Mage Armor + (Mundane) Shield

[Another Monk]

Does the mage armor spell stack with a shield?
Not the spell, a real, solid, metal (or wooden) shield.

[Kryx]

Mage armor sets your ac to 13+dex as long as you don't wear armor. A shield is not armor. Notice "Armor and Shields".

Yes, they work together.

[Person_Man]

I personally am terrible at RAW, since I've been playing through too many editions and it all sorta blends together. So do not take anything I say as the correct RAW ruling.

But speaking for myself and the DMs I've played under, shields are considered armor. Shield appears on the armor chart. It is listed under armor proficiency in the class descriptions. And the proficiency rules read:


Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.


So, either a shield is armor, or if its not then anyone can use one and gain the bonus without any drawback since it isn't called out as having a penalty for non-proficiency. If the latter was true, then they wouldn't have bothered listing proficiency for it under the various classes that can use it and under the medium armor feat that grants it. So RAI, I think a shield is armor. Also, in every non-4E previous edition a shield was considered armor and you couldn't cast arcane magic while using one (or suffered a failure chance while using it).

Again, I'm not saying Kryx is incorrect. I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense for a shield not to be considered armor.

[DireSickFish]

It is armor and it does stack. The reason it stacks is like unlike every other type of armor it gives you a bonus to armor instead of setting your AC, so it goes on top of all other armor sets it to a given value. I'm away from book at the moment but I beleive you follow the normal rules for being non-proficient with armor when you use a shield untrained (but I'm not sure).

[Sigreid]

I personally am terrible at RAW, since I've been playing through too many editions and it all sorta blends together. So do not take anything I say as the correct RAW ruling.

But speaking for myself and the DMs I've played under, shields are considered armor. Shield appears on the armor chart. It is listed under armor proficiency in the class descriptions. And the proficiency rules read:


Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.


So, either a shield is armor, or if its not then anyone can use one and gain the bonus without any drawback since it isn't called out as having a penalty for non-proficiency. If the latter was true, then they wouldn't have bothered listing proficiency for it under the various classes that can use it and under the medium armor feat that grants it. So RAI, I think a shield is armor. Also, in every non-4E previous edition a shield was considered armor and you couldn't cast arcane magic while using one (or suffered a failure chance while using it).

Again, I'm not saying Kryx is incorrect. I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense for a shield not to be considered armor.

Well, I don't consider it armor exactly but having used shields in the past it takes some practice before it doesn't throw off everything you do.

[PoeticDwarf]

Does the mage armor spell stack with a shield?
Not the spell, a real, solid, metal (or wooden) shield.

They work together, with unarmored defense (monk) there is written down you can't use it with a shield. You can use mage armor with a shield.

[Kurt Kurageous]

And the proficiency rules read:

[INDENT]Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.

Again, I'm not saying Kryx is incorrect. I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense for a shield not to be considered armor.

IHO, as a guy who's actually worn armor, carried a shield, and tried to not get hit by the others shooting arrows, swinging sticks, etc etc...

If I could rewrite 5e:
Armor "proficiency" overall is BS. It takes only about 30 minutes to get used to wearing it. It's distracting, but it wears off like wearing clothes does. The rule should be a penalty to DX if you don't have either a min STR or can't wear it without encumbrance. Now fighting with a heavy backpack takes skill. Taking off a backpack without getting the straps caught up, now that's a skill! That's why advanced packs have quick releases in the front, BTW.

Fighting with a helmet on that obstructs your field of vision is a bigger issue than wearing armor. Buckets and others make it hard to breathe.

Using a shield really well takes a lot of skill/practice. It should be treated as a specific weapon proficiency, perhaps Martial. The AC bonus should really scale with skill. A big miss to help out martials by WoTC IMHO.

Shield is not armor IMHO and at my table. Used properly it's a weapon/tool that specializes in parrying/blocking blows not unlike the Rogue dodge.

[Kryx]

Shield are not armor by RAW or RAI.

Monk

Unarmored Defense
Beginning at 1st level, while you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom modifier.

