Holding vs Donning Shields

[ProsecutorGodot]

I've seen this distinction come up a few times for several different reasons. One of the strangest (imo) I'd seen was a comment claiming that a Wizard could hold a shield in combat in a way that would deceive monsters into thinking they are able to use it while not having it interfere with their spellcasting.

Simple questions, how do you treat the difference mechanically at your table? Do you allow any interactions that would call for a shield being held rather than donned? Does this interaction involving actions in combat change your ruling? Is there a line to be drawn in what is acceptable and if so, where do you draw it?

No judgements here, I'm just curious because surprisingly enough I'd never seen the idea thrown around prior to these recent threads and I'm wondering if it's one of those "of course, you should have known that" situations like dropping a weapon rather than stowing.

[Wizard_Lizard]

I would say that it wouldn't do anything...

[ProsecutorGodot]

I would say that it wouldn't do anything...

I guess I should be clear, I understand that a character can hold a shield without being considered to be wielding it but would you consider that as a strategy for them to reasonably convince someone that they are wielding it, whether as a piece of armor or as a weapon?

That was the other major point of contention that I'd had, can you attack with a Shield (as an improvised weapon) while holding it even though weapons are wielded during an attack and a shield has unique rules for how to wield it?

It's a rabbit hole I'd never expected to fall down.

[Zhorn]

Simple questions, how do you treat the difference mechanically at your table?

The specifics have not happened at my table yet; but how I would rule it:

To benefit from a shield's increase to AC, it must be worn in the fashion proper for that shield (strapped to forearm, or however is thematically appropriate for the shield type. ie: it is donned), AND the user must be proficient with shields (they have the correct training, knowing how to position and brace the shield). Lack either of these and the shield does not confer any benefit to AC.

A shield is for all intents and purposes an object and can be used for improvised attacks whether it is just being held in hand or properly donned.

In the case of your wizard example; the shield would not interfere with their spell casting so long as they still have a hand free. In either case of the shield just being held or properly donned, it is still occupying that hand and negating it's use for somatic casting

[Greywander]

5e seems to assume that all shield strap onto the arm. This is why you can't simply pick up or drop the shield to don or doff it, and need to spend an action to do so instead. You could certainly hold a shield without it interfering with spellcasting, but it would also provide no other benefit. I'd also imagine it would be pretty obvious if the shield wasn't strapped onto your arm.

As for using it as a weapon, shield strikes were a thing historically. Make of that what you will. I don't really see any issue with allowing an equipped shield to be used as an improvised weapon, and you could certainly also just pick it up and hit someone with it (although you wouldn't get the AC bonus for the shield if it isn't strapped on).

Some time ago, I was working on some armor homebrew, part of which added different types of shields to the game. A strap-on shield (like a kite shield) required an action to don or doff, but allowed simple item interactions (you could hold something, maybe even use items or perform somatic components, it never really got hammered out what exactly this meant). A centergrip shield (like a round shield) could be donned or doffed as an item interaction. Other shields included a buckler (+1 AC centergrip, you can carry it on your person instead of needing to hold it) and a pavise (heavier centergrip shield, you can secure it to the ground as an action to create cover).

[Ossian77]

strapped, on the shoulder or forearm, or held by the boss, shield wielding is an art.

I would say that your average wizard could be holding one, meaning that he is not "unarmed" (so he has something to block incoming blows just like he would if he was wileding a staff or a dagger or another class-allowed weapon). The only effects in gaming terms would be in attacks of opportunity (if you are unarmed you are in a hellofalot more danger) and cover for missiles (i.e. if you literally cower behind this portable mini door you get the benefit of some partial cover, but that has to be worse than the mechanical benfit to AC you would get from arrows if you were actually proficient with it and could orient it to face the shooter). Downside would be that spells that require both free hands are a no-no

[Gignere]

I've seen this distinction come up a few times for several different reasons. One of the strangest (imo) I'd seen was a comment claiming that a Wizard could hold a shield in combat in a way that would deceive monsters into thinking they are able to use it while not having it interfere with their spellcasting.

Simple questions, how do you treat the difference mechanically at your table? Do you allow any interactions that would call for a shield being held rather than donned? Does this interaction involving actions in combat change your ruling? Is there a line to be drawn in what is acceptable and if so, where do you draw it?

No judgements here, I'm just curious because surprisingly enough I'd never seen the idea thrown around prior to these recent threads and I'm wondering if it's one of those "of course, you should have known that" situations like dropping a weapon rather than stowing.

That was me but you are adding a big assumption. I never meant for it to be an ongoing ruse just at the start of combat it delays some not even all enemies to instantly target me and that is fine.

The shield was only one part of the disguise, you neglected to mention that my wizard was also wearing chain (elven), armed with a long sword so he looked like some fighting class traveling with his fighting gear.

Anyway in real life unless someone was about to get into a fight they would carry their shield usually on their backs or on their side. So it doesn’t even break verisimilitude to say I’m carrying a shield. I make that distinction just so if **** hits the fan quick I can free action drop it and free up my hand.

[NNescio]

I've seen this distinction come up a few times for several different reasons. One of the strangest (imo) I'd seen was a comment claiming that a Wizard could hold a shield in combat in a way that would deceive monsters into thinking they are able to use it while not having it interfere with their spellcasting.

Simple questions, how do you treat the difference mechanically at your table? Do you allow any interactions that would call for a shield being held rather than donned? Does this interaction involving actions in combat change your ruling? Is there a line to be drawn in what is acceptable and if so, where do you draw it?

Strictly speaking, by RAW?

A shield can be held without donning it, but it confers no AC bonus that way. (Like holding a piece of armor.)

A shield held this way may potentially be used as an improvised weapon (like any other item being held in the hand that has enough 'heft', or if someone wants to use a long sword the 'wrong' way by Mordhau-ing it). That said, a DM may insist that the shield be donned first before the user is allowed to wield it as an improvised weapon (because it is possible to read that wielding the shield confers the AC benefit along with all its attendant restrictions, regardless of how it's wielded).

Either way, holding or wearing, carrying a shield still takes up a hand.

NPCs might be fooled into thinking that the holder is 'wielding' the shield (in a way that confers the AC bonus), but this is a case-by-case DM judgment that depends heavily on what the player is trying to do, as well as the exact circumstances of the situation.



To benefit from a shield's increase to AC, it must be worn in the fashion proper for that shield (strapped to forearm, or however is thematically appropriate for the shield type. ie: it is donned), AND the user must be proficient with shields (they have the correct training, knowing how to position and brace the shield). Lack either of these and the shield does not confer any benefit to AC.

Shields confer AC benefits when donned, similar to armor. This is regardless of the proficiency of the wearer. Nonproficiency only imposes "disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves strength or dexterity", and prevents spellcasting.

A Wizard (or any other spellcasting creature) without shield proficiency who wears a shield cannot cast spells, even if the creature has another hand free (for somatic components and manipulating foci/materials). Even spells without somatic/material components cannot be cast; a creature that wears a shield (or armor) that it is not proficient in "can't cast spells", period. It's part of the armor proficiency rules.

(Yes, from a simulationist point of view it's kinda ridiculous that strapping a shield to your arm also prevents you from uttering verbal-only spells [unless you're trained in using shields], but that's how the rules work out.)

Edit: (Rules interactions with shields are a freaking mess. Sometimes they count as armor, sometimes they don't. They do count, however, for the purposes of Armor Proficiency and the Getting Into and Out of Armor rules.)

