|
If you want to get really rules lawyery about it, reference DMG p139-140 as well: p 139: "Magic Item Categories - Each magic item belongs to a category: armor, potions, rings, rods, scrolls, staffs, wands, weapons, or wondrous items ... Armor - Unless an armor's description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function." One might argue that 'while holding' preempts this, and one might also argue that shields are expressly not armor, per se. I tend to lump shields in with armor in general, leading me to think that it should be worn for the magic to function. p 140: "Wearing and Wielding Items - Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand." Emphasis mine. This especially seems to indicate, to me, that a shield needs be worn as intended (and come on, it's a shield - it has an intended purpose) in order to benefit from its magical effects. Again, it's arguable that you don't 'wear' a shield, meaning it may not have an 'intended fashion.' Edit: Kaal posted:Crawford's tweet is pretty definitive that Consp is wrong. Holding means holding, is what Crawford says. Touching it doesn't count. I'm not so sure about that. You can hold a shield without wielding it (hanging onto it by the rim vs strapping it to the arm as intended). Just touching it would not count, for sure, but holding it like a bigass frisbee? RAW, it's not clear. Taking the above into account from the DMG seems to make it more clear that it needs be used in the intended fashion or worn to have the magical effects. Marathanes fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Jun 3, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Marathanes posted:"Wearing and Wielding Items - Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it..." Natural language! Plus you've also got stuff like the Animated Shield which logically doesn't work if it's strapped to your arm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Marathanes posted:I'm not so sure about that. You can hold a shield without wielding it (hanging onto it by the rim vs strapping it to the arm as intended). Just touching it would not count, for sure, but holding it like a bigass frisbee? RAW, it's not clear. Taking the above into account from the DMG seems to make it more clear that it needs be used in the intended fashion or worn to have the magical effects. If you're holding it like a frisbee, and that's how you intend to use it, then it's fine and subject to normal donning rules. The PHB/DMG are just trying to leave to door open to being able to use equipment in a variety of ways, but it's quite clear what the intention is. Consp. is trying to conflate the term holding to mean whatever he wants to mean at the time. He ignores when holding is clearly associated with wielding and equipping and donning, except for when he wants to get benefits from it. He's "holding" by picking it up, except he's not holding in order to avoid donning or equipping it and spending an action doing so, and then he's holding it again at the end of his turn to get benefits from it, and then he's not holding it when his turn starts because he doesn't want the penalties of holding a shield or the cost of doffing it. It's just a powergaming trick. Then he pretends the rules support his homebrew rules, even when he's clearly ignoring any rules that might contravene the idea because his focus isn't fair rules interpretation, it's just trying to justify powergaming. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If you're holding it like a frisbee, and that's how you intend to use it, then it's fine and subject to normal donning rules. The PHB/DMG are just trying to leave to door open to being able to use equipment in a variety of ways, but it's quite clear what the intention is. Consp. is trying to conflate the term holding to mean whatever he wants to mean at the time.  Edit for substance: I'm just so flabbergasted. Your takeaway from Crawford saying "holding means holding" is "holding can mean whatever you want". And I'm the one making poo poo up. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Natural language! Clarity isn't a strength of 5e. Who knew? That said, there's a specific example for shields, but you seem determined to ignore it in favor of your interpretation, so  .At the end of the day, the idea of holding a shield to get the benefit while not actually using it as a shield is too munchkin-y for my tastes, and I have a feeling a lot of folks would agree, especially if you're dropping it and picking it back up every round. Rule 0 is likely to be the deciding factor here. As a player, I feel like if I tried that some enemy would end up kicking my magic shield into a conveniently placed crevasse in short order. Not that I'd care to even try it, because it's not cool in my concept of a fantasy world. The idea of some heroic warrior strategically dropping and picking up his shield in between swinging his sword is not going to inspire any ballads. An Animated Shield at my table would need to be worn in order to be triggered, but then would unstrap itself and then re-strap itself on at the end of its duration assuming the arm/hand was free. Edit: VV in that same vein, and to get away from shield holding chat: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-aspergers-and-autism-ruined.html Marathanes fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-48483746 Grognards everywhere
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
Marathanes posted:p 140: "Wearing and Wielding Items - Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. ...A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion... Conspiratiorist posted:Natural language! pg151 DMG posted:The shield leaps into the air and hovers in your space to protect you as if you were wielding it, leaving your hands free. You could almost reach the conclusion that if a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
But there's no need, just refer to:page 7 PHB posted:many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Yeah, like the specific rule almost all shields have that says 'while holding this shield'. And how a Cloak of Protection, for example, says it needs to be worn - so you follow the DMG rule indicating items that say they have to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion of an item of its type.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Yeah, like the specific rule almost all shields have that says 'while holding this shield'. Ok this is stupid in it's pedanticness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
