D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[doctorbadwolf]

Your explanations were not satisfactory answers. You commented on how, according to SA (and you?) a magical shield was affording protection. These examples trying to justify the bonus a magical shield impart to its user shows a lack of how shields (and therefore magical shields too) work. I simply tried to enlightned you on how shield using is working both in the real world and (should) in fantasy. (and yes there are exceptions, such as the flying shield. But that is another story.)

Denying what you wrote by saying I did not read correctly is not respectful. You also have to keep in mind things you wrote earlier too.

I have plenty of experience using a shield, bud.

You continuously fail to understand what I’m saying, even though it’s very clear. The magical enchantment works however the DM decides it does, because the rules don’t specify. Insisting on one specific interpretation is on you, not on the rules.

You talk about respect, but show direct disrespect to me with you replies. Either practice it, or don’t preach it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's the thing about Barkskin's AC 16... it's set up to be what a druid should be able to have at 1st level if they didn't have the "no metal armor" fluff rule. Druids have Medium Armor proficiency so with the standard 100 gp in cash at 1st level, they would buy Scale Mail for AC 14 and have the +2 available from DEX to get to AC 16. But because of the "no metal" fluff rule, the best they are allowed to do is AC 12 Hide plus +2 from DEX. So Barkskin should have been the way for Druids to get the AC 16 they were owed if it wasn't for the no metal rule. Give out AC 16 and can't add DEX bonus... but then all the other AC adjusters like shields and cover would work normally.

I personally would also remove the Concentration requirement because its just dumb that the Druid has to give up their (C) slot for their armor while Wizards and other Mage Armor classes don't have to. Personally, I'm okay with the 1 hour duration because while Mage Armor gets a full 8 hours... Barkskin's real value is when the Druid is Wildshaped and their animal form bounces up to AC 16. So to get that, I'm okay with the Druid needing to blow one or two 2nd level slots throughout the day to cover it. They are already getting so many HP from the wildshape that losing a pair of 2nd level slots in order for them to be able to defend those extra HP via a higher AC is an okay trade in my opinion.

 

[TheSword]

It cracks me up, people have complained at every holder of the sage title since it came out. What we have here is a lead designer and the legions of Twittersphere and forum ghouls like us that think we know better. Ignore the tweets, don’t ignore them it’s your call.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have plenty of experience using a shield, bud.

The problem with claims like this is there is really no way to prove (or disprove) it. IMO unless you are a riot police, etc. or stuntman or professionally reenact battles or something, there aren't many places out there where people are have a call for shield proficiency skills anymore. Even in those outlier professions, your ability to use a shield effectively would likely differ (perhaps significantly?) from what a warrior would have done IRL hundreds of years ago. shrug

Anyway, there are tons of things in the game the rules don't specifically address (which is intentional of course) so common sense should prevail for your table and you can either:

1. Ignore the SA and make it that magical shields must be donned to add any bonus, even the magical one.
2. Treat the magic of the shield as an extension (via whatever flavor you want) beyond the shield so merely holding one in your hand "magically" makes you harder to hit.

Personally, I go with route #1. JC is (effectively) ruling in favor of option #2. I don't agree with it, and my table did enjoy a hardy laugh at the ruling. One player even commented on a funny comic to show how... well, strange might be the nicest word... the second interpretation is.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that JC's strict reading of the text is inaccurate in any way... just strange IMO and he would have been better served acknowledging the likely initial intent of the text--that the shield must be equipped/donned--instead of just reading the current text literally.

It cracks me up, people have complained at every holder of the sage title since it came out. What we have here is a lead designer and the legions of Twittersphere and forum ghouls like us that think we know better. Ignore the tweets, don’t ignore them it’s your call.

While I find the depth to which some of us will go in defending our positions--I must admit I often chuckle at others when they continue debates beyond what I would call rational. Of course, I hope and expect others get a laugh from me sometimes, as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's the thing about Barkskin's AC 16... it's set up to be what a druid should be able to have at 1st level if they didn't have the "no metal armor" fluff rule. Druids have Medium Armor proficiency so with the standard 100 gp in cash at 1st level, they would buy Scale Mail for AC 14 and have the +2 available from DEX to get to AC 16. But because of the "no metal" fluff rule, the best they are allowed to do is AC 12 Hide plus +2 from DEX. So Barkskin should have been the way for Druids to get the AC 16 they were owed if it wasn't for the no metal rule. Give out AC 16 and can't add DEX bonus... but then all the other AC adjusters like shields and cover would work normally.

Yep, agree 99%, the 1% I don't agree on is a small oversight in Druid's starting funds--which is 20-80 gp, not 100. Minor point, really.

I personally would also remove the Concentration requirement because its just dumb that the Druid has to give up their (C) slot for their armor while Wizards and other Mage Armor classes don't have to. Personally, I'm okay with the 1 hour duration because while Mage Armor gets a full 8 hours... Barkskin's real value is when the Druid is Wildshaped and their animal form bounces up to AC 16. So to get that, I'm okay with the Druid needing to blow one or two 2nd level slots throughout the day to cover it. They are already getting so many HP from the wildshape that losing a pair of 2nd level slots in order for them to be able to defend those extra HP via a higher AC is an okay trade in my opinion.

That's a good point. We should remove the concentration requirement as well.

Really, IMO, any spell which the caster is using which only affects an ally or themselves really doesn't need the concentration mechanic. Most are either limited in duration to 10 minutes or less and regardless use up one of the very limited spell slots a caster has.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem with claims like this is there is really no way to prove (or disprove) it. IMO unless you are a riot police, etc. or stuntman or professionally reenact battles or something, there aren't many places out there where people are have a call for shield proficiency skills anymore. Even in those outlier professions, your ability to use a shield effectively would likely differ (perhaps significantly?) from what a warrior would have done IRL hundreds of years ago. shrug

wholly irrelevant. We all know how shields work (and I’ve fought extensively with sword and shield, both strapped on heater and center handled round) The 5e designers seem to think all shields get strapped to your arm, for some reason, but we are all fine with that, but once a SA ruling comes out that some folks don’t like it’s suddenly a big deal.

Anyway, you’re interjecting into an exchange wherein I didn’t comment on how shields work (because it didn’t matter), but rather on how magic can work, giving several examples, and the other person decided to use insulting and disrespectful language while ignoring what I said in favor of pretended that I’d commented on how shields work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's the thing about Barkskin's AC 16... it's set up to be what a druid should be able to have at 1st level if they didn't have the "no metal armor" fluff rule. Druids have Medium Armor proficiency so with the standard 100 gp in cash at 1st level, they would buy Scale Mail for AC 14 and have the +2 available from DEX to get to AC 16. But because of the "no metal" fluff rule, the best they are allowed to do is AC 12 Hide plus +2 from DEX. So Barkskin should have been the way for Druids to get the AC 16 they were owed if it wasn't for the no metal rule. Give out AC 16 and can't add DEX bonus... but then all the other AC adjusters like shields and cover would work normally.

I personally would also remove the Concentration requirement because its just dumb that the Druid has to give up their (C) slot for their armor while Wizards and other Mage Armor classes don't have to. Personally, I'm okay with the 1 hour duration because while Mage Armor gets a full 8 hours... Barkskin's real value is when the Druid is Wildshaped and their animal form bounces up to AC 16. So to get that, I'm okay with the Druid needing to blow one or two 2nd level slots throughout the day to cover it. They are already getting so many HP from the wildshape that losing a pair of 2nd level slots in order for them to be able to defend those extra HP via a higher AC is an okay trade in my opinion.

IMO Barkskin should lose concentration, and also it should gain hours of duration when cast at higher levels. 3rd level is 4 hours, 4th is 8 hours, 5th is 24 hours.

Or Druids should gain an HP bump to wildshape forms at higher levels, making preferred forms stay relevant and useful. 12 hp is completely insignificant by level 10. It should be “while in wild shape your ho is equal to the higher of the beast’s hp or (a x Druid level)”. Something like that.

Wildshape is much too restricted. Hopefully we get some Beast of The [enviroment type] wildshape options in Tashas.

 

[DND_Reborn]

wholly irrelevant.

LOL not really. You say you know how to use them and have experience, others question that based on your responses. My point was there is no way of knowing what is true--people either believe the claimant or they don't given the information they express in their posts.

and I’ve fought extensively with sword and shield, both strapped on heater and center handled round)

Doing what, precisely? Was this in your current incarnation or a past life? (j/k)

The 5e designers seem to think all shields get strapped to your arm, for some reason, but we are all fine with that, but once a SA ruling comes out that some folks don’t like it’s suddenly a big deal.

I don't recall the 5E designers chiming in on how all shields get used. Regardless, whether strapped, donned, or grasped by a center handle (such as a buckler), you have the shield "equipped" and are using it as a shield.

With the SA interpretation, I could pick up a magical shield, use it as a serving platter, and still get the AC bonus from the magic. IMO that is silly because I prescribe to the first option I listed in my prior post on the topic.

Anyway, you’re interjecting into an exchange wherein I didn’t comment on how shields work (because it didn’t matter), but rather on how magic can work, giving several examples, and the other person decided to use insulting and disrespectful language while ignoring what I said in favor of pretended that I’d commented on how shields work.

LOL forgive me for interjecting into your exchange, especially when the second option in that post outlined your point, trying to show how it is a clear option for the people who want to play their table that way. I mean, did you even read the rest of my post after the first paragraph you quoted?

 

[Guest User]

That's a good point. We should remove the concentration requirement as well.

At this point I will take Sage Advice, over the homebrew whinging of Grognards upset that Sage Advice doesn't match their exact preference. (And I hate Sage Advice)

Remove the Concentration duration requirement from Barkskin, and you empower casters.
That Moon Druid in CR 1 bear form, now has a 16 AC that can only be removed via Dispel Magic. Beating on the brat with a baseball bat can no longer break the spell.

Sage Advice as a column, has suffered through a combination of these two issues for it's entire existence:

1) A columnist whom is not suited for rules discussions....see Skip Williams, (lovely guy, though).

2) A columnist that does not devote enough time to considering the ramification of their opinions.

That was true in Dragon Magazine, it largely, seems to be true now.

Also, @Helldritch your privileges to complain about 5e "being Easy Mode" are hereby revoked. Letting a Druid PC in a low HP Wild Shape just morph back into their normal form when hit with a Power Word Kill is not 1e Attitude.

That is not a "Metal" DM move, that is a "Sippy Cup/Participation Trophy" DM move.

I say: "Good Day to you".

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or Druids should gain an HP bump to wildshape forms at higher levels, making preferred forms stay relevant and useful. 12 hp is completely insignificant by level 10. It should be “while in wild shape your ho is equal to the higher of the beast’s hp or (a x Druid level)”. Something like that.

Wildshape is much too restricted. Hopefully we get some Beast of The [enviroment type] wildshape options in Tashas.

Well, I'd need to eventually see a Druid who wasn't a Circle of the Moon to see if what you say is true or not. Because as every single druid at my table has been Moon... I can say for certain that those druids most certainly DO NOT need more hit points.