D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Stormonu]

So, now my archmage with a Robe of the Archmagi can have an AC 15 + DEX + carry around a Shield +3 in his free hand, not to mention the Staff of Power he is holding in his other hand (another AC +2), for a AC of 20 + DEX + Shield every round using his reaction. Awesome--BA is straining under the weight of JC's illogical and crazy rulings.

Hey, great way to have him unable to cast Somatic spells - he needs a free hand...

I don't even bother looking at Sage Advice, I can come up with as good or better answers on my own. Sometimes, I don't even bother with the RAW, if it interferes with how I want my game to work/feel.

 

[DND_Reborn]

JC is required to explain what the rules say in the article that goes by what the rules say. If you want how he would rule at his table, Sage advice is not the place to find it.

That is a fair enough point. He might (and hopefully probably does) play his own game differently than what he is required to do for his job.

Honestly? In todays current economic situation, questioning someone keeping their job, for doing their job the way that they are required to, is utterly loathsome behaviour.

LOL then Ignore me. I don't care.

Hey, great way to have him unable to cast Somatic spells - he needs a free hand...

You think by then I won't have War Caster???

Not to mention all the spells I can cast through my Staff of Power.

 

[NotAYakk]

Bob the tank.

Plate +3
Shield +3, shield +2 in other hand
ring and cloak of protection

30 base AC.

(Stacking: +2 and +3 shields are different!)

 

[DND_Reborn]

Bob the tank.

Plate +3
Shield +3, shield +2 in other hand
ring and cloak of protection

30 base AC.

(Stacking: +2 and +3 shields are different!)

Make him an EK and tack on the shield spell for when something actually does manage to hit you.

Of course, it doesn't look like Bob will be attacking much, will he? Or is his just using the Shield +2 as an improvised weapon???

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

The only SA I disagree with are the ones that don't follow the rules and instead make an actual illogical decision. SA tends to follow RAW and so when I run across a ruling from SA that I disagree with, it doesn't make the SA wrong necessarily. It makes it wrong for my game.

For instance, I agree with the people who won't allow the magic AC bonus in their games when someone is only holding a shield. But the SA is not wrong since it the normal rules say this is how it works. It was a clarification for RAW. If someone wants to use this information in their game more power to them.

SA rulings that don't follow the rules are the ones that bother me. Goodberry + Disciple of Life working together fits this bill for me. The spell was used when goodberry was cast. The duration is instantaneous. Right after the spell was cast the magic is done and you have a result. When someone eats it later, no spell is being used. But yet the ruling is that they work together. It simply is not written that way. As a DM I allow it as it seems to be the intent, but if I had to play by RAW only I could say no.

 

[Oofta]

I admit that the shield ruling just feels odd. It's like saying that because I have a +1 sword my attacks with a bow receive a +1. Or that because you have +1 leather armor in your backpack that the rogue no longer needs but are wearing normal plate that you still get the bonus to AC.

In any case, unless it states it specifically you don't get any benefit from an item unless you are using it in my campaign.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But the SA is not wrong since it the normal rules say this is how it works. It was a clarification for RAW.

But in SA they have the power to explain a different intent to the rule and express how in future printings the intent will be reflected. JC didn't do that. He stuck with a strict interpretation of (what I feel) is a ridiculous wording for magical shields. So, that means the design intent of magical shields IS to allow it as he indicates, which myself and others find silly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's like saying that because I have a +1 sword my attacks with a bow receive a +1. Or that because you have +1 leather armor in your backpack that the rogue no longer needs but are wearing normal plate that you still get the bonus to AC.

The problem is the wording for armor and weapons is it specifies that the armor must be worn and the weapon must be used in the attack roll, etc. for them to gain the benefits. You can't just be "holding them" or whatever.

Magical shields is a horrible wording which led to this SA response, and the response should not be just a strict interpretation of the wording but instead reflect a change in the intent of the wording which most people see as the most logical--a shield must be equipped for you to gain the bonus from the magical aspect.

This is why it is silly to rule otherwise IMO. JC has the authority and power to make the intent change if that was the intent, but he didn't so obviously WotC (and JC I guess) has a silly intent with magical shields.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Frankly, yes, yes I am. You know he had a huge development team working with him on it, right?

Being a good leader, organizer, etc. is one thing-- Allowing strict "RAW" (which for the umpteenth time doesn't really exist in 5E) interpretation of the rules which leads to silly and comical game-play.

So, now my archmage with a Robe of the Archmagi can have an AC 15 + DEX + carry around a Shield +3 in his free hand, not to mention the Staff of Power he is holding in his other hand (another AC +2), for a AC of 20 + DEX + Shield every round using his reaction. Awesome--BA is straining under the weight of JC's illogical and crazy rulings.

I stand by what I said--he could have easily ruled in a better and more logical way:


See, no muss, no fuss, simple and easy to do and avoids all sorts of stupid shenanigans.

Sage Advice isn’t a column for explaining how he’d rule at a table.

The RAW is quite clear.

And if you think that he just organized and directed the development of D&D, then we should drop this line of discussion. I have no polite response to that wholly absurd notion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To equip and use something you must be proficient. By your logic (and the one of SA) any can now use Martial weapons, wands, staves and whatever. But no... it must be on your list... so taking a magic initiate feat should do the trick... bha...

You say “by your logic” but you clearly haven’t actually understood my logic on any level.

And no, the SA ruling doesn’t mean that, at all. There is no rational path from what they wrote to what you’ve rhetorically concluded.