On Armor and Shields (aka what the heck are Shields, exactly?)

[Mark]

It really seems that this is boiling down to how the 3E rules should be interpreted as designed by Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet and Skip Williams. I can't imagine that anyone would say, without considering it a house rule, that their intentions should be ignored in this regard. Since the rules were developed with their intentions in mind, is there anyone who would dispute a consensus of those three? What are the clarifications we have from those three people?

 

[Corwin]

Examples? What else gives an armor bonus and isn't armor?

IceBear

Mage Armor.
Bracers of Armor (though they are technically a subset or Mage Armor).

 

[Mark]

I think the simplest answer is that Shields are a type of armor because they show up in the Armor table in the PHB and SRD.

4 subtypes of armor there: light, medium, heavy, shields.

Then, there are specific kinds of each type listed in each subsection.


I really do not think you have to look further. Nowhere does it state that shields are NOT armor (to my knowledge) and since they are in the armor table and section of the PHB, they must be.

For the record, I agree with this.

I've got to ask - what's the point? This argument is VERY old. No one ever resolved it before and it wasn't until we got the designers' intents was there somewhat (I'd almost say none now ) of a resolution on this. I want to use the rules as they were intended, not necessarily as they were written. If the designers state it was intended that shields are armor, who cares what you can infer from the black and white text - it's obviously so up in the air that it's useless.

In my opinion, the English language is so vague. I often say wearing or using armor when I refer to a strapped on shield, so I don't take those phrases as being conclusive at all.

IceBear

It appears that we have posted at roughly the same time. I'm thinking that we can get Monte Cook and Jonathan Tweet to post here. We already know what Skip Williams view is on this.

 

[IceBear]

Mage Armor.
Bracers of Armor (though they are technically a subset or Mage Armor).

But I understand them to be armor.

Ah...I understand, you meant a SUIT of armor. Sorry.

I still see mage armor as providing you with a magical suit of armor.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

It appears that we have posted at roughly the same time. I'm thinking that we can get Monte Cook and Jonathan Tweet to post here. We already know what Skip Williams view is on this.

The thing is, I think they have posted their thoughts on this in the past, I just don't have the links anymore. I remember seeing something on Eric's page (waaaaay back when) from Sean Reynolds (and maybe Johnathon) stating that shields were to be treated as armor when it comes to monks. I don't know if those pages still exist to be searched though.

IceBear

 

[Corwin]

But I understand them to be armor.

Ah...I understand, you meant a SUIT of armor. Sorry.

I still see mage armor as providing you with a magical suit of armor.

Then why would it not stack with a shield then? What is the point of restricting the shield to stacking with mundane suits of armor if anything with an armor bonus is armor?

Now I am really confused.

 

[IceBear]

heheheh - exactly why I *used* to allow it.

I couldn't see the difference and when it was asked of the designers they basically said - no reason other than historical ones and balance.

I scoffed and said, I'll allow it in my game.

Well, a sorcerer with mage armor, shield, and a +5 buckler can give said sorcerer a REALLY nice AC. After listening to the fighter PCs complain about how he was hogging the glory, I decided the designers were right.

IceBear

 

[Pielorinho]

Hmm...here's my thinking about it.

First, this isn't something where all the arguments are on one side. There's no explicit statement anywhere that I've seen that says, "for all intents and purposes, shields are a type of armor." There are only places that refer to lists including shields as lists of armor, and other places that refer to armor and shields, as if they're two separate things.

So we have two recourses:
1) The intent of the game designers, figuring that they spent years balancing this game, and that if we follow their intent, our own games will be similarly balanced; and
2) Logic.

Logically, a monk gets cool wisdom bonuses to armor because she's dodging blows. At least, that's how I see it. Armor and shield relies on a different tactic for avoiding damage: you interpose a solid object between yourself and your enemy, and let the enemy hit that object.

I can easily see ruling that monks who make use of a shield's armor bonus cannot simultaneously make use of their Wisdom dodge bonus, in the same way that a barbarian can't rage and fight with expertise simultaneously.

As for a monk's other abilities, I'm not sure. In my own game, I'll go with the designer's intentions, though: unless I have a good reason to do otherwise, I stay with their interpretations of the rules. And I have no good reason to do otherwise in this case.

Daniel

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

Well the DMG (at least in SRD form) certainly seems to think shields are separate from armor. Some quotes:

- All magic armor is masterwork armor
- All magic shields are masterwork shields

- As with armor, special abilities built into the shield add to the market value
- Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.
-If armor or a shield has a special ability...
-Armor and shields can't actually have bonuses this high.
-This armor or shield seems almost translucent.

There are also these tables:

- Table: Armor and Shields
- Table: Armor Special Abilities
- Table: Shield Special Abilities

Anyway, I am convinced that the guy who wrote all this was thinking "Armor and shields" as two separate, but related, things. I think that it is far more likely that the designers meant to say that Monks cannot use shields, rather than shields are actually armor.

One last thing, it is clear that magic armor resizes to fit the wearer. So a magic shield (if it is armor) must as well eh?

 

[Artoomis]

Oh, damn!

I KNEW I should have looked through the DMG as well. Well, I add these to the list anyway and if anyone points out anything else from the DMG I'll add those, too.