Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jhyrryl" data-source="post: 993119" data-attributes="member: 6406">All About the ProficiencyFor the sake of argument, here's the exact text (from the SRD):First, it is clear to me that the monk is not wearing the armor when utilizing an animated shield.&nbsp; That said, I think the relative clause here is, &quot;as if the character were using it&quot;.&nbsp; To me that says that the shield moves and reacts exactly as it would *if* the character had an incorporeal third arm capable of positioning the shield where appropriate.Since a monk is not proficient at shield use, I would rule that the shield would get in the monks way, because she wouldn't know the proper way of making it move, thereby incurring armor check penalties to her attacks and skill checks that involve movement.&nbsp; If the monk spent a feat acquiring shield proficiency, or multi-classed to gain that proficiency, she would know how to properly position the shield, and so I would then allow her the use of the animated shield without loss of the character's special monk stuff.This &quot;incorporeal third arm&quot; (incorporeal so it doesn't interfer with the motion of the body's material components), is also how I would view the shield in a situation where &quot;attendance&quot; is a factor.&nbsp; Someone trying to sunder or grab the shield would have to deal with the shield moving exactly as if the character were wielding it, taking into account awaredness, etc.And I agree with Caliban on the ring of force shield, it's essentially deactivated at the beginning of your turn, allowing you to act as if it weren't there, then reactivated at the end of your turn.&nbsp; When it's not your turn, it's there, just like a normal shield.&nbsp; So it's a worthless item for a monk.Edit: obviously I also agree with Spider, who hadn't posted when I first viewed the page.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Well, almost.&nbsp; I *would* apply the non-proficiency penalty in all cases he mentions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jhyrryl, post: 993119, member: 6406"] [b]All About the Proficiency[/b] For the sake of argument, here's the exact text (from the SRD): First, it is clear to me that the monk is not wearing the armor when utilizing an [i]animated shield[/i]. That said, I think the relative clause here is, "as if the character were using it". To me that says that the [i]shield[/i] moves and reacts exactly as it would *if* the character had an incorporeal third arm capable of positioning the [i]shield[/i] where appropriate. Since a monk is not proficient at shield use, I would rule that the [i]shield[/i] would get in the monks way, because she wouldn't know the proper way of making it move, thereby incurring armor check penalties to her attacks and skill checks that involve movement. If the monk spent a feat acquiring shield proficiency, or multi-classed to gain that proficiency, she would know how to properly position the [i]shield[/i], and so I would then allow her the use of the [i]animated shield[/i] without loss of the character's special monk stuff. This "incorporeal third arm" (incorporeal so it doesn't interfer with the motion of the body's material components), is also how I would view the [i]shield[/i] in a situation where "attendance" is a factor. Someone trying to sunder or grab the [i]shield[/i] would have to deal with the [i]shield[/i] moving exactly as if the character were wielding it, taking into account awaredness, etc. And I agree with Caliban on the [i]ring of force shield[/i], it's essentially deactivated at the beginning of your turn, allowing you to act as if it weren't there, then reactivated at the end of your turn. When it's not your turn, it's there, just like a normal shield. So it's a worthless item for a monk. Edit: obviously I also agree with Spider, who hadn't posted when I first viewed the page. :) Well, almost. I *would* apply the non-proficiency penalty in all cases he mentions. [/QUOTE]

Verification