Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bad Sage Advice?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8105282" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>"Gaming the system"? This is from a ruling from the system's designer telling us that it provides a benefit when nobody though it did.</p><p></p><p>And, look, I'm not arguing you should play this way. I'm not planning on it. But the book reads how the book reads. While the outcome of Crawford's ruling isn't how I plan to run the game, it is consistent with how the book actually reads.</p><p></p><p>And I'm not really sure how this is gaming anything. Like okay, what are the possibilities with a +2 shield under these rules:</p><p></p><p>1. You're proficient and wielding it, granting you +4 AC.</p><p>2. You're proficient and holding it, granting you +2 AC.</p><p>3. You're not proficient and holding it, granting you +2 AC.</p><p>4. You're not proficient and wielding it, granting you +4 AC but causing you to suffer disadvantage on Str and Dex ability checks, saves, and attack rolls and you're not able to cast spells.</p><p></p><p>Like... #1 is what it's balanced around. #2 is basically never coming up. #4 is still possible if we say it has to be wielded to benefit. Do we really care if a magic-user uses it as hand-held bracers of armor? Are any of the above broken or something? Do we care that parties where every character who can use a shield is using a two-handed weapon or TWF can suddenly pass the magic shield to the Wizard or Sorcerer? It's not like it's free AC. As far as I can tell, holding means holding the item <em>in hand</em>. That's what it means for rods, staves, wands, a luckblade, etc. I haven't searched to confirm that definition but it does seem to be the most consistent.</p><p></p><p>Like what's the difference between this and a magic crystal orb that says, "When held, you gain +2 to your armor class. If you're proficient with shields, you instead gain +4 to your armor class. This bonus doesn't stack with a shield." Sure, there's some nuanced corner cases where it's different like Shield Master, but for basically every character in basically every circumstance this is just identical. Like what's the <em>design</em> problem here?</p><p></p><p>Is there a narrative problem? I don't think so. Like, I guess it's weird, but I don't see anything wrong with a protective item's magic being so potent that it can defend someone even if they don't understand how to use the shield it's on. That's actually pretty consistent with media representations.</p><p></p><p>Honestly, this is the exact kind of ruling I should be in favor of. It's everything I want. The outcome isn't broken. It's open rather than restrictive. It's easy to ignore if you don't like it, too. It's trivial for a DM to say that the item has to be used like a normal shield to benefit. I don't really agree with the design, but I like the ruling.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, shields are described by the game as wielded. PHB p144, "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time." That's the rule the game provides for how shields work.</p><p></p><p>I would agree that "worn" is a synonym, but the game actually is being consistent with its own terminology here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 8105282, member: 6777737"] "Gaming the system"? This is from a ruling from the system's designer telling us that it provides a benefit when nobody though it did. And, look, I'm not arguing you should play this way. I'm not planning on it. But the book reads how the book reads. While the outcome of Crawford's ruling isn't how I plan to run the game, it is consistent with how the book actually reads. And I'm not really sure how this is gaming anything. Like okay, what are the possibilities with a +2 shield under these rules: 1. You're proficient and wielding it, granting you +4 AC. 2. You're proficient and holding it, granting you +2 AC. 3. You're not proficient and holding it, granting you +2 AC. 4. You're not proficient and wielding it, granting you +4 AC but causing you to suffer disadvantage on Str and Dex ability checks, saves, and attack rolls and you're not able to cast spells. Like... #1 is what it's balanced around. #2 is basically never coming up. #4 is still possible if we say it has to be wielded to benefit. Do we really care if a magic-user uses it as hand-held bracers of armor? Are any of the above broken or something? Do we care that parties where every character who can use a shield is using a two-handed weapon or TWF can suddenly pass the magic shield to the Wizard or Sorcerer? It's not like it's free AC. As far as I can tell, holding means holding the item [I]in hand[/I]. That's what it means for rods, staves, wands, a luckblade, etc. I haven't searched to confirm that definition but it does seem to be the most consistent. Like what's the difference between this and a magic crystal orb that says, "When held, you gain +2 to your armor class. If you're proficient with shields, you instead gain +4 to your armor class. This bonus doesn't stack with a shield." Sure, there's some nuanced corner cases where it's different like Shield Master, but for basically every character in basically every circumstance this is just identical. Like what's the [I]design[/I] problem here? Is there a narrative problem? I don't think so. Like, I guess it's weird, but I don't see anything wrong with a protective item's magic being so potent that it can defend someone even if they don't understand how to use the shield it's on. That's actually pretty consistent with media representations. Honestly, this is the exact kind of ruling I should be in favor of. It's everything I want. The outcome isn't broken. It's open rather than restrictive. It's easy to ignore if you don't like it, too. It's trivial for a DM to say that the item has to be used like a normal shield to benefit. I don't really agree with the design, but I like the ruling. No, shields are described by the game as wielded. PHB p144, "Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time." That's the rule the game provides for how shields work. I would agree that "worn" is a synonym, but the game actually is being consistent with its own terminology here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Bad Sage Advice?
Top