D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Helldritch]

Fortunately, this is not an errata but a "sage" advice.
Even in the DMG it is clear that SA is on wrong side of both logic and the game's mechanic.

The only case where I would allow a non proficient user from using a shield and getting all the benefits is when the non proficient user is using the dodge action. No casting, no attack, just dodging and concentrating on defense. That would be acceptable, but then, that character is pretty much useless in combat anyways. At least he can be usefull as a distraction for the enemies.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Which is precisely what I've been saying since the beginning.

IMO he should have said, "No, the word "hold" is misleading and the intent was the shield must be equipped or donned. Future printings of the DMG will represent that intent," like he did with other SA items.

But for @doctorbadwolf's point, the SA is following the current wording literally and it isn't unreasonable to rule it as JC has--I think it is strange, myself, but the ruling, itself, is understandable. Strange, sure, IMO, but understandable.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is precisely what I've been saying since the beginning.

IMO he should have said, "No, the word "hold" is misleading and the intent was the shield must be equipped or donned. Future printings of the DMG will represent that intent," like he did with other SA items.

But for @doctorbadwolf's point, the SA is following the current wording literally and it isn't unreasonable to rule it as JC has--I think it is strange, myself, but the ruling, itself, is understandable. Strange, sure, IMO, but understandable.

When you have crystal clear rules stating that they must be worn to use the magic and shields must be strapped to the arm, I think it is unreasonable to rule as JC has. Going against crystal clear rules AND intent by using semantics in the description is not reasonable in my opinion. It's an attempt to game the system for advantage.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fortunately, this is not an errata but a "sage" advice.

Since quite a few items in the SA now have the "Future printings will include that intent" or whatever, many of these will become errata.

The only case where I would allow a non proficient user from using a shield and getting all the benefits is when the non proficient user is using the dodge action. No casting, no attack, just dodging and concentrating on defense. That would be acceptable, but then, that character is pretty much useless in combat anyways. At least he can be usefull as a distraction for the enemies.

I was leaning more towards the Use an Object action. If you are not proficient in shields, but hold a shield and are using it to attempt to block attacks, then you can get the AC +2 for the shield (and of course any magical bonuses to AC it has as well). But mechanically this is typically worse than just Dodging, so it isn't a great strategy. shrug

Either way, yes, the PC should in essence be losing the ability to perform any other action as they are focused solely on defense.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Which is precisely what I've been saying since the beginning.

IMO he should have said, "No, the word "hold" is misleading and the intent was the shield must be equipped or donned. Future printings of the DMG will represent that intent," like he did with other SA items.

But for @doctorbadwolf's point, the SA is following the current wording literally and it isn't unreasonable to rule it as JC has--I think it is strange, myself, but the ruling, itself, is understandable. Strange, sure, IMO, but understandable.

And if what he has said has inspired everybody out there to stop bothering to read all his Sage Advices and stop asking him questions about rules minutia on Twitter and just play the game and rule as you see fit... then he was successful it what he was hoping to accomplish!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Going against crystal clear rules AND intent by using semantics in the description is not reasonable in my opinion.

Once again, I agree. You're saying things I've been saying since the beginning.

At this point I really don't know why you are quoting me unless you are just ranting against the idea that JC is offering a literal interpretation of the description of magical shields???

 

[DND_Reborn]

And if what he has said has inspired everybody out there to stop bothering to read all his Sage Advices and stop asking him questions about rules minutia on Twitter and just play the game and rule as you see fit... then he was successful it what he was hoping to accomplish!

Well, there are times when the questions seem more... um, "legitimate" to me in SA, but by and large most of them seem more like obvious clarifications or create more problems than they solve (e.g. unarmed strikes, Shield Master, et al.)

 

[Maxperson]

Once again, I agree. You're saying things I've been saying since the beginning.

At this point I really don't know why you are quoting me unless you are just ranting against the idea that JC is offering a literal interpretation of the description of magical shields???

LOL I quoted you because you said it wasn't unreasonable to rule like JC did. I countered with "I think it is unreasonable." and you replied with, "I agree." I'm totally confused now.

 

[Helldritch]

Since quite a few items in the SA now have the "Future printings will include that intent" or whatever, many of these will become errata.

Which is very unfortunate. Bad ruling as a standard? No thank you. I'll stick with my "old" version. Or should I go to OSR? A lot of my former players are now going this route as they are quite dissatisfied with 5ed. Too many loophole in the rules according to them. (Not that 1ed did not have its loophole too mind you...)

I was leaning more towards the Use an Object action. If you are not proficient in shields, but hold a shield and are using it to attempt to block attacks, then you can get the AC +2 for the shield (and of course any magical bonuses to AC it has as well). But mechanically this is typically worse than just Dodging, so it isn't a great strategy. shrug

Either way, yes, the PC should in essence be losing the ability to perform any other action as they are focused solely on defense.

Yeah... not a bad idea too. But I was also thinking about a rogue that could use the "use an object" to gain "free" proficiency and thus still be able to attack. I don't want a non proficient user be able to get a free shield without some more investment.

Ok, granted a monk could use a bonus action to dodge after attacking. But the monk loses flurry as a trade off. The rogue, would lose nothing (he'd still get the option of using the shield as an improvised weapon in case his main attack misses. Run if the target died and so on...)

 

[Helldritch]

LOL I quoted you because you said it wasn't unreasonable to rule like JC did. I countered with "I think it is unreasonable." and you replied with, "I agree." I'm totally confused now.

Yeah... Dnd4vr has this super power of confusing the reader
What's not to love about that?