Artoomis said:
Class descriptions call out shields seperately from armor, shields are in the armor table.
Yes, but fess up.
They discuss both Shields and Armor specifically with regard to proficiency for the other classes.
They discuss neither Shields nor Armor specifically with regard to proficiency for the Monk. The discussion on armor in the Monk section is on how it applies to their special abilities, not on whether they are proficient in it. Proficiency for either of these is an omission for a Monk and it is merely assumed that Monks are not proficient with either because it is not listed that they are.
So, comparing other class descriptions is like comparing apples and oranges since you are talking two different things: proficiency (other classes) vs. affect on special abilities (monks).
Unfortunately, "armor" is like the word "round". It can have several meanings dependent on what you are discussing. Hence, I think you have to look at intent. The intent appears to be for Monks to use their own protections (i.e. AC from dex, wisdom, and increasing on the chart) and not rely on any external mundane protections such as any type of armor, shields inclusive.
"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with…
When wearing armor, a monk loses her AC bonus for Wisdom, AC bonus for class and level, favorable multiple unarmed attacks per round, and heightened movement. Furthermore, her special abilities all face the arcane spell failure chance that the armor type normally imposes."
You'll note that nowhere does it say anything about shields at all, hence, it's just as reasonable to infer that they mean the "all inclusive" definition of armor, instead of the more restrictive one.
So, since neither interpretation has nothing to indicate more validity, I fall back on apparent intent of the designers. It seems that they did not intend for Monks to use Shields or Armor, hence, they appeared to intend that neither would work properly with the special abilities.
