12
\$\begingroup\$

Shield Master feat, second bullet:

If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.

PHB pg.170

Would wielding two shields apply a +4 bonus to the Dexterity saving throw detailed in the feat?

\$\endgroup\$
1

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
37
\$\begingroup\$

No.

The relevant rule in the armor section states:

You can benefit from only one shield at a time.

This means that only one shield serves to give you any benefit (including the ones from the Shield Master feat).

This is further backed up from this Sage Advice page from the lead designer, Jeremy Crawford (thanks @V2Blast in the comments)

No matter how many shields you're wielding, you get the AC bonus only once.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So to take the Sage Advice to it's ridiculous logical conclusion even if you're surrounded in a box made of shields you only get a +2 AC modifier. Really doesn't make any sense. Especially when you consider the cover rules, which contradict this entirely. Also the size of the shield is apparently immaterial. This is a very broken rule imho. \$\endgroup\$
    – geoidesic
    Commented Feb 28, 2020 at 9:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @geoidesic If that extreme situation is the case, (as you say) you probably would have cover which would provide more AC (+2 for half cover, +5 for three-quarters cover, and you can't be attacked if you have total cover). Whether you have any form of cover is up to the DM. \$\endgroup\$
    – David Coffron
    Commented Feb 28, 2020 at 14:52
8
\$\begingroup\$

In addition to David's answer, you can also find the answer from a grammatical standpoint. The feat states you can "add your shield's AC bonus". If it supported multiple shields, it would have to state that you can "add your shields' AC bonuses." Plural possessive for shield, and plural bonuses.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ I noticed that as well. I was just assuming a broad definition that didn’t take into consideration a particular instance, namely dual wielding shields. I see now that that instance was addressed in a different rule. \$\endgroup\$
    – Digcoal
    Commented Apr 5, 2018 at 13:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .