Rules discussion, Knight's "Shield Block" ability

[justiceforall]

This comes off my question in the RAW Q and A thread. I didn't want to clog up the thread with discussion, so I started this thread.


So on further examination, I disagree with the ruling that you *must* have a shield in order to benefit from Shield Block(ex).

The way I read it, most of the words in the ability are fluff/description, not mechanics.

This to me seems to be the rules from the ability:


During your action, designate a single opponent as the target of this ability. Your shield bonus to AC against that foe increases by 1

The rest of the wording around that simply appears as descriptive text, not actual rules. I would be looking for a sentence that read something along the lines of "your shield gains an increased bonus" or another set of wording that specifically instructs me that I *must* have a physical object called a shield to get the bonus.

Thoughts/arguments?

[heavyfuel]

I'll stand by my RAW Q&A answer. You need a shield. A proper shield, not a Shield Bonus to AC or a Shield spell. I'm also 99% sure the designers intended for it to be only an actual shield, given the fluff*. I'd even allow for a Riverine Shield to work, though the bonus granted would remain a +1 to Shield Bonus, not to Deflection.

Surely, allowing Shield Bonuses and Shield spell would make the class more attractive to higher OP games, but it wouldn't be enough for the class to go up a Tier as it's still doing the same things it did before. And again, neither RAW nor RAI

But what really matters is: If you dislike the answer so much and you're the DM, make a ruling and move on. If you're not, then hope your DM shares your view about the ability's fluff. I seriously doubt any answer here will change your mind, though I hope I'm proven wrong.

There's no such thing as fluff/description when it comes to the rules. If it's written, it's RAW. We'd need a rule somewhere saying that specific parts of the rulebook can be ignored so that they could. There is no such rule, except - maybe - that line in Spell Compendium about descriptive texts. Though that only legaly applies to the spells in that book because of the Primary Souce rules

[XionUnborn01]

The only argument I could see against needing a shield is how it says 'Using your armor and shield to frustrate..' Maybe letting the be interpreted to work if you have armor and a non-shield shield?

That's extremely sketchy territory and without a RAW rule stating there's a difference between description and rules.

Actually, considering that the same sentence that says you get a +1 shield bonus continues to say '...as you move your shield...' I'm not even sure if there's a way to get around that.

[justiceforall]

But what really matters is: If you dislike the answer so much

Nah Heavy I'm arguing for the sake of logical discussion. Which is why I didn't put a dispute in the RAW thread and moved it here. If I thought it was worth an actual dispute I'd still be in the RAW thread.

This is more about refining my view than trying to eke out an advantage. I went and asked another player in my group on his take on the ability before I even created this thread just to make sure I wasn't just seeing what I wanted to see. His read (without prompting, I was reasonably careful to avoid that) was similar to mine, hence I decided it was worth a bit more discussion.


I'm also 99% sure the designers intended for it to be only an actual shield, given the fluff

Yeah I'm 50/50 on the RAI here. I would have thought if they meant it for just a shield, they wouldn't have bothered with mentioning armour as XionUnborn01 noted.

The context here and why I gave this a much deeper look than "oh its just for a handheld shield" isn't really OP based. My character is a knight, and although I may get access to Force Screen in a zillion levels time, I would get access to an animated shield well before that to which the bonus would definitely apply unless I'm totally mistaken. The wording really jumped out at me as odd, even by usual terribly inconsistent WotC style. I kind of read this ability in the form of how they normally print feats, eg:

Description:

Starting at 2nd level, you excel in using your armor and shield to frustrate your enemy's attacks. You move your shield to deflect an incoming blow, possibly providing just enough protection to turn a telling swing into a near miss.

Benefit:

During your action, designate a single opponent as the target of this ability. Your shield bonus to AC against that foe increases by 1.


I do understand the observation that they decided to print it in a single block, thus forcing interpretation.

[Afgncaap5]

Also, this is a weird side thought, but... what are the rules, exactly, on what to do when it says that a certain kind of bonus increases if you don't have that particular bonus? There's a few times I can think of that do that involving things like natural armor and fly/swim speeds and spell resistance and things, but don't most of those also include a qualifier line to the effect of "If you don't have this bonus, treat your bonus as 0 for this purpose"?

Ultimately, I don't think a little point like that should be the deciding factor on whether or not a Knight can benefit from Shield Block without a shield, but it's something I'm wondering about for future purposes.

