Does a shield +X give the +X bonus without wielding it?

[Greywander]

Today we learned that Greywander's and Crawford's brains work the same (sideways) way.

Hey now, no need for personal attacks.

It was a legitimate question. And I do find the optimization game fun, so if it worked then I would be looking at what else I could do with it (e.g. the Shield of Missile Attraction someone mentioned above). If it were me writing the rules, I probably would require you to wield the shield, but that's not actually what it says. It says you get the bonus while holding it. Then the DMG clarifies that you have to wear/wield a magic item properly to gain any benefit, then SAC contradicts this saying that a +X shield actually would give the bonus if only held. So who even knows what the RAW actually is anymore.

I don't typically give much credibility to SAC, so I'm not sure what to think. I'm inclined to return to my original position, that since it says "hold" and not "wield", you'd get the bonus just for holding it. There are, after all, other items that grant benefits while not being wielded, so I have to assume using "hold" was intentional. Who can say for sure what the DMG reference was referring to, maybe it was just a redundant reinforcement for all the items that actually say a benefit only applies while wielding/wearing/using that item. For example, a dual-wielder with a magic weapon in their main hand can't apply the magic weapon's effects to their off-hand attacks.

This is why we can't have nice things.
The desire the seek loopholes in rules is bad for play. See also dmg p 140.

I get what you're saying, but there's a vast difference between asking a question like this academically and actually trying to pull a fast one on your DM. Even beyond that, though, some tables like finding new loopholes and exploits, because that's how they like to play. Optimization is like a puzzle, and I enjoy finding new and better solutions to that puzzle. Also, it can be very helpful to find out about a potential exploit ahead of time, so you can consider how best to handle it as a DM instead of having to figure something out on the spot. See this quote from me from earlier in the thread:

Part of the point of identifying exploits like this is so that we can "patch" them with house rules. There's also value in just correctly sorting out what the RAW is, even if the RAW is badly written.

Would I allow this at my table as the DM? Possibly not, but I'd be open to hearing an argument from the players as to why I should allow it. And regardless of what I do or don't allow, that has no impact on what the RAW actually is. And knowing what the RAW is isn't just helpful, it's a prerequisite for being a competent DM. A DM who doesn't know the rules can't effectively enforce them, and has to spend more time creating their own rulings when a perfectly good rule already exists.

And besides, I think a player will take it better if you say, "I know the rules say X, but I want to avoid some issues that would cause, so we're doing Y instead, " rather than, "The rules don't say X, they say Y." Acknowledging that the player had a correct interpretation of the rules and that you've chosen to change those rules will rankle them much less than insisting they read the rules wrong (when they didn't).

[JNAProductions]

And besides, I think a player will take it better if you say, "I know the rules say X, but I want to avoid some issues that would cause, so we're doing Y instead, " rather than, "The rules don't say X, they say Y." Acknowledging that the player had a correct interpretation of the rules and that you've chosen to change those rules will rankle them much less than insisting they read the rules wrong (when they didn't).

Yeah, agreed.

[Willie the Duck]

<thinks back to 3.5 RAW arguments> <laughs uproariously>

You don't know stupid rules debate until you've seen people fill multiple pages of thread arguing that a book of errata doesn't apply because of one clause in the PHB/DMG about primary sources.

I do know those, and to my recollection the were dominant when 3.5 was the current edition of D&D.

But yes, I do remember many a surreal experience where someone would argue that the re-printing of the core books without the updates from the Rules Compendium rendered the entire thing unofficial, or something along those lines.

[Christew]

The SAC also contradicts the DMG citation from upthread, which as usual suggests that the designers are full of crap and don't actually have any special insight into their own game at all.

Also contradicts JC's tweeted position in 2018.

"The rule for magic armor is that you must don it to benefit from its properties."

Almost seems like they're making it all up as they go along ....

[arnin77]

This seems a little like giving someone holding a +3 great axe with one hand and not wielding it +3 to damage rolls with their fist…

[Greywander]

This seems a little like giving someone holding a +3 great axe with one hand and not wielding it +3 to damage rolls with their fist…

It's like that, but the wording on the two items is different. A shield +X only requires you to hold it to gain the +X bonus to AC. A weapon +X only adds the +X to attack and damage rolls with that weapon. There's definitely a sense that it shouldn't work, but it does just say "hold" for the shield. But RAW doesn't care about what should or shouldn't work, or what was intended, or anything else; all RAW cares about is what was actually written.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hey now, no need for personal attacks.

It was a legitimate question. And I do find the optimization game fun, so if it worked then I would be looking at what else I could do with it (e.g. the Shield of Missile Attraction someone mentioned above). If it were me writing the rules, I probably would require you to wield the shield, but that's not actually what it says. It says you get the bonus while holding it. Then the DMG clarifies that you have to wear/wield a magic item properly to gain any benefit, then SAC contradicts this saying that a +X shield actually would give the bonus if only held. So who even knows what the RAW actually is anymore.

No disrespect meant, I assure you.

From an optimization perspective, it's a pretty neat find. If nothing else, it suggests that you'd still get the AC bonus if you're using the shield as an improvised weapon. And I have to wonder if there's a way to pass it from person to person mid fight (familiar with a readied action?)

[Greywander]

No disrespect meant, I assure you.

No worries. I was just making a tongue-in-cheek jab at Crawford by implying that being compared to him was an insult. I'm sure he has a lot of skill and has done a lot of hard work on 5e, but we can all still be critical of the often questionable rulings he puts into Sage Advice.

I'm still salty about ammunition weapons requiring a free hand to reload, invalidating the entire point of one-handed ranged weapons. And then there's Shield Master.

[Witty Username]

@Greywander
I would say picking up a shield would be part of the action donning it.
I might say you need an action to pick up a shield, if it is something like a viking round shield I could see that being a bit complex to grab and carry efficiently in quick fashion. But that that would also Don it.

So, my take, 1 action to pick up and Don. No object interaction used.

Edit: pre loaded one handed ranged weapons allow you to use them one handed, you just get one shot. It has edge cases worth keeping track of.

[Greywander]

@Greywander
I would say picking up a shield would be part of the action donning it.
I might say you need an action to pick up a shield, if it is something like a viking round shield I could see that being a bit complex to grab and carry efficiently in quick fashion. But that that would also Don it.

So, my take, 1 action to pick up and Don. No object interaction used.

Sorry if this wasn't clear in the OP, but this was a question about the RAW. Obviously, anyone can rule this as they please at their own table, but that's not really helpful for a RAW question.

Furthermore, I still don't think your proposal that picking up a shield equates to donning it and requires an action is a good one. Consider this example: Let's say a shield is lying on the ground, and you want to pick it up, use your action to Dash or Disengage to move away, then drop the shield somewhere else. Maybe it's a special magical shield you're trying to keep away from an enemy. Maybe the party druid used Heat Metal to force them to doff and drop it. Point is, if you have to spend an action to don the shield, then you can't use it to Dash or Disengage. Furthermore, you'd have to spend another action to doff the shield before you could drop it. RAW, you could do this all in one turn and one action, but with your houserule, you'd need three actions, or you could skip the Dash/Disengage to finish it in two turns.

Yes, that's a horribly contrived example, but something like that could come up in a game. If you're going to houserule it, I don't know why you'd go the route of requiring you to don a shield in order to pick it up, when it's so much easier just to rule you don't get the magical bonus from a shield without wielding it. Think about it; there's a difference between simply picking up a shield and actually strapping it to your arm. Consider if the same houserule were applied to armor, requiring 10 minutes or so to don a set of heavy armor just so you can move it, and then 5 minutes to doff it once you're done moving it. I suppose you're just talking about holding a shield in your hand, not putting it in your pack (which wouldn't require donning it), but still.

Edit: pre loaded one handed ranged weapons allow you to use them one handed, you just get one shot. It has edge cases worth keeping track of.

Sure, but this just leads to ridiculousness like carrying 20 loaded slings. Slings are cheap and don't weigh anything, so this is totally feasible. And I just have trouble seeing the usefulness in a single-shot weapon unless it does a lot of damage. In some systems, you can get something like a flintlock pistol that can one-shot most bad guys but takes a long time to reload, so you use it to shift the odds in your favor right at the start of combat before whipping out a sword and charging. D&D doesn't really have anything like that, except for spells.

No, I'm pretty sure it's to prevent Crossbow Expert + shield builds. CE is already quite strong, adding the AC bonus of a shield would make it one of the most optimal configurations. Without CE, the choice between a sling/hand crossbow + shield vs. heavy crossbow/longbow would be comparable to the choice between a longsword/rapier + shield or a glaive. One gives you more AC, the other gives you more damage and range.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It does not. Specific beats general, and while general rule is that you must wield the magic item in appropriate fashion, the specific wording of shield +x says that you only need to hold it to gain its benefits. .

Which means that even a foe could grab your Magic Shield and get the magic bonus to AC. Your entire party can grab hold of a single Magic Shield and all get the bonus to AC.

It is a silly, unsound result.
Every Ancient Dragon will have a +3 Shield strapped to its body.🃏

[Greywander]

Every Ancient Dragon will have a +3 Shield strapped to its body.🃏

No, it has to hold it in its hand. Preferably with the pinky sticking out. A 20 foot dragon holding a human-sized shield like a little teacup.

Of course, you can't benefit from two of the same item, so you couldn't do two +3 shields. But you could do a +3 and a +2, since those are different magic items. Finally, we can dual-wield shields. A loxodon should be able to hold (but not wield) a shield in their trunk, so grab a +1 shield to triple-wield. Jokes aside, I think this might actually be RAW. If not, you could look for shields that aren't just +X shields, but give a similar bonus to AC.

[Thunderous Mojo]

One definition of Hold is:
to have possession of or ownership, or to have at one's disposal.

This is the first listed definition in the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry.

A Mage Hand spell could be sufficient to grant the Magic Bonus to AC to the caster of the cantrip...if we go with definition one in the dictionary.

Futurama, got it twisted...being technically correct is the worst kind of correct.🃏

[arnin77]

It's like that, but the wording on the two items is different. A shield +X only requires you to hold it to gain the +X bonus to AC. A weapon +X only adds the +X to attack and damage rolls with that weapon. There's definitely a sense that it shouldn't work, but it does just say "hold" for the shield. But RAW doesn't care about what should or shouldn't work, or what was intended, or anything else; all RAW cares about is what was actually written.

Where does it say that? What is the point of being proficient with shields if that’s the case… you need to be proficient to get the +2 AC from the shield; the magical bonuses are an extension of that bonus, just like on weapons. It’s pretty ludicrous to hold a shield you’re not proficient with and gain any AC bonuses from it, magical or not.

[Contrast]

Where does it say that?

In the description of magical shields. A +1 shield for example reads:

While holding this shield, you have a +1 bonus to AC. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC.

As has been noted in this thread, holding and donning are technically different things.

You could argue the phrase 'in addition to' isn't clarifying its separate from but rather than you only get the magic bonus if you get the shield bonus, like how an unarmed smite doesn't work because you only get smite damage 'in addition to' weapon damage and so no weapon damage = no smite damage and hence no shield AC = no magic shield AC.

But you will get just as many people telling you the paladin smite ruling is dumb as well so...

Meanwhile a magic +1 weapon reads:

You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.

Not really any ambiguity there.


Note: Bolded emphasis mine.

[Kuu Lightwing]

What are the chances that they simply forgot that 5e shields are meant to be donned when they were writing that text? After all, some shields in real life are held.

[Grod_The_Giant]

What are the chances that they simply forgot that 5e shields are meant to be donned when they were writing that text? After all, some shields in real life are held.

Very high.

[JellyPooga]

You've got it backwards. The idea is to eke out a bit of extra AC on a class that can't normally wield shields. This also goes for classes that lack shield proficiency, like most casters.

Nope. Intentionally trying to "game the system" gets a stern reprimand and a firm "no" from me. Rule number one at my table is to "Play the character not the rules". If you're a Monk carrying a shield for the AC bonus, I'm going to treat you as wielding, donning or wearing it, whichever imposes the harshest penalties. I'll also be reviewing your character sheet for encumbrance, rations and money spent/earned, as well as any other potential exploits you're trying to pull off. If you draw the eye of the law, expect to be put under surveillance until you've earned the right to enjoy its trust again.

[Monster Manuel]

Here's the one, very, VERY specific scenario in which I'd allow this, and in which I can see the Sage Advice ruling aligning with the actual rules in the books:

There is a Bad Thing in a room that is about to launch some kind of dangerous attack. There is a magical shield on a table in the middle of the room. The monk, on the other side of the room, uses their movement to run towards the table, and takes the Dash action to close the rest of the way. With their Object Interaction, the monk grabs the magical shield in both hands and holds it up in front of their face. Since they have no action left, they can't actually Don the shield, but they are technically "weilding" it in the intended way, interposing it between their squishy face and an impending attack. When the Bad Thing attacks on their turn, the magic of the shield bursts forth in a runic field, and the monk gets the +3 from the magical shield they are holding, even though they haven't Donned it.

And, all rules discussion aside, the main reason I would allow this is that it's cinematic and fun. RAW, this edge case is a stretch, and trying to use this kind of edge case to justify "I get a +3 to my AC because I have a magic buckler gripped in my teeth" would get a hard no.

*edited because I found the image of a monk holding a buckler in their teeth funnier than my original scenario...*

[arnin77]

In the description of magical shields. A +1 shield for example reads:



As has been noted in this thread, holding and donning are technically different things.

You could argue the phrase 'in addition to' isn't clarifying its separate from but rather than you only get the magic bonus if you get the shield bonus, like how an unarmed smite doesn't work because you only get smite damage 'in addition to' weapon damage and so no weapon damage = no smite damage and hence no shield AC = no magic shield AC.

But you will get just as many people telling you the paladin smite ruling is dumb as well so...

Meanwhile a magic +1 weapon reads:



Not really any ambiguity there.


Note: Bolded emphasis mine.

Seems like unnecessary meta gaming for minimal results. Plus you’d be taking away your bonus action attacks wouldn’t you? But that’s just my opinion. I’m sure there’s better ways to go about it: bracers of defense, ring and cloak of protection gets you +4 AC plus +2 to all saves. I view monks like rogues and Rangers; more like skirmishers except more melee driven. I’d get the mobile feat and not worry about it.

If a player tried this out and it got on my nerves I’d probably just grapple it away with monsters, but if they really wanted to do it I’d let them, at the cost of offence?

[Sigreid]

I would rule you have to have an item equipped to get the magic bennies.

[arnin77]

There’s also this which I think negates this whole thing:

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. (Pg. 140 DMG)

[BloodOgre]

One must "hold" a shield to use it. "Wield" in D&D parlance means to actually attack.

TBH, I'm not sure why this is a question. If you have a +3 sword, that you just hold in your hand, do you get +3 to punch someone with the other hand?

Page 140 in 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 no, holding it in your hand doesn't cut it.

[Greywander]

Rule number one at my table is to "Play the character not the rules".

Are you familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy? It's possible to play both the rules and the character. If I only wanted to play a character, I would join a free-form roleplay group. The rules are The Game, as in, when we call it a Roleplaying Game, that's the Game being referenced. No rules = no game, go do free-form roleplay instead.

If you're a Monk carrying a shield for the AC bonus,

Let's be honest, how often are you going to have a monk in the party and a spare magic shield? Mostly I was just curious if it could work. And honestly, I don't think it's actually much of a problem. I'm sure there's a lot of variety of opinions on this specific issue; I think you'll find a lot of people who don't fully agree with your stance (or mine). Remember, stuff like this is fun for some people, so just because it's not your cup of tea don't criticize others who enjoy it.

I'll also be reviewing your character sheet for encumbrance, rations and money spent/earned,

Joke's on you, I track those anyway, even when I'm not required to. I'd characterize myself as primarily a Simulationist, so tracking such minutia it right up my alley.

If you draw the eye of the law,

...by following the rules?

Let's be clear here: this is allowed according to the rules. Should it be? Probably not. But I didn't write the rules, and the rules as written allow it. I don't think you're justified in criticizing me for following the rules. If I hadn't posted this thread, you would have probably never known about this exploit, but now that you do you can preemptively write up a houserule and inform your players ahead of time, instead of having to deal with it on the spot.

I really don't get the mindset that asking "does this work RAW?" means I'm trying to cheat at D&D.

[arnin77]

Are you familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy? It's possible to play both the rules and the character. If I only wanted to play a character, I would join a free-form roleplay group. The rules are The Game, as in, when we call it a Roleplaying Game, that's the Game being referenced. No rules = no game, go do free-form roleplay instead.


Let's be honest, how often are you going to have a monk in the party and a spare magic shield? Mostly I was just curious if it could work. And honestly, I don't think it's actually much of a problem. I'm sure there's a lot of variety of opinions on this specific issue; I think you'll find a lot of people who don't fully agree with your stance (or mine). Remember, stuff like this is fun for some people, so just because it's not your cup of tea don't criticize others who enjoy it.


Joke's on you, I track those anyway, even when I'm not required to. I'd characterize myself as primarily a Simulationist, so tracking such minutia it right up my alley.


...by following the rules?

Let's be clear here: this is allowed according to the rules. Should it be? Probably not. But I didn't write the rules, and the rules as written allow it. I don't think you're justified in criticizing me for following the rules. If I hadn't posted this thread, you would have probably never known about this exploit, but now that you do you can preemptively write up a houserule and inform your players ahead of time, instead of having to deal with it on the spot.

I really don't get the mindset that asking "does this work RAW?" means I'm trying to cheat at D&D.

Except that the DMG says it doesn't work. And the DMG overrules the PHB. So it doesn't work RAW, and it's not an exploit since it doesn't work. No one needs to write a houserule since we can refer to the DMG.

Even if a player really wanted to use it because Sage Advice says so (RAI); I'd probably just have a monster grapple it or bash it out of their hands and have the monster say "Thanks for the +4 AC"

[sithlordnergal]

Nope. Intentionally trying to "game the system" gets a stern reprimand and a firm "no" from me. Rule number one at my table is to "Play the character not the rules". If you're a Monk carrying a shield for the AC bonus, I'm going to treat you as wielding, donning or wearing it, whichever imposes the harshest penalties. I'll also be reviewing your character sheet for encumbrance, rations and money spent/earned, as well as any other potential exploits you're trying to pull off. If you draw the eye of the law, expect to be put under surveillance until you've earned the right to enjoy its trust again.

Lol, what penalty? You lose 3 abilities which can be supplemented by a fighting style, feat, or racial ability. Heck, a Lizardfolk Monk/Fighter can wear Full Plate and keep every single class and subclass ability except Martial Arts, Unarmored Defense, and Unarmored Movement, none of which actually end up mattering if you're a Lizardfolk. Heck, if you like you can be a pure Monk, use a Greatsword, and still keep everything but Martial Arts, which if you play Lizardfolk you don't have to worry about.

[sithlordnergal]

Except that the DMG says it doesn't work. And the DMG overrules the PHB. So it doesn't work RAW, and it's not an exploit since it doesn't work. No one needs to write a houserule since we can refer to the DMG.

Even if a player really wanted to use it because Sage Advice says so (RAI); I'd probably just have a monster grapple it or bash it out of their hands and have the monster say "Thanks for the +4 AC"

Technically it does work that way, not even via Sage Advice. Due to the way its worded in RAW, a magical shield must be held to give you its magical defense bonus. Not Donned, but held, according to the DMG itself. Holding and Donning are two separate things, as according to the rules. Meaning technically, it follows RAW, like it or not.

[arnin77]

Technically it does work that way, not even via Sage Advice. Due to the way its worded in RAW, a magical shield must be held to give you its magical defense bonus. Not Donned, but held, according to the DMG itself. Holding and Donning are two separate things, as according to the rules. Meaning technically, it follows RAW, like it or not.

Then feel free to be the character running around holding a shield I guess...

[sithlordnergal]

Then feel free to be the character running around holding a shield I guess...

Lo, hey if I can find a Shield of Missile Attraction, I'm happy to be a monk that holds, but does not don, a shield since I'll gain resistance to ranged weapon attacks and creatures are forced to target me with said attacks. 0 downsides to it. Though again, you lose essentially nothing for wielding a shield and armor as a monk. As long as you're a Tababxi, Lizardfolk, or take a feat/fighting style then you're good to go.

[arnin77]

Except it’s not RAW