Hi guys. Just a quick question. I understand that shields give an AC +2. Is this a constant boost or only when the PC has it in their hand?
I’m playing a cleric with a mace and a shield. If I want to cast a spell at the moment I’ve been using a interaction to put my shield away to then use an action with my spell if it’s a V,S spell. If I only have my mace and spell in my hands does this drop my AC? Many thanks. Luke.
Also worth noting is that it takes a whole action to remove or equip your shield (see the Armor section in the Basic Rules/PHB). Generally it's better to sheathe or unsheathe your weapon.
Thanks both for your comments. Really great to have the clarification. I might have to see if there are some vocal only spells or like you say, just sheath my mace. Thanks again. Luke.
Also remember that in the next round, you may grab your mace as part of the attack if you wish to use it. You basically get 1 free "stow/draw" action per turn. A lot of Verbal component only spells are significantly lower in power, so that's not necessarily the best option.
The only downside to putting away the mace is that you aren't holding it during all other creatures turns, so if you want to make an attack of opportunity with your reaction then you've only got an unarmed strike to use.
Note also, that as a Cleric (or Paladin) you can inscribe your holy symbol on your shield and use it as a focus. That means you can access all spells which are V, M, VM or VSM. Only S and VS spells are out (like Cure Wounds for example) because you need an empty hand for those. The War Caster feat would allow a cleric to cast any spell while holding a weapon and holy shield, along with its other benefits.
The only downside to putting away the mace is that you aren't holding it during all other creatures turns, so if you want to make an attack of opportunity with your reaction then you've only got an unarmed strike to use.
Note also, that as a Cleric (or Paladin) you can inscribe your holy symbol on your shield and use it as a focus. That means you can access all spells which are V, M, VM or VSM. Only S and VS spells are out (like Cure Wounds for example) because you need an empty hand for those. The War Caster feat would allow a cleric to cast any spell while holding a weapon and holy shield, along with its other benefits.
I think you accidentally included VSM spells in the OK list. Even with the spell focus they become VS, which as you said is a no go.
But the War Caster feat is a definite on the "want list" for sword & board spellcasters. Combos quite nicely with the Booming Blade cantrip for Attacks of Opportunity.
I think you accidentally included VSM spells in the OK list. Even with the spell focus they become VS, which as you said is a no go.
But the War Caster feat is a definite on the "want list" for sword & board spellcasters. Combos quite nicely with the Booming Blade cantrip for Attacks of Opportunity.
It's all a bit confusing, but VSM spells do work with a shield + holy symbol. Just not when they begin as a VS spell.
Anyone can use a shield, but if you aren't proficient with it, "you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells."
So for it to be worth using a rogue would need to take the medium amor feat or a level in a class that grants you the proficiency.
Note also, that as a Cleric (or Paladin) you can inscribe your holy symbol on your shield and use it as a focus. That means you can access all spells which are V, M, VM or VSM. Only S and VS spells are out (like Cure Wounds for example) because you need an empty hand for those. The War Caster feat would allow a cleric to cast any spell while holding a weapon and holy shield, along with its other benefits.
The distinction between V/M/VM/VSM and S/VS spells is a level of pointless granularity that is wholly inconsistent with the general design of 5e, and stands out as one of the more useless and frustrating "clarifications" to come out of Crawford. The wording of spell focuses is unambiguous in the first place, and there was no cause for that ruling: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to … hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" unambiguously establishes that the hand that a cleric uses to hold his focus (shield with holy symbol) can be used to perform somatic components. Micromanaging components like that for a class that's designed to be played with a mace and shield not only isn't fun, it actively flies in the face of the archetype you're supposed to be playing. Ignore it and just play RAW: paladins and clerics can cast their spells as long as they're holding a holy symbol shield.
Note also, that as a Cleric (or Paladin) you can inscribe your holy symbol on your shield and use it as a focus. That means you can access all spells which are V, M, VM or VSM. Only S and VS spells are out (like Cure Wounds for example) because you need an empty hand for those. The War Caster feat would allow a cleric to cast any spell while holding a weapon and holy shield, along with its other benefits.
The distinction between V/M/VM/VSM and S/VS spells is a level of pointless granularity that is wholly inconsistent with the general design of 5e, and stands out as one of the more useless and frustrating "clarifications" to come out of Crawford. The wording of spell focuses is unambiguous in the first place, and there was no cause for that ruling: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to … hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" unambiguously establishes that the hand that a cleric uses to hold his focus (shield with holy symbol) can be used to perform somatic components. Micromanaging components like that for a class that's designed to be played with a mace and shield not only isn't fun, it actively flies in the face of the archetype you're supposed to be playing. Ignore it and just play RAW: paladins and clerics can cast their spells as long as they're holding a holy symbol shield.
It's also just internally inconsistent, making (presumably) more complex VSM spells easier to cast than spells that are just VS or S. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's largely a distinction without a difference given the "free draw/stow" for weapons, only coming up on the somewhat rare occasions when you've cast an S or VS spell and also have the potential for an opportunity attack.
I'd be curious how many tables actually enforce this rule.
The wording of spell focuses is unambiguous in the first place, and there was no cause for that ruling: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to … hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" unambiguously establishes that the hand that a cleric uses to hold his focus (shield with holy symbol) can be used to perform somatic components.
That text only applies if the spell has an M component, just like the text for V and S components is completely irrelevant if a spell lacks those.
It's also just internally inconsistent, making (presumably) more complex VSM spells easier to cast than spells that are just VS or S.
Only in terms of empty hands needed. Granted, component pouches and spellcasting focuses are really accessible, but if the spell has costly M components you're still being forced to provide an additional requirement that wouldn't otherwise be there. Most players can't afford to cast Chromatic Orb or Identify at 1st level.
Besides, it's not that hard to rationalize. It makes sense that the hand gestures involved in a spell that also requires holding something accommodate the fact that you're holding something. Casting a spell by waving a staff, flourishing a wand or fiddling with an orb is a common trope in fiction. Just say the spells without M components involve hand and finger gestures that can't be done easily while holding something. Being good at casting while holding weapons is a big selling point of the War Caster feat so I'm not keen on making that mechanic obsolete.
In the real world, just about every contract you'll read includes wording to the effect of "the descriptive headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement." When interpreting Statutes, courts generally work their way towards something to the effect that while headings can provide meaning for ambiguous wordings, clear language ought not be rendered ambiguous or given different meaning by reference to headings. A heading "cannot limit the plain meaning of the text," and "has no power to give what the text of the statute takes away."
I get that D&D is not a courtroom, but to the extent that we're disagreeing over the "right" way to read a document where the order and meaning of words is important... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that following the courts isn't the worst approach.
What we have here is plain language that 1) is entirely unambiguous and 2) results in a rule that makes sense and 3) has a desirable effect (letting sword n board casters hold both sword and board). By ascribing mystical power to the section heading to defeat that clear language, we end up with 1) an ambiguous rule whose true meaning is not found written anywhere and 2) a rule that seems irrational, where V+S spells are more "complicated" than V+S+M and 3) the undesirable effect of imposing a feat tax (warcaster) on an archetype merely to make it function the way it already should have been functioning since level 1 (and note, feats are an "optional" rule variant).
The Crawford ruling disregards conventions of textual interpretation, which generations of very smart legal minds have agreed are the Best Way to Do Things. It results in a counterintuitive, illogical rule. And it causes an undesirable effect of nerfing one of the core archetypical things that is known about clerics and paladins. When faced with those results, I think it's clear which way DMs should read it... especially since there is no "official" ruling requiring that they accept Crawford's opinions as RAW.