[stoutstien]

Wouldn't it be easier to just dip cleric one and actually don the shield?

[NNescio]

Wouldn't it be easier to just dip cleric one and actually don the shield?

Well, yes, but you delay spell access by one level that way.

[DevilMcam]

I as a dm would just say no to that.
If it convincing enough there is no way as someone without proficiency that you are able to cast spells while still holding that thing you no idea how to use in way that is less practical than the intended and still looking efficient

[Gignere]

I as a dm would just say no to that.
If it convincing enough there is no way as someone without proficiency that you are able to cast spells while still holding that thing you no idea how to use in way that is less practical than the intended and still looking efficient

That was never the intention my strategy for passing off as a fighter was in case of being scouted or scried I would not stand out as a wizard.

So this would preempt the DM from targetting me right off the bat as the easy way to eliminate the biggest threat. That said nowhere did I intend to keep holding said shield in combat. I am careful to say I am not donning the shield because otherwise it’s an action to take it off.

So if **** hits the fan I would free action drop shield, my usual first action in combat is find/create cover, assess than either cast or cantrip from said cover.

We are a big RAW group so even details like that is important.

[loki_ragnarock]

"In the distance you see two adventurers.
One is clad in plate mail, striding with confidence as he moves across the forest floor, at one with the greatsword on his back even as he marches. It catches on nothing, it impedes him not. He is like a tiger in his element.
The other doesn't seem to know what the eff he's doing. He's wearing some kind of magic armor and carrying a shield, but with none of the comfort or proficiency of a professional soldier. You've seen him catch the top of his round shield on a branch 4 times in the last seven minutes, as if he has no idea how to properly move with his chosen kit.
Easy pickins, you think to yourself. Easy pickins, indeed."
-A DM, narrating to the goblin squad that comes across this hilarity.

[DevilMcam]

If I'm a big dumb or and I see a warrior that hasn't donned his shield properly yet, I am so smashing his head before he has a chance to do so.
Much easier than to wait for him to get ready.

But Hey I just a big dumb orc not all monster would do that I Guess

[ProsecutorGodot]

That was never the intention my strategy for passing off as a fighter was in case of being scouted or scried I would not stand out as a wizard.

So this would preempt the DM from targetting me right off the bat as the easy way to eliminate the biggest threat. That said nowhere did I intend to keep holding said shield in combat. I am careful to say I am not donning the shield because otherwise it’s an action to take it off.

So if **** hits the fan I would free action drop shield, my usual first action in combat is find/create cover, assess than either cast or cantrip from said cover.

We are a big RAW group so even details like that is important.

I just want to be clear, I didn't make this thread to attack your idea, I just thought it was worth talking more about and didn't want to drag the original thread down this same hole. I'm always trying to get alternate perspectives on how the game can be run.

[bid]

The shield was only one part of the disguise, you neglected to mention that my wizard was also wearing chain (elven), armed with a long sword so he looked like some fighting class traveling with his fighting gear.
Just hold a 2-hander, you'll look the part and still have a free hand.
Or fake DWing.

How prevalent are fighter 1 / caster X dips? Because that's the main reason that you'd be targeted even while using that fluff.
Other than that, it more an (allowable) RP concept than anything.

[Misterwhisper]

If you are just carrying it instead of donning it I would think it would look quite different.

If you want to look like “not a wizard” dress like a monk with arm and leg wraps and things and is you have good dex and training in acrobatics it should be very convincing.

Or

Carry a non-wizard type weapon like a glaive or something.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

"In the distance you see two adventurers.
One is clad in plate mail, striding with confidence as he moves across the forest floor, at one with the greatsword on his back even as he marches. It catches on nothing, it impedes him not. He is like a tiger in his element.
The other doesn't seem to know what the eff he's doing. He's wearing some kind of magic armor and carrying a shield, but with none of the comfort or proficiency of a professional soldier. You've seen him catch the top of his round shield on a branch 4 times in the last seven minutes, as if he has no idea how to properly move with his chosen kit.
Easy pickins, you think to yourself. Easy pickins, indeed."
-A DM, narrating to the goblin squad that comes across this hilarity.
Why holding a wooden plate and wearing a comfortable armor will make you stuck on branches?

And my Dwarfs fighters will just walk straight into the branches, you said a Greatsword and plate mail, not a vert dexterity person, most likely he will use his power to move instead of his speed.

You can always rest the shield on your leg, if you don't afraid of a fight there is no reason to don it.

I prefer to use disguise self for stuff like this.

[stoutstien]

Seeing how ubiquitous shield proficiency is in 5e I don't think most NPCs will give it a second look.

[Gignere]

It’s not an auto win it was just an illustration of the paranoid nature of my character. Also seeing that there are threads arguing how even pack of wolves know to target the wizard with the pointy hat. The paranoia appears justified.

[Aimeryan]

I wasn't clear on whether the opening question was just about appearance or all mechanical interactions - I've gone with the latter. So, there are several passages of interest in the PHB to this:



Armor Proficiency. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.


Armor Class (AC). Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.


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.


Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use.


Questions that arise:

Does carrying a shield require one hand? I would say the rules are only stating that it could be carried in one hand - you could easily carry it in many other ways, like many items. For example, a dagger is also carried in one hand, but can also be carried in other ways - like a sheath or in two hands.

To require that it be carried in one hand it would have to explicitly say that it is required. For example, the two-handed weapon property explicitly states that two hands are required to use. Donning a shield and not holding the strap would still be carrying the shield - it just wouldn't be carried in a hand at that time. It isn't even explicit that it needs to be carried - although wearing or wielding something would, by definition, include carrying it.


Does it say that not wielding the shield for the entire round negates the increase to AC from wielding it? No - there are nothing written requiring this. Hence, just like you can temporarily wield a two-handed weapon and derive the benefits from doing so, you can temporarily wield your shield and derive the benefits from doing so. If you were not wielding the shield at the time you were attacked then you would not benefit from the increase to AC - this is rarely an issue on your turn, though.


Does the shield need to be donned to get the increase to AC? Not that I can see. There is no text that explicitly links donning a shield to wielding a shield. In real life, shields did not need to be donned to be wielded - so there is no 'common sense' English to fall back on here. If you wield the shield you increase the AC, as stated in the quote.

Furthermore, the quote about benefiting from the armor's AC only if the suit of armor is donned: it is not clear that it would apply to shields as shields are not a suit of armor and they don't provide an AC anyway. In many ways, you could argue that donning a shield actually gives no mechanical benefit other that not being easily disarmed - even that is suspect if you rule that you can spend an action to doff someone else's shield from them (weirdly, no rule against this!).

[NaughtyTiger]

I've seen this distinction come up a few times for several different reasons. One of the strangest (imo) I'd seen was a comment claiming that a Wizard could hold a shield in combat in a way that would deceive monsters into thinking they are able to use it while not having it interfere with their spellcasting.

A common trope is someone picking up a weapon, threatening to use it, and the bad guy instantly knows he has no idea: the safety is on, holding a shield arm low, can't hold the sword up.

I think this would be evident if someone without shield proficiency is trying to pretend he has donned a shield. A well versed foe could immediately tell (insight or intelligence check with low DC)

[GlenSmash!]

I guess I should be clear, I understand that a character can hold a shield without being considered to be wielding it but would you consider that as a strategy for them to reasonably convince someone that they are wielding it, whether as a piece of armor or as a weapon?


With a successful Charisma (Deception) Check sure.

[Misterwhisper]

I would think that armor would be the much bigger deal than a shield, if someone sees a person with no armor but does have a shield they would think barbarian. However if you look pretty scrawny it will not look right.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A common trope is someone picking up a weapon, threatening to use it, and the bad guy instantly knows he has no idea: the safety is on, holding a shield arm low, can't hold the sword up.

I think this would be evident if someone without shield proficiency is trying to pretend he has donned a shield. A well versed foe could immediately tell (insight or intelligence check with low DC)

That's the way I'm leaning personally, best case scenario you fool someone in the first round of combat, worst case scenario you've wasted your efforts and they can spot your ruse immediately.

[HappyDaze]

Holding a shield (one-handed):http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Be-kV8a2dAg/VMNCbrxegkI/AAAAAAAATYM/CGgEtJ66rlU/s1600/DSC00666.jpg
Holding a shield (two-handed):http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UmWNiMdZK2Y/VMNCcWp6oNI/AAAAAAAATYQ/qjbN2-LnHTY/s1600/DSC00667.jpg

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That's the way I'm leaning personally, best case scenario you fool someone in the first round of combat, worst case scenario you've wasted your efforts and they can spot your ruse immediately.

You gain something or lose nothing, looks like a good deal to me.

[Fnissalot]

I wasn't clear on whether the opening question was just about appearance or all mechanical interactions - I've gone with the latter. So, there are several passages of interest in the PHB to this:

Questions that arise:

Does carrying a shield require one hand? I would say the rules are only stating that it could be carried in one hand - you could easily carry it in many other ways, like many items. For example, a dagger is also carried in one hand, but can also be carried in other ways - like a sheath or in two hands.

To require that it be carried in one hand it would have to explicitly say that it is required. For example, the two-handed weapon property explicitly states that two hands are required to use. Donning a shield and not holding the strap would still be carrying the shield - it just wouldn't be carried in a hand at that time. It isn't even explicit that it needs to be carried - although wearing or wielding something would, by definition, include carrying it.


Does it say that not wielding the shield for the entire round negates the increase to AC from wielding it? No - there are nothing written requiring this. Hence, just like you can temporarily wield a two-handed weapon and derive the benefits from doing so, you can temporarily wield your shield and derive the benefits from doing so. If you were not wielding the shield at the time you were attacked then you would not benefit from the increase to AC - this is rarely an issue on your turn, though.


Does the shield need to be donned to get the increase to AC? Not that I can see. There is no text that explicitly links donning a shield to wielding a shield. In real life, shields did not need to be donned to be wielded - so there is no 'common sense' English to fall back on here. If you wield the shield you increase the AC, as stated in the quote.

Furthermore, the quote about benefiting from the armor's AC only if the suit of armor is donned: it is not clear that it would apply to shields as shields are not a suit of armor and they don't provide an AC anyway. In many ways, you could argue that donning a shield actually gives no mechanical benefit other that not being easily disarmed - even that is suspect if you rule that you can spend an action to doff someone else's shield from them (weirdly, no rule against this!).

Shields are in the armor table and in the don/doff table and the text on donning and doffing clearly states that armor (not suits of armor) only affects AC if it has been donned. A shields AC value is +2 according to the armor table. You cannot doff it and don it in less than an action since the game does not support half-actions.

[Aimeryan]

...the text on donning and doffing clearly states that armor (not suits of armor) only affects AC if it has been donned.

Hmm, I wonder if this is an errata? What do others see for this?

Edit: No, seems not - the official errata (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf) has nothing on this. Not sure where Fnissalot is reading what he states - any quotes and page numbers you could give?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Hmm, I wonder if this is an errata? What do others see for this?

Edit: No, seems not - the official errata (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf) has nothing on this. Not sure where Fnissalot is reading what he states - any quotes and page numbers you could give?


Chapter 5: Armor and Shields (PG 144-145 PHB)
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.

Chapter 5: Getting into and Out of Armor (PG 146 PHB)
The time it takes to don or doff armor depends on the armor's category.

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.

It's worth noting, though I can't exactly quote the tables, that Shields are present in both the armor list table and the table present under Donning and Doffing. Mechanically Shields are considered armor, and you can only benefit from the AC of an armor when it is properly donned.

[Fnissalot]

Hmm, I wonder if this is an errata? What do others see for this?

Edit: No, seems not - the official errata (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf) has nothing on this. Not sure where Fnissalot is reading what he states - any quotes and page numbers you could give?
The pages you quoted from the PHB. They talk about armor and does not differentiate in most of the cases between shields and armor. The only reference it has to suits of armor is when describing heavy armor. The armor table and the don doff armor table includes shields. Nothing on those pages states that it does not apply to shields.

[Aimeryan]

The pages you quoted from the PHB. They talk about armor and does not differentiate in most of the cases between shields and armor. The only reference it has to suits of armor is when describing heavy armor. The armor table and the don doff armor table includes shields. Nothing on those pages states that it does not apply to shields.

No, the literal exact quote is this:


You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.

You can not don a suit of shield, ergo, you either can never benefit from the AC or the rule doesn't apply to shields. Also, shields do not have an AC, anyhow.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You can not don a suit of shield, ergo, you either can never benefit from the AC or the rule doesn't apply to shields. Also, shields do not have an AC, anyhow.

This logic requires you to ignore both tables that list Shields as a type of armor and an equipment that requires donning and doffing.

[Gignere]

You gain something or lose nothing, looks like a good deal to me.

Yes this is all I was trying to achieve one round of advantage but given that I’m a GOD wizard, one round is all it takes for me to shut down an encounter and make it ezmode. Even if it only works 25% of the encounters its amazing for the cheap cost of a shield.

[Fnissalot]

No, the literal exact quote is this:



You can not don a suit of shield, ergo, you either can never benefit from the AC or the rule doesn't apply to shields. Also, shields do not have an AC, anyhow.

Ok, I missed that place... And some more when I re-read it now...

That said, you don a shield to get the AC the shield gives. Both the text on shields and the armor table says that it gives AC, and why would you be able to don/doff (shields are still in the don/doff table) it if it didn't need to do it to get the AC?


This logic requires you to ignore both tables that list Shields as a type of armor and an equipment that requires donning and doffing.

Exactly! And in addition to this, the chapter describes shield proficiency as an armor proficiency, and shields are indirectly called an armor category in the don/doff chapter.



Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor.



Getting Into and Out of Armor
The time it takes to don or doff armor depends on the armor’s category

[Ironheart]

This seems to be the correct vein to ask this unrelated question:

Having a shield donned permits the user to benefit from the Defense fighting style, correct?

As for our bluffing Wizard, I would permit CR 7 and higher humanoid enemies make contested wisdom checks to correctly determine which combatant requires their attention first.

Why 7? It’s around the time Battle Masters can do this same thing without any risk if they have a minute, and so other combatants (especially those that are martially inclined) might attempt a similar tactic. For extra spice, I’d run multiple skulked-esqe enemies that would insight enemies before combat starts against passive intimidation checks- going for the scariest target first.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

This seems to be the correct vein to ask this unrelated question:

Having a shield donned permits the user to benefit from the Defense fighting style, correct?

As for our bluffing Wizard, I would permit CR 7 and higher humanoid enemies make contested wisdom checks to correctly determine which combatant requires their attention first.

Why 7? It’s around the time Battle Masters can do this same thing without any risk if they have a minute, and so other combatants (especially those that are martially inclined) might attempt a similar tactic. For extra spice, I’d run multiple skulked-esqe enemies that would insight enemies before combat starts against passive intimidation checks- going for the scariest target first.

The poor Sorcerer, Warlock and Bard.
But the happy Paladin.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Having a shield donned permits the user to benefit from the Defense fighting style, correct?

If we're playing the word minutiae game, the fighting style doesn't say "suit of armor" so logically it would apply to Shields. This is not an intended interaction however, as evidenced here (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/740632121883009024).

Although this does lend credence to the idea that "suit of armor" is meant to be differentiated from "armor" in some meaningful way, the wording just isn't good at supporting it.

This opens up a few paths for shields (varying in degrees of strictness) depending on what your interpretation is:
-Donning and Doffing a Shield is completely pointless because it isn't "a suit of armor" and that means you can gain its AC without donning it.
-A shield can be held as an action without gaining the AC bonus, requiring donning to gain the AC bonus.
-You can't even pick up a shield without donning it since it always gives its AC bonus, which requires it to be donned.

Of the three listed options, I think #2 is the most sensible and #3 is a ridiculous extreme. I can see an argument in favor of #1 if you really go over the rules with a fine tooth comb but it's quite a stretch.

[Aprender]

I don't need to be the New York Times theater critic to know that if one of us GITPers dresses in tight-fitting spandex and puts on ridiculous make-up that I am not watching a Broadway production of "Cats".

At my table: Feel free to hold the shield, wizard, but anyone with enough intelligence to attack a wizard in the first place (which isn't the majority of foes) is not going to be duped by your ruse, your cunning attempt to fool me.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't need to be the New York Times theater critic to know that if one of us GITPers dresses in tight-fitting spandex and puts on ridiculous make-up that I am not watching a Broadway production of "Cats".

At my table: Feel free to hold the shield, wizard, but anyone with enough intelligence to attack a wizard in the first place (which isn't the majority of foes) is not going to be duped by your ruse, your cunning attempt to fool me.

Why won't you roll Insight vs the wizard Deception/Performance?

Isn't the wizard trying to look like something else?
Why your NPCs auto success vs the player?

[Aprender]

Why won't you roll Insight vs the wizard Deception/Performance?

Isn't the wizard trying to look like something else?
Why your NPCs auto success vs the player?

Per the Basic Rules "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

To me, a well-trained martial NPC watching a wizard holding a shield would instantly recognize the ruse, so no roll is needed. A beast or unintelligent foe would not recognize a trained fighter from an untrained one but would also not care, so no roll is needed.

Every character has strengths and weaknesses in this or that situation, but while I allow a lot of leeway in players using out-of-the-box thinking, I do not like the "Charisma check as a Deus ex machina". To me, "I hold this shield with no cost and get to deceive enemies" isn't as bad as "I roll a deception check to seduce the angry king whose town we just burned down", but at least the second one is kind of funny (the first 30 times).

At your table, do what you like. I haven't even passed the Turing test for you, so take my comments with a grain of salt. :)

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Per the Basic Rules "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

To me, a well-trained martial NPC watching a wizard holding a shield would instantly recognize the ruse, so no roll is needed. A beast or unintelligent foe would not recognize a trained fighter from an untrained one but would also not care, so no roll is needed.

Every character has strengths and weaknesses in this or that situation, but while I allow a lot of leeway in players using out-of-the-box thinking, I do not like the "Charisma check as a Deus ex machina". To me, "I hold this shield with no cost and get to deceive enemies" isn't as bad as "I roll a deception check to seduce the angry king whose town we just burned down", but at least the second one is kind of funny (the first 30 times).

At your table, do what you like. I haven't even passed the Turing test for you, so take my comments with a grain of salt. :)

Well, I assume that the wizard will invest in deception, if a player invest in something it is probably important for him so I will let him try.

If they fight vs 20 hubgoblins the hubgoblins have 20 checks to try and see past the deception, if 1 in 20 is a 20 then they will get a 20 every fight. Hubgoblins are militaristic and probably will pass the information to everyone.

The player tried, the player failed but he had the ability to roll 20 and if he had a better modifier he will have the ability to deceive them.

**I see this as a normal thing to do because I roll with a program. Actual dice will take longer, I will just give the 20 hubgoblins 20 for the roll.

How seduce with deception???
Wouldn't it be better to make something else take the blame?


I still want to know why you think like this, it is interesting for me. I am not trying to hurt you or say you are wrong.

A lot of programs can pass the Turing test, it is out dated so I just ignore it until a better alternative will show up.

[Aprender]

Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I love having a discussion, especially when I don't 100% agree or know the outcome of the conversation. I appreciate you being aware of the possibility of offending someone, though, and I'll try and be respectful as well. :)

I agree with you that if there is a chance of the deception working that a roll is indicated with a DC reflective of how hard it would be to succeed. A player that invests stats (a wizard with 15 strength!) or skills (proficiency with disguise kit and uses it) would be rewarded. I made the assumption in my original response that it was a generic, bookish wizard that had lifted up a shield or placed it on his back and therefore "looked the part" of a trained warrior. I would neither reward that nor punish it.

As to the question of why I think this way, I generally don't allow players to do something not covered by the rules that is covered by different rules. For example, there are known magical and non-magical ways to change a PC's appearance. They all have costs. Picking up a shield (apart from the shield itself) as described by the OP has no costs, and to allow it to replace illusion magic or a background skill to me seems unfair to the players that invest in the official ways. As such, I don't allow it. I'm not perfect at enforcing this, especially if the players are particularly clever, but I try.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I love having a discussion, especially when I don't 100% agree or know the outcome of the conversation. I appreciate you being aware of the possibility of offending someone, though, and I'll try and be respectful as well. :)

I agree with you that if there is a chance of the deception working that a roll is indicated with a DC reflective of how hard it would be to succeed. A player that invests stats (a wizard with 15 strength!) or skills (proficiency with disguise kit and uses it) would be rewarded. I made the assumption in my original response that it was a generic, bookish wizard that had lifted up a shield or placed it on his back and therefore "looked the part" of a trained warrior. I would neither reward that nor punish it.

As to the question of why I think this way, I generally don't allow players to do something not covered by the rules that is covered by different rules. For example, there are known magical and non-magical ways to change a PC's appearance. They all have costs. Picking up a shield (apart from the shield itself) as described by the OP has no costs, and to allow it to replace illusion magic or a background skill to me seems unfair to the players that invest in the official ways. As such, I don't allow it. I'm not perfect at enforcing this, especially if the players are particularly clever, but I try.

Ok, so I agree with you(in general).
But I will make stuff almost impossible instead of impossible.

People love the 3 times 20 in a raw check(at least people in my area).
(Just an example of a requirement for an almost impossible check).

I like to give people the feel they have the option even when they don't.
I will let a player with a -1 to try a DC 20 check. I will tell him that it look super hard to do. He never be able to do it without magic or a bard but he can try.

Playing a game and never roll(had a game with a DM that didn't want us to roll unless he said so) feel like all the energy and time you pot into making your character do what you want them to do is wasted. I don't like this feeling and don't like to make other feel it.

**This game was a social one with almost no fighting. After a talk with the DM he was willing to let me roll even if it was impossible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, personally, I'd say the following.

Anyone claiming that you can get the benefits of a shield without spending the action cost/proficiency/etc to wield it properly is at severe risk of a hurled DMG being told to find a different group. That kind of casuistry doesn't fly with me, nor is it conducive to good games. Be actually clever, not trying to play word games with rules.

A non-proficient person wearing a shield/armor may fool a casual observer, especially if part of a larger host all dressed mostly alike. It is highly unlikely to fool anyone who is actually in combat with them or preparing to attack, especially trained combatants. It may fool animals or stupid creatures like ogres, but animals and stupid creatures aren't hunting waskally wizards.

[mrumsey]

Why not just run it like hiding? If any one in an adversarial group would think "Hey, that guy is full of crap with his crappy shield form," then it doesn't work.

That shouldn't stop the wizard from doing weird stuff like this due to his paranoia. Keeping in character with stuff like this makes games memorable, even if it turns out to be a detriment at times.

[Pleh]

Holding a shield (one-handed):http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Be-kV8a2dAg/VMNCbrxegkI/AAAAAAAATYM/CGgEtJ66rlU/s1600/DSC00666.jpg
Holding a shield (two-handed):http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UmWNiMdZK2Y/VMNCcWp6oNI/AAAAAAAATYQ/qjbN2-LnHTY/s1600/DSC00667.jpg

This was where my mind went, too, but I did consider Cap's Super Strength. He's definitely stronger than your average wizard. Here's my guess.

Most shields aren't very light (even the ones categorized as comparatively light). I would say you'd need at least 13 Str and using 2 hands or whatever you're trying to do with it will be at disadvantage (and you get no AC from it in either case). If you have Str 15, you could maybe hold it in one hand without disadvantage. If a wizard dons the shield, the straps make it more manageable to hold with one hand and normal rules for wielding the shield applies.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

This was where my mind went, too, but I did consider Cap's Super Strength. He's definitely stronger than your average wizard. Here's my guess.

Most shields aren't very light (even the ones categorized as comparatively light). I would say you'd need at least 13 Str and using 2 hands or whatever you're trying to do with it will be at disadvantage (and you get no AC from it in either case). If you have Str 15, you could maybe hold it in one hand without disadvantage. If a wizard dons the shield, the straps make it more manageable to hold with one hand and normal rules for wielding the shield applies.

A middle grip small wooden shield is very light and actually my IRL favorite to use.
Holding a shield straight in front of you is a wast of stamina, it is better to let the arm rest and move it as needed IMHO.

Of course I will not hold it like the picture. I will let it rest on my belt.

My 7 str hexblade have no problem with carrying her shield, no rule prevent her from doing so. No need for high str.

[Aimeryan]

Of the three listed options, I think #2 is the most sensible and #3 is a ridiculous extreme. I can see an argument in favor of #1 if you really go over the rules with a fine tooth comb but it's quite a stretch.

Is it silly for a shield to merely be wielded and not donned to receive a benefit? Not in the slightest. The real issue is that 5e was made to be simple, so it falls flat on various points. The difference between a centre-grip shield and an arm-braced shield in real life is that of stability, spreading the force, and being secured vs. time and cost to construct and time to don. If 5e was to attempt to model this it would probably require trauma conditions (like a broken wrist, broken arm, etc.) and random disarm chances based on damage being blocked by the shield - the arm-braced shield would be less likely to suffer a broken wrist but more likely to suffer a broken arm, and almost impossible to disarm.

It becomes somewhat moot anyhow - you can drop a weapon, cast a spell, then pick the weapon back up. Allowing you to release your grip on the shield handle to either hold something or cast with that hand seems quite logical - that the rules don't prevent this is not really an issue as I see it; the rules do not prevent taking a hand off a two-handed weapon to hold something/cast, either.

The donning rule is only really relevant in terms of casters without proficiency. If you could wield the shield and get the bonus without donning it then the proficiency seems pointless. Alternatively, if you read the rules as given +2 AC when wielded and +2 AC when donned, well the casters lose out on +2 AC but now everyone else is getting +4 AC from a (non-magical) shield. The rules specifically say you get +2 AC when wielded, and wielding is not the same as donning. Just messed up rules, really.

[HappyDaze]

This was where my mind went, too, but I did consider Cap's Super Strength. He's definitely stronger than your average wizard. Here's my guess.

Most shields aren't very light (even the ones categorized as comparatively light). I would say you'd need at least 13 Str and using 2 hands or whatever you're trying to do with it will be at disadvantage (and you get no AC from it in either case). If you have Str 15, you could maybe hold it in one hand without disadvantage. If a wizard dons the shield, the straps make it more manageable to hold with one hand and normal rules for wielding the shield applies.

My point with the CA pics was that there is a big difference in how CA looks when holding a shield compared to how he looks when the shield is properly "donned" in battle. If I see someone in battle holding a shield like the CA poses I posted, then--if I myself and proficient with shields--I can pretty quickly tell they are not going to be making effective use of it to protect themselves.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Is it silly for a shield to merely be wielded and not donned to receive a benefit? Not in the slightest. The real issue is that 5e was made to be simple, so it falls flat on various points. The difference between a centre-grip shield and an arm-braced shield in real life is that of stability, spreading the force, and being secured vs. time and cost to construct and time to don. If 5e was to attempt to model this it would probably require trauma conditions (like a broken wrist, broken arm, etc.) and random disarm chances based on damage being blocked by the shield - the arm-braced shield would be less likely to suffer a broken wrist but more likely to suffer a broken arm, and almost impossible to disarm.

It becomes somewhat moot anyhow - you can drop a weapon, cast a spell, then pick the weapon back up. Allowing you to release your grip on the shield handle to either hold something or cast with that hand seems quite logical - that the rules don't prevent this is not really an issue as I see it; the rules do not prevent taking a hand off a two-handed weapon to hold something/cast, either.

The donning rule is only really relevant in terms of casters without proficiency. If you could wield the shield and get the bonus without donning it then the proficiency seems pointless. Alternatively, if you read the rules as given +2 AC when wielded and +2 AC when donned, well the casters lose out on +2 AC but now everyone else is getting +4 AC from a (non-magical) shield. The rules specifically say you get +2 AC when wielded, and wielding is not the same as donning. Just messed up rules, really.

I disagree with several of these comments:
-If simplicity was an issue donning and doffing wouldn't exist to begin with.
-The rules only attempt to emulate real life to an extent, you could break apart the functionality of most weapons and armor if you compare them to their real life equivalents. Longbows for example should require a strength check to draw if we wanted to better emulate real life.
-For your two handed weapon comments, the rules intentionally allow that, citing that you only need to hold the weapon with two hands while swinging it.
-I don't understand how donning only matters for proficiency, everyone must don a shield to properly equip it.
-On the entire last paragraph, I sincerely wish you the best of luck convincing any serious table that this is a reasonable reading of the rules.

[Stone-Ears]

I guess in the case of a wizard trying to pretend like he's actually somewhat skilled with a shield and armor, I would take into consideration if the wizard has asked the martial combatants, preferably ones who are sword and board for a little bit of training. Not enough to be proficient with the shield but enough training to know how to hold it properly when marching, moving, and at the start of battles. This would aid greatly in making the deception succeed more.

However, absent that, if you are in a campaign that fights against or contains a miltila-like group of enemies, then an experienced fighter would be able to discern who the weakest target is. That's probably going to be the guy in light armor who is holding a shield somewhat off. That shows inexperience and would make a prime first target to whittle down the numbers and gain the advantage. Little do they know he's actually a wizard that could eviscerate them if they stay far away enough not to run a sword through him

[Aimeryan]

I disagree with several of these comments:
-If simplicity was an issue donning and doffing wouldn't exist to begin with.
-The rules only attempt to emulate real life to an extent, you could break apart the functionality of most weapons and armor if you compare them to their real life equivalents. Longbows for example should require a strength check to draw if we wanted to better emulate real life.
-For your two handed weapon comments, the rules intentionally allow that, citing that you only need to hold the weapon with two hands while swinging it.
-I don't understand how donning only matters for proficiency, everyone must don a shield to properly equip it.
-On the entire last paragraph, I sincerely wish you the best of luck convincing any serious table that this is a reasonable reading of the rules.

- Simplicity is not binary.
- Agreed, however, that only furthers my point that 5e is simple.
- True, however, it does not say anything about wielding it only some of the time in a round and this is what allows the casting. The shield has the same outcome - partial wielding in a round allows for casting when not wielding.
- Wielding and donning is not the same thing. The rules say you get +2 AC if you wield it. The likelihood is that you are meant to get +2 AC when wielded and donned at the same time, however, the rules as written actually result in you getting the bonus twice - once for wielding and once for donning. This is the same way you don't wield plate armor; you get the the bonus for donning. The shield has the extra line about wielding. Badly written rules.
- I'm not trying to get a table (or you) to use these rules this way - merely pointing out that they can be derived this way. The rules are written badly since they forgot about shields when writing the donning rules - one way or the other.

[ProsecutorGodot]

- I'm not trying to get a table (or you) to use these rules this way - merely pointing out that they can be derived this way. The rules are written badly since they forgot about shields when writing the donning rules - one way or the other.

The rules can be derived many different ways if you ignore both context and existing tables in the PHB. To gain the armor bonus that a piece of armor provides, you must equip it (donning) in its entirety. For suits of armor, this means that putting on gauntlets is insufficient and for shields this means taking the time to properly don it.

Shields are right there in the donning and doffing rules, you've been quoted the relevant text and handed the page numbers in the phb more than once.

I will say that it could have been better written. The quote "You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor." exists because full suits of armor all take longer than a single action to equip. Since Shields only take an action (and do count as armor in this context) you don't really have to worry about taking the full time to equip it being interrupted. It would be redundant to add shields to that line because if you're grabbing it with the intention of donning it, it takes an action, otherwise you haven't donned it and don't gain its AC bonus.

[Misterwhisper]

The rules can be derived many different ways if you ignore both context and existing tables in the PHB. To gain the armor bonus that a piece of armor provides, you must equip it (donning) in its entirety. For suits of armor, this means that putting on gauntlets is insufficient and for shields this means taking the time to properly don it.

Shields are right there in the donning and doffing rules, you've been quoted the relevant text and handed the page numbers in the phb more than once.

I will say that it could have been better written. The quote "You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor." exists because full suits of armor all take longer than a single action to equip. Since Shields only take an action (and do count as armor in this context) you don't really have to worry about taking the full time to equip it being interrupted. It would be redundant to add shields to that line because if you're grabbing it with the intention of donning it, it takes an action, otherwise you haven't donned it and don't gain its AC bonus.

Also, nobody walks around just holding a shield, it would make you stand out more by drawing attention if you are just holding the thing instead of having it stowed or being properly equiped.

[Aimeryan]

The rules can be derived many different ways if you ignore both context and existing tables in the PHB. To gain the armor bonus that a piece of armor provides, you must equip it (donning) in its entirety. For suits of armor, this means that putting on gauntlets is insufficient and for shields this means taking the time to properly don it.

Shields are right there in the donning and doffing rules, you've been quoted the relevant text and handed the page numbers in the phb more than once.

I will say that it could have been better written. The quote "You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor." exists because full suits of armor all take longer than a single action to equip. Since Shields only take an action (and do count as armor in this context) you don't really have to worry about taking the full time to equip it being interrupted. It would be redundant to add shields to that line because if you're grabbing it with the intention of donning it, it takes an action, otherwise you haven't donned it and don't gain its AC bonus.

Except that quote is literally the only text that states that you do not get the AC of the item if not donned. I agree the quote is probably referencing the long donning time. Unfortunately, the text as written does not make sense for shields; shields do not have an AC (instead they modify AC, like a ring of protection does) and shields are not a suit of armor. In addition, you could read it pedantically to say that as long as you have donned a suit of armor you benefit from what the shield provides.

The wield statement is separate to this. If you rule that since the armor table states +2 for shield under the AC column it therefore provides a +2 benefit when donned just as other armor (despite the donning rule being written how it is), then the shield provides +2 AC when donned. It also provides +2 AC when wielded, as stated in the rules. Now I don't think this is the intent, although it actually makes sense oddly enough; a shield should provide a passive and active bonus. If you had the shield donned but were not actively wielding it, it still has a chance of being hit instead of you. Actively wielding it should increase this chance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except that quote is literally the only text that states that you do not get the AC of the item if not donned. I agree the quote is probably referencing the long donning time. Unfortunately, the text as written does not make sense for shields; shields do not have an AC (instead they modify AC, like a ring of protection does) and shields are not a suit of armor. In addition, you could read it pedantically to say that as long as you have donned a suit of armor you benefit from what the shield provides.

The wield statement is separate to this. If you rule that since the armor table states +2 for shield under the AC column it therefore provides a +2 benefit when donned just as other armor (despite the donning rule being written how it is), then the shield provides +2 AC when donned. It also provides +2 AC when wielded, as stated in the rules. Now I don't think this is the intent, although it actually makes sense oddly enough; a shield should provide a passive and active bonus. If you had the shield donned but were not actively wielding it, it still has a chance of being hit instead of you. Actively wielding it should increase this chance.

Let don = wield (as makes sense for shields). No issues result. Sanity prevails.

If there's an absurd way to read something and a normal way...use the normal way.

[Aimeryan]

Let don = wield (as makes sense for shields). No issues result. Sanity prevails.

If there's an absurd way to read something and a normal way...use the normal way.

Sure, we can just make any word equal whatever we want - that's how I start with any magic item I want, too!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, we can just make any word equal whatever we want - that's how I start with any magic item I want, too!

No. The kind of hyper-literal interpretation you're doing does not belong in this edition. That's not how the rules were written, nor how they were intended to be understood. You're the only one who sees it that way, and that's because you're looking for mechanical advantage.

And you wield a shield by donning it. Those two (for shields) are synonyms. Rules that apply to donning shields apply to wielding them. That's the only sane interpretation. Yours is not sane in any direction.

Edit: to be more precise, in order to wield a shield you must have donned it previously and not doffed it yet. That's evident from the table on page 146; to say otherwise is to say that the inclusion of shields in that table is a nullity.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've seen this distinction come up a few times for several different reasons. One of the strangest (imo) I'd seen was a comment claiming that a Wizard could hold a shield in combat in a way that would deceive monsters into thinking they are able to use it while not having it interfere with their spellcasting.

Simple questions, how do you treat the difference mechanically at your table? Do you allow any interactions that would call for a shield being held rather than donned? Does this interaction involving actions in combat change your ruling? Is there a line to be drawn in what is acceptable and if so, where do you draw it?

No judgements here, I'm just curious because surprisingly enough I'd never seen the idea thrown around prior to these recent threads and I'm wondering if it's one of those "of course, you should have known that" situations like dropping a weapon rather than stowing.


