True. The rules often are worded counterintuitively to the intended and clarified intentions, like how unarmed strikes are "weapon attacks" made without weapons.
Important to recall, unarmed strikes are weapon attacks made without weapons, in part because unarmed strikes WERE weapons, until they errata’d them to not be, thinking (mistakenly) that doing so was important and wouldn’t cause confusion. Now 5 years later, they’ve recently SA’d to make “natural weapons” once again BE weapons, making the decision to go out of the way to define unarmed strikes as NOT weapons even more bewildering. The whole “weapon attack doesn’t mean attack with a weapon thing” was an unforced error made for no reason other than to remove unarmed strikes from the weapon table, and clearly we’re still feeling fallout from that choice today.
Definitions changing at any point will cause confusion, they should have set up definitions early and stuck with them. You'd need definitions for unarmed, armed and spell attacks with attack groups between those three. And then also do the same for ranged variants within those groups and then also group magical and non magical trough range and melee.
Unarmed Attack | Melee attacks with natural weapons
Armed Attack | Melee attacks with armaments
Weapon Attack | Melee attack with natural weapons or armaments
Spell Attack | Melee attacks with spells
??? Attack | Melee attacks with spells or armaments
Melee Attack | Melee attack using spells, armaments or natural weapons
Ranged Weapon Attack | Ranged attack using armaments
Ranged Spell Attack | Ranged attacks using spells
Ranged Attack | Ranged attacks using armaments or spells
Changing definitions around means that you go from being able to punch-smite, to not being able to punch-smite, to now being able to punch-smite again. A flip-flop attitude about definitions has a big impact on game mechanics.
If definitions aren't declared then every feature should be as descriptive as possible. For divine smite it would be something like
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a simple melee weapon or martial melee weapon,...
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with an unarmed strike, simple melee weapon or martial melee weapon,..
It would add a lot more description text, however no one would be confused about the words. (or so you'd think)
Wouldn’t have to expand description lengths, if they just took some pages and wrote a tight glossary for defined terms. Lack of a term glossary is a big weakness of 5E books (which many of us forget, using dndbeyond with descriptor tags and hyperlinks), but your idea of defining stuff like “weapon” or “armament” as a term is one I HOPE makes it into 6E.
Wouldn’t have to expand description lengths, if they just took some pages and wrote a tight glossary for defined terms. Lack of a term glossary is a big weakness of 5E books.
5e seems to have been designed in a somewhat reactive "if 4e did it, we should do the reverse". Thus, no system of keywords, no carefully designed formal language, etc.
And yet we have exactly that for conditions. Want to know what the frightened condition does? Look it up in the appendix, its in between exhausted and grappled.
If they defined types of attacks in the same way a lot of confusion could have been prevented. I personally would have put it somwehere around the followinf section.
The nice thing about a glossary being its own section (or even, its own document, available as a free to print .pdf supplement?) is that they could be more responsive with errata without as many formatting conflicts with reprinting entire sections with new page numbers or layout. I really strongly feel like the entire existence of the SAC was a cost-cutting measure to band-aid pseudo-errata, but it took on its own life under JC to the point where they had to step in and reign it back. Planning book layout in a way that lets you update and refine core concepts formally, with minimal reprint costs, would be a boon.
The only thing I can see that the word "benefit" specifically applies to is the +2 ac modifier from the previous sentence. In fact, I'm sure that is the context in which the sentence you quoted was written.
I think that only works if you go by the logic of "something good = benefit" instead of treating the +2 ac bonus as the specific benefit of donning a shield. I have to wonder if you would apply the same logic to something negative like a curse. Could you be simultaneously affected by two shields with two different curses?
The recent SAC on magic shields* blurs that line a little. You gain the shield’s base AC bonus only if you use your action to don the shield as normal. So there is the connection between donning the shield and benefitting from it. But you can get the secondary effects of a magic shield while simply holding it without donning it. So if you have donned one shield and simply hold the other one, you are only getting the benefit of one shield, but you're still able to pick up the secondary effects of the other one (or both if applicable). You also have the benefit of not needing to spend your action to doff the held shield, or shields in the case of a xorn.
Yeah, that was a long walk for a xorn joke.
* Sage Advice Compendium second to last question: Can you gain the magical bonus of a +2 shield if you are holding the shield without taking an action to don it?
Something good is a benefit. That's not logic, that's a definition, so... yes? I'll explore the thought further as I read and respond.
For RAI, which is the aspect of RAW that matters in this sentence, you can only gain a +2 to your AC by wielding a shield, no matter how many you wield. It's a very intentional choice to disallow double shield wielding in the game. "Wielding" is the word used in the PHB oddly enough, though JC clarifies "don" in the SAC. Hopefully future printings will correct that.
Curses are not benefits, so RAW, they could stack. RAI, I don't think being cursed a shield would be ground to prevent being cursed form another either.
I suppose the SAC would determine that the magical properties of a shield are disassociated with the benefits of it as a shield, which would likewise conclude that magical curses and benefits would stack however applied as long as the prerequisite for receiving them apply, such as "holding" the shield.
The confusion of "don" vs. "wield" for shields is a result of Chapter 5's inconsistent language, not just a problem in JC SA's. Shields are described as being wielded, but later lumped into the same "Getting Into and Out of Armor" section that uses Don/Doff. Also, "carried" vs. "put on" are even more potentially conflicting terms they introduced for them :p
Shields. 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.
Getting Into and Out of Armor
The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don. This is the time it takes to put on the item. You benefit from it's AC only if you take the full time to don it.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off the item. If you have help removing armor, reduce this time by half.
Category
Don
Doff
Light Armor
1 minute
1 minute
Medium Armor
5 minutes
1 minute
Heavy Armor
10 minutes
5 minutes
Shield
1 action
1 action
As for rulings suggesting that you can pick up a magic shield's magic benefit (but not its base benefit) just by holding it, rather than wielding/donning it? I would have rather seen WOTC issue the errata to fix their error of printing "hold" in place of "wield", which was pretty clearly a mistake, rather than lean into "yeah just holding it gives you a bonus even when you aren't using it to defend yourself." I mean, see Pariah's Shield, a specific shield which was later published using the correct "wield" language. But hey, at least its a ruling that's consistent with RAW language, which isn't always a given.
For RAI, which is the aspect of RAW that matters in this sentence, you can only gain a +2 to your AC by wielding a shield, no matter how many you wield. It's a very intentional choice to disallow double shield wielding in the game.
You have brought this point up a number of times in response to me as though you are emphasizing it. I believe this is the one central point we have been in agreement about from the beginning.
RAW doesn't actually care how you're benefiting from a shield, you can only apply one. If you have a shield that gives you a benefit from having it in your backpack, and also a normal shield that you wield, only one of them applies. RAI is unlikely to have even thought about four armed creatures or weird shields that work when not wielded.
For a thread that seems rather pedantic about definitions of words like “weapon”, we seem to be playing fast and loose with what the rules consider a benefit to be.
For a thread that seems rather pedantic about definitions of words like “weapon”, we seem to be playing fast and loose with what the rules consider a benefit to be.
The rules don't define a benefit, which generally means you should use the common definition. Which is 'any beneficial effect'.
No, they're related words but not the same thing. If you want less circular wording, 'beneficial effect' = 'good effect'. So, if you are using a sentinel shield, the +2 to AC only applies when wielded, the advantage on perception and initiative applies even if you're merely holding it, but both effects are benefits and thus are negated if you are using another shield. However, a shield of missile attraction will continue to attract missiles (though not grant resistance to ranged weapon attacks) even if you are using another shield, because the ability to attract missiles is a curse, not a benefit.
@WolfOfTheBees
True. The rules often are worded counterintuitively to the intended and clarified intentions, like how unarmed strikes are "weapon attacks" made without weapons.
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit
Important to recall, unarmed strikes are weapon attacks made without weapons, in part because unarmed strikes WERE weapons, until they errata’d them to not be, thinking (mistakenly) that doing so was important and wouldn’t cause confusion. Now 5 years later, they’ve recently SA’d to make “natural weapons” once again BE weapons, making the decision to go out of the way to define unarmed strikes as NOT weapons even more bewildering. The whole “weapon attack doesn’t mean attack with a weapon thing” was an unforced error made for no reason other than to remove unarmed strikes from the weapon table, and clearly we’re still feeling fallout from that choice today.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Definitions changing at any point will cause confusion, they should have set up definitions early and stuck with them. You'd need definitions for unarmed, armed and spell attacks with attack groups between those three. And then also do the same for ranged variants within those groups and then also group magical and non magical trough range and melee.
Changing definitions around means that you go from being able to punch-smite, to not being able to punch-smite, to now being able to punch-smite again. A flip-flop attitude about definitions has a big impact on game mechanics.
If definitions aren't declared then every feature should be as descriptive as possible. For divine smite it would be something like
It would add a lot more description text, however no one would be confused about the words. (or so you'd think)
Wouldn’t have to expand description lengths, if they just took some pages and wrote a tight glossary for defined terms. Lack of a term glossary is a big weakness of 5E books (which many of us forget, using dndbeyond with descriptor tags and hyperlinks), but your idea of defining stuff like “weapon” or “armament” as a term is one I HOPE makes it into 6E.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But what if a xorn has the dual wielder feat and wears three shields?
What then?
Checkmate.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
5e seems to have been designed in a somewhat reactive "if 4e did it, we should do the reverse". Thus, no system of keywords, no carefully designed formal language, etc.
And yet we have exactly that for conditions. Want to know what the frightened condition does? Look it up in the appendix, its in between exhausted and grappled.
- https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/appendix-a-conditions
If they defined types of attacks in the same way a lot of confusion could have been prevented. I personally would have put it somwehere around the followinf section.
- https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/combat#MakinganAttack
The nice thing about a glossary being its own section (or even, its own document, available as a free to print .pdf supplement?) is that they could be more responsive with errata without as many formatting conflicts with reprinting entire sections with new page numbers or layout. I really strongly feel like the entire existence of the SAC was a cost-cutting measure to band-aid pseudo-errata, but it took on its own life under JC to the point where they had to step in and reign it back. Planning book layout in a way that lets you update and refine core concepts formally, with minimal reprint costs, would be a boon.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"You can benefit from only one shield at a time."
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit
The only thing I can see that the word "benefit" specifically applies to is the +2 ac modifier from the previous sentence. In fact, I'm sure that is the context in which the sentence you quoted was written.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It would also apply to the benefits of donning different magical shields, but wearing more than one shield still only grants a +2 to AC.
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit
I think that only works if you go by the logic of "something good = benefit" instead of treating the +2 ac bonus as the specific benefit of donning a shield. I have to wonder if you would apply the same logic to something negative like a curse. Could you be simultaneously affected by two shields with two different curses?
The recent SAC on magic shields* blurs that line a little. You gain the shield’s base AC bonus only if you use your action to don the shield as normal. So there is the connection between donning the shield and benefitting from it. But you can get the secondary effects of a magic shield while simply holding it without donning it. So if you have donned one shield and simply hold the other one, you are only getting the benefit of one shield, but you're still able to pick up the secondary effects of the other one (or both if applicable). You also have the benefit of not needing to spend your action to doff the held shield, or shields in the case of a xorn.
Yeah, that was a long walk for a xorn joke.
* Sage Advice Compendium second to last question: Can you gain the magical bonus of a +2 shield if you are holding the shield without taking an action to don it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Something good is a benefit. That's not logic, that's a definition, so... yes? I'll explore the thought further as I read and respond.
For RAI, which is the aspect of RAW that matters in this sentence, you can only gain a +2 to your AC by wielding a shield, no matter how many you wield. It's a very intentional choice to disallow double shield wielding in the game. "Wielding" is the word used in the PHB oddly enough, though JC clarifies "don" in the SAC. Hopefully future printings will correct that.
Curses are not benefits, so RAW, they could stack. RAI, I don't think being cursed a shield would be ground to prevent being cursed form another either.
I suppose the SAC would determine that the magical properties of a shield are disassociated with the benefits of it as a shield, which would likewise conclude that magical curses and benefits would stack however applied as long as the prerequisite for receiving them apply, such as "holding" the shield.
Visit (link) → MicroHomebrew, Arcanum Dice, and Ashfaera ← (link) Visit
The confusion of "don" vs. "wield" for shields is a result of Chapter 5's inconsistent language, not just a problem in JC SA's. Shields are described as being wielded, but later lumped into the same "Getting Into and Out of Armor" section that uses Don/Doff. Also, "carried" vs. "put on" are even more potentially conflicting terms they introduced for them :p
As for rulings suggesting that you can pick up a magic shield's magic benefit (but not its base benefit) just by holding it, rather than wielding/donning it? I would have rather seen WOTC issue the errata to fix their error of printing "hold" in place of "wield", which was pretty clearly a mistake, rather than lean into "yeah just holding it gives you a bonus even when you aren't using it to defend yourself." I mean, see Pariah's Shield, a specific shield which was later published using the correct "wield" language. But hey, at least its a ruling that's consistent with RAW language, which isn't always a given.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You have brought this point up a number of times in response to me as though you are emphasizing it. I believe this is the one central point we have been in agreement about from the beginning.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
RAW doesn't actually care how you're benefiting from a shield, you can only apply one. If you have a shield that gives you a benefit from having it in your backpack, and also a normal shield that you wield, only one of them applies. RAI is unlikely to have even thought about four armed creatures or weird shields that work when not wielded.
For a thread that seems rather pedantic about definitions of words like “weapon”, we seem to be playing fast and loose with what the rules consider a benefit to be.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The rules don't define a benefit, which generally means you should use the common definition. Which is 'any beneficial effect'.
I think you defined circular logic instead 😄
"Not all those who wander are lost"
No, they're related words but not the same thing. If you want less circular wording, 'beneficial effect' = 'good effect'. So, if you are using a sentinel shield, the +2 to AC only applies when wielded, the advantage on perception and initiative applies even if you're merely holding it, but both effects are benefits and thus are negated if you are using another shield. However, a shield of missile attraction will continue to attract missiles (though not grant resistance to ranged weapon attacks) even if you are using another shield, because the ability to attract missiles is a curse, not a benefit.