[justiceforall]

Additional weirdness for the rules gurus, I just noted this part:


During your action, designate a single opponent

It doesn't specify "your turn". Does that mean you can change the target when you AoO? Or when you take an immediate action?

[heavyfuel]

Nah Heavy I'm arguing for the sake of logical discussion. Which is why I didn't put a dispute in the RAW thread and moved it here. If I thought it was worth an actual dispute I'd still be in the RAW thread.


Fair enough. Sorry for assuming.



Yeah I'm 50/50 on the RAI here. I would have thought if they meant it for just a shield, they wouldn't have bothered with mentioning armour as XionUnborn01 noted.

How would you interpret, say, Two-weapon defense and no armor? You have no armor and no shield, yet you do have a Shield Bonus to AC.



The wording really jumped out at me as odd, even by usual terribly inconsistent WotC style. I kind of read this ability in the form of how they normally print feats, eg:

Description:

Starting at 2nd level, you excel in using your armor and shield to frustrate your enemy's attacks. You move your shield to deflect an incoming blow, possibly providing just enough protection to turn a telling swing into a near miss.

Benefit:

During your action, designate a single opponent as the target of this ability. Your shield bonus to AC against that foe increases by 1.


I do understand the observation that they decided to print it in a single block, thus forcing interpretation.

That's exactly what my Asterisk spoiler talks about. Even the "Description" part of a feat is RAW, not just the "Benefit" part.


Additional weirdness for the rules gurus, I just noted this part:

It doesn't specify "your turn". Does that mean you can change the target when you AoO? Or when you take an immediate action?

Indeed weird. I'd rule this as "your turn", though it's not RAW. RAW is "action", which includes Immediate Actions, and out-of-turn Free Actions (such as speaking) but not AoOs, Saving Throws, reactive Spot checks, 5ft-steps and everything else listed on p.8 and 9 of Rules Compendium. Pretty much makes it so that the ability is a fixed +1 AC.


Also, this is a weird side thought, but... what are the rules, exactly, on what to do when it says that a certain kind of bonus increases if you don't have that particular bonus? There's a few times I can think of that do that involving things like natural armor and fly/swim speeds and spell resistance and things, but don't most of those also include a qualifier line to the effect of "If you don't have this bonus, treat your bonus as 0 for this purpose"?

Ultimately, I don't think a little point like that should be the deciding factor on whether or not a Knight can benefit from Shield Block without a shield, but it's something I'm wondering about for future purposes.

You're right. If you don't have a bonus, you don't benefit form increases to it unless it says so.

[justiceforall]

You're right. If you don't have a bonus, you don't benefit form increases to it unless it says so.

Interesting - is there an SRD quote for that? I would have thought that would interact poorly with things that grant dodge bonuses unless there's an exception.


That's exactly what my Asterisk spoiler talks about. Even the "Description" part of a feat is RAW, not just the "Benefit" part.

Can someone link me to where that is spelled out? I assume this one is in one of the documents that describes exactly what is and isn't RAW that Wizzies put out?


How would you interpret, say, Two-weapon defense and no armor? You have no armor and no shield, yet you do have a Shield Bonus to AC.

Ok let's have a look:


Two-Weapon Defense [General]
Prerequisites

Dex 15, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Benefit

When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

When you are fighting defensively or using the total defense action, this shield bonus increases to +2.

It never mentions armour - am I looking in the right place?

[heavyfuel]

Interesting - is there an SRD quote for that? I would have thought that would interact poorly with things that grant dodge bonuses unless there's an exception.

Can someone link me to where that is spelled out? I assume this one is in one of the documents that describes exactly what is and isn't RAW that Wizzies put out?

Ok let's have a look:

It never mentions armour - am I looking in the right place?

It's simply that you can't get a bonus to something non-existant. Note that things that say "You get a +X bonus to Y" are pretty much always fine. The problem is in things like "You get +X bonus to your Y", as in this case you need a "Y". Most (all?) Dodge bonuses are simply given, with a special rule that they add up despite being named bonuses.

Egg 1: CL1 Shield of Faith gives you +2 Deflection Bonus. Nothing more, nothing less, and, as such, is fine.

Egg 2: Righteous Might gives you +2 Enhancement Bonus to your Natural Armor. If you have no natural armor, you don't get this bonus.

