And a wielded sword also isn't merely held. JC's point is....?
As usual, SAC is advice which you may or may not find persuasive when resolving this question yourself. As you pointed out, a Shield is "carried in one hand," and "wielded." Shields are never described as worn, though the introduction to the Armor and Shields section does mention that anyone can "strap a shield to an arm," though sort of in the context of implying that that's not the right way to wield them proficiently, so...
Disarming Attack
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, it drops the object you choose. The object lands at its feet.
After reading the words that are actually used for Shields and not just paraphrasing what we think we remember about them, it is very hard to argue that a Shield is not an "item of your choice that [your enemy is] holding," whatever else it may also be. Disarming Attack does not contain any limiting language that imply that straps, loops, or other misc. tack can defeat Disarming Attack's language. It does not even break verisimilitude to disarm a strapped-on-shield, maybe the Disarming Attack was a blow that sliced that strap, or a flip of the tip to undo a latch, or whathaveyou.
I think the SAC on this is dead wrong, and I don't find Disarming Attack to be particularly ambiguous enough to even invite RAI to be particularly relevant. The RAW is clear: shields are carried in one hand and wielded, which is what we generally understand "held" to mean in 5E. Disarming Attack causes a held object to be dropped. Therefor, Disarming Attack causes a Shield to be dropped.
And a wielded sword also isn't merely held. JC's point is....?
As usual, SAC is advice which you may or may not find persuasive when resolving this question yourself. As you pointed out, a Shield is "carried in one hand," and "wielded." Shields are never described as worn, though the introduction to the Armor and Shields section does mention that anyone can "strap a shield to an arm," though sort of in the context of implying that that's not the right way to wield them proficiently, so...
Disarming Attack
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Strength saving throw. On a failed save, it drops the object you choose. The object lands at its feet.
After reading the words that are actually used for Shields and not just paraphrasing what we think we remember about them, it is very hard to argue that a Shield is not an "item of your choice that [your enemy is] holding," whatever else it may also be. Disarming Attack does not contain any limiting language that imply that straps, loops, or other misc. tack can defeat Disarming Attack's language. It does not even break verisimilitude to disarm a strapped-on-shield, maybe the Disarming Attack was a blow that sliced that strap, or a flip of the tip to undo a latch, or whathaveyou.
I think the SAC on this is dead wrong, and I don't find Disarming Attack to be particularly ambiguous enough to even invite RAI to be particularly relevant. The RAW is clear: shields are carried in one hand and wielded, which is what we generally understand "held" to mean in 5E. Disarming Attack causes a held object to be dropped. Therefor, Disarming Attack causes a Shield to be dropped.
A shield that you are holding in your hand does not add to your AC. In order to benefit from a shield you must use an action to "don" it. Don means to put on and start wearing (as with clothing). In order to drop a shield you must use an action to "doff" it, which is the opposite of donning. You cannot drop a shield without doffing it. An equipped shield is not an object you are holding - it is an object you are wearing that uses one of your hands.
A sword you are wielding is an object you are holding. Wielding is a kind of holding. It's holding with purpose.
I get your reasoning, but donning is NOT defined as wearing, the closest it gets is “put on.” And Shields are explicitly “wielded” in the Shield item description, I don’t accept any argument that starts from a position that they aren’t just as wielded as a sword would be. The don/doff rules certainly do provide a general rule that it takes an action to drop a Shield voluntarily if you’ve Donned it...but Disarming Attack is a very clear specific exception.
Donning is defined as the putting on of clothes. That is its definition. Any clothes that you have put on are clothes that you are wearing. After you don something then you are wearing it. It doesn't take an action to drop a shield, it takes an action to stop wearing it (after which you can drop it if you like).
When you are wearing a shield you are also holding and wielding it with a hand. Both the wearing and the hand are required. You cannot drop an object that you are wearing, willingly or otherwise.
Even if I were to accept that a donned shield is worn, you must acknowledge, it is also held...right?
And Disarming Attack says that it causes an item that is held to be dropped.
And Disarming Attack does NOT say that it does not work on held objects that are also worn.
As an exercise of following the rule in the text, rather than trying to fit the text + unwritten language to fit some other desired outcome, it just looks pretty black and white to me here. We don’t secondguess Trip Attack with “well what if the enemy doesn’t have legs to trip... you telling me I can trip a Beholder?!”, we just do what it says and apply Prone if conditions are satisfied. If Disarming Attack hits, and the target is holding an item, and they fail their Strength save, that item is dropped.... even if there’s other reasons that logically that item would normally be tough to drop.
Want to houserule and give them ADVANTAGE on the save because the shield is donned? Fine, go for it, that would be pretty similar to how it was in 3.5. But let shields be disarmed, as written.
Yes, I already acknowledged that the shield is both held and worn. But because it is worn it cannot be dropped. Dropping it has no meaning.
You can be wearing an amulet and also hold it in your hand. If you release the amulet you are still wearing it. Disarm would not remove the amulet from your neck. Disarm does not remove an object you are wearing, only holding.
I am very much in favour of allowing Disarm to have an effect on someone using a shield, but as the sage advice ruling confirms, that effect is not the shield falling onto the ground.
Don means to put on/wear. Wield means to hold as if to use (so wield = hold, but hold ≠ wield).
A weapon is only wielded, which means it can be disarmed.
A shield requires both. It could be ruled that disarming a shield removes the AC bonus until an item interaction is used to grip the shield properly again, or a shield could just be immune from disarm (as it is effectively strapped to your hand). I think most people will use the latter as the former opens shields up to be able to free their hand to use it for something else. Either way, disarm does not doff a shield.
Disarming Attack doesn’t just say you drop it, you drop it aAND it lands at your feet. “But I have a strap so it’s still dangling” isn’t an option, because Disarming Attack is explicit about what happens once dropped.
I understand your perspective, you think it should take as long for someone to force you to drop something as it would take for you to voluntarily drop it. But Disarming Attack doesn’t say it respects don/doff, so by RAW, it doesn’t. It doesn’t say it cares about “worn” vs. “wielded,” just “held,” so by RAW, “held” is all that matters. Maybe the RAI really is like SAC says it is; if so, sounds like a good candidate for errata, because the RAW is profoundly in opposition to that reading as it stands today.
Disarming Attack doesn’t just say you drop it, you drop it aAND it lands at your feet. “But I have a strap so it’s still dangling” isn’t an option, because Disarming Attack is explicit about what happens once dropped.
Ah, didn't read it. Then since it doesn't say it removes worn items and it is impossible to knock a worn object to the ground otherwise, the feature just doesn't work on shields.
Glad that is simple and doesn't open up the shenanigans of being able to drop a shield.
Allowing Disarming Attack to work on held objects that are being worn allows for some weird stuff that really should be possible. Like, if someone grabs someone else by the shirt, I can... "disarm" of them of their clothing. Was going to say armor, but that's more debatable if you can reasonable grab someone by their armor.
Disarming Attack doesn’t just say you drop it, you drop it aAND it lands at your feet. “But I have a strap so it’s still dangling” isn’t an option, because Disarming Attack is explicit about what happens once dropped.
Ah, didn't read it. Then since it doesn't say it removes worn items and it is impossible to knock a worn object to the ground otherwise, the feature just doesn't work on shields.
That's not what silence means. Silence means irrelevant. As written, if the item is held, you can force it to be dropped. Of course, if the item cannot be dropped, forcing it to be dropped doesn't do anything, and arguably a worn shield cannot be dropped.
Your worst case scenario, “what if I hold someone’s armor someone else is wearing, would you being disarmed rip it from their body?”, is a straw man... because there’s no RAW language saying you can hold someone else’s armor or clothing they’re wearing. That’s called “grappling,” and there’s rules for it. You’d be holding the creature, not it’s clothing.
“Disarming Strike doesnt say it can cause worn items to be dropped, so it doesn’t” is a disingenuous argument. It also doesn’t say it can cause wielded items to drop, swords to drop, wooden items to drop, tiny items to drop, magic items to drop... it doesn’t enumerate, because it causes EVERYTHING to drop. To disarming attack, every object falls into one of only two categories: held in a hand, or not held in a hand. .
Shields tell us EXPLICITLY that they are held in a hand, there just is no room to debate that, end of story. And tbe concept of “is this object in a hand?” is not novel for 5E, we reference it all the time when checking how many free hands someone has. If something is in a hand (not in your pack, not worn on your body, not a hat on your head, etc.), it is very obvious it is in your hand, because that hand is not free. Shields occupy your hand, we know that
The intent and function of Disarming Attack are clear: Disarming Attack takes anything in your hand, and if you fail a Strength check, causes it to now be in the ground at your feet. It doesn’t care how you narratively get from A to B, whether you tore it off, sliced it off, made them let go of it, whatever. That’s all RP, and if you can’t imagine how a shield could get dropped in combat... I dunno, that’s your problem, watch a movie with sword fights or something sometime?
Shields are not just "held" in normal usage and can't be dropped per the rules if donned (they must be doffed, taking 1 action). The reason for this is shields attach to the arm at 2 points, a strap around the forearm, and a handle that is held. Just holding a shield would not grant you any actual defensive advantage, since you need 2 points of contact for stability. Since a donned shield can't be dropped (due to their mechanism for being worn and because the rules say they must be doffed, not dropped) I would rule the disarming attack would fail, since even if the hand is removed from the handle the shield is still strapped to the forearm.
Shields are worn. You put your arm through a sleeve, or tie straps around your wrists, or something. This is why it takes an Action to don or doff, and can't be donned or doffed using a free object interaction, or dropped using no action.
You don't "hold" a shield, in the same way that you don't "hold" a glove or boot or helm. Disarming strike can't remove a boot or a gauntlet. Similarly it can't remove a shield.
Contrary to Chicken_Champ’s stated position, I’m having trouble finding any text that “tell[s] us EXPLICITLY that [shields] are held in a hand.” Is there anything anywhere that says shields are held at all?
In real life, many shields are actually held and very much not strapped to an arm. It doesn’t take an entire action to pick up a Roman scutum. But that’s not a distinction 5e’s mechanics are interested in modeling. In terms of game mechanics, it seems as though shields are very clearly not held. I at least can’t find any language that suggests they are.
“Wield” is a special type of holding, as I’m sure you are well aware. There is a difference between a monk carrying his friends Greatsword vs. trying to wield it. “A wielded sword is not merely held” is every bit as true and every bit as misleading for this context as JCs “a donned shield is not merely held.”
Boots and Gauntlets are types of clothing or armor. Armor is worn, and tells us it’s worn. Armor does NOT tell us it’s held, and does NOT take up a free hand. Shields DO tell us they are held, and DO take up a free hand. So... no, there is NOTHING similar between a Shield and a Gauntlet, much less a Boot.
Carried = hold. Takes up a hand = hold. Wielded = hold.
All three of these are understood to mean an object is held in your hand in every other day-to-day context other than this debate. Don’t start making bad faith arguments that they don’t mean that here.
“Wield” is a special type of holding, as I’m sure you are well aware. There is a difference between a monk carrying his friends Greatsword vs. trying to wield it. “A wielded sword is not merely held” is every bit as true and every bit as misleading for this context as JCs “a donned shield is not merely held.”
Boots and Gauntlets are types of clothing or armor. Armor is worn, and tells us it’s worn. Armor does NOT tell us it’s held, and does NOT take up a free hand. Shields DO tell us they are held, and DO take up a free hand. So... no, there is NOTHING similar between a Shield and a Gauntlet, much less a Boot.
You really hate RAW, don't you? It is explicit, no matter how much you try to rules lawyer it. Shields must be doffed, and not a target for dis-arming. No matter how much RL stuff you want to throw at it, that is an the immutable rule in 5e. I tend to ignore your comments, but I am terrified what happens when a new player reads your "rulings" in a Game Mechanics channel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can shields be disarmed? They appear to be 'held', so maybe, but they're also worn, which normally wouldn't allow disarm..
You're in luck, Sage Advice Compendium covers this one:
The Forum Infestation (TM)
And a wielded sword also isn't merely held. JC's point is....?
As usual, SAC is advice which you may or may not find persuasive when resolving this question yourself. As you pointed out, a Shield is "carried in one hand," and "wielded." Shields are never described as worn, though the introduction to the Armor and Shields section does mention that anyone can "strap a shield to an arm," though sort of in the context of implying that that's not the right way to wield them proficiently, so...
After reading the words that are actually used for Shields and not just paraphrasing what we think we remember about them, it is very hard to argue that a Shield is not an "item of your choice that [your enemy is] holding," whatever else it may also be. Disarming Attack does not contain any limiting language that imply that straps, loops, or other misc. tack can defeat Disarming Attack's language. It does not even break verisimilitude to disarm a strapped-on-shield, maybe the Disarming Attack was a blow that sliced that strap, or a flip of the tip to undo a latch, or whathaveyou.