If I'm going to be persuaded that the designers actually intended S/VS spells to be harder to cast than V/M/VM/VSM, that there's actually an intended effect buried in there that we plebes don't fully understand and not just Crawford not thinking through the implications of his knee-jerk twitter ruling, I think that at this point the burden should be on him (or one of his apologists) to identify something that S/VS spells have in common that sets them apart as being more powerful or something. Is Chromatic Orb "worse" than Chaos Bolt in some real measurable way that justifies making the one so much harder to cast than the other? Is Cure Wounds really better than Healing Word?
I virtually guarantee that the extent of discussion around components when writing new spells is just "can you cast this for free without your gear? can you cast it silently? can you cast it while tied up?" Pretending that there's a level of metabalance where the designers are also weighing whether Clerics and Paladins should or shouldn't be able to cast the spell in combat without the investment of a feat at 4th level is preposterous. "Rationalizing" is exactly what one must do when faced with this, because on its face it is patently absurd.
I've been diging around in the forum and the players handbook and still have a question about shields. Thought I might as well post it here instead of starting a whole new thread. If this is a DM question I apologize. I have a first time DM.
Don shield is an action. I get that, but I assume you can't don a shield at all times the way you can armor right? Like when getting on a horse or when drinking at a tavern it would look hella weird to just have your shield on and active at all times. So my question is... can you or can you not permenantely don a shield for the +2 AC boost? I have always played as a sorcerer but recently began to subclass as a fighter to finally get access to some better AC. I don't want to cheat and my DM isn't sure what the rules should be so was hoping there was a general consensus.
Having a shield donned has the normal effects of having a large bulky object strapped to your arm. This will grossly inconvenience any tasks that require two hands and will be quite obvious in social situations, but it doesn't have specific defined consequences other than occupying one hand -- other effects are up to the DM.
I'm not aware of a general rule that you need two free hands to mount or ride a horse, but if your DM ruled that having only one free hand was an issue (or, no free hands, if you're also holding a drawn weapon), I'm sure they could propose a reasonable skill check or penalty.
Same for eating a meal. There's nothing that says it takes one free hand to wield a fork and one free hand to wield a knife, and both to cut up your steak... but 5E doesn't go into that kind of mundane simulation. DMs should feel at liberty to describe hijinks, as the fighter obliviously sweeps the bar of everyone else's drinks with their kite shield while trying to saw at their mutton :p
It was quite common for mounted combatants to hold a shield while fighting from horseback. That’s specifically why they made smaller Shields with various strap configurations. Keep in mind that the straps on a shield didn’t actually “strap it to your arm.” They weren’t tight or anything. They were simply leather straps that you would slide your arm through. In fact, most Shields didn’t use straps at all, the vast majority were center grip Shields, so just a handle behind the buckler. (The buckler is the small metal hand guard at the center of a wooden shield.)
Hi guys. Just a quick question. I understand that shields give an AC +2. Is this a constant boost or only when the PC has it in their hand?
I’m playing a cleric with a mace and a shield. If I want to cast a spell at the moment I’ve been using a interaction to put my shield away to then use an action with my spell if it’s a V,S spell. If I only have my mace and spell in my hands does this drop my AC? Many thanks. Luke.
Dungeon Master - PBP Lost Mine Of Phandelver (Closed)
Dungeon Master - PBP Out Of The Abyss (Closed)
Dungeon Master - The Chronicles Of Dantia (Home Game)
Forbi & Dorbi - Deep Gnome - Fighter/Rogue - PBP Into The Fire
Vosdred Ironeye - Hill Dwarf - Fighter/Wizard - PBP Game of the Last Chance
That will drop your AC right, the AC bonus of shield come from is by weilding it actively and manipulating it to intercept attacks etc etc
Also worth noting is that it takes a whole action to remove or equip your shield (see the Armor section in the Basic Rules/PHB). Generally it's better to sheathe or unsheathe your weapon.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Thanks both for your comments. Really great to have the clarification. I might have to see if there are some vocal only spells or like you say, just sheath my mace. Thanks again. Luke.
