D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Umbran]

There is nothing to respond to.

Mod Note:
Then don't respond. Really. If it isn't worth a response, then just walk away. If the only things left to say are not constructive, there's no point in saying them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read the Mod Note before I posted so I've removed my response.

Thanks for helping bring me back from the edge, @Umbran.

 

[commandercrud]

I disagree with many design choices in 5e, and I think a lot of stuff said in Sage Advice is dumb. But I don't get the issue with Barkskin. That one is simple and clear. And the Sage Advice reiterates how simple and clear it is. Calculate your AC. Is it less than 16? Then it's 16.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The magic shields say “while holding” not any other language that would indicate that it must be equipped, much less properly equipped. That means that regardless of the general rule, each magic shield with that language gives its magical benefits while you hold it, regardless of how you hold it.

So given my scenario before, if a PC or creature picked up a magical shield and used it as a serving platter, you are okay with them gaining any magical bonus or feature associated with the magical shield. I mean, they aren't using it in any defensive manner at all, but the magic of the shield helps prevent attacks from hitting them anyway?

Forget the "wording" in the DMG, I agree that is the strict literal meaning, but you are fine with that intent (you seem to be) or are you simply debating that is a reasonable ruling?

but instead by some manner of projection of protective energy similar to a ring or cloak of spell of protection.

But these items must be worn according to their descriptions, and require attunement. So doesn't it seem prone to abuse that a PC without proficiency in shields could just hold a magical shield under their arm and get a magical bonus to their AC?

It seems prone to abuse to me, which is why I take such issue with this SA ruling. I suppose if magical items aren't prevalent in your game, then it is unlikely your front-liners would relinquish a magical shield to a caster just to they could carry it and gain an AC bonus.

If you are simply debating the point but feel otherwise that it seems a strange ruling, we are in agreement.
If you agree with the ruling because your game world (or table) wants magic seen in a more pervasive fashion, then please accept my apologies if my tone and vehemence on the issue caused any offense.

I get heated sometimes when things seem just "wrong to me" and appreciate the Mod stepping in to remind me to keep it civil.

 

[commandercrud]

If simply holding a magic shield was enough to benefit from it's magic, that would be fine. The problem is that nobody has ever seriously considered it to work that way in the 40+ years of D&D until now. I think one of the biggest problems with WOTC, especially lately, is their complete disregard for precedent. Jeremy Crawford is turning into the Rian Johnson of D&D.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If simply holding a magic shield was enough to benefit from it's magic, that would be fine.

Personally, I don't think it would be fine (and I can always house-rule it away), but if they made it clearer that such was actually the design intent (which admittedly I find really hard to believe...) instead of just poor wording, it would be better.

 

[commandercrud]

Personally, I don't think it would be fine (and I can always house-rule it away), but if they made it clearer that such was actually the design intent (which admittedly I find really hard to believe...) instead of just poor wording, it would be better.

I won't be accepting that SA advice either. I'm saying if it had been that way all along, it would have been fine. Changing it now after all these years is absurd. It clearly was never the design intent.

 

[Maxperson]

Not all non-strapped shields are been small, but no that isn’t the source of the disconnect, because no one who agrees with JC does so because of how they think shields work.

The magic shields say “while holding” not any other language that would indicate that it must be equipped, much less properly equipped.

The DMG rule says that they have to be strapped to the arm.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I disagree with many design choices in 5e, and I think a lot of stuff said in Sage Advice is dumb. But I don't get the issue with Barkskin. That one is simple and clear. And the Sage Advice reiterates how simple and clear it is. Calculate your AC. Is it less than 16? Then it's 16.

Heh... well, one person's 'simple and clear' is another person's 'dumb'. That's why we all get to decide for ourselves which if any of the errata and safe advice rulings we incorporate into our games.

 

[Maxperson]

Forget the "wording" in the DMG, I agree that is the strict literal meaning, but you are fine with that intent (you seem to be) or are you simply debating that is a reasonable ruling?

Here is the wording from the DMG again.

Page 139, "ARMOR Unless an armor's description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function."

There is no shield category, so they fall under armor.

Page 140, "WEARING AND WI ELDING ITEMS Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held."

Must be strapped to the arm. Why would they go through the effort to make these clear rules that state shields must be worn for their magic to function and then exempt them all with the word "hold."? This appears to be a case where the intent is for them to be worn, but Crawford realized that the word hold can be interpreted differently, so he ruled against the clear DMG rules, rather than just clarifying. It's dumb and I for one am not going to use the errata in my game.