The Asterisk spoiler is from my first post in the thread. Just Ctrl-F "Asterisk" without quotes

You are. What I'm asking is: Could you get the +1 to Shield Bonus if you aren't wearing neither a shield nor armor, but have a Sheild Bonus to AC? (In the example I gave, an armor-less character with TWD)

[Red Fel]

You are. What I'm asking is: Could you get the +1 to Shield Bonus if you aren't wearing neither a shield nor armor, but have a Sheild Bonus to AC? (In the example I gave, an armor-less character with TWD)

I would say yes. If you have a shield bonus to AC - even if not from an actual shield - then this ability explicitly increases it. While the fluff mentions a shield, the specific description does not; it simply requires a pre-existing shield bonus, which it then increases.

And wearing armor is irrelevant. You have a base AC, to which armor and other factors add. But AC is one of those things you have, even when stark naked. Shield bonus is added to that. The increase from Shield Block is further added to that shield bonus.

[heavyfuel]

But then it completely walks all over RAI and RAW since as XionUnborn01 mentioned, the bonus is acquired by "using your armor and shield". (though he seems to have interpreted that "armor or shield")

[Red Fel]

But then it completely walks all over RAI and RAW since as XionUnborn01 mentioned, the bonus is acquired by "using your armor and shield". (though he seems to have interpreted that "armor or shield")

That's description, not benefit. Description is also known as "flavor text." It gives context and some fluff, but rarely has any actual mechanical function.

The benefit line is the one that describes the mechanics. And the benefit merely says that your shield bonus to AC is increased.

It's not walking all over RAW, because the RAW doesn't require a shield. It may be walking all over RAI, but then, that tends to happen quite a lot anyway.

[heavyfuel]

That's description, not benefit. Description is also known as "flavor text." It gives context and some fluff, but rarely has any actual mechanical function.

The benefit line is the one that describes the mechanics. And the benefit merely says that your shield bonus to AC is increased.

It's not walking all over RAW, because the RAW doesn't require a shield. It may be walking all over RAI, but then, that tends to happen quite a lot anyway.

There is no "benefit line" because it's not a feat, but a class feature. Not to mention, nowhere does it say that descriptions have no mechanical effect.

As I said earlier:


There's no such thing as fluff/description when it comes to the rules. If it's written, it's RAW. We'd need a rule somewhere saying that specific parts of the rulebook can be ignored so that they could. There is no such rule, except - maybe - that line in Spell Compendium about descriptive texts. Though that only legaly applies to the spells in that book because of the Primary Souce rules

[Red Fel]

There is no "benefit line" because it's not a feat, but a class feature. Not to mention, nowhere does it say that descriptions have no mechanical effect.

As I said earlier:

Nowhere does it say that all Illithids have a deep and abiding passion for the color purple; the fact that it doesn't say something doesn't mean it can't be true. There is such a thing as dictum, or surplus verbage. It happens. But you're right, it's a class feature, not a feat. So let's look at the actual language. I'm prepared to sit corrected.


Starting at 2nd level, you excel in using your armor and shield to frustrate your enemy’s attacks. During your action, designate a single opponent as the target of this ability. Your shield bonus to AC against that foe increases by 1, as you move your shield to deflect an incoming blow, possibly providing just enough protection to turn a telling swing into a near miss.

This shield bonus increases to +2 at 11th level and +3 at 20th level.

Okay. Let's break this thing down. There are only two statements in that excerpt that provide an explicit mechanical benefit, and they are: Your shield bonus to AC against that foe increases by 1, This shield bonus increases to +2 at 11th level and +3 at 20th level.
You are relying upon the following language: you excel in using your armor and shield to frustrate your enemy's attacks. you move your shield to deflect an incoming blow,
By your definition, these latter statements are mandatory RAW; that is, they explicitly require you to be wearing armor and using a shield.

I'd like to first address the armor problem. If both of these statements are RAW, then they are contradictory. One says that you use "your armor and shield," while the other says that "you move your shield" - the second says nothing about using your armor. How are you using your armor? Why do you have to be wearing armor in order to move your shield? I submit to you, therefore, that even if we assumed for sake of argument that the shield was required, the language about the armor is both contradictory and unnecessary.

Now, on to the shield. I'm still not convinced that it's RAW. I'm convinced that it's flavor text, explaining from a narrative perspective how you do the mechanical thing, in much the same way that "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage" is used to explain how a Rogue gets Sneak Attack damage. I see it as descriptive text. However, I acknowledge that the particular language "you move your shield to deflect an incoming blow" could be seen as a RAW requirement for a shield. (If that's so, however, it raises the question of how exactly people without this ability are using their shields; do they not move a shield to deflect an incoming blow?) So while I'm not convinced, I acknowledge that the position has some arguable merit.

[Flickerdart]

Given that the ability doesn't turn off even if you're paralyzed or stunned, I call into question the rules consequences of the descriptive text. Surely one could not move their shield when suffering from one of these conditions, and yet the ability says nothing about turning off when one cannot move one's shield.

The text isn't more specific than the conditions, so it would not enable you to move your shield while paralyzed - but if the descriptive text was rules, it would still grant you the bonus, because it says "as you move" and not "if you move." This makes no sense - you are getting the bonus first and then it's being justified in a way that doesn't fit with reality - so the only way to make the ability work mechanically is to discard description text as not being mechanical rules.

[justiceforall]

Thank you for the continued discussion guys, interesting read.


Something I'd like to ask again for, Heavy's quote:


If you don't have a bonus, you don't benefit form increases to it unless it says so.

Does anyone know if there's a clear quote in the SRD for this mechanic? I'm a bit curious because if this is the case, the Dodge feat and such may not function as expected?


During your action, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent.

The wording difference between "receive" and "increase" is the only difference here. Is that material?

[Eloel]

The wording difference between "receive" and "increase" is the only difference here. Is that material?
Yes, that's the relevant part he's referring to.


Egg 2: Righteous Might gives you +2 Enhancement Bonus to your Natural Armor. If you have no natural armor, you don't get this bonus.

This, however, is wrong.


A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.
It's pretty well hidden, but it's there.

[heavyfuel]

This, however, is wrong.


It's pretty well hidden, but it's there.

AFAIK, this is a condition of Barkskin alone, not a general rule. Also, what about other bonuses, such as the Shield bonus from the Shield Block class feature?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Is there any reason to believe the shield created by Force Screen or Shield does not move to intercept attacks?

Shield: "Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you."
Force Screen: "You create an invisible mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you."

Both of these explicitly state that the shield is mobile and has no armour check penalty. In other words, it moves, it's never in the way, and it still intercepts attacks. The requirements of the fluff text - "as you move your shield to deflect an incoming blow" - are not in contradiction with the shield created by these spells.

I'd still say that any old shield bonus - Two-Weapon Defence, for one - will satisfy the Shield Block ability, but these two spells make it explicit.

[heavyfuel]

It's not that they don't move, it's that they aren't shields, but disks of force that happen to grant a Shield Bonus to AC.

[ExLibrisMortis]

It's not that they don't move, it's that they aren't shields, but disks of force that happen to grant a Shield Bonus to AC.
Yes they are shields... what gives you the idea they are not shields? Just because they're temporary, and not made of wood or steel? That's discriminatory! Don't you think of the poor gishes, always being second to full casters, and never given credit by 'real warriors'? Now you want to take away their shields!?

Anyway, without the jokes :smalltongue:...

"Your shield bonus to AC against that foe increases by 1, as you move your shield to deflect an incoming blow, possibly providing just enough protection to turn a telling swing into a near miss."
I think the 'shield' in the second part of the line refers back to the 'shield bonus', that is, the shield = whatever is providing the shield bonus at that time.

Incidentally, what would happen if someone was using a buckler with a Shield spell, in your opinion? What about a +1 dancing buckler and a Shield spell?

[heavyfuel]

Yes they are shields... what gives you the idea they are not shields?

Incidentally, what would happen if someone was using a buckler with a Shield spell, in your opinion? What about a +1 dancing buckler and a Shield spell?

The fact that their description states them as being disks of force, despite what the name of the spell (but not the power) might imply.

A buckler, animated or otherwise, is perfetly fine.


Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself

[Eloel]

The fact that their description states them as being disks of force, despite what the name of the spell (but not the power) might imply.

So, the description of the spell takes precedence over name of the spell? Even though it's not even close to being ambiguous, it clearly says Shield?


An effect that gives a shield bonus usually represents an invisible, tangible shield of force that moves to protect a creature.
I'd say this is as clear as they can state that the spell Shield is a shield. (if the name was not a dead giveaway)

[heavyfuel]

So, the description of the spell takes precedence over name of the spell? Even though it's not even close to being ambiguous, it clearly says Shield?

I'd say this is as clear as they can state that the spell Shield is a shield. (if the name was not a dead giveaway)

Sorry, but "usually" is not even close to being not umbiguous.