I think the SAC on this is dead wrong, and I don't find Disarming Attack to be particularly ambiguous enough to even invite RAI to be particularly relevant. The RAW is clear: shields are carried in one hand and wielded, which is what we generally understand "held" to mean in 5E. Disarming Attack causes a held object to be dropped. Therefor, Disarming Attack causes a Shield to be dropped.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
A shield that you are holding in your hand does not add to your AC. In order to benefit from a shield you must use an action to "don" it. Don means to put on and start wearing (as with clothing). In order to drop a shield you must use an action to "doff" it, which is the opposite of donning. You cannot drop a shield without doffing it. An equipped shield is not an object you are holding - it is an object you are wearing that uses one of your hands.
A sword you are wielding is an object you are holding. Wielding is a kind of holding. It's holding with purpose.
I get your reasoning, but donning is NOT defined as wearing, the closest it gets is “put on.” And Shields are explicitly “wielded” in the Shield item description, I don’t accept any argument that starts from a position that they aren’t just as wielded as a sword would be. The don/doff rules certainly do provide a general rule that it takes an action to drop a Shield voluntarily if you’ve Donned it...but Disarming Attack is a very clear specific exception.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Donning is defined as the putting on of clothes. That is its definition. Any clothes that you have put on are clothes that you are wearing. After you don something then you are wearing it. It doesn't take an action to drop a shield, it takes an action to stop wearing it (after which you can drop it if you like).
When you are wearing a shield you are also holding and wielding it with a hand. Both the wearing and the hand are required. You cannot drop an object that you are wearing, willingly or otherwise.
Even if I were to accept that a donned shield is worn, you must acknowledge, it is also held...right?
And Disarming Attack says that it causes an item that is held to be dropped.
And Disarming Attack does NOT say that it does not work on held objects that are also worn.
As an exercise of following the rule in the text, rather than trying to fit the text + unwritten language to fit some other desired outcome, it just looks pretty black and white to me here. We don’t secondguess Trip Attack with “well what if the enemy doesn’t have legs to trip... you telling me I can trip a Beholder?!”, we just do what it says and apply Prone if conditions are satisfied. If Disarming Attack hits, and the target is holding an item, and they fail their Strength save, that item is dropped.... even if there’s other reasons that logically that item would normally be tough to drop.
Want to houserule and give them ADVANTAGE on the save because the shield is donned? Fine, go for it, that would be pretty similar to how it was in 3.5. But let shields be disarmed, as written.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes, I already acknowledged that the shield is both held and worn. But because it is worn it cannot be dropped. Dropping it has no meaning.
You can be wearing an amulet and also hold it in your hand. If you release the amulet you are still wearing it. Disarm would not remove the amulet from your neck. Disarm does not remove an object you are wearing, only holding.
I am very much in favour of allowing Disarm to have an effect on someone using a shield, but as the sage advice ruling confirms, that effect is not the shield falling onto the ground.
Just to throw my 2 cp in:
Don means to put on/wear. Wield means to hold as if to use (so wield = hold, but hold ≠ wield).
A weapon is only wielded, which means it can be disarmed.
A shield requires both. It could be ruled that disarming a shield removes the AC bonus until an item interaction is used to grip the shield properly again, or a shield could just be immune from disarm (as it is effectively strapped to your hand). I think most people will use the latter as the former opens shields up to be able to free their hand to use it for something else. Either way, disarm does not doff a shield.
Disarming Attack doesn’t just say you drop it, you drop it aAND it lands at your feet. “But I have a strap so it’s still dangling” isn’t an option, because Disarming Attack is explicit about what happens once dropped.
I understand your perspective, you think it should take as long for someone to force you to drop something as it would take for you to voluntarily drop it. But Disarming Attack doesn’t say it respects don/doff, so by RAW, it doesn’t. It doesn’t say it cares about “worn” vs. “wielded,” just “held,” so by RAW, “held” is all that matters. Maybe the RAI really is like SAC says it is; if so, sounds like a good candidate for errata, because the RAW is profoundly in opposition to that reading as it stands today.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah, didn't read it. Then since it doesn't say it removes worn items and it is impossible to knock a worn object to the ground otherwise, the feature just doesn't work on shields.
Glad that is simple and doesn't open up the shenanigans of being able to drop a shield.
Allowing Disarming Attack to work on held objects that are being worn allows for some weird stuff that really should be possible. Like, if someone grabs someone else by the shirt, I can... "disarm" of them of their clothing. Was going to say armor, but that's more debatable if you can reasonable grab someone by their armor.
Yeah safe to say that it doesn't work.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
That's not what silence means. Silence means irrelevant. As written, if the item is held, you can force it to be dropped. Of course, if the item cannot be dropped, forcing it to be dropped doesn't do anything, and arguably a worn shield cannot be dropped.
Your worst case scenario, “what if I hold someone’s armor someone else is wearing, would you being disarmed rip it from their body?”, is a straw man... because there’s no RAW language saying you can hold someone else’s armor or clothing they’re wearing. That’s called “grappling,” and there’s rules for it. You’d be holding the creature, not it’s clothing.
“Disarming Strike doesnt say it can cause worn items to be dropped, so it doesn’t” is a disingenuous argument. It also doesn’t say it can cause wielded items to drop, swords to drop, wooden items to drop, tiny items to drop, magic items to drop... it doesn’t enumerate, because it causes EVERYTHING to drop. To disarming attack, every object falls into one of only two categories: held in a hand, or not held in a hand. .
Shields tell us EXPLICITLY that they are held in a hand, there just is no room to debate that, end of story. And tbe concept of “is this object in a hand?” is not novel for 5E, we reference it all the time when checking how many free hands someone has. If something is in a hand (not in your pack, not worn on your body, not a hat on your head, etc.), it is very obvious it is in your hand, because that hand is not free. Shields occupy your hand, we know that
The intent and function of Disarming Attack are clear: Disarming Attack takes anything in your hand, and if you fail a Strength check, causes it to now be in the ground at your feet. It doesn’t care how you narratively get from A to B, whether you tore it off, sliced it off, made them let go of it, whatever. That’s all RP, and if you can’t imagine how a shield could get dropped in combat... I dunno, that’s your problem, watch a movie with sword fights or something sometime?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Shields are not just "held" in normal usage and can't be dropped per the rules if donned (they must be doffed, taking 1 action). The reason for this is shields attach to the arm at 2 points, a strap around the forearm, and a handle that is held. Just holding a shield would not grant you any actual defensive advantage, since you need 2 points of contact for stability. Since a donned shield can't be dropped (due to their mechanism for being worn and because the rules say they must be doffed, not dropped) I would rule the disarming attack would fail, since even if the hand is removed from the handle the shield is still strapped to the forearm.
You don't "hold" a shield, in the same way that you don't "hold" a glove or boot or helm. Disarming strike can't remove a boot or a gauntlet. Similarly it can't remove a shield.
Contrary to Chicken_Champ’s stated position, I’m having trouble finding any text that “tell[s] us EXPLICITLY that [shields] are held in a hand.” Is there anything anywhere that says shields are held at all?
In real life, many shields are actually held and very much not strapped to an arm. It doesn’t take an entire action to pick up a Roman scutum. But that’s not a distinction 5e’s mechanics are interested in modeling. In terms of game mechanics, it seems as though shields are very clearly not held. I at least can’t find any language that suggests they are.
“Wield” is a special type of holding, as I’m sure you are well aware. There is a difference between a monk carrying his friends Greatsword vs. trying to wield it. “A wielded sword is not merely held” is every bit as true and every bit as misleading for this context as JCs “a donned shield is not merely held.”
Boots and Gauntlets are types of clothing or armor. Armor is worn, and tells us it’s worn. Armor does NOT tell us it’s held, and does NOT take up a free hand. Shields DO tell us they are held, and DO take up a free hand. So... no, there is NOTHING similar between a Shield and a Gauntlet, much less a Boot.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Carried = hold. Takes up a hand = hold. Wielded = hold.
All three of these are understood to mean an object is held in your hand in every other day-to-day context other than this debate. Don’t start making bad faith arguments that they don’t mean that here.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You really hate RAW, don't you? It is explicit, no matter how much you try to rules lawyer it. Shields must be doffed, and not a target for dis-arming. No matter how much RL stuff you want to throw at it, that is an the immutable rule in 5e. I tend to ignore your comments, but I am terrified what happens when a new player reads your "rulings" in a Game Mechanics channel.