D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[doctorbadwolf]

.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

In that 5e is probably the best iteration of D&D, just like The Last Jedi is one of the best SW movies, sure.

 

[Helldritch]

In that 5e is probably the best iteration of D&D, just like The Last Jedi is one of the best SW movies, sure.

Yes, 5ed is the most popular iteration of D&D. No questions about that. Strangely, OSR movement also know quite a renewal of interest too. A lot of people that played 5ed that I knew are migrating toward OSR. 5ed got the chance to surf on a wave of resurgence for the hobby, thanks to Stranger Things and to Critical Role (and a few others) that resparkled the flame in many old players that had left the hobby and piked the interest of younger ones that had never played before. A bunch of these are now trying older iterations of the game.

Would I go back to 1ed? Nope, I prefer 5ed. But we must be aware of that 5ed got very lucky to get out at the time it did. The perfect timing that every businesses dream of. Sometimes, I wonder if PF had started to make its PF2 and got it out before 5ed what would've happened. But still, being the best iteration does not make it flawless. It does not make its makers unfailable too. Heck, even I can make mistakes. But I am fast to admit them when I am shown or proven wrong. The best thing about having a very democratic game where I, as a DM, can be out veto by the players is that you have to admit when you make a mistake. It took me years to get there. I would not go back. SA would gain by having not one, but many players/DMs to check (and vote?) on some rulings. A concensus would bring a lot less debate. But, I do love to debate...

 

[Istbor]

Then read some more my friend. It is not because a shield is magical that it stops working as normal shield. Yes some shields have special properties. These are written down in their description. Otherwise, a magical item behave just like a non magical one save that it does what it does way better because of its magic.

If you took care to read the DMG excerpt that @Maxperson graciously provided, you would have seen that in both RAW and RAI, we are right. But for some reasons, SA stopped at one part of the DMG and forgot the rest. Me and a few others, are simply trying to make the other one, that if he applies the SA, it then becomes a houserule as the SA is evidently wrong. It would not be the first time that SA is wrong on an account.

Sorry. I respect Maxperson and his opinions. They are just that, opinions. Neither of you can tell me what is right for my campaign or my table, nor can Sage Advice for that matter.

Really I was hoping to point out the futility of the argument that one person's interpretation of how a magic spell on a shield works is right compared to another's. Perhaps that is an argument you feel is worth having, in which case. My mistake.

 

[commandercrud]

D&D isn't more popular than ever because of 5e. The current edition was just the one out at the time D&D became more popular. Stop holding it up on a pedestal.

 

[Helldritch]

Sorry. I respect Maxperson and his opinions. They are just that, opinions. Neither of you can tell me what is right for my campaign or my table, nor can Sage Advice for that matter.

True up to a certain point. We can't tell you what is right for your table. But we can tell you what is RAW and RAI. And Max proved we were right. But you can always homebrew what feels right at your table.

Really I was hoping to point out the futility of the argument that one person's interpretation of how a magic spell on a shield works is right compared to another's. Perhaps that is an argument you feel is worth having, in which case. My mistake.

It is a game. But at a certain point, when "official" is in the wrong side of what should be and that "official" is now how people will look at it. It is important to put things in perspective so that new players do not jump to false conclusion.

D&D isn't more popular than ever because of 5e. The current edition was just the one out at the time D&D became more popular. Stop holding it up on a pedestal.

Exactly my point. 5ed enjoyed a massive boost because of many factors. I mentionned a few of them in my post above. I do believe that it is the best iteration so far, but it does have its flaws. Yep, it does.

 

[DND_Reborn]

D&D isn't more popular than ever because of 5e.

True. I think it is more popular because back when we played D&D in the 80's it was for "nerds" and "weirdos". Video games are even more mainstream now due to online gaming than even in the arcade era, and because of that D&D and RPG gaming as well has become more "accepted" by the masses. I'm not saying 5E doesn't have its good points--it certainly does--but that is not the primary reason for its success.

Anyway, enough on that for me, I don't want this to digress into yet another edition wars thread.

 

[cbwjm]

May have missed this but where does it say in the books that if not proficient with a shield you can't gain the AC bonus? Doesn't it just follow the same rules as armour giving disadvantage on strength/dexterity checks and saves and prevent spellcasting?

 

[Oofta]

D&D isn't more popular than ever because of 5e. The current edition was just the one out at the time D&D became more popular. Stop holding it up on a pedestal.

That ... is a statement with zero foundation. Many factors have contributed to the success of 5E, but saying that it has nothing to do with it's popularity is completely nonsensical.

That doesn't mean I put the edition (or sage advice) up on a pedestal, it's just acknowledging reality.

 

[Helldritch]

May have missed this but where does it say in the books that if not proficient with a shield you can't gain the AC bonus? Doesn't it just follow the same rules as armour giving disadvantage on strength/dexterity checks and saves and prevent spellcasting?

I'll repost Maxperson. And yes it goes the direction you're hinting at. But not the sage advice.

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.

I really don't know how SA could have missed that...