is a shield considered armor?

[nickl_2000]

So with the new shield training feat, it's easier for a wizard/sorcerer/warlock to get access and use a shield. So, can you have the spell mage armor active while wielding a shield?

Does a shield work for the defensive fighting style?

[Keltest]

I believe a shield is considered a separate category all on its own.

[saucerhead]

The table on pg145 of PHB list armor and "shield" is listed under it. So it's probably considered armor.

[nickl_2000]

The table on pg145 of PHB list armor and "shield" is listed under it. So it's probably considered armor.

Funny, dndbeyond has the heading as "Armor and Shields" and subheadings of "Light Armor", "Medium Armor", "Heavy Armor", and "Shields." However they have shields under the same headings as the body armors in the Don of Doff section.

[Man_Over_Game]

So with the new shield training feat, it's easier for a wizard/sorcerer/warlock to get access and use a shield. So, can you have the spell mage armor active while wielding a shield?

Does a shield work for the defensive fighting style?

Generally, it is not. This is reflected by the fact that the Unarmored Defense features from both Monk and Barbarian mention that you can't be wearing Armor, but only the Monk's mentions Shields.

So Shields are not Armor.

[Demonslayer666]

I would say no, a shield is not armor. Barbarians are not allowed to use any armor for Unarmored Defense, but they can use a shield.

[heavyfuel]

You can use a Shield and mage armor, because even if shields are considered armor*, you definitely don't "wear" a shield. Plus, Mage Armor explicitly refers to "base AC", which implies it can still be altered.

So the Mage Armor's target's base AC becomes 13+Dex, but you can still have a shield adding +2.

*debatable, the PHB refers to them as both being armor and as them being their own thing

[Man_Over_Game]

You can use a Shield and mage armor, because even if shields are considered armor*, you definitely don't "wear" a shield. Plus, Mage Armor explicitly refers to "base AC", which implies it can still be altered.

So the Mage Armor's target's base AC becomes 13+Dex, but you can still have a shield adding +2.

*debatable, the PHB refers to them as both being armor and as them being their own thing

There's been a Sage Advice column (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016) clarifying this:

"Can you use a shield with mage armor? Mage armor works with a shield. Shields are grouped with armor in the equipment rules in the Player’s Handbook, but various game features distinguish between the armor you wear and a shield you wield. Take a look at the monk’s Unarmored Defense feature and compare it to the barbarian’s version to see what I mean. In the monk’s version, you must both forgo wearing armor and forgo wielding a shield if you want to benefit from the feature, whereas a barbarian must only forgo wearing armor."

[jmartkdr]

The only time shields count as armor (without being called out as such) is for non-proficiency penalties. In every other instance, they're effectively their own thing, and a given feature will only apply to both if it says it does.

FWIW, if there was a rule that applied to all armor, I think it would apply to shields as well, but if the rule mentions "wearing" armor, it doesn't apply to shields. A shield is not worn, it's wielded.

[Willie the Duck]

Outside of Sage Advice, I personally would rule that they worked. +2 AC (or, more importantly, 15+Dex AC in total) just isn't that high (especially once you factor in the feat cost).

When they ask for feedback on the UA feats, it might be a good idea to suggest that they make such things clear if they choose to publish a book with the feat included.


*debatable, the PHB refers to them as both being armor and as them being their own thing

Much like cantrips are spells, but classes like bard and sorcerer have a separate column for spells known and cantrips known.