D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Maxperson]

The Arrow-Catching Shield on p152 doesn't.

The items in the DMG switch between "hold," "wear," and "make an attack with". The more items I look at, the more convinced I am that this really is intentional. Maybe it's because they wanted Missile Attractor and Sentinel to work for any character who has the items, but I really can believe that this was intended. The way the item descriptions are written, it would be an obvious thing to consider for every item while reviewing them.


Zero reason... except for all the non-shield armors that the quoted sections cover? Zero reason... except for the shields that don't say they're worn items?

Yep. The ONE exception gets wielded, making it an offensive weapon if you take the word at a face value like you're trying to do with hold. The reality is that this edition, while fun, is very sloppily written.

I've quoted the rules. Shields are part of armor and armor MUST be worn for the magic to work. In the wearing/worn section shields MUST be strapped to the arm. Except that not one shield says worn in the description and all say other things. You're trying to game the system, which can be fun in your game.

I'm going with RAW and RAI which say that shields have to be worn.

 

[FarBeyondC]

I dunno, I'm fine with (almost) every official shield being an exception to the general rules for magic armor, given things like Evocation Wizards not even having (unless they managed to get Sacred Flame somehow) a cantrip of their school that could be used with their school's subclass feature (Potent Cantrip) until over 3 years into the start of the edition proper.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Again @Maxperson is right.
This is gaming the system. They used common language when a specific language was required. And now, for a simple "word" mistake, people are allowed to do nonsensical thing that isn't even RAW or RAI from the beginning but because of one missused word becomes more or less RAW.

In addition, this is not refering to a specific shield's description. It is a general description. Remember Flying shield? This one you don't have to carry/wear/don to activate it's flying power. That is one specific shield. The rest of the shields should abide by the general rule or otherwise there would not be a general rule to begin with.

"Gaming the system"? This is from a ruling from the system's designer telling us that it provides a benefit when nobody though it did.

And, look, I'm not arguing you should play this way. I'm not planning on it. But the book reads how the book reads. While the outcome of Crawford's ruling isn't how I plan to run the game, it is consistent with how the book actually reads.

And I'm not really sure how this is gaming anything. Like okay, what are the possibilities with a +2 shield under these rules:

1. You're proficient and wielding it, granting you +4 AC.
2. You're proficient and holding it, granting you +2 AC.
3. You're not proficient and holding it, granting you +2 AC.
4. You're not proficient and wielding it, granting you +4 AC but causing you to suffer disadvantage on Str and Dex ability checks, saves, and attack rolls and you're not able to cast spells.

Like... #1 is what it's balanced around. #2 is basically never coming up. #4 is still possible if we say it has to be wielded to benefit. Do we really care if a magic-user uses it as hand-held bracers of armor? Are any of the above broken or something? Do we care that parties where every character who can use a shield is using a two-handed weapon or TWF can suddenly pass the magic shield to the Wizard or Sorcerer? It's not like it's free AC. As far as I can tell, holding means holding the item in hand. That's what it means for rods, staves, wands, a luckblade, etc. I haven't searched to confirm that definition but it does seem to be the most consistent.

Like what's the difference between this and a magic crystal orb that says, "When held, you gain +2 to your armor class. If you're proficient with shields, you instead gain +4 to your armor class. This bonus doesn't stack with a shield." Sure, there's some nuanced corner cases where it's different like Shield Master, but for basically every character in basically every circumstance this is just identical. Like what's the design problem here?

Is there a narrative problem? I don't think so. Like, I guess it's weird, but I don't see anything wrong with a protective item's magic being so potent that it can defend someone even if they don't understand how to use the shield it's on. That's actually pretty consistent with media representations.

Honestly, this is the exact kind of ruling I should be in favor of. It's everything I want. The outcome isn't broken. It's open rather than restrictive. It's easy to ignore if you don't like it, too. It's trivial for a DM to say that the item has to be used like a normal shield to benefit. I don't really agree with the design, but I like the ruling.

Yep. The ONE exception gets wielded, making it an offensive weapon if you take the word at a face value like you're trying to do with hold. The reality is that this edition, while fun, is very sloppily written.

I've quoted the rules. Shields are part of armor and armor MUST be worn for the magic to work. In the wearing/worn section shields MUST be strapped to the arm. Except that not one shield says worn in the description and all say other things. You're trying to game the system, which can be fun in your game.

I'm going with RAW and RAI which say that shields have to be worn.

No, shields are described by the game as wielded. PHB p144, "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time." That's the rule the game provides for how shields work.

I would agree that "worn" is a synonym, but the game actually is being consistent with its own terminology here.

