I couldn't find an answer to this question anywhere. A situation came up where Command "drop" was cast on a player with a sword and shield, looking at the wording for drop in the spell below
"Drop.
The target drops whatever it is holding and then ends its turn."
RAW to me this means he would drop both the sword and the shield, and the table was split 50/50 on it, half saying that you wouldn't drop the shield for the reasons below
1. "it takes an action to doff a shield and you don't get actions with command"
I'm fairly certain the no action part is just flat out wrong, so you would use your action and drop the shield
2. A shield is strapped to your arm your not holding it
I have not found any place in the books that says this. The description of a shield says it "is carried in one hand"
I have asked others that play and no one can give definitive RAW answer against our thought that you would drop both. it usually just boils down to them going "I would just say it doesn't" which is fine. I'm just wondering which is the correct answer RAW, I may just be missing something that obviously makes this not the case, and you all seem to know a lot here.
This is what the SAC says about Disarming Attack (from the Battle Master).
Can the Disarming Attack maneuver disarm a creature of a shield it has donned?
No. Disarming Attack forces a creature to drop an object it is holding. Donned shields aren’t merely held.
Based on that I'd say that he wouldn't drop the shield due to Command. But at the end of the day this really is something that will have "ask your DM" as the answer.
A commanded person could use their next action to do whatever it was they were commanded to do - so doffing a shield as part of a Command spell is within the realm of possibility (though I can't think of a single word that could cause it). The example of Drop for Command is to drop whatever they are holding - and in the rules for donning/doffing - it says "the time it takes to put on the item" - which basically means - while donned - a shield is being worn - not held.
A commanded person could use their next action to do whatever it was they were commanded to do - so doffing a shield as part of a Command spell is within the realm of possibility (though I can't think of a single word that could cause it). The example of Drop for Command is to drop whatever they are holding - and in the rules for donning/doffing - it says "the time it takes to put on the item" - which basically means - while donned - a shield is being worn - not held.
“Doff” would work if the only donned item they had was the shield, but otherwise I can’t think of one either
A commanded person could use their next action to do whatever it was they were commanded to do - so doffing a shield as part of a Command spell is within the realm of possibility (though I can't think of a single word that could cause it). The example of Drop for Command is to drop whatever they are holding - and in the rules for donning/doffing - it says "the time it takes to put on the item" - which basically means - while donned - a shield is being worn - not held.
“Doff” would work if the only donned item they had was the shield, but otherwise I can’t think of one either
Doff would probably still work, because you would need to take your shield off before your armor anyway.
There are probably better words in other languages that can convey a more complicated command in a singe word.
but if specific beats general wouldn't the description of shield counter that
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 can see how the rules for doffing could imply that it is worn while generally discussing all armor, but the description of the the actual item in question specifically states that its being carried
but if specific beats general wouldn't the description of shield counter that
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 can see how the rules for doffing could possibly imply that it is worn while generally discussing all armor, but the description of the the actual item in question specifically states that its being carried
Unfortunately 5e is not always as precise as one would hope with language and word choice. Thus the need for the SAC entry on disarming attack mentioned in one of the above posts. The RAI is that shields are not “droppable” as they must be doffed. Dropping is normally a free action, and you can’t do so with a shield unless you doff it first
but if specific beats general wouldn't the description of shield counter that
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 can see how the rules for doffing could imply that it is worn while generally discussing all armor, but the description of the the actual item in question specifically states that its being carried
People often get the specific beats general thing wrong like this.
Specific only beats general if they contradict. Can you carry something that is strapped to you?
Another thing is that "specific" rules usually only apply to specific/individual things, not ALL of a thing. The rule that says shields are carried and the rule that says shields are worn, are equally general as they both apply to all shields.
Nothing says shields are worn. They’re explicitly carried and wielded, in a special way that requires one action to stop wielding, absent some other specific ability (like disarming strike) that yeets them out of your grip faster.
As usual, SAC is needlessly injecting incorrect rulings without textual support, in a way that sowes confusion. You can disarm a shield no problem. You can also command someone to drop one, in which case they’ll spend an action doffing and dropping it.
Nothing says shields are worn. They’re explicitly carried and wielded, in a special way that requires one action to stop wielding, absent some other specific ability (like disarming strike) that yeets them out of your grip faster.
As usual, SAC is needlessly injecting incorrect rulings without textual support, in a way that sowes confusion. You can disarm a shield no problem. You can also command someone to drop one, in which case they’ll spend an action doffing and dropping it.
