D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Guest User]

Mod Note:
Then don't respond. Really. If it isn't worth a response, then just walk away. If the only things left to say are not constructive, there's no point in saying them.

Agreed! The Disengage Action is readied.

 

[Istbor]

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.

Are we really now fighting about how Doctorbadwolf envisions the magic part of a magic shield working? Maybe it does put a ever so slight barrier around the user or holder? Who are we to argue how the MAGIC part of the magic shield is described in an individual game?

It might just come down to how you interpret AC and hit points. Is AC all armor and reflex? Is some of it luck? Are hit points all meat or only that last bit is?

Seriously. People are trying to apply logic to how magic imbued in a shield works on the Internet.

 

[commandercrud]

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

He should write Sage Advice.

 

[Helldritch]

Are we really now fighting about how Doctorbadwolf envisions the magic part of a magic shield working? Maybe it does put a ever so slight barrier around the user or holder? Who are we to argue how the MAGIC part of the magic shield is described in an individual game?

It might just come down to how you interpret AC and hit points. Is AC all armor and reflex? Is some of it luck? Are hit points all meat or only that last bit is?

Seriously. People are trying to apply logic to how magic imbued in a shield works on the Internet.

Nope. We are applying magic as it has always been applied in previous games and in litterature.
And we are not fighting Doctorbadwolf, we are saying that the SA was wrong and showed why. Yet, Doc keeps defending a bad ruling. If he had said that this is his houserule, it would have closed the debate immediately. But he defends SA which is in the wrong side this time again.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

The part you quoted originally was my nod to @doctorbadwolf and the idea that (while I think it unreasonable as well) it is plausible as a flavor aspect that the magic of a shield could protect a holder, even if the shield was not equipped. That was @doctorbadwolf's concept.

So given my scenario before, if a PC or creature picked up a magical shield and used it as a serving platter, you are okay with them gaining any magical bonus or feature associated with the magical shield. I mean, they aren't using it in any defensive manner at all, but the magic of the shield helps prevent attacks from hitting them anyway?

Forget the "wording" in the DMG, I agree that is the strict literal meaning, but you are fine with that intent (you seem to be) or are you simply debating that is a reasonable ruling?

The bolded part was what you originally quoted me on that started our little exchange. But that quote is part of the prior paragraph (included above) in response to @doctorbadwolf.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah... Dnd4vr has this super power of confusing the reader

At least I am good at something!

 

[DND_Reborn]

He should write Sage Advice.

If I got paid for it, heck YES! LOL.

 

[Istbor]

Nope. We are applying magic as it has always been applied in previous games and in litterature.
And we are not fighting Doctorbadwolf, we are saying that the SA was wrong and showed why. Yet, Doc keeps defending a bad ruling. If he had said that this is his houserule, it would have closed the debate immediately. But he defends SA which is in the wrong side this time again.

Maybe in the literature you have read and seen it applied, or have applied it. Not for everyone.

To me, it looks like two people yelling past one another because you eat your toast butter side up, and they eat their toast butter side down.

 

[Helldritch]

Maybe in the literature you have read and seen it applied, or have applied it. Not for everyone.

To me, it looks like two people yelling past one another because you eat your toast butter side up, and they eat their toast butter side down.

Then read some more my friend. It is not because a shield is magical that it stops working as normal shield. Yes some shields have special properties. These are written down in their description. Otherwise, a magical item behave just like a non magical one save that it does what it does way better because of its magic.

If you took care to read the DMG excerpt that @Maxperson graciously provided, you would have seen that in both RAW and RAI, we are right. But for some reasons, SA stopped at one part of the DMG and forgot the rest. Me and a few others, are simply trying to make the other one, that if he applies the SA, it then becomes a houserule as the SA is evidently wrong. It would not be the first time that SA is wrong on an account.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So given my scenario before, if a PC or creature picked up a magical shield and used it as a serving platter, you are okay with them gaining any magical bonus or feature associated with the magical shield. I mean, they aren't using it in any defensive manner at all, but the magic of the shield helps prevent attacks from hitting them anyway?

Forget the "wording" in the DMG, I agree that is the strict literal meaning, but you are fine with that intent (you seem to be) or are you simply debating that is a reasonable ruling?


But these items must be worn according to their descriptions, and require attunement. So doesn't it seem prone to abuse that a PC without proficiency in shields could just hold a magical shield under their arm and get a magical bonus to their AC?

It seems prone to abuse to me, which is why I take such issue with this SA ruling. I suppose if magical items aren't prevalent in your game, then it is unlikely your front-liners would relinquish a magical shield to a caster just to they could carry it and gain an AC bonus.

If you are simply debating the point but feel otherwise that it seems a strange ruling, we are in agreement.
If you agree with the ruling because your game world (or table) wants magic seen in a more pervasive fashion, then please accept my apologies if my tone and vehemence on the issue caused any offense.

I get heated sometimes when things seem just "wrong to me" and appreciate the Mod stepping in to remind me to keep it civil.

I was responding to your tone a bit, but it’s all good. I get it.

I am fine with magic items working that way, regardless of prevalence. I like magic to be messy and weird, whether it helps the PCs or not. I disagree more with a lot of the restrictions on many items, and see them as mostly gamist worrying over balance.

But I also just don’t see any illogic in shields working that way, and I don’t have that “it’s just wrong” feeling about it.
If there are no shield fighters in the group and they hand the shield to the Wizard, fine. I’m not worried about that at all.