 

[Don Durito]

I just think:

1) If the difference between "hold" and "wield" is intentional then that actually needs to be specified. It becomes technical language.
2) If you're intentionally leaving things ambiguous so GMs can make rulings - then for gods sake do this consistently - don't then have a service where you go ahead and make technical rulings that you were too lazy to make explicitly in the book.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

No one is holding anything on a pedestal, here.

Acting like 5e had nothing to do with the popularity of D&D right now is completely nonsensical, however.

 

[Azzy]

Dude. They all do. This is a situation where they misused a word "carry" and people are now trying to game the system. There is absolutely ZERO reason for those two quotes to exist if the word "carry" is correct in the shield descriptions.

Like I said previously in this thread, I don't agree with Jeremy's ruling on this and wouldn't implement it.

With that out of the way, I am curious though. What people are trying to game the system with this ruling? And what are they actually gaining by thus gaming the system? It takes an action to don a shield (as opposed to an object interaction, I assume, to pick up a shield to hold it). While holding the shield without using an action to don it, you don't get the shield's AC bonus—you only gain the shield's magical bonus (which will be from +1 to +3).

So for a character with proficiency in shields, this only really seems viable in emergency situations where the party is attacked when they haven't yet suited up. Even then, the benefits of doing this as opposed to spending an action to don the shield isn't very much. For characters that are not proficient with shields, they would be at disadvantage to ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls while using the shield. Additionally, they couldn't cast spells.

So, what are you seeing here that I'm not?

 

[Bacon Bits]

I just think:

1) If the difference between "hold" and "wield" is intentional then that actually needs to be specified. It becomes technical language.
2) If you're intentionally leaving things ambiguous so GMs can make rulings - then for gods sake do this consistently - don't then have a service when go ahead and make technical rulings that you were too lazy to make explicitly in the book.

Well, it makes more sense with the other shields in the DMG.

Animated Shield is "held", but when you activate it you're not able to wield it at all.

Arrow-Catching Shield requires being wielded to get any benefit. Okay, not an issue.

Sentinel Shield is "held", but the magic grants advantage on perception and initiative. Anybody might want that magic, and it kind of sucks if you have to soak the non-proficiency penalties to get it.

Shield, +1-+3, is listed as requiring being "held". It's magic historically has been kind of been "same as regular shield but better."

Shield of Missile Attraction is "held" and grants resistance to ranged weapon attacks, but it's also cursed so it affects you even when you put it down.

Spellguard Shield is "held", and really powerful. Advantage on all saves against spells and magic, and spell attacks have disadvantage against you. Again, you might want it even if you can't use the shield part of the item.

IMO, the only weird one is the +1 to +3 shield. That's the only one where it seems weird for it to grant a benefit for just holding it. I mean, why wouldn't the other items work just by holding them?

I don't disagree that the items should be a little more specific about how holding a shield and wielding a shield are different, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Like I said previously in this thread, I don't agree with Jeremy's ruling on this and wouldn't implement it.

With that out of the way, I am curious though. What people are trying to game the system with this ruling? And what are they actually gaining by thus gaming the system? It takes an action to don a shield (as opposed to an object interaction, I assume, to pick up a shield to hold it). While holding the shield without using an action to don it, you don't get the shield's AC bonus—you only gain the shield's magical bonus (which will be from +1 to +3).

So for a character with proficiency in shields, this only really seems viable in emergency situations where the party is attacked when they haven't yet suited up. Even then, the benefits of doing this as opposed to spending an action to don the shield isn't very much. For characters that are not proficient with shields, they would be at disadvantage to ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls while using the shield. Additionally, they couldn't cast spells.

So, what are you seeing here that I'm not?

I'm seeing wizards(and other spellcasters) get a free AC bonus since they only need one hand free to cast spells. If they have to wear it to get the bonus, they get disadvantage to a lot of things. Just holding it, though? That gives them basically a ring of protection that they wouldn't otherwise be able to use without a hefty penalty.

 

[Azzy]

I'm seeing wizards(and other spellcasters) get a free AC bonus since they only need one hand free to cast spells. If they have to wear it to get the bonus, they get disadvantage to a lot of things. Just holding it, though? That gives them basically a ring of protection that they wouldn't otherwise be able to use without a hefty penalty.

Fair enough. In that case, were I to use Jeremy's ruling, I would still use my DM's power adjudicate that the penalties of non-proficiency in shields extends to "holding" them as well as "wearing" them. DMs gotta make rulings when the rules are silent or when there is weird or unintended interactions in the existing rules.

 

[commandercrud]

This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC.

In addition. Therefore, must be donned.