Monks with shields??

[Caliban]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Caliban

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.

Yes, I did say that.

Then you say they don't because they don't mirror all armor features.

However, I never said that. I just said that they don't affect your Max Dex and speed, and explained why.

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.

Because monks are affected by wearing armor, period. It's not that they are only affected by wearing some types of armor and not others. If you want to house rule that some types of armor affect them while other don't, it's your call. It may even be a reasonable house rule, but I didn't think this discussion was about house rules.

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.

The various shield types are indeed in the same column as the different armor types. They just have their own subheading because they are not a suit of armor. Just as there are several different types of light armor, several different tyhpes of medium armor, and several different types of Heavy armor, there are several types of shields.

However, they are all armor, they are just different types of armor, just as melee weapons and ranged weapons are still weapons even though they are used differently.

The only thing on the table that is not armor is the "Extras", which are things you can add to armor, and possibly Tower Shields, since they don't provide an Armor Bonus.

I grant that the PHB's practice of referring to shields and worn armor seperately in the combat section does muddy the water, but nevertheless shields are indeed a type of armor.

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

I'm not saying, the rules say it. Drawing ammo is not a seperate action, and arrows can be used as an improvised melee weapon.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Caliban

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?

No, I don't believe you have this straight. You are the one who chose to pick apart my words, and tell me that I was being presumptious. Thus it would seem that the initial insult was on your part, not mine.

And I'm missing the part where I insulted you in this section.

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.

As I have stated previously, PHB, page 104. The exact section is "Armor Bonus: The protective value of the armor.[/b]

If it's on table 7-5, and it has an armor bonus, it's armor.

This is further backed up when it makes the specific exceptionto the stacking rules for shield and worn armor: "Bonuses from armor and a shield stack." i.e. A shield is a type of amor, but it's armor bonus stacks with that of warn armor.

A case can be made that tower shields are not armor, since they provide a cover bonus instead of an armor bonus, but the initial question wasn't about tower shields.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Caliban

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).

I don't believe I have insulted you yet, but I'm getting close.

I have not "played ignorant to it", I'm well aware of what the Sage has stated. However, the Sage does not have the authority to change the rules, he can only clarify them. In this case I have found no support for the Sages statements anywhere in the Core Rules, and in fact have found text in the Core Rules that contradicts this position.

Thus, since the Sage can't change the rules, and the rules seem to contradict him on this point, I am forced to conclude that the Sage is incorrect on this point until such a time as the rules are errata'd to agree with him. This is by no means a sure thing, as he has released supposedly "official" errata in the past that has never actually made it into the actual Official Errata list on the WOTC website.

His statements about the shields counting as armor are indeed supported by the text of the PHB, and they have also been backed up by every other game designer who has commented on it. (As I indicated in my previous post.)


I'm sorry that my response caused you to feel insulted, that was not my intent. However, starting off by nitpicking my statements (which you declared you were doing - i.e. "I agree but I have a small quibble.") leaves you no room to complain when I respond in kind.

 

[Artoomis]

Had enough?

Blib:

Since this IS your thread:

Do you have enough info to go on now? Do you want the list that shows why a shield is NOT armor? Before we go there, I'd like to know if you've seen enough.

It's your thread, after all.

 

[Corwin]

I think of condescention as a form of insult, yes. Saying things like "Try reading the PHB" is condescending and insulting.

Also, your constant attempts to dismiss all non-Caliban/Sage rules interpretations as "house rules", like you did mine, is also insulting.

Caliming that you were insulted first because I called your POV a presumption is plain silly. On top of that, there is a big difference between you having a presumption and you being presuptuous anyway. So, whatever with that...

But enough of this, let's get back to the good stuff:

I grant that the PHB's practice of referring to shields and worn armor seperately in the combat section does muddy the water, but nevertheless shields are indeed a type of armor.

There are rules that make your "presumption" unclear and muddied, yet you seem to be insistant that there is no room for interpretation? What about the glossary's use of the term shield bonus?

I'm not saying, the rules say it. Drawing ammo is not a seperate action, and arrows can be used as an improvised melee weapon.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

What I'm trying to show is the corallation between this point and:

As I have stated previously, PHB, page 104. The exact section is "Armor Bonus: The protective value of the armor.

If it's on table 7-5, and it has an armor bonus, it's armor.
[/B]

If your logic holds, and shields are indeed "Armor", then arrows are "Weapons". There is a mirrored relation here based on your own criteria. So drawing an arrow should be a MEA because it is a melee weapon. If "it is what it is", then it should hold to that and the rules for drawing a weapon should apply. But they don't. Arrows are indeed improvised weapons. This is a given. Yet, they have some special ability to be allowed to be drawn as a free action?

So just because something is on the same equipment list and functions almost identically in every way, does not mean they behave identically. If arrows can be drawn as a free action to stab something, then perhaps shields don't restrict a monk's abilities. I see these things as similar trains of thought.

I would like to also reitterate that I agree that monks can't use shields without suffering from a loss of thier abilities. However, I do so more for game balance reasons, not because I thing shields are litterally "Armor". I just don't like when someone (anyone, even you Caliban) gets up on their high-horse and starts matter-of-factly displaying opinions as hard-fast rules and dismissing everyone else's opinions as less that your own.

If this stuff is so concrete, why the debate? Why are there well versed pople here disagreeing with you?

I want to finish by saying that I am not hurt. I am not offended. I still value your input and enjoy reading your posts and debating you. I don't take stuff here personally (for the most part). I hope you aren't either. I do, however, notice when things are getting picky or heated and will respond in kind if I think it's worth my time.

BTW, Artoomis, I would like to see the list of points you have assembled with regards to shields not being armor. If you don't mind. You know, in case there is something you see that I haven't picked up on yet. Thanks.

 

[Artoomis]

Corwin - I'll post a list of reasons why shields both are and are not armor later - today, if I can get to it. It will be in new thread - perhaps titled "Why shields are not armor."

I'll have to paw through my PHB and organize my thoughts first to be able to provide the "definitive list."

 

[IceBear]

This is exactly like I was telling EOL in another thread - even when there is an "offical" ruling from the Sage or anyone else from WotC it doesn't matter. When someone has made up their minds, there isn't any changing it.

Yes, it can be murky whether or not shields are armor (but since they never really use the term shield bonus again I'm inclined to think it's a typo) but then the Sage makes a ruling that shields are armor. That's enough for me. Shields, in my opinion, were 90% armor, 10% something else, and then someone from WotC says that their armor, to me that should have been the nail in the coffin for this argument.

But, no, people don't like it so they continue to argue. My answer to someone who asks this question - offically shields are armor, but some people don't treat them as armor.

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Caliban

As I have stated previously, PHB, page 104. The exact section is "Armor Bonus: The protective value of the armor.

If it's on table 7-5, and it has an armor bonus, it's armor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If your logic holds, and shields are indeed "Armor", then arrows are "Weapons". There is a mirrored relation here based on your own criteria.
[/b]

You are applying criteria incorrectly.

The equivalent criteria for the weapons table would be "if it's ont table 7-4 and it has a damage rating, then it's a weapon".

Arrows, bolts, and bullets are on table 7-4, but they do not have a listed damage rating.

Therefore, they are not weapons, although arrows and bolts can be used as improvised weapons (as stated in the accompanying text).

My logic does indeed hold.

 

[Artoomis]

You are applying criteria incorrectly.

The equivalent criteria for the weapons table would be "if it's ont table 7-4 and it has a damage rating, then it's a weapon".

Arrows, bolts, and bullets are on table 7-4, but they do not have a listed damage rating.

Therefore, they are not weapons, although arrows and bolts can be used as improvised weapons (as stated in the accompanying text).

My logic does indeed hold.

Okay, I just couldn't resist.

Is it not the same logic to say armor has a max dex bonux, but shields do not, therefore shields are not armor? Or that armor affects speed but shields don't?

Answer: Yes, of course it's the same logic. The real answer lies in reading and evaluating ALL material on shields and armor in the PHB all at the same time. I'll try and present that later.

 

[Caliban]

Okay, I just couldn't resist.

Is it not the same logic to say armor has a max dex bonux, but shields do not, therefore shields are not armor? Or that armor affects speed but shields don't?

Answer: Yes, of course it's the same logic. The real answer lies in reading and evaluating ALL material on shields and armor in the PHB all at the same time. I'll try and present that later.

Wait, I can do this too:

"Answer: No, of course it's not the same logic, but I'm going to pretend it is so I can make the rules mean whatever I want them to."


Shields are armor, they just aren't the same type of armor as a suit of armor.

Just like a sword and a bow are both weapons, even though a bow has a range increment and a sword does not.

Unless you would like to argue that a sword is not a weapon because it doesn't have a range increment?

Everyone already "knows" how it's supposed to work at this point, this is just quibbling over semantics now. Crap like this is why I haven't been posting as much as I used to.

 

[Artoomis]

Wait, I can do this too:

"Answer: No, of course it's not the same logic, but I'm going to pretend it is so I can make the rules mean whatever I want them to."


Shields are armor, they just aren't the same type of armor as a suit of armor.

Just like a sword and a bow are both weapons, even though a bow has a range increment and a sword does not.

Unless you would like to argue that a sword is not a weapon because it doesn't have a range increment?

Everyone already "knows" how it's supposed to work at this point, this is just quibbling over semantics now. Crap like this is why I haven't been posting as much as I used to.

"Everyone knows how it is supposed to work?"

Then why is this thread here? No, not everyone knows, and not everyone agrees with you (and others) about this.

The trick to this discussion is to determine ALL places in the rules that mention shields and/or armor, lay them all out, then analyze. I don't think that's been done yet (even in the earlier discusssion), so I'll attempt it.

After doing that I'll make up my mind - I consider it an open issue right now with no offical clarification and no compelling argument. I'm going to try and state everything from both sides and see how it falls out.

I'm betting the answer will be pretty muddy and I'll end up with the unsatisfactory answer of the rules are not clear enough. (Unlike Haste and 5-foot steps, at least i was able to get a by-the rules answer that held up ).

Why do I do this? Because it's fun!

 

[IceBear]

But we got an offical answer from WotC - shields are armor.

Why not accept it and say that you are using a house rule that shield's aren't armor in your game and debate the merits on the house rule forum?

It's one thing to debate something to death, but when you call in judgement from the creators of the system and they rule in favor of one, I think that's about as far as you can go. To keep belabouring your point is poor sportsmanship in my opinion.

And even if you find enough evidence in your analysis to still come to the conclusion that shields aren't armor, think about it from a balance point of view - do you REALLY want monks running around using quivering palm and carrying +5 masterwork bucklers?

IceBear