D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[FrogReaver]

Actually it is, but indirectly.

A shield, like any piece of armor, must be donned to benefit from it, and must be doffed to remove the benefit. (See the Donning and Doffing Armor table in the Player's Basic Rules.)

Dropping an object you are holding is not specifically defined in the rules, but is usually ruled as not an action, as there is nothing in the rules for Interact with an Object or Use an Object that require you to use it to drop an item you are holding. If you could remove the benefit of a shield this way, or by using the free 'interact with an object' action available to a character each turn to put the shield away, just as a character can use that action to sheathe or draw a weapon (see the list of Interacting With Objects Around You in the Player's Basic Rules), then you could argue that the rules treat 'holding' and 'wielding' a shield as the same.

Since dropping an item you are holding does not require an action, and removing a shield you are wielding does require an action and does not qualify for the Interact with an Object action, wielding a shield is not the same as holding it in the rules as written. A DM could certainly rule that a character could use Interact with an Object to 'put away' a shield in contradiction of the Donning and Doffing Armor table, but that doesn't change the rules as written.

--
Pauper

Good. Followup position. the Armor Proficiency rule only calls out "wearing" armor while not proficient giving you all the bad effects. Does one actually wear a shield?

 

[Maxperson]

Good. Followup position. the Armor Proficiency rule only calls out "wearing" armor while not proficient giving you all the bad effects. Does one actually wear a shield?

Yep. According to the DMG Magic Items section, shields are worn strapped to the arm.

"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."

 

[Azzy]

I think that the biggest take away from this for many here is that using pedantically adhered-to RAW minutia for a loosely-written game like 5e that endorses a "rulings, not rules" DIY ethos as the basis for answering rules questions is... questionable. I really think that Jeremy should answer rules questions with a "this is what we intended, but you can choose to rule otherwise" approach.

 

[Bacon Bits]

No no. I'm not talking about one rarity being better than another. They make cards that are flat out bad and will never be used, just to make good cards, regardless of rarity, stand out.

No, it's to teach players that there are benefits to evaluating cards. If every card is more or less equal, then it's hard learn that you should evaluate them. It's not clear that there's any benefit to doing so. It's only a handful of cards in any one set, too, because people also don't like buying bad cards.

I'm not sure if D&D didn't do this with some of their spells and abilities. Destroy Undead, Brutal Critical, Ray of Enfeeblement, Indomitable, Witch Bolt, True Strike, Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Mordekainen's Sword, Tenser's Transformation, Stoneskin, Weird, Illusory Script, Horrid Wilting, etc. These are genuinely terrible spells and abilities. I can't imagine how they made it to print as written except that they just didn't have time.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's to teach players that there are benefits to evaluating cards. If every card is more or less equal, then it's hard learn that you should evaluate them. It's not clear that there's any benefit to doing so. It's only a handful of cards in any one set, too, because people also don't like buying bad cards.

No. WotC straight up said that the reason was to make good cards shine. Are you saying that they lied to us?

I'm not sure if D&D didn't do this with some of their spells and abilities. Destroy Undead, Brutal Critical, Ray of Enfeeblement, Indomitable, Witch Bolt, True Strike, Natural Explorer, Favored Enemy, Mordekainen's Sword, Tenser's Transformation, Stoneskin, Weird, Illusory Script, Horrid Wilting, etc. These are genuinely terrible spells and abilities. I can't imagine how they made it to print as written except that they just didn't have time.

Maybe. That's why I said that I didn't know if they did of the the reasons that they stated bad Magic cards are made, but it's possible since they do have a history of doing that sort of thing.

 

[Bacon Bits]

No. WotC straight up said that the reason was to make good cards shine. Are you saying that they lied to us?

No, I'm saying they didn't say that. They did say this:

To recap (or to fill in for those unwilling to read the long version):

1. By definition, some bad cards have to exist. (The most important reason.)
2. Some cards are “bad” because they aren’t meant for you.
3. Some cards are “bad” because they’re designed for a less advanced player.
4. Some cards are “bad” because the right deck for them doesn’t exist yet.
5. “Bad” cards reward the more skilled player.
6. Some players enjoy discovering good “bad” cards.
7. Some “bad” cards are simply R&D goofing up.

I think my argument that it's about teaching players how to evaluate cards is exemplified in #3, #4, #5 and #6.

You might argue "making good cards shine" is #1, but that's not what MaRo is saying at all. Indeed, in the explanation for #1 MaRo makes it pretty clear that this reason is the natural consequence of the game's design rather than an intentional design feature on R&D's part. The "bad" cards in one of the Masters sets are much better than those in a regular set, but they're still bad in limited with that set.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "making good cards shine," but to me that means that the bad cards exist because by existing it makes the good cards look better. That is, if your game is full of Scorching Spears, it makes Shock look pretty good, therefore Scorching Spear should exist.

 

[Pauper]

"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."

And, to bring us back around to the original point, this text in the DMG directly contradicts the passage in Sage Advice. If you're running a game in Adventurers League, you'll be expected to use this rule, not the advice offered by the Sage.

--
Pauper

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

And, to bring us back around to the original point, this text in the DMG directly contradicts the passage in Sage Advice. If you're running a game in Adventurers League, you'll be expected to use this rule, not the advice offered by the Sage.

--
Pauper

I believe that the discussion lies in whether the specific rule in the rules for that particular item overrules the general rule for magic items and shields as a whole.

 

[Oofta]

I believe that the discussion lies in whether the specific rule in the rules for that particular item overrules the general rule for magic items and shields as a whole.

The problem I have with this particular ruling is that the entire rule set is using common language, not technical jargon or keyword phrases. Yet here we're saying that suddenly we're supposed to be using technical jargon and an exact keyword phrase. Since we don't use the exact same phrase used in the general rule, the "specific" rule overrides the general.

Which is why I take Sage Advice as just advice and make my own rulings.

 

[Lanefan]

No, I'm saying they didn't say that. They did say this:

To recap (or to fill in for those unwilling to read the long version):

1. By definition, some bad cards have to exist. (The most important reason.)
2. Some cards are “bad” because they aren’t meant for you.
3. Some cards are “bad” because they’re designed for a less advanced player.
4. Some cards are “bad” because the right deck for them doesn’t exist yet.
5. “Bad” cards reward the more skilled player.
6. Some players enjoy discovering good “bad” cards.
7. Some “bad” cards are simply R&D goofing up.

I think you're both right. I remember the same thing @Maxperson does, to wit their saying bad cards were printed at least in part to make good cards appear better; but that was said a long time ago (in Magic years; may have been during the Mirage-ish era to explain some true clunkers in those sets). What you post here has all the hallmarks of post-hoc damage control, an attempt to explain their way out of the probably-more-honest earlier statement.

Put another way, at different times they said both things.