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

[Artoomis]

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

I assume it's because a WotC person read the rule about monks not wearing armor and said, "Oh look, that means they can still use shields. That's kind of cool - let's write that up as a Power Play"

 

[Mark]

Here's Monte's response to the question, "Are shields armor?"

"It was our intent that shields are indeed armor. No shields for monks."

It is posted on his board here-

http://pub58.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm2.showMessage?topicID=493.topic

 

[Marshall]

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

Your SOR then trades his Mage Armor for a Mithril Chain Shirt(really cheap,especially if he has the cash for a +5 Buckler), same AC and the fighters have nothing to complain about...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don`t know if anyone has mentioned this already, but on page 39, under Weapon and Armor Profiencies. Especially important is the Emphasis (I hope it works )

When wearing Armor, a monk loses her AC Bonus from Wisdom, AC Bonus from class and level, favorable multiple unarmed attacks per round, and heightened movement. Furthermore, her special abilites all face the acane spell failure chance that the armor normally imposes.

One thing here is obvious: Monks suffer from any type of armor or shield which have a Arcane Spell Failure. This makes using Armor and Shield a bad decision. You will not want your Improved Evasion fail due to the Armor you wear. (But some small shields, , do you? Bucklers and some Light Armors do have no Arcane Spell Failure when made from Mithral)

Due to the fact that shields and suits of armor both impose Arcane Spell Failures, you might conclude that monks are not allowed to wear shields without losing the stated abilities.

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[IceBear]

Your SOR then trades his Mage Armor for a Mithril Chain Shirt(really cheap,especially if he has the cash for a +5 Buckler), same AC and the fighters have nothing to complain about...

Yup, that would be the same problem, except for the 10% spell failure chance that he wouldn't have with the mage armor and the fact that the sorcerer would have had to spend an extra feat to use it properly (granted it wouldn't matter in this case). Very early in the campaign, the sorcerer found a mithril shirt and left it behind because he didn't want ANY arcane spell failure chance.

IceBear

 

[KarinsDad]

I assume it's because a WotC person read the rule about monks not wearing armor and said, "Oh look, that means they can still use shields. That's kind of cool - let's write that up as a Power Play"

Probably.

Another case of a WotC person making a mistake by not reading through all of the rules. Oh well. Stuff happens. You cannot really hold up a mistake and say "Wotc did this, so it's ok". It's only ok if the DM is willing to allow the mistake to go through as written.


The entire Armor section of the PHB from pages 104 to 106, including the Armor table and including the Armor Descriptions includes shields. Hard to imagine that shields are not armor if their write up is explicitly in the Armor section.

 

[jasper]

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

There are also these tables:

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


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?

Gee combine two similar things in the same table to save SPACE gee the designers would never do that.

Shields are armor follow the intent of rules guys gals and goobers.
You can hold a buckler in your hand.
but you have strap on a large shield.
You have strap on a suit of armour.
Same protection different shape.

But if you want an monk to use a shield go ahead it is YOUR game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Perhaps it is even easier than we make it:
If Shields aren`t armor, why do
1) they give a armor bonus
2) they impose Armor Check Penelties?
(and perhaps 3) why do they imposve Arcane Spell Failure)

If they do it because of their size and weight, then Greatswords, heavy Maces and similar equipment should have it also, shouldn`t it?

 

[Artoomis]

Another quote from Monte:

Someone asked what the design intent was, and I answered. Design intent doesn't add up to a hill of beans in the final scheme of things, but then again, neither does basing a rules decision on a simple editorial omission.

Which leads me right to a new thread on whether the monk SHOULD be allowed to use a shield. That should be easier - we will disgree, no doubt, but it shoudn't take to long to lay out our positions on the issue.

 

[dcollins]

Here we go....

The only thing I'll say about this thread is that, as you list all the places in the books where someone wrote "armor and shields", you're finding all the places where a writer was trying to be considerate by allowing redundancy for the purpose of clarity.

Every single one of your examples is just a place where the authors prevented another full-blown argument (by someone such as yourself) about whether shields should have not been counted because they didn't mention them by name.

Shields are a subset of armor; none of the statements you list contradict that. Rather, the statements are merely redundant (to help the non-rules-lawyer readers).