Barbarian

Unarmored Defense
While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit.
There is a differentiation there - a Barbarian can use a shield while using Unarmored defense. If a shield was armor the Monk wouldn't need to specify the shield.

Tweet:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524716308097560576

Yes, the mage armor spell and the sorcerer's Draconic Resilience work with a shield.


Mage Armor
You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends.


Draconic Resilience
When you aren’t wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier.

It makes a lot of sense to not consider a shield as armor. The only problem with that is, as Person_Man says, is proficiency. 5e is worded poorly in this regard, but proficiency should still be required or the penalties apply.

Shield are not armor by RAW or RAI.

[Giant2005]

There is a differentiation there - a Barbarian can use a shield while using Unarmored defense. If a shield was armor the Monk wouldn't need to specify the shield.
That isn't evidence of anything - those examples give you just as much reason to assume the opposite. If the Shield wasn't armor, the Barbarian wouldn't need to specify the shield.

The Tweet however is fairly conclusive (Assuming Crawford actually bothered to open the book and read thew abilities before making the statement. But he has been known to be wrong before.

Further relevant information can be found in the Errata regarding Unarmed Strike. Unarmed Strike was in the same position in that it was included on the Weapons table so it was assumed to be a weapon. The devs felt the need to clarify that issue by removing it from the weapons table. The fact that they chose to not give the Shield the same treatment suggests that it is on the Armor table because it is intended to be armor (Unlike the Unarmed Strike which was not intended to be considered a weapon).

[coredump]

Despite some peoples vehement insistance... there are reasons to assume Shields are a type of armor. They are in the Armor chart, they are listed in the Armor section, they are part of the Armor proficiencies...... etc etc.

There are also reasons to assume they are not considered armor. Many of which have been listed.


The problem is it is hard to know if a shield is armor, and sometimes listed separately just to be thorough.
Or is a shield not armor, and just listed under armor as a convenience.


Personally, based on all the things I could find (including DM tweets) I think it is meant to be considered *not* as armor. But there is no way to definitively say for sure.

[GiantOctopodes]

Does the mage armor spell stack with a shield?
Not the spell, a real, solid, metal (or wooden) shield.

As you've seen, it can be argued either way. Here's my take on it:

I do not believe shields are armor. Note the fighter, whose armor proficiencies are "All Armor, Shields" (if a shield is armor, that's redundant). Note that the section of the rules is labelled "Armor and Shields" (again, redundant), and in it, it states "the armor (and shield) you wear determines your AC". However, it ultimately does not matter, because *everywhere* that talks about armor also calls out how it interacts with shields, with the exception of Mage Armor, at least to the best of my knowledge. I will certainly grant that the status of shields as being armor could certainly be argued either way.

Now, with that, the actual question is not "does the mage armor spell stack with a shield", but rather imho, "should the mage armor spell stack with a shield" since it remains the only place where it's not already specified. The answer to that, for me, is no. Not based on text precedents ('unlike every other ability that allows shields, it does not specify shields are allowed, so they're not' is just as valid as 'unlike every other ability that disallows shields, it does not specify shields are not allowed, so they are') but based on balance considerations.

The reason is that mage armor is already better than any light armor in the game (AC 13+Dex vs at most 12+Dex for studded leather), and it provides a max AC of 18 (w/ 20 Dex), equal to plate armor (while not providing disadvantage on stealth and not requiring a Str of 15) and higher than anything achievable through medium armor. These considerations are balanced against it requiring a 1st level spell slot (which becomes less of a balance consideration as the game goes on), and being able to be dispelled (not that it's likely someone will target that effect for dispelling, but it is possible). By disallowing shields, you return meaningful choice to the equation. For a character with Dex 18, "do I wear half plate, which weighs a fair amount, and provides disadvantage on dex checks, but since I can use a shield provides a potential 2 higher AC, or do I go the stealthy unencumbered route and stick with mage armor?"

Note that it is impossible to become proficient with shields without also being proficient in medium armor. If they're proficient in medium armor, but are adding disadvantage on stealth when using it, with a net effect of *reducing* their AC, something's gone awry in my book. Someone who wants to pursue the armored mage route should not take it as a burdensome event to wear that armor for flavor considerations.

Just my 2cp.

Edit: Please note that these balance considerations are normally less true for Wizards themselves than they are for Monks (for whom it can be just outright better than their unarmored defense), Rogues (again, a flat out upgrade under all circumstances), and Bards (same), and heck, even Fighters and Rangers who are based on Dex, all of whom can easily snag the spell through magic initiate. I know I'm likely being silly with this, since it's only 1 higher AC than Studded Leather, I just dislike the idea of Mage Armor being the best armor in the game, bar none. I like there to be meaningful choices as to what armor you'll use, personally.

[Kryx]

But there is no way to definitively say for sure.
The tweet I posted says that a shield is not armor for those 2 cases at least. That's pretty definitive.

"it can be argued either way" is simply not true. Without the tweet, sure. But with the tweet it's quite definitive.

[charcoalninja]

I personally am terrible at RAW, since I've been playing through too many editions and it all sorta blends together. So do not take anything I say as the correct RAW ruling.

But speaking for myself and the DMs I've played under, shields are considered armor. Shield appears on the armor chart. It is listed under armor proficiency in the class descriptions. And the proficiency rules read:


Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.


So, either a shield is armor, or if its not then anyone can use one and gain the bonus without any drawback since it isn't called out as having a penalty for non-proficiency. If the latter was true, then they wouldn't have bothered listing proficiency for it under the various classes that can use it and under the medium armor feat that grants it. So RAI, I think a shield is armor. Also, in every non-4E previous edition a shield was considered armor and you couldn't cast arcane magic while using one (or suffered a failure chance while using it).

Again, I'm not saying Kryx is incorrect. I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense for a shield not to be considered armor.

Problem is that the only place shields are actually listed as armour is the Armour table. Everywhere else lists shields and armour as different.

The overarching title of the section is Armour and Shields. This means that shields are not armour.
The passage you quoted is Armour Proficiency. The first sentece says anyone can strap a shield to their arm, however they then only talk about armour requiring proficient use and then further lay out penalties solely for armour.

This is further supported by Shields having their own section right below Armour Proficiency.

So in terms of the equipment section, the text has far more points in support of shields not being armour than for, as only the armour table claims them to actually be armour. This does however create the problem that under RAW Shield proficiency does nothing and is not required at all. Anyone can strap a shield to their arm and gain all of the bonuses and cast in it freely which seems odd.

I believe the intent was for Shields to impose the armour penalties, however that is not even remotely what they wrote down in the book.

[GiantOctopodes]

The tweet I posted says that a shield is not armor for those 2 cases at least. That's pretty definitive.

"it can be argued either way" is simply not true. Without the tweet, sure. But with the tweet it's quite definitive.

Well, it's pretty much *always* true that it can be argued either way. Whether or not you think the other person's argument has any merit is of course a different matter :smallwink:

I certainly agree that for those who follow the tweets and treat them as RAW, the decision has been made for them. As you know, I personally do not, but prefer rather to take the RAW of the book, and in cases where ambiguity exists, attempt to come to logical and consistent conclusions that maintain both simple game mechanics and balance. I prefer to rely on my own thoughts rather than those of a 3rd party. But that's just me.

[Easy_Lee]

Mage Armor says you can't be wearing armor. A shield is armor since it's on the armor table, but you only can be considered as wearing it if it's strapped on. So as long as you hold the shield by a handle rather than having it strapped to your arm, then you aren't wearing it and it stacks with mage armor. This is obviously the intent.

[Kryx]

I certainly agree that for those who follow the tweets and treat them as RAW, the decision has been made for them. As you know, I personally do not, but prefer rather to take the RAW of the book, and in cases where ambiguity exists, attempt to come to logical and consistent conclusions that maintain both simple game mechanics and balance. I prefer to rely on my own thoughts rather than those of a 3rd party. But that's just me.
What I'm trying to make clear that the rules have clearly said "it works this way". So for others reading it isn't a matter of "he said, she said".

People can indeed choose to take the RAW route or their own logical route. My only intention was to clarify what the rules say and what the designer intended it to say.



