Is Shield armor?

[SaibenLocke]

Can you benefit from using a shield and mage armor? I ask because it is under the armor table and it requires you to don it. It says in mage armor that if you don armor you lose the benefit. Also how would you rule the Sorcerer's Dragon Resilience? All of this is under the assumption you are proficient with shields of course.

[Bellberith]

Can you benefit from using a shield and mage armor? I ask because it is under the armor table and it requires you to don it. It says in mage armor that if you don armor you lose the benefit. Also how would you rule the Sorcerer's Dragon Resilience? All of this is under the assumption you are proficient with shields of course.

The wording is stupid because they do make a distinction between armor and shields when it pertains to unarmored defense with monk/barbarian. They say "wear armor" and "wield shield" if they were considered the same i dont see why they felt the need to separate them in different skills/abilities in the book. However the table does say "armor" that lists shields and shields is also listed under "donning and doffing armor".

I find that rather ambiguous..... Why separate 2 types of items if they are actually the same?

(maybe it is another flaw like how the grappler feat makes an exception to a rule that doesn't exist.)

Edit: and to be honest, i don't see why it wouldn't work with the sorcerer at least. what is the difference between having hard skin/scales + wielding a shield vs wearing leather + wielding a shield

Both the scales and the leather act as armor and the shield should add the same.

[Giant2005]

It is armor.
Any unarmored AC formula needs to have an exemption phrase allowing shields (Much like the Barbarian unarmored AC has) for shields to not break the formula.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Shield bonus and armor bonus are two different things.

[Bellberith]

It is armor.
Any unarmored AC formula needs to have an exemption phrase allowing shields (Much like the Barbarian unarmored AC has) for shields to not break the formula.

That is true for the barbarian, but that should be the ONLY place in the book where armor and shields are considered separate.

Monk however, says you cant wear armor or wield shields. Now, if armor and shields were considered the same thing, why did they feel the need to separate them here?

[SliceandDiceKid]

Armor and shields are not the same. Armor changes your AC equation, while a shield grants a bonus. Thankfully, the devs had the foresight to be very specific when they described the monk and barbarian class features regarding armor/shields. Also, when talking about armor proficiencies, it distinguishes between armor and shields, but use without proficiency in either gives you disadvantage on attacks, skills, bla bla.

[Maxilian]

It is armor.
Any unarmored AC formula needs to have an exemption phrase allowing shields (Much like the Barbarian unarmored AC has) for shields to not break the formula.

I would not said that shields are part of the armor, why? cause the Barbarian and the Monk unarmored defense mention the shield as something different from the armor, the Barbarian allows shields while the Monk doesn't but i would say that it doesn't stack with Mage Armor (because of the don restriction) but it does work with the Sorcerer Draconic Resilience.

Also have in mind that shields does not change the AC formula it just add a bonus AC

Note: At least by RAW is allowed... and i don't see any reason why it shouldn't be RAI, it won't really break anything...

[Giant2005]

Note: At least by RAW is allowed... and i don't see any reason why it shouldn't be RAI, it won't really break anything...

I don't care about RAI, that is some mythological construct that has no meaning but RAW it most certainly isn't allowed. Even if you ignore the Monk/Barbarian thing, each of the Unarmored Defense abilities explicitly state that they don't work while using armor and if you go to the armor list, shields are right there alongside the rest of the armor. If the ability doesn't work with armor and shields are armor, there isn't really any room for interpretation.

[SaibenLocke]

I would not said that shields are part of the armor, why? cause the Barbarian and the Monk unarmored defense mention the shield as something different from the armor, the Barbarian allows shields while the Monk doesn't but i would say that it doesn't stack with Mage Armor (because of the don restriction) but it does work with the Sorcerer Draconic Resilience.

Also have in mind that shields does not change the AC formula it just add a bonus AC

Note: At least by RAW is allowed... and i don't see any reason why it shouldn't be RAI, it won't really break anything...

Yeah this is what my DM and I have decided also.

[Gwendol]

Shields are separate from armor. A shield is wielded while an armor is worn. Armor grants an AC, while shields grant a bonus to AC.

[Yoroichi]

Shields are separate from armor. A shield is wielded while an armor is worn. Armor grants an AC, while shields grant a bonus to AC.

That.

Also,

Are feet shoes?

[Maxilian]

I don't care about RAI, that is some mythological construct that has no meaning but RAW it most certainly isn't allowed. Even if you ignore the Monk/Barbarian thing, each of the Unarmored Defense abilities explicitly state that they don't work while using armor and if you go to the armor list, shields are right there alongside the rest of the armor. If the ability doesn't work with armor and shields are armor, there isn't really any room for interpretation.