No it's a question of which is the specific rule. I'd say the specific rule is the stipulation of donned in the intended fashion, which for a shield is strapped to the arm. By comparison "holding this shield" is vague, so I'm reading the specific rule isn't the first sentence of the individual item description, it's the rule that goes into the specifics of how magic items function.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist is right, but it actually goes much further than that. From the PHB: quote:Things that contribute to your AC include the armor you wear, the shield you carry, and your Dexterity modifier. So carrying a shield increases your AC. But what does it mean to "carry" a shield? From the same page: quote:Your Strength score limits the amount of gear you can carry. We know that your strength score does not govern the amount of gear you can hold in your hands at one time. What it governs is the total amount of weight you can have anywhere on your person, including, for example, in a backpack. Therefore, you get an AC bonus when you "carry" a shield, and a shield is "carried" no matter how is is borne by the person carrying it. I'm flabbergasted that anyone would disagree with this airtight interpretation of the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
Arguments like these are how pathfinders get made.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 06:37
|
|
|
"Intentionally holding a shield the wrong way so you can't defend yourself with it gives you the AC bonus. Just touching a shield on the ground counts" -some goon
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
The shield trick combo doesnt work anyway because after turn 1 you burn your free item interaction moving your 2hander into a proper grip to Attack with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
I strap a tower shield securely to my back and end every turn facing away from the enemy. I am always wielding my two-handed great sword which I've polished to a mirror sheen, allowing me to see any foes who approach in the reflection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:"Intentionally holding a shield the wrong way so you can't defend yourself with it gives you the AC bonus. Just touching a shield on the ground counts" -some goon There are just so many other honest to goodness bad rules in 5e the deliberate use of hypothetical rules no one would in a million years use at a table is just so dumb. This is like peasant railgun levels of stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:The shield trick combo doesnt work anyway because after turn 1 you burn your free item interaction moving your 2hander into a proper grip to Attack with. Working once is fine, like a Glaive user with Sentinel pulling out a Longsword at the end of their turn to proc an Opportunity Attack if an adjacent enemy moves 5 feet away - they can't do it every round and also properly wield their glaive, but sometimes you need maximum stickiness for one round.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:This is like peasant railgun levels of stupid. Calling something a "peasant railgun" at last makes it sound like a funny kind of stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 07:58
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:Calling something a "peasant railgun" at last makes it sound like a funny kind of stupid. Well admittedly 'shield fondling optimization' is kind of funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
It's all part of the 'hand economy'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:It's all part of the 'hand economy'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:36
|
|
|
Jesus Christ its +1 to your AC just decide on something and get on with playing elf games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
You just don't understand: +1 AC bonus obtained with a magical item and through a method with various downsides associated to it, just completely breaks the game and should get you kicked from any table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:You just don't understand: +1 AC bonus obtained with a magical item and through a method with various downsides associated to it, just completely breaks the game and should get you kicked from any table. I somehow doubt that, but maybe. Seriously I know folks love theory crafting and working out system and so on, heck I do as well for some things, but sometimes you just need to go "well how much time is this worth" and then getting on with things. There is only so much you can do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 09:07
|
|
|
This discussion is making me think of some kind of MMO exploit where the boss attacks so slowly that the tank has time to weapon-swap to a dual-wield/two-hander combo to deal damage, then weapon-swap back to their sword+board combo right before the boss's next swing connects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 09:16
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:The shield trick combo doesnt work anyway because after turn 1 you burn your free item interaction moving your 2hander into a proper grip to Attack with. That's why you wear the shield as a necklace and just hug it to you each round. And really, a holding is property you possess, so just owning the shield gives you the +1. This whole discussion is basically the witch/duck scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail Azhais fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
"You get the regular shield AC bonus when you're a trained shield wielder wielding a shield." "This magic item grants +1AC to the person holding it." No need to pretend these two things are even close to the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 10:40
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:There are just so many other honest to goodness bad rules in 5e the deliberate use of hypothetical rules no one would in a million years use at a table is just so dumb. The peasant railgun is stupid because it mixes how things work in the real world with how things work in game mechanics. The peasant instant delivery service, however, is 100% RAW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
Lid posted:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-48483746 Reprehensible. How was he not beaten?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
Piell posted:The peasant railgun is stupid because it mixes how things work in the real world with how things work in game mechanics. Skeleton. Army. Gatling. Crossbow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
50 new posts in the dnd thread about what "holding" means, it's nice to see some things never change regardless of edition