This is obviously the intent.
Thank god you put the blue. :)

[Person_Man]

From a balance perspective, its also worth mentioning that someone with Mage Armor will typically have +1 higher AC then someone using light or medium armor, and the best medium armor and heavy armor impose disadvantage on Stealth checks.

Although +1 AC isn't that big of a deal, and its within the overall range of AC options available to other classes, I find it really annoying that arcane spellcasters get an AC option that superior to the options available to Rogues, Rangers, etc.

Thus I believe that it is more balanced for Mage Armor not to work with shields.

Again, I concede the RAW. I just don't think its a good idea.

[GiantOctopodes]

What I'm trying to make clear that the rules have clearly said "it works this way". So for others reading it isn't a matter of "he said, she said".

People can indeed choose to take the RAW route or their own logical route. My only intention was to clarify what the rules say and what the designer intended it to say.


Certainly! And I neither disagree with anything you've put forth in respect for that nor meant to imply any such disagreement :smallsmile:

I feel obliged to point out as well that I do not mean to imply any disparagement towards those who *do* follow the tweets as RAW. The devs are providing a service of clarifying (or trying to) ambiguities within the rules for those who ask. It is certainly not wrong in any way to take them at their word. It certainly provides a hard and fast reference point for disputes with players and eases decision making processes, so it's definitely a valid way to go.

I myself do not, I feel the things they take the effort to put into an errata I'll accept, but otherwise I won't accept my authority as a DM or my DM's authority being undermined by tweets that can and occasionally do run counter to RAW, and occasionally conflict with each other. When they have their thoughts organized, clarified, have agreement on them, and are confident enough on them to publish them as an errata, great, I'll take that as RAW (which is of course still malleable as the DM sees fit, naturally). Until that point, I take them for what they are- statements made by people, who are intimately familiar with the rules, but statements which reflect more their gut reaction on the topic than any kind of in depth analysis into the underlying issues which created the ambiguity or analysis of the game impact caused by those statements. That's a personal decision I make, and not one I intend to force whatsoever on others.

I compare the amount of time, playtesting, feedback and analysis that went into all of the wording used in the rules as written, and compare that to the amount of time it takes to make a tweet, and reject the validity of arguments based on those tweets. That may cause me to have irreconcilable differences in points of view with those who do follow them, but that does not mean in any way I am rejecting the validity of the opinions of the person in question, just that I disagree with the conflation of an external information source which is constantly changing and not universally accessible with RAW in a published material. I hope that makes sense!


Mage Armor says you can't be wearing armor. A shield is armor since it's on the armor table, but you only can be considered as wearing it if it's strapped on. So as long as you hold the shield by a handle rather than having it strapped to your arm, then you aren't wearing it and it stacks with mage armor. This is obviously the intent.

I had to lol.

[Kryx]

From a balance perspective, its also worth mentioning that someone with Mage Armor will typically have +1 higher AC then someone using light or medium armor, and the best medium armor and heavy armor impose disadvantage on Stealth checks.

Although +1 AC isn't that big of a deal, and its within the overall range of AC options available to other classes, I find it really annoying that arcane spellcasters get an AC option that superior to the options available to Rogues, Rangers, etc.

Thus I believe that it is more balanced for Mage Armor not to work with shields.
I see that argument and do understand it. I think the issue there is with mage armor though - not shields. As a ranger could wear a shield and a Rogue could pick it up via multiclassing - typically the same way a caster would. I think the difference is the designers expect light armor wearers to have a high dexterity. so 12+3 = 15, same as 13+2 (assuming wiz has 2 dex) at first level. At later levels the rogue will have 4 or 5 dex whereas mage armor doesn't scale.

It is a bit weird, but the problem there is with Mage Armor, not a shield imo.

Again, I concede the RAW. I just don't think its a good idea.
Sorry for being a RAW/RAI nazi. :P



I compare the amount of time, playtesting, feedback and analysis that went into all of the wording used in the rules as written, and compare that to the amount of time it takes to make a tweet, and reject the validity of arguments based on those tweets.!
The playtest had the Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Wizard. It did not have the Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, or Warlock. Beyond that there are hundreds of errors in the books. That is why I find trusting pure RAW based on the idea that it was playtested well to not be the definitive source. Look at the wording on contagion, bonus action spells, shields, and hundreds of others. 5e isn't meant to be the highly tested and errata(actual fixes, not just typos) lawbook of old.

