New Sage Advice

[ProsecutorGodot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/dic...y/english/hold

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

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...y/english/hold

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

---

[micahaphone]

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]

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]

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]

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!

Nah :) ... the rules do say that you can't benefit from more than one shield at a time :)

[Frogreaver]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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".