Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Grassy Gnoll" data-source="post: 6591073" data-attributes="member: 6788652">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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Grassy Gnoll, post: 6591073, member: 6788652"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification