D&D 5E (2014) Bad Sage Advice?

[Shiroiken]

Reminder once again that Sage Advice is only advice. JC is often wrong IMO, and thus at my table he's wrong.

I knew there was a reason why I do not give out +shields.

I actually liked the notion of non-plus shields implemented in 4E. Given 5E's bounded accuracy, I decided not to give out +x shields, because if they get stacked with magical armor and a ring of protection (to to mention the occasional spell AC boost) you get the near untouchable PC. Having experience with this nonsense, I know this is really bad for the game.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Reminder once again that Sage Advice is only advice. JC is often wrong IMO, and thus at my table he's wrong.


I actually liked the notion of non-plus shields implemented in 4E. Given 5E's bounded accuracy, I decided not to give out +x shields, because if they get stacked with magical armor and a ring of protection (to to mention the occasional spell AC boost) you get the near untouchable PC. Having experience with this nonsense, I know this is really bad for the game.

I went the other way, and I only give out +x shields and never +x armor. Great Weapon Masters and Polearm Master don't need any extra help.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's beyond the scope of SA, though. If the DMG isn't getting a reprint at this time, then SA isn't going to go there. If it does get errata'd in the next printing, then there would be no need for an SA. However, they aren't going to issue an errata without a reprint and SA isn't going to issue a "soft" errata.

But it is within the scope of SA (from the same page):

 

[Azzy]

The scope of Sage Advice is whatever WotC decides it is.

Right, and this is the one they decided.

Whether one thinks the current scope of SA is the most effective one is, of course, a matter of taste.

Of course, but I'm not arguing from the point of view of what is "most effective".

 

[Azzy]

But it is within the scope of SA (from the same page):

View attachment 127050

Ah, then. Never mind. That's.... um... really inconsistent of them.

 

[Istbor]

Completely what I'm going to do after I share this SA ruling with our table so we can laugh our collective butts off at the idiocy that is WotC and the lack of wisdom displayed by this SA.


What? Handing out an magic item that is actually listed in the DMG??? SHOCKER!

Whether it is a Shield +1, +2, or +3 doesn't matter, the fact is that with this ruling pretty much any character can hold a shield +X and gain a +X bonus to their AC even though they might not know how to actually use a shield.

Yeah. You were just harping on SA stuff. So is it a stretch to think that listed items aren't potentially problematic? Because they totally can be. SHOCKER!

 

[glass]

The scope of Sage Advice is whatever WotC decides it is. They could instead define it differently and to give players and DM better advice for running their games. Instead, WotC has chosen to prioritize the rulers lawyer's approach.

The correct approach IMNSHO is to do both. They should not pretend the RAW does not exist (as Paizo's FAQ are notorious for); they should correctly state the RAW. But if it is silly say that it is silly and suggest a better alternative (and optionally say when it will be updated in the book).

EDIT: Meant to say, if the DMG quotes in the thread are accurate, then this ruling seems bad from both a RAW point of view and a sense point of view. So I agree with @dnd4vr.

_
glass.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah. You were just harping on SA stuff. So is it a stretch to think that listed items aren't potentially problematic? Because they totally can be. SHOCKER!

The items aren't problematic, the ruling on magical shields is. We have a lot of powerful items in our tier 4 game. IIRC two legendary items but we are level 20 now and still adventuring.

Anyway, as I said, it is problematic that you can simply "hold" a magical shield and get the +X bonus when the item isn't meant to be used that way. Poor ruling by JC. Period. But then again, considering his rulings in the past, hardly a .... (wait for it...) SHOCKER!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why? Not every edition of D&D has even had them.

what on earth could that possibly have to do with whether or not it’s silly to call them a stupid weapon?

The magic of the shield makes it lighter and allow for faster reaction (this is not related to the action called reaction by the way) and enables the shield user to block incoming attacks

No, the magic of the shield extends a field of protection around you.
Or it magically compels attacks toward the shield.
Or makes it hard to properly look at you closely enough to target you with accuracy.
Or whatever else someone wants to imagine.

What you wrote is nothing more than your own preference for how a shield works, and not one I’d even like as a player or use as a DM.

Completely what I'm going to do after I share this SA ruling with our table so we can laugh our collective butts off at the idiocy that is WotC and the lack of wisdom displayed by this SA

Your insistence on belittling the intelligence of people who you disagree with is both offensive, and speaks very, very, poorly of you.

I drop my shield, cast fireball, then pick up the magic shield. Stupid. So, so stupid.

Not stupid at all.

 

[Istbor]

The items aren't problematic, the ruling on magical shields is. We have a lot of powerful items in our tier 4 game. IIRC two legendary items but we are level 20 now and still adventuring.

Anyway, as I said, it is problematic that you can simply "hold" a magical shield and get the +X bonus when the item isn't meant to be used that way. Poor ruling by JC. Period. But then again, considering his rulings in the past, hardly a .... (wait for it...) SHOCKER!

Problems with SA are easy to solve if you never read them in the first place. Maybe I am blessed with a lack of rules lawyers at this point? I definitely had them in the past.