Dungeon Master - PBP Lost Mine Of Phandelver (Closed)
Dungeon Master - PBP Out Of The Abyss (Closed)
Dungeon Master - The Chronicles Of Dantia (Home Game)
Forbi & Dorbi - Deep Gnome - Fighter/Rogue - PBP Into The Fire
Vosdred Ironeye - Hill Dwarf - Fighter/Wizard - PBP Game of the Last Chance
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
The only downside to putting away the mace is that you aren't holding it during all other creatures turns, so if you want to make an attack of opportunity with your reaction then you've only got an unarmed strike to use.
Note also, that as a Cleric (or Paladin) you can inscribe your holy symbol on your shield and use it as a focus. That means you can access all spells which are V, M, VM or VSM. Only S and VS spells are out (like Cure Wounds for example) because you need an empty hand for those. The War Caster feat would allow a cleric to cast any spell while holding a weapon and holy shield, along with its other benefits.
Some really great points there. Thank you.
Dungeon Master - PBP Lost Mine Of Phandelver (Closed)
Dungeon Master - PBP Out Of The Abyss (Closed)
Dungeon Master - The Chronicles Of Dantia (Home Game)
Forbi & Dorbi - Deep Gnome - Fighter/Rogue - PBP Into The Fire
Vosdred Ironeye - Hill Dwarf - Fighter/Wizard - PBP Game of the Last Chance
It's all a bit confusing, but VSM spells do work with a shield + holy symbol. Just not when they begin as a VS spell.
Source: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Can Rogues use a shield? If so, do they need any extra skill or feat to do so?
Anyone can use a shield, but if you aren't proficient with it, "you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells."
So for it to be worth using a rogue would need to take the medium amor feat or a level in a class that grants you the proficiency.
The distinction between V/M/VM/VSM and S/VS spells is a level of pointless granularity that is wholly inconsistent with the general design of 5e, and stands out as one of the more useless and frustrating "clarifications" to come out of Crawford. The wording of spell focuses is unambiguous in the first place, and there was no cause for that ruling: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to … hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components" unambiguously establishes that the hand that a cleric uses to hold his focus (shield with holy symbol) can be used to perform somatic components. Micromanaging components like that for a class that's designed to be played with a mace and shield not only isn't fun, it actively flies in the face of the archetype you're supposed to be playing. Ignore it and just play RAW: paladins and clerics can cast their spells as long as they're holding a holy symbol shield.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's also just internally inconsistent, making (presumably) more complex VSM spells easier to cast than spells that are just VS or S. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's largely a distinction without a difference given the "free draw/stow" for weapons, only coming up on the somewhat rare occasions when you've cast an S or VS spell and also have the potential for an opportunity attack.
I'd be curious how many tables actually enforce this rule.
That text only applies if the spell has an M component, just like the text for V and S components is completely irrelevant if a spell lacks those.
Only in terms of empty hands needed. Granted, component pouches and spellcasting focuses are really accessible, but if the spell has costly M components you're still being forced to provide an additional requirement that wouldn't otherwise be there. Most players can't afford to cast Chromatic Orb or Identify at 1st level.
Besides, it's not that hard to rationalize. It makes sense that the hand gestures involved in a spell that also requires holding something accommodate the fact that you're holding something. Casting a spell by waving a staff, flourishing a wand or fiddling with an orb is a common trope in fiction. Just say the spells without M components involve hand and finger gestures that can't be done easily while holding something. Being good at casting while holding weapons is a big selling point of the War Caster feat so I'm not keen on making that mechanic obsolete.
In the real world, just about every contract you'll read includes wording to the effect of "the descriptive headings in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement." When interpreting Statutes, courts generally work their way towards something to the effect that while headings can provide meaning for ambiguous wordings, clear language ought not be rendered ambiguous or given different meaning by reference to headings. A heading "cannot limit the plain meaning of the text," and "has no power to give what the text of the statute takes away."
I get that D&D is not a courtroom, but to the extent that we're disagreeing over the "right" way to read a document where the order and meaning of words is important... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that following the courts isn't the worst approach.
What we have here is plain language that 1) is entirely unambiguous and 2) results in a rule that makes sense and 3) has a desirable effect (letting sword n board casters hold both sword and board). By ascribing mystical power to the section heading to defeat that clear language, we end up with 1) an ambiguous rule whose true meaning is not found written anywhere and 2) a rule that seems irrational, where V+S spells are more "complicated" than V+S+M and 3) the undesirable effect of imposing a feat tax (warcaster) on an archetype merely to make it function the way it already should have been functioning since level 1 (and note, feats are an "optional" rule variant).
The Crawford ruling disregards conventions of textual interpretation, which generations of very smart legal minds have agreed are the Best Way to Do Things. It results in a counterintuitive, illogical rule. And it causes an undesirable effect of nerfing one of the core archetypical things that is known about clerics and paladins. When faced with those results, I think it's clear which way DMs should read it... especially since there is no "official" ruling requiring that they accept Crawford's opinions as RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If I'm going to be persuaded that the designers actually intended S/VS spells to be harder to cast than V/M/VM/VSM, that there's actually an intended effect buried in there that we plebes don't fully understand and not just Crawford not thinking through the implications of his knee-jerk twitter ruling, I think that at this point the burden should be on him (or one of his apologists) to identify something that S/VS spells have in common that sets them apart as being more powerful or something. Is Chromatic Orb "worse" than Chaos Bolt in some real measurable way that justifies making the one so much harder to cast than the other? Is Cure Wounds really better than Healing Word?
I virtually guarantee that the extent of discussion around components when writing new spells is just "can you cast this for free without your gear? can you cast it silently? can you cast it while tied up?" Pretending that there's a level of metabalance where the designers are also weighing whether Clerics and Paladins should or shouldn't be able to cast the spell in combat without the investment of a feat at 4th level is preposterous. "Rationalizing" is exactly what one must do when faced with this, because on its face it is patently absurd.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I've been diging around in the forum and the players handbook and still have a question about shields. Thought I might as well post it here instead of starting a whole new thread. If this is a DM question I apologize. I have a first time DM.
Don shield is an action. I get that, but I assume you can't don a shield at all times the way you can armor right? Like when getting on a horse or when drinking at a tavern it would look hella weird to just have your shield on and active at all times. So my question is... can you or can you not permenantely don a shield for the +2 AC boost? I have always played as a sorcerer but recently began to subclass as a fighter to finally get access to some better AC. I don't want to cheat and my DM isn't sure what the rules should be so was hoping there was a general consensus.
Having a shield donned has the normal effects of having a large bulky object strapped to your arm. This will grossly inconvenience any tasks that require two hands and will be quite obvious in social situations, but it doesn't have specific defined consequences other than occupying one hand -- other effects are up to the DM.
I'm not aware of a general rule that you need two free hands to mount or ride a horse, but if your DM ruled that having only one free hand was an issue (or, no free hands, if you're also holding a drawn weapon), I'm sure they could propose a reasonable skill check or penalty.
Same for eating a meal. There's nothing that says it takes one free hand to wield a fork and one free hand to wield a knife, and both to cut up your steak... but 5E doesn't go into that kind of mundane simulation. DMs should feel at liberty to describe hijinks, as the fighter obliviously sweeps the bar of everyone else's drinks with their kite shield while trying to saw at their mutton :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It was quite common for mounted combatants to hold a shield while fighting from horseback. That’s specifically why they made smaller Shields with various strap configurations. Keep in mind that the straps on a shield didn’t actually “strap it to your arm.” They weren’t tight or anything. They were simply leather straps that you would slide your arm through. In fact, most Shields didn’t use straps at all, the vast majority were center grip Shields, so just a handle behind the buckler. (The buckler is the small metal hand guard at the center of a wooden shield.)
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING