New Sage Advice

[ProsecutorGodot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus

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.

[Keltest]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Zalabim]

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?

It's equivocation. It's a fallacious argument. Persisting with a fallacious argument is in bad faith. So you can stop now. It may be ambiguous which definition of holding is intended (tho it isn't), but that doesn't mean that every definition of holding is valid at the same time. Favoring the first, primary, most commonly used, immediately apparent and natural English definition of holding is not arbitrary.

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.

The intent is clear as can be. There is evidence that if the wording did not convey the intended rule, then SAC would note that the wording would be changed to match the intended function. Lacking that language suggests that it working as intended. If not exactly as intended, then it is at least not working sufficiently outside what is intended to justify changing the wording, like the rule on GWF fighting style. They're magic items. There's no reason they had to function as shields in the first place. They could just as well be rocks that give a benefit when held, and having the item also be usable as a normal shield as an afterthought.

[Hellpyre]

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
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.

The problem I think we have here is that all readings constrain to arbitrary limitations. You example 3 here is something that is difficult to defend as solidly RAW, but all of us arguing (AFAICT) here concede that it is both RAI and the best way to play. Your example 1 could be argued to constrain to arbitrarily limiting the results to English language readings. What even is language anyways, words only have whatever meanings you give them

My point is that limiting the term hold to something overlapping with grasp is something that has basis in other rules text. It also leads to results consistent with the rules text in question. I do not think it is a good ruling, but it has a defensible and sensible reading supporting it, and is neither self-contradictory nor absurd on its face. It's just so obviously not intended to work that way that having Sage Advice say that's how it should be ruled rankles. I think the rules text in question should be revised to function as intended, as other similar issues have been handled, but I would not consider it a bad-faith ruling in light of the wording involved, while situation 1 is clearly an exercise in stretching possible reading.

In essence, I apply the same test here as I do when I submit something to the 3.5 dysfunctional rules threads.

[BoringInfoGuy]

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.

Missed the Arrow catching shield. That is a good point. But still, only one shield in the DMG - the one that was also printed in the Basic Rules PDF - is a non exception?

I’ll also say you are over emphasizing the “might” in the first sentence. “A magic item” includes EVERY magic item. You might have a magic item such as the Driftglobe, Folding Boat, and Mirror of Life Trapping. Using these item’s properties requires only a command word. You do not even need to be touching them. They do not need to be worn or wielded to use, but each is still a magic item.

The second, third, and forth sentences give specific examples of types of magic items. Each of these sentences say how these items “must” be worn or wielded. Must is a strong word.

You are correct that the section on armor has the “unless stated otherwise” qualifier, and the shields description almost all say hold, not wield.

Adding in another fun fact. The most basic definition of wield is “hold and use (a weapon or tool).”

Shields broadly fall under the category of tool.

Therefore, if you are holding a shield and using it to get a magical bonus to your AC (or other benefit) then you ARE wielding it by the simplest relevant definition of the word.

So the RAW apparently says you don’t need to wield most shields to benefit from its magic, but you effectively end up wielding it anyway if you do.

Regardless of my quibbling, You’ve made your case for the Defense well, Prosecutor. I am convinced.

As it says in the Sage Advice Compendium:

“RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.”

I’d say there is enough context to show needing to have the shield strapped to your arm was the intent, but trying to use common language undermined it. When complaining about their plans being delayed, Red Skull refers to Captain America as “a simpleton with a shield.” Saying “a simpleton wielding a shield,” would sound slightly off.

Why didn’t they say having the shield strapped to the arm was the intended ruling? Can only guess, but it could be that having non proficient characters have access to a shield’s magic by simply holding it was not enough of an issue to cause any serious problems.

So, the I’ll concede that the ruling is consistent with RAW, due to the Rule that Specific Beats General, and the phrasing of Holding a shield indicates a only that the character has it in their hands or arms. (Something on your back is typically said to be carried, not held).

However, during play, I will instead rule that the magic of a shield requires that it is strapped to the arm - in the intended fashion.

(Excluding the Animated Shield, which specifies that it leaves the players hands free while active - this is the type of “unless stated otherwise” I expect they had in mind)

[MaxWilson]

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.

Are we talking about different things?

We seem to agree that the ruling is ludicrously silly.

Sage Advice's role is to provide clarity in case of ambiguity, and provide good advice to those who need it.

Sage Advice has recently realized that it's okay to say "that's not what we meant, we meant XYZ, future printings will be updated to reflect this intent."

I say that deliberately choosing to engage with the ludicrously silly interpretation and ignore the plain intent is an indefensible decision by Sage Advice. You seem to disagree. What am on missing? What value is Sage Advice providing to WotC or anyone else by proponing ludicrously silly rules interpretations?

[Hellpyre]

I say that deliberately choosing to engage with the ludicrously silly interpretation and ignore the plain intent is an indefensible decision by Sage Advice. You seem to disagree. What am on missing? What value is Sage Advice providing to WotC or anyone else by proponing ludicrously silly rules interpretations?

Ah, I see our crossed connection now. I was saying that the ruling itself was defensible, but I agree that the use of the (semi-)official channel for rules clarification to make that ruling, rather than one that is useful in practial gaming was a terribly poor decision.

So, I was arguing that the ruling (while ludicrous) is a defensible position (from a RAW standpoint at least), but not that it was a position that Sage Advice should hold (especially since, as Godot mentioned upthread, they have shown willingness in the past to update wording in the PHB in cases similar to this) given that it is supposed to be a helpful source of 'good' rulings.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, I was arguing that the ruling (while ludicrous) is a defensible position (from a RAW standpoint at least), but not that it was a position that Sage Advice should hold (especially since, as Godot mentioned upthread, they have shown willingness in the past to update wording in the PHB in cases similar to this) given that it is supposed to be a helpful source of 'good' rulings.