What I had pictured from your thread title was passive shield use (donning) vs active shield use (holding).

But at PheonixPhyre notes, it might be better to chalk this up to sloppy language and go with the most sensible reading, that using, donning, holding, etc are all the same thing, and that there's no rules-parsing needed to identify a difference.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What I had pictured from your thread title was passive shield use (donning) vs active shield use (holding).

But at PheonixPhyre notes, it might be better to chalk this up to sloppy language and go with the most sensible reading, that using, donning, holding, etc are all the same thing, and that there's no rules-parsing needed to identify a difference.

I would separate "holding" from donning/wearing/using. Anyone can hold a shield just like any other object--that NPC porter can put one on their back, strap it to their pack, or hold it in their hands (like Captain is in those pictures). They just can't benefit from the shield in any way. It's a chunk of hardwood or metal.

You can hold a weapon without wielding it. It does you no good and occupies a hand, but you can hold it just fine.

[Aimeryan]

...that's because you're looking for mechanical advantage.

Assume, much? Also, so moot - there are other ways to get the advantages you are talking about with less controversy.


And you wield a shield by donning it.

Nope. Donning a shield, that is, the ones that can be donned, has its advanatages - it is absolutely not necessary in order to wield one. You should try looking these things up before making such absolute statements.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Assume, much? Also, so moot - there are other ways to get the advantages you are talking about with less controversy.

Nope. Donning a shield, that is, the ones that can be donned, has its advanatages - it is absolutely not necessary in order to wield one. You should try looking these things up before making such absolute statements.
In game terms, no. Wielding is used as a synonym for "having donned and not doffed" in this case. There is only one type of shield and it must be donned before use. Or those passages are pure surplus and meaningless.

[Aimeryan]

In game terms, no. Wielding is used as a synonym for "having donned and not doffed" in this case. There is only one type of shield and it must be donned before use. Or those passages are pure surplus and meaningless.

Just your take on it, which is fine. Objectively, there is no text saying wielding a shield is the same as donning a shield. Common English would not support such, either.

[Zalabim]

The donning rule is only really relevant in terms of casters without proficiency. If you could wield the shield and get the bonus without donning it then the proficiency seems pointless. Alternatively, if you read the rules as given +2 AC when wielded and +2 AC when donned, well the casters lose out on +2 AC but now everyone else is getting +4 AC from a (non-magical) shield. The rules specifically say you get +2 AC when wielded, and wielding is not the same as donning. Just messed up rules, really.
The text in the description clarifies the text in the table. They aren't disagreeing and they aren't separate things. This may mean that you can don a shield as an action, but not be wielding it right now because you're busy lighting a torch, and thus not get the shield's AC bonus. This would also describe the situation of the loose application of the hands rules a lot of parties use for spellcasting with weapon and shield. Instead of dropping and picking up their weapon, they are 'dropping' (not wielding) their shield while they cast the spell then 'picking up' (wielding) the shield again when they're done.

The opposite situation, wielding a shield without donning it, would also not give the AC bonus because you must wear armor and shields to get AC from them. Shields have the additional requirement that they must be wielded.

[Pleh]

Just your take on it, which is fine. Objectively, there is no text saying wielding a shield is the same as donning a shield. Common English would not support such, either.

I would tend to side with PP on this. You're being needlessly particular on the verbiage. English and RAW are all well and good, but you should always balance them with a rational understanding of what it actually means for the game.

PP's interpretation makes the most sense. To pick it apart, we need a different interpretation that makes more sense. Just picking it apart based on wording seems unconstructive.

[Aimeryan]

I would tend to side with PP on this. You're being needlessly particular on the verbiage. English and RAW are all well and good, but you should always balance them with a rational understanding of what it actually means for the game.

PP's interpretation makes the most sense. To pick it apart, we need a different interpretation that makes more sense. Just picking it apart based on wording seems unconstructive.

Except there is no 'side'; I'm not pushing for anything, I'm merely pointing out the rules as written are garbage at actually conveying that the shield must be both donned and wielded to get only a +2 AC. That people rule this way 99% of the time is more attributed to top-down processing than to the actual text.

That said, there is also the point that a shield that is being wielded and not donned should probably provide some benefit given that centre-grip shields were amongst the two most popular ways of using a shield. I would very much consider the idea of donning the shield giving +1 AC and wielding the shield giving +1 AC, for a total of +2 AC if both are true. I'm not pushing for this, though - its merely a reasonable option I am pointing out. This then leads to seeing that the rules as written actually seem to support this, although for a total of +4 AC.

~~~


The text in the description clarifies the text in the table. They aren't disagreeing and they aren't separate things. This may mean that you can don a shield as an action, but not be wielding it right now because you're busy lighting a torch, and thus not get the shield's AC bonus. This would also describe the situation of the loose application of the hands rules a lot of parties use for spellcasting with weapon and shield. Instead of dropping and picking up their weapon,they are 'dropping' (not wielding) their shield while they cast the spell then 'picking up' (wielding) the shield again when they're done.

The two bolded sections contradict each other - please clarify.

I agree that the rules support releasing the shield, using the hand, then wielding the shield again. This is the same as for two-handed weapons, or indeed any weapon.



The opposite situation, wielding a shield without donning it, would also not give the AC bonus because you must wear armor and shields to get AC from them. Shields have the additional requirement that they must be wielded.

Nope. Read the text again. There is no requirement to wield, merely that wielding gives a bonus. The intention is likely that it is a requirement, but the text does not state that. Could I please request that statements from here on actually match what the text says?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Except there is no 'side'; I'm not pushing for anything, I'm merely pointing out the rules as written are garbage at actually conveying that the shield must be both donned and wielded to get only a +2 AC. That people rule this way 99% of the time is more attributed to top-down processing than to the actual text.

You must be pushing for something because despite every piece of evidence to the contrary you keep insisting that the rules are vague enough that you would be able to receive the bonus a shield grants without donning it.

In fact, if we're getting particular, the rules offer more support for the idea that a shield always requires an action to interact with, cited here:

You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
I'd still say that this is a ridiculous reading of the rules (grabbing and moving an unattended shield without the intent to use it would reasonably count as an object interaction) but at least there's actual evidence to support it rather than blatantly ignoring existing rules. You cite the rules as "garbage" but you're argument is based in ignorance of context. There aren't clear written rules that you cannot take actions while dead, just unconscious, are you going to argue that since there are none you can take actions while dead?

It just reads to me as absurd. I can't help but see it as an attempt to poke holes in the rules even where there really aren't any meaningful flaws. If 99% of the time the player base reaches a different conclusion than you do (your own words) it just might be that the lengths you have to go to reach such a conclusion are unreasonable.

[Hail Tempus]

Nope. Read the text again. There is no requirement to wield, merely that wielding gives a bonus. The intention is likely that it is a requirement, but the text does not state that. Could I please request that statements from here on actually match what the text says? I think there is (or at least should be) a social contract among D&D players to avoid silly stretches of the plain meaning of words in the rule-books. And I say this as a lawyer.

The PHB lists what it takes to don and doff armor and shields. Once you've donned a shield, you get the +2 AC bonus, and you can't use that hand for anything else unless you take an action to doff the shield. Anyone who wants to start stretching this to get some sort of advantage should be shown the door from any normal group.

[Aimeryan]

You must be pushing for something because despite every piece of evidence to the contrary you keep insisting that the rules are vague enough that you would be able to receive the bonus a shield grants without donning it.[snip]

My only goal is to point out that the rules at topic here are not necessarily what is being said. If someone wants to treat the shield as giving +2 AC when donned and another +2 AC when wielded then great; more power to them by virtue of pointing out the rules can actually be read to support this.



In fact, if we're getting particular, the rules offer more support for the idea that a shield always requires an action to interact with, cited here:[snip]

You cited rules that say special items may require an action as stated in their descriptions - you have not cited rules that say that a shield is such an item.

