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

[DND_Reborn]

Ah, I love the smell of Rules Lawyering after a nice dinner.... sniff sniff sniff So, GGOOOODDD.

I find it ironic how WotC's desire to go rule-lite/simple/natural language to help STOP this crap from happening, and it is worse than ever IME.

Again, the problem is they consider shield a "worn" item like armor, when it really isn't and shouldn't be.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I find it ironic how WotC's desire to go rule-lite/simple/natural language to help STOP this crap from happening, and it is worse than ever IME.

It's more that their medium-crunch game keeps wanting to have rules for minutia... but also keeps writing them unclearly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

but also keeps writing them unclearly.

Or contradicting themselves or ignoring logic...

 

[Argyle King]

You are making a houserule that makes sense to you and that is fine, if it works it works, but RAW it takes an action to drop your shield. That is not really debatable.

You are stating that "doff" means take it off and put it on your back or something like that, but that is not RAW!

"Doff" is actually defined on page 146 - Doff is "the time it takes to take armor off". There is nothing in there about stowing it on your back or anything else. You have to take the shield off before you can drop it!

RAW it takes an entire action to "take a shield off" or "half" of an action if you have help doing it. After you have taken it off you can drop it or throw it or put it in your pack or whatever. You can not argue that it is any other way RAW. It is clear in the rules.

I agree that doffing takes an action. I haven't disputed that.

The shield is also defined as being held in a hand. There are parts of the rules which interact with items held in a hand.

In cases where two more-specific rules conflict, which do you feel is more specific and which do you see as more general?

In your games, do you require someone using a shield to use extra actions (first to doff; second to re-don) to do other things (climbing and such)?

As I said above, that causes me to rethink my opinion on sword & board. It's the only style with that limitation. For everyone else, there are options for dropping things, drawing weapons quickly, and etc.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

In cases where two more-specific rules conflict, which do you feel is more specific and which do you see as more general?

Bears noting that there is no rule for 'dropping an item is a free action'.

Edit: Yes, shield users really don't deserve the extra hassle. Yes, shields should be better than they are.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, I love the smell of Rules Lawyering after a nice dinner.... sniff sniff sniff So, GGOOOODDD.

I find it ironic how WotC's desire to go rule-lite/simple/natural language to help STOP this crap from happening, and it is worse than ever IME.

Again, the problem is they consider shield a "worn" item like armor, when it really isn't and shouldn't be.

What I do when I DM and what the rules say to do aren't always the same.

For example when it comes to casting spells like mentioned above I don't make a caster put away their weapon, I just assume the weapon is used as part of the somatic component. It's kind of a cool visual. I also don't make a big deal about someone with a shield climbing, etc.

On the other hand I'm not going to try to rules lawyer and parse the rules when it's clear I simply don't run things RAW. I just fess up that I change the rule.

I can't remember the last time a DM made a big deal about donning/doffing a shield taking an action. I'm sure it was soon after the release of 5E because I haven't run into it lately.

Most DMs don't run strictly by the rules, but if they decide to do so, it's up to them. I'll just know to use a two-handed weapon next time.

 

[ECMO3]

I agree that doffing takes an action. I haven't disputed that.

Doff means take off according to the rules.

The shield is also defined as being held in a hand. There are parts of the rules which interact with items held in a hand.

Where is a shield defined as "held" in a hand? The rules state a shield is "wielded" and "carried" it does not say it is "held" anywhere in the rules AFAIK. It also says very clearly that it takes an action to "take it off". Full stop!

In your games, do you require someone using a shield to use extra actions (first to doff; second to re-don) to do other things (climbing and such)?

Yes, because that is the rules.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Yes, because that is the rules.

Actually, I don't remember seeing a rule saying that it requires two hands to climb... so...

 

[Argyle King]

Doff means take off according to the rules.



Where is a shield defined as "held" in a hand? The rules state a shield is "wielded" and "carried" it does not say it is "held" anywhere in the rules AFAIK. It also says very clearly that it takes an action to "take it off". Full stop!




Yes, because that is the rules.

"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." ~quoted from the rules (and the D&D Beyond site).

Edit for the link: Shield

In that description, it's not even said to be armor. It's a hand-item which can be wielded to gain the benefit of +2 AC.

 

[ECMO3]

Actually, I don't remember seeing a rule saying that it requires two hands to climb... so...

I wasn't refering to climbing specifically, I was referring to doing other things which require two hands.