[Demonic Spoon]

From a balance perspective, its also worth mentioning that someone with Mage Armor will typically have +1 higher AC then someone using light or medium armor, and the best medium armor and heavy armor impose disadvantage on Stealth checks.

Although +1 AC isn't that big of a deal, and its within the overall range of AC options available to other classes, I find it really annoying that arcane spellcasters get an AC option that superior to the options available to Rogues, Rangers, etc.

Thus I believe that it is more balanced for Mage Armor not to work with shields.

Again, I concede the RAW. I just don't think its a good idea.

Probably not a fair comparison - an arcane caster cannot be DEX-based. A wizard would have to give up a lot to actually get equal or better AC than other classes. The best application of it would actually probably be as a magic initiate spell on a non-caster.

[The Shadowdove]

IHO, as a guy who's actually worn armor, carried a shield, and tried to not get hit by the others shooting arrows, swinging sticks, etc etc...

If I could rewrite 5e:
Armor "proficiency" overall is BS. It takes only about 30 minutes to get used to wearing it. It's distracting, but it wears off like wearing clothes does. The rule should be a penalty to DX if you don't have either a min STR or can't wear it without encumbrance. Now fighting with a heavy backpack takes skill. Taking off a backpack without getting the straps caught up, now that's a skill! That's why advanced packs have quick releases in the front, BTW.

Fighting with a helmet on that obstructs your field of vision is a bigger issue than wearing armor. Buckets and others make it hard to breathe.

Using a shield really well takes a lot of skill/practice. It should be treated as a specific weapon proficiency, perhaps Martial. The AC bonus should really scale with skill. A big miss to help out martials by WoTC IMHO.

Shield is not armor IMHO and at my table. Used properly it's a weapon/tool that specializes in parrying/blocking blows not unlike the Rogue dodge.

Off topic

You in the sca?

[GiantOctopodes]

I see that argument and do understand it. I think the issue there is with mage armor though - not shields. As a ranger could wear a shield and a Rogue could pick it up via multiclassing - typically the same way a caster would. I think the difference is the designers expect light armor wearers to have a high dexterity. so 12+3 = 15, same as 13+2 (assuming wiz has 2 dex) at first level. At later levels the rogue will have 4 or 5 dex whereas mage armor doesn't scale.


But it does scale- the base AC is 13+ dex, making it just flat out better than any light armor, regardless of other considerations. I *think* see what you mean in that a Rogue will add to his Dex while a Wizard will not, so eventually the Rogue will have a higher AC than the Wizard, and based on stat priorities this is certainly true. As indicated previously, I believe it to be more of an issue with dex based characters obtaining this, whether through a 1 level dip in Wizard or Sorcerer or through magic initiate, or Eldritch Knights or Arcane Tricksters. I get that they are giving something up to get this armor, but for me that doesn't balance out the elimination of meaningful choice.



The playtest had the Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Wizard. It did not have the Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, or Warlock. Beyond that there are hundreds of errors in the books. That is why I find trusting pure RAW based on the idea that it was playtested well to not be the definitive source. Look at the wording on contagion, bonus action spells, shields, and hundreds of others. 5e isn't meant to be the highly tested and errata(actual fixes, not just typos) lawbook of old.

Certainly valid points.



Probably not a fair comparison - an arcane caster cannot be DEX-based. A wizard would have to give up a lot to actually get equal or better AC than other classes. The best application of it would actually probably be as a magic initiate spell on a non-caster.


Keep in mind too that from a roleplaying standpoint (and this is after all a RPG) there are tremendous advantages to not wearing armor, whether because it's inappropriate for the setting (formal parties or whatever), because you're wearing a disguise, or in any other circumstance where armor serves as a hindrance, whether mechanically or from an interaction standpoint. It's also 100% weightless, which certainly can be a consideration, and cannot be magically compelled away or anything else. It also is neither part of your equipment nor is it armor, but rather sets your base AC, which means for polymorphing or wild shape it may improve the AC of your resultant form.

My point in general is that Mage Armor already has enough situations in which it's advantageous. It doesn't need to be advantageous in *all* situations. I see the intent of the spell as providing decent AC to folks while unarmored, providing some defensive measures without the need for or encumbrance of armor. I don't see the intent as serving as the foundation for a defensive powerhouse, wherein a Wizard with 20 dex and a +3 shield who uses their reaction to cast their at will shield spell has a total AC of 28. And again, I know I'm being silly, since the same mage in studded leather has an AC of 27, and if they got their armor and shield proficiencies through Fighter and picked up armored at the same time it's *still* 28 AC, so it's not like it helps much to make that ruling. But at least then they're wearing armor to hit that AC level.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Off topic

You in the sca?

Was. Also played the very silly AMTGARD or whatever that was called. Actually wore my main armor in both, plastic plates remoulded with heat cut from the large plastic barrels. Ironically, the AMTGARD guys (fantasy simulators) were pickier than SCA about my "dragon plates."

[MeeposFire]

Well mage armor is equal to studded leather +1 but will never get better. You can find and wear with no issues +1-3 armor without using your attunement slots and at +2 or more you have better AC. +1 armor is relatively easy to find.

Mage armor is nice but chances are at some point a light armor user will equal it and there is a good chance you will surpass it without any worries that mage armor will have (dispel). Unlike armor mage armor does not really have a way to increase AC without using an attuned item.

[coredump]

The tweet I posted says that a shield is not armor for those 2 cases at least. That's pretty definitive.

"it can be argued either way" is simply not true. Without the tweet, sure. But with the tweet it's quite definitive.

Sorry, I meant to address the general Shield=Armor? issue, not the specific Mage Armor and Shield combo.... the tweet deals with that just fine.



Here is another issue..... if a shield is *NOT* considered armor. What is the penalty for using one without proficiency?

[AvatarVecna]

Technically speaking, the rule preventing a person from combining physical Armor, Mage Armor, or Unarmored Defense in any particular combo is not because "you can't have multiple things adding together", it's because "each of those things changes your AC calculation". And shields (physical shields, anyway; I'm not sure about the spell) do not change your base AC equation, they just introduce an additional number to it. This is supported by the tweet.

Beyond that, on what build is this relevant? Maybe an Eldritch Knight who doesn't want to wear armor for some reason? Maybe a Favored Soul Sorcerer who doesn't like armor but wants a shield? Who has shield proficiency and either no armor proficiency or no reason to prefer armor to Mage Armor?

[Kryx]

Here is another issue..... if a shield is *NOT* considered armor. What is the penalty for using one without proficiency?
This was discussed a bit higher in the thread.

It seems they intended the armor proficiency penalties to apply to shields.

Shields are indeed in this weird limbo of armor, but not armor. I we just have to fudge it so the proficiency makes sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed how shields work at the last minute and didn't update it all to be consistent. Luckily we have that tweet to tell us how in some aspects shields are not armor.

[Easy_Lee]

From a balance perspective, its also worth mentioning that someone with Mage Armor will typically have +1 higher AC then someone using light or medium armor, and the best medium armor and heavy armor impose disadvantage on Stealth checks.

Although +1 AC isn't that big of a deal, and its within the overall range of AC options available to other classes, I find it really annoying that arcane spellcasters get an AC option that superior to the options available to Rogues, Rangers, etc.

I agree. Casters shouldn't have higher resistance to melee damage, higher AC, than people who spend all their time in melee.

Mage Armor is kind of weird anyway when we compare it to barkskin. MA sets AC to a number plus DEX, which encourages casters to raise their DEX stat and makes the spell overall more effective when cast on a rogue. Barkskin just picks a number, 16, which I think is more balanced (aside from barkskin requiring concentration, which is dumb IMO). It also fits the caster theme a bit better. Raising other stats besides DEX seems like more of a caster thing to do, and having a source of AC=16 could be useful to some builds.

[Fwiffo86]

This was discussed a bit higher in the thread.

