SHOULD a monk be allowed to use shields?

[Artoomis]

Now that we've pretty much beaten the actual rules question to death, and disagreed on what the rules say, the next obvious question is:

Given that the rules are unclear (no comments on this, please) let's just forget about the monk armor/shield rules for this discussion, okay? For the purposes of this discussion only, we will assume that NEITHER allowing nor disallowing monkish use of shields is a house rule.

Based soley on game balance and similar issues, should a monk be allowed to use shields and still keep their special abilities? (Wis bonus to AC, etc.)

.
.
.


I am propose that a good rule is that monks be allowed to keep their special abilities when using shields, but with the armor check penalties.

Why?

1. Asian monks did (do?), in fact, use shields but no armor. not a compeling argument, but I just use it to point out that it fits with the monkish concept.

2. The monk class appears to designed to be the defensive powerhouse of the game with Wis bonus to AC, AC bonuses as they advance and good saves. Seems like they should be the ones to survive when everyone else is failing saves, etc. From this perspective it would even make sense to let them freely wear armor, but that's just too weird and against a monkish concept. Again, it just seems to fit in with the concept of a D&D monk.

3. The armor check penalties should keep silly things from happening, like using a large shield (it would be clearly odd for a monk to do THAT).

4. For this to be a problem with game balance one would have to have very high (18+) Dex AND Wis while still having other good stats. That's not likely - and won't happen if you use the point system for assigning stats. Also, keep in mind they are not proficient and get no bonus feats, so probably would not use one on shield proficiency - so any more than a MW or better buckler would impose attack penalties.

I see a popular choice being a MW or better buckler which would have no armor check penalty. I don't see this as a problem.


P.S. I have no vested interest in the answer. I am not running a monk nor running a game with a monk in it. I think it would be useful for others to see good arguments for and against allowing monks to use a shield (without regard to interpreting the rules).

 

[IceBear]

No...they shouldn't (it's really hard to discuss this without bringing up the rules BTW).

Why? Well, they already get extra AC bonuses from other sources that other PCs can't get. To allow them this extra edge is unbalancing them, in my opinion.

As someone pointed out in another thread, the monk, as written in 3E (not historically) seems geared to dodging and avoiding blows and the mindset required to use shields at the same time might throw that off.

All that said, if you want monks to be able to use a shield in your games, go for it. Me, I'm going to go with the way Monte and the other designers wanted it to be played.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

No...they shouldn't (it's really hard to discuss this without bringing up the rules BTW).

Why? Well, they already get extra AC bonuses from other sources that other PCs can't get. To allow them this extra edge is unbalancing them, in my opinion.

As someone pointed out in another thread, the monk, as written in 3E (not historically) seems geared to dodging and avoiding blows and the mindset required to use shields at the same time might throw that off.

All that said, if you want monks to be able to use a shield in your games, go for it. Me, I'm going to go with the way Monte and the other designers wanted it to be played.

IceBear

Thanks for your answer - its just EXACTLY the kind of answer I was hoping for - one with reasons why you would or would not allow it.

Thanks.

 

[dcollins]

No, I don't think they should have use of shields.

- Monks have been restricted from shields since their inception through 1st Ed. AD&D, etc. I prefer to stick as close to the original game as possible, other things being equal.
- Monks are basically set up to fight with both hands free/active (e.g., automatic free TWF via "flurry of blows"). Granting them a shields gets in the way of that, and it doesn't make sense that the class ability of "flurry of blows" would still be available.
- I don't see the armor check penalties in any way being a disincentive to players of monks (they're only 1 or 2 points at most).

Finally, I'm wondering in the historical example, what did the real-life shield-using monks commonly fight with for a weapon?

 

[KarinsDad]

I also chime in on the no side for the reasons specified so far. It's basically a balance issue.

Monks with ACs of 30+ makes them sub-Fighters with a lot of special abilities that Fighters cannot get whereas Monks can get most of the Fighter feats (just not as many).

Currently, Monks are weaker than Fighters on AC, HPs, to hit, and the number of feats. For this, they get a lot of special abilities. Taking one of these four and partially negating it can have serious repercusions. Plus, adding a shield allows them to have "an extra magical item slot" with regard to special shield magic such as Fortification, Ghost Touch, or an Animated Shield.

 

[Alejandro]

I thought that monks could use Animated Shields without penalty?

In any case, armor bonuses are distinct from shield bonuses IMC, so I have no problems with monks who attempt to use shields. There's only so much wealth floating around, and magic mithral bucklers are often less desirable than a monk's belt, or boots of striding and springing, for example.

 

[Artoomis]

Good answers so far. Right on topic, brief and to the point.

Thanks guys. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Styracosaurus]

One or two special monk feat(s) could allow the monk to use a shield with no problems. There are more powerful feats. And don't forget that the monk would have to take shield proficiency unless he multiclassed. If you want to use the monk abilities, you won't want to multiclass.

You could design Captain America's feat tree if you wanted.

 

[IceBear]

Just a point. All the Shield Feat does is limit what the Armor check penalty is applied to. Since a masterwork buckler doesn't have one, you wouldn't need to take a feat.

IceBear

 

[Ranger REG]

If I were to put on my rules lawyer cap, I can specifically cite in the monk's class description that it does not state about penalty when using a shield. Even the phrase "wearing armor" is not akin to "using a shield." A technicality.

Of course, does that mean a monk can use a tower shield and still retain his agile-related martial arts abilities? Common sense tells me no.

Now if I were to base my judgment on wuxia genre films like Jackie Chan's Drunken Master, monk can use shield ranging from a buckler up to a small shield and and still jump around. While I would allow him to retain most of his monk's abilities, I would penalize him by disallowing his increasing AC bonus due to monk class level. He still can use Wis bonus to AC, in addition to his Dex modifier, provided he is not wearing any armor.