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

[IceBear]

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?

Well if you don't think shields are armor in one breath, then why would you choose to treat them as armor in the next, because the passage in the PHB that prohibits shields with mage armor never says you can't use shields with mage armor, it says the ARMOR bonus provided by shields and armor don't stack with mage armor. To me, if you're going to rule that shields aren't armor, then you shouldn't be using the term ARMOR BONUS with a shield, you should use ARMOR bonus.

IT ISN'T THAT GREAT FOR A MONK TO USE A SHIELD!!!!

Why not? If a monk can use a shield without losing his benefits, why NOT use one? Get a +5 masterwork buckler. You could still do use all your monk abilities (which includes AC bonuses for WIS and levels) and add another +6 to your AC.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

HEY! Wait a sec! So, the designers say that shields are considered armor but ONLY IN REGARDS TO A MONK!?! What kind of boneheaded ruling is that? Why didn't they just say that Monks lose class abilities if they use a shield? Its pretty stupid to suddenly change the item grouping of a shield just because they messed up on the monk.

 

[kreynolds]

Well if you don't think shields are armor in one breath, then why would you choose to treat them as armor in the next, because the passage in the PHB that prohibits shields with mage armor never says you can't use shields with mage armor, it says the ARMOR bonus provided by shields and armor don't stack with mage armor. To me, if you're going to rule that shields aren't armor, then you shouldn't be using the term ARMOR BONUS with a shield, you should use ARMOR bonus.

IT ISN'T THAT GREAT FOR A MONK TO USE A SHIELD!!!!

Why not? If a monk can use a shield without losing his benefits, why NOT use one? Get a +5 masterwork buckler. You could still do use all your monk abilities (which includes AC bonuses for WIS and levels) and add another +6 to your AC.

IceBear

Ice, the monk still suffers an armor check penalty. And what the heck is this? "be using the term ARMOR BONUS with a shield, you should use ARMOR bonus". Word games? What's the difference? We were talking about Mage Armor and shields so I though it was pretty obvious what kind of bonus I was referring to.

 

[Artoomis]

But, Spikey - what about all the things that are different about armor and shields?

Shields have no max dex.

Shields don't affect movement (ecept they have weight, of course).

Shields can be used as weapons.

Shields are not "donned" and "removed," they are "readied" and "loosed." (Pretty much like clothing is "worn," but weapons are "used.")

You can strike a shield, but not armor.

And a few other small points that present too weak an argument for me to use (like proficiencies are different).

C'mon Spikey, work with me here!

--Argumentative Artoomis

 

[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.

Sure. In all the other rules in the book it doesn't matter if a shield is armor or not does it? This argument would simply be about semantics if it wasn't for the part about monks.

Sean, Monte and Skip (all designers of the PHB) have said that monks shouldn't be allowed to use a shield. Thus, I cannot understand the whole confusion here...there is some doubt about the intention of the designers as to whether or not shields should be armor. Yet, when the designers tell you their feelings on it, you still doubt their intentions?

Let me guess, because it hasn't been offically errata'ed yet. *sigh*

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

Ice, I don't care if a monk can use a shield or not. If the designers say they can't, I'll support it. So from here on out, monks can't use shields. No problem. HOWEVER, I will not group shields with armor because of a screwup with the monk class. It doesn't make sense to group them together. We differ on opinion, that's all. Let it go man....

 

[IceBear]

Ice, the monk still suffers an armor check penalty. And what the heck is this? "be using the term ARMOR BONUS with a shield, you should use ARMOR bonus". Word games? What's the difference? We were talking about Mage Armor and shields so I though it was pretty obvious what kind of bonus I was referring to.

There is no armor check penalty with a masterwork buckler.

I meant you should use Shield Bonus

What I meant by that is, the book doesn't say you can't stack a shield with mage armor. It says the armor bonuses from shields and armor don't stack with mage armor. But, if you don't feel shields ARE armor, then I wouldn't use the term armor bonus with them, and thus it would stack with mage armor. You can't have your cake and eat it to. If shields aren't armor, then they shouldn't give an armor bonus.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

Ice, I don't care if a monk can use a shield or not. If the designers say they can't, I'll support it. So from here on out, monks can't use shields. No problem. HOWEVER, I will not group shields with armor because of a screwup with the monk class. It doesn't make sense to group them together. We differ on opinion, that's all. Let it go man....

Ok, if you aren't going to allow shields to work with monks, why does it matter whether or not shields are armor? Where else does it matter?

That's all I'm trying to say too

I couldn't care less whether or not shields are armor or something else because in the end if you apply the same restrictions to them as you do to armor, it ends up being the same

Understand? Other than not letting monks use shields without restrictions and stacking with mage armor, I couldn't care less what they are

IceBear

 

[SpikeyFreak]

But, Spikey - what about all the things that are different about armor and shields?

They are different because of the differences between a suit or armor and armor you strap to your arm.

Shields have no max dex.

Shields don't affect movement (ecept they have weight, of course).

Shields can be used as weapons.

Shields are not "donned" and "removed," they are "readied" and "loosed." (Pretty much like clothing is "worn," but weapons are "used.")

You can strike a shield, but not armor.

Those are all just consequences of them being strapped to your arm instead of worn all over the body. Those are all extraneous points. They don't mean that shield aren't armor, they mean that shields act differently than a suit of armor, because they are different.

In order for them not to be armor, they would have to have a shield check penalty and provide a shield bonus to AC. Something that would have made things make more sense and more consistant. They didn't do that though, because that would have confused the point that shields are armor.

C'mon Spikey, work with me here!

--Argumentative Artoomis

I thought by now you'd know me better than that.

--Argumentative Spikey

 

[Caliban]

*sigh*

The stuff about profficiencies is completely irrelevent. Shields are a type of armor, but they aren't light armor, medium armor, or heavy armor, thus they have their own proficiency. It means nothing one way or the other.

Shields have all the relevent armor qualities. Just because they don't have two traits that a suit of armor does, does not mean that they arn't a type of armor. A melee weapon does not have the range increment trait that a ranged weapon does (unless it's a thrown weapon), but that doesn't mean it's not a weapon, it just means that it's a different type of weapons. Shields are just a different type of armor.

You also left of the part on page 104 where it states: "Armor bonus: The protective value of the armor. Bonuses from armor and a shield stack. "

The Armor Bonus column list the protective value of the armor. Shields have a listing in that column, therefore it's referring to shields as well as worn armor. Shields are a type of armor that stacks with suit of worn armor. They are wacky that way.

Shields are not identical to a suit of armor, but they are still in the category if items classifid as armor.

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.

I completely disagree with this statement. The Supreme Court specifically takes into account the intent of the Constitution as well as the law itself when making rulings.

Ignoring the intent and spirit of the rules when deciding how something works is just and excuse to powergame, and I won't participate in any discussion that has this as a basis.

Have fun everyone.