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

[Artoomis]

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

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).

I'm not trying to convince you of anything with this post, but I'd like to set the record straight. None of the items below fit into the category you just described. Each of the statements talks about how armor and shields are different. None of them are present to prevent an argument on whether shields should have been counted as armor.

9. Pg. 104, Table 7-5 Armor has, but shields do not have a max dex bonus or a speed restriction.
10. Pg. 105: Rules for getting into and out of armor talk about the light/medium and heavy armors you wear and not shields.
12. Pg. 106 You can use shields (except buckler) as an off-hand weapon for as shield bash.
14. Pg. 119 - ARMOR CLASS = 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier.
15. Pg. 128 Table 8-4 includes two references to shields - "Ready a shield and Loose a shield.
16. Pg 136 - "Strike a Weapon" - You can strike a weapon or a shield.
17. Pg. 141 - (errata) "A medium or heavy load counts
as medium or heavy armor for the purpose of abilities that are restricted by armor." Plus a bit of other similar info on how being encumbered by equipment is like being encumbered by armor.
18. pg 281 (glossary) A Shield bonus is defined. [Yes, yes, we all know it's really an armor bonus proved by the shield, I'm only stating what’s in the PHB - and it's also on pg. 119 =see item 14 above].

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Shields are armor:
Pros:
p1) They are presented in the same table in the PHB.
p2) They both provide armor bonus.
p3) They both provide an armor check penalty when someone is not proficient in them.
p4) They both provide Arcane Spell Failure to arcane spell casters.
p5) In each class descriptions, you will find the entry "weapons & armor profiencies", and in this entry are shields included.

Cons:
c1) They do not have a Max Dex
c2) They do not have an entry Speed restriction (or reduction)
c3) There is no time defined for getting on shields, unlike for Light, medium and Heavy Armor.
c4) Shields can be used as weapon (bashing).
c5) Shields can be striked
c6) sometimes shield bonus are defined.

For further pro/contra arguments:
p1) Presenting equipment on the same table might also be a mistake or a way to make finding items easier. On the other hand, different types of equipement are typically not in the same table. On still another hand (wow 3 hands?) , Armor Spikes, Locked Gauntlets and Shield Spikes are also in this table, entry "Extras". (I believe in this case there might be a need for up to 5 hands, still I could continue this...)
p2) collides with c6). All clarifications in later issues seem to indicate that this must be some kind of editing error, since, actually there is no shield bonus to AC, it is a armor bonus that is allowed to stack with some armor bonus of other sources. Which doesn`t make anything easier...
c1) Shields do not have a Max Dex might be because logically a high dex fighter migt even be able to make a better use of a shield when he can get it fast between him and his opponent, so he should not be penalized for it.
c2) Shields, unlike armor, are not wrapped around body parts, which might be the main reason for the heavier armor types to slow movement. Though this is an argument for shields being armor, this might be considered an argument for monks using shields.
On page p.105 PHB in the entry speed there is an extra passage that specifically says that shields do not affect a character`s speed, indicating that they could since they are armor...
c3) You must ready a shield, this can be considered the amount of time to "don" a shield. Since it can be done quite fast, there is no need to give the time in minutes.
c4) I don`t know if this is a real argument. There is no rule that states that armor cannot inflict damage. Aren´t there rules for objects falling down and thus inflicting damage?

Unaffected (until now):
p3, p4, p5, c5
3:1 for shields are armor? Probably not for everyone. For me: Yes. But I thought so before, and so, this doesn`t mean anything...

Excuse my "reviwing" of this thread.

 

[Artoomis]

Wow, I thought this thread was dead.

Pretty nice summary, Mustrum_Ridcully.

You only left out the DMG materials, but since they were published post-PHB they may or may not be relevant.

 

[Junkheap]

Final clarification(For me anyway)

Ok, i have never let monks use shields or bucklers because they are armour.

Since mage armor is considered armour, and shields are considered armour, why don't they stack with each other??

And since bracers or armour are armour bonus, can monks use bracers? Or is it only restricted to something that gives an armour check penalty.

I ask this question because in one of our campaigns, the sorceror has a force shield ring. We ruled that it stacks with mage armour. Are we wrong?? I really am MORE confused now than ever.

 

[dcollins]

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

None of the items below fit into the category you just described. Each of the statements talks about how armor and shields are different.

Those examples make even less sense. None of them talk about armor and shields being different things; at best, they talk about the special characteristics of the "shields" subset.

PH p. 45: "A ranger is proficient with... light armor, medium armor, and shields." Thus you would conclude that "heavy armor" is "different" from "armor". Exact same argument.

 

[IceBear]

Re: Final clarification(For me anyway)

Ok, i have never let monks use shields or bucklers because they are armour.

Since mage armor is considered armour, and shields are considered armour, why don't they stack with each other??

Just because the designers don't want them do is the only answer I've found. That, and possibly a balance issue.

And since bracers or armour are armour bonus, can monks use bracers? Or is it only restricted to something that gives an armour check penalty.

I ask this question because in one of our campaigns, the sorceror has a force shield ring. We ruled that it stacks with mage armour. Are we wrong?? I really am MORE confused now than ever.

Monks can wear bracers of armor. I think the restriction is just because of the chance for Arcane Failure from physical armor.

As for the force shield ring, I don't think it would stack with mage armor if they both give an armor bonus. It is my understanding that the only armor bonuses that stack are those from a shield and a *suit* of armor.

IceBear