~~~


The PHB lists what it takes to don and doff armor and shields. Once you've donned a shield, you get the +2 AC bonus, and you can't use that hand for anything else unless you take an action to doff the shield. Anyone who wants to start stretching this to get some sort of advantage should be shown the door from any normal group.

Bold - please quote the text that supports this.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My only goal is to point out that the rules at topic here are not this concrete ironclad contract that people seem to believe. If someone wants to treat the shield as giving +2 AC when donned and another +2 AC when wielded then great; more power to them by virtue of pointing out the rules can actually be read to support this.

All you've reinforced is that just about every rule in the book (and any rule book) can be broken down into an absurd extreme if you push hard enough, which is not news and is certainly not helpful to the discussion.

And I didn't bring this up asking for the 100% ironclad answer, I asked what was reasonable and where the line should be drawn. I'm firmly drawing my line here, it's completely absurd and requires you to ignore every bit of context found in the associated rules.


You cited rules that say special items may require an action as stated in their descriptions - you have not cited rules that say that a shield is such an item.
A shield requires an action to don and donning is defined as "the time it takes to put on armor". If we're following similar logic to yours, "putting it on" can mean anything between holding it to wearing it as a hat. If we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel of pedantry, interacting with a shield in any way that would give you a benefit (including your proposed idea) will always take an action.

[Aimeryan]

A shield requires an action to don and donning is defined as "the time it takes to put on armor". If we're following similar logic to yours, "putting it on" can mean anything between holding it to wearing it as a hat. If we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel of pedantry, interacting with a shield in any way that would give you a benefit (including your proposed idea) will always take an action.

Donning has a common English meaning which, given no overriding meaning mentioned in the PHB, is to be used. This is pretty much the root of my issue with the rules we are talking about - wielding and donning have completely different meanings. If I said, "You may have £10 if you wear my hat. You may have £10 if you lick my hat.", then you would expect £20 if you both wear and lick my hat (which may be possible with some hats!). The rules give +2 AC for two different things, both of which can be done at the same time.



And I didn't bring this up asking for the 100% ironclad answer, I asked what was reasonable and where the line should be drawn. I'm firmly drawing my line here, it's completely absurd and requires you to ignore every bit of context found in the associated rules.

I disagree with it being absurd, however, I will leave such a discussion to another thread given your reluctance to discuss it any further. Thank you for the discussion as it was.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Donning has a common English meaning which, given no overriding meaning mentioned in the PHB, is to be used. This is pretty much the root of my issue with the rules we are talking about - wielding and donning have completely different meanings. If I said, "You may have £10 if you wear my hat. You may have £10 if you lick my hat.", then you would expect £20 if you both wear and lick my hat (which may be possible with some hats!). The rules give +2 AC for two different things, both of which can be done at the same time.
Wield: To hold and use (weapon or tool)
Don: To put on (an article of clothing)

If we're talking about a Shield (both a tool and a supplemental piece of armor) these words could be considered synonymous. This is that context we're talking about. A cursory reading of the rules lends itself to that conclusion.

It's also a bit ironic that the definition you gave as the common meaning of "Don" is actually the definition of "Wield".

I disagree with it being absurd, however, I will leave such a discussion to another thread given your reluctance to discuss it any further. Thank you for the discussion as it was.
I will say that this was at least helpful is setting an extreme I'd prefer to avoid in my own games, so it wasn't entirely unhelpful. My reluctance to discuss further is entirely based on your insistence that rules being cited at you are irrelevant. It turns the discussion into a cyclical "but this says X" followed by "X doesn't mean anything" which isn't helpful to anyone and only sees "X" repeated back and forth until both parties are blue in the face.

[Hail Tempus]

Bold - please quote the text that supports this. The PHB doesn't have to tell us that water is wet, or that PCs need to breathe to survive. You shouldn't expect the rule books to be so detailed as to explain things you already know.

Do you really need that level of detail to play the game? Or can you look at how things work in the real world and come to logical conclusions (such as, if you've got a shield in your hand, that hand can't be used for other tasks until you drop the shield?

[Amechra]

If they fight vs 20 hubgoblins the hubgoblins have 20 checks to try and see past the deception, if 1 in 20 is a 20 then they will get a 20 every fight. Hubgoblins are militaristic and probably will pass the information to everyone.

While that would be intuitive, that's not how the math works. They'd collectively have a {100 * (1 - 19²⁰/20²⁰)}% chance of succeeding, which comes out to roughly a 64% chance of one of them getting a natural 20. To get it up to 99%, you'd need 90 hobgoblins.

Also, what the hell are you doing tossing 20 hobgoblins at the players? That seems like it'd be an incredibly painful fight to run.

[Misterwhisper]

While that would be intuitive, that's not how the math works. They'd collectively have a {100 * (1 - 19²⁰/20²⁰)}% chance of succeeding, which comes out to roughly a 64% chance of one of them getting a natural 20. To get it up to 99%, you'd need 90 hobgoblins.

Also, what the hell are you doing tossing 20 hobgoblins at the players? That seems like it'd be an incredibly painful fight to run.

How easy are the fights you deal with if 20 hobgoblins are considered so highly deadly?

Their highest stat is 13 and are only cr 1/2

[Amechra]

How easy are the fights you deal with if 20 hobgoblins are considered so highly deadly?

Their highest stat is 13 and are only cr 1/2

Oh, not deadly.

It's running 20 monsters that makes me instinctively NOPE away from doing it. Especially if you're doing stuff like "all of them get Perception checks" and the like - that just sounds like such a drag.

[Hail Tempus]

How easy are the fights you deal with if 20 hobgoblins are considered so highly deadly?

Their highest stat is 13 and are only cr 1/2If you look at the DMG charts for how to calculate encounter difficulty, large numbers of monsters significantly skew the difficulty calculation of an encounter.

Plus, large numbers of the same monster are painfully boring for the DM and the players.

[NNescio]

Oh, not deadly.

It's running 20 monsters that makes me instinctively NOPE away from doing it. Especially if you're doing stuff like "all of them get Perception checks" and the like - that just sounds like such a drag.

Sometimes I chuck mobs of weak enemies at my players as free Fireball clay pigeons (not arbitrarily, only when it makes plot sense, I have the monsters hanging around nearby anyway, and the PCs draw too much attention). Makes the Wizard (or arcanist/Light Cleric) feel good. And also drains an L3 spell slot (*whistles innocently*).

Then the PC decides not to fireball (or run or use another AoE) and I groan inwardly. (Oh, come on, I even lined them all up perfectly to fit the AoE template! And I know you have the spell slot with 'plenty'[-ish] more to spare!)

Oh well, the average damage (actually rounded down) numbers of attacks/abilities are in the MM for a reason. And one can always drag the "Handling Mobs" rules out to also assume "averages" for attack rolls and saves. And there's always prerolled number tables and digital (P)RNGs to help facilitate things.