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

[SpikeyFreak]

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?

That's because they use the term armor instead of suit of armor.

Sometimes armor means a suit of armor such as leather armor or full plate.

Sometimes armor means all armor, such as light armor, medium armor, heavy armor and shields.

Like I said, they have an armor bonus, an armor check penalty which is enough for me. In addition, they are described in the armor section, and shield qualities are described under armor qualities.

There is precedent for them being armor, and we know the intent of the designers. What's the point of arguing about whether the rules that imply they are the same or the rules that imply they are different are more important?

--Pointless Spikey

 

[IceBear]

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

Besides Spikey's arguments, above, what does it matter if shields are or aren't armor if you don't like them stack with mage armor or let monks use them? That's what I can't fanthom. It becomes a semantics argument.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Besides Spikey's arguments, above, what does it matter if shields are or aren't armor if you don't like them stack with mage armor or let monks use them? That's what I can't fanthom. It becomes a semantics argument.

IceBear

What does it matter? Well, Mage Armor aside (since the rules are crystal clear there) the difference moslty comes down to whether you are following the rules or making your own.

I think the rules, as written, allow monks to use shields and NOT allowing that is a house rule (however much it might be the intention of the designers to not allow shields).

I might be willing to go so far as to you could rule either way and be correct and within the rules. The point, my friend, is to try and figure out what is a house rule and what is not.

Pointless? I think not. It provides the basis for DMs to make their decisions and for players to attempt to state their cases.

Besides, it's fun. (I presume others who debate me think its fun, too, or why would they bother?)

 

[SpikeyFreak]

The point, my friend, is to try and figure out what is a house rule and what is not.

That is not our prerogative. Unfortunatly, it is the prerogative of one person (Skip Williams) who likey has to answer too many emails to research each answer he provides, so there is a decent chance of getting a bad ruling from the only source we have for official rules.

No matter what may be said here, until there is a ruling from Skip sayong otherwise, allowing monks to use their monk abilities wihle using a shield is a house rule.

--Regretful Spikey

 

[Pielorinho]

As an additional question: is there anything besides a shield and a suit of armor that inflicts an armor check penalty?

Daniel

 

[IceBear]

I think the rules, as written, allow monks to use shields and NOT allowing that is a house rule (however much it might be the intention of the designers to not allow shields).

You can't interpret the rules in a vaccuum. You need some context to base them on. The designers intentions are a critical piece of context for rule discussions. If you believe that using the rules as the designers intended them is a houserule, well, I'm out

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

You can't interpret the rules in a vaccuum. You need some context to base them on. The designers intentions are a critical piece of context for rule discussions. If you believe that using the rules as the designers intended them is a houserule, well, I'm out

IceBear

Ah, but you are only partly right.

If the rule is clearly stated (as I think the rule about wearing armor vs. using shields is very clear), then intent matters not, for it is overuled by what was actually published.

Why?

Because we cannot know now what the intent was then, nor can we know exactly what was going with feedback from playtesters, etc.

We CAN know:

1. What was published.
2. What the designers NOW say their intentions were.

I submit that #1 is more important than #2, which is only important if you think #1 is unclear. I think #1 is clear in this case - the mere fact that many of you disagree with me does not sway me - good arguments sway me. I haven't yet seen one (though the one about "wearing" a buckler was close, and if a buckler was the only type of shield I might be convinced).

I should state that I've been swayed before, but not lately. This issue and the other recent big one (5' steps and Haste) are two where I feel that the rules absolutely support my position, but only if you read them ALL for they are not as clear as they should be.

I still find it impossible to accept the notion that

"...wearing armor..."

is the same as

"...wearing armor or using a shield..."

It's counter-intuitive and doesn't jive with the rest of the PHB.

 

[IceBear]

Ah, but you are only partly right.

If the rule is clearly stated (as I think the rule about wearing armor vs. using shields is very clear), then intent matters not, for it is overuled by what was actually published.

Why?

Because we cannot know now what the intent was then, nor can we know exactly what was going with feedback from playtesters, etc.

We CAN know:

1. What was published.
2. What the designers NOW say their intentions were.

I submit that #1 is more important than #2, which is only important if you think #1 is unclear. I think #1 is clear in this case - the mere fact that many of you disagree with me does not sway me - good arguments sway me. I haven't yet seen one (though the one about "wearing" a buckler was close, and if a buckler was the only type of shield I might be convinced).

I should state that I've been swayed before, but not lately. This issue and the other recent big one (5' steps and Haste) are two where I feel that the rules absolutely support my position, but only if you read them ALL for they are not as clear as they should be.

I still find it impossible to accept the notion that

"...wearing armor..."

is the same as

"...wearing armor or using a shield..."

It's counter-intuitive and doesn't jive with the rest of the PHB.

First, if the rules are so clearly in your favor then why has this argument been floating around since forever, and why do we have two 4+ page threads on this in the past 24 hours? I still read your first post and *with an open mind* still see shields as armor. Yes, a different form of armor than a suit of armor, but still as armor. I don't get caught up in little word choices that someone wrote to keep the text flowing and less dry than if they had used the same terms phases and expessions over and over and over.

Is errata to be thrown out then? A lot of time errata is published because what was printed wasn't want they intended. Yet, you are merrily discarding designer intent over what was printed in this case.

We are never going to resolve this because you seem to be a printed rules perfectionist and I just want to use the rules as they were intended. Thus, I see #2 as more importantant than #1. What's the point of playing in a technically rules correct game that's less fun and unbalanced than playing in a game that's played as it was intended?

I'd never allow monks to get better ACs than what they currently could because I really do feel it's unbalancing. And since that's the only place that shields are armor or shield aren't armor is important, it doesn't matter to me. Monks can't use shields. If you prove that shields are bananas and not armor it wouldn't impact the rules in any other way in my case.

IceBear

 

[Corwin]

If you prove that shields are bananas and not armor it wouldn't impact the rules in any other way in my case.

IceBear

Now that's just silly. Everyone knows shields cannot be used to make trip attacks. So obviously, shields are not bananas.

 

[Zhure]

Funny. I went through the SRD this morning in an effort to make this decision for myself, after reading the monk thread about shields. I was going to make a definitive list, perhaps posting it.

After a few minutes, I found this line in the Equipment section:

"Armor Qualities

Depending on a character's class, the character may be proficient in the use of all, some, or no armors, including shields. To wear heavier armor effectively, select the Armor Proficiency feats."

That seemed enough for me to decide it wasn't worth finishing the search. That sentence is hard to interpret any other way than as shields being a subset of armor. It makes logical sense.

The only still concerning me about this topic is something unaddressed in the earlier monk thread. Why was there a powerplay in an early 3e Dragon about a monk using bucklers? I can only assume it was an uncaught error.

Greg