Monks with shields??

[IceBear]

Yes, if WotC set up Skip as "The Sage" for rule clarifications, what's the point of even asking him for his opinion if we just discard it as "not being offical". Sure, I don't advocate blindly accepting everything he says, but I do consider it.

Anyway, a DM can always use whatever house rules he wants - I do - and if a rule helps your campaign more than an offical one, use it. But this is the RULES forum, so we should stick to the offical rules.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

That is what I like to hear. Much better point of view, IMO. I have no qualms with people taking in all the info and ruling one way or the other. I have a problem with puting people on pedestals or taking their opinions without the recommended dosage of salt.

I can't believe you would think that ANY veteran DM would let his judgements and rulings be decided for him by others. Of course a DM is going to choose the best ruling for his campaign based on his knowledge of that campaign - no one else knows that campaign like him.

I do like knowing what the most offical rules are though, just so I can take part in these debates on here

IceBear

 

[Corwin]

This will most likely be my last post on the matter before I see Artoomis' list.

Why is it that the last ditch argument on these types of debates end up being "This is a Rules Forum, not House Rules Forum"?

Should we split up every post to make sure there is no crossover whatsoever? Silly. For the most part, this is still a debate on whether shields are indeed officially "Armor". Some have expressed their house rules. Some even insist that their house rules are official WotC clarifications.

Many have yet to see this topic as case closed. The jury is still out for many of us regarding shields being officially "Armor". So, continuing to insist that it is gets us nowhere. Many points and comments are compelling on both sides. At least I think so. SOme of you are obviously sure of it.

I hope Artoomis gets to his list so I can peruse it. I may have to wait until tomorrow to reply if it doesn't show up until much later. Either way, I'm sure I'll see you all there.

Ciao.

 

[IceBear]

In my view, these debates always comes down to - It's not offical because it's not in the errata, and thus I won't accept it even if all of the WotC staff say it is so. To me, that's as offical as you can get without it being in the errata.

I just don't see why it's important to determine whether or not shields are armor and not something else, IF you believe that monks shouldn't be allowed to use them. Basically, you'll have the same result regardless.

Now if you feel that monks should be allowed to use them, then, yes, I can see why you want to prove that shields aren't armor.

And, yes, I'm sure that shields are armor, because I'm the DM in my game and I'm using MY judgement to reach that conclusion. Is that wrong?

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

I just don't see why it's important to determine whether or not shields are armor and not something else, IF you believe that monks shouldn't be allowed to use them. Basically, you'll have the same result regardless.

Now if you feel that monks should be allowed to use them, then, yes, I can see why you want to prove that shields aren't armor.

And, yes, I'm sure that shields are armor, because I'm the DM in my game and I'm using MY judgement to reach that conclusion. Is that wrong?

IceBear

Only if you consulted with anyone else before reaching that decision. If you do that, you are licking the hand of the rules guru's.

... Hey, isn't Corwin consulting with Artoomis before making his final decision?....

 

[hong]

I just don't see why it's important to determine whether or not shields are armor and not something else, IF you believe that monks shouldn't be allowed to use them. Basically, you'll have the same result regardless.

Now if you feel that monks should be allowed to use them, then, yes, I can see why you want to prove that shields aren't armor.

Slight semantic confusion here. AFAIK, no-one's suggested that monks _can't_ use shields. This isn't 2E where you flat-out weren't allowed to pick up and use certain items if they weren't part of your class. A monk can always use a shield if they really want to (and even take Shield Proficiency so they can be good at using it). The question is really whether the monk should still gain the benefits of their Wis and class bonus to AC while using that shield, from whence springs confusion.

And, yes, I'm sure that shields are armor, because I'm the DM in my game and I'm using MY judgement to reach that conclusion. Is that wrong?

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[IceBear]

Heheheh - sorry for not being more clear Hong. Yes, I know that a monk can USE a shield, but I wouldn't allow him to use one and keep all his monk-y abilities

IceBear

 

[Corwin]

Yep, sorry about the confusion hong. We were aware of that distinction, just not expressing it clearly enough. Luckily, we all knew what we meant at the time.

[puts hand to side of mouth and whispers] And, is it just me, or is Cali just losing it or what? Man, sometimes I feel bad for the poor chap. I think his "guru" status has gone to his head. Shame, really... nice guy once upon a time.

Seriously though, Caliban, have you anything to add or are you just going to fling pointless insults for a while?

Sorry I stepped on your toes back there if that helps alleviate some of your angst.

 

[Caliban]

Seriously though, Caliban, have you anything to add or are you just going to fling pointless insults for a while?

You think that was a pointless insult? You seemed to find it acceptable when you were doing it.

So (just to make sure I have this straight), If I post my viewpoint on a ruling, I'm apparently a rules guru (a title I've never claimed or asked for) and anyone who agrees with me is "licking my hand". Yet it's OK for you to withhold making your decision about this while you eagerly await to see Artoomis's "list".

Hmm... Is it that Artoomis is not a rules guru, so it's OK to listen to his opinion?

And it's a "pointless insult" when I point out this amusing little hypocrisy, but it's quite all right for you to make snide little side "whispered" remarks.

Ah, the double standard continues.

(My apologies for connecting your name to this Artoomis.)

 

[Corwin]

You think that was a pointless insult? You seemed to find it acceptable when you were doing it.

Comparing our posts are we? OK. You begin by dismissing my points and instructing me to try reading ther PHB. You "explain" to all of us that there is no bedate because the Sage has ruled and so we are all wrong. You then run out of anything constructive and start taking things out of context in order to sling insults*. Just as a comparison, please show me a single post here on this thread, form me, that has nothing relative to add or comment on. You know, like the worthless slam posts you have tossed in. Just one (other than this one of course), all I ask. If you are going to exchange banter with me, at least have something to add to the discussion. That was all I asked. You failed to do that. That was the reason for my comment.

*such as the Icebear Incident: wherein I comment specifically on his post about listing the individuals with which he abides by their decisions. You then went off on tangent after tangent.

So (just to make sure I have this straight), If I post my viewpoint on a ruling, I'm apparently a rules guru (a title I've never claimed or asked for) and anyone who agrees with me is "licking my hand". Yet it's OK for you to withhold making your decision about this while you eagerly await to see Artoomis's "list".

It was never your "viewpoint". It was more like your distribution of your enlightenment. You got on here and informed all of us how it was. If we didn't like it, we must relegate our opinion to "house rule". After all, there is nothing to debate, you are correct and we are all guessing.

BTW, your attempts to downplay your opinion of yourself as guru is lost on me. You have long considered yourself "in th know". Perhaps I should jump in the Wayback Machine (tm) and look into some of the older threads from the old board. Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't you have a Q&A column on a D&D web'zine for awhile?

Artoomis' list? Am I waiting to make my decision now? Is that how you have twisted things in your head? Odd. I specifically said that I had made my decision already actually. I told him I wouldn't mind seeing his list. I was curious what he had on it. Should I go back and pull quotes? Or can you hit the back button?

Hmm... Is it that Artoomis is not a rules guru, so it's OK to listen to his opinion?

Actually, I readily classify Artoomis as a rules guru as well. Anyone who knows the rules extremely qualifies for that title. Heck, even I am one I guess. I am very well versed in the rules. Are you maybe under the impression that there is only supposed to be one? Maybe there should only be you and no one else? Interesting...

And it's a "pointless insult" when I point out this amusing little hypocrisy, but it's quite all right for you to make snide little side "whispered" remarks.

I will definitely stop responding now (at least to you) as it seems you have become enraged. If that silly little comment wasn't clearly supposed to be taken lightly, I don't know what to tell you. I (like Artoomis) made it clear this was all in fun. I apologize and will refrain from snipping at you in the future since it seems you are sensitive to that sort of thing.

Ah, the double standard continues.

Indeed.