D&D 5E Mage armor and A shield

[Jaron Mortimer]

DAMN YOU PARAXIS!

You beat me to it

 

[Wolf118]

The 'RAW' (if such has any real bearing in 5e) is contradictory:

One quote implies that Shields change your base armor class (something that's a bit at odds with the concept of base armor class, which is that two different things that determine your base AC don't stack, only the better applies). The other quote states that shields increase AC (the word 'base' is not used).

Considering that WoTC uses RAW vs RAI vs RAF to help explain rules issues, it has a very real bearing in 5e. Considering that RAW forms the basis for decisions in Adventurer's League play, it has a very real bearing in 5e. You can ignore RAW in your home game, but then your interpretation has very little bearing on what the rest of us are discussing. If RAW has very little bearing, then why aren't we discussing whether shields add jellybeans to your AC when using Mage Armor?

As to the quotes, they're very self-explanatory to someone who's paying attention. Both are very specific rules. One states that shields are part of the base AC. The other states how much shields add to the AC.

Here's another ruling to aid your own determination:

Shields are part of Armor Proficiencies (PHB p144, and any class entry which uses shields)

 

[Jaron Mortimer]

Here's probably a better point: Both of the Unarmored defense abilities in the PHB specifically separate Armor and Shields

Barbarian UAD: "While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your dexterity modifier + your constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit."
Monk UAD: "Beginning at 1st level, while you are wearing nor armor and not wielding a shield, Your AC equals 10 + your dexterity modifier + your wisdom modifier."

And again at Unarmored movement: " Starting at 2nd level, your speed increases by 10 feet while you are not wearing armor or wielding a shield."

It seems pretty clear to me that "Armor" means suit of armor, and not Shield. Otherwise, it would not have to have been spelled out and separated for the monk.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Considering that RAW forms the basis for decisions in Adventurer's League play, it has a very real bearing in 5e.

AL lays out what optional rules are in play (you can use feats, for instance), DMs are still pretty free to make rulings.

You can ignore RAW in your home game, but then your interpretation has very little bearing on what the rest of us are discussing.

It's not 2007 anymore.

As to the quotes, they're very self-explanatory to someone who's paying attention. Both are very specific rules. One states that shields are part of the base AC. The other states how much shields add to the AC.

If that were the case, the second one would have said 'base AC,' instead of AC. By the 'RAW,' they are contradictory. Thus, DM ruling is required. That might have been disastrous or controversial in the 3.x days, or grounds for an 'update' when 4e was the current ed, but those days are gone. DM rulings, not rules. This is 5e.

Here's probably a better point: Both of the Unarmored defense abilities in the PHB specifically separate Armor and Shields

Barbarian UAD: "While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your dexterity modifier + your constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit."

This one supports the idea that shields /are/ armor, because the shield is specifically called out as an exception.

Monk UAD: "Beginning at 1st level, while you are wearing nor armor and not wielding a shield, Your AC equals 10 + your dexterity modifier + your wisdom modifier."

And again at Unarmored movement: " Starting at 2nd level, your speed increases by 10 feet while you are not wearing armor or wielding a shield."

These two support the opposite conjecture.

Again, contradictory.

Hazard of preferring natural language over jargon.

DM ruling required.

(It's not like that's a big deal, 5e DMs make rulings every round.)

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Just my take, but as Barbarian explicitly allows a shield, but Draconic Resilience doesn't, I'd rule that Barbarians can stack shields but sorcerers not. The sorcerer base (divorced from any stat bonuses) is higher than the barbarian.

As Shields are listed as Armour in the tables and their function is described in the Armour section, I'd class them as being Armour for Mage Armour purposes.

But then, I kind of view Mage Armour as appearing as spectral glowing armour and see no reason why this magical halo shouldn't encompass a spectral shield 'strapped' to the arm to complete the look. Or perhaps you could say that, despite not being in the book, this spell could be cast at a max of two levels higher, each additional level adding a +1 to ac as a small buckler or larger shield respectively are summoned. These 'shields' wouldn't require a free hand however.

Maybe that would be op? Certainly would be fangling with the spell as written!

For me, though, a shield counting as armour works fine in the rules as regards Mage armour, but less so in relation to sorcerers. Why should your hide be less effective with a shield? I understand the exclusion fir barbarians, but not really the lack of it for sorcerers unless fir reasons of balance/special snowflakery.

Hmm.

All in all, thinking as I type, I'm ruling shields = armour, and sorcerers can stack. There's not a lot of love for sorcerers, maybe this will help a little.

What do you think? Overrule sorcerer? Expand Mage armour?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But then, I kind of view Mage Armour as appearing as spectral glowing armour and see no reason why this magical halo shouldn't encompass a spectral shield 'strapped' to the arm to complete the look. Or perhaps you could say that, despite not being in the book, this spell could be cast at a max of two levels higher, each additional level adding a +1 to ac as a small buckler or larger shield respectively are summoned. These 'shields' wouldn't require a free hand however.

That's a cool visual. I'd think requiring the use of the hand to gain the shield bonus would be OK - again, for the visual of using it like a shield.

Then again, there's already the even-more-classic Shield spell...

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

The Shield spell always looks like a magical version of the cage from the Mousetrap boardgame in my head, appearing fractally only when impacted and surrounding the character. Rather than a shield, shield. Or a simple linear wall. Just me.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Of course, if your visual of Mage Armour is pieces of armour magically appearing and buckling themselves into place from out of nowhere, then picking up an actual shield to augment your 'actual' armour makes sense. The Armour itself will dissipate after 8 hours.
Oh, visualisation. Damn you! *shakes fist at the sky*

 

[Henry]

However, the shield doesn't set a base AC -- it just makes it 2 better. Either way, I agree it's not game breaking -- just strong, and really not likely to get much stronger unless the DM is loose with magic shields.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Hi all

I've got another one for you...


Mage armor (page 256 PHB):

-Sets your base AC to 13 plus your dex mod.
-Armor doesn't stack with it. Specifically armor.

Shields (page 144 PHB):

-"Wielding a shield INCREASES your AC by 2".

According to what I read, a shield is NOT technically considered armor and mechanically it provides a shield bonus increase as opposed to setting AC.

If this is true and correct, a character could play, say an elven lv1 fighter, lv2 warlock with a shield and the armor of shadows invocation. Base AC 13 + dex 5 + shield bonus +2= 20.

Now I am aware that there have been several posts asking as to whether mage armor stacks with armor or with the shield spell and I understand those combinations, but no-one seems to have queried mage armor and an actual shield specifically.

I predict most people would say "I would be ruling no they don't stack, because it's OP"and that's fine, I'm more interested though on your take on the specific wording.

If my theory were correct, this would certainly be broken wouldn't it?

I'm sure I'll have more cans of worms for everyone later. I'm here all week!

I'd allow it. Not broken, especially with this F1,War2 - he can already wear plate + shield from the get go thanks to F1..?