Monks with shields??

[Corwin]

Oops. Forgot the final line of your post...

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

It must be difficult to have one leg soooo much longer than the other. But at least it does make it easier to take both the high road and the low road at the same time, huh?

OK, now I'm done.

 

[Mark]

If I post my viewpoint on a ruling...

Then, chances are, a lot of folks are reading it and knowing it is being given as a well respected view from someone with an excellent track record for fairness, balance and consistency.

I've been gaming since '75 and sure do wish the Internet was around back then. I doubt if I would have anywhere near the understanding of 3E rules I currently have without having spent the last couple of years reading EN boards (in their many incarnations) and, most prominently, Caliban's insights.

I, for one, Caliban, thank you for going out on a limb and doing so with the humility you always express.

My two cents.

 

[Corwin]

Then, chances are, a lot of folks are reading it and knowing it is being given as a well respected view from someone with an excellent track record for fairness, balance and consistency.

I've been gaming since '75 and sure do wish the Internet was around back then. I doubt if I would have anywhere near the understanding of 3E rules I currently have without having spent the last couple of years reading EN boards (in their many incarnations) and, most prominently, Caliban's insights.

The oddest thing about all this is that I agree with you, Mark. At least for the most part, Caliban is fair, balanced and consistant. Most would agree that he is a rules guru. I don't get why he tries to deny it, though.

But, he does sometimes get a little too zealous about his opinion. But I like that about him too, strangely enough. It means he is passionate about the game and its rules. That is a good thing, IMO. I am too. Maybe, the worst thing I can say about Caliban is that he tends to tow the WotC line, so to speak, a bit too much. The Sage is cool, fun to read, and all that, but that doesn't mean he is always right or knows everything about the rules and how the affect each other.

Look, I've butted heads with Caliban before and I'm sure I will again. I don't hold grudges with people I respect. I know he doesn't either. (Though I can't say whether he respects me or not in return ). Now if he were just some troll who repeatedly made innane remarks and did nothing for the discussion but bait me, I'd put him in the ol' Book o' Grudges. But he ain't.

About the other comment you made, I can't say the internet would have helped with 1e or 2e though. I too have been gaming for the long years and I can't imagine anything would have helped. The rules then were just too darn mish-mashed and arbitrary. You think these rules debates are bad now, I don't want to even try and imagine what they would be like back then. But hey, it was all we had and we were thankful for it.

 

[Caliban]

Comparing our posts are we? OK. You begin by dismissing my points and instructing me to try reading ther PHB.

I didn't dismiss your points. I addressed each in turn, explaining why I disagreed.

You then said I was "presuming" something that I had never stated, so I matched your level of snippiness by stating that you should read the PHB, where the text I was referring to resides.

Then, upon request I listed the exact section I was referring to.

You "explain" to all of us that there is no debate because the Sage has ruled and so we are all wrong.

Not quite. I gave my viewpoint and my reasons, and then pointed out that the Sage and the other game designers had confirmed the interpretation I gave.

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, from me, that has nothing relative to add or comment on.

Sure thing, here's your little "The Sage sucks and anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand how things work" diatribe:

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.

You know, like the worthless slam posts you have tossed in.

Actually, I found them quite amusing so I wouldn't rate them as worthless. But I have an odd and anti-social sense of humor sometimes. It's a personality flaw, but I've come to accept it. I usually don't inflict it on other people, unless I feel provoked.

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.

Ask all you want, but I don't post to meet your expectations, or anyone elses. I post because it amuses me, because I think I can help someone understand something, because I want to participate in the debate, or because someone asks my opinion about something.

*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.

You mean the post where you made a rude characterization about someone I respect. I found it so insulting and so amusing at the same time, that I had to comment. The hypocrisy was just to funny to let it pass.

But then, I never claimed to have a nice sense of humor. I usually avoid flaming people because I like the community here, and I prefer real discussions. Notice I've never actually called you any names, I've just pointed out where you have insulted myself or other people, and where you contradicted yourself.

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.

Ah, more hyperbole that doesn't actually mean anything. I did debate the actual points you brought up. Then you stopped bringing up actual points, and started making comments about my character, the Sage's character, and Icebears character, while fawning over the people who agreed with you.

BTW, your attempts to downplay your opinion of yourself as guru is lost on me. You have long considered yourself "in th know".

I have? You seem to have a remarkable insight into my private thoughts. You stated that I was one of those "self appointed rules gurus", and that is blatantly false. If I am known as a rules guru, it is only because other people have seen fit to bestow that title upon me, I have never sought it out.

I have never claimed to be infallible, and I have never claimed to be the ultimate authority on the rules. I'm pretty good at understanding the rules, and I can be pretty stubborn when I believe I'm right. I have no problem with strongly defending my position.

However, I have also been proven wrong on more than one occasion, and I will admit it when I realize I am wrong.

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?

Yes, Morrus asked me to do an "Ask the Oracle" column in some of the early issues of Asgard. Due to the lack of questions, and my feeling that I wasn't up to the task of being the rules authority in a monthly column, it was discontinued.

Trying to turn that into an act of self-aggrandizement is grasping at straws.

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.

Hmm... So you did. My mistake. Oh wait, I can't make mistakes, I "twist things around in my head".

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?

No, I'm actually capable of that much. Why are you curious as to what he had on it though? As you said:

Shouldn't decision making stop after the first ("me"). The only other people on that list should be sitting around the table with you.

This seems to be at odds with your request.

Actually, I readily classify Artoomis as a rules guru as well. Anyone who knows the rules extremely qualifies for that title.

Ah, but my point was that you stated that people like Icebear shouldn't "lick the hands of the self-appointed rules gurus", when you were doing the exactly the same thing with Artoomis. What makes it OK for you to consult with Artoomis, but not OK for Icebear to consult with people from WOTC or this board? What is the purpose of this board, if not to consult with other people about the rules?

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...

Now who's twisting things around?

I will definitely stop responding now (at least to you) as it seems you have become enraged.

Naw, if I was enraged I wouldn't be posting. I've just been alternately amused and annoyed.

If that silly little comment wasn't clearly supposed to be taken lightly, I don't know what to tell you.

Since you have taken just about every comment I've made as either an insult or condescending, I'm not sure how I was supposed to realize you had suddenly decided to play nice.

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.

I'm sensitive to a lack of respect, especially to people whom I respect. If you snipe at me or them, I will make my own witty little comments in return. If you can't handle that without letting it escalate into a flame war, don't snipe.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how you can think that a monk will lose their abilities for using a shield, but the shield still isn't armor. Exactly why does the monk lose their abilities if the shield isn't armor?

Inconsistencies like that give me the impression that you are disagreeing merely to disagree.

 

[IceBear]

BTW, Caliban (in case you feel like I've left you twisting in the wind on this thread), I've been wanting to add a post like Mark's but I figured that it would make me seem like even more of a toadie licking your hand

I wish that when I make a post on here I had the time to COMPLETELY explain myself instead of having someone infer that I'm mindless and can't make my own judgements.

So, I want to just fill in the backstory for Corwin. When my group and I first started playing 3E in August (2000?) one of the players was a Monk. He asked me if he could use a shield and still keep his monk abilities. I said, No, shields are armor. He kept arguing. So, I read the books, and still said that shields are armor.

Then this thread cropped up on Eric's old boards. I read some of the debate, and quickly came the conclusion that "Shields are still armor". Then it came up again, and again, and again.... I've glanced at them each time and have never seen a compelling reason to treat shields as anything but armor.

Yes, some of the "shields aren't armor" camp made some good arguments. But then it boiled down to, in my opinion, they were arguing semantics. What's the big picture? What impact would declaring shields aren't armor have in my campaign? The main one, allowing monks to have an even higher AC, was unacceptable to me in my campaign.

