D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[DND_Reborn]

I really don't know how SA could have missed that...

It would be a case of specific over general (the text for magical shields overrides the general "armor must be worn" clause).

 

[Helldritch]

It would be a case of specific over general (the text for magical shields overrides the general "armor must be worn" clause).

Maybe, but it is not written as such in the DMG... So where did they get that idea?

 

[Bacon Bits]

Maybe, but it is not written as such in the DMG... So where did they get that idea?

It is written that way in the DMG. It's on page 200.

While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC.

Holding means holding, not wearing or wielding or equipped, and the description reads "holding".

This is a RAW answer. Crawford is just reading the book back to us. That doesn't mean that we should play this way, but if you want to understand what the book literally says then there you go.

 

[Helldritch]

And yet, you must don the shield to reap its benefits...
Contradiction in the DMG are applenty don't you agree? He just watched the p. 200.
And to requote @Maxperson and the DMG
Page 139, "ARMOR Unless an armor's description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function."

There is no shield category, so they fall under armor.

Page 140, "WEARING AND WIELDING ITEMS Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. 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."

The bolded part contradicts directly the p.200. Do we have a case where one side of the mouth says one thing and the other side says an other? I believe that P. 139-140 are the good ones. The wording of p. 200 does not reflect the rule but simply day to day language. One of the bane of 5ed.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Unless an armor's description says otherwise

And the description of the shield says otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless an armor's description says otherwise

And the description of the shield says otherwise.

Dude. They all do. This is a situation where they misused a word "carry" and people are now trying to game the system. There is absolutely ZERO reason for those two quotes to exist if the word "carry" is correct in the shield descriptions.

 

[Helldritch]

Unless an armor's description says otherwise

And the description of the shield says otherwise.

Again @Maxperson is right.
This is gaming the system. They used common language when a specific language was required. And now, for a simple "word" mistake, people are allowed to do nonsensical thing that isn't even RAW or RAI from the beginning but because of one missused word becomes more or less RAW.

In addition, this is not refering to a specific shield's description. It is a general description. Remember Flying shield? This one you don't have to carry/wear/don to activate it's flying power. That is one specific shield. The rest of the shields should abide by the general rule or otherwise there would not be a general rule to begin with.

 

[Don Durito]

So you have to 'hold' the shield? Generally we wouldn't consider holding to be wearing on one's back, so it has to be in one's hands.

You could technically hold something in your teeth but that would be pretty difficult I imagine for anything bigger than a buckler. (Plus, I think I would rule that if the Shield stops you from being hit then you have to make some kind of save or risk losing lots of teeth).

I thought part of the point of 5e was a return to natural language.

If we're going to quibble over legalistic definitions of words then what was the point of that?

It seems pretty obvious to me that holding was supposed to be synonymous with wielding.

I mean for god's sake if you deliberately eschew technical language then you need to go with common sense interpretations of ambiguities not legalistic ones.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Dude. They all do.

The Arrow-Catching Shield on p152 doesn't.

The items in the DMG switch between "hold," "wear," and "make an attack with". The more items I look at, the more convinced I am that this really is intentional. Maybe it's because they wanted Missile Attractor and Sentinel to work for any character who has the items, but I really can believe that this was intended. The way the item descriptions are written, it would be an obvious thing to consider for every item while reviewing them.

This is a situation where they misused a word "carry" and people are now trying to game the system. There is absolutely ZERO reason for those two quotes to exist if the word "carry" is correct in the shield descriptions.

Zero reason... except for all the non-shield armors that the quoted sections cover? Zero reason... except for the shields that don't say they're worn items?

 

[Maxperson]

Again @Maxperson is right.
This is gaming the system. They used common language when a specific language was required. And now, for a simple "word" mistake, people are allowed to do nonsensical thing that isn't even RAW or RAI from the beginning but because of one missused word becomes more or less RAW.

In addition, this is not refering to a specific shield's description. It is a general description. Remember Flying shield? This one you don't have to carry/wear/don to activate it's flying power. That is one specific shield. The rest of the shields should abide by the general rule or otherwise there would not be a general rule to begin with.

Actually, looking over the shields there is another word difference that if we take at face value results in even more nonsense. The arrow catching shield. It's wielded, making it a weapon........................with no offensive capability at all.