D&D 5E Using 'Versatile' bonus 1 handed

[Mullerov]

Maybe i'm reading this wrong or it might have been changed in the PH (I don't own it yet and am going off the playtest rules) but i couldn't help but notice in the 'Actions in Combat' section under 'Use an Item' it states:
'Both mundane objects and magic items, from a handful of caltrops to a horn of blasting, are useful tools in combat. Activating the special ability of such an item requires an action.
In contrast, you can combine drawing or stowing one weapon or shield with your action, your move, or both.'

Now, going from the 'In contrast' and that you combine it with your move or action, it's entirely plausable that i could for example have a cleric with a shield and a warhammer (1d8 or versatile 1d10) and then combined with my move: stow my shield, smash my foe in the face with a d10 with my action and then draw my shield again (being combined with my action)... no? Thus i will never have to sacrifice my +2AC between my turns to get extra damage with my attacks. Of course with opportunity attacks or w/e i'd only have a d8 but you know... /care.

I'm new to D&D so this could very well be a common rule that everyone's aware of and i'm just stating the obvious... but i mentioned it to my DM and he seemed taken aback. He sort of half agreed but wasn't entirely sure if it was legal but said he'd look into it. Is there some sort of rule i'm missing that disallows this?

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Well, the game is more about rulings than rules. In my own table, I'd rule that draw/stow must be combined with an action that wouldn't be disturbed by it. For instance, I agree that you can draw a weapon as part of attacking with it, but not that you can draw a shield as you attack with a 2-handed weapon. But this is only my interpretation, YMMV.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

No.

A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself this: "Does this interpretation of the rule(s) make it so that anyone playing the game would 'automatically' choose this option because it is far superior to all others?". If the answer is "yes", then you are interpreting it wrong (or at the very least, interpreting it badly).

In the case you mention above, the answer is most definitely "yes". Therefore, your conclusion on how the rule "works" is incorrect. Your interpretation would render the ENTIRE POINT OF WHY VERSATILE IS IN THE GAME. The point of a weapon being "versatile" is that you can use it one-handed (so that you can get use of a shield or otherwise have a hand free), *or* you can use it two-handed (so that you can get more damage). By reading the rules your way, it completely and utterly invalidates the whole point of why 'versatile' is a desirable weapon trait (re: that you have a choice in how to employ it's use).

So, what do you think? Do you think the designers actually, purposefully "hid" a sneaky rules-loophole for those cleaver enough to find it? Or do you think they figured the people reading and playing the game would use common sense to figure out any odd or supposed "loopholes" and interpret accordingly (as it seems to be in this case)?

My bet is on the later.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Ravenheart87]

Is there some sort of rule i'm missing that disallows this?

Common sense?

 

[ExploderWizard]

There is the rule that states that you may only interact with one object per turn without using an action to do so.

DROPPING an object is free, STOWING an object is interaction with the object. So stowing a shield and readying a shield in the same round would be your action and you couldn't attack.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Besides, readying a shield takes an action as per armor rules.

 

[Mullerov]

[MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] ok that would render my interpretation void unless I would have 2 shields but then that's bordering on cheating. Fair enough
[MENTION=79274]Ravenheart87[/MENTION] no need for trolling cheers ;-)
[MENTION=36874]Giltonio_Santos[/MENTION] i'm not sure how it would be interfering with my action. Thinking realistically if I was running toward an enemy and slung my shield over my shoulder (i would imagine since I did this on a regular that I would have some sort of strap attached to it for easy slinging), grasped my hammer with both hands to smash my opponent in the face followed by me slinging my shield back around to ready myself for a counterstrike. That this wouldn't be some sort of unnatural movement. I'm guessing you mean that the 'combine' part means that it would happen simultaneously in which it would indeed be impossible but like you said everyone has their own interpretation.
[MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] this is the exact reason I wanted to ask people their opinions on this. But I guess you're right that if something seems too good to be true then the general rule is that it is! But with me being new to D&D i figured i'd go ahead and ask anyway

Thanks for the replies anyway! With a 4/4 in favour of no, I guess I'll have to give my DM a break

 

[Ravenheart87]

[MENTION=36874]Giltonio_Santos[/MENTION] i'm not sure how it would be interfering with my action. Thinking realistically if I was running toward an enemy and slung my shield over my shoulder (i would imagine since I did this on a regular that I would have some sort of strap attached to it for easy slinging), grasped my hammer with both hands to smash my opponent in the face followed by me slinging my shield back around to ready myself for a counterstrike. That this wouldn't be some sort of unnatural movement. I'm guessing you mean that the 'combine' part means that it would happen simultaneously in which it would indeed be impossible but like you said everyone has their own interpretation.

Didn't mean to troll at all. Shields are strapped to your forearm. I'm pretty sure it's not realistic removing your shield, attacking with a hammer held with both hands, and then putting the shield back in six seconds. Especially since an attack roll doesn't mean a single attack, but continual exchange of blows with the enemy until you have an opening that you can use.

 

[Nefzyflin]

Maybe i'm reading this wrong or it might have been changed in the PH (I don't own it yet and am going off the playtest rules) but i couldn't help but notice in the 'Actions in Combat' section under 'Use an Item' it states:
'Both mundane objects and magic items, from a handful of caltrops to a horn of blasting, are useful tools in combat. Activating the special ability of such an item requires an action.
In contrast, you can combine drawing or stowing one weapon or shield with your action, your move, or both.'

Now, going from the 'In contrast' and that you combine it with your move or action, it's entirely plausable that i could for example have a cleric with a shield and a warhammer (1d8 or versatile 1d10) and then combined with my move: stow my shield, smash my foe in the face with a d10 with my action and then draw my shield again (being combined with my action)... no? Thus i will never have to sacrifice my +2AC between my turns to get extra damage with my attacks. Of course with opportunity attacks or w/e i'd only have a d8 but you know... /care.

I'm new to D&D so this could very well be a common rule that everyone's aware of and i'm just stating the obvious... but i mentioned it to my DM and he seemed taken aback. He sort of half agreed but wasn't entirely sure if it was legal but said he'd look into it. Is there some sort of rule i'm missing that disallows this?

PHB P. 146. Look at the Donning and Doffing Armor table. It requires your action to put on a shield, and it also requires your action to remove it.

Nef

 

[KarinsDad]

Thanks for the replies anyway! With a 4/4 in favour of no, I guess I'll have to give my DM a break

In this case, the ruling is not based on the number of posters with the same POVs, it's based on the rules. One interaction with an object for free per turn rule. Unstrapping a shield is an action. Strapping a shield is an action.

One can unstrap the shield as part of the "one interaction with an object" rule because those rules state that you can do that, but at that point, from a literal rules POV, you could not use the versatile weapon in two hands (because your shield hand is interacting with two objects, the shield and the weapon).