An Illustrated Manual for Inflicting Violence: A Guide to Fightering

[xanderh]

Unless your DM allows you to make an Athletics check with Dexterity every time you use Shove, you're bound by RAW to use Strength. Even if you would normally attack with Dexterity.

And, let's assume he multiclasses into barbarian, and would continue making rapier attacks with Dexterity, he wouldn't get rage's bonus to damage rolls, for example. Rage requires Strength based melee attacks.
As Corran said, in that case, using the lower of your two ability scores (strength) would be more reasonable.

First part is irrelevant, it's not performing an attack roll. You don't get to choose.

For the second part, the extra rage damage in no way makes up for the loss in accuracy. If the strength and dex scores are one apart (best case for using strength here), you would gain 1-3 damage depending on level, but lose out on accuracy. Except for very edge cases where you're basically guaranteed to hit, it's not worth it.

[Corran]

For the second part, the extra rage damage in no way makes up for the loss in accuracy. If the strength and dex scores are one apart (best case for using strength here), you would gain 1-3 damage depending on level, but lose out on accuracy.

Reckless attack can play a part in this calculation, but that's not even important to the point. And the point is:

Except for very edge cases where you're basically guaranteed to hit, it's not worth it.

That is your answer.
True, it will come up very rarely, as it will certainly require an unconventional build for this choice to have any meaning, but it can be a real choice than just a bug.

[Ryuu Hayato]

You will update this guide?

[ZorroGames]

I disagree that you're always going to be bad at one important save; using point-buy Dex, Con and Wis 14 are all quite doable whilst still having points for a Primary stat at 16 (albeit having to hard-dump the other two). ... snip...

How does a ST fighter get DE, CO, WI at 14 and a prime at 16? ST fighters can’t do that, DE fighters yes. If DE fighter then it is possible to get pre-racial 15 DE and 14 for CO and WI.

[KorvinStarmast]

How does a ST fighter get DE, CO, WI at 14 and a prime at 16? ST fighters can’t do that, DE fighters yes. If DE fighter then it is possible to get pre-racial 15 DE and 14 for CO and WI.

Mountain Dwarf, I think ... 27 point buy and +2 bonus in str and con

14 14 12 8 14 10
16 14 14 8 14 10

[xanderh]

How does a ST fighter get DE, CO, WI at 14 and a prime at 16? ST fighters can’t do that, DE fighters yes. If DE fighter then it is possible to get pre-racial 15 DE and 14 for CO and WI.

Easy. You need +1 to strength and +2 to any of your other stats at 14.
15 14 14 12 8 8 is a legal point buy array. If your +2 is to strength, you can even bring one of the 8s up to a 9, if you want. Not all races can do it, but a good amount of the races you might pick for eldritch Knight anyway have the option.

[quark12000]

Any updates to this, given the new ruling on Shield Master?

[ZorroGames]

Mountain Dwarf, I think ... 27 point buy and +2 bonus in str and con

14 14 12 8 14 10
16 14 14 8 14 10

Just a comment, you are partially at the core of why I am fascinated by Mountain ⛰ Dwarf in 5e. Otherwise I would be building Hill Dwarf characters.

[xanderh]

Any updates to this, given the new ruling on Shield Master?

I think a lot of people are just ignoring that ruling, considering it goes explicitly against a previous ruling, and isn't founded on a persuasive foundation. He made it seem like a kneejerk reaction to a player using a build that made things too easy, and he didn't know how to compensate.

[LudicSavant]

I think a lot of people are just ignoring that ruling, considering it goes explicitly against a previous ruling, and isn't founded on a persuasive foundation. He made it seem like a kneejerk reaction to a player using a build that made things too easy, and he didn't know how to compensate.

Where's the previous ruling?

[xanderh]

Where's the previous ruling?

Also on twitter. Here's the link: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...810403329?s=20
This is what he says.

As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.

[LudicSavant]

Thanks for that. Okay, so now we have these two rulings:

As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.

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

Oooof. Yeah, those two rulings definitely can't both be true. However, Jeremy posted another tweet, saying:

Today's tweet is in response to my old tweet. I made this ruling about bonus actions last year, but the old Shield Master tweet slipped through the cracks. I'm rectifying that today.

So, essentially, Jeremy Crawford is changing the rules to severely nerf Shield Masters.

[xanderh]

Thanks for that. Okay, so now we have these two rulings:





Oooof. Yeah, those two rulings definitely can't both be true. However, Jeremy posted another tweet, saying:



So, essentially, Jeremy Crawford is changing the rules to severely nerf Shield Masters.

And from what I've seen, a lot of the community is just ignoring him, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Apparently, he changed it because Shield Master was "a cheese factory", even though Polearm Master can do the exact same thing, while also using other feats to buff damage (and in general just doing more damage in the first place).
Plus, Shield Master wasn't overpowered in the first place, so there's no reason for him to change the rules to nerf them. Besides, this is the sort of stuff that should be ignored until official errata is published changing the text of the feat from "if" to "when"...

[Arkhios]

And from what I've seen, a lot of the community is just ignoring him, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Apparently, he changed it because Shield Master was "a cheese factory", even though Polearm Master can do the exact same thing, while also using other feats to buff damage (and in general just doing more damage in the first place).
Plus, Shield Master wasn't overpowered in the first place, so there's no reason for him to change the rules to nerf them. Besides, this is the sort of stuff that should be ignored until official errata is published changing the text of the feat from "if" to "when"...

That's a bold claim about the game's designer. Unless you took part of the design process, I'd reconsider saying things like that myself.

[xanderh]

That's a bold claim about the [I]game's designer[/].

Well, considering his track record on Twitter, I'd say it's pretty much the common opinion about it around here. He's been notoriously inconsistent, and has been going back and changing stuff a lot without providing any reasoning or rationale as to why it's now different.

[Arkhios]

Well, considering his track record on Twitter, I'd say it's pretty much the common opinion about it around here. He's been notoriously inconsistent, and has been going back and changing stuff a lot without providing any reasoning or rationale as to why it's now different.

Still, if anyone ought to know what was the intent behind a rule, it's him, not the community.

[xanderh]

Still, if anyone ought to know what was the intent behind a rule, it's him, not the community.

And my opinion is that he stated the intent with his first tweet, and he's now going back and changing it because he couldn't deal with a player who used it in a campaign he ran. I can't really think of any other reason for changing this tweet specifically, when it is explicitly different to all other bonus actions dependent on another action.

[LudicSavant]

Apparently, he changed it because Shield Master was "a cheese factory"

Because everyone knows that it's Fighters who are the overpowered class in 5e, right?

Apparently, he changed it because Shield Master was "a cheese factory"

Source of cheese factory comment?

[EvilAnagram]

Any updates to this, given the new ruling on Shield Master?

Nope. That's a ruling that I don't see having a major impact at the table, even at official games. Especially not in a class with action surge.

Also, that's similar to how I interpreted the rules to begin with. The only difference is that I would make a player carry out at least one attack from the attack action, not all attacks.

[xanderh]

Because everyone knows that it's Fighters who are the overpowered class in 5e, right?



Source of cheese factory comment?

Unfortunately I don't have it anymore. It was posted in a thread here, but it's a while ago, and honestly I can't be bothered to search through his twitter feed. He's pretty active, and the search didn't turn up anything.

[Arkhios]

And my opinion is that he stated the intent with his first tweet, and he's now going back and changing it because he couldn't deal with a player who used it in a campaign he ran. I can't really think of any other reason for changing this tweet specifically, when it is explicitly different to all other bonus actions dependent on another action.

Twitter is so hectic that it's almost chaotic as a medium that it's more than possible to overlook a small tweet. I for one can't make head or tail of Twitter's format, and I sincerely doubt that I'm the only one, and thus I'm willing to give Crawford benefit of the doubt on that regard.

[LudicSavant]

Managed to find it.

