I´m about to play my first ever round on sunday and I´ll be the DM. We bought the starter set and I have a question regarding shields:
The paladin has a armor class of 18. Is it because of the chain mails 16 AC and the shields passive bonus of 2 to AC? And if he equips the shield in combat he gains another 2 AC to a total of 20 AC?
I´m lost, because the description of shields only state, that it grants +2AC when wielded, but I wouldn´t know where the extra 2AC of the paladin comes from, if not from the shield ...
Shields only grant the +2 bonus once, and you always get it while holding the shield.
So if the Paladin has Chainmail armor (base 16), using a shield (+2 modifier) would raise his total armor class to 18.
If you use a spell that grants a bonus to AC, that would stack with the armor and shield as long as the spell's description doesn't specify otherwise (ex: Shield of Faith grants an additional +2 to your armor class, bringing your total to 20AC for the duration of the spell)
If it's a magic shield, the magic modifier would be added in addition to the shield's standard +2 (ex: a basic magical +1 shield, would add a total of +3 to the AC of the character holding it, bringing the Paladin's 16 AC up to 19)
A word of warning though, Magic items that increase AC or give attacks against the player disadvantage are REALLY powerful, and you can quickly end up with players that most monsters of otherwise appropriate CR won't be able to hit, so be very careful giving out magic items.
I hope this helps and I didn't just muddy the situation.
Feyette is correct. I am not sure where you got the "passive bonus" from. Normally a paladin when adventuring can be expected to have equiped their shield even if they are going around town unless their is some speciic reason I would assume they are in armor and have equiped their shield. You might want ot have occasional fights where that is not the case, for example if they are camping in the woods and the Paladin is sleeping and the person on watch doesn't here the wolves approach when initiative is rolled I will assume the paladin is in armor but prone and with his sword and shield by his side so on his first turn he has the choice of using his action to equip his shield or fight without it (there are optional rules in XGTE about sleeping in armor but as a new player I wouldn't worry about them).
I´m about to play my first ever round on sunday and I´ll be the DM. We bought the starter set and I have a question regarding shields:
The paladin has a armor class of 18. Is it because of the chain mails 16 AC and the shields passive bonus of 2 to AC? And if he equips the shield in combat he gains another 2 AC to a total of 20 AC?
I´m lost, because the description of shields only state, that it grants +2AC when wielded, but I wouldn´t know where the extra 2AC of the paladin comes from, if not from the shield ...
Thanks in advance!
The Paladin has an AC of 10.
If the character (the Paladin) is wearing chain mail then their AC is 16.
If a character with chain mail (the Paladin) is equipping a shield (an proficient with it which the Paladin is: recent edit), then their AC is 18. There is no extra action needed to take. Instead it is a choice of the player: "equip a shield and gain +2 to AC" or " unequip a shield and have a free hand".
Two things to consider in ruling if the character has equipped a weapon and shield in each hand: 1) The character cannot take a potion, wield a two handed weapon, or interact with an object if wielding a shield and holding something (ie a weapon). Both hands are occupied. 2) The character is limited to spell casting. They can't cast a spell with a somatic component. Also, if the spell requires material component or a focus then you might rule they first must free up a hand. (more experience DMs can chime in here).
To summarize; the AC of the character is dependent on the armor they are currently wearing and if they have the shield in hand. Unless of Feat says otherwise, no additional bonus to AC is added than what is listed in the PHB. You want to think of it this way, because if the character has to put their shield down you do not include a +2 to their AC.
2) The character is limited to spell casting. They can't cast a spell with a somatic component. Also, if the spell requires material component or a focus then you might rule they first must free up a hand. (more experience DMs can chime in here).
Just wanted to note that because Clerics and Paladins can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, you can actually place that as an emblem upon your shield, so you don't need a free hand (as you're "holding" the emblem in this case). It does mean that you must have the shield out to cast using the focus though. Also if a spell has both somatic and uncosted material components then you can use the focus for both.
That said, in my experience a lot of DMs have so much else to keep track of that they will often forget to consider free hands; it's one of those things that really requires the players to keep track of for you, so if you want them to do it "properly" it's worth mentioning in a session zero just to make sure they're aware they will need a free hand to cast some spells etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Wow, that was fast! I love this communy already :)
Thanks a lot for the very detailed explanations! 'm not planning on doing anything crazy, especially no magical items for the beginning.
What I don't like about the rules is following passage in the PHB, p144:
Armor Class (AC).
Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.
So a shield adds to the BASE AC. It doesn't say equipped, only wear. Otherwise a shield is really bothersome, since the character has both hands full and needs a whole action to put it away/take it out. Putting away/taking out weapons doesn't cost am action AFAIK.
But if you say so, our paladin will have am AC of only 16 because of the armor and he has to tell me when he readies the shield to get the +2. Or, he has it always equipped with an AC 18 and has to tell me when he puts it away to to something with two hands. And starts every combat with a shield (with exceptions ofc).
It's a shame the character sheets don't explain how the values are calculated...
What I don't like about the rules is following passage in the PHB, p144:
Armor Class (AC).
Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.
So a shield adds to the BASE AC. It doesn't say equipped, only wear. Otherwise a shield is really bothersome, since the character has both hands full and needs a whole action to put it away/take it out. Putting away/taking out weapons doesn't cost am action AFAIK.
That's because of their choice to use "natural language" when writing the rules. So if you look at the description for shields (just a few sentences below the one you quoted) you'll see that it says "wielded". And later on the rules say that you need to take the specified time to "Don" it to benefit from it. In the end it doesn't matter if you call it wear, equipped, wielded or donned, you need to properly use it the way you would imagine a shield is used to get the added AC.
But if you say so, our paladin will have am AC of only 16 because of the armor and he has to tell me when he readies the shield to get the +2. Or, he has it always equipped with an AC 18 and has to tell me when he puts it away to to something with two hands. And starts every combat with a shield (with exceptions ofc).
Yea the character needs to specify when he has donned (or doffed) the shield. And yes that choice has consequences.
So a shield adds to the BASE AC. It doesn't say equipped, only wear. Otherwise a shield is really bothersome, since the character has both hands full and needs a whole action to put it away/take it out. Putting away/taking out weapons doesn't cost am action AFAIK.
Earlier editions used to have different types of shields, but the shield in 5e is more of your classic mid-sized round or kite shield which usually has a handle to hold, plus a strap or loop to put your forearm through to give you a really secure grip on it. This is why it's more complicated to wear and put away.
I think it also makes sense for balance reasons, because otherwise everyone would have a shield out all the time for the extra AC in case you get ambushed, then just switch to their preferred weapon on their first turn, so you don't want it to be too easy.
Plenty of people homebrew bucklers (lightweight/duelling shields) if that's something you or your players want; there's a homebrew buckler by B16BE4R that's quite nicely balanced, it basically counts as a club but if you don't attack with it you can use your reaction to gain +1 AC when you get attacked.
But if you say so, our paladin will have am AC of only 16 because of the armor and he has to tell me when he readies the shield to get the +2. Or, he has it always equipped with an AC 18 and has to tell me when he puts it away to to something with two hands. And starts every combat with a shield (with exceptions ofc).
It's usually a lot easier to just assume that everyone is combat ready in any potentially dangerous situation like travelling, entering a dungeon etc. This way you only need to worry about it in ambush situations; instead of keeping detailed track of it it's often easier to go by context, or ask your player if their character would have had their shield ready. Most players should accept the need to do as their characters would do, as that's a core part of roleplaying.
It's a shame the character sheets don't explain how the values are calculated...
Yeah this is something I'd really like to see; some parts of the sheet tell you where a specific bonus comes from but others don't, I wish it was more consistent. I recently spent ages looking for a skill proficiency I couldn't remember how I'd gained, but had to just go through the builder examining everything in race/class/description until I find it (most characters only get four, but I had five, but I forgot my race had given me one extra).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
2) The character is limited to spell casting. They can't cast a spell with a somatic component. Also, if the spell requires material component or a focus then you might rule they first must free up a hand. (more experience DMs can chime in here).
Just wanted to note that because Clerics and Paladins can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, you can actually place that as an emblem upon your shield, so you don't need a free hand (as you're "holding" the emblem in this case). It does mean that you must have the shield out to cast using the focus though. Also if a spell has both somatic and uncosted material components then you can use the focus for both.
That said, in my experience a lot of DMs have so much else to keep track of that they will often forget to consider free hands; it's one of those things that really requires the players to keep track of for you, so if you want them to do it "properly" it's worth mentioning in a session zero just to make sure they're aware they will need a free hand to cast some spells etc.
It's also worth noting that a good 90% of the time the exact tracking of what's held or not is pointless. Sheathing or drawing a weapon is a free action the first time a player does it on their turn, so barring a few specific magic weapons and one or two feats or multiclass setups the only major effect of sheathing a weapon, casting, and then redrawing it at the start of your next turn is that technically you can't make an AoO with the weapon between when you cast the spell and the start of your next turn. There is some merit to tracking it to balance out a caster who is able to sword and board while keeping their focus on hand and contribute a bit to requiring players to plan ahead in combat, but it's not really a make-or-break rule, so it's mostly a matter of if the table is up for keeping track of that detail.
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how well your character avoids being wounded in battle. Things that contribute to your AC include the armor you wear, the shield you carry, and your Dexterity modifier. Not all characters wear armor or carry shields, however. Without armor or a shield, your character’s AC equals 10 + his or her Dexterity modifier. If your character wears armor, carries a shield, or both, calculate your AC using the rules in the Equipment section. Record your AC on your character sheet.
It say "carries" again. I really don´t like this inconsistency... They had so many years to do a good wording...
Shields add 2 to the base AC (16 for chainmail) when equipped - to mark it as equipped you actually go to the enventory and mark it there. Then DDB automatically adds the shield’s AC bonus to the AC of the chainmail giving you an AC of 18. If you uncheck equipped in the inventory it should drop the AC to 16 for just the chainmail.
Apparently carry and havig it equiped are the same. I can carry a shild on my back, but it´s not the same as it having strapped to my arm and ready. So only focusing on the written rules I thought carrying a shield gives you 2AC and if you actively equip it, you gain another 2. I can see me forgetting that the paladin has both of his hands occupied most of the time for holding shield plus weapon and will interact with other objects which wouldn´t be possible.....
Apparently carry and havig it equiped are the same. I can carry a shild on my back, but it´s not the same as it having strapped to my arm and ready. So only focusing on the written rules I thought carrying a shield gives you 2AC and if you actively equip it, you gain another 2. I can see me forgetting that the paladin has both of his hands occupied most of the time for holding shield plus weapon and will interact with other objects which wouldn´t be possible.....
Yeah the wording in D&D can be a bit confusing at times; in general though when something is "carried" it means you are actually holding it or wearing it for use, rather than simply having it in your inventory (on your person, in a bag of holding or whatever), but it's not the clearest term to use most of the time since your Strength determines how much you can carry in total (both held/worn and on your person).
In rules terms the only important part really is the specific shield rules under equipment that says that "wielding" the shield is what gives you the +2 to AC, and this is further clarified in the rules for Getting Into and Out of Armor, which tells us you must don armour or a shield to get the AC.
A DM is certainly free to rule that an unequipped shield slung on the back could still grant +2 AC when you get attacked from behind, but that would be more of a narrative device as by default in D&D you don't worry much about which direction a creature is facing in combat; once combat begins you assume all creatures have 360º vision as they adopt a combat ready stance, so for a shield to be used actively to block any incoming attack it needs be held in the hand so you can actually turn it quickly to intercept the strike.
Again in terms of balance this is how it's intended to be used, otherwise everyone that can take one would wear a shield on their back; there would be no reason to worry about whether to take a two-handed weapon, or two weapons, because you'd always have the best possible AC regardless. The trade off is supposed to be that for superior defence, you limit your choice of weapons to one-handed only, and potentially limit your spellcasting as well, but that's for an extra 10% defence (or 10% less chance to be hit) which is often worth it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You got it. That is a great read and excellent interpretation.
It is not uncommon that you will have to reference several sections of the rules to confirm or clarify. For the sake of brevity some of the writings will take assumptions of the core rulings. It is something you and your party will get used to over time. While it is a good to know the rules as written (RAW) it is also helpful to question the rules intention (RAI). The editors are trying to keep the text concise and succinct. So this leads to some questioning on the interpretations at times, but you worked out a proper interpretation.
Regarding the weapon; the rules are far more lenient when comes to stowing or replacing the object in hand. It is easier to justify freeing up the hand to interact with an object and then be able to wield the weapon on your next turn to attack. The game mechanics for don/doffing a shield is so that a player cannot work out a routine to gain the shield's benefits to AC while still being able to deal damage with weaponry that requires two hands.
Sometimes you have to interpret the meaning if you see several different wordings. But most of the time it’s just common sense. If you have the shield strapped to your arm (wielded, worn, carried, donned) you get the AC bonus. If you are not actively using it, it’s on your back, for example, then you get no bonus to AC.
If you have your longsword in its sheath and you punch someone you wouldn't assume you do 1d8+STR just because you are wearing it. You actually have to be actively using it (in your hand) to do the damage. The shield is no different.
We played yesterday (didn jinx it ^^) and we had a lot of fun. I actually liked playing as dm and I 5hink I'll enjoy it even more while we progress. I talked with the paladin and we agreed that he has to keep the shield/hands in mind.
Thanks a lot for the fast help!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi guys,
I´m about to play my first ever round on sunday and I´ll be the DM. We bought the starter set and I have a question regarding shields:
The paladin has a armor class of 18. Is it because of the chain mails 16 AC and the shields passive bonus of 2 to AC? And if he equips the shield in combat he gains another 2 AC to a total of 20 AC?
I´m lost, because the description of shields only state, that it grants +2AC when wielded, but I wouldn´t know where the extra 2AC of the paladin comes from, if not from the shield ...
Thanks in advance!
Welcome to the hobby!
Shields only grant the +2 bonus once, and you always get it while holding the shield.
So if the Paladin has Chainmail armor (base 16), using a shield (+2 modifier) would raise his total armor class to 18.
If you use a spell that grants a bonus to AC, that would stack with the armor and shield as long as the spell's description doesn't specify otherwise (ex: Shield of Faith grants an additional +2 to your armor class, bringing your total to 20AC for the duration of the spell)
If it's a magic shield, the magic modifier would be added in addition to the shield's standard +2 (ex: a basic magical +1 shield, would add a total of +3 to the AC of the character holding it, bringing the Paladin's 16 AC up to 19)
A word of warning though, Magic items that increase AC or give attacks against the player disadvantage are REALLY powerful, and you can quickly end up with players that most monsters of otherwise appropriate CR won't be able to hit, so be very careful giving out magic items.
I hope this helps and I didn't just muddy the situation.
Feyette is correct. I am not sure where you got the "passive bonus" from. Normally a paladin when adventuring can be expected to have equiped their shield even if they are going around town unless their is some speciic reason I would assume they are in armor and have equiped their shield. You might want ot have occasional fights where that is not the case, for example if they are camping in the woods and the Paladin is sleeping and the person on watch doesn't here the wolves approach when initiative is rolled I will assume the paladin is in armor but prone and with his sword and shield by his side so on his first turn he has the choice of using his action to equip his shield or fight without it (there are optional rules in XGTE about sleeping in armor but as a new player I wouldn't worry about them).
The Paladin has an AC of 10.
If the character (the Paladin) is wearing chain mail then their AC is 16.
If a character with chain mail (the Paladin) is equipping a shield (an proficient with it which the Paladin is: recent edit), then their AC is 18. There is no extra action needed to take. Instead it is a choice of the player: "equip a shield and gain +2 to AC" or " unequip a shield and have a free hand".
Two things to consider in ruling if the character has equipped a weapon and shield in each hand:
1) The character cannot take a potion, wield a two handed weapon, or interact with an object if wielding a shield and holding something (ie a weapon). Both hands are occupied.
2) The character is limited to spell casting. They can't cast a spell with a somatic component. Also, if the spell requires material component or a focus then you might rule they first must free up a hand. (more experience DMs can chime in here).
To summarize; the AC of the character is dependent on the armor they are currently wearing and if they have the shield in hand. Unless of Feat says otherwise, no additional bonus to AC is added than what is listed in the PHB. You want to think of it this way, because if the character has to put their shield down you do not include a +2 to their AC.
Just wanted to note that because Clerics and Paladins can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, you can actually place that as an emblem upon your shield, so you don't need a free hand (as you're "holding" the emblem in this case). It does mean that you must have the shield out to cast using the focus though. Also if a spell has both somatic and uncosted material components then you can use the focus for both.
That said, in my experience a lot of DMs have so much else to keep track of that they will often forget to consider free hands; it's one of those things that really requires the players to keep track of for you, so if you want them to do it "properly" it's worth mentioning in a session zero just to make sure they're aware they will need a free hand to cast some spells etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Wow, that was fast! I love this communy already :)
Thanks a lot for the very detailed explanations! 'm not planning on doing anything crazy, especially no magical items for the beginning.
What I don't like about the rules is following passage in the PHB, p144:
Armor Class (AC).
Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.
So a shield adds to the BASE AC. It doesn't say equipped, only wear. Otherwise a shield is really bothersome, since the character has both hands full and needs a whole action to put it away/take it out. Putting away/taking out weapons doesn't cost am action AFAIK.
But if you say so, our paladin will have am AC of only 16 because of the armor and he has to tell me when he readies the shield to get the +2. Or, he has it always equipped with an AC 18 and has to tell me when he puts it away to to something with two hands. And starts every combat with a shield (with exceptions ofc).
It's a shame the character sheets don't explain how the values are calculated...
That's because of their choice to use "natural language" when writing the rules. So if you look at the description for shields (just a few sentences below the one you quoted) you'll see that it says "wielded". And later on the rules say that you need to take the specified time to "Don" it to benefit from it. In the end it doesn't matter if you call it wear, equipped, wielded or donned, you need to properly use it the way you would imagine a shield is used to get the added AC.
Yea the character needs to specify when he has donned (or doffed) the shield. And yes that choice has consequences.
If you click on the shield that says what you AC is on the character sheet then it shows you how it is calculated (in a pop-up).
Earlier editions used to have different types of shields, but the shield in 5e is more of your classic mid-sized round or kite shield which usually has a handle to hold, plus a strap or loop to put your forearm through to give you a really secure grip on it. This is why it's more complicated to wear and put away.
I think it also makes sense for balance reasons, because otherwise everyone would have a shield out all the time for the extra AC in case you get ambushed, then just switch to their preferred weapon on their first turn, so you don't want it to be too easy.
Plenty of people homebrew bucklers (lightweight/duelling shields) if that's something you or your players want; there's a homebrew buckler by B16BE4R that's quite nicely balanced, it basically counts as a club but if you don't attack with it you can use your reaction to gain +1 AC when you get attacked.
It's usually a lot easier to just assume that everyone is combat ready in any potentially dangerous situation like travelling, entering a dungeon etc. This way you only need to worry about it in ambush situations; instead of keeping detailed track of it it's often easier to go by context, or ask your player if their character would have had their shield ready. Most players should accept the need to do as their characters would do, as that's a core part of roleplaying.
Yeah this is something I'd really like to see; some parts of the sheet tell you where a specific bonus comes from but others don't, I wish it was more consistent. I recently spent ages looking for a skill proficiency I couldn't remember how I'd gained, but had to just go through the builder examining everything in race/class/description until I find it (most characters only get four, but I had five, but I forgot my race had given me one extra).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It's also worth noting that a good 90% of the time the exact tracking of what's held or not is pointless. Sheathing or drawing a weapon is a free action the first time a player does it on their turn, so barring a few specific magic weapons and one or two feats or multiclass setups the only major effect of sheathing a weapon, casting, and then redrawing it at the start of your next turn is that technically you can't make an AoO with the weapon between when you cast the spell and the start of your next turn. There is some merit to tracking it to balance out a caster who is able to sword and board while keeping their focus on hand and contribute a bit to requiring players to plan ahead in combat, but it's not really a make-or-break rule, so it's mostly a matter of if the table is up for keeping track of that detail.