The rules do say they are "donned" which means to put on like clothing. So they are both put on/worn and held/wielded at the same time per the RAW (the SAC just states it more plainly).
Nah, you’re extrapolating, you can’t with a straight face say that you RAW wear a shield when the rules never say you do, and in several places say you don’t (by mentioning using/holding/wielding a shield as something that is distinct from “wearing armor.”). RAI? Maybe, but RAW hard no. There isn’t a single instance of worn being used, and several features (see monk, see Barbarian) that make explicit that holding a shield is distinct from ”wearing armor.”
Im not saying that Don and doff couldn’t have reasonably meant what you say those words mean in a different rule system or version. But in 5E you don shields by holding and wielding them, not by wearing them.
I agree that RAI its intended that they are not just held as per sage advice, thanks to Thezzurz for looking that up. in my games I prefer RAI when it can be sourced from the creators of the game, and how I would rule it for disarming strike. But even with that sage advice I can possibly see where Disarming attack wouldnt work because it requires and action to stop carrying the shield which they cant do off their turn, when command would because they have their entire turn to "follow the command". though this probably opens up an entire other can of worms that I'm not qualified to speak on.
But I have to agree with Chicken_champ as far as RAW goes which is what they play on that game. Nowhere does it say that a shield is worn or strapped to you.
Nah, you’re extrapolating, you can’t with a straight face say that you RAW wear a shield when the rules never say you do, and in several places say you don’t (by mentioning using/holding/wielding a shield as something that is distinct from “wearing armor.”). RAI? Maybe, but RAW hard no. There isn’t a single instance of worn being used, and several features (see monk, see Barbarian) that make explicit that holding a shield is distinct from ”wearing armor.”
Im not saying that Don and doff couldn’t have reasonably meant what you say those words mean in a different rule system or version. But in 5E you don shields by holding and wielding them, not by wearing them.
so it would as per the spell "The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn." which would be to drop what ever it is carrying.
and I really do appreciate all the responses so far, thank you all
Nothing says shields are worn. They’re explicitly carried and wielded, in a special way that requires one action to stop wielding, absent some other specific ability (like disarming strike) that yeets them out of your grip faster.
As usual, SAC is needlessly injecting incorrect rulings without textual support, in a way that sowes confusion. You can disarm a shield no problem. You can also command someone to drop one, in which case they’ll spend an action doffing and dropping it.
The rules do say they are "donned" which means to put on like clothing. So they are both put on/worn and held/wielded at the same time per the RAW (the SAC just states it more plainly).
and if this is the case, if it is worn but also held, then wouldn't that qualify it for the the "drops whatever it is holding " part of the command spell? You cant say drop and expect them to drop their plate mail because that aren't also holding that. they are only wearing it. So if they are wearing and holding a shield, would that over ride that command, since they definitely are holding it. I dont see an implication that if they are wearing what they are holding they wouldn't take it off and drop it to "follow the command" if they could during the one turn that the command is affecting them.
and if this is the case, if it is worn but also held, then wouldn't that qualify it for the the "drops whatever it is holding " part of the command spell? You cant say drop and expect them to drop their plate mail because that aren't also holding that. they are only wearing it. So if they are wearing and holding a shield, would that over ride that command, since they definitely are holding it. I dont see an implication that if they are wearing what they are holding they wouldn't take it off and drop it to "follow the command" if they could during the one turn that the command is affecting them.
I guess the question is if you would allow a PC to just drop the shield if they wanted to? (if it was targeted by Heat Metal or if they wanted to pull a different weapon or similar)
Going back to the Disarming attack I mentioned above. If disarm can't make you drop a shield (but it can a weapon) then I don't see how Command could either.
Now of course if you/your DM rules that Command forces the target to spend the action to Doff then most of this discussion is moot but that is a somewhat different discussion as none of the words specified in Command takes the use of an action (at least not explicitly).
and if this is the case, if it is worn but also held, then wouldn't that qualify it for the the "drops whatever it is holding " part of the command spell? You cant say drop and expect them to drop their plate mail because that aren't also holding that. they are only wearing it. So if they are wearing and holding a shield, would that over ride that command, since they definitely are holding it. I dont see an implication that if they are wearing what they are holding they wouldn't take it off and drop it to "follow the command" if they could during the one turn that the command is affecting them.
I guess the question is if you would allow a PC to just drop the shield if they wanted to? (if it was targeted by Heat Metal or if they wanted to pull a different weapon or similar)
They can do that. It would just take their action to doff the shield and then drop it. Which is exactly the same thing a commanded person would need to do.