Just to be clear, I believe Max was actually the first to bring up that willingness to change things in this thread. I have said as much in other threads, just not as part of this discussion.

I know what I've expressed might seem to conflict with what Max has been saying, but I pretty much agree with his take on this. It saddens me that they could make this mistake (again) and it's being used (again) to discredit SAC as what I see as a useful resource, something to be useful on a case by case basis.

My defending of the stance being "accurate" doesn't mean I support it, and I definitely don't support the fact that they went with being "correct" under RAW here rather than fixing what is obviously a very silly outcome that I'm almost entirely certain doesn't even match their own intent. It may be a correct defensible position by RAW, but as far as I'm concerned it's such a ludicrous position I don't see why they would want to defend it rather than correct it. Its not wrong, just bad. Very bad even.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, I see our crossed connection now. I was saying that the ruling itself was defensible, but I agree that the use of the (semi-)official channel for rules clarification to make that ruling, rather than one that is useful in practial gaming was a terribly poor decision.

So, I was arguing that the ruling (while ludicrous) is a defensible position (from a RAW standpoint at least), but not that it was a position that Sage Advice should hold (especially since, as Godot mentioned upthread, they have shown willingness in the past to update wording in the PHB in cases similar to this) given that it is supposed to be a helpful source of 'good' rulings.

And

My defending of the stance being "accurate" doesn't mean I support it, and I definitely don't support the fact that they went with being "correct" under RAW here rather than fixing what is obviously a very silly outcome that I'm almost entirely certain doesn't even match their own intent. It may be a correct defensible position by RAW, but as far as I'm concerned it's such a ludicrous position I don't see why they would want to defend it rather than correct it. Its not wrong, just bad. Very bad even.

Ah, okay. I agree that the ruling in and of itself is defensible (if ultimately silly). I think we're broadly in agreement.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I suspect that the reason Sage Advice did not discuss the Rules As Intended and decide to do an errata is two fold.

1). There are multiple books that include shields. That means multiple errata, not just one.

2). The result is silly but not game breaking. There are rules and guidelines limiting how many magic items of the same type you can benefit from at once.

If this had been caught back when it was just the DMG it probably would have been included with earlier errata.

But it’s not enough of an issue to prompt changing the print version of multiple books by itself.

[MaxWilson]

I suspect that the reason Sage Advice did not discuss the Rules As Intended and decide to do an errata is two fold.

1). There are multiple books that include shields. That means multiple errata, not just one.

2). The result is silly but not game breaking. There are rules and guidelines limiting how many magic items of the same type you can benefit from at once.

If this had been caught back when it was just the DMG it probably would have been included with earlier errata.

But it’s not enough of an issue to prompt changing the print version of multiple books by itself.

You could do a DMG errata though. State the intent, say the DMG will be updated. (Change "holding" to "using" so there's no layout issue created by changing line lengths.)

[BoringInfoGuy]

You could do a DMG errata though. State the intent, say the DMG will be updated. (Change "holding" to "using" so there's no layout issue created by changing line lengths.)

They could. But they won’t.

People get annoyed when you change things on them, even if the change is an improvement.

Adding to the Errata and creating another version of a print book is a big deal. To justify a new printing, there needs to be a major problem that needs correcting, multiple issues that need to be improved, or both. Something where enough players will decide a new printing is justified.

One rule that is annoying but not game breaking is simply not enough justification on its own.

Not this far into the current DMGs life cycle.

[ProsecutorGodot]

They could. But they won’t.

People get annoyed when you change things on them, even if the change is an improvement.

Adding to the Errata and creating another version of a print book is a big deal. To justify a new printing, there needs to be a major problem that needs correcting, multiple issues that need to be improved, or both. Something where enough players will decide a new printing is justified.

One rule that is annoying but not game breaking is simply not enough justification on its own.

Not this far into the current DMGs life cycle.

If only they hadn't committed to an errata of Find Familiar in the same update.

[MaxWilson]

They could. But they won’t.

People get annoyed when you change things on them, even if the change is an improvement.

Adding to the Errata and creating another version of a print book is a big deal. To justify a new printing, there needs to be a major problem that needs correcting, multiple issues that need to be improved, or both. Something where enough players will decide a new printing is justified.

One rule that is annoying but not game breaking is simply not enough justification on its own.

Not this far into the current DMGs life cycle.

One of these things is not like the others:

[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.

[NEW] What happens to objects brought inside and left inside Mordenkainen’s magnificent mansion when the spell ends? The intent is that the objects are ejected from the mansion when the spell ends and appear in unoccupied spaces closest to where the door was. This intent will be reflected in future printings of the Player’s Handbook.

[NEW] Does the ring of the ram use spell attacks or weapon attacks? The text doesn’t specify. The attack of the ring of the ram is a ranged spell attack. Future printings of the Dungeon Master’s Guide will reflect that intent.

[NEW] 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).

[BoringInfoGuy]

One of these things is not like the others:

[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.

[NEW] What happens to objects brought inside and left inside Mordenkainen’s magnificent mansion when the spell ends? The intent is that the objects are ejected from the mansion when the spell ends and appear in unoccupied spaces closest to where the door was. This intent will be reflected in future printings of the Player’s Handbook.

[NEW] Does the ring of the ram use spell attacks or weapon attacks? The text doesn’t specify. The attack of the ring of the ram is a ranged spell attack. Future printings of the Dungeon Master’s Guide will reflect that intent.

[NEW] 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).

Never mind then.