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

[Thunderous Mojo]

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure. PHB.

Keep in mind people are talking about a Monk holding a Magic Shield as an example. The Shield isn't strapped onto the arm...the monk could be holding the edge of the shield.

The DMG also details the Disarm option....action is used to Disarm the shield, FoI to pick up the shield.....your Magical Plus to AC is now my Magical Plus to AC.

Shields have never worked the way Crawford ruled in SAC, in D&D nor any other RPG that I can think of.

If the change to the paradigm of magical Shields was intentional, there would have been more emphasis by WotC on the change, methinks.

The Crawford interpretation is the result of an accident. No one is posting crazy builds, or exploits...so it might be an accident that isn't very exploitable.

[JNAProductions]

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure. PHB.

Keep in mind people are talking about a Monk holding a Magic Shield as an example. The Shield isn't strapped onto the arm...the monk could be holding the edge of the shield.

The DMG also details the Disarm option....action is used to Disarm the shield, FoI to pick up the shield.....your Magical Plus to AC is now my Magical Plus to AC.

Shields have never worked the way Crawford ruled in SAC, in D&D nor any other RPG that I can think of.

If the change to the paradigm of magical Shields was intentional, there would have been more emphasis by WotC on the change, methinks.

The Crawford interpretation is the result of an accident. No one is posting crazy builds, or exploits...so it might be an accident that isn't very exploitable.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you there. It's not "Hey guys, exploit this RAW loophole because the DM has to let it happen!" It's more "Wow, this part of RAW is silly."

No one here, to my recollection, has advocated actually using the RAW here in play.

[Burley]

I don't think anyone is arguing with you there. It's not "Hey guys, exploit this RAW loophole because the DM has to let it happen!" It's more "Wow, this part of RAW is silly."

No one here, to my recollection, has advocated actually using the RAW here in play.

Yeah, I know this'd never see play. I'm arguing that there is a rule that says this doesn't work.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I know this'd never see play. I'm arguing that there is a rule that says this doesn't work.

There's a general rule saying it doesn't work.
And a specific rule saying it does.

Unless you want general to override specific...

[Burley]

There's a general rule saying it doesn't work.
And a specific rule saying it does.

Unless you want general to override specific...

Nope, I don't. But, I also don't think the item description is a rule.
Sometimes an item may contain new rules, like the Animated Shield does. But, the three magic shields that use "hold," use it because it's more grammatically appropriate to use that word than wield (for weapons) and wear (for armor).
In other instances of Specific superseding General, the Specific is specific. In this instance, its not. It's simply a looser wording of the actual rule (which says a shield must be strapped to the arm to gain the magical effect).

[Christew]

Nope, I don't. But, I also don't think the item description is a rule.
Sometimes an item may contain new rules, like the Animated Shield does. But, the three magic shields that use "hold," use it because it's more grammatically appropriate to use that word than wield (for weapons) and wear (for armor).
In other instances of Specific superseding General, the Specific is specific. In this instance, its not. It's simply a looser wording of the actual rule (which says a shield must be strapped to the arm to gain the magical effect).

Which is a fine and reasonable perspective. But assuming why something was done or what was really meant/intended is to leave the path of RAW.

[Burley]

Which is a fine and reasonable perspective. But assuming why something was done or what was really meant/intended is to leave the path of RAW.

Which was never my position. I was simply stating that, in the debate over which rule should supersedes the other, the more specific rule (that says it needs to be strapped to your arm) should supersede the generic item description (when holding the shield).

Edit: Okay, maybe not "simply stating..."

[Witty Username]

I do not believe specific trumps general is stated anywhere in the DMG.

But this argument is pointless as Magic Items cannot exist as per RAW, as magical Formulas cannot exist.

[JackPhoenix]

I do not believe specific trumps general is stated anywhere in the DMG.

You're correct. It's in the PHB.

[Trafalgar]

This is actually covered in the Sage Advice Compendium (p21):

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 you gain while holding the shield. In contrast, you gain the shield’s nonmagical 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).

Does this mean I get the AC bonus for a Ring of Protection if I am holding it in my hand but I am not wearing it on my finger? No because RAW specifically prohibits it.