Well that's the problem... Shields aren't armor, having in mind that all the Unarmored defense make a differense between armor and shields and that Shields don't modify the calculation of AC, it adds a bonus AC

[Giant2005]

Well that's the problem... Shields aren't armor, having in mind that all the Unarmored defense make a differense between armor and shields and that Shields don't modify the calculation of AC, it adds a bonus AC

It doesn't matter whether the Shield adds to AC or has its own formula, it is listed as Armor even so far as having its own unique time listed under the "Donning/Doffing Armor" section.
You can play however you like, I genuinely don'e care but when someone asks a question on the forums it is important to give them accurate information.

[SliceandDiceKid]

It doesn't matter whether the Shield adds to AC or has its own formula, it is listed as Armor even so far as having its own unique time listed under the "Donning/Doffing Armor" section.
You can play however you like, I genuinely don'e care but when someone asks a question on the forums it is important to give them accurate information.

Is the distinction between the two really that important? We have specific rules for when either is legal to combine with other abilities. Whether or not we call them both armor isn't terribly important. But if we're obsessed about saying they're different, we look foolish, since both are on the armor table and they both effect ARMOR class.

But what does it matter?

[Giant2005]

Is the distinction between the two really that important? We have specific rules for when either is legal to combine with other abilities. Whether or not we call them both armor isn't terribly important. But if we're obsessed about saying they're different, we look foolish, since both are on the armor table and they both effect ARMOR class.

But what does it matter?

It matters a lot as it defines how it interacts with other abilities - this thread itself highlights one of those issues. If a Shield is armor then it can't be used with Mage Armor nor the Sorcerer's natural armor but it would be able to be used with the Defense Fighting Style. If the Shield isn't armor then the opposite of everything I just said is true.

[SliceandDiceKid]

It matters a lot as it defines how it interacts with other abilities - this thread itself highlights one of those issues. If a Shield is armor then it can't be used with Mage Armor nor the Sorcerer's natural armor but it would be able to be used with the Defense Fighting Style. If the Shield isn't armor then the opposite of everything I just said is true.

Just reread Mage armor. I see your point. I'm sure it was just a continuity error. But most people who would use Mage armor aren't proficient with a shield anyway.

[MaxWilson]

Even more confusing: what happens if you cast Barkskin and then use a shield? Is your AC 16 or 18? How about if you cast a Shield spell? Is it still 16 or temporarily 21?

[Giant2005]

Even more confusing: what happens if you cast Barkskin and then use a shield? Is your AC 16 or 18? How about if you cast a Shield spell? Is it still 16 or temporarily 21?

Barkskin just sets a minimum AC of 16, it supercedes everything else unless everything else is higher than 16.

[Hiro Protagonest]

and if you go to the armor list, shields are right there alongside the rest of the armor.

And if you go to the weapon list, you get "unarmed strike" and "net".

[Maxilian]

It doesn't matter whether the Shield adds to AC or has its own formula, it is listed as Armor even so far as having its own unique time listed under the "Donning/Doffing Armor" section.
You can play however you like, I genuinely don'e care but when someone asks a question on the forums it is important to give them accurate information.

That's where you're wrong, the shield is not listed as armor, first the session name is: "Armors and Shields" and in the first part it says: "The armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield"

[Bellberith]

That's where you're wrong, the shield is not listed as armor, first the session name is: "Armors and Shields" and in the first part it says: "The armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield"

Note: I agree that because Shields have the donning and doffing section, you won't be able to use them with Mage Armor but you would be able to use it with Draconic Ancesty, etc...

Nice find on that quote. I think that settles it.

And technically with the mage armor if you cast it with the shield already equipped then it works. You just cant equip the shield after casting the mage armor.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Nice find on that quote. I think that settles it.

And technically with the mage armor if you cast it with the shield already equipped then it works. You just cant equip the shield after casting the mage armor.

Yes, good find!

This prevents a Mage from casting Mage armor, grabbing the shield (which would've prevented them from casting in the first place), and dodging when they're out of spells or being targeted.

[Maxilian]

Yes, good find!

This prevents a Mage from casting Mage armor, grabbing the shield (which would've prevented them from casting in the first place), and dodging when they're out of spells or being targeted.

Yep but that means that a Sorcerer with Draconic Ancestry could still use one (Is not really a great boost but is a nice option)

[SliceandDiceKid]

Yep but that means that a Sorcerer with Draconic Ancestry could still use one (Is not really a great boost but is a nice option)

With proficiency, yes. Which isn't standard for them. If they wield it anyway, they can't cast. So what?

[Bellberith]

Yes, good find!

This prevents a Mage from casting Mage armor, grabbing the shield (which would've prevented them from casting in the first place), and dodging when they're out of spells or being targeted.

huh? a wizard with 1 level of fighter would have proficiency.... and with war caster they can cast with the shield equipped. now if they don or doff the shield while the spell is active, they lose the spell. but if the shield is already equipped they are fine.

[SliceandDiceKid]

With proficiency, yes. Which isn't standard for them. If they wield it anyway, they can't cast. So what?


huh? a wizard with 1 level of fighter would have proficiency.... and with war caster they can cast with the shield equipped. now if they don or doff the shield while the spell is active, they lose the spell. but if the shield is already equipped they are fine.

Poor assumption that every wizard has dipped fighter. And I said it's not standard for them. Obviously the multiclass character would be an exception. Read my quote.

[Theodoxus]

I don't care about RAI, that is some mythological construct that has no meaning but RAW it most certainly isn't allowed. Even if you ignore the Monk/Barbarian thing, each of the Unarmored Defense abilities explicitly state that they don't work while using armor and if you go to the armor list, shields are right there alongside the rest of the armor. If the ability doesn't work with armor and shields are armor, there isn't really any room for interpretation.

Wait, you can't come in and state 'even if you ignore...' because you can't. Your whole argument falls to pieces because barbarian specifically states that their unarmored defense works with a shield.

Stop trying to obfuscate and blame others for obfuscating!

[Bellberith]

Poor assumption that every wizard has dipped fighter. And I said it's not standard for them. Obviously the multiclass character would be an exception. Read my quote.

If you read the OP it says "assuming proficiency in shields"

[MaxWilson]

Mage Armor is also popular with DX-based Eldrich Knights.

[silveralen]

Mage Armor is also popular with DX-based Eldrich Knights.

By burning spells they can have the same AC as someone who wears full plate, if they have proper stat distribution.

That's literally the most "abusable" usage of mage armor+shield.

So I can't think of any reason mage armor of draconic sorcerer couldn't use one if they got prof from somewhere.

[SliceandDiceKid]

If you read the OP it says "assuming proficiency in shields"

I apologize for making my input applicable to the game in general, while qualifying it as such.

[MaxWilson]

By burning spells they can have the same AC as someone who wears full plate, if they have proper stat distribution.

That's literally the most "abusable" usage of mage armor+shield.

So I can't think of any reason mage armor of draconic sorcerer couldn't use one if they got prof from somewhere.

It's not abuse, and it's not better than plate--but a DX fighter may prefer Mage Armor because 1.) it doesn't interfere with his stealth, 2.) maybe he can't afford plate armor yet, 3.) he doesn't take a movement penalty.

I would absolutely allow this to combine with shields though, on thematic grounds, RAI, and also balance grounds. There is no reason not to allow this.

[silveralen]

It's not abuse, and it's not better than plate--but a DX fighter may prefer Mage Armor because 1.) it doesn't interfere with his stealth, 2.) maybe he can't afford plate armor yet, 3.) he doesn't take a movement penalty.

I would absolutely allow this to combine with shields though, on thematic grounds, RAI, and also balance grounds. There is no reason not to allow this.

Wait, does heavy armor still drop movement speed? I may have missed that in my reading.

But anyways, agreed.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Wait, does heavy armor still drop movement speed? I may have missed that in my reading.

But anyways, agreed.

As max said earlier (either this thread or another) it depends on you meeting the str requirement. Pg 144-145

[Giant2005]

Wait, you can't come in and state 'even if you ignore...' because you can't. Your whole argument falls to pieces because barbarian specifically states that their unarmored defense works with a shield.

Stop trying to obfuscate and blame others for obfuscating!

Wait... What?
I already brought up the Barbarian armor thing and highlighted its need for an exemption clause - that was the very first thing I said in the thread iirc. The Barbarian evidence was already locked in so I moved on to presenting more.

[Gwendol]

It doesn't matter whether the Shield adds to AC or has its own formula, it is listed as Armor even so far as having its own unique time listed under the "Donning/Doffing Armor" section.
You can play however you like, I genuinely don'e care but when someone asks a question on the forums it is important to give them accurate information.

The table listing is for convenience: it doesn't make shields armor. Armor grants AC, shields give a bonus. Two different things.