D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Charlaquin]

FWIW I think hand crossbows should only do a point of damage and have limited range - they may be able to deliver poison but they're basically glorified toys. That, and there should be a slow loading property where it takes at least a turn to reload.

But nobody ever claimed D&D was particularly realistic, particularly when it comes to implementation of ranged weapons. Where we draw the line is just a bit different.

The blowgun actually makes pretty decent “hand crossbow” stats. I just eliminate the hand crossbow and call the blowgun a “dart gun.”

 

[Laurefindel]

Oddly enough, if you used two hands and held a shield between you and an attacker, basically taking the Use an Object action.

Using two shields, either "holding" them or "wielding" them, like dual-wielding lances on a horse (which may have been specifically forbidden in 5e, I can't recall), is a separate issue from the magical bonus to AC of a held shield. One I have less tolerance for as a matter of fact. One ruling does not make another ruling true.

[edit] that... has nothing to do with what you said. My apologies. I don't know where I got that ...

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.)

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.

I don't think "in your backpack" qualifies as "held", otherwise spells wouldn't specify "equipment held or carried by a creature..." Similarly, "strapped on your back" wouldn't qualify as "held". To hold something, you need to have it in your hand (other than your breath, yeah, yeah). Now this is yet another ruling; I don't think this is expressly stated. Might want to ask the Sage about that...

Now, a shield differs from a breastplate in the way it is used. A breastplate needs to be worn. A shield is, in fact, held in one's hand. See my example above about partially donned armour for a better parallel.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Now, a shield differs from a breastplate in the way it is used. A breastplate needs to be worn. A shield is, in fact, held in one's hand. See my example above about partially donned armour for a better parallel.

My point was for a person not proficient in Shields, you are basically just holding the shield in front of you to give you cover--a breastplate (as an example) would serve just as well.

As I have stated numerous times, the wording in the DMG should be changed to represent how a shield is actually used. I am convinced (and no one will convince me otherwise short of JC telling me I am wrong--in which case I will laughingly acknowledge it--laughing because it is ludicrous!) that the intent was for the shield to be donned. Using the wording "held" should mean "donned" or "equipped."

If they ACTUALLY meant merely holding it--well, it is just pathetic IMO. Anyone who actually agrees with that silly design philosophy is something I should not repeat. Sorry to say it, but there you go.

 

[Laurefindel]

As I have stated numerous times, the wording in the DMG should be changed to represent how a shield is actually used. I am convinced (and no one will convince me otherwise short of JC telling me I am wrong--in which case I will laughingly acknowledge it--laughing because it is ludicrous!) that the intent was for the shield to be donned. Using the wording "held" should mean "donned" or "equipped."

It could have at least been "wielded" like all the other magical shields in the DMG (as far as I know), which at least implies proficiency.

 

[Helldritch]

So, by the wording, just holding a +3 leather armor in front of and using it as shield should give me a nice +3 bonus to my AC.

Well done Mr C. I am now forced not to give magical armor so as to not improved AC on all characters. That is pure silliness.

And yes, you can manoeuvrer a light to medium armor breast as a shield. A bit unweildy but doable. We saw that in a medieval fair at the fighting demo. It was not the best thing to do, but it was doable.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Clearly, somewhere in the world, it is 1 April.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It could have at least been "wielded" like all the other magical shields in the DMG (as far as I know), which at least implies proficiency.

Actually, that's the rub.

Sadly, every magical shield in the DMG uses the phrase "While holding this shield..." instead of "While you have this shield equipped..."

 

[billd91]

Actually, that's the rub.

Sadly, every magical shield in the DMG uses the phrase "While holding this shield..." instead of "While you have this shield equipped..."

Equipped (or not-equipped) isn’t a strong term in D&D. It strikes me as more of a computer game/tool than a common D&D term.

That said, DMG 140 suggests, under the Wearing and Wielding Items heading, that a shield must be strapped on or otherwise used in its intended fashion to use its properties rather than held in some other fashion, say as a tray for cheese and crudités.
So, another Sage Advice gone awry as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Laurefindel]

Actually, that's the rub.

Sadly, every magical shield in the DMG uses the phrase "While holding this shield..." instead of "While you have this shield equipped..."

Does it? I thought only the +1,2,3 say “hold” and the others say “wield”.
[edit] guess not...

 

[commandercrud]

I drop my shield, cast fireball, then pick up the magic shield. Stupid. So, so stupid.