A silly question about Evasion

[Vegepygmy]

Guess you don't really understand what that word means do you?

You guess wrong. Your "reasoning" was unreasonable, and thus arbitrary.

You recognized that the restriction on Evasion in medium/heavy armor exists because they inhibit movement. You failed to recognize that they do this in two ways: (1) by imposing an armor check penalty, and (2) by reducing speed. You then considered shields and "reasoned" that they also restrict movement, but failed to recognize that they do so in only one way: by imposing an armor check penalty. You then stated that you would treat light shields one way and heavy shields another. Yet with respect to their effect on movement (i.e., their armor check penalties), light and heavy shields are different only in the degree to which they impose an armor check penalty: -1 vs. -2.

You failed to recognize that studded leather and a chain shirt have the same respective armor check penalties (-1 and -2), and neither reduce speed. They are, therefore, similar to light and heavy shields with regard to their effect on movement. You failed to recognize that both are light armor and thus do not restrict Evasion.

You offered no reasonable explanation why a heavy shield (-2 armor check penalty, no speed reduction) would inhibit Evasion while a chain shirt (-2 armor check penalty, no speed reduction) does not, especially considering that according to your vote, a light shield (-1 armor check penalty, no speed reduction) would not inhibit Evasion. Put another way, what is it about a heavy shield that you think should cause it to interfere with Evasion? Obviously, it isn't the simple fact that it's a shield, because you wouldn't apply the same rule to light shields. It's obviously not the armor check penalty, because it's no worse than a chain shirt. And it's obviously not the speed reduction, because there is none.

Now, if you had said that tower shields (-10 armor check penalty, and thus more like heavy armor) should interfere with Evasion, I wouldn't have deemed your decision to be arbitrary. But you didn't. You drew a distinction between light and heavy shields that is unsupported by logic or any rule of the game, and thus is arbitrary.

 

[Arrowhawk]

You guess wrong. Your "reasoning" was unreasonable, and thus arbitrary.

As I said, you don't know what the word means.

But your supposition is not bad. It's wrong....but it's logical.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

False. Heavy shields carry an armor check penalty which means what? It mean they limit your movement.

No they don't. They make it harder to move silently, or jump, but your movement speed and reflex saves remain the same, as does your maximum dexterity to AC. If "armor check penalty" is how ridiculously low you set the threshold, 1) Why does light armor even work for evasion when it can have even higher check penalties than shields? and 2) Does that mean a mithral heavy shield is ok? But a regular wooden one is not, even if they nearly weigh the same?

Then you're not really familiar with "logic" are you? Arguing that carrying around a Tower Shield shouldn't affect your mobility is decidedly moronic. Now a TS may actually give you Evasion as a benefit from the cover, but that's not the argument you're making is it?

Well...carrying around a tower shield DOESN'T affect your mobility (it does have a max dex attached, but that's not limiting your speed or reflexes one bit), so...how is arguing what the rules actually say moronic? And in my first post I argued that if anything, a shield would make it easier to use evasion by giving you a small bit of cover, so it actually WAS the argument I was making...

Of course they can. Evasion says nothing in regards to shields, so why would it prevent the use? Hell, if anything it seems like a shield would help you evade a blast...

 

[Dandu]

Mobility [General]

Prerequisites

Dex 13, Dodge.
Benefit

You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
Dodge bonuses stack with each other, unlike most types of bonuses.
Special

A fighter may select Mobility as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Mobility is not affected by tower shields.

 

[airwalkrr]

I have to side with RAW on this one. There is no mention of shields in the evasion ability. Therefore it has no effect on the ability. Interestingly enough, the evasion ability does not mention encumbrance from total weight carried. So apparently there is something special about wearing medium or heavy armor that the designers decided got in the way of evasion that carrying enough to slow you down did not. If there were an argument for an additional restriction on evasion via reading through the lines, I would say the encumbrance argument would be it, not shields. I am not saying I endorse that argument, merely that I would find it a more reasonable one to make as carrying a shield does not technically slow you down (unless it is enough to encumber you), but armor does. I see more of a parallel there with the way evasion is described to work.

[totally off-topic]And as an aside, rogues do not carry shields in DDO, at least not for long. A rogue who has a habit of carrying around a shield tends to get blacklisted as an ineffective gimp because offense is so heavily favored over defense in DDO. Most rogues don't even wear armor past level 12 or so since AC becomes almost meaningless in DDO by that point to most rogue characters. And for those rare rogues who do manage a valuable AC, they do not get it by wearing armor and using shields.[/totally off-topic]

 

[Jackinthegreen]

[Continuing above off-topic]
Yes, rogues definitely shouldn't wear shields in DDO. The only reason I mentioned it is because I have a multiclass fighter/rogue and decided to see what worked and what didn't.

[/offtopic]

As for Evasion with the published works, RAW seems pretty darn clear. Omitting that it isn't affected by shields effectively means shields can be used with it.

The argument about armor limiting speed, however, may not be the main reason for Evasion not working with medium or heavy armor. If it were based upon limited speed then Dwarves could have a nice advantage since they don't get slowed down under a medium or heavy load. There might be (and probably are come to think of it) other creatures that have a similar ability.

Such races getting to use Evasion where others can't would be a nice bonus I guess. I think everyone can pretty much agree the designers just didn't want the more heavily-armored characters to get such a benefit normally. It's a tradeoff to be more nimble but have less armor and vice versa.

Of course, the Divine Oracle's Prescient Sense ability blows Evasion out of the water, but that's a bit of a different topic.

 

[Arrowhawk]

The argument about armor limiting speed, however, may not be the main reason for Evasion not working with medium or heavy armor.***

*** I think everyone can pretty much agree the designers just didn't want the more heavily-armored characters to get such a benefit normally. It's a tradeoff to be more nimble but have less armor and vice versa.

This.

It's an unavoidable conclusion that Evasion exist strictly to provide increased survive-ability for classes which are penalized from wearing medium and heavy armor due to imposed Dex restrictions. Nevertheless,
Evasion doesn't make a lot of logical sense given the rules that surround it. Yes, RAW doesn't mentioned shields at all. It doesn't even mention being so heavily encumbered that one literally can barely move. So that suggests this is strictly a balance thing. But...but...a +5 heavy shield would give more AC bonus than scale mail. Hmmm...

And then there's a couple of sentences in the DMG which really cloud the issue. The rule suggests there are situations where Evasion is denied because of circumstance that are wholly independent of the armor worn. And whether one of those Evasion denying situations occurs, is up to the DM. So WotC has opened the door for a DM to say, "wait...in this situation, you can't move around and avoid area of effect damage."

So in the PHB, the RAW is black and white. In the DMG, the rule enters the land of discretion. Combining them creates problems. In essence, WotC may be straddling straight impact to outcomes--the "balance" of heavy armor with Evasion that you mention above--with one book, and in the other, it nuzzles common sense e.g. you're in a phone booth so you ain't dodging ish.

As I've said many times, D&D is filled with incongruities and self-contradictions. I believe this to be one of them.

 

[RogueInRouge]

RAW has little to say about Evasion. What it does say is clear, as has been discussed already. To summarize, according to RAW you can NOT use evasion if:

• You are wearing medium or heavy armor
• You are helpless, i.e. paralyzed, petrified, held, bound, sleeping, or unconscious
• You are completely unable to move or have no room to do so

You CAN use evasion if none of the above apply, even if:

• You are hopelessly clumsy, with a DEX of 3 (-4 AC penalty)
• You are prone
• You are using Improved Monkey Grip to wield a halberd in each hand
• You are entangled or immobilized
• You are blind, dazed, staggered, or stunned
• You have a tower shield equipped
• You are grappling with an opponent
• You are running, levitating, flying, riding, or swimming
• You are shaken, panicked, or cowering
• You are carrying a heavy load
• You are denied your DEX bonus (if any) to AC due to being flat-footed, balancing, etc.

Some or all of these conditions may offend your sense of "realism" in the game. Exactly which ones will depend on your expertise in -- or complete lack of familiarity with -- physics, human anatomy, video games, military or martial arts training, LARP'ing, wuxia, comic books, contract law, rodeo stunts, genre fiction, and/or historical documentaries. If you've seen Captain America or Link perform diving somersaults with a shield, for example, you may have a different intuition about what is plausible in the D&D fantasy setting than a friend who hasn't.

To the OP's question about rogues with shields, I'd be inclined to allow it even if RAW were ambiguous on this front. I definitely don't think the game is harmed by letting the occasional shield-toting rogue retain his evasion ability against enemy breath weapons and spell casters. Of course, ymmv.

 

[Arrowhawk]

You are completely unable to move or have no room to do so

The DMG is actually more ambiguous.

As with a Reflex save for any creature, a character must have
room to move in order to evade. A bound character or one squeezing
through an area (crawling through a 2-1/2-foot-wide shaft, for
example) cannot use evasion.​

"room to move" is open to interpretation. What if you are halfling or dwarf in the same area that is too small for a human?

To the OP,

I think you have to allow shield use for a reason suggested by JackintheGreen. WotC specifically forbade the use of medium/heavy armor for "balance" reasons. By that same logic, they did not exclude shields because it would deny Rangers and Rogues a lot of AC bonus from carrying a shield. So even though WotC tries to insert a believability clause into Evasion by at least acknowledging you do have to be able to move e.g. you can't be helpless...the main concern is keeping heavy armor Fighters from using Evasion while not denying shield toting Rogues/Rangers better AC options.

From a physics perspective, I would still vote no on heavy shields and hell no on tower shields, but I think avoiding the penalty to Rogues/Rangers has to take the forefront.

When one really scrutinizes the Evasion rules, you get some insight into the thought process employed by WotC when making the rules. On the one hand, they have "balance" concerns and on the other they have logic/plausibility concerns. The two don't often mesh elegantly.

 

[RogueInRouge]

You can NOT use evasion if…you are completely unable to move or have no room to do so

The DMG is actually more ambiguous…a character must have room to move in order to evade

"You must have room to move" is no more ambiguous than "you have no room to move."

"Room to move" is open to interpretation in either phrasing.

I think avoiding the penalty to Rogues/Rangers has to take the forefront.

Yes, let's not forget about the Rangers.