It seems they intended the armor proficiency penalties to apply to shields.

Shields are indeed in this weird limbo of armor, but not armor. I we just have to fudge it so the proficiency makes sense.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed how shields work at the last minute and didn't update it all to be consistent. Luckily we have that tweet to tell us how in some aspects shields are not armor.

Doesn't one of the armor proficiency feats mention shields? I think I remember that. I would pose that as evidence that Shields are considered armor as well.

[Demonic Spoon]

Keep in mind too that from a roleplaying standpoint (and this is after all a RPG) there are tremendous advantages to not wearing armor, whether because it's inappropriate for the setting (formal parties or whatever), because you're wearing a disguise, or in any other circumstance where armor serves as a hindrance, whether mechanically or from an interaction standpoint. It's also 100% weightless, which certainly can be a consideration, and cannot be magically compelled away or anything else. It also is neither part of your equipment nor is it armor, but rather sets your base AC, which means for polymorphing or wild shape it may improve the AC of your resultant form.

My point in general is that Mage Armor already has enough situations in which it's advantageous. It doesn't need to be advantageous in *all* situations. I see the intent of the spell as providing decent AC to folks while unarmored, providing some defensive measures without the need for or encumbrance of armor. I don't see the intent as serving as the foundation for a defensive powerhouse, wherein a Wizard with 20 dex and a +3 shield who uses their reaction to cast their at will shield spell has a total AC of 28. And again, I know I'm being silly, since the same mage in studded leather has an AC of 27, and if they got their armor and shield proficiencies through Fighter and picked up armored at the same time it's *still* 28 AC, so it's not like it helps much to make that ruling. But at least then they're wearing armor to hit that AC level.


This is a solution looking for a problem. You've demonstrated ways that you can build a concept around it, but you haven't actually established that such builds would be overpowered...And the average case is still "Mage with mediocre DEX uses mage armor to get mediocre AC rather than terrible AC".

[GiantOctopodes]

Doesn't one of the armor proficiency feats mention shields? I think I remember that. I would pose that as evidence that Shields are considered armor as well.

The feat in question is moderately armored. It, like all things, specifies "medium armor and shields". Note that it's moderately armored, not medium armor proficiency, so it doesn't really provide any more clarity than any other part of the rules on this.



Beyond that, on what build is this relevant? Maybe an Eldritch Knight who doesn't want to wear armor for some reason? Maybe a Favored Soul Sorcerer who doesn't like armor but wants a shield? Who has shield proficiency and either no armor proficiency or no reason to prefer armor to Mage Armor?

That's exactly the point- an Eldritch Knight, a Favored Soul, *anyone* with both Mage Armor and regular armor has no reason to ever use their medium armor proficiency, assuming they have an adequate Dex score. The Eldritch Knight, especially a ranged one, is one of the more likely culprits for that to occur.


This is a solution looking for a problem. You've demonstrated ways that you can build a concept around it, but you haven't actually established that such builds would be overpowered...And the average case is still "Mage with mediocre DEX uses mage armor to get mediocre AC rather than terrible AC".

I don't know about that- an Abjurer Wizard 18 in that scenario has an AC higher than any other class (thanks to their at will shield for +5 AC every turn, not thanks to mage armor necessarily, after all they could just as easily be wearing full plate with 1 level of Fighter for the same AC without needing any Dex), and has advantage on *all* saves against spells. That seems pretty top tier to me. Moreso though my point is not that it's overpowered, I've not been arguing that it's OP to allow Mage Armor to stack with shields, just that in my opinion it's not necessary. It's one of those things that reduces rather than expands diversity of choice.

[AvatarVecna]

The feat in question is moderately armored. It, like all things, specifies "medium armor and shields". Note that it's moderately armored, not medium armor proficiency, so it doesn't really provide any more clarity than any other part of the rules on this.



That's exactly the point- an Eldritch Knight, a Favored Soul, *anyone* with both Mage Armor and regular armor has no reason to ever use their medium armor proficiency, assuming they have an adequate Dex score. The Eldritch Knight, especially a ranged one, is one of the more likely culprits for that to occur.

Firstly, while Mage armor is superior to light armor (its base formula is higher, and neither caps Dex), some Medium Armors and most heavy armorsare at least equal if not better than Mage Armor for low/mid-Dex Characters. Now, I personally like my characters to be highly dextrous, but that's more to do with my playstyle and class preferences (bard, monk, rogue) than a function of the system; some characters will have a low Dex bonus; some characters could even have a penalty. I'm not saying this never comes up, I'm just saying it seems like it would only come up for a weird build.

[Mr.Moron]

Given two interpretations that seem mostly fair readings of the rules and that are equally easy to justify from a fluff perspective I see little reason to choose the version that boosts the power of spells further.

[Kryx]

Again, these are not two equal interpretations. See the above posts from many members expressing so (and none disagreeing).

If you want to change Mage Armor so that shields do not work with it then that's totally your call. Changing shields to be armor has further implications.

[Mr.Moron]

Again, these are not two equal interpretations. See the above posts from many members expressing so (and none disagreeing).

If you want to change Mage Armor so that shields do not work with it then that's totally your call. Changing shields to be armor has further implications.

Thing is you're approaching the rules as though they had strict key wording like MTG, 4e or Warmachine. The 5e rules just aren't written with that kind of rigor. It's not a game that uses a structured framework to ensure a consistent application of terms across all instances, or at least it's never read like that to me. To my mind shields can disqualify Mage Armor without needing to cause some kind universal change/implication for everywhere the term "armor" is used.

[GiantOctopodes]

If you want to change Mage Armor so that shields do not work with it then that's totally your call. Changing shields to be armor has further implications.

Out of curiosity, what other implications? It makes it also not work with Draconic Resilience, sure, since they're effectively the same. Anything else? I can't think of anything else that interacts with armor, specifically, without also elaborating how it interacts with shields.

[Giant2005]

Out of curiosity, what other implications? It makes it also not work with Draconic Resilience, sure, since they're effectively the same. Anything else? I can't think of anything else that interacts with armor, specifically, without also elaborating how it interacts with shields.

It would mean an unarmored Barbarian could get an extra +1 AC from the Defensive Fighting Style.

[Kryx]

The 5e rules just aren't written with that kind of rigor.
They aren't, I agree. However we have the developer's words to fully clarify any issues and that is the case in this example. But, as Crawford often says: feel free to houserule it to be different from how the rules work.


Out of curiosity, what other implications?
Barbarian Unarmored, Draconic Reslience, Mage Armor are the main 3. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more.

Barbarian is the biggest issue. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some other unknown ones or ones that come up in future products.

[strangebloke]

I don't know about that- a Abjurer Wizard 18 in that scenario has an AC higher than any other class (thanks to their at will shield for +5 AC every turn, not thanks to mage armor necessarily, after all they could just as easily be wearing full plate with 1 level of Fighter for the same AC without needing any Dex), and has advantage on *all* saves against spells. That seems pretty top tier to me. Moreso though my point is not that it's overpowered, I've not been arguing that it's OP to allow Mage Armor to stack with shields, just that in my opinion it's not necessary. It's one of those things that reduces rather than expands diversity of choice.

fixed.

and its not necessary, as very little is, but it makes sense. Why would a large piece of steel and wood between you and your enemy NOT make you harder to hit, assuming that mage armor is in fact body armor? Obviously this is a fantasy game and runs off of fantasy logic, but still, a certain measure of realism applies.

[GiantOctopodes]

fixed.

and its not necessary, as very little is, but it makes sense. Why would a large piece of steel and wood between you and your enemy NOT make you harder to hit, assuming that mage armor is in fact body armor? Obviously this is a fantasy game and runs off of fantasy logic, but still, a certain measure of realism applies.

Sure, but going with that pseudo-realism, strapping a large piece of steel and cloth to your chest results in the spell not working. Why does strapping a large piece of steel and wood to your arm interact with it differently?

And in terms of the Barbarian, thanks Giant2005 and Kryx, that's good to know and I had not considered it. As was pointed out, not allowing shields to interact with this spell does not automatically require allowing them to interact with that class feature, but certainly a great thing to be cognizant of.