Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5724084" data-attributes="member: 6679551">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.</blockquote>

Verification