Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5723864" data-attributes="member: 6679551">This. It's an unavoidable conclusion that Evasion exist strictly to provide increased survive-ability for classes which are penalized from wearing medium and heavy armor due to imposed Dex restrictions.  Nevertheless,Evasion doesn't make a lot of logical sense given the rules that surround it.  Yes, RAW doesn't mentioned shields at all.  It doesn't even mention being so heavily encumbered that one literally can barely move.  So that suggests this is strictly a balance thing.  But...but...a +5 heavy shield would give more AC bonus than scale mail.  Hmmm...   And then there's a couple of sentences in the DMG which really cloud the issue.  The rule suggests there are situations where Evasion is denied because of circumstance that are wholly independent of the armor worn. And whether one of those Evasion denying situations occurs, is up to the DM.  So WotC has opened the door for a DM to say, "wait...in this situation, you can't move around and avoid area of effect damage."   So in the PHB, the RAW is black and white.  In the DMG, the rule enters the land of discretion.   Combining them creates problems.  In essence, WotC may be straddling straight impact to outcomes--the "balance" of heavy armor with Evasion that you mention above--with one book, and in the other, it nuzzles common sense e.g. you're in a phone booth so you ain't dodging ish.As I've said many times, D&D is filled with incongruities and self-contradictions.  I believe this to be one of them.</blockquote>

Verification