Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 64687" data-attributes="member: 284">I'm aware of what I wrote, but thanks for reposting it again.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; Then you decided to get involved. For what it's worth, I'm sorry I got involved.&nbsp;&nbsp; While I derived some petty amusement out of it, it wasn't worth the strife it's caused. Like it or not, shields are a type armor.&nbsp; &nbsp; It gives an armor bonus, it's on the armor table,&nbsp; it's a piece of metal or wood that is strapped to your body and makes you harder to hit.&nbsp; &nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I quoted the text of the PHB that directly supports this. You may disagree with this viewpoint, and that's fine.&nbsp; But I believe it would be a house rule.&nbsp;&nbsp; The thing is, it's not the Sages ruling, it states in the PHB, in black and white.&nbsp; Shields and worn armor give an armor bonus, and they won't stack with the armor bonus of mage armor or bracers of armor.&nbsp; Check the PHB, page 104, where it explains what each column on the armor table is for.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not just an arbitrary ruling by the Sage.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; &nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 64687, member: 284"] 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. 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. [b][/b] 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 [i]mage armor[/i] or [i]bracers of armor[/i]. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification