you take the attack action. Many of us rule that you can take the attack action (which probably entitles you to two attacks), then take the Shove bonus action, then roll your shove, and then roll your two attacks.

As for the pseudo-evasion bit, not only are there very few single-target dex-save spells, but of those that exist, most already have you taking no damage on a save.

JC explained why this is wrong.

Taking an action means taking the action. Acting it out.

If you haven't done the thing yet, you haven't done it.

In other words, if you haven't rolled your attacks yet, you haven't taken the action.

You also cannot do 'part' of an action, do something else, and then go back to the action you were doing. The attack action has a specific exception to this allowing movement (and only movement) to occur between additional attacks.

[Willie the Duck]

Agreed. BB would have been a great subclass feature just makes a crappy cantrip

taking a weapon attack as part of a spell is a rules landmine regardless (although, yes, random builds never intended to have it getting it through feat/MC/racial picks certainly exacerbated the problem).

JC explained why this is wrong.

Taking an action means taking the action. Acting it out.

JC put into the SAC new text making that be the case, yes. I wouldn't call other peoples' positions wrong though, since for the most part they either made the arguments before that point (in which place there was legitimately ambiguity), or are talking about how the rule stands at their table.

[ad_hoc]

JC put into the SAC new text making that be the case, yes. I wouldn't call other peoples' positions wrong though, since for the most part they either made the arguments before that point (in which place there was legitimately ambiguity), or are talking about how the rule stands at their table.

It's fine to use a houserule at your own table, but that doesn't mean that it is the rule.

In order to have taken the action you need to have taken the action.

That is clear as day to me.

[ThePolarBear]

{Scrubbed}

I really don't know what else to say if you're just going to respond with "nuh-uh" to basic principles of logic, supported with qualified sources.

I'm not disputing that the material conditional works the way you linked. I'm disputing If what we are talking about is a material conditional at all: your translation in a formal argument of the natural English language in question.

I guess... good luck "correcting" every logician on the planet and convincing them that if statements always demonstrate a causal relationship?

I'm not disputing that material conditional in formal logic are not the same as Iff statements. What i'm disputing is the assumption that what you are talking about is a "if" statement at all for logic purposes, since formal logic require translation from the natural language called English.

From the text you provided:

Spoiler

Show

"Later we will translate arguments from English into a formal language. We want formal validity, as defined in the formal language, to have at least some of the important features of natural-language validity."

"Starting with an argument in a natural language like English, we translate the argument into a formal language. Parts of the English sentences are replaced with letters and symbols. The goal is to reveal the formal structure of the argument, as we did with these two."

"When we translate an argument into a formal language, we hope to make its logical structure clearer. We want to include enough of the structure of the English language argument so that we can judge whether the argument is valid or invalid. If we included every feature of the English language, all of the subtlety and nuance, then there would be no advantage in translating to a formal language. We might as well think about the argument in English."

"So when deciding on a formal language, there is inevitably a tension between wanting to capture as much structure as possible and wanting a simple formal language— simpler formal languages leave out more. This means that there is no perfect formal language. Some will do a better job than others in translating particular English-language arguments."

"In this book, we make the assumption that true and false are the only possible truth-values."

And:

"In English, the truth of conditionals often depends on what would be the case if the antecedent were true — even if, as a matter of fact, the antecedent is false. This poses a problem for translating conditionals into SL"

"In order to translate conditionals into SL, we will not try to capture all the subtleties of the English language ‘If...then....’"

{Scrubbed}

The logical structure that exemplifies what the SM wording says is the biconditional when applied as what would happen considering SM only.

It tells you that you can make a shove, if you have taken the attack action. If you have not, you might still be able to because of other reasons. When considering if it is BECAUSE of SM however you necessarily have to exclude anything that could allow you to still make the shove for other reasons because those reasons are not SM. And you also need to exclude anything that would prevent you from making a shove when the antecedent is true, because those reasons are not SM.

The constructed truth table would then be equal to that of a biconditional.