Thanks a lot! Now I understand shields. Or at least I think I do :D
Now nothing can stop us from starting tomorrow :)
I looked it up on the online class creator.
It say "carries" again. I really don´t like this inconsistency... They had so many years to do a good wording...
You just jinxed it, someone's gonna call you five minutes before the start and say they can't make it.
Shields add 2 to the base AC (16 for chainmail) when equipped - to mark it as equipped you actually go to the enventory and mark it there. Then DDB automatically adds the shield’s AC bonus to the AC of the chainmail giving you an AC of 18. If you uncheck equipped in the inventory it should drop the AC to 16 for just the chainmail.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I apologize, I just don't understand where the confusion is. What about these terms do you find conflicting or confusing?
AH fuuuuuuu
Apparently carry and havig it equiped are the same. I can carry a shild on my back, but it´s not the same as it having strapped to my arm and ready.
So only focusing on the written rules I thought carrying a shield gives you 2AC and if you actively equip it, you gain another 2. I can see me forgetting that the paladin has both of his hands occupied most of the time for holding shield plus weapon and will interact with other objects which wouldn´t be possible.....
Yeah the wording in D&D can be a bit confusing at times; in general though when something is "carried" it means you are actually holding it or wearing it for use, rather than simply having it in your inventory (on your person, in a bag of holding or whatever), but it's not the clearest term to use most of the time since your Strength determines how much you can carry in total (both held/worn and on your person).
In rules terms the only important part really is the specific shield rules under equipment that says that "wielding" the shield is what gives you the +2 to AC, and this is further clarified in the rules for Getting Into and Out of Armor, which tells us you must don armour or a shield to get the AC.
A DM is certainly free to rule that an unequipped shield slung on the back could still grant +2 AC when you get attacked from behind, but that would be more of a narrative device as by default in D&D you don't worry much about which direction a creature is facing in combat; once combat begins you assume all creatures have 360º vision as they adopt a combat ready stance, so for a shield to be used actively to block any incoming attack it needs be held in the hand so you can actually turn it quickly to intercept the strike.
Again in terms of balance this is how it's intended to be used, otherwise everyone that can take one would wear a shield on their back; there would be no reason to worry about whether to take a two-handed weapon, or two weapons, because you'd always have the best possible AC regardless. The trade off is supposed to be that for superior defence, you limit your choice of weapons to one-handed only, and potentially limit your spellcasting as well, but that's for an extra 10% defence (or 10% less chance to be hit) which is often worth it.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You got it. That is a great read and excellent interpretation.
It is not uncommon that you will have to reference several sections of the rules to confirm or clarify. For the sake of brevity some of the writings will take assumptions of the core rulings. It is something you and your party will get used to over time. While it is a good to know the rules as written (RAW) it is also helpful to question the rules intention (RAI). The editors are trying to keep the text concise and succinct. So this leads to some questioning on the interpretations at times, but you worked out a proper interpretation.
Regarding the weapon; the rules are far more lenient when comes to stowing or replacing the object in hand. It is easier to justify freeing up the hand to interact with an object and then be able to wield the weapon on your next turn to attack. The game mechanics for don/doffing a shield is so that a player cannot work out a routine to gain the shield's benefits to AC while still being able to deal damage with weaponry that requires two hands.
Sometimes you have to interpret the meaning if you see several different wordings. But most of the time it’s just common sense. If you have the shield strapped to your arm (wielded, worn, carried, donned) you get the AC bonus. If you are not actively using it, it’s on your back, for example, then you get no bonus to AC.
If you have your longsword in its sheath and you punch someone you wouldn't assume you do 1d8+STR just because you are wearing it. You actually have to be actively using it (in your hand) to do the damage. The shield is no different.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Thanks again for all the input :)
We played yesterday (didn jinx it ^^) and we had a lot of fun. I actually liked playing as dm and I 5hink I'll enjoy it even more while we progress. I talked with the paladin and we agreed that he has to keep the shield/hands in mind.
Thanks a lot for the fast help!