The fact that the Sage, and other people (who's opinion I respect) ruled the same way just validated my ruling to my players. If they had ruled differently I may not have changed my mind. I would have taken a closer look at things to see if there was some hidden impact that I missed, but I wouldn't have been so mindless as to just switch rulings.

And again, I ask, what's the point of someone going to The Sage (or another source at WotC) after a long debate on these boards; a pretty common occurance. If their opinions don't matter any more than anyone else's because its not in the OFFICAL errata, then it's pointless. I'm pretty sure that if the Sage is a little unclear he can run it by some other people who maybe on the rules council. I don't think he does that all the time, but you never know whether or not the Sage's reply is just his own opinion or the opinion of several others as well. I just see a lot of arguing amongst ourselves until we turn blue in the face and the arguments never resolve.

Anyway, this thread has gone way past pointless and silly in my opinion.

IceBear

PS The other ramification of shields not being armor is that you could then argue that you could use one while protected by mage armor. Now, I *used* to be of the opinion that I would allow a wizard to use a shield with mage armor, but as I look at some posts on here, I can see that wizards can get enough protections and AC bonuses that allowing them to carry a +5 buckler at the same time is just pushing it.

 

[Corwin]

Appearantly not...

Caliban, I'd like to just bring up your first post on this thread to remind you (and me and everyone) where this started.

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.

I'm sorry, but there is presumption there, whether you like it or not: "By the core rules, a shield is armor." This and the related info were what I responded to originally. I, and several others, feel this is not necessarily the case. Here was my first post in response to the above statements by you:

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.

Was there anything there to cause you to react with a condescending attitude? You say yes. I just don't see it. I even felt I was being nice about the whole thing (at first of course). Others can make up their own opinions. But you came back with stuff like:

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

and

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

Dismissive, IMO. There is obviously an argument to be made that contradicts your view.

From there, things fell apart, side-tracked and ran off into OT BS. Whatever. It happens all the time here and on other boards. I don't even know how, really.

Having had a night to think about things, I guess I need to say a few things.

First, I apologize for having offended you or anyone else. For ex, my comment to Icebear about "licking hands" was mostly an alagory because I think of him as a bear and it seemed like a bear thing to do. I don't know. Was it something that needed to be harped on? Who knows. Anyway,

Second, my opinion of the Sage is indeed mixed. Unlike some here, I do not think he is the end-all of 3e rules. He has made many mistakes. Some worse than others. I take his opinion with the same salt-lick that I use on anyone else's. I never said "The Sage sucks and anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand how things work" like Caliban would like to have people think. I've said it before, he has made many correct calls. But he is just a guy. Just because I don't put him on a pedestal does not mean I think he "sucks".

Third, that leads me to one of Icebear's last points. A rules call from the Sage I don't agree with is involved as well. Icebear asked:

PS The other ramification of shields not being armor is that you could then argue that you could use one while protected by mage armor. Now, I *used* to be of the opinion that I would allow a wizard to use a shield with mage armor, but as I look at some posts on here, I can see that wizards can get enough protections and AC bonuses that allowing them to carry a +5 buckler at the same time is just pushing it.

I don't agree with this. The arbitrary decision to disallow shields with non-armor armor bonuses does not make sense to me. I disagree with the Sage's ruling on the matter. This perhaps, lends to my opinion that shields are not "Armor". Perhaps I look forward to the day (which will never come) when WotC R&D issues errata changing shields to a shield bonus (like the glossary suggests). That would clean all this up neatly, IMO. But, oh well, I can dream can't I?

C-ya 'round, perhaps.

 

[IceBear]

But, it isn't The Sage making a ruling that shields don't stack with mage armor. It's right in the PHB on page 104 in the paragraph ARMOR BONUS. It specifically states that the armor bonuses provided by amor and shields stack but they wouldn't stack with mage armor or bracers of armor.

I know the Sage is not infalliable. No one is. All I'm saying is that unless he makes an obvious rule error (which he has), WotC has set him up to be the person to make rule clarifications and thus if no answer can be found here I will take his opinion under consideration.

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

Apparantly not...

Caliban, I'd like to just bring up your first post on this thread to remind you (and me and everyone) where this started.

I'm aware of what I wrote, but thanks for reposting it again. Hong made a rude statement, and I responded to it in a like fashion, and explained why it didn't help answer the original poster's question. Then you decided to get involved.

For what it's worth, I'm sorry I got involved. While I derived some petty amusement out of it, it wasn't worth the strife it's caused.

I'm sorry, but there is presumption there, whether you like it or not: "By the core rules, a shield is armor." This and the related info were what I responded to originally. I, and several others, feel this is not necessarily the case.

Like it or not, shields are a type armor. It gives an armor bonus, it's on the armor table, it's a piece of metal or wood that is strapped to your body and makes you harder to hit. I'm failing to see how it could be classified as anything other than a type of armor.

That is not presumption on my part, it's in the PHB. I quoted the text of the PHB that directly supports this.

You may disagree with this viewpoint, and that's fine. But I believe it would be a house rule.

I don't agree with this. The arbitrary decision to disallow shields with non-armor armor bonuses does not make sense to me.
I disagree with the Sage's ruling on the matter.

The thing is, it's not the Sages ruling, it states in the PHB, in black and white. Shields and worn armor give an armor bonus, and they won't stack with the armor bonus of mage armor or bracers of armor. Check the PHB, page 104, where it explains what each column on the armor table is for.

It's not just an arbitrary ruling by the Sage. If you choose to rule differently, that is your prerogative in your campaign, but don't claim it was Skip Williams trying to change the way the rules work.

Also, you still haven't explained how you can rule that shields prevent a monk from using their monk abilities, and yet not be armor.

 

[Corwin]

The thing is, it's not the Sages ruling, it states in the PHB, in black and white. Shields and worn armor give an armor bonus, and they won't stack with the armor bonus of mage armor or bracers of armor. Check the PHB, page 104, where it explains what each column on the armor table is for.

It's not just an arbitrary ruling by the Sage. If you choose to rule differently, that is your prerogative in your campaign, but don't claim it was Skip Williams trying to change the way the rules work.

Here we go again. If you go to Artoomis' new thread, Icebear gets into this as well. I will probably post something there in a bit, once I decide what I want to say.

Anyway, it is never explicit that shields don't stack with mage armor. Like I said, read the other thread, I don't need to parrot everything over there.

[mini rant on]
Sheesh, you try reading the PHB. If it is so darn clear cut, why must it be clarified in the FAQ? Everyone must be so much more dense than you since none of these types of issues ever bollix you in the least. It must be nice to see everything so clearly.
[mini rant off] - OK, sorry about that, I just needed a tiny vent.

In some ways, I think many clarifications are more a matter of game balance and not the wording of the books. Something comes up that may make things difficult, and so an "interpretation" is given that corrects the problem. This has happened in the past (shield spell anyone?). It will surely happen again. I'm not even saying it is a bad thing to do. I'm just saying that just because it's an Official Clarification (tm) doesn't mean it is verbatim facts from the book. Sometimes things have to be nipped in the bud to prevent abuse.

Also, you still haven't explained how you can rule that shields prevent a monk from using their monk abilities, and yet not be armor.

For the same reason Icebear gives in the other thread. A matter of power balance. That is a separate issue from what the rules in the book say.

I'm out.

 

[Pielorinho]

Y'know, if I hadn't gotten in petty little snipefests myself, I'd feel a lot more comfortable smacking both of you on the hands and telling you to behave. Alas, let him who has not sinned and all...

At any rate, may I suggest that this fairly interesting quesiton would be better served by ignoring insults that someone flings at you? I know I respect Caliban's rules arguments a lot; part of what I've respected about his arguments is his unflappability. It's much more interesting and enlightening to read a rules-argument when it doesn't deveolve into flames, even when other people goad the arguer.

Daniel
who knows a saying about lying down with dogs