You do not wear a shield, you wield a shield. A fine point, but there is a definite mechanical distinction between worn armor and a wielded shield.

Quote from Azygos78 >>

You do not wear a shield, you wield a shield. A fine point, but there is a definite mechanical distinction between worn armor and a wielded shield.

No, mechanically by D&D rules it is not possible to wear a shield. You wield it. And it absolutely always takes your hand. If you don't care about accuracy that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you it should change. I do care about accuracy and will continue to point out errors when I see them.

Technically it's not an error. D&D had it so shields will take up your hand. They made it this way to prevent things becoming rather overpowered for, say, a fighter or ranger dual-wielding taking defense style with dual-wielder feat and still equipping a shield to not only get extra attack a turn but also +4 AC. It's a mechanic implemented for balancing purposes and they will never remove it. But, the rules also have a Rule 0 - if there's a mechanic or rule you do not like, change it for your game.

Or to put it simply: Why does this even make a difference? If you don't like shields taking up your hand then rule that they don't in your games. Problem solved? The website doesn't enforce this to allow for homebrew rules and items and workarounds - so if you wanted to wield/wear/whatever a shield plus two weapons you can. If you want the bonuses of an item to apply or a weapon to appear in the attacks list then activate it, if you don't want it to then don't activate it or deactivate it. So, whether you want shields to take up your hand or not is entirely up to you.

But my real point is: why are you putting this as a bug for D&D Beyond? D&D is published by Wizards of the Coast. D&D Beyond, this site, has no say over rules they just license the product out to us. Do you complain at a bookstore if you found a typo in a novel?

Your issue is with D&D / Wizards of the Coast. It has nothing to do with D&D Beyond. So why are you posting this in the Bugs and Support forum for a website that cannot change the rules? What's the point? There is a rules and mechanics forum, go post there?

On re-reading I am going to add something:

Shields are classed under armour, even though they are not which is why the button says "wear" and not "wield". This is not an issue, the button does what it is supposed to.

And clarify something:

You can wear or wield a hundred armours and fifty shields and a thousand weapons if you wanted to. This character sheet system does not impose limits and this is by design, not a bug. This allows you to add make homebrew things or workarounds for custom rules. Let's say you're a dual-wielding Paladin who's favourite spell is Shield of Faith some may decide that instead of manually editing the AC everytime they use it and it ending it could be easier to just add a regular shield named "Shield of Faith" so that when they use the spell they can just click the button next to it and voila, +2 to AC quickly and easily applied. And when the spell ends? Click that button again and just like that it's gone. Nice and easy. If the sheet imposed rulings then you would be unable to do this. Let's say you have a shield and a sword but the DM gives you a small knife that can be used even with a shield (this is an actual gladitorial technique used in real life) like an offhand weapon. If the sheet imposed "wield" rules you seem to suggest this would not be possible, but since it doesn't you can just make the knife and still equip it. Or how about you're dual wielding but you get a boot-knife (a small blade that juts out of your boot to stab with a kick) ? Just make the item and equip it, and just like that you are "wielding" three blades at once.

No matter how I try to interpret your posts I cannot fathom what your point is. The site works as intended in this regard and in the way that it should and if you're upset over rules then this isn't the place for it.

I'm not upset over rules. I'm pointing out incorrect terminology that could potentially lead to misinterpretations as to how a shield interacts with other features. It is the same issue I have with the "offhand" button on attacks. If they decide not to change it, fine. I'm still going to point these things out when I notice them, though 

Quote from Azygos78 >>

I'm not upset over rules. I'm pointing out incorrect terminology that could potentially lead to misinterpretations as to how a shield interacts with other features. It is the same issue I have with the "offhand" button on attacks. If they decide not to change it, fine. I'm still going to point these things out when I notice them, though 

Cool beans.