And that's it.

Not being in a formal logical scenario you cannot keep the premises of how a logic book and its examples are written as true. It's as simple as that, and that's a basic principle of logical argument making. There's no need for me to try to convince any logician about it.

[ThePolarBear]

Part of the difficulty is that people don't phrase the interpretations correctly. Everyone agrees that you have to take the Attack action before you shove. That's not the problem. The problem is that people disagree on whether you need to roll your attacks as soon as you take the attack action. Many of us rule that you can take the attack action (which probably entitles you to two attacks), then take the Shove bonus action, then roll your shove, and then roll your two attacks.

JC explained why this is wrong.

Taking an action means taking the action. Acting it out.

If you haven't done the thing yet, you haven't done it.

In other words, if you haven't rolled your attacks yet, you haven't taken the action.

You also cannot do 'part' of an action, do something else, and then go back to the action you were doing. The attack action has a specific exception to this allowing movement (and only movement) to occur between additional attacks.

Thanks, i was having issues answering to this post without sounding abrasive. Since it wasn't the intention i was trying to find a way to still answer.

I did provide a couple of link that demonstrate this intent, too. And in the very same post i made it clear that i also believe that the issue was the meaning of "take", at least for some.

But again, not everyone is like that.

[Willie the Duck]

It's fine to use a houserule at your own table, but that doesn't mean that it is the rule.

In order to have taken the action you need to have taken the action.

That is clear as day to me.

I genuinely do not know what you're trying to accomplish here. JC put in a clarification in the SAC because there was debate, and he wanted to put in an official position. Previous to that ruling there was debate because there was perceived ambiguity. There might have been one actual correct interpretation of the rules as they existed in the books before that ruling was added to the SAC, and those who disagreed were genuinely mistaken, but it also could be that there was genuine ambiguity, based on the capacity for communication to be inexact. I have no intention of, or interest in, relitigating the hundreds to thousands of pages of toxic back-and-forth that has already gone on. My point was that JC coming in later and (using his ability to make something an official position) declaring one position to be correct does not retroactively make other person's arguments to be wrong, but to supersede them.

[LudicSavant]

{scrub the post, scrub both quotes}.

Oh, the irony.

So let's talk about context.

I expressed no opinion in this thread about whether any of the interpretations were valid or invalid. I just said that there were three commonly used interpretations, mistaken or otherwise, and that which one is in use will change the math on how powerful Shield Master is. All of which is true.

You then jumped on me out of nowhere saying that I was wrong to say that it was an interpretation, mistaken or otherwise. You then said it was a mistaken interpretation. But then kept arguing that I was wrong to use the same word to describe it that you did.

I'm not disputing that the material conditional works the way you linked.

That's certainly not what your previous post said. There aren't any other claims in my quote to dispute (other than "people saying otherwise on Twitter are not logicians," which you're obviously not replying to, otherwise your response would be "no, they're not (logicians)" rather than "no, it isn't (an error)").

So either you were indeed disputing that the material conditional works the way I linked, or you're engaging in an argument against a claim that I never actually made.

the notion that X must occur before Y in "If X then Y" statements is actually a common logical error. Not the other way around. People saying otherwise on Twitter are not logicians.

No, sorry, it isnt.

[NaughtyTiger]

i saw the title of the thread... on no, not again.

but it wasn't about the shove timing. holy cow. that is actually worth reading...

then it reared it's ugly head and the thread has been hijacked. damn.

[SniffyRockroot]

My DM lets my Paladin shove then attack.

I'm a crit-fishing, evil-smiting MURDER MACHINE!!!!

[LudicSavant]

i saw the title of the thread... on no, not again.

but it wasn't about the shove timing. holy cow. that is actually worth reading...

then it reared it's ugly head and the thread has been hijacked. damn.

Yeah no kidding. I regret even mentioning that a third bullet point existed. Wish we could get back on track to talking about the effectiveness of Shield Master (with whatever interpretation you like).