D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Stalker0]

Rings of Protection do have to be worn, not simply carried, in order to gain their benefit.

But wearing a ring has no mechanical consequence in 5e, so the distinction doesn't matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

So the thread on interrupting rests encouraged me to finally look over the SA-compendium and I found something that is simple idiotic IMO:

View attachment 127011
So, now your PCs who are not even proficient in Shields can pick up a +1 shield and just "hold it" in their hand and get a +1 AC bonus? Now spellcasters are going to be vying for that very rare +3 shield.

I'm (not) sorry, but this has got to be one of the dumbest sage advice responses I have ever seen.

I am still looking over the rest of it, and will add more if I find any other [NEW] SA I find crazy, silly, or just plain stupid.

It is a terrible ruling, but it is the most literal interpretation of what’s written possible, which is consistent with the rest of Sage Advice.

I’ve come to think of Sage Advice not as actual advice or official RAI but as simple wording clarifications; explaining what the words literally say to alleviate potential confusion, so that DMs can decide their own rulings with maximum clarity regarding RAW, and without developer interpretation that might bias the decision.

 

[billd91]

Sage advice is not errata. Sage advice is as literal interpretation of the rules as written as possible. As official rulings, they have to be. Not rules as intended. Not what the developer would rule in their game. Not. Errata.

I might agree that's what they seem to be doing - giving as literal interpretation of the rules as they can, no matter if it's ridiculous (like being able to fight for 59 minutes and still achieve a long rest). But I disagree that's what Sage Advice has to be. Ideally, it should indicate what the development intent was at the time it was written (if that is known). And that's why designer notes, even if internal, are a good thing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But wearing a ring has no mechanical consequence in 5e, so the distinction doesn't matter.

Of course it does. The very description of a ring of protection says you must be wearing it, not simply holding it.

Notice "wearing this ring" not carrying, not holding--wearing.

Further:

That is a pretty significant "mechanical consequence" IMO--gaining the benefit (or function) from the magical item.

Also, shields, when actually donned, also have a mechanical consequence--AC +2.

I think it was just a slip in the wording by the authors in the DMG as written. As many people have stated, his response in SA was a literal interpretation of that wording. He would have been better served IMO as a game designer to realize that was not the logical intent of a magical shield and IME never has been before. Otherwise, it is (at the least) bizarre game design that a magical shield which you are not even properly using allows a magical bonus to your AC.

I mean, such shenanigans include a Loxodon holding a shield +2 with his trunk and gaining the AC +2 bonus from it. The loxodon text says he can't wield a shield, but nothing prevents him from "holding a shield". Also, for the literal interpretation he is not "using a magic item" either--again, just "holding" it.

Frankly, it is ridiculous that JC would leave this wording as is instead of using his authority to inform the original inquirer about the intent and changing it for future printings of the DMG.

 

[Charlaquin]

As written the feat is pointless.
There are so many other SA that are either inconsistant, or simply bad ruling. But they're coming from WotC so they must be right.
A lot of SA simply do not make sense.

To equip and use something you must be proficient. By your logic (and the one of SA) any can now use Martial weapons, wands, staves and whatever. But no... it must be on your list... so taking a magic initiate feat should do the trick... bha...

Well to be fair, you can equip items you aren’t proficient with, you just can’t cast in armor you aren’t proficient with and have disadvantage on all Strength and Dex checks while wearing it and don’t add your proficiency bonus to attacks with weapons you aren’t proficient with. Magic weapons and armor do add their magic bonus when equipped by non-proficient people, so I suppose the shield ruling is consistent with that... kind of. Magic arcane foci also add their bonus when “holding” the focus, so yes, by RAW a Wizard can get +1 to spell attacks and spell save DC from a Druidic focus even though she can’t use it as a spellcasting focus. Again, consistent but dumb.

 

[Stalker0]

Of course it does. The very description of a ring of protection says you must be wearing it, not simply holding it.

I agree with you that the ring must be worn....what I'm debating is, what mechanical consequence does that have? As far as I know, there are no ring limits in 5e (I need to doublecheck), and wearing a ring doesn't hinder you in any way, yet provides a magical AC bonus.

So I am looking at the shield in the same context. Carrying a shield (perhaps strapping it to your back), would not hinder your normal actions, and then provides an AC bonus. From a mechanics standpoint, that is roughly equivalent. And then of course the player can always choose to don the shield, gain an additional AC bonus, but at the cost of losing the hands ability to do other things.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree with you that the ring must be worn....what I'm debating is, what mechanical consequence does that have? As far as I know, there are no ring limits in 5e (I need to doublecheck), and wearing a ring doesn't hinder you in any way, yet provides a magical AC bonus.

So I am looking at the shield in the same context. Carrying a shield (perhaps strapping it to your back), would not hinder your normal actions, and then provides an AC bonus. From a mechanics standpoint, that is roughly equivalent. And then of course the player can always choose to don the shield, gain an additional AC bonus, but at the cost of losing the hands ability to do other things.

AH! Ok, so you are more talking about being "hindered". That is definitely different.

So, in that case, no, wearing a ring does not hinder you. I don't recall a two-ring limit in 5E either, but considering how many rings require attunement that alone is a strong limitation--of the 22 or so rings in the DMG, only 4 or so don't require attunement.

But, carrying a shield is not "holding" it. Thus, even by JC's wording, you wouldn't benefit from a magical shield strapped to your back. It must be held, and that means "in your hand or hands (or trunk in the loxodon's case LOL)". Thus, even holding a shield is "hindering" you in some fashion. However, since most PCs have a free hand, that isn't really a big issue most times and it means you're gaining a AC bonus from the magic of the shield anyway.

I don't agree with that given that a magical item must be used as intended for you to benefit from it.

Again, if you swap the phrase "While holding this shield" for "While you have this shield equipped" it would solve everything and make a heck of a lot more sense.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well, obviously if you sling a shield on your back, you are just carrying it, not holding it, so you wouldn't get the bonus.

However, if Fighter Bob asks you to hold his +3 shield for him you can say, "Sure!" and sling the shield on your back and you WOULD get the bonus, because you are holding it for Bob. I mean, that fits the literal reading of the rules, Yes?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, obviously if you sling a shield on your back, you are just carrying it, not holding it, so you wouldn't get the bonus.

However, if Fighter Bob asks you to hold his +3 shield for him you can say, "Sure!" and sling the shield on your back and you WOULD get the bonus, because you are holding it for Bob. I mean, that fits the literal reading of the rules, Yes?

LOL see, folks, SEE the shenanigans???

 

[Bacon Bits]

Not that I disagree with your post, but this particular change (if I understand you) was errata not sage advice. The added the text "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon" to the PHB loading property.

Which is funny. I think it's just a completely obvious rule - how could you pull ammunition if you don't have a free hand? Just goes to show that one person's idiotic rule or ruling is another's "well duh, do we really need that spelled out?"

Yeah, and my logic was, "If it lets me load and fire a heavy crossbow 2-3 times in 6 seconds regardless of my strength, then surely it lets me do something like load a hand crossbow one-handed." Remember, a hand crossbow can be drawn by hand, a light crossbow takes a goat's foot or a spanning belt, and a heavy crossbow takes a windlass. We're already being very generous here.