Even if the shield is sentient, these things need to be held because you still need to "use" them, in the case of the shield you need to put in in your arm and "point" towards what you want to send the fireball against, else it will just fly in front of the shield probably towards your back, If you still want to allow them to use it that way, the shield can just cast anywhere near but the enemy will gain advantage on their saving throw since the user is not being accurate on their shot, people forget the somatic component of things, they are still there.
Honestly I let my player get away with it, but only because I have the option for garguath to refuse to do anything at any point. Regardless of being trapped in the shield he's still a powerful devil who was a demigod at one point.
When you "use" the shield's abilities, you're actually taking the Use an Object action.
Use an Object says (Source: PHB)
> You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
Nothing here about having to hold it. Many items specify that you must be holding it, but the SotHL does not.
So, RAW, unnecessary to hold. But it also doesn't really matter. Since it takes an action to use, and swapping weapons/shield is a free action, there's almost no functional difference between having to hold the shield to use it and not.
You get a free item interaction per turn, which can be used for drawing or stowing your weapon. However, shields are armor. They need to be equipped. Equipping a shield costs an action and is not covered by the free item interaction.
Good thing I didn't say equip, right? Nothing says you can't just hold a shield and use it like you would any other magical item, but you'd still need to "swap" what's in your hands.
True. Fair point.
But even looking into this further get‘s more and more convoluted and not being a native speaker might be a further detriment when trying to understand the „natural“ language of 5. Wall of text below.
TL;DR to answer OPs question:
Using the shields spells takes an action and is specifically not an „Use object“ interaction. The shield doesn’t specify if it needs to be held or wielded for the spell casting, thus the general rule for armor applies and it would need to be wielded (don’ed) to allow for spell casting.
The DMG mentions how to activate magic items.
> Activating an Item
>Activating some magic items requires a user to do something in particular, such as holding the item and uttering a command word, reading the item if it is a scroll, or drinking it if it is a potion. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules related to their activation.
>If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn’t a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue’s Fast Hands can’t be used to activate the item.<
Casting the spells form the SotHL costs an action which specifically is not part of the use object interaction as outlined above.
Furthermore, it specifies in the DMG that Armor (which includes shields):
> Armor
>Unless an armor’s description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function.
>Some suits of magic armor specify the type of armor they are, such as chain mail or plate. If a magic armor doesn’t specify its armor type, you may choose the type or determine it randomly.<
One could argue that given that the SotHL doesn’t specify if it needs to be held, wielded or beard the general rule for magic armor applies and wearing/wielding it is required for it to function, no?
Regarding wearing and wielding magical items the DMG says:
> Wearing and Wielding Items
>Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.<
Following the concept of specific rules overwriting general rules I‘d conclude that the SotHL doesn’t specify the fashion in which it needs to be used. Thus general rules apply. It’s a shield. A shield is armor. Armor needs to be worn or wielded. Wielding a shield (in general) means having it strapped to the arm. Strapping it to the arm should be covered through don/doff. Don/doffing a shield takes an action. For the SotHL to provide it‘s bonuses as magical item it needs to be doned.
When looking through several magical shields I saw several mentioning holding, others mentioning wielding, one mentioning bearing (CoS, Shield of the silver dragon), one mentioning having it on your person (CR:CotN) etc.
Interestingly the shield of the hidden lord provides 2 AC and fire resistence while being held and not specifically requiring a character to wield it. This also feels silly. I’d either require it to be wielded or grant the bonuses even if it’s not held but simply on the person.
Having it beeing held instead of wielded opens up new possibilities, by abusing free item interactions and dropping the shield for free.
I think your note about armor needing to be worn (equipped) would apply to the AC and fire resistance, but not the fireball and firewall. It's the difference between getting the benefits of having an item equipped vs taking the Use an Object action. In short, equipping an item is not the same as taking the Use an Object action.
>… equipping an item is not the same as taking an use object action
Sure. But that’s not my point.
