New Sage Advice [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 03:22 PM

I thought this answer was phrased well:

For a wizard to cast a ritual spell contained in
their spellbook, do they need to read from the book or
use it as part of the ritual? No. As written, the rule doesn’t
require you to read from the book. The narrative intent,
however, is that the wizard is reading from their book, but
the only mechanical requirement is that the wizard has the
spell in their spellbook.

That gives the DM info to make an informed decision about whether to stick with the RAW or RAI.

Also this:

The frightened condition says “while the source
of its fear is within line of sight.” Does that mean you
have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks even
if the source is invisible but you have a clear line to its
space? No. If you can’t see something, it’s not within your
line of sight. Speaking of “line of sight,” the game uses the
English meaning of the term, which has no special meaning
in the rules.

and this:

Misty step doesn’t say the caster can bring worn
or carried equipment with them. Are they intended to
leave everything, including their clothes, behind? No,
the caster’s worn and carried equipment are intended to go
with them.
Some teleportation effects do specify that you teleport
with your gear; such specification is an example of a rule
being needlessly fastidious, since no teleportation effect in
the game assumes that you teleport without your clothes,
just as the general movement rules don’t assume that you
drop everything when you walk.

I like the trend towards more context and more complete answers.

=====================================

This one is one of the rare cases where Sage Advice will actually affect how I run my game:

Does casting animate objects during a time stop
spell end the time stop? No. Commanding the newly
created creatures with your bonus action does end time
stop, however.

I read this, shrug, and say, "I wasn't running it that way, but I can live with that, and at least it makes Time Stop less useless."

=====================================

Here's one I plan to ignore:

Can you gain the magical bonus of a +2 shield if
you are holding the shield without taking an action to
don it? Yes, but only the magical +2, which says you gain it
when holding the shield. You gain the shield’s base AC bonus
only if you use your action to don the shield as normal
(see “Getting Into and Out of Armor” in chapter 5 of the
Player’s Handbook).

Amnestic

2020-10-01, 03:28 PM

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 03:38 PM

Man_Over_Game

2020-10-01, 03:45 PM

Can someone explain the design intent behind separating unarmed strikes from counting as weapons, especially when natural weapons do apparently count as weapons?

If there's a broken combo I'm not aware of, cool, but it just seems so arbitrary and unintuitive.

Also you should be able to smite with your fist. It's cool.

Mostly, it just makes things complicated.

Unarmed Strike isn't referring to your fists, it's referring to a specific kind of attack. A headbutt. A kick.

So now that your entire body is a weapon, you gotta ask whether or not you can cast Elemental Weapon on yourself. Does your Head count as a one-handed weapon, or two? If I have Dual Wielder, do I always get +1 AC? Can I ever be eligible for the Duelist fighting style?

Rather than deal with all that, "Unarmed Strikes are not weapons". There. Easy.

NaughtyTiger

2020-10-01, 03:46 PM

The interpretation of holding a magical shield is crap.
I assume they think it applies to Armor of Piercing Resistance, too... just strap it to your back...

Lavaeolus

2020-10-01, 03:50 PM

There are a fair amount of new Q&As this time. If anyone doesn't feel like searching through the text, I know someone on Reddit has compiled the additions (https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/j3f6em/new_sage_advice_compendium_posted/g7bkauf/).

A while back I made a thread asking about whether natural weapons were, indeed, weapons -- so it looks like I have a mostly-official non-tweet answer. Unarmed Fighting was a Fighting Style available to the Paladin in the Feature Variants UA, so it does make me curious if the released Fighting Style going to address that. Assuming it makes it into Tasha's.

If not, I suppose the Tabaxi Paladin plan might work (unarmed strikes using a natural weapon). Although the Q&A doesn't address unarmed strikes made with natural weapons directly.

No brains

2020-10-01, 03:51 PM

The ruling on divine smite bothers me.

[NEW] Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike? No. Divine Smite requires a melee attack using a weapon. The rules don’t consider unarmed strikes to be weapons.

What bothers me about this is that my PHB says 'melee weapon attack', not 'melee attack with a weapon' and the errata does not correct the phrasing.

I know the phrasing already confuses people, but I had adapted to 'melee weapon attack' meaning a physical attack. Now their errata has added, not removed, ambiguity in the game.

I'm also not happy about the call on animate dead. The way the spell is written, it's not clear that it only works on the remains of a humanoid. The phrasing, 'a pile of bones, or the corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid' doesn't make it grammatically clear that the pile of bones must have come from a humanoid. Maybe the errata should change the phrasing to, '...a pile of bones from or the corpse of...'

Despite my complaints, I am otherwise happy that they continue to pay attention to the game and attempt to bring some order in where they couldn't before.

NaughtyTiger

2020-10-01, 03:55 PM

The ruling on divine smite bothers me.

What bothers me about this is that my PHB says 'melee weapon attack', not 'melee attack with a weapon' and the errata does not correct the phrasing.

1) this is NOT errata

2) i think the interpretation hinges on "in addition to the weapon's damage", that this implies a weapon must be used.

3) i am with you, this is counter intuitive...

Amnestic

2020-10-01, 03:58 PM

Mostly, it just makes things complicated.

Unarmed Strike isn't referring to your fists, it's referring to a specific kind of attack. A headbutt. A kick.

So now that your entire body is a weapon, you gotta ask whether or not you can cast Elemental Weapon on yourself. Does your Head count as a one-handed weapon, or two? If I have Dual Wielder, do I always get +1 AC? Can I ever be eligible for the Duelist fighting style?

Rather than deal with all that, "Unarmed Strikes are not weapons". There. Easy.

Mmm.

Well, I guess that does make sense. Wish they'd stat up a gauntlet or combat glove weapon or something. Yeah I can basically refluff a mace into one to do the same thing but doesn't fly with every DM.

Millstone85

2020-10-01, 03:58 PM

The first thing I do with a new SAC is follow the links to the various errata documents and see if I still have the latest versions.

Turns out I wasn't up-to-date on VGtM. Tritons now have darkvision, while kobolds and orcs have lost their maluses.

As for the SAC itself:
When you dismiss the familiar you conjure with the find familiar spell to its pocket dimension, can it take any objects it’s wearing or carrying with it? No, the intent of find familiar is that any objects are left behind when the familiar vanishes. This intent will be reflected in future printings of the Player’s Handbook.

I assume this doesn't apply to the sprite's armor and clothes. :smallbiggrin:

Pex

2020-10-01, 04:09 PM

They finally clarify a druid in wild shape is vulnerable to Power Word Kill.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 04:10 PM

The ruling on divine smite bothers me.

What bothers me about this is that my PHB says 'melee weapon attack', not 'melee attack with a weapon' and the errata does not correct the phrasing.

I know the phrasing already confuses people, but I had adapted to 'melee weapon attack' meaning a physical attack. Now their errata has added, not removed, ambiguity in the game.

What's confusing about "The rules don’t consider unarmed strikes to be weapons."?

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 04:13 PM

What's confusing about "The rules don’t consider unarmed strikes to be weapons."?

It's the fact that unarmed strikes are explicitly considered melee weapon attacks ("Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike...") although not melee weapons, and Paladin's Divine Smite also explicitly works with melee weapon attacks ("Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage."). How then can Sage Advice conclude that "Divine Smite requires a melee attack using a weapon."?

Answer: it can't. Sage Advice is just wrong on this one.

I'm also not happy about the call on animate dead. The way the spell is written, it's not clear that it only works on the remains of a humanoid. The phrasing, 'a pile of bones, or the corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid' doesn't make it grammatically clear that the pile of bones must have come from a humanoid. Maybe the errata should change the phrasing to, '...a pile of bones from or the corpse of...'

Technically... Sage Advice doesn't address bones at all, only corpses.

Can I cast animate dead on the humanoid-shaped corpse of an undead creature such as a zombie or a ghast? No. Animate dead targets only the corpses of creatures that have the humanoid creature type.

So, nothing has changed here. Sage Advice is just repeating what the PHB said. Bones are still ambiguous, and don't technically have to be humanoid by the most reasonable interpretation of the spell text.

Lavaeolus

2020-10-01, 04:14 PM

What's confusing about "The rules don’t consider unarmed strikes to be weapons."?

The problem's with Divine Smite's / the Advice's "melee attack with a weapon" wording here, rather than unarmed strikes not being weapons. Divine Smite:

Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage.

Remember that melee weapon attacks are, by Sage Advice, very different things to melee attacks with weapons. Strictly speaking, even if you agree with the Advice's overall ruling due the latter clause, its reasoning is wrong.

IsaacsAlterEgo

2020-10-01, 04:18 PM

Because the rule explicitly clarifies that Natural Weapons are indeed weapons, does that mean a lizardfolk can smite on a bite attack, and a druid/paladin polymorphed into a bear can smite with claws?

x3n0n

2020-10-01, 04:20 PM

Tritons now have darkvision, while kobolds and orcs have lost their maluses.

I think this is the first errata document to include kobold, and it includes no other modifications, leaving both Sunlight Sensitivity and Pack Tactics in place.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 04:22 PM

The problem's with Divine Smite's / the Advice's "melee attack with a weapon" wording here, rather than unarmed strikes not being weapons. Divine Smite:

Remember that melee weapon attacks are, by Sage Advice, very different things to melee attacks with weapons. Strictly speaking, even if you agree with the Advice's overall ruling due the latter clause, its reasoning is wrong.

It doesn't seem that confusing to me.

Want to smite? Have a weapon in your hand. A table leg will count.

You'd have to go looking for an excuse to smite with your fist to read it any other way, and it still wouldn't stand up in light of the current ruling.

sithlordnergal

2020-10-01, 04:27 PM

What's confusing about "The rules don’t consider unarmed strikes to be weapons."?

Because they kind of contradict themselves. According to the PHB and Errata:

When you hit another creature with a melee weapon Attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a Stunning Strike.

...when you hit a creature with a melee weapon Attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target...

The only difference between those two bolded parts is what kind of creature you can target. You can't stun yourself, but you can technically Smite yourself if you really, really wanted to. Now, you'd think this means you can't use an Unarmed Strike to make a Stunning Strike since both things use the exact same language. However, according to the Compendium:

Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons?

Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack.

Then, literally less than half a page later they say:

Can a paladin use Divine Smite when they hit using an unarmed strike?

No. Divine Smite requires a melee attack using a weapon. The rules don’t consider unarmed strikes to be weapons.

Divine Smite and Stunning Strike both require a melee weapon Attack. For the purposes of Stunning Strike, Unarmed Strikes are considered a melee weapon Attack, but for the purposes of Divine Smite they aren't considered melee weapon Attacks. So which is it? Are they a melee weapon Attack or aren't they? They can't exactly be a melee weapon Attack but not a melee weapon Attack at the same time. They have to be one or the other, unless the Monk makes them into melee weapon Attacks? But there's nothing saying that their Unarmed Strikes are considered melee weapon Attacks.

Luccan

2020-10-01, 04:44 PM

sithlordnergal

2020-10-01, 04:48 PM

More than any logical fault in their argument, I question why it's important to whoever is responsible for SA that you can't use unarmed strikes for Divine Smites. It's kinda hard to build Paladin/Monks it that's what they're worried about

I personally don't get it either...this ruling really doesn't change a ton outside of causing some confusion as to if Unarmed Strikes are melee weapon attacks or not. Maybe they're also concerned about the Smite spells? Those also require a "weapon attack", which is technically different from "making a melee attack with a weapon".

PrinceOfMadness

2020-10-01, 04:50 PM

Telwar

2020-10-01, 04:51 PM

Luccan

2020-10-01, 04:55 PM

IsaacsAlterEgo

2020-10-01, 04:56 PM

I'd assume that Monk gets to do Stunning Strike with an unarmed attack because that's their Special Thing that maybe could have been worded a little more precisely, but we all know they're not going to spend much time on that, especially since people argued over much better written rules in previous editions.

To be fair, I don't think it would break anything to let a paladin use divine smite with an unarmed attack. It's an inferior option to using a real weapon, but hey, some people, that floats their boat.

It would be an entirely decent option paired with the new Unarmed fighting style that's likely coming in Tasha's.

I don't understand why you can't do it though. It seems like unarmed attacks are in a quantum state where they both ARE melee weapon attacks and ARE NOT melee weapon attacks, and they only settle on one state of being when you decide if you want to smite or stunning strike with them. Who knows what happens if you multiclass and want to do both...

Also as an aside: I really hate that they didn't give Kobolds a +1, making them still de-facto the weakest (statistically) race. :smallmad:

Lavaeolus

2020-10-01, 04:58 PM

I'd assume that Monk gets to do Stunning Strike with an unarmed attack because that's their Special Thing that maybe could have been worded a little more precisely, but we all know they're not going to spend much time on that, especially since people argued over much better written rules in previous editions.

Sage Advice confirms a few times unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks, both when referencing Monks and when not:

[The Stunning Strike question continued...] The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.

What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon? It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon.

sithlordnergal

2020-10-01, 04:58 PM

I don't understand why you can't do it though. It seems like unarmed attacks are in a quantum state where they both ARE melee weapon attacks and ARE NOT melee weapon attacks, and they only settle on one state of being when you decide if you want to smite or stunning strike with them. Who knows what happens if you multiclass and want to do both...

A paradox is formed when you try to do both and your hands explode, similar to a Druid wearing metal armor. :smalltongue:

cutlery

2020-10-01, 05:09 PM

Because they kind of contradict themselves. According to the PHB and Errata:

Easy: take a monk level or tavern brawler and you can bend the rules.

Get disarmed without doing either of those and try to fist-smite? Nope.

It doesn't seem that bizarre to expect paladins to have a weapon to smite, or to let monks bypass a small subset of things that require melee weapons. Sometimes RAI is the right ruling.

Especially when nearly anyone can draw a dagger from nowhere as part of their attack.

Crucius

2020-10-01, 05:16 PM

The frightened condition says “while the source
of its fear is within line of sight.” Does that mean you
have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks even
if the source is invisible but you have a clear line to its
space? No. If you can’t see something, it’s not within your
line of sight. Speaking of “line of sight,” the game uses the
English meaning of the term, which has no special meaning
in the rules.

Wait, does this mean closing your eyes counters the frightened condition, allowing you to walk up to the enemy (before making your attacks with disadvantage because you are still frightened or blinded)?

I hope I'm reading this wrong, because I would swear they made a statement about 'line of sight' not being about sight at all, but about the POSSIBILITY of seeing the creature that frightened you (so no full cover, heavy obscurement or invisibility).

sithlordnergal

2020-10-01, 05:20 PM

Easy: take a monk level or tavern brawler and you can bend the rules.

Get disarmed without doing either of those and try to fist-smite? Nope.

It doesn't seem that bizarre to expect paladins to have a weapon to smite, or to let monks bypass a small subset of things that require melee weapons. Sometimes RAI is the right ruling.

Especially when nearly anyone can draw a dagger from nowhere as part of their attack.

Well I mean yeah, its an easy thing to technically fix, and neither of those things seem bizarre in and of themselves. The main bit of confusion is that you now have the compendium saying that Unarmed Strikes both are and are not melee weapon Attacks depending on what class ability you want to use. Its not really consistent.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 05:21 PM

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 05:31 PM

So, if I'm interpreting the magical shield ruling correctly, as long as I can hold a shield, I get the magical AC benefit from it. I'm not particularly well-versed in the rules for what qualifies as 'holding' an item, but even in the best case where you're limited to one in each hand, still seems absurd to me that I can get a +1/+2/+3 benefit from multiple shields as long as I never take an action to don them - does that mean you lose the extra bonus if you don either? Despite the equipment rules in chapter 5 being explicit in that you can only benefit from one shield at a time...

Guess it'll be something for me to houserule at my table.

Heh. Now I imagine some poor AL DM who's faced with a monk who holds (but does not don or wield) two magical shields while head-butting all of his enemies to death.

It's not that I mind from a game balance standpoint--I just feel bad because it's such obviously cheesey nonsense, and I'm told that AL DMs are not allowed to ignore Sage Advice. (Can anyone confirm/deny?) My eyes would roll soooo hard....

Wait, does this mean closing your eyes counters the frightened condition, allowing you to walk up to the enemy (before making your attacks with disadvantage because you are still frightened or blinded)?

I hope I'm reading this wrong, because I would swear they made a statement about 'line of sight' not being about sight at all, but about the POSSIBILITY of seeing the creature that frightened you (so no full cover, heavy obscurement or invisibility).

Hmmm, you're right, that Sage Advice contradicts itself. Plain English usage of "line of sight" implies that an invisible enemy is still within your line of sight as long as there's no instructions - - but their ruling is the opposite.

I guess I'll be ignoring the front half of that ruling then.

sithlordnergal

2020-10-01, 05:38 PM

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 05:41 PM

...technically...yes? But boy that seems like a rules laywer if I ever saw one. But yeah, AL DMs have to use the Sage Advice in their games when it comes to rules.

I know, it's totally rules-lawyery.

This should have been one of the places where Sage Advice says, "Technically, yes, but we meant 'wield.' This change will be reflected in future printings of the DMG."

Merudo

2020-10-01, 05:53 PM

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 05:55 PM

Interesting. So a Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Rogue/etc. without shield proficiency can still get benefits from welding a +X shield, without any penalties.

Two of them in fact, possibly more. How many shields can you hold in two hands? What if you use a bag to hold more?

Merudo

2020-10-01, 05:56 PM

Heh. Now I imagine some poor AL DM who's faced with a monk who holds (but does not don or wield) two magical shields while head-butting all of his enemies to death.

Two of them in fact, possibly more. How many shields can you hold in two hands? What if you use a bag to hold more?

Only one of the two shields can grant benefits.

"You can benefit from only one shield at a time.", PHB p.144

Evaar

2020-10-01, 06:01 PM

Wait, does this mean closing your eyes counters the frightened condition, allowing you to walk up to the enemy (before making your attacks with disadvantage because you are still frightened or blinded)?

I hope I'm reading this wrong, because I would swear they made a statement about 'line of sight' not being about sight at all, but about the POSSIBILITY of seeing the creature that frightened you (so no full cover, heavy obscurement or invisibility).

Also just from a narrative sense, the Sage Advice doesn't really work.

Imagine there's something 20 feet in front of you that is absolutely terrifying. Now it vanishes - not in an "it's gone" sense, but in an "Oh god where did it go" sense. Do you find yourself more calm and composed now that you can no longer see it?

If you know where the thing is - which you still do even if it's invisible or you closed your eyes - you shouldn't be able to approach that location. If you don't know where the thing is - e.g. it uses the Hide action - then you can move in any direction but should still suffer disadvantage on relevant checks until the effect ends.

If you subsequently become aware of the thing's location and that location is not in your line of sight, then you are not Frightened anymore.

Seems like the obvious way to maintain the verisimilitude of the effect.

"Oh no! It's the Predator!" Apply disadvantage and cannot approach.
"He activated his cloaking device!" Apply disadvantage and cannot approach.
"Where did he go??" Apply disadvantage, walk around jungle terrified that you're going to be attacked any second.
"Did you hear that? That sounded like Billy!!" Predator just killed Billy, run towards it with weapons at the ready, no disadvantage.

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 06:03 PM

Only one of the two shields can grant benefits.

"You can benefit from only one shield at a time.", PHB p.144

Isn't that about the benefits of wielding a shield though? In this case you're ignoring those and just taking the magic +2, per shield.

Unoriginal

2020-10-01, 06:05 PM

The interpretation of holding a magical shield is crap.
I assume they think it applies to Armor of Piercing Resistance, too... just strap it to your back...

Something strapped to your back isn't held.

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 06:06 PM

Something strapped to your back isn't held.

What if you put it in a bag that's hanging from your wrist, like a dad coming back from grocery shopping?

Evaar

2020-10-01, 06:08 PM

Something strapped to your back isn't held.

Simic Hybrid, extra appendages. Don one shield, hold multiple magical shields.

"WHY CAN'T I HOLD ALL THIS AC"

(The rule does say they can't wield magic items, but are you "wielding" a shield if you didn't "don" it?)

Merudo

2020-10-01, 06:11 PM

Isn't that about the benefits of wielding a shield though? In this case you're ignoring those and just taking the magic +2, per shield.

It doesn't say you only gain the AC bonus from wielding one shield - it says you cannot benefit from more than one shield (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/124036/can-you-benefit-from-two-different-magical-shields), full stop.

Unoriginal

2020-10-01, 06:13 PM

What if you put it in a bag that's hanging from your wrist, like a dad coming back from grocery shopping?

Then you're carrying the bag, but not holding either item.

Also just from a narrative sense, the Sage Advice doesn't really work.

Imagine there's something 20 feet in front of you that is absolutely terrifying. Now it vanishes - not in an "it's gone" sense, but in an "Oh god where did it go" sense. Do you find yourself more calm and composed now that you can no longer see it?

You have to remember that the reason the creature can terrify battle-hardened adventurers to the point it handicaps them during a fight is due to its fantastical fear-inducing, look-dependent ability. Not just plain terror.

A Dragon will literally be more frightening if they do nothing except stand there while you are in their "fear me, I'm a dragon" zone than if they're currently breathing deadly substances on you while you haven't entered said zone.

MaxWilson

2020-10-01, 06:17 PM

It doesn't say you only gain the AC bonus from wielding one shield - it says you cannot benefit from more than one shield (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/124036/can-you-benefit-from-two-different-magical-shields), full stop.

That logic leads to weird places--if someone builds a wall out of shields, I can't gain total cover from it, so... arrows go through it? If I'm standing on top of a shield to keep my boots out of the mud, and there's another shield, and I try to stand on them both at the same time... my boot goes through the second shield and gets muddy anyway?

Edit to clarify: remember, I am not rules-lawyering in favor of a monk holding two magical shields that he's not wielding. I'm advocating ignoring the Sage Advice ruling that makes it beneficial to hold non-wielded magical shields in the first place, because that ruling is rules-lawyery.

HappyDaze

2020-10-01, 06:20 PM

Unoriginal

2020-10-01, 06:23 PM

Speaking of shields:

Can the Disarming Attack maneuver disarm a
creature of a shield it has donned? No. Disarming Attack
forces a creature to drop an object it is holding. Donned
shields aren’t merely held.

This sets the precedent that things that make you drop what you're holding should not apply to donned shields.

That was always the case, though. A donned shield can't be dropped, intentionally or not.

Which makes shields a good target for Heat Metal.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 06:29 PM

That was always the case, though. A donned shield can't be dropped, intentionally or not.

Which makes shields a good target for Heat Metal.

I’ve played at tables that house rule donning a shield as the same as picking it up - in those situations I’d argue those shields should be disarmable.

Evaar

2020-10-01, 06:33 PM

You have to remember that the reason the creature can terrify battle-hardened adventurers to the point it handicaps them during a fight is due to its fantastical fear-inducing, look-dependent ability. Not just plain terror.

A Dragon will literally be more frightening if they do nothing except stand there while you are in their "fear me, I'm a dragon" zone than if they're currently breathing deadly substances on you while you haven't entered said zone.

I get that it's magical, but the effect should be trying to do something like emulating actual fear. The Predator was perfectly capable of scaring the bejeezus out of some battle-hardened adventurers.

It's only "look-dependent" because the game (and particularly this Sage Advice) says it is; I propose that it should be more "proximity-dependent" and tried to articulate how I would attempt to reflect that in mechanics.

Because if you make the effect sight dependent and issue rules clarifications to support that, you end up with things like player characters closing their eyes so that they can approach the scary thing. Which, hey, I guess you could argue also happens in horror movies in the form of the wild, blind, suicidal charge at Jason or whatever.

HappyDaze

2020-10-01, 06:43 PM

That was always the case, though. A donned shield can't be dropped, intentionally or not.

Which makes shields a good target for Heat Metal.

I've seen some argue that 0 hp (unconscious) characters drop their shields.

Protolisk

2020-10-01, 06:46 PM

Just wanted to put this out there. I feel like this Sage Advice's strange focus on Divine Smite is terrible, because the wording of "hit a creature with a melee weapon" is for Improved Divine Smite at level 11, not the basic form at level 2.

Based on RAW here, Sage Advice's ruling on Divine Smite is flat wrong, but would be "correct" for the upgraded version. But even that difference is needlessly pedantic. The whole "melee weapon attack", "hit a creature with a melee weapon", and "unarmed strikes are not weapons, but do count as melee weapon attacks" is so needlessly convoluted. I wish they gave up on that odd ruling and just made them weapons, especially since teeth of a lizard folk is somehow a natural weapon, when the writing of those rules state: "Your fanged maw is a natural weapon, which you can use to make unarmed strikes." How can something be a weapon (natural weapons), when "unarmed strikes" aren't melee weapons? But you use these natural weapons to "make unarmed strikes"? So why are these unarmed strikes melee weapons, but other unarmed strikes aren't? They are all unarmed strikes! Nothing says these natural weapons even are melee weapons!

I get "specific beats general", but its not like lizardfolk bite says "you can use these natural weapons to make melee weapon attacks". It says "unarmed strikes". Same for tabaxi, they aren't "melee weapons", they are used to "make unarmed strikes". Why the run around?

micahaphone

2020-10-01, 06:56 PM

I hate smite's nitpicky focus on weapon. A paladin isn't using their belief, willpower and ferver to enchant their sword, they're using their belief, conviction and zeal to destroy the enemy. A righteous headbutt should carry just as much power as a righteously swung stick.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 07:00 PM

IsaacsAlterEgo

2020-10-01, 07:03 PM

Because paladins have it rough and need every advantage, right?

Does smiting with an unarmed attack provide any real advantage over smiting with an improvised weapon attack? There are very, very few situations where you won't even be able to grab a rock or something, which is absolutely fine to smite with as far as I know.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 07:07 PM

micahaphone

2020-10-01, 07:10 PM

Because paladins have it rough and need every advantage, right?

Paladins are great, I am clearly communicating that I'm experiencing a dissonance between the rules and the fantasy. Try to have something resembling good faith.

I don't think it's much of a buff to let them smite with their fist. It's only applicable when you're disarmed (in which case you can pick up a rock or a stick or anything else) and for the most MAD thing possible, a 2 level paladin dip on a monk.

So yes, a captured and disarmed paladin could make the attack with proficiency and smite off of it.

Falconcry

2020-10-01, 07:14 PM

[NEW] When you dismiss the familiar you conjure with the find familiar spell to its pocket dimension, can it take any objects it’s wearing or carrying with it? No, the intent of find familiar is that any objects are left behind when the familiar vanishes. This intent will be reflected in future printings of the Player’s Handbook.

So at the moment my wizard’s familiar has a pair of eyeglass rims fused to his head. I use it as a target for the light cantrip. The rims appear on different parts of the familiar when the form is changed. Does this mean that this form of fluff is overpowered? DM is fine with it but has likely not read this yet.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 07:15 PM

Paladins are great, I am clearly communicating that I'm experiencing a dissonance between the rules and the fantasy. Try to have something resembling good faith.

I don't think it's much of a buff to let them smite with their fist. It's only applicable when you're disarmed (in which case you can pick up a rock or a stick or anything else) and for the most MAD thing possible, a 2 level paladin dip on a monk.

So yes, a captured and disarmed paladin could make the attack with proficiency and smite off of it.

Why do they need this? Perhaps they should lose access to smite when disarmed. Using an improvised weapon isn’t that hard, and fighters, rogues, and rangers have the same sorts of issues in a prison break scenario.

Protolisk

2020-10-01, 07:17 PM

Wait, does this mean closing your eyes counters the frightened condition, allowing you to walk up to the enemy (before making your attacks with disadvantage because you are still frightened or blinded)?

I don't think so, because the bullet point indicating the "moving towards the source of the fear" doesn't have the same limitation as the disadvantage needing to have them in line of sight. That means even closing your eyes might not give you disadvantage on ability checks, but you still can't move toward them. In fact, even if your eyes were open but the source of fear was invisible, you couldn't move towards them, because you just simply can't. What, do you just innately know where the source of fear is, even when you can't see them, and that's why you can't move closer to them? Then why doesn't the source impose disadvantage still?

I hope you don't think I am being aggressive here, but I really don't like the Sage Advice ruling here.

Terebin

2020-10-01, 07:18 PM

AL DM's are NOT required to use Sage Advice

Keravath

2020-10-01, 07:43 PM

Heh. Now I imagine some poor AL DM who's faced with a monk who holds (but does not don or wield) two magical shields while head-butting all of his enemies to death.

It's not that I mind from a game balance standpoint--I just feel bad because it's such obviously cheesey nonsense, and I'm told that AL DMs are not allowed to ignore Sage Advice. (Can anyone confirm/deny?) My eyes would roll soooo hard....

As far as AL DMs go, it is exactly the opposite. They can ignore ANY other source of rules clarifications except the rule books and official errata.

These are from the season 9 FAQ but they haven't released a complete FAQ for season 10.

"What Rules Do I Use?
All Adventurers League games are played using the fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons rules—house rules and Variant and optional rules, except those listed below, aren’t permitted for use. As an Adventurers League Dungeon Master, you are empowered to adjudicate the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.). Run the game according to those rules, but you are the final arbiter of any ambiguities that might arise in doing so. House rules aren’t permitted for use in play; the campaign uses the rules as presented in the PHB."

"Official Rule Sources
Rules from an official D&D Adventurers League source, such as the ALPG, the ALDMG, or this FAQ establish the boundaries for our current campaign.
As a general rule, the admins don’t issue official rulings on general rules questions unless it’s directly affected by the scope and purpose of the program.
Sage Advice/Twitter. Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. The DM can choose to utilize them at their discretion for rules adjudication."

An AL DM can make their own rulings based on the content of the PHB. They do not need to heed Sage Advice unless they want to.

-------------------

The shield ruling derives from a strict reading of the DMG. It doesn't make any sense to me as a DM and I won't be using it. I am guessing they just didn't want to issue errata for the DMG though they are for some of the other answers so I don't really understand this one.

Shield +X in the DMG says:

"While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC."

All of the shields I have looked at in the DMG only require you to hold them to gain their benefits. Animated shield, sentinel shield, shield +X etc.

Does this mean a wizard can hold a +3 shield and get +3 to their AC even if they can't actually wield a shield? It would seem so.

-------------------

This is a pithy answer :)

"[NEW] What happens if I’m polymorphed or Wild Shaped into a creature with fewer than 100 hit points and then I’m targeted by power word kill? You die."

Frogreaver

2020-10-01, 08:10 PM

Telwar

2020-10-01, 08:18 PM

I believe Crawford is on record stating that D&D is not a physics engine.

...and really, hell, I'd be scared of something that was scary AND THEN DISAPPEARED.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 08:22 PM

Is it just me or do sage advice rulings get worse every year? 5e was written in Natural language. The amount of hyper literal parsing they are doing more and more of is going to lead to all kinds of contradictions as we are beginning to see.

I always assumed sage advice was, at least in recent times, for the hyper munchkins and rules lawyers, who are going to parse text character by character anyway.

The older the system gets, the more weird edge cases pop up.

Unoriginal

2020-10-01, 09:06 PM

I've seen some argue that 0 hp (unconscious) characters drop their shields.

Well if they want to implement this houserule there is no issue, but the 5e shield is quite literally strapped to your arm. Can't drop it any easier than you can drop your sky boots.

I get that it's magical, but the effect should be trying to do something like emulating actual fear. The Predator was perfectly capable of scaring the bejeezus out of some battle-hardened adventurers.

It's only "look-dependent" because the game (and particularly this Sage Advice) says it is; I propose that it should be more "proximity-dependent" and tried to articulate how I would attempt to reflect that in mechanics.

Because if you make the effect sight dependent and issue rules clarifications to support that, you end up with things like player characters closing their eyes so that they can approach the scary thing. Which, hey, I guess you could argue also happens in horror movies in the form of the wild, blind, suicidal charge at Jason or whatever.

I can understand the feeling, but do you have the same problem with the PCs avoiding getting petrified by a Medusa by looking away?

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-01, 09:10 PM

Well if they want to implement this houserule there is no issue, but the 5e shield is quite literally strapped to your arm. Can't drop it any easier than you can drop your sky boots.

From a purely realistic facing perspective, it makes sense to reason that the shield would offer no benefits while unconscious, I just wouldn't force a player to don it again if I felt at all compelled to rule from this perspective to begin with.

Frogreaver

2020-10-01, 09:16 PM

I always assumed sage advice was, at least in recent times, for the hyper munchkins and rules lawyers, who are going to parse text character by character anyway.

The older the system gets, the more weird edge cases pop up.

I think there's a change toward more hyper literalism in how they are answering questions. I think that change is what's driving the weird edge cases popping up more often now.

GooeyChewie

2020-10-01, 09:26 PM

Why do they need this? Perhaps they should lose access to smite when disarmed. Using an improvised weapon isn’t that hard, and fighters, rogues, and rangers have the same sorts of issues in a prison break scenario.

Personally I was really looking forward to making a punchy paladin with the unarmed fighting style in Tasha's. My group will probably ignore that particular part of the Sage Advice to accommodate such a build.

Zalabim

2020-10-01, 09:57 PM

According to the rules for stacking effects, holding multiple +x shields provides no more bonus to AC than holding a single +x shield, same as wearing a dozen Rings of Protection gives no more bonus AC than one. There is probably a workaround for this with specific magical shields.

The answer about divine smite is based on the latter part of the ability. You can use divine smite after you hit with an unarmed strike (a melee weapon attack), but it will deal no radiant damage because the attack does no weapon damage. The radiant damage is in addition to the weapon's damage. It's like the answer for Savage Attacker. It doesn't work because the ability requires a weapon.

Does smiting with an unarmed attack provide any real advantage over smiting with an improvised weapon attack? There are very, very few situations where you won't even be able to grab a rock or something, which is absolutely fine to smite with as far as I know.
As a personal anecdote, my Paladin grappled a dragon and I had to choose between keeping my shield on, or doffing my shield so I could use my Dragon Slayer sword. Broadly, anytime a paladin grapples they'd have to make a decision between wielding a shield or a weapon in the other hand, and if they choose the shield, they could smite with the improvised shield attack or not smite with the proficient unarmed strike.

I think there's a change toward more hyper literalism in how they are answering questions. I think that change is what's driving the weird edge cases popping up more often now.
I don't think there is any statistically demonstrable trend towards more literal rules answers. It has always been my experience that SAC answers are "That is literally what the book says," as much as possible.

cutlery

2020-10-01, 10:06 PM

Personally I was really looking forward to making a punchy paladin with the unarmed fighting style in Tasha's. My group will probably ignore that particular part of the Sage Advice to accommodate such a build.

Right, as every table should that doesn't like it - but with AL, there must be official rulings for stuff.

NaughtyTiger

2020-10-01, 10:14 PM

Is it just me or do sage advice rulings get worse every year? 5e was written in Natural language. The amount of hyper literal parsing they are doing more and more of is going to lead to all kinds of contradictions as we are beginning to see.

And, given that literally has no impact on your game, unless you want it too, it just encourages the hyper literal parsing instead of "natural language".

Right, as every table should that doesn't like it - but with AL, there must be official rulings for stuff.

except Sage Advice doesn't give official rulings for stuff... just suggestions.

Frogreaver

2020-10-01, 10:37 PM

And, given that literally has no impact on your game, unless you want it too, it just encourages the hyper literal parsing instead of "natural language".

In many ways that's true, but also, no man is an island.

I don't think there is any statistically demonstrable trend towards more literal rules answers.

Well, I don't think you can statistically demonstrate your subjective opinion on this either. Does that put us in the same boat?

Arkhios

2020-10-01, 11:01 PM

You can use Divine Smite with unarmed strike.

The class feature requires a melee 'weapon attack', which unarmed strike is, NOT an 'attack with a weapon', which unarmed strike isn't.

'weapon attack' ≠ 'attack with a weapon'

Both are common rules terms used in various places in the rules, and are different in meaning, even when they may refer to same action.
The difference is subtle, but it's still a difference.

I'm not saying it's not stupid. It is. But it's the rules we have. If you deliberately wish to make your paladin player sad and houserule that you can't smite with your fist, it's perfectly within your rights as a DM, but don't claim it's anything else than a houserule, because it is.

Edit: If I had my way, I'd just ditch one or the other everywhere in the rules and let the one that I left to apply to all instances the other appeared in. And, to be honest, I think I'd drop the latter.

Satori01

2020-10-01, 11:16 PM

So if the party Capt America holds out his arm with his magic shield, and the whole party holds onto the edge..does the whole party get the Magic Bonus to AC?

A +1 to +3 Magic Shield does not require Attunement.
Theoretically you could grapple an opponent by grabbing their shield, and get an AC boost.

The numerical bonuses from magic weapons I treat like HP, game abstractions that can be described in many different fashions.

A magic shield doesn't automatically break down into the physical shield and then the enchantment, which according to Sage Advice, now has Star Trek like deflection properties. A magic shield can also be described as being made with preternatural skill, and outperforms even well made shields.

The whole Paladin can't Divine Smite with unarmed attacks/ monks unarmed attacks are weaponless melee attacks is clearly niche protection and flavor protections.

Paladins can't Smite/Super punch...monks can't have Elemental Weapon cast on their left foot.

Treating these restriction in a manner akin to the Druid metal armor prohibition, would have been the better move, I think.

A Paladin of Tyr that wants to strike with the "missing hand of god" and fist smite isn't game breaking, and plenty flavorful....with the downside that a Paladin's Hodukun punch might be better then a monk's....hence why the rules are as they are.

PhantomSoul

2020-10-01, 11:19 PM

You can use Divine Smite with unarmed strike.

The class feature requires a melee 'weapon attack', which unarmed strike is, NOT an 'attack with a weapon', which unarmed strike isn't.

'weapon attack' ≠ 'attack with a weapon'

Both are common rules terms used in various places in the rules, and are different in meaning, even when they may refer to same action.
The difference is subtle, but it's still a difference.

I'm not saying it's not stupid. It is. But it's the rules we have. If you deliberately wish to make your paladin player sad and houserule that you can't smite with your fist, it's perfectly within your rights as a DM, but don't claim it's anything else than a houserule, because it is.

I assume the logic comes from "in addition to the weapon's damage", which implies there must be weapon's damage. Stunning Strike unsurprisingly doesn't have similar phrasing.

JackPhoenix

2020-10-01, 11:56 PM

Paladin: While Divine Smite always worked off melee weapon attack, IMPROVED Divine Smite required melee attack with a weapon. Perhaps the confusion comes from there?

The shield ruling derives from a strict reading of the DMG. It doesn't make any sense to me as a DM and I won't be using it. I am guessing they just didn't want to issue errata for the DMG though they are for some of the other answers so I don't really understand this one.

Shield +X in the DMG says:

"While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC."

All of the shields I have looked at in the DMG only require you to hold them to gain their benefits. Animated shield, sentinel shield, shield +X etc.

Does this mean a wizard can hold a +3 shield and get +3 to their AC even if they can't actually wield a shield? It would seem so.

It's not that different from the old trick of a monk who attune Shield of Missile Attraction to become ranged attack magnet for Deflect Arrows, then puts it away to get rid of the attunement but keeping the curse.

Zalabim

2020-10-01, 11:59 PM

In many ways that's true, but also, no man is an island.

Well, I don't think you can statistically demonstrate your subjective opinion on this either. Does that put us in the same boat?

To continue with the mariner metaphors, I think this puts us in two different boats arguing over whether the water is getting saltier, and whether we have been on the ocean the whole time.

Witty Username

2020-10-02, 12:46 AM

More than any logical fault in their argument, I question why it's important to whoever is responsible for SA that you can't use unarmed strikes for Divine Smites. It's kinda hard to build Paladin/Monks it that's what they're worried about

I think it is a ascetics thing, like with rogue's sneak attack. Why does it matter that they can only sneak attack with weapons that have the finesse or ranged properties, because they are making rules to make what they think the rogue should be visually (daggers, hand crossbow, light armor dex build). Though this lens, unarmed strikes are not intended to be used by most classes (maybe because they think it is silly or steps on the toes of the monk or something).

Luccan

2020-10-02, 01:01 AM

I think it is a ascetics thing, like with rogue's sneak attack. Why does it matter that they can only sneak attack with weapons that have the finesse or ranged properties, because they are making rules to make what they think the rogue should be visually (daggers, hand crossbow, light armor dex build). Though this lens, unarmed strikes are not intended to be used by most classes (maybe because they think it is silly or steps on the toes of the monk or something).

I actually think there's an argument that it's more about balance on the subject of the Rogue's sneak attack limits and armor proficiency, though it seems doubtful it would be game breaking. Meanwhile an unarmed Paladin build would be weaker than a GWF Paladin. I'm also not sure why an edition that won't prevent you from playing a Paladin that sneaks around and kills unaware foes (ala the once-popular Paladin/Assassin builds) would object to you Kirk-hammering with holy fury in open combat.

Evaar

2020-10-02, 02:16 AM

I can understand the feeling, but do you have the same problem with the PCs avoiding getting petrified by a Medusa by looking away?

No, that’s part of the legend of Medusa. It’s true to the myth, so the mechanics correctly express the story you’re telling with that creature.

And let’s keep in mind that some fear effects are magical, but Frightened is not a magical condition. Battlemasters can inflict it with Menacing Strike, for example. The condition is intended to represent debilitating terror, and the mechanics don’t really do that. We’re getting kind of off topic though, I was only commenting here because I previously would have assumed being invisible doesn’t invalidate other creatures being frightened because... obviously. Then I just started imagining how i would design it to maintain verisimilitude.

Unoriginal

2020-10-02, 03:02 AM

No, that’s part of the legend of Medusa. It’s true to the myth, so the mechanics correctly express the story you’re telling with that creature.

And let’s keep in mind that some fear effects are magical, but Frightened is not a magical condition. Battlemasters can inflict it with Menacing Strike, for example. The condition is intended to represent debilitating terror, and the mechanics don’t really do that. We’re getting kind of off topic though, I was only commenting here because I previously would have assumed being invisible doesn’t invalidate other creatures being frightened because... obviously. Then I just started imagining how i would design it to maintain verisimilitude.

Not all fear effects are magical, but all fear effects are fantastic al (and in my previous posts I was talking about all fear effects, not just magical ones).

Menacing Strike, being a special combat move that can only be used a few times a day and which creates irrational panicon the target, is fantastical. The Frightened condition isn't just fear, it actively impose limits on what a character can do.

A bunch of goblins might not want to face a Paladin of the Ancient who one-shot their leader because of fear, but that wouldn't be the Frightened condition. If the goblins have to fight the Paladin anyway, they would not be hindered by their fear like a Frightened creature would. Now if they were fighting a Paladin of Conquest, they would certainly have to deal with the Conqurst Oath's fantastical, fear-fabricating phenomenons.

Sigreid

2020-10-02, 07:09 AM

Can someone explain the design intent behind separating unarmed strikes from counting as weapons, especially when natural weapons do apparently count as weapons?

If there's a broken combo I'm not aware of, cool, but it just seems so arbitrary and unintuitive.

Also you should be able to smite with your fist. It's cool.

Well, if unarmed is separated from weapons, that would mean that things like immunities and resistances to damage queued off of weapon damage would not apply to unarmed attacks. Without looking this up I believe this would mean for example that you can't kill a werewolf with a non magic and non-silver dagger, but you could beat one to death in a bar fight.

Joe the Rat

2020-10-02, 07:52 AM

The curious part is unarmed strikes not being weapons, but natural weapons are.

Yep, I finally have an idea for a Paladin, and it's an Ancients Paladin Lizardfolk. Light's Might Smite Bite.

If the RAI is for smites to require weapons besides fists and foreheads, then the PHB needs to use the phrase "attack with a melee weapon" (which requires an item), rather than the attack matrix "melee weapon attack". They've had this distinction... well, in the same class's features (Improved Smite), but I think was pretty well codified with SCAG (the X-blade cantrips).

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-02, 08:21 AM

The interpretation of holding a magical shield is crap.
I assume they think it applies to Armor of Piercing Resistance, too... just strap it to your back... *giggle*
Only one of the two shields can grant benefits. "You can benefit from only one shield at a time.", PHB p.144 That seems pretty clear. The only exception that I can think of is one of the variant Fire Giants in Volo's Guide to Monsters, and that's a monster not a PC thing.
Is it just me or do sage advice rulings get worse every year? 5e was written in Natural language. The amount of hyper literal parsing they are doing more and more of is going to lead to all kinds of contradictions as we are beginning to see. I have the same feeling.

I always assumed sage advice was, at least in recent times, for the hyper munchkins and rules lawyers, who are going to parse text character by character anyway. The game has always attracted folks like that; the war games before D&D also did. (Tim Kask used to refer to them as Twitchers in the context of historical table top miniatures battles)

I think it is a ascetics thing, like with rogue's sneak attack. While I think you meant aesthetics, I caught your drift. :smallsmile:

OvisCaedo

2020-10-02, 08:32 AM

Well, if unarmed is separated from weapons, that would mean that things like immunities and resistances to damage queued off of weapon damage would not apply to unarmed attacks. Without looking this up I believe this would mean for example that you can't kill a werewolf with a non magic and non-silver dagger, but you could beat one to death in a bar fight.

I think this is the most incredible result of 5e's "weapon" legalese I've seen yet. Feels like an indication that they probably weren't really thinking about being so legalistic about weapon phrasing when they first wrote a bunch of the parts, and later decided it should be hard coded without really doing a thorough check of how things had been written.

edit: oh someone below pointed out this was errata'd. sad.

Dr. Cliché

2020-10-02, 08:38 AM

I can understand the feeling, but do you have the same problem with the PCs avoiding getting petrified by a Medusa by looking away?

I know you weren't asking me, but the Medusa thing seems perfectly logical. You have to look at it to be turned to stone, so looking away or closing your eyes makes sense as a defence (though obviously it makes fighting more awkward).

In contrast, not seeing something tends to make the thing more frightening, not less. Especially if you know (or believe) that it is still close by.

Millstone85

2020-10-02, 08:39 AM

Well, if unarmed is separated from weapons, that would mean that things like immunities and resistances to damage queued off of weapon damage would not apply to unarmed attacks. Without looking this up I believe this would mean for example that you can't kill a werewolf with a non magic and non-silver dagger, but you could beat one to death in a bar fight.Hence the following errata.
Damage Resistances/Immunities. Throughout the book, instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”

Sigreid

2020-10-02, 08:40 AM

I think this is the most incredible result of 5e's "weapon" legalese I've seen yet. Feels like an indication that they probably weren't really thinking about being so legalistic about weapon phrasing when they first wrote a bunch of the parts, and later decided it should be hard coded without really doing a thorough check of how things had been written.

Interestingly (at least to me) it actually lines up pretty well to some mythology where the invulnerable creature was killed or defeated by an unarmed hero.

Amnestic

2020-10-02, 08:54 AM

Interestingly (at least to me) it actually lines up pretty well to some mythology where the invulnerable creature was killed or defeated by an unarmed hero.

Doesn't work, from what I can tell. Unarmed Strikes do bludgeoning damage and werewolf damage immunities are "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks Not Made With Silvered Weapons". Regardless of if it counts as a weapon attack or not, unarmed strike is a bludgeoning nonmagical attack*, and is not made with a silvered weapon.

*Monk 6+ excepted of course

PhantomSoul

2020-10-02, 09:01 AM

Doesn't work, from what I can tell. Unarmed Strikes do bludgeoning damage and werewolf damage immunities are "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks Not Made With Silvered Weapons". Regardless of if it counts as a weapon attack or not, unarmed strike is a bludgeoning nonmagical attack*, and is not made with a silvered weapon.

*Monk 6+ excepted of course

So it works perfectly for a superhero who is skilled at unarmed strikes! :)

Sigreid

2020-10-02, 09:10 AM

Doesn't work, from what I can tell. Unarmed Strikes do bludgeoning damage and werewolf damage immunities are "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks Not Made With Silvered Weapons". Regardless of if it counts as a weapon attack or not, unarmed strike is a bludgeoning nonmagical attack*, and is not made with a silvered weapon.

*Monk 6+ excepted of course

So it does. Might work for some other critters, depending upon the wording for a particular monster.

I wouldn't typically play it that way anyhow as I usually play things with the most obvious interpretation of what is written instead of looking for an angle.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-02, 09:24 AM

Doesn't work, from what I can tell. Unarmed Strikes do bludgeoning damage and werewolf damage immunities are "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing From Nonmagical Attacks Not Made With Silvered Weapons". Regardless of if it counts as a weapon attack or not, unarmed strike is a bludgeoning nonmagical attack*, and is not made with a silvered weapon.

*Monk 6+ excepted of course Or if the person is wearing silver 'brass knuckles' while doing the punching. :smallsmile:

micahaphone

2020-10-02, 09:32 AM

Keltest

2020-10-02, 09:39 AM

So with this new sage advice, a bog standard wizard with no armor proficiency can hold but not don a SpellGuard Shield to get the advantage on saves/disadvantage to spell attack rolls against you goodness, only missing out on the normal +2 AC of a shield.

I dislike this idea.

Sure, but then their hands are full and they cant cast spells requiring somatic components, so... Why would you even want to do this?

Crucius

2020-10-02, 09:40 AM

I don't think so, because the bullet point indicating the "moving towards the source of the fear" doesn't have the same limitation as the disadvantage needing to have them in line of sight. That means even closing your eyes might not give you disadvantage on ability checks, but you still can't move toward them. In fact, even if your eyes were open but the source of fear was invisible, you couldn't move towards them, because you just simply can't. What, do you just innately know where the source of fear is, even when you can't see them, and that's why you can't move closer to them? Then why doesn't the source impose disadvantage still?

I hope you don't think I am being aggressive here, but I really don't like the Sage Advice ruling here.

Oh no worries, I agree with you fully! I am hoping that the frightened condition doesn't break by closing one's eyes.

I am slightly confused about the second half of your message though; Do you think invisibility of the monster should stop the frightened condition?

I think it should, but closing your eyes shouldn't and I find it really hard to come up with solid arguments for this :smallbiggrin:

micahaphone

2020-10-02, 10:17 AM

Sure, but then their hands are full and they cant cast spells requiring somatic components, so... Why would you even want to do this?

The empty hand for somatic is only for spells without a material component - if it requires somatic and material, you can do the movements with the hand holding the material. Whenever you wanted to cast a spell that's V,S you could just free item interaction stow your focus, or drop it. I've always thought most of the "drop an item then freely pick it up" stuff to be cheesy, but if you're a wizard holding onto a shield (but not wearing it), we're already into cheese territory.

MaxWilson

2020-10-02, 10:38 AM

Because paladins have it rough and need every advantage, right?

They sure do have crummy ranged attacks until they multiclass out of Paladin. That's a distinct disadvantage in a game that turns out to be D&D: Gunfight Edition.

So I'm not eager to take things away from the Paladin that the PHB gives them, including Divine Smite, which is usually an inefficient use of spell slots anyway.

As far as AL DMs go, it is exactly the opposite. They can ignore ANY other source of rules clarifications except the rule books and official errata.

These are from the season 9 FAQ but they haven't released a complete FAQ for season 10.

"What Rules Do I Use?
All Adventurers League games are played using the fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons rules—house rules and Variant and optional rules, except those listed below, aren’t permitted for use. As an Adventurers League Dungeon Master, you are empowered to adjudicate the rules as presented by the official materials (PHB, DMG, MM, etc.). Run the game according to those rules, but you are the final arbiter of any ambiguities that might arise in doing so. House rules aren’t permitted for use in play; the campaign uses the rules as presented in the PHB."

"Official Rule Sources
Rules from an official D&D Adventurers League source, such as the ALPG, the ALDMG, or this FAQ establish the boundaries for our current campaign.
As a general rule, the admins don’t issue official rulings on general rules questions unless it’s directly affected by the scope and purpose of the program.
Sage Advice/Twitter. Sage Advice (SA) and tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’, in any case. The DM can choose to utilize them at their discretion for rules adjudication."

Aha! Okay, so Sage Advice is official corporate communication, but even AL doesn't consider it an official rules source or consider ignoring Sage Advice to be a house rule. Well that's a relief. Thanks for the info!

swamp_slug

2020-10-02, 11:15 AM

Does smiting with an unarmed attack provide any real advantage over smiting with an improvised weapon attack? There are very, very few situations where you won't even be able to grab a rock or something, which is absolutely fine to smite with as far as I know.

Well for one, all characters are proficient with unarmed attacks, while only characters with the Tavern Brawler feat are proficient with improvised weapons. So a paladin's fist will be more accurate. Additionally, if they have the Unarmed Fighting Fighting Style from UA (hopefully also to be in Tasha's), your fist will potentially deal more damage.

I assume the logic comes from "in addition to the weapon's damage", which implies there must be weapon's damage. Stunning Strike unsurprisingly doesn't have similar phrasing.

If that is the actual reason you can't Divine Smite on an unarmed strike then the Sage Advice needs to be reworded to clarify. It may also be that whoever updated the document meant Improved Divine Smite rather than Divine Smite. As it currently stands the Sage Advice is just wrong.

As has been mentioned, the trigger for Divine Smite is when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack not a melee attack with a weapon. These are not strictly the same thing.
Sage Advice clarifies in the Combat section that Unarmed Strikes are not weapons but do count as melee weapon attacks.
What does “melee weapon attack” mean: a melee attack with a weapon or an attack with a melee weapon? It means a melee attack with a weapon. Similarly, “ranged weapon attack” means a ranged attack with a weapon. Some attacks count as a melee or ranged weapon attack even if a weapon isn’t involved, as specified in the text of those attacks. For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon. Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee-weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon.
Are natural weapons considered weapons? Things designated as weapons by the rules, including natural weapons, are indeed weapons. In contrast, unarmed strikes are not weapons. They are something you do with an unarmed part of your body.
A paladin should therefore be able to use Divine Smite on an unarmed strike.
Improved Divine Smite is different requires that you hit with a melee weapon, so this feature would not apply to unarmed strikes as they are not weapons.
A monk's Stunning Strike requires a melee weapon attack to trigger and the Sage Advice clarifies that an Unarmed Strike is a melee weapon attack so an unarmed monk can still Stunning Strike.
Can a monk use Stunning Strike with an unarmed strike, even though unarmed strikes aren’t weapons? Yes. Stunning Strike works with melee weapon attacks, and an unarmed strike is a special type of melee weapon attack. The game often makes exceptions to general rules, and this is an important exception: that unarmed strikes count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons.
Nothing in the Monk's class features that I can see states that they make unarmed strikes count as weapons, or should be treated differently to unarmed strikes from a non-monk beyond the fact that you can attack using Dexterity and deal damage according to the Monk class table.
If unarmed strikes are not melee weapon attacks, what ability score do you add to the attack roll? The PHB only specifies Strength for melee weapon attacks, Dexterity for ranged weapon attacks or your spellcasting ability for spell attacks.

Another thing to consider with these clarifications is that the Sage Advice defines three perspectives they consider in their answers: RAW, RAI and RAF. A lot of the discussion has been around RAW and RAI. What about RAF? What's not fun about Divine Smiting undead into oblivion with a headbutt?

IMO the clarification contradicts RAF and RAW. I cannot speak to RAI, and since I don't think it is game-breaking to Divine Smite on an unarmed strike, this is enough that my table will ignore this specific clarification.

cutlery

2020-10-02, 05:47 PM

They sure do have crummy ranged attacks until they multiclass out of Paladin. That's a distinct disadvantage in a game that turns out to be D&D: Gunfight Edition.

So I'm not eager to take things away from the Paladin that the PHB gives them, including Divine Smite, which is usually an inefficient use of spell slots anyway.

But this doesn't take it away from them, any more than a ranger who is temporarily without a bow doesn't have their ranged capabilities taken from them, or a caster with their focus and/or component pouch doesn't have a host of spellcasting taken from them.

A paladin without a weapon has to improvise or find one. The horror.

A lot of the discussion has been around RAW and RAI. What about RAF? What's not fun about Divine Smiting undead into oblivion with a headbutt?

You don't need semi-official rulings from a WOTC employee for RAF.

Hellpyre

2020-10-02, 06:36 PM

Easy: take a monk level or tavern brawler and you can bend the rules.

Get disarmed without doing either of those and try to fist-smite? Nope.

It doesn't seem that bizarre to expect paladins to have a weapon to smite, or to let monks bypass a small subset of things that require melee weapons. Sometimes RAI is the right ruling.

Especially when nearly anyone can draw a dagger from nowhere as part of their attack.

That's sort of where the problem is coming from. Paladin/Monks don't get to smite on unarmed attacks, according to this Sage Advice. The biggest problem people have is of course that the PHB wording supports using an unarmed strike (which is a melee weapon attack, as required by Divine Smite), but the Sage Advice is changing the required qualification to something an unarmed strike isn't (a melee attack with a weapon) and taking this option away from Paladins with Tavern Brawler et all. And this is obstensibly exact RAI, from the person whose intentions the 'I' in there stand for.

cutlery

2020-10-02, 06:44 PM

That's sort of where the problem is coming from. Paladin/Monks don't get to smite on unarmed attacks, according to this Sage Advice. The biggest problem people have is of course that the PHB wording supports using an unarmed strike (which is a melee weapon attack, as required by Divine Smite), but the Sage Advice is changing the required qualification to something an unarmed strike isn't (a melee attack with a weapon) and taking this option away from Paladins with Tavern Brawler et all. And this is obstensibly exact RAI, from the person whose intentions the 'I' in there stand for.

Rogue/monks can’t apply sneak attack with fists, either. What’s the problem? Monks can use a short sword or dagger for one or two attacks per round.

Protolisk

2020-10-02, 06:45 PM

Oh no worries, I agree with you fully! I am hoping that the frightened condition doesn't break by closing one's eyes.

I am slightly confused about the second half of your message though; Do you think invisibility of the monster should stop the frightened condition?

I think it should, but closing your eyes shouldn't and I find it really hard to come up with solid arguments for this :smallbiggrin:

As a matter of fact, I don't think it should. I just don't think "loss of sight" should at all. RAW, to an extent, would say it should if we go with the "line of sight" thing, but personally, I figure that being unseen could make something more frightening, not less.

Here's the way I see it (heh, see it):

Lets say I have a phobia to roaches. Can't stand the sight of them, I can barely get close to one if I see it before my stomach starts churning. Now, I see a roach in a hallway. Nope, I can't let it just crawl around, I quickly go to grab something to squish it. But five seconds later I return, and drat, roach is gone. Who knows where it went. I am certainly not at ease. Now every slightest itch or sensation I can only believe it's a roach, no matter the cause, and it'll mess me up for a good while. Phobias are hard to overcome for some people.

A more in-game example: a being from beyond this plane of existence rips and tears at the flesh my fellow adventurer in such a gristly manner that I am subjected to the Frightened condition. In universe, my character should be scared out of his wits. Suddenly, the ethereal monstrosity just slips out of phase with this world entirely under its own volition, and dips into the ethereal plane. Should my character be just as frightened, more frightened, or less frightened of the extradimensional ripper? If I didn't know it could jump planes at all, it would stand to reason that the character would be more frightened, certainly not less. But by RAW, everything is now hunky-dory for my character's mental state. Even if the character did know that was a feature of the enemy, he should stay equally frightened, from my point of view.

A party of humans walks around a dark decrepit tomb with the aid of torchlight. Suddenly, a ghost appears and creates a haunting visage that horrifies the whole party. At the same time, the winds of fate literally blow, as the DM narrates that a sudden draft or gust of wind blows out the light of the torch to enhance the sense of dread. By current RAW, now that the party lies in darkness, they should be "less" frightened of the ghost, because they can't see it.

Simple change of location, jumping to the ethereal plane, turning out the lights. All of these examples, in addition to invisibility, should be just as scary as seeing them directly. At least for me. All of these examples mean roughly the same thing: the victim lost track of the target. Should they be "less" afraid? Let alone just closing your eyes.

This sort of phenomena exists in a lot of horror media today. It reminds me of the idea that "nothing is scarier", where the lack of seeing something only fills you with more dread than actually seeing it. Like when the horror movie finally shows you the monster, you become less afraid of it.

TvTtropes on Nothing is Scarier. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NothingIsScarier)

I honestly haven't looked too deeply into the Frightened condition until now, and I just assumed they were like Charmed, both effects of the condition simply work until the condition ends. Often, certain effects like the spell Fear already gives you the chance to start saving when the source is out of sight, but I didn't realize the actual base effect had a line of sight issue. The revelation of the actual RAW text kind of set me off, because this rule just feels so "off" to me.

Hellpyre

2020-10-02, 07:12 PM

Rogue/monks can’t apply sneak attack with fists, either. What’s the problem? Monks can use a short sword or dagger for one or two attacks per round.

The problem I had there was with you implying that letting a monk smite would be RAI.

Honestly, it's sort of a tossup for them if changing the Divine Smite requirement to an attack with a melee weapon solves more than it takes away. Paladins obviously don't need the extra power either way, but it's an option that I like for a Tavern Brawler Paladin.

On the other hand, if it used the same wording of "hit with a melee weapon" that IDS does, you could use it with thrown weapons as well. But that way lies madness, class balance left in ruins.

MaxWilson

2020-10-03, 12:59 AM

But this doesn't take it away from them, any more than a ranger who is temporarily without a bow doesn't have their ranged capabilities taken from them, or a caster with their focus and/or component pouch doesn't have a host of spellcasting taken from them.

A paladin without a weapon has to improvise or find one. The horror.

It takes away what RAW gives them: the ability to smite on a melee weapon attack, including unarmed strikes.

Fortunately I don't have to let that be taken away. As other have pointed out, Sage Advice isn't an official rules source even in AL. It's just opinion.

That's sort of where the problem is coming from. Paladin/Monks don't get to smite on unarmed attacks, according to this Sage Advice. The biggest problem people have is of course that the PHB wording supports using an unarmed strike (which is a melee weapon attack, as required by Divine Smite), but the Sage Advice is changing the required qualification to something an unarmed strike isn't (a melee attack with a weapon) and taking this option away from Paladins with Tavern Brawler et all. And this is obstensibly exact RAI, from the person whose intentions the 'I' in there stand for.

As far as I can tell, the "I" stands for the intentions of Rodney Thompson, Mike Mearls, and to assume extent Jeremy Crawford (he's a dev not a designer but according to Mike and Rodney's talk he worked with them on writing the PHB) but Sage Advice is only written by Crawford. Thompson left WotC after 5E came out, after writing the DMG, and Mearls is more digital than tabletop now apparently.

In other words, Sage Advice is not authoritative on RAI.

cutlery

2020-10-03, 07:57 AM

It takes away what RAW gives them: the ability to smite on a melee weapon attack, including unarmed strikes.

And no potential problems with a monk/paladin nova-dumping smites with flurry?

Amnestic

2020-10-03, 08:09 AM

And no potential problems with a monk/paladin nova-dumping smites with flurry?

Considering the opportunity cost to the paladin is 3+ monk levels and restricting their weapon choice, I think it's probably fine.

da newt

2020-10-03, 08:17 AM

jaappleton

2020-10-03, 08:24 AM

Considering the opportunity cost to the paladin is 3+ monk levels and restricting their weapon choice, I think it's probably fine.

Agreed. I'd be more fine with that than a Paladin dipping Hexblade 1 to key their strikes off Charisma.

The biggest issue, IMO, that everyone has with Paladin is that its capable of such a massive Nova. And it can be quite a lot, considering there is no "once per turn" limit on Divine Smite as their is with Eldritch Smite from a Bladelock or Fey Wanderer's Blessings of the Courts.

You need to remember, whatever build combination you think is too much... there is always one that's a step beyond that. Always. Paladins can take the fighting style feat for TWF and get a bonus action attack that way, which can compound with magic weapon bonuses (Unlike an Unarmed Strike, which aside from a very few select magical items, doesn't really gain a +1 or +2 item bonus like magic weapons). Or just hand them a Scimitar of Speed, and they can do it with the benefits of a shield with all their attacks doing +2.

I say let the Paladin nova. That's their thing. You gonna take away the Fireball from the mage? You going to deny the Rogue their sneak attack? Players are heroes, let them do heroic stuff. Whether disarming the deadly trap, smooth talking their way out of an impossible situation, or dropping several hundred d8s worth of radiant damage in a round, let them do their thing. They're fighting monsters, not your dog. Its not personal if they drop your entire encounter in a single round.

Unoriginal

2020-10-03, 08:34 AM

Agreed. I'd be more fine with that than a Paladin dipping Hexblade 1 to key their strikes off Charisma.

The biggest issue, IMO, that everyone has with Paladin is that its capable of such a massive Nova. And it can be quite a lot, considering there is no "once per turn" limit on Divine Smite as their is with Eldritch Smite from a Bladelock or Fey Wanderer's Blessings of the Courts.

You need to remember, whatever build combination you think is too much... there is always one that's a step beyond that. Always. Paladins can take the fighting style feat for TWF and get a bonus action attack that way, which can compound with magic weapon bonuses (Unlike an Unarmed Strike, which aside from a very few select magical items, doesn't really gain a +1 or +2 item bonus like magic weapons). Or just hand them a Scimitar of Speed, and they can do it with the benefits of a shield with all their attacks doing +2.

I say let the Paladin nova. That's their thing. You gonna take away the Fireball from the mage? You going to deny the Rogue their sneak attack? Players are heroes, let them do heroic stuff. Whether disarming the deadly trap, smooth talking their way out of an impossible situation, or dropping several hundred d8s worth of radiant damage in a round, let them do their thing. They're fighting monsters, not your dog. Its not personal if they drop your entire encounter in a single round.

To be fair, they might be concerned that making normal unarmed attacks working with effects that rides on hitting with weapons will take away from the non-multiclassed Monk, which is supposed to be the best at the whole "punch monsters to death" thing.

Which IMO should be solved by giving Monks more stuff, not by limiting unarmed fighting, but eh.

jaappleton

2020-10-03, 08:38 AM

I long for an errata that cleans up the unarmed strike, melee weapon attack, attack with a melee weapon, improvised weapon, natural weapon ... overly complicated, confusing and illogical morass.

What would change if "melee weapon attack" was replaced with "melee attack" - I'd think it would clean up SOOOO much.

At that point there is no need for 'natural weapon' to exist. If something needs a weapon to work = 'attack with melee weapon,' 'Unarmed strike' covers all attacks that don't use a weapon, ' improvised weapon' covers things you can hold that aren't weapons, 'melee attack' covers everything. Done. Simple, clean, logical, easy to understand.

Smite on a slap - sure. Would this break anything?

There is an issue with what you are proposing.

'Melee attack' also encompasses 'melee spell attack'. Spells such as Vampiric Touch are under that umbrella, so a Death Cleric / Paladin MC would be able to use Vampiric Touch, add their Touch of Death Channel Divinity, and smite all at once.

Which, I mean... I'm personally fine with, if a player invested that much to be able to do it. Its also a totally rad way for a PC like that to heal themselves up, like grabbing an enemies chest and trying to tear their life force out as they heal themselves? Heck yeah, do it.

But there's likely some other things which would fall under 'melee spell attack' which could lead to some crazy stuff that's currently escaping my memory at the moment.

Zhorn

2020-10-03, 08:46 AM

I say let the Paladin nova. That's their thing. You gonna take away the Fireball from the mage? You going to deny the Rogue their sneak attack? Players are heroes, let them do heroic stuff. Whether disarming the deadly trap, smooth talking their way out of an impossible situation, or dropping several hundred d8s worth of radiant damage in a round, let them do their thing. They're fighting monsters, not your dog. Its not personal if they drop your entire encounter in a single round.
A healthily attitude to take. If a player builds themselves out to be good at a thing, letting them be good at that thing isn't going to destroy the game. Mix up the encounter types so some things play to their strength, some play to their weaknesses, and some focus on aspects of other party members. Just because a build is strong in an area, it doesn't mean to have to go out of your way to ban the build or remove the situation it applies to entirely from the game.

To be fair, they might be concerned that making normal unarmed attacks working with effects that rides on hitting with weapons will take away from the non-multiclassed Monk, which is supposed to be the best at the whole "punch monsters to death" thing.
Maybe, it is a fair point, but there is a trade-off at play here. In deviating from monk, they are limiting their ki pool, a short rest recharging resource, in exchange for some spell slots, on a long rest recharge. And as a multiclass, those spell slots are also limited in size and quantity. The multiclass has a few novas in them per day, but will have a lot less options as the day goes on till they hit a long rest, while a pure monk is always 30min meditation away from working on a full tank. Different horses for different courses.

Frogreaver

2020-10-03, 09:48 AM

And no potential problems with a monk/paladin nova-dumping smites with flurry?

Not really worse than using Variant Human - PAM and a 2 level fighter dip to action surge for a 5 attack round as early as level 7 (level 8 being more reasonable).

MaxWilson

2020-10-03, 12:00 PM

And no potential problems with a monk/paladin nova-dumping smites with flurry?

Correct. It's rare to even see a Monk/Paladin in the first place because you need Str 13 Dex 13 Wis 13 Cha 13, and they don't have many spell slots, and even if they did it wouldn't be a problem because (1) I don't build adventures that are trivialized and rendered un-fun by PCs winning a single combat, (2) Divine Smite is not even that great of a nova.

If I'm already building adventures that will still be fun if a Fighter 2/Divine 9 Action Surges a Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound + Wall of Force auto-kill (~400d8 (1800) over 10 minutes before the Wall expires) onto the biggest baddest monster in the adventure, why would I be afraid of some Monk/Paladin doing 8d8 (36) to 12d8(54) from Flurry of Blows + Divine Smite? It's never been a problem.

Agreed. I'd be more fine with that than a Paladin dipping Hexblade 1 to key their strikes off Charisma.

The biggest issue, IMO, that everyone has with Paladin is that its capable of such a massive Nova. And it can be quite a lot, considering there is no "once per turn" limit on Divine Smite as their is with Eldritch Smite from a Bladelock or Fey Wanderer's Blessings of the Courts.

You need to remember, whatever build combination you think is too much... there is always one that's a step beyond that. Always. (A) Paladins can take the fighting style feat for TWF and get a bonus action attack that way, which can compound with magic weapon bonuses (Unlike an Unarmed Strike, which aside from a very few select magical items, doesn't really gain a +1 or +2 item bonus like magic weapons). Or just hand them a Scimitar of Speed, and they can do it with the benefits of a shield with all their attacks doing +2.

I say let the Paladin nova. That's their thing. You gonna take away the Fireball from the mage? You going to deny the Rogue their sneak attack? Players are heroes, let them do heroic stuff. Whether disarming the deadly trap, smooth talking their way out of an impossible situation, or dropping several hundred d8s worth of radiant damage in a round, let them do their thing. They're fighting monsters, not your dog. Its not personal if they drop your entire encounter in a single round.

(A) You don't even need TWF. A completely normal tanky Paladorc (e.g. Paladin 6/Sorc 3) with Defense fighting style can and IME sometimes does doff his shield and pick up a pair of shortswords so he can Smite more--all TWF would do is give you an extra +STR to the offhand weapon attack.

Or if he's got Quicken he can just Quicken a Booming Blade.

I agree that smiting isn't a big deal from a DM's perspective. It's good against glass cannons like spellcasters (Flameskulls, liches). It's terrible against low-CR mobs and meatshields. It's basically just the inverse of Fireball, and if the Paladin saves their spell slots so they still have them when the climax of the adventure arrives, they deserve to be good against any glass cannons in it just as the wizard or Light cleric deserves to be good against any non-fire-resistant melee mobs.

GooeyChewie

2020-10-03, 01:16 PM

Rogue/monks can’t apply sneak attack with fists, either. What’s the problem? Monks can use a short sword or dagger for one or two attacks per round.

To me, part of the problem is that, assuming no changes from the Unearthed Arcana, Paladins will soon have 'Unarmed Fighting' as a Style Option. I find it really weird that they'd add that option while simultaneously ruling that one of the iconic Paladin mechanics doesn't work with it. If Rogues got a feature (a subclass perhaps) that encouraged them to use unarmed strikes, I'd find it very weird if that feature did not allow Rogues to use Sneak Attack with those attacks.

Of course, it could be that they plan to not allow Unarmed Fighting for Paladins, in which case this Sage Advice would make a lot more sense.

Amnestic

2020-10-03, 01:22 PM

micahaphone

2020-10-03, 02:27 PM

Also, rogue/monks not being able to sneak attack with unarmed strike feels silly. Damage type isn't the issue (slings can sneak attack) clearly. While unarmed strikes aren't technically "finesse weapons" for monks...they are in everything but name.

Feels like them not being able to is more to do with the devs not wanting to add the potentially clunky exception language into either rogue or monk class features (especially since multiclassing is a variant optional rule) than any balance or thematic concern.

And the language for those two is so damn clunky, too. Well, mostly for monks. The "melee weapon attack" "attack with a melee weapon" "injuring action done at close range" level of tomfoolery is ridiculous, I just skip over that whenever I'm helping a new player out. 95% of the time it works out to just fine if you treat it all the same and do a simplistic reading of it. The remaining 5% it is barely a power bump to misread it.
Shadow monk/rogue is the coolest anime ninja **** and if my player wants to invest in that I'm not going to tell them "when you silently kill the guy from behind you can't do it as a cool palm strike to the neck, you need to be using a dagger which can be considered a monk weapon but then....."
Let players have their cool fun moments, don't let the minutiae of the rules prevent them from having their cool imaginary moment.

Edit:
This reminds me of in Critical Role, the monk player bought throwing stars cuz she wanted some ranged options and that's a cool thing. I wanna say the DM counted them as darts which don't count as monk weapons, but if they were daggers they would've counted or something like that. No difference between them, just the cooler option is a downgrade. Thankfully he later relented and let throwing stars be a monk weapon.

Amnestic

2020-10-03, 02:43 PM

Edit:
This reminds me of in Critical Role, the monk player bought throwing stars cuz she wanted some ranged options and that's a cool thing. I wanna say the DM counted them as darts which don't count as monk weapons, but if they were daggers they would've counted or something like that. No difference between them, just the cooler option is a downgrade. Thankfully he later relented and let throwing stars be a monk weapon.

The monk weapons variant in the UA, and likely to be the same in Tasha's, lets you make Darts be monk weapons. No idea why they weren't to start with though.

cutlery

2020-10-03, 03:23 PM

If Rogues got a feature (a subclass perhaps) that encouraged them to use unarmed strikes, I'd find it very weird if that feature did not allow Rogues to use Sneak Attack with those attacks.

Rogues get longsword proficiency.

GandalfTheWhite

2020-10-03, 04:12 PM

Hello everyone,

Sage Advice has been updated with more official rules answers.

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Cool. More stuff for me to ignore. I’m glad I already have Volo’s. {{scrubbed}} And Pack Tactics is strong enough - even with Sunlight Sensitivity - to warrant -2 Strength. I don’t need GWM abusing kobolds in my game, thank you very much.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-03, 05:58 PM

Cool. More stuff for me to ignore. I’m glad I already have Volo’s. . {{scrubbed}} And Pack Tactics is strong enough - even with Sunlight Sensitivity - to warrant -2 Strength. I don’t need GWM abusing kobolds in my game, thank you very much.

How are they going to abuse it? They're still small creatures, which means they need pack tactics just for a straight roll.

Keltest

2020-10-03, 07:35 PM

Rogues get longsword proficiency.

That's mostly a tradition from when backstabs werent the defining feature of a rogue.

MaxWilson

2020-10-03, 08:18 PM

How are they going to abuse it? They're still small creatures, which means they need pack tactics just for a straight roll.

I guess they could Enlarge themselves for extra damage AND canceling disadvantage.

But then, they can also just take a Sharpshooter and CE and do the same thing without Enlarge and with a better to-hit.

GooeyChewie

2020-10-03, 08:24 PM

Rogues get longsword proficiency.

The fact that Rogues have a proficiency which runs counter to their iconic mechanics does not mean they should repeat the mistake.

How are they going to abuse it? They're still small creatures, which means they need pack tactics just for a straight roll.

If I'm not mistaken, the abuse in question is that Pack Tactics offsets both the Sunlight Sensitivity AND heavy weapon/small creature disadvantages. Given that a medium race would just not have any of that, I think it's more of a "that's really weird" quirk rather than a huge mechanical benefit.

GandalfTheWhite

2020-10-03, 08:43 PM

How are they going to abuse it? They're still small creatures, which means they need pack tactics just for a straight roll.

Kobold Rune Knight can get Large and have advantage all day every day.

cutlery

2020-10-03, 08:47 PM

The fact that Rogues have a proficiency which runs counter to their iconic mechanics does not mean they should repeat the mistake.

I don’t really have a problem with it, but in a system where rogues (or multiclass rogues) can’t sneak attack with a greatsword, it seems par for the course.

Dork_Forge

2020-10-03, 08:48 PM

Kobold Rune Knight can get Large and have advantage all day every day.

Using unpublished UA as an argument for balance is not a very convincing argument, nor is your argument even correct:

Giant's Might is 1 minute at a time, twice per long rest. If you only have two combats a day, then you have bigger concerns than the Kobold.

Edit: Heck, no matter how you cut it, Str building a Kobold is far from the best use of it

Sigreid

2020-10-03, 11:54 PM

That's mostly a tradition from when backstabs werent the defining feature of a rogue.

The way I see it, proficiency with a longsword which is pretty much the most common melee weapon means they can maintain a credible disguise as a nobleman or whatever.

MaxWilson

2020-10-04, 12:03 AM

The way I see it, proficiency with a longsword which is pretty much the most common melee weapon means they can maintain a credible disguise as a nobleman or whatever.

You don't need proficiency with a weapon to use it as part of a disguise. (Wizards should carry greatswords to fool enemies into expecting them to attack in melee.)

Sigreid

2020-10-04, 12:07 AM

You don't need proficiency with a weapon to use it as part of a disguise. (Wizards should carry greatswords to fool enemies into expecting them to attack in melee.)

You do if you get challenged to a duel by some fop.

MaxWilson

2020-10-04, 12:13 AM

You do if you get challenged to a duel by some fop.

Probably not even then. A "fop" sounds like a mook with Commoner stats, and you don't need your proficiency bonus to beat him when you've got five to ten times as much HP as he does, not to mention your higher initiative and AC and your Uncanny Dodge and other Rogue abilities.

Remember that proficiency is just an extra +2 to +6 to hit. It's not something you need to fight an AC 10ish fop.

Dork_Forge

2020-10-04, 12:19 AM

Probably not even then. A "fop" sounds like a mook with Commoner stats, and you don't need your proficiency bonus to beat him when you've got five to ten times as much HP as he does, not to mention your higher initiative and AC and your Uncanny Dodge and other Rogue abilities.

Remember that proficiency is just an extra +2 to +6 to hit. It's not something you need to fight an AC 10ish fop.

Proficiency can mean the difference between looking skilled to onlookers and just beating someone on sheer physicality.

Though I think a 'fop' might be a noble, with some training in weapons etc. so probably not a commoner block, though it wouldn't make much difference for the most part unless said fop was a notable NPC.

micahaphone

2020-10-04, 01:46 AM

please, fancy fops duel with rapiers, not longswords! :smalltongue:

Dork_Forge

2020-10-04, 02:36 AM

please, fancy fops duel with rapiers, not longswords! :smalltongue:

Clearly you've never seena duel at Castle Black

AttilatheYeon

2020-10-04, 04:51 AM

...technically...yes? But boy that seems like a rules laywer if I ever saw one. But yeah, AL DMs have to use the Sage Advice in their games when it comes to rules.

No we don't. Sage Advice is a suggestion only.

JackPhoenix

2020-10-04, 05:56 AM

Though I think a 'fop' might be a noble, with some training in weapons etc. so probably not a commoner block, though it wouldn't make much difference for the most part unless said fop was a notable NPC.

Noble has twice as much HP as a commoner and better AC. Still not much of a match against even level 1 rogue.

And uses a rapier instead of a longsword, too.

Dork_Forge

2020-10-04, 11:35 AM

Noble has twice as much HP as a commoner and better AC. Still not much of a match against even level 1 rogue.

And uses a rapier instead of a longsword, too.

In melee it would come to luck of the D20, the Noble's 15 and Parry wouldn't make it easy for the Rogue and most level 1 characters are a high damage roll or crit away from downing.

On the Rapier note just because the default statblock has a rapier doesn't mean that in a certain game they'd use a longsword, especially if that world was influenced by something like the Taltos novels *shrug*

Luccan

2020-10-04, 03:18 PM

No brains

2020-10-04, 03:57 PM

cutlery

2020-10-04, 04:05 PM

There are at least two cases where rogues using longswords can matter. First is in the case of a sunblade, sure short sword proficiency already helps with that, but redundancy eliminating ambiguity isn't all bad. Second is in the case of an elf rogue who gets a hold of a moonblade that has the rune that gives the weapon finesse. Remember that only some elves are already proficient with longswords. Drow, eladrin, sea elves, shadar-kai, and half elves get a benefit. Blades of other celestial bodies may yet come into play.

The sunblade is quite plain that it works for anyone with either shortsword or longsword proficiency, and it has worked that way since at least 2e.

The latter is a pretty specific case; Rounding the average number of runes up from 4.5 to 5, with each rune being a one in 50 chance of the finesse rune, fewer than one in ten runeblades have this feature. Do Moonblades grow on trees in your games? Because that sounds great.

Keltest

2020-10-04, 04:31 PM

It was explained to me that Rogues got Longsword proficiency so they could use the Fighter's old gear when they got better magic weapons. Which seems pretty cynical. But to be fair it seems back in the day TSR despised Thieves almost as much as WotC despises Sorcerers.

It could be even simpler: they may have proficiency so they can steal a longsword from someone and actually use it.

MeeposFire

2020-10-04, 10:34 PM

Edea

2020-10-04, 11:39 PM

Luccan

2020-10-05, 12:11 AM

I'm surprised there isn't a method of making normally non-finesse weapons 'finessable', ideally baked into the rogue but maybe as a feat.

I can totally see an enforcer rogue that uses a kanabō/war club and still delivers sneak attacks.

Dex is pretty hefty already this edition. A single feat that hands out finesse on other weapons might be too easy, particularly on a rogue since they already have more chances to get feats. I would say you at least have to limit it so no Heavy weapons can benefit. And the lance, mostly because I find that silly. Says the guy who wants to build a Lance wielding Halfling Barbarian Don Quixote

Willie the Duck

2020-10-05, 12:40 PM

Prior to 3e the long sword was probably the most common melee weapon for the thief/rogue.
Sadly the 5e had a chance to rectify this mistake and not just give prof but also allow it to work with sneak attack but they did not. So now the rogue has the prof back but has no real reason to use it.

It was explained to me that Rogues got Longsword proficiency so they could use the Fighter's old gear when they got better magic weapons. Which seems pretty cynical. But to be fair it seems back in the day TSR despised Thieves almost as much as WotC despises Sorcerers.

The original oD&D thief got swords because being able to use magic swords (or fighter's magic items in general) was a huge boost, as most of the cool magic items (certainly those that actually showed up regularly) were fighter-focused. WotC D&D actually made thievesrogues good at their base abilities, and made Sneak Attack (rather than backstab) a regular part of their combat activity (rather than the occasional opportunity ganking). 3e did give rogues decent longsword usage, as they could sneak attack with it (although they probably would transition to rapier or short sword as they levelled, since they likely would boost their Dex far from their strength, and pick up the weapon finesse feat). Of course up until 5e, D&D used longsword to represent arming swords or other mostly-one-handed weapons, while 5e leans them towards bastard swords/those swords which would historically have had the name longsword. Honestly, the correct solution, in my mind, is to split the 5e longsword into longsword (the weapon as-is), and arming sword (a slashing rapier-equivalent) and give the later only to rogues (or investigate whether restricting sneak attack to finesse melee weapons is needed at all).

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-05, 12:44 PM

It was explained to me that Rogues got Longsword proficiency so they could use the Fighter's old gear when they got better magic weapons. Which seems pretty cynical. But to be fair it seems back in the day TSR despised Thieves almost as much as WotC despises Sorcerers. Nope. Not seeing it. I played a bunch of thieves in those two editions. (OD&D and AD&D 1e)

MeeposFire

2020-10-05, 12:55 PM

The original oD&D thief got swords because being able to use magic swords (or fighter's magic items in general) was a huge boost, as most of the cool magic items (certainly those that actually showed up regularly) were fighter-focused. WotC D&D actually made thievesrogues good at their base abilities, and made Sneak Attack (rather than backstab) a regular part of their combat activity (rather than the occasional opportunity ganking). 3e did give rogues decent longsword usage, as they could sneak attack with it (although they probably would transition to rapier or short sword as they levelled, since they likely would boost their Dex far from their strength, and pick up the weapon finesse feat). Of course up until 5e, D&D used longsword to represent arming swords or other mostly-one-handed weapons, while 5e leans them towards bastard swords/those swords which would historically have had the name longsword. Honestly, the correct solution, in my mind, is to split the 5e longsword into longsword (the weapon as-is), and arming sword (a slashing rapier-equivalent) and give the later only to rogues (or investigate whether restricting sneak attack to finesse melee weapons is needed at all).

A 3e rogue traditionally would not use a long sword because it lacked the ability to be used with dex and they were not proficient with them (first time they did not have that as a base option) so I would disagree that rogues had "decent long sword usage". If you were using a long sword you were not a rogue or at least you were highly unlikely to be a single class one and even if you multiclass long sword was probably not your first choice if you were going to play mostly as a rogue and sneak attack in the long run was mostly a trap option made to look good (+10d6 damage per hit sounds really good until you realize just how many ways there were to make yourself immune to sneak attack damage back then and just how many enemies were immune to sneak attack damage at higher levels). Remember also that sneak attack improved with more attacks not bigger attacks so a long sword which was not better for dual wielding would be less desirable than other weapons and if you are truly relying on sneak attack damage then base damage dice on the weapon were mostly superfluous (outside of size boosting shenenigans but if you are doing that you should be playing unarmed).

As for the swords it is sadly too late in all likely hood but I would just allow long swords to be used with dex. Yes that makes the rapier mostly redundant (it is a piercing weapon vs slashing so it still has a reason to exist but it certainly would miss its most important niche) but I personally do not mind that. Or to make it more different you could have it be usable with dex when used two handed only (which fits how it is often shown with roguish characters in many shows where the lightly armored no shield using swordsman often uses the blade two handed) but that does make it more finicky than you would normally find in 5e so probably not worth it. Creating another sword with such a minor difference would not be worth it to me and D&D has a history with having the longsword be the sword for almost everything so I am partial to letting that stay true I just kind of wished the rules better stuck with that theming (though I suppose you could say the issue is more on rogues than on the weapon and I could say that is being fair too).

Luccan

2020-10-05, 06:04 PM

Nope. Not seeing it. I played a bunch of thieves in those two editions. (OD&D and AD&D 1e)

Tbf I have a more limited experience than with Sorcerer, but by numbers it looks to me like you don't succeed much at thief abilities, particularly at early levels, and you're worse at almost everything else than at least one other class. At least until higher levels. About the best thing they had was fast levelling. I could be wrong, but I've not seen, heard, or , in a more limited capacity, experienced good things.

IsaacsAlterEgo

2020-10-05, 06:35 PM

Cool. More stuff for me to ignore. I’m glad I already have Volo’s. . {{scrubbed}} And Pack Tactics is strong enough - even with Sunlight Sensitivity - to warrant -2 Strength. I don’t need GWM abusing kobolds in my game, thank you very much.

EDIT: (removing my own repetition of the scrubbed quote)

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-05, 06:53 PM

Tbf I have a more limited experience than with Sorcerer, but by numbers it looks to me like you don't succeed much at thief abilities, particularly at early levels, and you're worse at almost everything else than at least one other class. At least until higher levels. About the best thing they had was fast levelling. Just gonna say: not a problem. We played as a team because dungeons are a dangerous place. The rogue's place on the team was quite important.

Keltest

2020-10-05, 06:57 PM

Of course up until 5e, D&D used longsword to represent arming swords or other mostly-one-handed weapons, while 5e leans them towards bastard swords/those swords which would historically have had the name longsword. Honestly, the correct solution, in my mind, is to split the 5e longsword into longsword (the weapon as-is), and arming sword (a slashing rapier-equivalent) and give the later only to rogues (or investigate whether restricting sneak attack to finesse melee weapons is needed at all).

Personally, i think the Short Sword represents the arming sword well enough. Creating a separate weapon category for a 1d8 1h slashing weapon that isnt versatile seems rather pointless.

Willie the Duck

2020-10-05, 09:52 PM

Personally, i think the Short Sword represents the arming sword well enough. Creating a separate weapon category for a 1d8 1h slashing weapon that isnt versatile seems rather pointless.

I should have perhaps prefaced the point with 'if allowing the thief/rogue to keep use of a weapon to which it has historically had access, while still keeping Sneak Attack finesse-only...' Honestly I could go either way on whether there should be more, less, or the current amount of diversity within the weapons table. a non-slashing/non-light 1H martial weapon isn't present, and the game certainly works without it (but then the rogue gets a legacy weapon they will likely never use, so either way there is a useless bit). Realistically, shortswords/messers/hangers/machettes/possibly even fascine knives were pretty distinct from arming swords and the like, although a lot of the reason to use one versus the other doesn't translate well to the D&D ruleset.

Damon_Tor

2020-10-06, 08:52 PM

not done reading or anything, but:

This is explicitly not the "activate magic item" (or similar) action from the dmg, which means it's compatible with things like the thief's fast hands.

holy crap!!!

Keltest

2020-10-06, 09:33 PM

I should have perhaps prefaced the point with 'if allowing the thief/rogue to keep use of a weapon to which it has historically had access, while still keeping Sneak Attack finesse-only...' Honestly I could go either way on whether there should be more, less, or the current amount of diversity within the weapons table. a non-slashing/non-light 1H martial weapon isn't present, and the game certainly works without it (but then the rogue gets a legacy weapon they will likely never use, so either way there is a useless bit). Realistically, shortswords/messers/hangers/machettes/possibly even fascine knives were pretty distinct from arming swords and the like, although a lot of the reason to use one versus the other doesn't translate well to the D&D ruleset.

As far as im aware, "long sword" and "short sword" were never technical terms. "Long sword" frequently meant "largest blade at the given time period" and "short sword" typically meant "one handed blade that couldnt be called a long sword", but its far from absolute and certainly not more than a simple descriptive term for a wide range of blade and hilt lengths.

Blood of Gaea

2020-10-06, 11:01 PM

[NEW] Can a creature under the effect of compelled duel teleport more than 30 feet away from the caster? No. You can’t move farther than 30 feet away from the caster of compelled duel by any means, including teleportation.

Fun tidbit here, Paladins can keep magic users from teleporting away from a battle.

Or to make it more different you could have it be usable with dex when used two handed only (which fits how it is often shown with roguish characters in many shows where the lightly armored no shield using swordsman often uses the blade two handed) but that does make it more finicky than you would normally find in 5e so probably not worth it.

Honestly, this is _exactly_ what I want. Hell, they could even reskin the Revenant Blade feat to work with longswords instead and I'd be estatic. I don't mind paying a feat or half-feat to do it.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-07, 12:17 AM

Fun tidbit here, Paladins can keep magic users from teleporting away from a battle.

It's still not all that great (which upsets me) because it doesn't automatically restrict movement, they get a save, and if they do manage to make the save and teleport a distance greater than 30ft away from you and you can't get back into range the spell still ends at the end of your turn.

This actually opens a bit of a can of worms though, what happens to a Misty Step that was cast when the caster fails to move, do they lose the spell slot, do they make the save first and then choose the destination as if they were restricted or do we learn that they failed this save even though they haven't appear to have attempted to move more than 30ft away at all yet?

If I had to make a ruling, they'd teleport to the closest empty space within 30ft of you and the original destination of their teleporting effect but that still seems odd.

Unoriginal

2020-10-07, 06:52 AM

Interesting point from the DMG:

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.

So I suppose this Sage Advice is actually Crawford or the other SA writers (if any) ruling more permissively than the books.

Lvl 2 Expert

2020-10-07, 07:24 AM

Here's one I plan to ignore:

Can you gain the magical bonus of a +2 shield if
you are holding the shield without taking an action to
don it? Yes, but only the magical +2, which says you gain it
when holding the shield. You gain the shield’s base AC bonus
only if you use your action to don the shield as normal
(see “Getting Into and Out of Armor” in chapter 5 of the
Player’s Handbook).

Interesting point from the DMG:

So I suppose this Sage Advice is actually Crawford or the other SA writers (if any) ruling more permissively than the books.

The interpretation of holding a magical shield is crap.
I assume they think it applies to Armor of Piercing Resistance, too... just strap it to your back...

I think it's a great ruling. After all, you can attack with a sheathed magical weapon as well, but only with the magical part.

But it's actually more ridiculous for shields, because I'm still strictly limited to a certain number of weapon attacks per turn, but I bet I can find a way to hold like a bag full of +1 shields or something. AC 30 here I come.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-07, 09:48 AM

So I suppose this Sage Advice is actually Crawford or the other SA writers (if any) ruling more permissively than the books.

To play devil's advocate, I believe the wording under the shield would be the specific in this case, meaning that for the bonus AC you simply have to hold it. If it had any additional properties that didn't specify only being held then that would have to be properly donned.

I still don't like that line of thinking though, a large majority of shields actually say "if you are holding" rather than "while you wield".
Held:
- +X Shield
- Animated Shield
- Battering Shield
- Sentinel Shield
- Shield of Missile Attraction
- Shield of the Hidden Lord
- Shield of the Uven Rune
- Spellguard Shield

Wield
- Arrow-Catching Shield
- Pariah's Shield

Bearing?
- Shield of Expression

Willie the Duck

2020-10-07, 10:37 AM

I also am not fond of the ruling, but I wonder if it is a case of 'permissive to point X, so as to exclude point Y.' As in, the thinking might be 'it has to at least be held' which maybe precludes just strapping the thing to your back, etc. I know 3e had defender weapons, whose plus you could turn into AC. That lead to optimizer white room builds having +X spiked shields, spiked guantlets, spiked armor, etc. etc. etc.... none of which were intended for actual use as weaponry, merely to boost AC by that extra bit. If the logic were simply to allow the slightly ridiculous in an effort to exclude the truly ridiculous, I understand the impulse behind it.

MaxWilson

2020-10-07, 01:43 PM

Interesting point from the DMG:

So I suppose this Sage Advice is actually Crawford or the other SA writers (if any) ruling more permissively than the books.

Not for the first time. The Disciple of Life/Goodberry thing is also more permissive in Sage Advice than the books, and so is Sage Advice's ruling that clerics can use their shield hand for somatic components if the spell also uses their holy symbol and that symbol is built into their shield. Also the rule about Twinning Wish-created spells (Wish _is_ capable of targeting multiple creatures, and you're casting Wish not the spell it's creating the effect of).

It also takes the permissive view of PHB's Lucky feat, although it's not outright contradicting the PHB because the PHB wording is ambiguous.

The ruling on undead in antimagic zones is also more generous than the PHB to Necromancers. (PHB says creatures created by magic wink out in AMFs.)

sithlordnergal

2020-10-07, 02:31 PM

The ruling on undead in antimagic zones is also more generous than the PHB to Necromancers. (PHB says creatures created by magic wink out in AMFs.)

Well, it kind of needs to allow that. Otherwise Antimagic Field would be an easy "I win" button for any encounter that includes most undead and constructs. Golems and Shield Guardians would become a joke, while Liches and their Zombie hoards would become no threat at all. Those things are all technically created by magic, and I doubt any DM would allow a Wizard to cast Anti-Magic Field and instantly beat a Lich they've been building up just because AMF says it turns off all magic.

EDIT: Or you just become a Druid and cast Shapechange to turn into a Beholder.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-07, 02:38 PM

Well, it kind of needs to allow that. Otherwise Antimagic Field would be an easy "I win" button for any encounter that includes most undead and constructs. I don't see a problem with that.
IT's an 8th level spell, right?

sithlordnergal

2020-10-07, 02:45 PM

I don't see a problem with that.
IT's an 8th level spell, right?

I mean, it is an 8th level spell...but you're also giving it a lot more power than it already has. No need to give a Wizard of that level more power than what they already have. Though I will make a correct myself, it would not permanently defeat such enemies, as soon as the anti-magic is gone then they'd be back.

Keltest

2020-10-07, 02:46 PM

I don't see a problem with that.
IT's an 8th level spell, right?

5e has generally avoided unilateral "this kills you with no chance to avoid it" affects.

MaxWilson

2020-10-07, 02:52 PM

Well, it kind of needs to allow that. Otherwise Antimagic Field would be an easy "I win" button for any encounter that includes most undead and constructs. Golems and Shield Guardians would become a joke, while Liches and their Zombie hoards would become no threat at all. Those things are all technically created by magic, and I doubt any DM would allow a Wizard to cast Anti-Magic Field and instantly beat a Lich they've been building up just because AMF says it turns off all magic.

EDIT: Or you just become a Druid and cast Shapechange to turn into a Beholder.

Out of curiosity, how do you translate "the enemy temporarily vanishes while within 10' of you?" into "I win"? Don't you still have to deal with the lich/golems/etc., one way or the other? Delaying the lich != beating the lich.

Let's say Xykon-the-rather-stupid-lich is invading Azure City with about a thousand armored zombie hobgoblins, a dozen or so Armanites, a dozen Black Abishai, and four Glabrezu (all under Planar Binding). You scry him out, Ready an Antimagic Field, and have a buddy Dimension Door you on top of him. Hooray, you're now functionally immune to the zombie hordes (and maybe some or all of the demons, depending on their source) and Xykon is temporarily gone (for the next hour, as long as you stay here). That's a definite advantage, but have you really won the conflict yet?

sithlordnergal

2020-10-07, 03:18 PM

Out of curiosity, how do you translate "the enemy temporarily vanishes while within 10' of you?" into "I win"? Don't you still have to deal with the lich/golems/etc., one way or the other? Delaying the lich != beating the lich.

Let's say Xykon-the-rather-stupid-lich is invading Azure City with about a thousand armored zombie hobgoblins, a dozen or so Armanites, a dozen Black Abishai, and four Glabrezu (all under Planar Binding). You scry him out, Ready an Antimagic Field, and have a buddy Dimension Door you on top of him. Hooray, you're now functionally immune to the zombie hordes (and maybe some or all of the demons, depending on their source) and Xykon is temporarily gone (for the next hour, as long as you stay here). That's a definite advantage, but have you really won the conflict yet?

I actually corrected myself, it is a temporary dispelling. However, it is a form of perfect control, there's no save to prevent a creature from winking out of existence, and the caster gets to decide how that control moves. The exact wording of Anti-Magic Field reads "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the Sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the Sphere."

Let me set up a scenario. Lets say you and your party decide to do the old Scry-and-Die on Xykon, and the DM lets Anti-Magic Field cause Xykon to wink out of existence. You teleport in, and you Surprise Xykon:

Round 1: Wizard casts Anti-Magic Field, moves within 10 feet of Xykon and causes him to wink out of existence. Martials surround the square Xykon was in and Ready attacks. Xykon no longer exists, therefore he does not get to take any actions, and the zombies can't get close to the Wizard to hurt them.

Round 2: Wizard steps 5 feet back, bringing Xykon back into existence, the Readied actions go off and Xykon is attacked by the party. Before Xykon can move or even take a Legendary action, Wizard moves back within 10 feet of Xykon, causing him to wink out of existence. Zombies are perpetually stuck 10 feet away from the caster, and cannot harm the Wizard, and the martials Ready actions again.

Rinse and repeat until Xykon is defeated. Congrats, with just one spell you have denied the big bad boss of all of their Actions and Legendary Actions. All Xykon can do is use their Reaction to try and defend himself. With just one 8th level spell you've gained the best control possible in 5e. There is no save to stop it, so Xykon can't break free that way, you deny Xykon of all Actions and Bonus Actions since he doesn't exist, meaning he can't fight back, and you get to decide if he even comes back in that round since its based on your movement.

The only two ways to prevent this strategy from working would be to:

A) Give creatures that no longer exist a turn to ready an action, which makes no sense since they no longer exist and it would boost the power of spells like Conjure Animals and Animate Objects

or

B) Make it so creatures reappear in a random spot after the Anti-Magic Field is moved. But the spell clearly doesn't mean for that to happen since it talked about the specific square

EDIT: How would you, as a DM, counter such a tactic if all you have is exactly what you described? You only have Xykon and a hoard of Zombies in the encounter. Its an unwinnable scenario unless you do some sort of homebrewing to give creatures that don't exist a turn to ready an action, or if you have them reappear in a random location.

Darth Credence

2020-10-07, 04:02 PM

Unoriginal

2020-10-07, 04:08 PM

sithlordnergal

2020-10-07, 04:19 PM

I would counter that by ruling that a lich was made by a god, such as "Orcus, Demon Prince of Undeath, whose power has created countless liches". I would then rule that the antimagic field counters "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity," and therefore does nothing at all to the lich created by a deity.

Seems to be 100% RAW.

I mean, I guess that could work...Seems a bit more hamfisted then simply saying AMF just doesn't work on creatures like Undead and Constructs. Because the strategy I suggested would work on anything from Zombies and Skeletons to high CR Golems and similar constructs. And while the rituals to create a Lich aren't exactly known, what your ruling would tell me is that Orcus creates each and every Lich in existence...Which feels a bit weird.

Darth Credence

2020-10-07, 05:02 PM

Orcus may have worshippers, but he is not a god in this edition. He lacks the divine spark and wants to get one.

OK - I don't really care about Orcus, as it is not part of my campaigns. I would instead go with "Wizards that seek lichdom must make bargains with fiends, evil gods," (emphasis mine) and say that all of the liches in my campaign are made by evil gods. Still 100% RAW.

I mean, I guess that could work...Seems a bit more hamfisted then simply saying AMF just doesn't work on creatures like Undead and Constructs. Because the strategy I suggested would work on anything from Zombies and Skeletons to high CR Golems and similar constructs. And while the rituals to create a Lich aren't exactly known, what your ruling would tell me is that Orcus creates each and every Lich in existence...Which feels a bit weird.

What is hamfisted about having a being made by a pact with an evil god being immune to something that specifically says things created by gods are immune to it? And why would there be a bunch of different ways to create a lich in any given campaign world? How many liches do most players run into in their adventuring career? If I have two that they have to deal with in a campaign, I would feel like I needed to justify that a lot more than justify that they both got their power from a pact with a god.

I'm perfectly fine with that method wrapping up most low level undead. As for golems, as I understand it, they are not magic. They are crafted items, filled with a spark of life, but are not magic in their normal existence. A detect magic spell on one would not show it as magical.

MaxWilson

2020-10-07, 05:47 PM

EDIT: How would you, as a DM, counter such a tactic if all you have is exactly what you described? You only have Xykon and a hoard of Zombies in the encounter. Its an unwinnable scenario unless you do some sort of homebrewing to give creatures that don't exist a turn to ready an action, or if you have them reappear in a random location.

Interesting point. I'll have to think about it but you might be right. It's sort of an inverse Time Stop effect, isn't it?

Edit: on reflection, I think I might be absolutely okay with the lich "dying" in that situation, unless he's set up some kind of Contingency to prevent it (which he totally could--Dimension Door is a common Contingency already IME). Even if it works, you've still got defeat the whole army of zombies and all of the demons, not all of which are necessarily vulnerable to that trick, and even then you still have to deal with the lich's eventual comeback.

In short,

1.) One or more of the Glabrezus might be a Gated Glabrezu (therefore not AMF-vulnerable) who can grapple the AMF caster and drag it away from the lich.
2.) The lich may have a Contingency such as "Dimension Door me straight up when I say 'labradoodle'", which doesn't require an action.
3.) There's still an army of zombies and demons to defeat.
4.) Recurring villains are fine.

So actually I think I'm fine with scry-and-die + readied-AMF working against the lich in this situation. It doesn't lead anywhere I'm unwilling to go.

Also,

5.) a lich who has prepared for this eventuality may have a few Purple Worms/Gorgons/Neothelilds/etc. in his pockets who have been True Polymorphed into pebbles. Every time the lich winks out of existence, Purple Worms appear and start eating whatever's around. This goes well with the Contingency (Dimension Door) option.

sithlordnergal

2020-10-07, 06:37 PM

What is hamfisted about having a being made by a pact with an evil god being immune to something that specifically says things created by gods are immune to it? And why would there be a bunch of different ways to create a lich in any given campaign world? How many liches do most players run into in their adventuring career? If I have two that they have to deal with in a campaign, I would feel like I needed to justify that a lot more than justify that they both got their power from a pact with a god.

I'm perfectly fine with that method wrapping up most low level undead. As for golems, as I understand it, they are not magic. They are crafted items, filled with a spark of life, but are not magic in their normal existence. A detect magic spell on one would not show it as magical.

I guess if there are only two Liches in your world then it makes more sense. I tend to use a magic level similar to Forgotten Realms, where you tend to find a Lich around every corner. Usually there's a Lich at the head of any given Wizard College, or a Baelnorn lich if they're Good aligned. As a result the players might interact/fight multiple Liches under the command of a single Lich. It'd make no sense for a single deity to have made each and every one of the numerous Liches in such a world, especially if you have to specifically make a pact with some evil deity. Its far easier to just say "They aren't affected because they ritual they used was Instantaneous."

And no, Golems are technically magical creatures, you actually craft them using different magical items. They're really not that different from a raised zombie. Heck, in order to use a Manual of Golems you need 5th level spell slots, implying that spells are being used to animate it.

Keravath

2020-10-08, 08:09 AM

In terms of AMF, this is how I would rule it.

As far as Anti-Magic field goes ... undead aren't magical so they aren't affected. Magic may have been used to bring the undead into existence (Animate Dead for example) but the spell is instantaneous leaving no lingering magic. Undead can't be dispelled so they are unaffected by AMF.

However, to get there you have to look at input from the sage advice compendium. In particular the section that describes what is magical. Dragons have "magical" abilities but they aren't magical. AMF doesn't stop a dragon from flying or from using its breath weapon.

AMF does have the one line under the creatures and objects section that states: "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere."

The problem here is that the overloaded the sentence with "creature or object" and "summoned or created" leading to the interpretation that magically created creatures are susceptible to AMF even if those creatures aren't actually currently magical (like undead from Animate Dead).

Earlier in the spell description it states: "This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. Within the sphere, spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane."

In my opinion, this captures the intent of the spell. The area is divorced from the magical energy of the multiverse and actively magical effects are stopped. Innately magical ones are not. A basilisk gaze attack magically petrifies a creature and would cease to work while a Medusa's petrification effect, which is not described as magical, would not be blocked by AMF.

Anyway, it is up to each individual DM to rule on how it works but if a party wanted to use AMF to make an undead blink in and out of existence, I would have to say no in my games since the wording seems to block active magical effects not creatures or items that are not currently magical.

Darth Credence

2020-10-08, 08:36 AM

I guess if there are only two Liches in your world then it makes more sense. I tend to use a magic level similar to Forgotten Realms, where you tend to find a Lich around every corner. Usually there's a Lich at the head of any given Wizard College, or a Baelnorn lich if they're Good aligned. As a result the players might interact/fight multiple Liches under the command of a single Lich. It'd make no sense for a single deity to have made each and every one of the numerous Liches in such a world, especially if you have to specifically make a pact with some evil deity. Its far easier to just say "They aren't affected because they ritual they used was Instantaneous."

And no, Golems are technically magical creatures, you actually craft them using different magical items. They're really not that different from a raised zombie. Heck, in order to use a Manual of Golems you need 5th level spell slots, implying that spells are being used to animate it.

According to sage advice, magic gives a golem life, but that continued life is not magic, it's just life.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/05/31/does-detect-magic-reveal-golems-or-other-constructs/
I think based on that, I also agree with Keravath, that undead are not magical - brought back to unlife through magic, but not kept that way through ongoing magic, so unaffected by the spell.

BoringInfoGuy

2020-10-09, 01:38 AM

Interesting point from the DMG:

“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.“

So I suppose this Sage Advice is actually Crawford or the other SA writers (if any) ruling more permissively than the books.

I just skimmed through this thread to see if anyone would bring this up.

MaxWilson

2020-10-09, 12:05 PM

I just skimmed through this thread to see if anyone would bring this up.

I think I saw it brought up twice. Now three times. Sage Advice is clearly wrong here.

Unoriginal

2020-10-09, 12:18 PM

I think I saw it brought up twice. Now three times. Sage Advice is clearly wrong here.

As wrong as any DM making a ruling can be.

BoringInfoGuy

2020-10-09, 12:21 PM

I think I saw it brought up twice. Now three times. Sage Advice is clearly wrong here.

Agreed. Which is a shame. I checked the errata on the DMG to make certain that section had not changed.

Wonder how long this ruling will stay in Sage Advice? This sort of direct contradiction of the printed rules I could excuse in a tweet, but should have been caught before going into the Compendium.

MaxWilson

2020-10-09, 12:36 PM

As wrong as any DM making a ruling can be.

I guess I can think of ways to be MORE wrong. :)

E.g. forgetting to make attack rolls and just rolling damage.

Agreed. Which is a shame. I checked the errata on the DMG to make certain that section had not changed.

Wonder how long this ruling will stay in Sage Advice? This sort of direct contradiction of the printed rules I could excuse in a tweet, but should have been caught before going into the Compendium.

I've never seen Sage Advice correct any of their blatant rules mistakes before. They don't seem to revisit prior rulings, they just accumulate new rulings over time.

Unoriginal

2020-10-09, 12:37 PM

Agreed. Which is a shame. I checked the errata on the DMG to make certain that section had not changed.

Wonder how long this ruling will stay in Sage Advice? This sort of direct contradiction of the printed rules I could excuse in a tweet, but should have been caught before going into the Compendium.

Is there anything in the Sage Advice that declares it won't directly contradict the printed rules?

BoringInfoGuy

2020-10-10, 03:22 AM

I guess I can think of ways to be MORE wrong. :)

E.g. forgetting to make attack rolls and just rolling damage.

I've never seen Sage Advice correct any of their blatant rules mistakes before. They don't seem to revisit prior rulings, they just accumulate new rulings over time.
When the Sage Advice Compendium was updated to be the ONLY source of official rulings (tweets being now considered potential previews of official rulings), I remember they mentioned some rulings were being removed from the Compendium at the same time. What they were I cannot say, I did not have a previous copy to compare against. They do not include redacted rulings in the compendium. (Something I would like to see) So I’m fairly certain some rulings have been removed, just without any fanfare.

Is there anything in the Sage Advice that declares it won't directly contradict the printed rules?
The only comment about contradictions is that sometimes two rules can seem to contradict each other, causing the DM to need to make a ruling.

But the role of Sage Advice is to give official rulings on rule questions. To explain the Rules As they were Written, RAW. As a bonus, some rulings also give insight to the Rules As Intended. Also, some thoughts are given to the Rules As Fun.

Or as I like to think of it, What they actually wrote, what they meant to write, and why it may be more fun to ignore that rule and do something different.

MaxWilson

2020-10-10, 11:26 AM

But the role of Sage Advice is to give official rulings on rule questions. To explain the Rules As they were Written, RAW. As a bonus, some rulings also give insight to the Rules As Intended. Also, some thoughts are given to the Rules As Fun.

Or as I like to think of it, What they actually wrote, what they meant to write, and why it may be more fun to ignore that rule and do something different.

It was nice to see though that even in AL, Sage Advice is not considered an official rules source (according to the AL rules posted upthread). Sage Advice gives its opinion on the RAW, but even AL DMs don't have to agree with or abide by it, the way they are required to abide by the PHB.

So, even AL DMs aren't stuck using the erroneous rulings, and ignoring Sage Advice isn't a houserule from AL's perspective. The PHB still trumps Sage Advice.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-10, 11:56 AM

The PHB still trumps Sage Advice.

As it should, I'm just personally a little sore that the small amount of awful notes (undeniably bad in at least 3 cases) in sage advice are used to discount the entire thing.

I think it's a useful resource despite the fact there are some noticeably out of line entries.

Keltest

2020-10-10, 12:20 PM

As wrong as any DM making a ruling can be.

I think we need to be clear here. This isnt a situation that need a ruling. The PHB is explicit about what you need to do to use a shield's magic. This would be a houserule entirely, which is all well and good if the table likes it, but not at all useful for somebody looking for a rules answer to the question.

BoringInfoGuy

2020-10-11, 01:14 PM

I think we need to be clear here. This isnt a situation that need a ruling. The PHB is explicit about what you need to do to use a shield's magic. This would be a houserule entirely, which is all well and good if the table likes it, but not at all useful for somebody looking for a rules answer to the question.

Very few people have eidetic memory, able to have perfect recall of the rules.

Sometimes, a player can ask a question on how the rules work, and the DM (or other players) do not remember the exact rule off the top of their head. How much table time should a DM devote to flipping through rulebooks before making a ruling and moving on with the game?

Sometimes another player may know, and where in the rules to quickly find it. But in this case, the rule saying the shield needs to be strapped to the arm is in the DMG, not the PHB. Less likely for a player to know it that well. I bet a few people on this thread started off by going straight to the descriptions of the various magical shields, and overlooked the section that actually clarified how a shield must be worn to work. (This would also explain how that question ended up in Sage Advice in the first place).

Sometimes a DM just needs to say “We’ll go with this for now so the game can continue, and I’ll read up on it between sessions”

Even when a rule exists - and is relatively clear - DMs still need to make the occasional ruling due to imperfect memory.

Zalabim

2020-10-13, 02:13 AM

Very few people have eidetic memory, able to have perfect recall of the rules.

Sometimes, a player can ask a question on how the rules work, and the DM (or other players) do not remember the exact rule off the top of their head. How much table time should a DM devote to flipping through rulebooks before making a ruling and moving on with the game?

Sometimes another player may know, and where in the rules to quickly find it. But in this case, the rule saying the shield needs to be strapped to the arm is in the DMG, not the PHB. Less likely for a player to know it that well. I bet a few people on this thread started off by going straight to the descriptions of the various magical shields, and overlooked the section that actually clarified how a shield must be worn to work. (This would also explain how that question ended up in Sage Advice in the first place).

Sometimes a DM just needs to say “We’ll go with this for now so the game can continue, and I’ll read up on it between sessions”

Even when a rule exists - and is relatively clear - DMs still need to make the occasional ruling due to imperfect memory.
Sometimes rulings come from imperfect reading comprehension too. Self-evident evidence.
“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.“
This only says that magic items that say they must be worn have to be worn properly. You can't take Boots of the Hinterlands, tie the laces around your midsection like a belt, then use the shoes as cupholders and still expect to resist cold damage. Boots are worn on your feet. Shields don't say they have to be worn or wielded, so the rule doesn't apply.

Valmark

2020-10-13, 02:45 AM

"a shield strapped to the arm"

Shields don't say they have to be worn or wielded, so the rule doesn't apply.

You quoted a sentence that says that you need to don a magic shield to use it.

ff7hero

2020-10-13, 05:01 AM

You quoted a sentence that says that you need to don a magic shield to use it.

It might help to read the whole quote, especially the word helpfully bolded to draw your attention.

Valmark

2020-10-13, 05:39 AM

“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.“
This only says that magic items that say they must be worn have to be worn properly. You can't take Boots of the Hinterlands, tie the laces around your midsection like a belt, then use the shoes as cupholders and still expect to resist cold damage. Boots are worn on your feet. Shields don't say they have to be worn or wielded, so the rule doesn't apply.

It might help to read the whole quote, especially the word helpfully bolded to draw your attention.

Underlined parts by me.

ff7hero

2020-10-13, 09:19 AM

Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it.

However:

While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC
determined by the shield's rarity.

While holding, not wearing or wielding. I'm not a fan of these rules, but that's what they are.

Darth Credence

2020-10-13, 10:17 AM

However:

While holding, not wearing or wielding. I'm not a fan of these rules, but that's what they are.

So there is a possible contradiction, in that one place says you must don the shield and another says you must be holding it. Since holding implies in ones hand, I would think that the correct reading is that where they say holding, they mean 'holding a shield in place to use as a shield'. If you must be holding it, then you don't get the bonus if it is strapped to your back, you only get it if you are holding it. Since holding the shield would have the same effect of needing a hand as wielding it properly would, there just doesn't seem to be any good reason to ignore the clear statement that you have to have it strapped to your arm like a shield and say you can just be holding it.

If a player made this argument to me, I'd nod, and say I see their point. They can either hold the shield in their hand, getting the benefit of the magic but not the benefit of a shield while still not being able to hold anything else in that hand, or they could just use the shield as a shield and get the magic and the shield bonus.

MaxWilson

2020-10-13, 10:18 AM

However:

While holding, not wearing or wielding. I'm not a fan of these rules, but that's what they are.

So if the shield is implicated in a crime and the police are holding it pending further investigation, they all gain +2 to AC? I bet that investigation does not complete any time soon...

BoringInfoGuy

2020-10-13, 12:45 PM

However:

“Originally Posted by DMG +X Shields
While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC
determined by the shield's rarity.”

While holding, not wearing or wielding. I'm not a fan of these rules, but that's what they are.

Every individual shield description in the DMG says holding instead of wearing / wielding / strapped to the arm. Not just the section about the +X attribute.

So either EVERY magic shield is an exception to the rule that a magical shield must be strapped to the arm to get its benefit, or they assume you to read “holding” as short for “holding properly for use as described earlier in the section on using magic items.“

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-13, 09:13 PM

Every individual shield description in the DMG says holding instead of wearing / wielding / strapped to the arm. Not just the section about the +X attribute.

So either EVERY magic shield is an exception to the rule that a magical shield must be strapped to the arm to get its benefit, or they assume you to read “holding” as short for “holding properly for use as described earlier in the section on using magic items.“

Well, like I compiled on the previous page, it's not every shield, it's not even every shield in the DMG specifically (the Arrow Catching Shield, which was first features in the Basic Rules is also in the DMG). Again, that isn't to say that I agree with or support this entry into the SAC but they don't all say holding, there are 2 cases where it says "wielding" (what would be expected) and even a single case saying "bearing" which who knows what that's supposed to mean as far as hold vs wield is concerned.

Fun fact - Shields are categorized as Armor for magical items purposes. The magic item section for Armor includes the following line:

Unless an armor’s description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function.
Specifying that it only needs to be held fits this bill.

There's also the sentence directly before the line people seem to be using to shut this down as a complete flub:

Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it.

So again, although I think it's silly and would prefer not to run it this way myself it's not a "mistake" to say that it works this way. It is very silly though, and probably shouldn't.

Frogreaver

2020-10-13, 09:18 PM

Fun fact - Shields are categorized as Armor for magical items purposes. The magic item section for Armor includes the following line:

Specifying that it only needs to be held fits this bill.

There's also the sentence directly before the line people seem to be using to shut this down as a complete flub:

My wizard is going to hold the paladins old magical shield for him - on his back, in a locked chest back at the hideout, in his backpack, etc. Can you give me some RAW for why any of this won't provide him the magical shields magic bonus to AC?

Thanks to Max for humorously pointing this out above.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-13, 09:25 PM

My wizard is going to hold the paladins old magical shield for him on his back. Can you give me some RAW for why this won't provide him the magical shields magic bonus to AC?

Thanks to Max for humorously pointing this out above.

That's been the major contention against it since it was brought up on page 1... By Max. It may be "technically correct" but I think it does more harm than good to be correct about this case.

in a locked chest back at the hideout.
It would be quite a stretch and clearly not in good faith but, again, could technically be correct. Even more reason for it to be ignored.

Keltest

2020-10-13, 09:32 PM

That's been the major contention against it since it was brought up on page 1... By Max. It may be "technically correct" but I think it does more harm than good to be correct about this case.

My personal rule of thumb is that if a specific reading causes a rule to become really, really dumb, then its not the correct reading even if its the intended one.

Frogreaver

2020-10-14, 12:20 AM

That's been the major contention against it since it was brought up on page 1... By Max. It may be "technically correct" but I think it does more harm than good to be correct about this case.

Why?

It would be quite a stretch and clearly not in good faith but, again, could technically be correct. Even more reason for it to be ignored.

Well that's the point. Saying something is technically correct but is quite a stretch and not in good faith is exactly how I feel about the position that a character can receive the magical AC bonus without Donning the shield. I guess I'd go a step further and say neither ruling is technically correct because 5e is written in natural language and there's no technically correct when it comes to natural language.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-14, 09:43 AM

Why?
What do you mean why? Posters have expressed their distaste at the language of "hold" allowing for non proficient users to gain a magical AC bonus from a shield and suffer no penalties. It makes the game balance actively worse, for me it also makes verisimilitude fall apart because any reasonable person in world would have as many magical shields as they can afford hanging from every open strap on their person.

It may be in line with the rules, but it's an actively harmful interpretation under most of these posters perspectives.

Well that's the point. Saying something is technically correct but is quite a stretch and not in good faith is exactly how I feel about the position that a character can receive the magical AC bonus without Donning the shield. I guess I'd go a step further and say neither ruling is technically correct because 5e is written in natural language and there's no technically correct when it comes to natural language.
Saying that something is being "held" by your stuff miles away is a bad faith stretch, saying you're "holding" it on your back or in hand is not. That's why I believe Max's later comment is completely sarcastic here, it illustrates the worst possible interpretation that this rule presents.

Not sure what you mean as far as "neither ruling is technically correct", one of them is clearly supported more by the rules however bad that is. The rules being written a bit more casually doesn't mean they can't favor one interpretation over another in any case.

To borrow a bit from one of your previous comments, this is not even a conclusion reached through "hyper literal parsing". You read one line under the description of magical armor, it tells you that unless otherwise specified, armor must be worn. Most shields (which fall under the armor category) specify they only need to be held, not worn. I don't like the ruling and won't personally use it but it makes sense.

Zalabim

2020-10-15, 02:08 AM

What do you mean why? Posters have expressed their distaste at the language of "hold" allowing for non proficient users to gain a magical AC bonus from a shield and suffer no penalties. It makes the game balance actively worse, for me it also makes verisimilitude fall apart because any reasonable person in world would have as many magical shields as they can afford hanging from every open strap on their person.
Carry is not equal to Hold, and effects don't stack. Holding a +3 shield in each hand gives +3 AC, in addition to the possible AC from wielding a shield.

MrFahrenheit

2020-10-15, 06:51 AM

Lvl 2 Expert

2020-10-15, 07:12 AM

Keravath

2020-10-15, 07:15 AM

Agreed. The implications here are huge. Barbarian carrying a magic shield and armor on their person but not donning either could get up to +6 AC while still swinging a halberd with GWM+PAM.

That requires the additional (and generous) interpretation by the DM that "holding" does not require the use of hands. Personally, if you wear a shield on your back, I describe that as "carrying" not as holding. Holding in common usage usually involves the use of the hands. I don't describe something in my backpack as being held ... it is usually referred to as being carried or packed or something else.

In addition, the ruling is only applied to shields not armor. The DMG entries for most shields indicates it must be held to gain the benefit while magical armor specifically states "You have a bonus to AC while wearing this armor." or the clause "While wearing this armor".

The AC benefit of shields specifically states it requires the shield to be worn or wielded.
PHB p144 "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."

However, the general magic category rules state:
"ARMOR - Unless an armor's description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function."

A shield is armor. However, many of the shield descriptions simply say "held". In terms of interpreting specific beats general and the wording of the shield descriptions which state they can be held to gain their magical benefit ... the ruling is consistent with the text.

In addition, on page 140 of the DMG it states:
"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."

Unfortunately, many of the shield descriptions were written using the word "held" and as a case of specific beating general consistent with the item category rule that "Unless stated otherwise" armor must be worn for its magic to function, the ruling that you can benefit from the magic of a shield (if not the base AC) is consistent with the current rules as written.

My preference would have been for WOTC to either issue errata for the magic items replacing held with worn in the shield description or simply not publish this Sage Advice answer at all and leave it up to the DM to resolve in their individual games. However, the answer given IS consistent with the current rules as written and the concept that specific rules beat general ones.

In the end it is a DM call as to what they will allow in their game. Personally, for simplicity, I plan to ignore it and only allow magical benefits from shields for characters who have it equipped/worn/wielded and not just held.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 08:58 AM

Carry is not equal to Hold, and effects don't stack. Holding a +3 shield in each hand gives +3 AC, in addition to the possible AC from wielding a shield.

It was more hyperbole than anything, it still opens up what I would consider an unacceptable can of worms for non proficient creatures to be getting any bonus to their AC simply having the magical shield in their hand. Every creature should still carry a magical shield with them (you know at least every Noble who can afford to search out and buy one will) because even if they have no idea what to do with it it protects them as soon as they hold it, it's silly and doesn't make sense in the game world.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 09:53 AM

That requires the additional (and generous) interpretation by the DM that "holding" does not require the use of hands.

The rule doesn’t say holding with your hands.

What bothers me about these discussions is you (general you) start off strictly adhering to what RAW appears it says, but when someone uses the same strict RAW language to do something you (general you) think is a bit too far, then you throw up the DM generous interpretation defense.

IMO, If the DM can interpret hold to require hands and still be technically correct then the DM can just as easily interpret holding to require donning and also still be technically correct. After all, Both are just more restrictive styles of holding.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 10:14 AM

The rule doesn’t say holding with your hands.

What bothers me about these discussions is you (general you) start off strictly adhering to what RAW appears it says, but when someone uses the same strict RAW language to do something you (general you) think is a bit too far, then you throw up the DM generous interpretation defense.

IMO, If the DM can interpret hold to require hands and still be technically correct then the DM can just as easily interpret holding to require donning and also still be technically correct. After all, Both are just more restrictive styles of holding.

Except hold vs wield have mechanical distinction (with regards to shields and magic items) whereas what constitutes holding in general doesn't. At the very least, there's distinction between what it means to be wielding (having donned) the shield and everything else.

A DM who claims a shield must be donned to be held must then explain how you can pick up a shield in the first place, must you always don a shield to simply move it around, do we make a hard line distinction between what it means to "hold" or "carry" something in one hand? No, that makes no sense.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 10:22 AM

Except hold vs wield have mechanical distinction (with regards to shields and magic items) whereas what constitutes holding in general doesn't. At the very least, there's distinction between what it means to be wielding (having donned) the shield and everything else.

A DM who claims a shield must be donned to be held must then explain how you can pick up a shield in the first place, must you always don a shield to simply move it around, do we make a hard line distinction between what it means to "hold" or "carry" something in one hand? No, that makes no sense.

Just because hold is interpreted to mean something in one place doesn’t mean it means the same thing in every place. Else you would be implying that the only way anything can ever be held in any context is with hands - which is absurd.

Keltest

2020-10-15, 10:24 AM

Except hold vs wield have mechanical distinction (with regards to shields and magic items) whereas what constitutes holding in general doesn't. At the very least, there's distinction between what it means to be wielding (having donned) the shield and everything else.

A DM who claims a shield must be donned to be held must then explain how you can pick up a shield in the first place, must you always don a shield to simply move it around, do we make a hard line distinction between what it means to "hold" or "carry" something in one hand? No, that makes no sense.

What? How does that make sense even under the crazy unplayable technical reading you seem to be going for in that example?

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 11:20 AM

Just because hold is interpreted to mean something in one place doesn’t mean it means the same thing in every place. Else you would be implying that the only way anything can ever be held in any context is with hands - which is absurd.

In regards to this specific situation, I made this very clear.

What? How does that make sense even under the crazy unplayable technical reading you seem to be going for in that example?
I don't understand what you mean, a DM who rules that a shield must be donned to be considered held isn't making sense, that's the point.

MaxWilson

2020-10-15, 11:28 AM

That's why I believe Max's later comment is completely sarcastic here, it illustrates the worst possible interpretation that this rule presents.

Well, yeah. It was in blue text for a reason. Any DM who interprets that as a valid use case for a magic shield is running a deliberately-bonkers game. (Why does this remind me of Paranoia?)

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 11:35 AM

In regards to this specific situation, I made this very clear.

Two of us now read it and it didn't make sense. I was more polite and tried to push you toward that conclusion with some substance instead of a unhelpful "that makes no sense" retort. But I agree with this poster, it doesn't make sense.

I don't understand what you mean, a DM who rules that a shield must be donned to be considered held isn't making sense, that's the point.

It's pretty simple, a DM who rules that a shield must be held in your hands to be considered held isn't making sense because there are more ways to hold something than in your hands. That's the point.

MaxWilson

2020-10-15, 11:36 AM

It's pretty simple, a DM who rules that a shield must be held in your hands to be considered held isn't making sense. There are more ways to hold something than in your hands. That's the point.

Yes. For example, you can hold something in your lap, between your knees, in your teeth, etc.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 11:40 AM

Yes. For example, you can hold something in your lap, between your knees, in your teeth, etc.

You can also hold something in a lockbox, for a friend, as evidence, in your thoughts, etc.

Keltest

2020-10-15, 12:02 PM

Most applicably for game cheese, you can hold it in a bag of holding. And i defy anybody to tell me that a bag of holding is not holding something with a straight face.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 12:03 PM

Two of us now read it and it didn't make sense. I was more polite and tried to push you toward that conclusion with some substance instead of a unhelpful "that makes no sense" retort. But I agree with this poster, it doesn't make sense.

I genuinely don't understand the confusion here, I said there's a mechanical distinction between held and donned but held isn't clearly defined in general. The game doesn't clearly define what it means to hold something (though a good faith interpretation can mean anything from in hand to on back, to simply on your person) and the bad faith argument goes to the sarcastic example Max gave where you are holding it in contempt or some such and still expect it to be considered held.

I said that a DM who says something must be donned to be considered held is being nonsensical because in your loose (and correct as far as the rules are concerned) definition of hold, you can't physically even pick up a shield (or armor for that matter) without donning it if we say a shield must be donned to be considered held. It doesn't make sense, that's the point.

You are clearly able to hold/carry/move a shield without donning it.

Most applicably for game cheese, you can hold it in a bag of holding. And i defy anybody to tell me that a bag of holding is not holding something with a straight face.
Clearly the bag is holding it, I wonder if I can get held item bonuses for carrying the parties halfling around too.

Keltest

2020-10-15, 12:15 PM

Looking at the language used for what a shield is, it appears that at the time of writing, holding it and donning it were considered interchangeable. If you had a shield held in your hand, you were considered to have donned it.

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.

I assume it didnt even enter the writers minds that somebody would hold it by the rim in such a way that it couldnt be used as a shield.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 12:24 PM

I genuinely don't understand the confusion here, I said there's a mechanical distinction between held and donned but held isn't clearly defined in general. The game doesn't clearly define what it means to hold something (though a good faith interpretation can mean anything from in hand to on back, to simply on your person) and the bad faith argument goes to the sarcastic example Max gave where you are holding it in contempt or some such and still expect it to be considered held.

I said that a DM who says something must be donned to be considered held is being nonsensical because in your loose (and correct as far as the rules are concerned) definition of hold, you can't physically even pick up a shield (or armor for that matter) without donning it if we say a shield must be donned to be considered held. It doesn't make sense, that's the point.

You are clearly able to hold/carry/move a shield without donning it.

Clearly the bag is holding it, I wonder if I can get held item bonuses for carrying the parties halfling around too.

Why is it a bad faith argument? Why isn’t requiring it to be held in your hands just as bad faith if an argument.

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to be super pendantoc about RAW (it only says holding so you don’t have to don it because there are more kinds of holding than donning) and then the moment something works by super pendantic RAW (it only says holding so you don’t have to physically hold it with a body part because there are more kinds of holding than using a body part to hold it), you dislike where your interpretation ultimately leads and so the only thing you have left is to accuse the one pointing this out of being in bad faith.

Just wow...

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 12:29 PM

I assume it didnt even enter the writers minds that somebody would hold it by the rim in such a way that it couldnt be used as a shield.

Most likely not, but giving mechanical weight to "wield" created some problems in this case. Some classes can't "wield" a shield without penalty but they can "hold" them just fine.

To use a recent example, that new AL way of brutality monk can use magical shields as improvised weapons without losing their martial arts. Hmm, I guess we finally found the Captain America class.

Why is it a bad faith argument?
Because it requires a beyond reasonable leap in logic. Bad faith might be the wrong term to use here, but it's clearly an abuse around loosely defining what it means to hold something.

It can be reasonably argued that having a magical shield on your person is enough to gain its benefits, it's not at all reasonable to argue that having it in a far off place works the same. There is no material or magical connection between you and the shield if it's not on your person.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 12:41 PM

Because it requires a beyond reasonable leap in logic. Bad faith might be the wrong term to use here, but it's clearly an abuse around loosely defining what it means to hold something.

There’s no leap in logic. Let’s start here.

It says hold. There are numerous types of holding. Donning, holding by the rim. Holding between your legs, etc.

Do you agree so far?

it also is holding when you put something in safe keeping for someone else.

Do you agree here?

So,
1. what is your justification for excluding this later kind of holding from applying to magical shields?
2. Are you arbitrarily favoring one type of holding over the other?
3. If not arbitrary, when what context/reasoning do you base your decision on?

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 12:43 PM

There’s no leap in logic. Let’s start here.

It says hold. There are numerous types of holding. Donning, holding by the rim. Holding between your legs, etc.

Do you agree so far?
Yes, I've already agreed this far.

it also is holding when you put something in safe keeping for someone else.
And this is the leap, how is it that you are gaining any benefits from holding this when you are not holding it. Any old rube could claim ownership over a container housing a magical shield and you say this gives them the AC bonus? Why not just hoist a magical shield by the flagpole and say that the entire town receives its benefit?

It's silly, it doesn't make sense. There's clearly a leap in logic here as far as what it means for you to be holding something.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 12:47 PM

Yes, I've already agreed this far.

And this is the leap, how is it that you are gaining any benefits from holding this when you are not holding it. Any old rube could claim ownership over a container housing a magical shield and you say this gives them the AC bonus? Why not just hoist a magical shield by the flagpole and say that the entire town receives its benefit?

It's silly, it doesn't make sense.

Via magic, doesn’t that explain everything?

So why don’t you accept that magic could possibly do this? What’s you rationale for that?

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 12:49 PM

Via magic, doesn’t that explain everything?

So why don’t you accept that magic could possibly do this? What’s you rationale for that?

Alright fine, I accept it, next time I see a magical shield I'm adding the bonus permanently to my character sheet. I'm holding it in my thoughts forever and no one can argue that isn't how it works.

Even magic has its limits.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 12:58 PM

Alright fine, I accept it, next time I see a magical shield I'm adding the bonus permanently to my character sheet. I'm holding it in my thoughts forever and no one can argue that isn't how it works.

Even magic has its limits.

Most DMs don’t got for hyper literal pedantic reading of RAW though. Which is why most are still going to be ruling that you have to have a magic shield donned.

As soon as you get rid of hyper literal pedantic readings you no longer are bound to have “hold” in reference to magical shields be expandable to be in your hand either. It can mean donned then just as easily.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 01:10 PM

Most DMs don’t got for hyper literal pedantic reading of RAW though. Which is why most are still going to be ruling that you have to have a magic shield donned.

As soon as you get rid of hyper literal pedantic readings you no longer are bound to have “hold” in reference to magical shields be expandable to be in your hand either. It can mean donned then just as easily.

The issue is that it's not a hyper literal pedantic reading of RAW, it's a single line of text and a very unfortunate word choice that was somehow different from the Basic Rules, which got it correct to begin with for Arrow Catching Shield and later in the future for Pariah's Shield.

When they wrote the line "unless a magic items description says otherwise, it must be worn" they definitely overlooked their use of "holding" for magical shields. It's that simple, there's no lawyer like parsing of the text here.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 01:20 PM

The issue is that it's not a hyper literal pedantic reading of RAW, it's a single line of text and a very unfortunate word choice that was somehow different from the Basic Rules, which got it correct to begin with for Arrow Catching Shield and later in the future for Pariah's Shield.

When they wrote the line "unless a magic items description says otherwise, it must be worn" they definitely overlooked their use of "holding" for magical shields. It's that simple, there's no lawyer like parsing of the text here.

Just a lawyer like parsing of the definition of holding.

Keravath

2020-10-15, 01:30 PM

The rule doesn’t say holding with your hands.

What bothers me about these discussions is you (general you) start off strictly adhering to what RAW appears it says, but when someone uses the same strict RAW language to do something you (general you) think is a bit too far, then you throw up the DM generous interpretation defense.

IMO, If the DM can interpret hold to require hands and still be technically correct then the DM can just as easily interpret holding to require donning and also still be technically correct. After all, Both are just more restrictive styles of holding.

Just curious ... but if I say I am holding something ... isn't the usual interpretation that I mean with my hands? All the dictionary definitions of common English usage seem to indicate that if I say I am holding a shield ... that usually MEANS that I am holding the shield WITH my hands or arms.

A DM is free to rule that in their game "holding" something can be done with teeth, nose, feet or stuffed in their backpack but interpreting a rule written in common English that says something needs to be held to be effective then the usual interpretation is that it must be held with the hands or arms.

---

https://www.lexico.com/definition/hold

1. [with object] Grasp, carry, or support with one's hands.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hold

"to take and keep something in your hand or arms:"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hold

"When you hold something, you carry or support it, using your hands or your arms."

---

micahaphone

2020-10-15, 01:32 PM

So if I put several magical shields onto a rope (stringing them together using the arm straps/handles), then hold onto that rope, I can benefit from all of them AND get a cool improvised flail? Unkillable Tavern Brawler, coming on through!

Keravath

2020-10-15, 01:39 PM

Most applicably for game cheese, you can hold it in a bag of holding. And i defy anybody to tell me that a bag of holding is not holding something with a straight face.

However, in that case the bag of holding gains the benefit of the shield since IT is holding the shield while the character is just carrying the bag of holding :)

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 01:39 PM

Just a lawyer like parsing of the definition of holding.

The most straightforward and generous way of reading "holding X piece of equipment" is that you are physically in contact with it. I don't think I'd call that a lawyer like parsing of the rules.

The lawyer like definition of "holding" would restrict it entirely to being held in your hands and arms via the dictionary definition of the word. Further, using "hold" in the form of keeping or detaining refers to "someone" not "something" where the former is the appropriate definition.

I can start being lawyer like if you want, but up until now I haven't been.

Keravath

2020-10-15, 01:39 PM

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 01:40 PM

The most straightforward way of reading "holding X piece of equipment" is that you are physically holding it. I don't think I'd call that a lawyer like parsing of the rules.

The lawyer like definition of "holding" would restrict it entirely to being held in your hands and arms via the dictionary definition of the word. Further, using "hold" in the form of keeping or detaining refers to "someone" not "something" where the former is the appropriate definition.

I can start being lawyer like if you want, but up until now I haven't been.

IMO. The most straightforward way of reading holding X magical shield would be that you have it donned.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 01:43 PM

IMO. The most straightforward way of reading holding X magical shield would be that you have it donned.

So, again, how do I hold a shield without donning it? This definition doesn't work.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 01:50 PM

So, again, how do I hold a shield without donning it? This definition doesn't work.

Yes it does. You are trying to force that definition to apply in every context. It doesn’t have to.

Edit. If you want to hold the shield in your hand go for it. If you want to hold it in your lockbox for your paladin friend go for it. Doesn’t mean either will give you the ac bonus.

Keltest

2020-10-15, 01:52 PM

However, in that case the bag of holding gains the benefit of the shield since IT is holding the shield while the character is just carrying the bag of holding :)

Nah, im holding the bag of holding (bag of being held?) so i get all the benefits of the bag of holding as well as all of the things its enabling me to hold.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 02:03 PM

Yes it does. You are trying to force that definition to apply in every context. It doesn’t have to.

Edit. If you want to hold the shield in your hand go for it. If you want to hold it in your lockbox for your paladin friend go for it. Doesn’t mean either will give you the ac bonus.

You're trying to enforce the definition of Wield to apply in a context where the game rules actively don't support it. If you're going to change one instance of only requiring something to be held to instead properly donned, you can't just say it only applied to that context when there are other examples.

Though I'm glad, at least, that you've finally clarified that you wouldn't actually rule in this way. It wasn't clear to me whether you were playing devil's advocate until now.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 02:16 PM

You're trying to enforce the definition of Wield to apply in a context where the game rules actively don't support it. If you're going to change one instance of only requiring something to be held to instead properly donned, you can't just say it only applied to that context when there are other examples.

...the same argument applies to restricting the definition of hold to “holding it in your hand”.

When you apply this supposed principle You cite equally and without bias it shows the absurdity of the argument.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 02:34 PM

...the same argument applies to restricting the definition of hold to “holding it in your hand”.

When you apply this supposed principle You cite equally and without bias it shows the absurdity of the argument.

For the last time on this: Wield, in regards to the game mechanics for magical items and shields, has a specific meaning. It does not mean the same thing as held and the rules say as much.

It's not absurd, it's written plainly this way. When you suggest that holding a shield must be considered to be donning it, you can't restrict it to a single context arbitrarily because you don't like the consequences of it. Holding and Wielding are different things, there's a specific and distinct mechanical difference for magical shields.

The mistake is that they used the word "holding" at all, because they also specified that not all magical armor must be donned properly if it makes its own exception, which it does.

We both agree that it shouldn't work while simply held, that doesn't mean the entry in SAC is incorrect, just bad. It wouldn't be the first time that poor word choice has spoiled the rules, it very likely won't be the last.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 02:55 PM

For the last time on this: Wield, in regards to the game mechanics for magical items and shields, has a specific meaning. It does not mean the same thing as held and the rules say as much.

I've never once mentioned wielding. I've talked about donning. I've talked about holding. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else on this point?

It's not absurd, it's written plainly this way.

If it was plainly written I couldn't argue you could hold it in your bag of holding and get the benefit of the magical ac bonus.

When you suggest that holding a shield must be considered to be donning it, you can't restrict it to a single context arbitrarily because you don't like the consequences of it.

Then why are you doing that by saying you must "hold it in your hand"?

Holding and Wielding are different things, there's a specific and distinct mechanical difference for magical shields.

Apparently you can hold one in your bag of holding and get the magical AC bonus. The only way to get away from that is to arbitrarily redefine holding in this specific context as meaning "holding in your hand". But if you are going to arbitrarily define holding in this context to be "holding in your hand" then you might as well arbitrarily redefine it to be "hold by donning".

"Holding in your Hand" is not any less arbitrary than "holding by donning".

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 03:07 PM

I've never once mentioned wielding. I've talked about donning. I've talked about holding. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else on this point?
Donning and Wielding do mean the same thing in regards to shields.

If it was plainly written I couldn't argue you could hold it in your bag of holding and get the benefit of the magical ac bonus.
You can, that's the issue with how it's written. It's a stretch but it can be argued, that's the issue I (and others) have.

Then why are you doing that by saying you must "hold it in your hand"?
I didn't say that, you prompted me to show a lawyer like reading which isn't the same as what I would read casually. For reference, again, this is how I would read it casually.

ME: The most straightforward and generous way of reading "holding X piece of equipment" is that you are physically in contact with it.

ME: It can be reasonably argued that having a magical shield on your person is enough to gain its benefits

ME: The game doesn't clearly define what it means to hold something (though a good faith interpretation can mean anything from in hand to on back, to simply on your person)

So I'd ask you kindly to stop misquoting me here, I'm doing my absolute best to remain clear and consistent on what I'm using as a broad definition of "holding".

"Holding in your Hand" is not any less arbitrary than "holding by donning".

Holding does not have to include donning though, donning is a game mechanic and you don't have to don an item to hold it. It is quite arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) to say that you must don an item to hold it.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 03:17 PM

You can, that's the issue with how it's written. It's a stretch but it can be argued, that's the issue I (and others) have.

Well that's a start!

I didn't say that, you prompted me to show a lawyer like reading which isn't the same as what I would read casually. For reference, again, this is how I would read it casually.

So for you record: you are saying you have to "hold the shield in your hand" to receive the magical AC bonus. Correct?

If so then that's proof you are doing this: "When you suggest that holding a shield must be considered to be donning it "holding it in your hand", you can't restrict it to a single context arbitrarily because you don't like the consequences of it."

So I'd ask you kindly to stop misquoting me here, I'm doing my absolute best to remain clear and consistent on what I'm using as a broad definition of "holding".

I never misquoted you.

The issue is that your broad definition of holding isn't actually broad and is arbitrarily narrowed.

Holding does not have to include donning though,

Holding doesn't have to include holding in your hand either...

you don't have to don an item to hold it.

nor do you have to hold an item in your hand to hold it...

It is quite arbitrary (based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system) to say that you must don an item to hold it.

It is just as arbitrary to say you must "hold an item in your hand" to hold it.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-10-15, 03:34 PM

The issue is that your broad definition of holding isn't actually broad and is arbitrarily narrowed.

It's already much broader than the standard English definition of the word. Lets leave it at this, once again we're getting nowhere here. Nothing I've said has convinced you so far, I don't think anything will at this rate.

MaxWilson

2020-10-15, 03:42 PM

We both agree that it shouldn't work while simply held, that doesn't mean the entry in SAC is incorrect, just bad. It wouldn't be the first time that poor word choice has spoiled the rules, it very likely won't be the last.

This would be more persuasive if not for the fact that this very Sage Advice, more than once, acknowledges a bad wording and says essentially, "The intent is for it to work like XYZ. Future printings of the DMG will reflect that intent." Big missed opportunity in this case.

Hellpyre

2020-10-15, 04:17 PM

Keltest

2020-10-15, 05:11 PM

Frogreaver, it seems like you're conflating 'broad' with 'as permissive as possible' here in trying to argue that holding in trust at home is just as clear a reading as holding in your hands.

While it's true that Held has less gameplay definition than Wield or Don, it does have definition in gameplay terms elsewhere. Specifically, I'd direct you to spellcasting foci:

where it is clearly meant that you use the free hand as part of holding the focus. It is not as specific to the situation, coming from a different section, but it clearly establishes author intent that holding involves the use of a hand - indeed the use of a hand otherwise unoccupied.

I'm pretty sure the whole point of his argument is that if were going to use context clues to pick a meaning for "held" then we have to go all the way and not just arbitrarily stop halfway through.

Hellpyre

2020-10-15, 05:27 PM

I'm pretty sure the whole point of his argument is that if were going to use context clues to pick a meaning for "held" then we have to go all the way and not just arbitrarily stop halfway through.

I'd gathered the thrust of it as more 'there isn't any limitations specified by the rules on what held means, so if you read it as something other than fluff text in the magic item descriptions the floodgates are open' myself. My point was that there are in fact context clues that the rules expect holding to be holding in the sense of using a hand to physically grip something. I picked the one that sprang to mind immediately, but there are a number of others sprinkled throughout various supplements stating some variation of "a character requires two free hands to hold this item" and such like, and the other uses of hold/held that do not reference physical interaction with something that I can recall do not appear in actual rules text.

MaxWilson

2020-10-15, 06:20 PM

Frogreaver, it seems like you're conflating 'broad' with 'as permissive as possible' here in trying to argue that holding in trust at home is just as clear a reading as holding in your hands.

While it's true that Held has less gameplay definition than Wield or Don, it does have definition in gameplay terms elsewhere. Specifically, I'd direct you to spellcasting foci:

where it is clearly meant that you use the free hand as part of holding the focus. It is not as specific to the situation, coming from a different section, but it clearly establishes author intent that holding involves the use of a hand - indeed the use of a hand otherwise unoccupied.

Clearly you don't need an empty hand to literally just _hold_ a spellcasting focus. Humans beings routinely hold multiple small objects in one hand at once. In this context, "hold a spellcasting focus" is clearly intended as a synonym for using/wielding one, not merely holding it. Sloppy writing in some ways, but the intent is clear enough.

Likewise with shields. The DMG's intent is clear: magical shields must be donned as usual in order to function. Sage Advice's decision to emphasize a lawyerly ruling here is indefensible.

Hellpyre

2020-10-15, 06:31 PM

Clearly you don't need an empty hand to literally just _hold_ a spellcasting focus. Humans beings routinely hold multiple small objects in one hand at once. In this context, "hold a spellcasting focus" is clearly intended as a synonym for using/wielding one, not merely holding it. Sloppy writing in some ways, but the intent is clear enough.
Fair. I would argue that, say, a staff might be difficult to manipulate with a hand also holding onto other items, but that runs somewhat into where I think you draw the line on wielding.

Likewise with shields. The DMG's intent is clear: magical shields must be donned as usual in order to function. Sage Advice's decision to emphasize a lawyerly ruling here is indefensible.

I don't disagree that the intent is that shields need to be donned to provide benefits magical or mundane. I merely disagree with the idea that the position is indefensible. Poorly thought-out, overly semantic, and inconsistent with similar rulings on similar topics? Certainly. But there is a valid defense to be made that the rules as written permit the said abuse. I'd certainly never let it fly at a table I DMed, nor try to do it as a player, but it is a defensible (if ludicrously silly) position to take.

Frogreaver

2020-10-15, 06:51 PM

Fair. I would argue that, say, a staff might be difficult to manipulate with a hand also holding onto other items, but that runs somewhat into where I think you draw the line on wielding.

I don't disagree that the intent is that shields need to be donned to provide benefits magical or mundane. I merely disagree with the idea that the position is indefensible. Poorly thought-out, overly semantic, and inconsistent with similar rulings on similar topics? Certainly. But there is a valid defense to be made that the rules as written permit the said abuse. I'd certainly never let it fly at a table I DMed, nor try to do it as a player, but it is a defensible (if ludicrously silly) position to take.

I think all 3 positions are RAW defensible:
1. Holding a shield in anyway (including your bag of holding) gives you the magical AC bonus. This is the only non-arbitrary reading.
2. Holding a shield in your hand even without donning it gives you the magical AC bonus but holding it in a bag of holding would not.
3. Holding the shield via donning it is the only way to receive the magical AC bonus.

A) I think 1 is the most hyper literal reading of RAW, technically valid but it yields consequences no one agrees with.
B) I think 2 is an arbitrarily limited reading that gets portrayed as if it isn't because it's the most hyper literal reading with semi-agreeable consequences
C) I think 3 is also an arbitrarily limited reading but unlike 2 it matches the obvious intent (based on past precedent, magical armor rules, etc)

If I have to pick one of these positions as RAW, I'm going with 3 because if I'm not going all out on the hyper literal rendition then I might as well match Intent, Past Precedent and magical armor rules.