Monks with shields??

[Trellian]

Isn't the sage Skip Williams? used to be anyway.. so if I remember correctly, he was one of the designers of the game.. you do not need to follow the rules every time, of course, but it's kind of nice to have someone who can clarify the rules..

at the thought of an animated buckler.. why not? maybe it distracts the monk somewhat.. I dunno...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure about this, but I believe Animated Shields do not "cause" the usual penalties while flying animated around (a wizard would not suffer Arcane Spell Failure), so I think a monk could use it without problems.

 

[Zhure]

Wasn't there a "power play" in one of the first 3e issues of Dragon magazine about a monk using a buckler? That certainly seems contradictory.

I leave this as a DM's call. There are clearly two valid interpretations.

Greg

 

[Caliban]

Screw the sage, I say. If I decide that in my campaign, monks with shields are KeWL and |33t, that's my prerogative.

If you want to ignore the monk's class limitation on wearing armor, that is indeed your prerogative. However, that would have to be house rule, and as such isn't relevant to the question at hand.

The question was whether or not a shield would have the same effect on a monks abilities as armor does, and since it was asked in the Rules Section, presumably they wanted the Core Rules answer, not an answer based on how it may or may not work in your home campaign.

By the core rules, a shield is armor. It's on the Armor Table on page 104 of the PHB, and it grants an Armor bonus to your AC (as indicated by that same armor table, and the accompanying text).

If the Sage confirming this isn't good enough for you, I got the same answer from Sean Reynolds, Monte Cook, and Jonathan Tweet when I made a big issue about this question last year. Like it or not, shields are armor, and give an armor bonus to AC.

 

[Artoomis]

If you want to ignore the monk's class limitation on wearing armor, that is indeed your prerogative. However, that would have to be house rule, and as such isn't relevant to the question at hand...

I'm not going to rehash to whole argument, but I'll sum up one or two points.

1. It's pretty clear that shields = armor for some purposes and not for others.
2. The Sage (and most agree) stated (but it's not in the FAQ) that shields = armor for monks purposes.
3. It's a legitimate rules interpretation to state that shields do not equal armor for monk purposes - therefore it's not truly a house rule, just a less popular rules interpretation.

Given the past debate on this, I think it's pretty clear that both sides have a pretty good argument, so it's up to a DM to decide which way they want to go. The Sage's rulings have, over time, become somewhat less authoritative by virtue of a number of odd, not well thought-out and/or contradictory responses. One should still give them weight as being the closest thing that exists to an "official" rules interpretation, but one should also feel free to toss them out and still feel like you are following the core rules.

The closest thign we have to truly "offical" rules interpretations is the FAQ, and I see no mention of a monk not using a shield in there. To me that leaves it, officially, an open issue and therefore not a house rule.

I don't consider other Sage's rulings to be "official" because they are not generally available to everyone and have not been reviewed internally at WotC as the FAQ presumably has.

I see good role-playing, real-life and rules reasons to rule either way on this particular issue.

 

[Corwin]

By the core rules, a shield is armor. It's on the Armor Table on page 104 of the PHB, and it grants an Armor bonus to your AC (as indicated by that same armor table, and the accompanying text).

Aside from the fact that I completely agree with you as to the ruling that monk's can't use them, I have a small quibble with this quote.

Just because shields are on the armor table and grant an armor bonus does not necessarily mean they are indeed armor by default.

Similarly, are arrows weapons? They are on the weapon table, and do damage like a weapon. Yet they are not. They are ammunition and do not require a MEA to draw. By your presumption (and that of the Sage), they should be classified as weapons and all rules involving weapons should apply to them as well. Thankfully, that is not the case, however.

Are your hands weapons? They too are on the weapon table. They do damage too. But unless you have Improved Unarmed or are a monk, they do not allow you to threaten or make AoOs. Right? So they are also not quit weapons but are.

So are shields armor? No. They are shields. Do they work like armor in most regards? Yes.

Semantics? Maybe. But I think there is a distinction to be made none-the-less.

 

[Caliban]

Aside from the fact that I completely agree with you as to the ruling that monk's can't use them, I have a small quibble with this quote.

Just because shields are on the armor table and grant an armor bonus does not necessarily mean they are indeed armor by default.

They aren't armor just by default. They match all the aspects of armor.

They have an armor check penalty, they grant an armor bonus, they have an arcane spell failure penalty. They only things they don't affect are your Maximum Dex bonus and your speed, and that's because they aren't attached to your legs. When you use a shield, it is considered part of the suit of armor you are wearing.

Similarly, are arrows weapons? They are on the weapon table, and do damage like a weapon. Yet they are not.

They can also be a hand-held piercing weapon that does 1d4. So yes, they are improvised weapons, in addition to being ammunition.

They are ammunition and do not require a MEA to draw. By your presumption (and that of the Sage), they should be classified as weapons and all rules involving weapons should apply to them as well. Thankfully, that is not the case, however.

My presumption? Try reading the PHB. It it not merely because they appear on the armor table.

It is also because the accompanying text defines them as armor. (As I pointed out, yet you have chosen to be ignore.)

The accompanying text for the weapons table points out the distinctions between ammunition and weapons.

Are your hands weapons? They too are on the weapon table. They do damage too.

Yes, they are weapons.

But unless you have Improved Unarmed or are a monk, they do not allow you to threaten or make AoOs. Right? So they are also not quit weapons but are.

Nothing in the core rules indicates that you do not threaten or cannot make AoO's with your hands (whether or not you have improved unarmed strike), so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

So are shields armor? No. They are shields. Do they work like armor in most regards? Yes.

Semantics? Maybe. But I think there is a distinction to be made none-the-less.

It's semantics, and there really is no viable distinction to be made.

 

[Corwin]

They aren't armor just by default. They match all the aspects of armor.

They have an armor check penalty, they grant an armor bonus, they have an arcane spell failure penalty. They only things they don't affect are your Maximum Dex bonus and your speed, and that's because they aren't attached to your legs. When you use a shield, it is considered part of the suit of armor you are wearing.

You seem to contradict yourself here. On one hand you say shields are armor and match all aspects of armor. Then you say they don't because they don't mirror all armor features. Your reasoning is that they aren't strapped to your legs. Would this same reasoning not possibly be a valid argument for why monks could use them? Seems so to me. If they don't hamper someone, why do they hamper a monk? Monks specifically aren't allowed to wear armor because it hampers their mobility.

BTW, if shields were identical to armor and the same as armor, why were they not in the same column as armor? They are separated into their own list under the heading Shields in the armor section.

[Arrows] can also be a hand-held piercing weapon that does 1d4. So yes, they are improvised weapons, in addition to being ammunition.

So are you saying that anyone can draw an arrow as a free action to use as an improvised melee weapon?

My presumption? Try reading the PHB. It it not merely because they appear on the armor table. It is also because the accompanying text defines them as armor. (As I pointed out, yet you have chosen to be ignore.)

So let me see if I get this straight. You fealt the need to insult me and pick apart my words after I politely disagreed with you? Why is that?

Care to back up your assessment that the PHB clearly rules that shields are indeed armor? Please explain tower shields using this criteria while you are at it.

Nothing in the core rules indicates that you do not threaten or cannot make AoO's with your hands (whether or not you have improved unarmed strike), so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

You love to quote the Sage at every oportunity. Except here for some reason. Your Sage has recently "ruled" on this very topic. I know you are aware of this, yet you play ignorant to it? Very childish, IMO (since we are currently at odds and you wanted to get into nitpicking and insults, I feel compelled to say so).

It's semantics, and there really is no viable distinction to be made.

Interesting opinion. Artoomis had some great points regarding this. I suggest you refer to his post on this point. BTW, well done, Arty.

 

[Artoomis]

Interesting opinion. Artoomis had some great points regarding this. I suggest you refer to his post on this point. BTW, well done, Arty.

Thanks. It's nice to get a pat on the back from time to time.

You are presenting some of the same points I used in this argument before - the reasons why shields are, well, kinda sorta like armor. But not really. Well, sometimes. But not always. Unless it's a full moon - on the first of the month - using the Forgotten realms calendar, of course.

 

[dcollins]

(Sigh.)

Once again, Shields:
- Appear in the "Armor" section (PH p. 104).
- Are listed in "Table 7-5: Armor" (PH p. 104)
- Have an "Armor Bonus".
- Have an "Armor Check Penalty".
- Are included in each class's "Armor Proficiency" details (Ch. 3).
- Are created by the feat of "Craft Magic Arms and Armor" -- and clearly are not "arms" (PH p. 81).
- Appear in the DMG magic section titled "Armor" (DMG p. 179).
- Appear in the DMG creation section titled "Creating Armor" (DMG p. 243).

Under the core rules, it is patently obvious that shields are armor.

BTW, if shields were identical to armor and the same as armor, why were they not in the same column as armor? They are separated into their own list under the heading Shields in the armor section.

There are four types of armor: Light, Medium, Heavy, and Shields.
- Each has its own section within Table 7-5: Armor (PH p. 104).
- Each has its own Armor Proficiency Feat (PH Ch. 5)

The fact that Shields have their own section in Table 7-5 makes them non-armor no more than it does the same for Light Armor, et. al.