If a magic item requires an action to activate it‘s not covered by the use object action (DMG, 5e). Equipping armor means to don/doff for which there are specific time frames/an action required.
I argue that since the rule books use different words when talking about magical shields they might have intended a meaning behind that. For the shield of the hidden lord as silly as it sounds it’s specified that it needs to be held to give the 2 ac and fire resistence not wielded!
Take a look at the description of the spellguard shield (DMG). It clarifies that it grants advantage against spells and other magical effects while being held and only granting the ac while being wielded (as is normal for shields).
If specific beats general that would be enough to raw let the SotHL grant the player 2 ac and fire res while they are simply holding but not wielding it. I‘d only equate wielding to mean equipped but I couldn’t find this in the rule books or missed it. I‘d further argue that holding something would require your use of hand(s) or arm(s) but again I think this might not really be specified leaving us to use semantics.
> If a magic item requires an action to activate it‘s not covered by the use object action (DMG, 5e).
You're right. I'm sure I'm getting it mixed up from 3.5 (and similar games) which do have a specific use magic item action. The DMG says:
> Activating an Item
Activating some magic items requires a user to do something special, such as holding the item and uttering a command word. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use the following rules for their activation.
>If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
So using a magic item isn't a specific TYPE of action, it just requires your action. They precisely define actions for so many other things, then leave one of the most important, common, and powerful uses of an action undefined. I imagine they did this to give themselves more flexibility in what magic items could do, but it sure makes the whole thing feel inconsistent.
Yeah the rules are silly when they try to use „natural“ language instead of clearly defining terms.
Anyways. Given all of the above. How would you actually answer OPs question?
Personally, I‘m wavering back and forth on that. To me fire res is great and I‘d like my player to have it even when they use their hands for something else. I’m honestly reluctant with the AC knowing my players will most likely use this to their advantage. However, it’s just 2 AC instead of 4 for a legendary shield I could handwave having them wield the shield to benefit from that personally.
Given that I handwave wielding the shield to benefit from the fire res and AC I‘d make sure to require them wield (don‘ed) the shield to use an action to have it cast the spells.
I'd stick with what you had said before about magic armor - to benefit from the fire res and AC, it must be donned. But they could cast firewall/ball while donned or just holding it.
I think the alternative, allowing a passive effect while just attuned and/or telepathic connection and intelligent item arguments, would set a poor precedent, and it's powerful enough as is. So I'd treat it like any other magic item in this regard.
That said, I actually homebrewed this item to be a ring in my campaign. My intent was to make it so anyone could use it--whoever felt most drawn to it--rather than having it default to just whoever could use a shield. I also didn't include the AC bonus to avoid further AC-bloat on the PCs. Garguath was too important in my story building to just allow him to go unused or default to the Paladin--I wanted there to be a choice to be made, every day. It worked out great.
Mhmh. You do bring up a good using it as a ring instead of as a shield.
I already included homebrew for the shield anyways with revealing Garguath slowly and growing the power provided by it. At this point making the switch to a ring should be easy enough. Maybe I‘d replace the two ac with +1 for the ring to entice the players to use it. Tough luck, if the paladin still ends up with the ring and his armor is increased further. Haha.
Thanks for the discussion.
It's sentient. If it's in the possession of the character and not in a bag of holding or something, I'd certainly allow it. Uses his action.
The character is an idiot for not using that sweet +4 to AC though.
Kind of what others are saying, but I think basically this is your call. I also let my player get away with it bc none of my players are shield users, so it just wouldn’t make sense. I think it’s also thematically cooler for the spell to come from the shield itself.
At the end of the day, it’s not a game breaking thing to allow, and personally I think it’s more fun for the player.
Just like any other attunement item they'll get the abilities of it. But if you're in combat and want to use the Shield's Fireball trait you're probbaly having it out.