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Last night one of my players brought in a new 5th lvl druid character, and in the middle of a big combat cast Conjure Animals. Suddenly all the wererats were surrounded by 8 wolves that attacked with advantage and had a chance to trip with every attack. Oh yeah and they last an hour. I'm very new to 5e, and so I was pretty shocked by how powerful the spell seemed, and really didn't like how much it slowed things down. In 3.x, summed creatures always ground combat to a halt while the summoner took 10 minutes to deal with his minions and everyone else at the table twiddled their thumbs-I liked that 5e had mostly done away with that except at higher levels and so was surprised by this spell. On the other hand, it's super cool when a druid summons up some animal friends to help him and I obviously want him to still be able to do that. I've since realized the DM should pick the beasts that appear, the player just picks which option for how many at what CR. Some things I've considered to alter the spell: 1)Remove the 8 1/4CR beasts option, and have 4 CR 1/2 creatures be the maximum number. Druid still gets his nature buddies, just not hordes of them. 2)Make the creatures act as a group-they all have to follow the same command ("Attack that wererat") and then I the DM will handle their interpretation of that command. I think this would speed things up as I can just move them around the bad guy and not sit there pondering the ideal tactical placement, and they're just badgers that probably don't act in a tactically optimal way. 3)Make all the creatures appear adjacent to the same square. Similar to above, just keeps things a bit simpler and avoids the 5 minutes of "what's the best place to put all these guys" The spell just says the beasts " appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range" which leaves it a bit open if the player even gets to choose where they appear. 4)Just make the summoned beasts generic CRx statblocks that don't have any special abilities but look like XYZ beast. The spell even says "You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts" which implies they aren't actually the beasts in question, but beast shaped fey spririts. I had to grapple with this already because they were fighting wererats, and ruled that they were magic and so could hurt the wererats. This simplifies things so we don't have to look up a snake's poison bite or get stuff like wolf pack tactics. I think at this point my inclination is to try some combination of options 2 & 3 and see how that goes. If the 8 creatures all had to do the same thing and showed up at the same place it wouldn't bog things down as much and then 8 creatures might not be such a big deal, especially if they're not a bunch of wolves with advantage. Has anyone else had problems with the spell and how have you handled it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
I DM for kids, and we have a table rule that if you get the final blow, you get to decide how the guy goes down. I read this as a suggestion because some kids are uncomfortable with the guy dying, and might want the guy to pass out, or crawl away, or be tied up in the corner. However, my murder hobos are always like HE BLEEDS OUT BOTH EYES AND HIS BUTTHOLE! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 13:46
|
|
|
Marathanes posted:Edit: VV in that same vein, and to get away from shield holding chat: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-aspergers-and-autism-ruined.html quote:Safe spaces. Can we please not share terrible chuds Verisimilidude fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:Can we please not share terrible chuds He's completely the worst. My apologies. I had just read it earlier and wanted to.... I dunno.... share my misery?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Marathanes posted:He's completely the worst. My apologies. I had just read it earlier and wanted to.... I dunno.... share my misery? I prefer to think of it as an uplifting story about a lovely chud being methodically shut out of normal D&D games due to his bad behavior being recognized and dealt with, while those groups are strengthened by their growing inclusivity and community.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
He sounds like an angry, bitter isolated man. None of those things came up with those groups at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
The whole “bitter masculine successful tough guy” trope is so pathetic. Cursed players making...jokes and...enjoying snacks! Why can’t this 7th Trader just listen to me, a 30+ year old stranger who definitely fucks
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Marathanes posted:Yeah, for the Sentinel Shield case, I'd probably be more willing to let someone use it like a giant dinner plate of advantage to init/perception (assuming they have like a firm grip on it - the idea of fondling it between turns would not fly for me) but it's probably going to be one of those things that'll vary on a per DM basis. Frankly, if I rolled something like that as random treasure and I knew nobody in my group used a shield I might just make it a ring or amulet or something, or just re-roll for something my folks would use. I don't like giving away treasure that folks won't use (or that might trigger these kinds of arguments at the table). The real problem is that players and GMs can have no confidence that the differences in language are the result of very careful and precise decisions about which shield magics should function without "donning" a shield; it's just sloppy or imprecise language use, likely driven by different designers and a lack of editorial care. That leaves groups to decide amongst themselves how to handle the inconsistencies. The easiest solution if you are a GM is to write up item descriptions for players on cards or sheets of paper and change the wording to match how you want to run them, though for AL or for players relying on online character sheets this is problematic. As for RAW problems: I have yet to encounter a system which bothers to get into the weeds at all about specific things like how long it takes to put on armor which doesn't also have intrinsic uncertainty about mechanics which are defined using unclear or ambiguous language, often coming down to tiny matters like comma placement and the grouping of items in a list (where language seems to equate x with y or z when the intent seems to be x with y as one option and have z as an alternative). "Rules lawyers" exist for many of the same reasons regular lawyers exist. Want to get yourself kicked out of a group? Try this out: PHB 144 states clearly that if you "wear armor" you lack proficiency in, you have disadvantage to Str and Dex checks/saves/attacks and cannot cast spells. If my wizard has a shield in his pack, he is carrying it; if he straps it to his back, he is now wearing it and cannot cast spells. If he unstraps it and holds it in his hand, he can cast spells; wielding the shield for the AC is not "wearing" it, so he can still cast spells then, too. The likely counterargument is that a shield strapped to the wrist is "worn." Step 2 is attaching one end of manacles to a shield and handing them to your rogue. Next time you fight an NPC wizard, the rogue should run up and attach the free manacle to the wizard's arm. You then argue that the wizard cannot cast spells because he is now "wearing" a shield. Step 3 is picking up all your stuff off of the floor and going home. Bonus points if you count to six repeatedly while picking up or stowing no more than two objects for every six-count.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 16:03
|
|