D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[DND_Reborn]

Can't we use our individual flavor of common sense as DMs and just ignore a rule or ruling? As has been done since time began? (D&D time obviously)

Completely what I'm going to do after I share this SA ruling with our table so we can laugh our collective butts off at the idiocy that is WotC and the lack of wisdom displayed by this SA.

Also really? Someone is handing out +3 shields? Holy heck! No thanks. A +1 shield in most of my worlds is already hella powerful.

What? Handing out an magic item that is actually listed in the DMG??? SHOCKER!

Whether it is a Shield +1, +2, or +3 doesn't matter, the fact is that with this ruling pretty much any character can hold a shield +X and gain a +X bonus to their AC even though they might not know how to actually use a shield.

 

[Laurefindel]

Completely what I'm going to do after I share this SA ruling with our table so we can laugh our collective butts off at the idiocy that is WotC and the lack of wisdom displayed by this SA.


What? Handing out an magic item that is actually listed in the DMG??? SHOCKER!

Whether it is a Shield +1, +2, or +3 doesn't matter, the fact is that with this ruling pretty much any character can hold a shield +X and gain a +X bonus to their AC even though they might not know how to actually use a shield.

If I were a D&D character, I don't think I would qualify for shield proficiency. Nevertheless, I understand the basic principle of holding the shield between me and the enemy. So I wouldn't get the shield bonus to AC (lack of proficiency), but getting some benefit from it because the shield is magical? That doesn't break my suspension of disbelieve.

Now the rules a a bit weird about differentiating "holding" and "wielding", one being a free interaction and the other a full action. When someone is holding a shield in combat, I'd assume they're holding it by the handle rather than wearing it like a hat, so really the action of donning a shield is about getting ready to properly block a blow. So an ordinary (unready) shield gives no protection even to a proficient user, but in the case of a magical one, its magic would make it partially useful? Again, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that hard.

So cheesy as f**k, but not that hard to accept IMO. And what, handing out a legendary magic item might be broken in some situation??? SHOCKER!

[edit] ok, magic shields aren't that rare. You can me back!

 

[Helldritch]

It reminds me of the sage advice column in the Dragon Magazine during the 1ed era. Never did they made so many contoversial rulings. In fact, they always used the original intent, the goal and what it should have been as a basis for their rulings. Maybe SA should go back ro these...

 

[the Jester]

I didn't see anyone mention the magic missile SA yet- roll once and apply that to each missile? That's some bad Sage Advice, in my opinion.

 

[Krachek]

As far as the holding the shield thing is concerned... he's basically saying holding a magic shield in your hands is no different than putting a Ring of Protection on your finger. You're getting a bonus to your AC through whatever goofy-ass magical force field surrounds you when you have one of those defensive objects on your person.

Honestly, I can kinda understand it when looked at in that way. If a little ring of metal on one of your fingers can protect you from attacks for some reason... there's no reason why holding a big disc of metal couldn't do the same thing.

Same thing as the magic tea cup +2, holding it give +2 AC, +3 if your pinky finger is up.

 

[Laurefindel]

As for other stupid advice, I don't think disallowing teleportation to move further than 30 feet away in the case of a compelled duel goes against the spirit of the spell that magically compels you to focus on the caster, even if teleportation is not a "move". I mean it's a ruling, fine, but I fail to see the stupidity of it.

As for shield master, the trick gets old after a while and borders caricature. Knock, then attack twice (or three or four times) with advantage, making the enemy look like a buffoon falling on its ass every second round in average. The feat isn't useless even is the bonus action happens after, unless you are fighting alone. That being said, it doesn't address the comedic effect, and it creates a weird precedent as it works differently from the rest of the game. Bah, messy. I prefer to ignore it and fluff "prone" as "unbalanced enough to be a bitch" condition. But that's my ruling; I don't think the SA one is stupid.

 

[Laurefindel]

Same thing as the magic tea cup +2, holding it give +2 AC, +3 if your pinky finger is up.

yeah, but it requires attunement. So totally not broken

 

[Aaron L]

So an ordinary (unready) shield gives no protection even to a proficient user, but in the case of a magical one, its magic would make it partially useful? Again, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that hard.

