So, the description of shields in the new free rules and player's hand book states in full, "Shields require the Utilize action to Don or Doff. You gain the Armor Class benefit of a Shield only if you have training with it." And that's it. There is no more wording stating it needs to be held in a hand or anything like it.
You may ask how could you use a shield without holding it. To that, I just shrug and say, Maybe...
If you attach it to a shoulder strap you could have it hang around and protect your side. Shields can offer passive protection in that opponents avoid a shield when it is there. If a shield causes an enemy to avoid attacking one side of you completely because of its mere presence, that sounds like 2 AC to me.
You could strap it to your back, and if you're a particularly acrobatic or athletic fighter, you could do some twists and flips to interpose the shield between you and your attacker. Halflings would have this easy, just turn around and most of your body is covered already. Tuck your arms in, duck your head and crouch to cover the important extremities.
You could also have one of those standing shields that medieval archers used. Like here. I don't imagine a melee fighter would be able to make terribly great use out of this, but... It'd be a funny image. A dragonborn with a greatsword dancing around a bit of wood and steel that just about goes up to his waist.
Regardless, rules as written, it no longer states you need a hand to use a shield. Rules as intended...???
Shields are still intended to be held, that the shield in one point is poorly written is a problem but if reviewing the Free Rules, there are shields under magic items. All the magic shields do state that they must be held and thus we can say RAI is that shield must be held to gain the benefits. There is no way a Shield would be superior to an Animated Shield after all.
So, the description of shields in the new free rules and player's hand book states in full, "Shields require the Utilize action to Don or Doff. You gain the Armor Class benefit of a Shield only if you have training with it." And that's it. There is no more wording stating it needs to be held in a hand or anything like it.
You may ask how could you use a shield without holding it
Anyone can don armor or hold a Shield, but only those with training can use them effectively, as explained below.
Shield
You gain the Armor Class benefit of a Shield only if you have training with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So, the description of shields in the new free rules and player's hand book states in full, "Shields require the Utilize action to Don or Doff. You gain the Armor Class benefit of a Shield only if you have training with it." And that's it. There is no more wording stating it needs to be held in a hand or anything like it.
You may ask how could you use a shield without holding it
So, the description of shields in the new free rules and player's hand book states in full, "Shields require the Utilize action to Don or Doff. You gain the Armor Class benefit of a Shield only if you have training with it." And that's it. There is no more wording stating it needs to be held in a hand or anything like it.
You may ask how could you use a shield without holding it
Anyone can don armor or hold a Shield, but only those with training can use them effectively, as explained below.
Shield
You gain the Armor Class benefit of a Shield only if you have training with it.
Ooh, so it does say you have to hold it.
...why is that not in the item/equipment description, man. I just made a fool of myself.
My bad!
Nah, they do it all the time -- hide the rule someplace you didn't think to look
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Possibly they felt that it should have been implicitly obvious, in the same way that I’ve yet to see an RPG video game that lets you strap a shield on your back and gain all the same perks you would if you held it in your hand.
Would you technically gain the benefit of the shield if you broke it into like two parts and strapped it to your wrist?
Really what it comes down to in game mechanics is, you use one of your hands and in exchange get a +2 to AC. You get better AC and give up the option of using a heavy weapon which does more damage or a ranged weapon. So, if I were the DM, and you wanted to flavor a shield as being 2 parts with one on your arm, as long as the other part used your hand, I’d be ok with it.
You could argue you gain a bonus from shields on your back preventing attacks from behind, its why I always equip my horse archers in Mount and blade with shields, so arrows incoming from behind have chance of smacking the shield. As a DM, I would allow it if I determined the attack was coming from behind. Like it was a chase scene where you know where the facing is. In combat its assumed your facing is everywhere, but lets say you were lock picking a door, than an arrow aimed at you crouched with a shield on your back would be really good cover.
You could argue you gain a bonus from shields on your back preventing attacks from behind, its why I always equip my horse archers in Mount and blade with shields, so arrows incoming from behind have chance of smacking the shield. As a DM, I would allow it if I determined the attack was coming from behind. Like it was a chase scene where you know where the facing is. In combat its assumed your facing is everywhere, but lets say you were lock picking a door, than an arrow aimed at you crouched with a shield on your back would be really good cover.
You could argue for it, but the RAW of D&D 5e does not support that, particularly given that facing is not tracked in the baseline game, and doesn't appear to even be listed as an optional rule in the new DMG. Plus unless there's some form of penalty or limitation then you just get entire parties strapping shields to their backs, and without some form of penalty or other offsetting factor to the choice, it basically becomes an exploit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, the description of shields in the new free rules and player's hand book states in full, "Shields require the Utilize action to Don or Doff. You gain the Armor Class benefit of a Shield only if you have training with it." And that's it. There is no more wording stating it needs to be held in a hand or anything like it.
You may ask how could you use a shield without holding it. To that, I just shrug and say, Maybe...
Regardless, rules as written, it no longer states you need a hand to use a shield. Rules as intended...???
What do you think?
Shields are still intended to be held, that the shield in one point is poorly written is a problem but if reviewing the Free Rules, there are shields under magic items. All the magic shields do state that they must be held and thus we can say RAI is that shield must be held to gain the benefits. There is no way a Shield would be superior to an Animated Shield after all.
You don't
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
One thing I love about the new DMG is the following line: “Rules rely on a good faith interpretation.”
Of course you need to use a shield in your hand.
Ooh, so it does say you have to hold it.
...why is that not in the item/equipment description, man. I just made a fool of myself.
My bad!
Nah, they do it all the time -- hide the rule someplace you didn't think to look
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Possibly they felt that it should have been implicitly obvious, in the same way that I’ve yet to see an RPG video game that lets you strap a shield on your back and gain all the same perks you would if you held it in your hand.
Would you technically gain the benefit of the shield if you broke it into like two parts and strapped it to your wrist?
KOBOLDS WITH CANNONS! A RP thread about Small humanoids with Huge weapons.
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
Really what it comes down to in game mechanics is, you use one of your hands and in exchange get a +2 to AC. You get better AC and give up the option of using a heavy weapon which does more damage or a ranged weapon.
So, if I were the DM, and you wanted to flavor a shield as being 2 parts with one on your arm, as long as the other part used your hand, I’d be ok with it.
Not to confuse the topic, but I miss bucklers.
You could argue you gain a bonus from shields on your back preventing attacks from behind, its why I always equip my horse archers in Mount and blade with shields, so arrows incoming from behind have chance of smacking the shield. As a DM, I would allow it if I determined the attack was coming from behind. Like it was a chase scene where you know where the facing is. In combat its assumed your facing is everywhere, but lets say you were lock picking a door, than an arrow aimed at you crouched with a shield on your back would be really good cover.
You could argue for it, but the RAW of D&D 5e does not support that, particularly given that facing is not tracked in the baseline game, and doesn't appear to even be listed as an optional rule in the new DMG. Plus unless there's some form of penalty or limitation then you just get entire parties strapping shields to their backs, and without some form of penalty or other offsetting factor to the choice, it basically becomes an exploit.