Ignoring the SAC, looking purely at the rules written in the books, I think it is very reasonable to assume that there is a lot more to using a shield than holding it in a hand. The simplest way to illustrate this is with the object interation rules: A weapon, potion or other object can be sheathed or drawn as a "free" object interaction, whereas a shield specifically requires an action to don or doff.
Also, I don't think the description "is carried in one hand" necessarily means it can be "dropped". A backpack is carried, but is strapped to you and it would be difficult to drop it without first removing it.
Finally, it is completely up to the DM as to how the NPC interprets the command. In this case, "drop" wouldn't necessarily even result in the character dropping what they were holding. They could drop to the floor, ending up prone. Just dropping their weapon would be a reasonable interpretation, too. In fact, unclipping their money pouch and dropping that to the floor would even be a reasonable way. Trying to subvert it, if they were next to another character, hitting them in order to try to knock them out would work.
Finally, it is completely up to the DM as to how the NPC interprets the command. In this case, "drop" wouldn't necessarily even result in the character dropping what they were holding. They could drop to the floor, ending up prone. Just dropping their weapon would be a reasonable interpretation, too. In fact, unclipping their money pouch and dropping that to the floor would even be a reasonable way. Trying to subvert it, if they were next to another character, hitting them in order to try to knock them out would work.
Not sure I like this tbh. The spell quite clearly say what effect each of the "typical" commands have. Sure a DM could well change (and most certainly add to) those commands but I'd suggest keeping a list in that case. The spell really is built around the assumption that each specific command has a specific effect. Sure some minor variation could well take place but not to the extent you are suggesting.
This is the kind of thing where the answer can be summed up as "it depends on the context."
When I envision how Command "Drop" works, I see it as people just opening their hands and letting whatever they're holding slip through their fingers. In the case of, say, a buckler? That'd fall down to the ground. In the case of a, say, a tower shield that's physically strapped to your arm with leather and metal parts? That's not something you can drop by just opening your hands. Maybe you would open your hand holding a handle, but that pretty much does jack, since it doesn't remove the straps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I couldn't find an answer to this question anywhere. A situation came up where Command "drop" was cast on a player with a sword and shield, looking at the wording for drop in the spell below
" Drop.
The target drops whatever it is holding and then ends its turn."
RAW to me this means he would drop both the sword and the shield, and the table was split 50/50 on it, half saying that you wouldn't drop the shield for the reasons below
1. "it takes an action to doff a shield and you don't get actions with command"
I'm fairly certain the no action part is just flat out wrong, so you would use your action and drop the shield
2. A shield is strapped to your arm your not holding it
I have not found any place in the books that says this. The description of a shield says it "is carried in one hand"
I have asked others that play and no one can give definitive RAW answer against our thought that you would drop both. it usually just boils down to them going "I would just say it doesn't" which is fine. I'm just wondering which is the correct answer RAW, I may just be missing something that obviously makes this not the case, and you all seem to know a lot here.
Thanks.
This is what the SAC says about Disarming Attack (from the Battle Master).
Based on that I'd say that he wouldn't drop the shield due to Command. But at the end of the day this really is something that will have "ask your DM" as the answer.
A commanded person could use their next action to do whatever it was they were commanded to do - so doffing a shield as part of a Command spell is within the realm of possibility (though I can't think of a single word that could cause it). The example of Drop for Command is to drop whatever they are holding - and in the rules for donning/doffing - it says "the time it takes to put on the item" - which basically means - while donned - a shield is being worn - not held.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
“Doff” would work if the only donned item they had was the shield, but otherwise I can’t think of one either
Doff would probably still work, because you would need to take your shield off before your armor anyway.
There are probably better words in other languages that can convey a more complicated command in a singe word.
but if specific beats general wouldn't the description of shield counter that
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 can see how the rules for doffing could imply that it is worn while generally discussing all armor, but the description of the the actual item in question specifically states that its being carried
Unfortunately 5e is not always as precise as one would hope with language and word choice. Thus the need for the SAC entry on disarming attack mentioned in one of the above posts. The RAI is that shields are not “droppable” as they must be doffed. Dropping is normally a free action, and you can’t do so with a shield unless you doff it first
People often get the specific beats general thing wrong like this.
Specific only beats general if they contradict. Can you carry something that is strapped to you?
Another thing is that "specific" rules usually only apply to specific/individual things, not ALL of a thing. The rule that says shields are carried and the rule that says shields are worn, are equally general as they both apply to all shields.
Nothing says shields are worn. They’re explicitly carried and wielded, in a special way that requires one action to stop wielding, absent some other specific ability (like disarming strike) that yeets them out of your grip faster.
As usual, SAC is needlessly injecting incorrect rulings without textual support, in a way that sowes confusion. You can disarm a shield no problem. You can also command someone to drop one, in which case they’ll spend an action doffing and dropping it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The rules do say they are "donned" which means to put on like clothing. So they are both put on/worn and held/wielded at the same time per the RAW (the SAC just states it more plainly).
Nah, you’re extrapolating, you can’t with a straight face say that you RAW wear a shield when the rules never say you do, and in several places say you don’t (by mentioning using/holding/wielding a shield as something that is distinct from “wearing armor.”). RAI? Maybe, but RAW hard no. There isn’t a single instance of worn being used, and several features (see monk, see Barbarian) that make explicit that holding a shield is distinct from ”wearing armor.”
Im not saying that Don and doff couldn’t have reasonably meant what you say those words mean in a different rule system or version. But in 5E you don shields by holding and wielding them, not by wearing them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeh, I don't think you can just let go of a shield, not unless it's a buckler and those are not implemented in the game.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I agree that RAI its intended that they are not just held as per sage advice, thanks to Thezzurz for looking that up. in my games I prefer RAI when it can be sourced from the creators of the game, and how I would rule it for disarming strike. But even with that sage advice I can possibly see where Disarming attack wouldnt work because it requires and action to stop carrying the shield which they cant do off their turn, when command would because they have their entire turn to "follow the command". though this probably opens up an entire other can of worms that I'm not qualified to speak on.
But I have to agree with Chicken_champ as far as RAW goes which is what they play on that game. Nowhere does it say that a shield is worn or strapped to you.
so it would as per the spell "The target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or follow the command on its next turn." which would be to drop what ever it is carrying.
and I really do appreciate all the responses so far, thank you all
and if this is the case, if it is worn but also held, then wouldn't that qualify it for the the "drops whatever it is holding " part of the command spell? You cant say drop and expect them to drop their plate mail because that aren't also holding that. they are only wearing it. So if they are wearing and holding a shield, would that over ride that command, since they definitely are holding it. I dont see an implication that if they are wearing what they are holding they wouldn't take it off and drop it to "follow the command" if they could during the one turn that the command is affecting them.
I guess the question is if you would allow a PC to just drop the shield if they wanted to? (if it was targeted by Heat Metal or if they wanted to pull a different weapon or similar)
Going back to the Disarming attack I mentioned above. If disarm can't make you drop a shield (but it can a weapon) then I don't see how Command could either.
Now of course if you/your DM rules that Command forces the target to spend the action to Doff then most of this discussion is moot but that is a somewhat different discussion as none of the words specified in Command takes the use of an action (at least not explicitly).
They can do that. It would just take their action to doff the shield and then drop it. Which is exactly the same thing a commanded person would need to do.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Considering it takes an action to doff a shield, i don't think "drop" command should work on it and the weapon held.
Ignoring the SAC, looking purely at the rules written in the books, I think it is very reasonable to assume that there is a lot more to using a shield than holding it in a hand. The simplest way to illustrate this is with the object interation rules: A weapon, potion or other object can be sheathed or drawn as a "free" object interaction, whereas a shield specifically requires an action to don or doff.
Also, I don't think the description "is carried in one hand" necessarily means it can be "dropped". A backpack is carried, but is strapped to you and it would be difficult to drop it without first removing it.
Finally, it is completely up to the DM as to how the NPC interprets the command. In this case, "drop" wouldn't necessarily even result in the character dropping what they were holding. They could drop to the floor, ending up prone. Just dropping their weapon would be a reasonable interpretation, too. In fact, unclipping their money pouch and dropping that to the floor would even be a reasonable way. Trying to subvert it, if they were next to another character, hitting them in order to try to knock them out would work.
Not sure I like this tbh. The spell quite clearly say what effect each of the "typical" commands have. Sure a DM could well change (and most certainly add to) those commands but I'd suggest keeping a list in that case. The spell really is built around the assumption that each specific command has a specific effect. Sure some minor variation could well take place but not to the extent you are suggesting.
This is the kind of thing where the answer can be summed up as "it depends on the context."
When I envision how Command "Drop" works, I see it as people just opening their hands and letting whatever they're holding slip through their fingers. In the case of, say, a buckler? That'd fall down to the ground. In the case of a, say, a tower shield that's physically strapped to your arm with leather and metal parts? That's not something you can drop by just opening your hands. Maybe you would open your hand holding a handle, but that pretty much does jack, since it doesn't remove the straps.