Put a Symbol on a shield?

[Vahktang]

I'm certain this has been addressed before in these forums. I tried the search function here but it it wouldn't let me use it.
Ah well.
My players did it this last week. I can see no real reason why not in 3.5.
What say you all:

Can you put a symbol on a shield?
Walk around with it?
I got that you can't walk towards someone and have it affect them.
Symbols can only be used defensively.
But the bad guys arrive and go towards you, it should work against them, right?

Just seems wrong for some reason.

 

[Jack Simth]

I'm certain this has been addressed before in these forums. I tried the search function here but it it wouldn't let me use it.
Ah well.
My players did it this last week. I can see no real reason why not in 3.5.
What say you all:

Can you put a symbol on a shield?
Walk around with it?
I got that you can't walk towards someone and have it affect them.
Symbols can only be used defensively.
But the bad guys arrive and go towards you, it should work against them, right?

Just seems wrong for some reason.

Ah, you've pretty much got it by RAW. But yes, it is wrong - in the "there is a loophole in the rules" kind of way, not the "this is against the rules" kind of way.

If you want, you can rule that a shield doesn't qualify under the sentance: "To be effective, a symbol of death must always be placed in plain sight and in a prominent location", if you want to nix it.

Alternately, you could have the next ten BBEG's Minions have Symbols on their shields. Oh yes, and the minions are just mooks, worth almost no XP, and they're all there at once. Then broker a treaty with the players.

 

[Dandu]

 

[TheClone]

I guess you should cover the symbol if you are in town or otherwise next to people whom you don't want to be affected. Hopefully you don't get in a fight then and someone hits the shield wit ha piercing or slashing weapon or maybe at all to rip of the cover. But I guess the guard wondering why the shield id covered is too nasty and too much a constructed thing not to annoy your players.

 

[Dandu]

I guess you should cover the symbol if you are in town or otherwise next to people whom you don't want to be affected. Hopefully you don't get in a fight then and someone hits the shield wit ha piercing or slashing weapon or maybe at all to rip of the cover. But I guess the guard wondering why the shield id covered is too nasty and too much a constructed thing not to annoy your players.

Simple answer: it rusts easily.

 

[pawsplay]

It's completely legal, and "blacking" your shield was very common for traveling nobility back in thd day. The term "black knight" was often used to describe someone fighting anonymously, i.e. their shield was covered or painted a solid color, often black or white.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even nastier: A symbol on the chest of an Iron or Stone Golem.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Even nastier: A symbol on the chest of an Iron or Stone Golem.

Even nastier: Tattooed on the chest of a nymph.

 

[Jack Simth]

Even nastier: Tattooed on the chest of a nymph.

If you know you're fighting a nymph, you're generally going to go with "Averted Vision", simply because Blinding Beauty and Stunning Glance are generally going to be known issues. It may never trigger.

 

[jefgorbach]

Symbol of Death states "This spell allows you to scribe a potent rune of power upon a surface." so yes, while a shield/etc could legally be considered a surface for compliance with RAW ... I would recommend a gentlemen's agreement with the DM -AGAINST- this particular usage lest your group soon find yourself determining how to effectively fight similarly equipped foes.

After all, whats to stop that nigh impossible lich from decorating his golem bodyguards with a variety of symbols once his spies report how effective your group has become using this very tactic?