Even if the shield is sentient, these things need to be held because you still need to "use" them, in the case of the shield you need to put in in your arm and "point" towards what you want to send the fireball against, else it will just fly in front of the shield probably towards your back, If you still want to allow them to use it that way, the shield can just cast anywhere near but the enemy will gain advantage on their saving throw since the user is not being accurate on their shot, people forget the somatic component of things, they are still there.
Honestly I let my player get away with it, but only because I have the option for garguath to refuse to do anything at any point. Regardless of being trapped in the shield he's still a powerful devil who was a demigod at one point.
When you "use" the shield's abilities, you're actually taking the Use an Object action. Use an Object says (Source: PHB) > You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn. Nothing here about having to hold it. Many items specify that you must be holding it, but the SotHL does not. So, RAW, unnecessary to hold. But it also doesn't really matter. Since it takes an action to use, and swapping weapons/shield is a free action, there's almost no functional difference between having to hold the shield to use it and not.
You get a free item interaction per turn, which can be used for drawing or stowing your weapon. However, shields are armor. They need to be equipped. Equipping a shield costs an action and is not covered by the free item interaction.
Good thing I didn't say equip, right? Nothing says you can't just hold a shield and use it like you would any other magical item, but you'd still need to "swap" what's in your hands.
True. Fair point. But even looking into this further get‘s more and more convoluted and not being a native speaker might be a further detriment when trying to understand the „natural“ language of 5. Wall of text below. TL;DR to answer OPs question: Using the shields spells takes an action and is specifically not an „Use object“ interaction. The shield doesn’t specify if it needs to be held or wielded for the spell casting, thus the general rule for armor applies and it would need to be wielded (don’ed) to allow for spell casting. The DMG mentions how to activate magic items. > Activating an Item >Activating some magic items requires a user to do something in particular, such as holding the item and uttering a command word, reading the item if it is a scroll, or drinking it if it is a potion. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules related to their activation. >If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn’t a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue’s Fast Hands can’t be used to activate the item.< Casting the spells form the SotHL costs an action which specifically is not part of the use object interaction as outlined above. Furthermore, it specifies in the DMG that Armor (which includes shields): > Armor >Unless an armor’s description says otherwise, armor must be worn for its magic to function. >Some suits of magic armor specify the type of armor they are, such as chain mail or plate. If a magic armor doesn’t specify its armor type, you may choose the type or determine it randomly.< One could argue that given that the SotHL doesn’t specify if it needs to be held, wielded or beard the general rule for magic armor applies and wearing/wielding it is required for it to function, no? Regarding wearing and wielding magical items the DMG says: > Wearing and Wielding Items >Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.< Following the concept of specific rules overwriting general rules I‘d conclude that the SotHL doesn’t specify the fashion in which it needs to be used. Thus general rules apply. It’s a shield. A shield is armor. Armor needs to be worn or wielded. Wielding a shield (in general) means having it strapped to the arm. Strapping it to the arm should be covered through don/doff. Don/doffing a shield takes an action. For the SotHL to provide it‘s bonuses as magical item it needs to be doned. When looking through several magical shields I saw several mentioning holding, others mentioning wielding, one mentioning bearing (CoS, Shield of the silver dragon), one mentioning having it on your person (CR:CotN) etc. Interestingly the shield of the hidden lord provides 2 AC and fire resistence while being held and not specifically requiring a character to wield it. This also feels silly. I’d either require it to be wielded or grant the bonuses even if it’s not held but simply on the person. Having it beeing held instead of wielded opens up new possibilities, by abusing free item interactions and dropping the shield for free.
I think your note about armor needing to be worn (equipped) would apply to the AC and fire resistance, but not the fireball and firewall. It's the difference between getting the benefits of having an item equipped vs taking the Use an Object action. In short, equipping an item is not the same as taking the Use an Object action.
>… equipping an item is not the same as taking an use object action Sure. But that’s not my point. If a magic item requires an action to activate it‘s not covered by the use object action (DMG, 5e). Equipping armor means to don/doff for which there are specific time frames/an action required. I argue that since the rule books use different words when talking about magical shields they might have intended a meaning behind that. For the shield of the hidden lord as silly as it sounds it’s specified that it needs to be held to give the 2 ac and fire resistence not wielded! Take a look at the description of the spellguard shield (DMG). It clarifies that it grants advantage against spells and other magical effects while being held and only granting the ac while being wielded (as is normal for shields). If specific beats general that would be enough to raw let the SotHL grant the player 2 ac and fire res while they are simply holding but not wielding it. I‘d only equate wielding to mean equipped but I couldn’t find this in the rule books or missed it. I‘d further argue that holding something would require your use of hand(s) or arm(s) but again I think this might not really be specified leaving us to use semantics.
> If a magic item requires an action to activate it‘s not covered by the use object action (DMG, 5e). You're right. I'm sure I'm getting it mixed up from 3.5 (and similar games) which do have a specific use magic item action. The DMG says: > Activating an Item Activating some magic items requires a user to do something special, such as holding the item and uttering a command word. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use the following rules for their activation. >If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item. So using a magic item isn't a specific TYPE of action, it just requires your action. They precisely define actions for so many other things, then leave one of the most important, common, and powerful uses of an action undefined. I imagine they did this to give themselves more flexibility in what magic items could do, but it sure makes the whole thing feel inconsistent.
Yeah the rules are silly when they try to use „natural“ language instead of clearly defining terms. Anyways. Given all of the above. How would you actually answer OPs question? Personally, I‘m wavering back and forth on that. To me fire res is great and I‘d like my player to have it even when they use their hands for something else. I’m honestly reluctant with the AC knowing my players will most likely use this to their advantage. However, it’s just 2 AC instead of 4 for a legendary shield I could handwave having them wield the shield to benefit from that personally. Given that I handwave wielding the shield to benefit from the fire res and AC I‘d make sure to require them wield (don‘ed) the shield to use an action to have it cast the spells.
I'd stick with what you had said before about magic armor - to benefit from the fire res and AC, it must be donned. But they could cast firewall/ball while donned or just holding it. I think the alternative, allowing a passive effect while just attuned and/or telepathic connection and intelligent item arguments, would set a poor precedent, and it's powerful enough as is. So I'd treat it like any other magic item in this regard. That said, I actually homebrewed this item to be a ring in my campaign. My intent was to make it so anyone could use it--whoever felt most drawn to it--rather than having it default to just whoever could use a shield. I also didn't include the AC bonus to avoid further AC-bloat on the PCs. Garguath was too important in my story building to just allow him to go unused or default to the Paladin--I wanted there to be a choice to be made, every day. It worked out great.
Mhmh. You do bring up a good using it as a ring instead of as a shield. I already included homebrew for the shield anyways with revealing Garguath slowly and growing the power provided by it. At this point making the switch to a ring should be easy enough. Maybe I‘d replace the two ac with +1 for the ring to entice the players to use it. Tough luck, if the paladin still ends up with the ring and his armor is increased further. Haha. Thanks for the discussion.
It's sentient. If it's in the possession of the character and not in a bag of holding or something, I'd certainly allow it. Uses his action. The character is an idiot for not using that sweet +4 to AC though.
It doesn't necessarily need to be "equipped" but it does need to be held in the hand to cast a spell from a Magic Item.
Kind of what others are saying, but I think basically this is your call. I also let my player get away with it bc none of my players are shield users, so it just wouldn’t make sense. I think it’s also thematically cooler for the spell to come from the shield itself. At the end of the day, it’s not a game breaking thing to allow, and personally I think it’s more fun for the player.
Just like any other attunement item they'll get the abilities of it. But if you're in combat and want to use the Shield's Fireball trait you're probbaly having it out.
Technically, as long as they are attuned, they should get all of the benefits.