Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IceBear" data-source="post: 65015" data-attributes="member: 1118">First, if the rules are so clearly in your favor then why has this argument been floating around since forever, and why do we have two 4+ page threads on this in the past 24 hours?  I still read your first post and *with an open mind* still see shields as armor.  Yes, a different form of armor than a suit of armor, but still as armor.  I don't get caught up in little word choices that someone wrote to keep the text flowing and less dry than if they had used the same terms phases and expessions over and over and over. Is errata to be thrown out then?  A lot of time errata is published because what was printed wasn't want they intended.  Yet, you are merrily  discarding designer intent over what was printed in this case.We are never going to resolve this because you seem to be a printed rules perfectionist and I just want to use the rules as they were intended.  Thus, I see #2 as more importantant than #1.  What's the point of playing in a technically rules correct game that's less fun and unbalanced than playing in a game that's played as it was intended?I'd never allow monks to get better ACs than what they currently could because I really do feel it's unbalancing.  And since that's the only place that shields are armor or shield aren't armor is important, it doesn't matter to me.  Monks can't use shields.  If you prove that shields are bananas and not armor it wouldn't impact the rules in any other way in my case.IceBear</blockquote>

Verification