D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[DND_Reborn]

So, another Sage Advice gone awry as far as I’m concerned.

Yep. Sadly...

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Yeah, I checked it when referencing before posting the OP.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

RAW, you would get the AC benefit of the shield without proficiency. You would also get disadvantage on attack rolls and be unable to cast spells (note that this includes verbal-only spells).

Which is... better, I guess?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Once again, Jeremy shows he's the type of player I would throw out of my house. Nothing new.

 

[oriaxx77]

Heh... yeah, but some people think that SA was right on the money. Which is why I said many of Jeremy's SAs can make sense from a certain point of view, cause some people actually agree with him on occasion.

Although you are wrong, @dnd4vr , Obi-Wan doesn't have any grave to roll over in. He's "one with the force".

There are some people who would agree on anything just to contradict you.

 

[Azzy]

The point is for this (and other) bad rulings is they already intend to update the text in the DMG and other books in later printings--it is part of many of the new SA responses, so why not instead rule "Magical shields must be equipped for you to benefit from them." or something and then update the DMG in the next printing to "While you have this shield equipped, you have a bonus..."

That's beyond the scope of SA, though. If the DMG isn't getting a reprint at this time, then SA isn't going to go there. If it does get errata'd in the next printing, then there would be no need for an SA. However, they aren't going to issue an errata without a reprint and SA isn't going to issue a "soft" errata.

It also helps to understand what SA does:

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.

But, yes, I wouldn't have ruled it that way (and likely won't if the issue ever came up—though given that it's only an action to don the shield, I seriously doubt that this will ever come up). That said, I can see the logic of this ruling from both a RAW perspective (RE: "holding a shield" as opposed to having it donned) and a fluff perspected (the magic doesn't care if you're wielding it properly).

 

[Azzy]

yeah, but it requires attunement. So totally not broken

I disagree. Teacups are easily brokem.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

That's beyond the scope of SA, though. If the DMG isn't getting a reprint at this time, then SA isn't going to go there. If it does get errata'd in the next printing, then there would be no need for an SA. However, they aren't going to issue an errata without a reprint and SA isn't going to issue a "soft" errata.

The scope of Sage Advice is whatever WotC decides it is. They could instead define it differently and to give players and DM better advice for running their games. Instead, WotC has chosen to prioritize the rulers lawyer's approach.

Whether one thinks the current scope of SA is the most effective one is, of course, a matter of taste.

 

[Lanefan]

Seems pretty unreasonable, to me. Not to mention that the ruling in question is absolutely the correct ruling RAW and a reasonable ruling RAI. It’s a magic shield. Why would the magic care of its properly equipped?

Same reason the magic of pretty much any other wearable item cares if it's properly equipped, I suppose.

The only argument I can see against it is from a gamist perspective that it messes with gameplay somehow or is unfair to users of proper shields or whatever.

The argument against it is from a realist perspective: shields aren't much use unless you've donned them, just like armour isn't much use unless you're wearing it and a weapon isn't much use unless it's unsheathed and in your hand (preferably with the business end away from you).

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

The RAW is quite clear.

Perhaps, but when said RAW is clearly also garbage-as-written you'd think he'd take the opportunity to fix it. (does he have control over what becomes official errata, or do others have to be involved in that process?)

In any case, the ruling that made me realize he's off his nut (or is somehow compelled by his position to post as if he is, which is sad for him) was what he did with counterspells.

 

[Laurefindel]

Same reason the magic of pretty much any other wearable item cares if it's properly equipped, I suppose.

The argument against it is from a realist perspective: shields aren't much use unless you've donned them, just like armour isn't much use unless you're wearing it and a weapon isn't much use unless it's unsheathed and in your hand (preferably with the business end away from you).

Perhaps, but when said RAW is clearly also garbage-as-written you'd think he'd take the opportunity to fix it. (does he have control over what becomes official errata, or do others have to be involved in that process?)

In any case, the ruling that made me realize he's off his nut (or is somehow compelled by his position to post as if he is, which is sad for him) was what he did with counterspells.

Even if the same terms are use (don/doff), the method remains different. You don't don an armor by holding it; you don it by wearing it. A shield on the other hand, is donned by being held.

Weapons are similar whereas holding and wielding are both used in the rule, sometimes interchangeably, sometimes with nuances. Still, you wield a weapon by holding it. Not by wearing it on your hip, or by carrying it in your pack.

Personally, I don't agree with that ruling, but I also reject how this thread treats this ruling as "stupid", and that anyone believing otherwise is being laughingly ludicrous.