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

[Artoomis]

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

You may not have read my original post carefully. For this discussion, at least, I care not what the designers might say, after the fact, that the intent was. I care what was published.

Once I feel that I thoroughly understand the published material, I then would take into account other factors.

Let me give a more dramatic example. Let's say (hypothetically) the designers now state the intent of AoO's was to allow them only if you had no weapon in your hands. Would I then go back and say that's what the rule is? No, of course not - I might agree with them and go with what they said, but I would do so knowing it did not agree with the published rules. That's why I have so much emphasis on understanding the published rules FIRST, then considering other things.

 

[IceBear]

I understand that, but, maybe I misread your original post, but you brought into question what was the intention of the rules (and thus, the intention of the designers). When something is vague and cannot be 100% agreed upon from the rules, we have to go back to the question - "What was the intent of the rule?"

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

Wow is this going nowhere fast. I'm out.

 

[IceBear]

Wow is this going nowhere fast. I'm out.

This topic is always like this - pointless

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Caliban:

Your position on rules interpretations is well-taken. I think I am not stating what I meant very well. I mean that BEFORE you take other factors into account, you should FIRST understand the published material. I did not mean that the published material is all that matters.

I might even agree with you AFTER considering designers intent, etc., but I'm trying to get to a conclusion based on the RULES ONLY. Only if that remains elusive do I seek out designers intent, etc.

I take it that, even after seeing the most complete list to date of armor and shield properties, you still feel that "wearing armor" includes shields? Considering core rules only.

I'm not sure that anyone ever noticed the language in the monk class before (or made special note of it) - they are restricted only when "wearing armor." I again submit to you that "wearing armor" and using shields" are two different things. I think the rules, taken together, support my position.

If we are to treat all the words in the PHB as being significant, then I assume it is significant that they chose to use "wearing armor" rather than, say, "using any armor." That second phrase could very well include shields, I admit, though it should specifically include them to be consistent with other parts of teh PHB. This first phrase seems to me to be refering to worn armor as opposed to shields. It seems that the PHB treats shields more like weapons when talking about worn items - armor and clothes are worn, weapons and shields are used (wielded, readied, or whatever term you like - but not really worn).

And I note you keep hanging your hat on what is similar between armor and shields - I never denied they have simliar properties, but there is so much different about them it is hard to believe that "wearing armor" is the same as "wearing armor or using shields."

BTW, I'll go back and edit my first post to include the statement you mentioned. It was already there as number 6, but only the second half of the quote.

 

[Corwin]

Well thought out list, Artoomis. Nicely done.

I'd like to add a small point. It may or may not be relevant, but it is how I think and affects my opinion.

Obviously, not everything with an armor bonus is armor. Since armor bonus is a term that can apply to non-armor things, that means not all things with an armor bonus are armor. Just because shields provide an armor bonus, that doesn't mean they are armor. At least not by that criteria alone.

---

I also agree with Icebear that giving monks use of shields would be a mistake. But these are two separate issues to me. Something I think I failed to make clear enough in the last debate.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

SRD:
Buckler: This small metal shield is strapped to the forearm, allowing it to be worn and still use the hand. A bow or crossbow can be used without penalty. An off-hand weapon can be used, but a -1 penalty on attack rolls is imposed because of the extra weight on your arm. This penalty stacks with those for fighting with the off hand and, if appropriate, for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if a weapon is used in the off-hand, the character doesn't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round.

Shields are worn. USing it just means that you are attempting to block hits with it.

SRD:
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.

If shields aren't armor, why are the rules for them under the heading armor qualities?

Artoomis, I don't see why you are argueing this point. The core rules have precedent for them being armor, and the sage has clarified.

What's the problem?

--Stuborn Spikey

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the simplest answer is that Shields are a type of armor because they show up in the Armor table in the PHB and SRD.

4 subtypes of armor there: light, medium, heavy, shields.

Then, there are specific kinds of each type listed in each subsection.


I really do not think you have to look further. Nowhere does it state that shields are NOT armor (to my knowledge) and since they are in the armor table and section of the PHB, they must be.

 

[IceBear]

Caliban:

Your position on rules interpretations is well-taken. I think I am not stating what I meant very well. I mean that BEFORE you take other factors into account, you should FIRST understand the published material. I did not mean that the published material is all that matters.

I might even agree with you AFTER considering designers intent, etc., but I'm trying to get to a conclusion based on the RULES ONLY. Only if that remains elusive do I seek out designers intent, etc.

I've got to ask - what's the point? This argument is VERY old. No one ever resolved it before and it wasn't until we got the designers' intents was there somewhat (I'd almost say none now ) of a resolution on this. I want to use the rules as they were intended, not necessarily as they were written. If the designers state it was intended that shields are armor, who cares what you can infer from the black and white text - it's obviously so up in the air that it's useless.

In my opinion, the English language is so vague. I often say wearing or using armor when I refer to a strapped on shield, so I don't take those phrases as being conclusive at all.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

=
Obviously, not everything with an armor bonus is armor. Since armor bonus is a term that can apply to non-armor things, that means not all things with an armor bonus are armor. Just because shields provide an armor bonus, that doesn't mean they are armor. At least not by that criteria alone.

Examples? What else gives an armor bonus and isn't armor?

IceBear