Monks with shields??

[Artoomis]

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.

IceBear

That answer has not been published in the FAQ, and, besides, the Sage has been wrong before. Like I said, I'm going to really examine all the rule on this and lay them ALL out for everyone.

It certainly could be that when I do that it willl be clear that shields are armor for all purposes (I doubt that, but we'll see).

 

[Caliban]

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.

Why do you consider it an open issue with no official clarification?

As has been stated numerous times, this has been clarified by WOTC.

I've seen responses from all three of the head game designers (Skip Williams, Monte Cook, and Jonathan Tweet) as well as Sean K Reynolds, and they were all unanimous. That seemed pretty official to me.

 

[Corwin]

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

I'm sorry, but "official answer"? I have yet to see any errata on this matter.

Is there something you have seen that none of us have?

Let me go ahead and respond to what you are about to say, OK?

The Sage is not official. On the rare occasion that he is, it is clearly noted as such for that ruling. The Sage is simply gives his opinion on matters. Most of the time, it is simple enough and his answers are logical and consistant with the rules. But sometimes this opinion is contradictory to the rules. And sometimes it is even opposed to the opinions of the other designers. His word is not gospel anymore than yours, mine or Caliban's.

The only place "official answers" come from is WotC's R&D department. The Sage holds council on that committee, but is not free to rule on his own.

I wish more people understood that.

 

[IceBear]

And like I said in my edited post, even if you find enough evidence to support shields aren't armor, do you want monks running around with +5 masterwork bucklers?

Yes, the Sage has been wrong before, but this was asked to Sean, Monte and Skip and they all said the same thing. I'll take the opinion of three designers over anyone when it comes to the 3E rules.

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

I'm sorry, but "official answer"? I have yet to see any errata on this matter.

Is there something you have seen that none of us have?

Let me go ahead and respond to what you are about to say, OK?

The Sage is not official.

Yes, he is. He can give official clarifications. What he cannot do is give errata or change the rules.

In the case of the shields as armor, he gave a clarification. No errata was needed, as there is text in the PHB that supports his statement. It just doesn't state it as explicitly as some people would like.

The only place "official answers" come from is WotC's R&D department. The Sage holds council on that committee, but is not free to rule on his own.

That is the only place that official Errata comes from. It is not the only place that official clarifications come from.

 

[IceBear]

I'm sorry, but "official answer"? I have yet to see any errata on this matter.

Is there something you have seen that none of us have?

Let me go ahead and respond to what you are about to say, OK?

The Sage is not official. On the rare occasion that he is, it is clearly noted as such for that ruling. The Sage is simply gives his opinion on matters. Most of the time, it is simple enough and his answers are logical and consistant with the rules. But sometimes this opinion is contradictory to the rules. And sometimes it is even opposed to the opinions of the other designers. His word is not gospel anymore than yours, mine or Caliban's.

The only place "official answers" come from is WotC's R&D department. The Sage holds council on that committee, but is not free to rule on his own.

I wish more people understood that.

I *DO* understand that. But, until something OFFICAL comes down from on high, the word of three designers is more offical, in my opinion, than yours.

Maybe there isn't any need for errata because they feel that there isn't any need for it....that the PHB states shields are armor?

And again, think about it from a balance point of view. Monks already get enough special abilities and AC bonuses, let alone from using a +5 buckler.

IceBear

 

[Corwin]

And like I said in my edited post, even if you find enough evidence to support shields aren't armor, do you want monks running around with +5 masterwork bucklers?

Yes, the Sage has been wrong before, but this was asked to Sean, Monte and Skip and they all said the same thing. I'll take the opinion of three designers over anyone when it comes to the 3E rules.

IceBear

Personally, I am debating a different, and possibly more essotaric, point.

I have already stated that I don't agree monks should be allowed to use shields. Been paying attention much?

My argument is more about a general attitude that sometimes occurs regarding certain individuals' opinions (and I really am not singling out Caliban when I say this, he is just one of many) and those of the Sage. Reading it in a magazine does not make it official, no matter how many times people cry out that it is so. Even WotC will tell you this is the case. That is what the R&D department was designed to do. Filter out opinions (no matter how revered) from game balance and playability on a global rules scale (something not often considered by certain "powers that be").

The other half of my argument is indeed that shields may or may not necessarily be "Armor". But this does not change the fact that monk's should be allowed to use them. Those are, IMO, two seperate issues. I made all of this very clear in my first post.

 

[IceBear]

Fine...I understand your point about things being (holy music) OFFICAL, but any ruling from a source at WotC is MORE offical, in my opinion than someone who had no part in the creation of the rules.

When you see the length of some of this debates, and how stalemated they've become with their arguments and counter arguments, taking the more offical one is, in my mind, the best step to take. This has been argued for so long, so many times and it never, EVER reaches a conclusion where someone can say "Yes" or "No". I KNOW it won't happen this time either. Thus, taking the more OFFICAL answer is a quick solution for me.

If they had just caught the "shield bonus" reference in the glossary most of this argument would go away. They didn't. And they haven't removed it yet. It's a large company with lots of red tape. It might not be that easy for them to do and they probably have a lot bigger fish to fry first. I quickly inferred a typo when I first saw it, and nothing I've seen leads me to believe it was anything else.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

Personally, I am debating a different, and possibly more essotaric, point.

I have already stated that I don't agree monks should be allowed to use shields. Been paying attention much?

My argument is more about a general attitude that sometimes occurs regarding certain individuals' opinions (and I really am not singling out Caliban when I say this, he is just one of many) and those of the Sage. Reading it in a magazine does not make it official, no matter how many times people cry out that it is so. Even WotC will tell you this is the case. That is what the R&D department was designed to do. Filter out opinions (no matter how revered) from game balance and playability on a global rules scale (something not often considered by certain "powers that be").

The other half of my argument is indeed that shields may or may not necessarily be "Armor". But this does not change the fact that monk's should be allowed to use them. Those are, IMO, two seperate issues. I made all of this very clear in my first post.

Yes you did, but your attitude has kind of driven that out of my head.

What do you want, for us to accept your opinions as offical? I respect Caliban's opinions, but I don't take them as gospel. However, his track record is better than mosts on this message board for being right.

Basically, when it comes to making a decision on how a rule works in my game it goes: me, my players, a designer from WotC (or Monte), Caliban, and certain others from this website.

And BTW, what rationale would you give a player in your game if his monk character wanted to use a shield and you said no? It's clearly written in the PHB that monks lose their special powers if they use armor, but if you tell your player that a shield isn't armor then he would naturally assume that he could use a shield. So, you would then have the change the monk's description so that he would lose his special powers wearing armor or a shield, which is then becomes yet another similarity between shields and armor.

IceBear

 

[Corwin]

Basically, when it comes to making a decision on how a rule works in my game it goes: me, my players, a designer from WotC (or Monte), Caliban, and certain others from this website.

Shouldn't decision making stop after the first ("me"). The only other people on that list should be sitting around the table with you. You are the DM, you make the decisions. Your players help. It shouldn't matter where you get the input; if it's fair, it works, and you like it, that is all that should matter.

Listing certain special individuals as your "Rules Gods" just puts them in too much power over your game. Maybe that's what I try to rally against when I go on one of these crusades? Perhaps I'm trying to get people like you to quit licking the hands of a select few self-appointed gurus, and think for yourself. If someone makes a point that shields aren't "Armor", show you a few places where this may be the case, and seem to have a reason, then it is up to you to decide if you like it or not. It is also then up to you if the monk is able to use them. This being a seperate sub-section of the broader debate. But hearing someone out, seeing their argument, and then dismissing it as weak, inferior and a waste of time is just plain rude and disingenuous. Not to mention haughty. Especially when what they have to say has valid points.