Also, Rules Compendium doesn't have the authority to change stuff from the books because Primary Source Errata is a thing. As long as the reprinted PHB and DMG don't have this rule written in them, then it can't be considered RAW. (Though I don't own the reprinted versions, and would be glad to be proven wrong)

If this isn't a RAW discussion, then the RAI is pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that you need an actual shield.

[Red Fel]

If this isn't a RAW discussion, then the RAI is pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that you need an actual shield.

The fact that people continue to suggest otherwise tells me that, although it might be arguable, it is hardly "pretty clear." If it were, there would be no argument.

[Eloel]

The fact that people continue to suggest otherwise tells me that, although it might be arguable, it is hardly "pretty clear." If it were, there would be no argument.

When you're the only person in a group of people that supports something, and can't prove RAW, RAI is the next best thing you can claim. Don't take it away from him.

[Namfuak]

So, the description of the spell takes precedence over name of the spell? Even though it's not even close to being ambiguous, it clearly says Shield?

I'd say this is as clear as they can state that the spell Shield is a shield. (if the name was not a dead giveaway)

If we were to assume a shield was necessary due to the descriptive text, the general definition of a shield for the game would only refer to the items listed in the "Shields" section of the "Armor" table in the PHB (and any other splat book that defines a similar table or explicitly adds items to the category), effects that would fit a real world definition of a shield and the Shield spell are not in that table, so they are not included unless explicitly mentioned. Conveniently, because all shields are in the category of "armor," a person who has equipped a shield has ipso facto equipped armor, so the use of armor requirement in the descriptive text is always fulfilled by fulfilling the shield requirement.

[heavyfuel]

The fact that people continue to suggest otherwise tells me that, although it might be arguable, it is hardly "pretty clear." If it were, there would be no argument.

RAI as in "Rules as Intended", not as in "Rules as Interpreted", is pretty clear. I don't think anyone will say the designers of the class meant for you use Shield Block with anything other than a good old-fashioned shield.


When you're the only person in a group of people that supports something, and can't prove RAW, RAI is the next best thing you can claim. Don't take it away from him.

How have I not proven RAW? Your RC argument isn't valid because while RC brought about many good rules, none of them have any effect on RAW since WotC never bothered to update the Primary Source Errata to make RC the primary source.

[Red Fel]

RAI as in "Rules as Intended", not as in "Rules as Interpreted", is pretty clear. I don't think anyone will say the designers of the class meant for you use Shield Block with anything other than a good old-fashioned shield.

I think "anyone" has been saying that for some time in this thread.


How have I not proven RAW?

I think it more accurate to say that you haven't proven RAW conclusively.

Look, I'm not saying your position is wrong. I've stated, and will do so again, that it is arguable, and indeed reasonable, that the ability was designed to work with a shield.

However, the language is not unambiguous, nor is your reasoning ironclad. There is a fair argument to be made that the mechanical description - that it increases your shield bonus to AC - applies to any shield bonus, notwithstanding the fact that it may not come from an actual, technical shield. The fact that multiple people have espoused such a position shows, at the very least, that the argument can be made, and that RAW is not absolutely one way or the other.

[Necroticplague]

I agree, there is no solid line between the flavor and the fluff. However, there's also not necessarily any connection. The class feature says that ' you excel in using your armor and shield to frustrate your enemy's attacks'. This is true. It also says 'During your action, designate a single opponent as the target of this ability. Your shield bonus to AC against that foe increases by 1'. This is also true. They are not, however, related to each other. The feature allows you to do two separate things. Just like how a monk Unarmed Strike class feature both grants you IUS and lets you treat your unarmed attack as a manufactured weapon, this class feature does two unrelated things. As for the last bit of text; I would like to point out that 'shield' isn't defined in the rules to be limited to the things on the table (and in fact, isn't formally defined at all). So as long as you have some form of shield bonus, it seems fair enough to consider whatever is providing the bonus a shield. If you use two-weapon defence, your weapons are a shield. If you use the Shield spell, and invisible mass of force is your shield. Either way, you're better at using it to block attack.

As for RAI: if it isn't unbalancing the game, and it is following the rules, why should I care if it was intended? This class feature compares unfavorably to dodge even under the most permissive reading until level 11 (and I've never seen anyone take knight past level 3). Heck, even at level 11, it's kinda a toss-up between the two (extra point of AC vs. Working against touch attacks).