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

[Artoomis]

The question more properly is:

Are shields considered the same as armor, or are they something different? This is important primarily for monks who face restrictions when "wearing armor."

So, does the term "wearing armor" include using a shield? I wouldn't think so (do you really "wear" a shield?), but a proper analysis requires that we look to all instances where a shield and armor are mentioned in the PHB and try to draw a conclusion from that.

I will attempt that here, but I will probably overlook something, so I'll edit this as folks point out my oversights.

Please let me know if I missed anything

This is, as far as I know, the only attempt to document all places in the PHB that mention armor and shield (except for spells – I intentionally left those out as I don’t think that would be helpful)

Here we go....

1. Chapter 3, Classes: In every class description a reference is made to armor and weapon proficiencies, such as "all armor (light, medium and heavy) and shields."

2. Pg. 40: Monks receive a penalty when "wearing armor." (This is right after the paragraph stating they are not proficient in "armor or shields.")

3. Chapter 5, Feats: There are three "Armor" proficiency feats (one each for light medium and heavy) forming a feat chain, plus one Shield proficiency feat.

4. Pg. 104 The "ARMOR" section of Chapter 7 includes light/heavy/medium armors, shields, armor spikes, the locked gauntlet and shield spikes.

5. Pg. 104 Table 7-5 "Armor" includes all the above as well.

edit: Italics portion added.

6. Pg. 104 "Armor bonus: The protective value of the armor. Bonuses from armor and a shield stack. "

7. Pg. 104 "If you are wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply."

8. Pg. 104, Table 7-5 Armor and shields both have an armor bonus, an armor check penalty and arcane spell failure.

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.

11. Pg. 105: Armor descriptions include shields (well, they include everything from table 7-5)

12. Pg. 106 You can use shields (except buckler) as an off-hand weapon for as shield bash.

13. Pg. 105: Sidebar has rules for unusually-sized armor (there is errata for this, but it has no bearing on shields vs. armor)

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].

THE FOLLOWING ARE SUBJECT TO LATER VERIFICATION:

From the DMG:

19. All magic armor is masterwork armor
All magic shields are masterwork shields

20. As with armor, special abilities built into the shield add to the market value

21. Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.


22. If armor or a shield has a special ability...


23. Armor and shields can't actually have bonuses this high.


24. This armor or shield seems almost translucent.

There are also these tables:

25. Table: Armor and Shields

26. Table: Armor Special Abilities

27. Table: Shield Special Abilities


Looking at all this information together it seems to me:

Shields are clearly NOT armor any more than armor spikes or shield spikes are armor, but they are included in the ARMOR section of the EQUIPMENT chapter because they are so closely related to armor.

Shields are not "worn" - they are "used." They are strapped to your arm and gripped with your hand, true (though buckler and small shields leave your off-hand free to various degrees), but they are "readied" and "loosed" not "donned" like armor. In fact, using the PHB rule, it seems perfectly reasonable to make a statement like, "my PC is not wearing armor but he's using a shield."

Too many places in the PHB call out shields separately from armor to ever assume that a generic reference to wearing armor is meant to include using a shield as well.

INTENTIONALLY left out of this discussion is anything about "intent" or opinions of the Sage or authors. I'm not saying that's not important - but it's not helpful to understanding the rules AS PUBLISHED. That would be like asking a member of congress what he meant when the passed a law - it doesn't matter - what matters is what got published.

In fact, we frequently see laws changed because they didn't so what was intended - my ONLY goal here is to see what the rules are AS WRITTEN.

I'd be glad do discuss what the rules SHOULD BE in another thread.

 

[kreynolds]

Well, I could have saved you a whole lot of time by telling you that shields are not armor because they have their own proficiencies. Shields are strange pieces of equipment because they give you an AC bonus but can also be used to bash. They are totally separate from armor. A good example is a class that loses certain abilities when they wear anything heavier than light armor. They can still use a shield, but shield armor check penalties can apply to attack rolls.

Basically, no. They are not armor. They are something else entirely. Make sense?

 

[Artoomis]

Well, I could have saved you a whole lot of time by telling you that shields are not armor because they have their own proficiencies. Shields are strange pieces of equipment because they give you an AC bonus but can also be used to bash. They are totally separate from armor. A good example is a class that loses certain abilities when they wear anything heavier than light armor. They can still use a shield, but shield armor check penalties can apply to attack rolls.

Basically, no. They are not armor. They are something else entirely. Make sense?

Of course that makes sense. The point about proficiencies is not enough by itself, thought, since one could easily argue that different types of armor have different proficiencies, so a shield has it's own which would be consistent. You need to look at everything all at the same time.

Basically, what I’m saying is that allowing a monk to use a shield is correct y the sore rules - is fact, after looking at ALL the information in the PB re: shields and armor, I'd have to say that NOT allowing a monk to use a shield is a HOUSE RULE!

Oh, Caliban will love that one!

 

[IceBear]

So, in your campaign you would let shields stack with mage armor and let monks use them without restrictions? Yikes!!! Not in my campaign.

I'm all for calling shields something else than armor, but I still would hold those two restrictions in place for shields too. So, in the end, it's just a name change - who cares?

BTW - I look at the same info you posted and feel there's enough evidence that shields ARE armor, just with some special rules and expections.

Anyway, shields are treated the same way as armor when it comes to monks and mage armor in my campaign. Whether it's a shield bonus or an armor bonus, it's the same thing to me.

And when you talk about INTENTIONS of the designers, if Sean and Monte (both designers) state that monks shouldn't use shields then I think they know their intentions better then us, no?

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Whoa!!

So, in your campaign you would let shields stack with mage armor and let monks use them without restrictions? Yikes!!!

I'm all for calling shields something else than armor, but I still would hold those two restrictions in place for shields too. So, in the end, it's just a name change - who cares?

IceBear

Absolutely not!

I am NOT for changing shields to have a"shield bonus" - unless your using that as shorthand for "the armor bonus from a shield."

Monks may use shields without penalty (well, except they aren't proficient) because they are penalized for wearing armor which I submit is different from using a shield.

Mage armor does not stack with a shield - this is clearly stated in the core rules.

Did I state anything that implied I am advocating changing the rules in any way? I did not mean to. I am stating my position on how I think the rules are written.

 

[kreynolds]

Absolutely a monk can use a shield. It just isn't that great for them since they have so many other great features. Plus, a shield will just get in their way.

And no IceBear, I do not allow shield bonuses to stack with Mage Armor bonuses. That would stupid and pointless because the system clearly states that they do not stack. They are both armor bonuses.

By the way, where did you read that I did allow that?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

They have an armor check penalty, and they provide an armor bonus to AC.

That's enough for me.

I don't see how the rest of your arguements are really relevant.

Armor spikes and shield spikes are in the armor section not because they are armor, bur because they only work on armor.

Saying that you can strike a shield and weapons in no way indicates that shields are not armor. If I said that a human can ride a horse but not a rabbit, does that mean that one isn't an animal?

The donned vs used is similar. Where does it say that all armor is donned and no armor is used? Where does it say that it's not armor if there isn't a write up on rules to get out of it?

Like I said, they have an armor check penalty and provide an armor bonus. That's enough for me.

--Anti-Arty Spikey

 

[IceBear]

Several designers (whose intentions you questioned in your first post) have stated that shields should be considered armor when it comes to that line about monks.

Based on that and my reading of the items in your list I come to the conclusion that shields are armor.

We're going to just have to agree to disagree on this because a high level monk with a powerful shield would be broken in my campaign.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Several designers (whose intentions you questioned in your first post) have stated that shields should be considered armor when it comes to that line about monks.

Based on that and my reading of the items in your list I come to the conclusion that shields are armor.

We're going to just have to agree to disagree on this because a high level monk with a powerful shield would be broken in my campaign.

IceBear

It sounds like you don't want to allow monks to have armor mostly because you think it would be too powerful.

That's a valid reason not to allow it.

 

[kreynolds]

That's an opinion, not a fact. So we agree to disagree then. Perfect. I think Artoomis has enough information to make his own decision.

And Ice does have a good reason if he thinks that monks get to powerful.