I was looking for a clarification on the shield master feat from page 170 in the PHB.
It states in the second ability of the feat that you can add your shield AC bonus to a dex saving throw for a spell targeting you. When it refers to the bonus does this mean the shield's natural +2 ac it gives for wielding it or does it mean only a magical bonus the shield might have? If the shield is say a +1 shield would you get a +3 to the save or just a +1?
The shield AC bonus should include any magical pluses IMO
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Thanks 
No, it is not part of the shield's AC bonus.
DMG, pg 200
"While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC."
So you are saying a +2 shield does *not* give you a +4 bonus to your AC......???
The Shield has a 'magical' bonus, and a 'normal' bonus.... together, they determine the shields AC bonus.
MickeySmith wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Does the magic bonus come from the shield? Then it is part of the "Shields AC bonus"
Stormborn20 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
So then we are in agreement? While wielding the magic shield, you have two distinct bonuses to AC. They are not added together into one larger bonus.
Stormborn20 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
For the purposes of held vs wielded: It doesn't matter. The bonus is "in addition to", which means it doesn't apply if there is no original bonus. If you're not wielding the shield, you don't get the AC bonus. Thus there is no AC bonus to have a bonus "in addition to".
Yunru wrote:
- Feat as written is: "If you aren't incapicited, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets you."
"Your shield's AC bonus" means the total AC it grants. When the rulse don't make a distinction, let's not add some.
I think that you guys and specialy Stormborn are getting confused...
Stormborn20 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
No, if you're not wielding a shield your Shield bonus is undefeined and NOT 0.
Yunru wrote:
No bonus =/= 0 bonus, it means no bonus. No bonus +2 is still no bonus. To put it into questions:
"I have +2 to my shield bonus!"
"Do you have a shield?"
"No. That means I got a bonus of 0!"
"No, that means you don't have a bonus."
Undefined was the wrong word to use on my part. "Nonexistant" would be a better choice.
Yunru wrote:
No, the only one making strawmen or arguements for the sake of arguing is you. What I have said is perfectly logical and perfectly correct. I know this because I ripped it straight from 4e which had the same thing with Rhythm Daggers. Further, you started the argument after I made the statement, not the other way round.
As to address your "corrected" dialogue:
Player: "Right, and my normal bonus from my shield when not wielding it is 0. 0 + 2 = 2."
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
No. Just no. "This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC." means exactly that. The bonus is added to the normal shield bonus. Thus if you don't get the normal shield bonus, there's nothing to add to, so the additional bonus is not applicable.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Nope, it's quite clearly "in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC." If you have no shield bonus there. Is. Nothing. To have it "in addition" to.
Yunru wrote:
Eh, I don't like your hostile tone, your argumentative words or the fact you make false accusations against me, but I cannot deny your logic. You're still a load a crossbow though.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
First Mistake: There is no such thing as a "shield bonus" in 5E. Shields provide a +X bonus to AC. That is it.... The bonus does not have a type (shield, deflection, etc).
Shields (Phb p144)Wielding a shield increases your A rmor Class by 2.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
This is precisely the kind of debate about the interpretation of irrelevant minutae that makes many of the threads on this site of no relevance to the vast majority of games out n the real world.
That it innevitably fell into counterpoint over who is right between the extreme positions consciously carved out the flesh of a VERY small issue is both predictable and discouraging.
GM's the world over will rule its either a flat +2 or include any magic bonus as well, as they see fit, for their games, with the total normal+magic bonus likely being the most common result.
What is the benefit of getting riled up over this minor issue... even moreso seeing it as being fertile ground for insult - accidental or intended..?
... it really isn't a matter of any significance...
There is this game called Pathfinder......it is awesome for such legalese and word discussion
This is for dnd5 were we no longer care for such things
TheNovaLord wrote:
It is relevant (to a point) in respect to Organized Play - in order to help maintain a consistant expectation of rules regardless of table. Outside of organized play, it becomes a complete non-issue
TheNovaLord wrote:
Reius wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thanks Kalani! That should settle the matter.
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Caliburn wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I've been going back and forth on the hold/wield thing, but now I feel confident that the simplest interpretation is that holding a +2 shield gives you the +2 bonus to your AC, while wielding it will give you the additional +2 bonus to your AC. While it is true that the DMG has that section on wielding and wearing magic items, I would say that this is a case of specific beats general. The general rule is that you need to have a shield strapped to your arm to get its magical benefits, but the specific entry for the +2 shield states that it only needs to be held.
I still don't see any support in the RAW for giving a +4 bonus to your dex save via the feat, but if my DM wanted to house rule that I'd be ok with it. It sounds like a fun extension without being unbalanced. In this case, I would rephrase Shield Master as "... you can add your shield's AC bonuses to any...".
Alternatively, you could rephrase the description of the sheild to be "The shield's bonus to AC is increased by an amount determined by the shield's rarity." That would allow the +4 to dex saves and require the shield to be wielded.
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
While I know this is not representative of every store - at our store we have 6 full tables each week (42 players + 6 DMs).
In order to maintain relative consistency in rulings - our DMs regularly communicate about the situations that come up at our respective tables and how we handle things.
When a ruling must be made which we are uncertain about - we generally pause the game for a few mins and ask one of the other DMs. In most cases I am the one asked as I spend so much time on the forums debating the minutia of the rules and have a greater understanding of both sides of the issue.
As a rule - most things that cause thousand-post debates on the forums are non-issues at the table. When they are an issue - we generally discuss it before the session starts as most of our DMs tend to show up 1-2hrs early to "hang out" and socialize
The one time we had a major rules issue - the DMs had a brief meeting and we collectively agreed how to rule on it.
The he issue however was more of a
Player conduct problem, more so than an actual gamerules issue.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
Kalani wrote: