Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8102334" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Of course it does. The very description of a ring of protection says you must be wearing it, not simply holding it.[ATTACH=full]127019[/ATTACH]Notice "wearing this ring" not carrying, not holding--wearing.Further:[ATTACH=full]127021[/ATTACH]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.</blockquote>

Verification