Wow... seeing Jeremy Crawford refer to Shield Master working as it appears to be written (and as he originally said it was intended to work) as a "knock-'em-prone cheese factory" is seriously disconcerting. It stirs up bad memories of the 3e devs talking in serious tones about how, of all the things in the system, two-weapon fighting was the domain of scheming minmaxers.

I mean, even if Shield Master was overtuned for some reason or other (which is debatable), talking about it in such a way really does not inspire confidence in the notion that these design decisions are based on more than knee-jerk reactions.

[KorvinStarmast]

Twitter is so hectic that it's almost chaotic as a medium that it's more than possible to overlook a small tweet. I for one can't make head or tail of Twitter's format, and I sincerely doubt that I'm the only one, and thus I'm willing to give Crawford benefit of the doubt on that regard.

Until that thing on Shield Master goes into the SA compendium, I'd say it's "an interesting ruling" but that it isn't "official" in the way that the SA compendium is official.
A few thoughts recently from Crawford.

FWIW, my DM in our Tier 3 campaign decided that my Shield Master Champion's 'knock 'em down then kill 'em' was a little OP, so his ruling is
"If you use action surge, that bonus action at the end of your attack routine sets you up for advantage on those next three attacks- let that be enough". (The defensive bonuses are handy versus spells with Dex saves, to be sure)
We also discussed how me using that feature to set up our other melee attackers with prone enemies was a good enough feature: our barbarian with GWM loves him some advantage so that he does not have to use reckless attack for those attacks. The key for us is to stay near to each other ...

I am good with the ruling, since his rationale fits into how our game is going.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...01770158624768

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...59514018410496

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...59931347484672

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...60336068382720

[EvilAnagram]

Snip

To add to this, Crawford's ruling fits the text as written:

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.

I'm pretty sure most people read if-then statements as though the contingent action must precede the resultant action.

[KorvinStarmast]

To add to this, Crawford's ruling fits the text as written:

I'm pretty sure most people read if-then statements as though the contingent action must precede the resultant action.

Hmm, my browser/GiTP just ate both of my replies to you. Suffice to say it is not written as an if then statement, as I read it, but it is OK to disagree about that.

[quark12000]

Until that thing on Shield Master goes into the SA compendium, I'd say it's "an interesting ruling" but that it isn't "official" in the way that the SA compendium is official.
A few thoughts recently from Crawford.

FWIW, my DM in our Tier 3 campaign decided that my Shield Master Champion's 'knock 'em down then kill 'em' was a little OP, so his ruling is
"If you use action surge, that bonus action at the end of your attack routine sets you up for advantage on those next three attacks- let that be enough". (The defensive bonuses are handy versus spells with Dex saves, to be sure)
We also discussed how me using that feature to set up our other melee attackers with prone enemies was a good enough feature: our barbarian with GWM loves him some advantage so that he does not have to use reckless attack for those attacks. The key for us is to stay near to each other ...

I am good with the ruling, since his rationale fits into how our game is going.

Good for you. What about groups with mostly ranged fighters and only one or two melee people? In that case, especially at low levels, this ruling really cuts the testes out of Shield Master, making it pretty much another useless feat.

[EvilAnagram]

Good for you. What about groups with mostly ranged fighters and only one or two melee people? In that case, especially at low levels, this ruling really cuts the testes out of Shield Master, making it pretty much another useless feat.

There are many different builds that do not perform well in groups that cannot take advantage of them. That is why you should pay attention to party makeup when building a character. In Adventurers' League, it's wise to accept that sometimes party makeup will preclude certain styles.

[quark12000]

There are many different builds that do not perform well in groups that cannot take advantage of them. That is why you should pay attention to party makeup when building a character. In Adventurers' League, it's wise to accept that sometimes party makeup will preclude certain styles.

Uh...okay?

[EvilAnagram]

Uh...okay?

Allow me to explain: the fact that some parties won't benefit as much as others doesn't make it a bad feat. That can be said of almost every feature.

[LudicSavant]

I think the reason that that answer is unsatisfying to many people is because it doesn't work all that well to balance something kludgy and/or situational against a major investment resource that also can be used to buy something that is really not situational, like an ASI.