But this is akin to a King Arthur carrying Excalibur around on his hip, and becoming better at fighting with his dagger as a result. It does make a certain kind of sense, but in a way that is abstract, overly gamist, and distasteful to me. In fact it feels like gaming the system rather than playing the game.

Does carrying around a suit of magic armor in your pack also magically protect you? And if not, why not, by the logic of this ruling?

 

[DND_Reborn]

If I were a D&D character, I don't think I would qualify for shield proficiency. Nevertheless, I understand the basic principle of holding the shield between me and the enemy. So I wouldn't get the shield bonus to AC (lack of proficiency), but getting some benefit from it because the shield is magical? That doesn't break my suspension of disbelieve.

Oddly enough, if you used two hands and held a shield between you and an attacker, basically taking the Use an Object action, as a DM I would allow you a half-cover bonus to your AC and under that situation allow the +X of a magical shield to apply (maybe... I'm not absolutely certain, but at least you could argue it in this scenario).

But, this requires you to "use" the shield since you lack proficiency, and sacrificing your action to gain a bonus to your AC is reasonable (you are probably better off just Dodging, but whatever shrug).

If, you are trying to hold the shield in one hand without having it donned, you aren't using it to protect you in any fashion, and so you should not get any bonus, even from the magic. Hell, you might as well be holding a Breastplate +1 in your hand and argue you should get the +1 bonus from the breastplate! Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me and does break my suspension of disbelief. (To be clear, if you held the breastplate and took the Use an Object action to put it between yourself and an attacker--maybe, maybe I would allow the +1 for the magic armor... maybe.)

Now the rules a a bit weird about differentiating "holding" and "wielding", one being a free interaction and the other a full action. When someone is holding a shield in combat, I'd assume they're holding it by the handle rather than wearing it like a hat, so really the action of donning a shield is about getting ready to properly block a blow. So an ordinary (unready) shield gives no protection even to a proficient user, but in the case of a magical one, its magic would make it partially useful? Again, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that hard.

Yeah, no I still wouldn't follow this. If you had a shield +X slung on your back, you aren't going to get the +X to your AC. AC is too important in 5E due to BA, etc. so I wouldn't allow it.

Like every other magic item, if you want the benefit the item confers, you must use the item as it was intended to be used.

And what, handing out a legendary magic item might be broken in some situation??? SHOCKER!

[edit] ok, magic shields aren't that rare. You can me back!

Nah, that was about the Robe of the Archmagi. The Shield +2 in the OP is a rare item. We are in tier 4, but have two PCs with them. shrug

 

[Laurefindel]

But this is akin to a King Arthur carrying Excalibur around on his hip, and becoming better at fighting with his dagger as a result. It does make a certain kind of sense, but in a way that is abstract, overly gamist, and distasteful to me. In fact it feels like gaming the system rather than playing the game.

Does carrying around a suit of magic armor in your pack also magically protect you? And if not, why not, by the logic of this ruling?

No, Excalibur on Arthur's hip is like a shield on your backpack; it's carried but it isn't held. Its more like Excalibur being used still in it's scabbard. Normally it wouldn't deal any damage, but one could argue that it would deal its magical bonus as damage on a hit... A bit stretchy as rulings go, but not completely without sense.

A held shield needs to be in one or both your hands*, otherwise it's not held by you. It's not wielded because those are two different thing as far as the game goes. So you are holding your shield in front of you, like a big plate. Or if its a central grip shield, you could hold it by, you know, the central grip. You are not wielding it, at least not in the sense described by the game, because you didn't spend an action to do so, or you are not proficient with it.

Back to the case where you hold (but not wield) your shield in front of you. A generous DM could give you half cover for it but by the rules, you are just holding it and get nada. Is it that unbelievable to say that a magical shield - and enchanted item - gives you a bit more protection?

It is harder to make a parallel with magical armour. But let's say you are getting interrupted as you are getting it on. A heavy armour takes 10 minutes to don. lets say you had 6 minutes. So you are wearing it or at least part of it, but you have none of your armour's AC because that's what it says in the PHB. Perhaps a magical armour could give its magical bonus to AC? That wouldn't be an illogical ruling.

*that in itself is a ruling; I have no idea whether "held" is defined differently as "carried" by RAW. But it makes at least a modicum of sense.