QuentinGeorge
Legend
I think you're reading too much into that. All it means is the bonus AC is in addition to the AC granted by wielding it, rather than instead of it. It makes no more claim than that.
D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?
I think you're reading too much into that. All it means is the bonus AC is in addition to the AC granted by wielding it, rather than instead of it. It makes no more claim than that.
commandercrud
Hero
I think you're reading too little into that. You add the numbers together. In addition. You can't add the magic bonus to the shield +2 if you don't get to add the +2. In addition means exactly that. If people are going to labor over the exactness of language to death, do it right.
QuentinGeorge
Legend
What? Where does it say that you can't receive the magic bonus if you don't receive the original armour bonus? That's simply not there.
commandercrud
Hero
"In addition" says that.
Bacon Bits
Hero
I think that's just telling you that it's possible to benefit from the shield bonus and the magic bonus at the same time. It's saying that the bonuses are intended to stack. If anything, it's making it clear that it is possible to hold and wield the shield at the same time, not necessary.
Helldritch
Hero
In this context In addition is clearly indicating a previous "x" condition for a "y" condition to happen. In our case, In addition, means not holding but being actually using the shield. Just owning the shield would not suffice. Just having the shield strap on your back would not work either. Holding it as a platter would not work in the least. And holding does not mean just handling the shield by a strap or handle. Just holding a shield by the rim qualifies it for the magical bonus. Which is ridiculous.
Yes there are shields that allow you to benefit (or suffer) from their magical properties while you are not wielding them. They are exceptions to the rule. Remember that specific beats general. Using an exception to justify making it a generality is gaming the system. SA is clearly in the wrong here.
Yes there are shields that allow you to benefit (or suffer) from their magical properties while you are not wielding them. They are exceptions to the rule. Remember that specific beats general. Using an exception to justify making it a generality is gaming the system. SA is clearly in the wrong here.
Last edited:
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
So if a magic shield gives you magical bonus AC while holding it in any fashion, then shouldn't simply holding the edge of that shield also count as wielding it?
Wielding is no where defined in RAW afterall, and if you are benefiting from the shield in any way I would say you meet the dictionary definition of wield "hold and use (a weapon or tool)".
Wielding is no where defined in RAW afterall, and if you are benefiting from the shield in any way I would say you meet the dictionary definition of wield "hold and use (a weapon or tool)".
Last edited:
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Alternatively, holding the shield is never defined as holding it with your hand. Thus, the fighter can ask the wizard to hold onto his shield for him and the wizard could then place it in his bag of holding and get the bonus AC because he is technically holding the shield for the fighter.
IMO - Natural English is a terrible language in which to be married to hyper literal interpretations.
IMO - Natural English is a terrible language in which to be married to hyper literal interpretations.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Can language even get married to hyper literal interpretations? What's the law on that these days? Who presides over that ceremony? Jeeze! This is tough.
Similar Threads