That's a weird ruling. Sometimes I think J. Crawford makes these rulings while tweeting under the influence but forgets to delete the tweet when he sobers up.

[sithlordnergal]

Does this mean I get the AC bonus for a Ring of Protection if I am holding it in my hand but I am not wearing it on my finger? No because RAW specifically prohibits it.

That's a weird ruling. Sometimes I think J. Crawford makes these rulings while tweeting under the influence but forgets to delete the tweet when he sobers up.

Ring of Protection: You gain a +1 bonus to AC and Saving Throws while wearing this ring.

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

This is where the difference comes in. The ring specifies you must wear it to gain its magical effects, while the shield specifies you must hold it to gain the magical effects. Wearing, wielding, and holding items are three different things when it comes to in game terms. For example, you must wield a greatsword in two hands, but its been confirmed that you can hold a greatsword in one hand.

Since the shield is providing a specific exception to the normal rules that are applied to using magical items and equipment, that means this is a specific rule for magical shields that have it. In 5e specific rules, such as holding a shield, trump general rules, such as wearing/wielding the magic item to use it. Otherwise they would have written you must wear or wield the shield to gain its magical +1 to defense.

Now, I'll agree its a dumb rule, and potentially a mistake on their part. But RAW is RAW, and RAW states you merely need to hold a shield to benefit from its magical effects.

[Witty Username]

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.

I would like to say my ruling has been validated by RAW.
Specific overrides general. therefore object interactions and holding doesn't apply to shields as the donning rules overrides them. So you cannot simply hold a shield.
Don: "this is the time to put on the item"
Shields: "A shield is carried in one hand"
Therefore: you must don a shield to carrying in one hand.

Now I will fully admit this is making trouble, but it is RAW.

[Psyren]

I do not believe specific trumps general is stated anywhere in the DMG.

You're correct. It's in the PHB.

PHB page 7 for the curious.

From my standpoint, I think the ruling is silly, but I also like the idea of a Loxodon holding a magic shield in its trunk while wielding a halberd and getting some protection from doing so.

[Trafalgar]

Ring of Protection: You gain a +1 bonus to AC and Saving Throws while wearing this ring.

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

This is where the difference comes in. The ring specifies you must wear it to gain its magical effects, while the shield specifies you must hold it to gain the magical effects. Wearing, wielding, and holding items are three different things when it comes to in game terms. For example, you must wield a greatsword in two hands, but its been confirmed that you can hold a greatsword in one hand.

Since the shield is providing a specific exception to the normal rules that are applied to using magical items and equipment, that means this is a specific rule for magical shields that have it. In 5e specific rules, such as holding a shield, trump general rules, such as wearing/wielding the magic item to use it. Otherwise they would have written you must wear or wield the shield to gain its magical +1 to defense.

Now, I'll agree its a dumb rule, and potentially a mistake on their part. But RAW is RAW, and RAW states you merely need to hold a shield to benefit from its magical effects.

But does that mean if the shield is strapped to my forearm but my hand isn't holding on to it, I don't get the bonus? If a shield is lying on a table and I hold on to it with one hand, do I get the bonus? If another party member has a shield and I stand next to them and hold on to the shield, do I get the bonus?

This is why RAW doesn't really exist; at least the way rules lawyers think so. There is interpretation involved with every rule because these rules aren't written the way laws are. The meaning of these words changes with context. What do the rules actually say about shields?

"Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells."

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

"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."

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

Notice that the rules use the words "put on", "strap", "wear", "carry", and "wield" interchangeably. And "carry" is listed in my desk thesaurus as a synonym of "hold".

So your RAW and my RAW are at odds with each other. Which is normal because any of these rules require interpretation. What really clinches it for me is this sentence: "This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC." Which says to me you don't get the magical bonus unless you are already getting the normal bonus.

But that's my RAW. Your RAW can be different.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is why RAW doesn't really exist; at least the way rules lawyers think so. There is interpretation involved with every rule because these rules aren't written the way laws are. The meaning of these words changes with context.

One small challenge--there is interpretation involved with every rule everywhere. Even, and especially in the law. That's why there are things like judicial canons of construction, why courts disagree about what the law means and how it applies, why lawyers get paid a lot, etc. RAW doesn't really exist (at least the way rules lawyers think) because there is no meaning without interpretation and without context. Words don't have independent meanings--they only have context-dependent meaning.

[JellyPooga]

Are you familiar with the Stormwind Fallacy?

Not applicable. I'm not accusing you of being unable to roleplay because you're using the rules effectively. I'm accusing you of trying to exploit the rules to your advantage. A card counter exploits the rules of games like Pontoon/Blackjack and is rightly accused of cheating for doing so. Your attempt to circumvent rules with disingenuous interpretations of specific phrases to justify the end result that you want has nothing to do with Stormwind and everything to do with playing the rules fairly and in-keeping with the spirit of the game and the context of the fantasy; the "roleplay" if you will.

Monks are prohibited from using shields or face losing some of the features of their Class. Whether or not the magic shields rule is legal or not, according to whatever interpretation, it flies in the face of both the clearly stated rule and the also obvious intent of the Monk rules and theme. Just by looking for a loophole...and let's be clear, that's what your doing; you're not asking "Is this RAW?", but rather "Can I get away with this if I push the point far enough". You're looking to exploit the system instead of play it. You're trying to win at numbers at the cost of playing the "role" part of the game.

Can playing the numbers be fun? For sure. I do it all the time myself. Does that mean I'm going to let you run roughshod over setting and theme in one of my games in order to increase a number by up to three? No. Does it matter if you enjoy the bookeeping aspects of the game when I'm checking your sheet? No. You've again missed the point of the reprimand; it's not that I think you might be cheating, it's that by trying to exploit the game, you will have lost my trust that you won't, or worse still, that you aren't exploiting the game thinking it's RAW, when in fact you're using legalese and shenanigans to bend the rules to your favour with specific disregard for the thematic elements of the game. That's cheating and it's not fair or fun for anyone, including yourself. That's why I disapprove.

[Trafalgar]

One small challenge--there is interpretation involved with every rule everywhere. Even, and especially in the law. That's why there are things like judicial canons of construction, why courts disagree about what the law means and how it applies, why lawyers get paid a lot, etc. RAW doesn't really exist (at least the way rules lawyers think) because there is no meaning without interpretation and without context. Words don't have independent meanings--they only have context-dependent meaning.

True, but a legal document would be written very differently. There would be a definitions section that gives specific meanings to words like hold, wear, and wield. Rules would be more specific about applicability. Exceptions to rules would be clearly stated, not requiring the specific vs general interpretation.

The rule books would also be a pain to read and probably 5 times as long. With no pictures.

[Trafalgar]

A card counter exploits the rules of games like Pontoon/Blackjack and is rightly accused of cheating for doing so.

A card counter is not cheating at blackjack unless they use a computer or a partner to do so. Casino's can choose to not let them play but can not prosecute them for cheating.

[PhoenixPhyre]

True, but a legal document would be written very differently. There would be a definitions section that gives specific meanings to words like hold, wear, and wield. Rules would be more specific about applicability. Exceptions to rules would be clearly stated, not requiring the specific vs general interpretation.

The rule books would also be a pain to read and probably 5 times as long. With no pictures.

Well, having read legal documents (and my dad's a lawyer)...not really. Laws (and contracts) have things like "terms of art" which aren't defined anywhere in them but everyone understands to have particular meanings. Which usually are completely unrelated to (or only distantly related to) their facial meanings. Most of the seemingly "detailed and clear" parts are actually just cruft, hanging on there because someone wrote that in a previous contract and a judge relied on it. There're whole libraries of canons of construction--rules on how to read legal rules. And they're contentious. Basically, legal interpretation is nowhere near as word-based and literalistic as people make it out to be. The tricks people are pulling in these (and similar) threads would get you sanctioned (punished) for making frivolous arguments. The whole "magic words" idea (that if it doesn't say particular words, or says particular other words, then the judge is helpless and must rule for you) that pervades RAW-think is the same as pervades a lot of fringe legal movements. That usually end up with serious jail time (or at least being held in contempt of court). Courts are supposed to rule based on meaning and intent.

For example, one defining characteristic of an enforceable contract is a meeting of the minds. That is, a shared understanding of the duties, obligations, and compensations. So hiding something in the fine print, hoping the other party doesn't see it, then pouncing on it is a good way to get that clause (or the whole contract) thrown out as unenforceable due to there not being a meeting of the minds.

The closest you get to what you're talking about are computer languages, where the computer isn't very good with ambiguity so everything has to be clearly defined.

Ambiguity is a natural, inevitable part of human language. You can't do away with it.

[Burley]

I would like to say my ruling has been validated by RAW.
Specific overrides general. therefore object interactions and holding doesn't apply to shields as the donning rules overrides them. So you cannot simply hold a shield.
Don: "this is the time to put on the item"
Shields: "A shield is carried in one hand"
Therefore: you must don a shield to carrying in one hand.

Now I will fully admit this is making trouble, but it is RAW.

You must don a shield by strapping it to your arm, per the DMG. (One of my older posts cites the specific page.)

[Witty Username]

You must don a shield by strapping it to your arm, per the DMG. (One of my older posts cites the specific page.)

I believe we are mostly on the same side on this, the bonus from a shield cannot be gained by simply holding it. I am just not convinced you can simply hold a shield in the first place.
I like your argument too though. At least better than using a shield as a backpack, this isn't Darksouls where shields are good luck charms.

[Greywander]

Therefore: you must don a shield to carrying in one hand.

I am just not convinced you can simply hold a shield in the first place.

There's a big difference between donning something and simply picking it up. This is like saying you have to don a shirt if you pick it up. I can hold a shirt in my hand without donning it, and likewise I can hold a shield in my hand without donning it. Normally, you wouldn't gain any benefit from either a shirt or shield unless you don them, but the magic item specifically says it grants the benefits while holding the shield. Why? Who knows. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe it was intentional. Regardless, that's what the rules say, for better or for worse.

I just can't imagine how in earth it would be easier to houserule that picking up a shield requires donning it, rather than simply houseruling that gaining the benefits of a magic shield requires donning it. It would be similar to saying you need two hands to pick up a two-handed weapon, because the weapon requires two hands to wield and you can't hold it without wielding it. But most two-handed weapons can easily be picked up and held in one hand, they're just difficult to swing around with only one hand. Plus, just imagine anyone who picks up a shield being compelled to strap the shield to their arm, it's a little ridiculous. Imagine your friend asks you to pass him his shield; would you pick up the shield, strap it to your arm, walk over to him, unstrap the shield, and hand it to him? Or would you just grab the shield by a strap or by the rim, carry it over to him, and hand it to him?

[Thunderous Mojo]

There's a big difference between donning something and simply picking it up. This is like saying you have to don a shirt if you pick it up. I can hold a shirt in my hand without donning it, and likewise I can hold a shield in my hand without donning it.

Shirts, (Chain Shirts are in the armor category), do not have specific 5e rules that govern how the item of clothing is put on or taken off.

A Shield in 5e, by definition, is held in one hand. Hold has an inadvertent technical meaning here: once you are holding something in your hand, this generally means one cannot use that same hand to hold anything else.

From this standpoint: the Crawford ruling is exactly opposite of the rule intent.

Practically speaking there are a limited number of ways to 'hold a shield' using your hand. Either the shield is strapped to your arm, or the shield has a handle one is gripping.

If you are holding the handle of the shield or have the shield strapped on, you have donned the shield, and it is being held in one of the two hand slots available.

Held, in terms of the 5e system signifies that the particular hand slot is occupied and not available.

In colloquial terms, holding the rim of a shield, is more akin to an object interaction.

In a similar fashion to opening a door, holding the brim of a shield requires a free hand. The action itself may take up your hand slot, momentarily, but typically you can end this object interaction quickly. In this case by either finishing turning a door knob for a door, or removing your fingers from the rim of the shield.

That is what I find so dismaying about Crawford's ruling: it is tone deaf to the technically implications that the word Hold has taken on, in that particular context, within the system.

[Willie the Duck]

From this standpoint: the Crawford ruling is exactly opposite of the rule intent.

It seems that Crawford has tended to rule what he thinks the written rules are, not what he feels they ought to be or were originally intended to be. A lot of his rulings seem to have an implied, 'huh, looks like the rules are...' before the ruling.

[JackPhoenix]

A Shield in 5e, by definition, is held in one hand.

Nope. Nowhere in the relevant section of the PHB is a shield described as being held.

Practically speaking there are a limited number of ways to 'hold a shield' using your hand. Either the shield is strapped to your arm, or the shield has a handle one is gripping.

Or, you know, you may hold the shield in your hand like you would any other object.

If you are holding the handle of the shield or have the shield strapped on, you have donned the shield, and it is being held in one of the two hand slots available.

You've donned the shield, true. You're now wielding it. You aren't holding it, because holding, in 5e, implies just holding something in your hand, not using it in the intended fashion. You can hold a sword, but to attack someone, you have to wield it. You can hold a shield, but to get the +2 AC bonus, you have to don it and wield it.

Held, in terms of the 5e system signifies that the particular hand slot is occupied and not available.

True

In colloquial terms, holding the rim of a shield, is more akin to an object interaction.

In a similar fashion to opening a door, holding the brim of a shield requires a free hand. The action itself may take up your hand slot, momentarily, but typically you can end this object interaction quickly. In this case by either finishing turning a door knob for a door, or removing your fingers from the rim of the shield.

Yet you can hold the shield for hours without donning it, if you want.

That is what I find so dismaying about Crawford's ruling: it is tone deaf to the technically implications that the word Hold has taken on, in that particular context, within the system.

Nah. Crawford's ruling is spot-on. You're inventing meaning for the word Hold that doesn't appear anywhere in the books.

[Burley]

Shirts, (Chain Shirts are in the armor category), do not have specific 5e rules that govern how the item of clothing is put on or taken off.

A Shield in 5e, by definition, is held in one hand. Hold has an inadvertent technical meaning here: once you are holding something in your hand, this generally means one cannot use that same hand to hold anything else.

I pulled this quote from HERE, but it's also in the DMG on page 140:

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.

I just... I don't know how it could be stated any clearer.

[Christew]

Hold has an inadvertent technical meaning here: once you are holding something in your hand, this generally means one cannot use that same hand to hold anything else.

From this standpoint: the Crawford ruling is exactly opposite of the rule intent.

Even if we take this view of hold, the ruling doesn't seem to countermand intent. It merely offers two different cost/benefit options for magic shields.
Hold: One hand slot occupied (cost)/magic bonus to AC only (benefit)
Wield: One hand slot occupied + proficiency effects (cost)/magic + mundane bonus to AC (benefit).

[Christew]

I just... I don't know how it could be stated any clearer.

Maybe if it had an explicit caveat that said "Please ignore the Specific Beats General section of the rules and any relevant magic item descriptions when applying this particular general rule to magic shields."

[animewatcha]

There might be a way to explain the 'wearing a shield without wearing a shield'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2WFsq15KA8

[Contrast]

I just... I don't know how it could be stated any clearer.

I posted this upthread but you didn't respond and I would be interested in your answer given your stance:

If a magical boot had the wording 'While you wear these boots you gain Y. When placed on someones head then X' would you argue that the boot does nothing when placed on someones head because the magic doesn't trigger as the boot is not being worn properly or would you accept that the specific instruction in the magic item clarifies how it works and that X happens?


If you want a practical example of an actual item, an astral shard says the following:

This crystal is a solidified shard of the Astral Plane, swirling with silver mist. As an action, you can attach the shard to a Tiny object (such as a weapon or a piece of jewelry) or detach it. It falls off if your attunement to it ends. You can use the shard as a spellcasting focus for your sorcerer spells while you hold or wear it.

When you use a Metamagic option on a spell while you are holding or wearing the shard, immediately after casting the spell you can teleport to an unoccupied space you can see within 30 feet of you.

Are you arguing that this item does not work while holding it despite the description clearly and explicity saying it does?