D&D 5E Have we misunderstood the shield and sword fighter (or warrior)?

[James Gasik]

I agree that you would be wearing it.
I do not believe it is natural language to say you are carrying it.

I suppose there may be a way in 5e to wield something without using hands. I'm not familiar with techniques for holding a shield with teeth or feet, but it is a fantasy game, so I'm open to hearing how such an idea may work.

Wrist razors from Athas are blades attached to a forearm bracer. 3e had armor spikes that could be used to make attacks. I don't know if D&D ever had it, but Pathfinder had the Dwarven Boulder Helm, specifically designed to head butt someone. 3.5 had the Dwarven Buckler-Axe, strapped to the forearm.

So weapons that don't require the actual use of the hand could exist in the game. Not that I expect to see them, 5e's "vision" doesn't seem to include exotic weaponry.

 

[DND_Reborn]

IIRC 2E had head spikes, elbow spikes, and knee spikes for armor.

As for the shields, it just depends on how you want them to function. 5E designers decided the default is a strapped shield, not a truly carried shield, as indicated in that the shield is "worn" so takes more effort to don/doff. The benefit to the extra time is that you can't drop such a shield, so it just depends on if that benefit is worth the time.

It is confusing since nothing else (other than the don/doff time) indicates a strapped shield, the wording under shields of "carried in one hand" would indicate otherwise. The wording under shield should have specified it was strapped and thus worn since that was their intent.

So, once again, WotC's use of natural language results in their "intent" not coming across and creating more confusion and disagreement than simply being direct and thorough would have done. Well, it is what I came to expect a long time ago when it comes to 5E and WotC.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think this is one of those occasions where the 5e ruleset conflicts with observable reality, so you need to consult your DM for their decision on the matter.

 

[FrogReaver]

The relevant rules:

Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2, You can benefit from only one shield at a time.

Don. This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.

Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half.

The argument -
1. You do not benefit from the shields AC unless it was donned.
2. Wielding a shield increases your AC by 2.
3. We can thus conclude that the only way to benefit from a shields +2 AC is by wielding and donning said shield.
4. That necessitates the question what is the difference between wielding and donning?
5. My contention is that wielding a shield in 5e is done by donning it and to stop wielding a shield in 5e is by doffing it.
6. Therefore, the only way to stop wielding a shield is by doffing it.

I really don't understand the notion that the 5e rules support being able to don the shield without wielding it.

Fiction and Realism
Fictionally, one can think of a D&D shield being strapped onto your arm. Realistically these types of shields were not typically just strapped to your arm because force (to the upper part of the shield for example) can cause them to rotate around the arm and end up out of position, becoming a hindrance more than a benefit. One would typically strap their arm in so that there was also a handle or strap over the hand to hold on to in order to prevent the rotation of the shield around the arm.

Unrealistic Combat Rounds
Combat is split up in turn based order. This means your loadout for attacking could potentially be different than your loadout for offturn defense. The game recognizes this and puts limitations on your ability to change out equipment. One such limitation is imposed on shields requiring them an action to equip or unequip. This is specifically to prevent many non-genre appropriate shenanigans.

 

[Argyle King]

Wrist razors from Athas are blades attached to a forearm bracer. 3e had armor spikes that could be used to make attacks. I don't know if D&D ever had it, but Pathfinder had the Dwarven Boulder Helm, specifically designed to head butt someone. 3.5 had the Dwarven Buckler-Axe, strapped to the forearm.

So weapons that don't require the actual use of the hand could exist in the game. Not that I expect to see them, 5e's "vision" doesn't seem to include exotic weaponry.

Those are good examples of adding another mode of use for an object by adding accessories -the buckler axe being of particular relevance.

I think there is room to add a few customization options for weapons, armors, and shields; but I think that would go against the general direction of the game being simplified/streamlined. A 5e "arms and equipment guide" for those wanting additional options is something I would have an interest in.

After my previous post, I had an idea for bard-specific magic item: the Shieldmonica. I plan to write it out more later. For now, the rough idea is that it's a harmonica which generates a shield while played. +2 AC for the user, but it also provides advantage on perception checks for detecting the bard for creatures within 100ft. While being played, the tune (played on the harmonica) can also be used as the verbal and somatic components of bad spells.

In regards to the shield conversation, I think it has derailed the thread too much already.

One thing I've learned -which is relevant to the topic of "sword & board"- is that I wish 5e offered a few more options for that style. For both attack and defense, what's listed as a "shield" for 5e is simultaneously vague and very specific about what it is.