Does Shield Spell work with Shield Block Maneuver?

[jaekaido]

So I have a custom magic item in the form of a Ring of Shield. I am playing a Crusader 10 and have a choice between two Maneuvers. The one I want, Shield Block, uses shield bonus +4 to ally but I am not sure if by RAW it would work with the Shield Spell. Is this an option at this point?

[Kish]

No. Shield Block offers "your shield's AC bonus +4." You don't have a shield; you have a spell named Shield.

(What is an entry for the "stupid RAW" list, is that reading the description literally, you'd be able to use it to grant a flat +4 AC bonus even without a shield equipped, since nothing+4=4.)

[jaekaido]

Thank you for the quick response. I was afraid that would be the answer, but in light of that answer i have a second option then for my other maneuver. thanks again for your response.:smallsmile:

[Gruftzwerg]

1.
By RAW "shield" ain't defined. Sole "shield bonus" is defined. Thus any type of shield that gives a shield bonus is sufficient by RAW. Be it a wooden shield or some form of magical force shield. All of em should work with the maneuver. We had recently a debate about this (shield being undefined) in another topic.


2.

Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you.
It negates magic missile attacks directed at you.
The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC.
This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect.
The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can't use the shield spell for cover.


By RAW there is no reason why the Shield spell shouldn't work with the maneuver.

[Kish]

1.
By RAW "shield" ain't defined.
Then by "RAW" Shield Block doesn't do anything anyway. It doesn't say "shield bonus"; it says "shield's bonus." If you're going to make a claim in which exact wording is everything be prepared to be killed by an apostrophe.

[Crake]

Then by "RAW" Shield Block doesn't do anything anyway. It doesn't say "shield bonus"; it says "shield's bonus." If you're going to make a claim in which exact wording is everything be prepared to be killed by an apostrophe.

He just likes trying to be argumentative and make pointless “raw is broken” statements like that.

To the point at hand though, the ring of force shield is an actual item, and it allows you to wield a disc of force as if it were an actual shield, so perhaps ask your DM if theyd be happy to retcon your shield as having been a ring of force shield all along? The base item itself only grants +2 AC, but it could be enhanced with +2 for another 4000gp

[Gruftzwerg]

He just likes trying to be argumentative and make pointless “raw is broken” statements like that.

To the point at hand though, the ring of force shield is an actual item, and it allows you to wield a disc of force as if it were an actual shield, so perhaps ask your DM if theyd be happy to retcon your shield as having been a ring of force shield all along? The base item itself only grants +2 AC, but it could be enhanced with +2 for another 4000gp

Where did I say that RAW is broken (on this topic)?

And where does the maneuver specify "manufactured shields" as requirement?
It requires a "shield". And since the term is undefined you have no permission by RAW to artificially narrow down the undefinded word here.

I don't see any indicator that it refers to sole manufactured. It refers to "shields" overall, including magical (effect) shields.

Also note that the OP specifically asked for a RAW answer, so there is no reason to confuse him a RAI response here.

So, can you back up your statement with RAW?

Or do you prefer to further make comments on your subjective perception of my posting behavior? ^^

[Zombimode]

No. Shield Block offers "your shield's AC bonus +4." You don't have a shield; you have a spell named Shield.

(What is an entry for the "stupid RAW" list, is that reading the description literally, you'd be able to use it to grant a flat +4 AC bonus even without a shield equipped, since nothing+4=4.)

hm, maybe they were thinking in .NET's nullable integers :smallamused:

[SirNibbles]

1.
By RAW "shield" ain't defined. Sole "shield bonus" is defined. Thus any type of shield that gives a shield bonus is sufficient by RAW. Be it a wooden shield or some form of magical force shield. All of em should work with the maneuver. We had recently a debate about this (shield being undefined) in another topic.

By RAW there is no reason why the Shield spell shouldn't work with the maneuver.


If by 'not defined' you mean there isn't a paragraph along the lines of:




shield: A hunk of metal or wood that blocks attacks and gives you a shield bonus to AC

Not the Player's Handbook, page 69


then I suppose you must be right (and weapons aren't defined either because they similarly lack this paragraph), despite the fact that both terms are clearly explained by their categories and how they function. The Player's Handbook, page 122 explains how armor works, including shields, and states that shields are technically a type of armor.




See Table 7–6: Armor and Shields for the list of armors available.

Depending on class, a character may be proficient with all, some, or no armors, including shields.

Armor/Shield Bonus: Each armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus, such as the mage armor spell or bracers of armor. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn’t stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus, such as the shield spell.

Maximum Dex Bonus
Shields: Shields do not affect a character’s maximum Dexterity bonus.

Armor Check Penalty
Shields: If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply.
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he or she is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shields’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for nonprofiency with shields.

Arcane Spell Failure
Shields: If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance.

Speed
Shields: Shields do not affect a character’s speed.

Player's Handbook page 122


Table 7-6 is on page 123, listing the types of armors and shields. On the next page, the full descriptions are written out:




ARMOR DESCRIPTIONS
The types of armor found on Table 7–6: Armor and Shields are described below (in alphabetical order), along with any special benefits they confer on the wearer (“you”).

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm...

Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else...

...

Player's Handbook, page 124


____

This quote seems fitting:


If you slap or wound an animal affected by the Sleep spell it gets 3d6 Intelligence, +1d3 Charisma, and +2 HD, and becomes a magical beast.

(Thanks to the spell Awaken)

[Gruftzwerg]

If by 'not defined' you mean there isn't a paragraph along the lines of:




shield: A hunk of metal or wood that blocks attacks and gives you a shield bonus to AC

Not the Player's Handbook, page 69


then I suppose you must be right (and weapons aren't defined either because they similarly lack this paragraph), despite the fact that both terms are clearly explained by their categories and how they function. The Player's Handbook, page 122 explains how armor works, including shields, and states that shields are technically a type of armor.

Let me first tell you what we have by RAW: a definition for "manufactured weapons (https://web.archive.org/web/20161101211236/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_manufacturedweapons&alpha=)" and a "weapon list (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons)" for manufactured weapons and things calling themselves out as a weapon (natural weapons, unarmed strike,..).

Regarding shields we have sole a list telling us what kind of manufactured shields we have. But that list is neither exclusive (otherwise other source books wouldn't be able to add to it), nor does it create some kind of definition.

Without a 3.5 specific definition, by RAW you may not artificially narrow down the possible interpretations. Unless one of the interpretations would cause an obvious dysfunction, you may not ignore any valid interpretation. Remind you that we are talking about the rule set of a highly magical game. Assuming that "shields" can sole refer to mundane/manufactured shields doesn't has any logical base here.

And the context of the abilities don't make clear if it has to be a mundane shield. By RAW any Shield should be legal.






See Table 7–6: Armor and Shields for the list of armors available.

Depending on class, a character may be proficient with all, some, or no armors, including shields.

Armor/Shield Bonus: Each armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus, such as the mage armor spell or bracers of armor. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn’t stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus, such as the shield spell.

Maximum Dex Bonus
Shields: Shields do not affect a character’s maximum Dexterity bonus.

Armor Check Penalty
Shields: If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply.
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he or she is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shields’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for nonprofiency with shields.

Arcane Spell Failure
Shields: If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, add the two numbers together to get a single arcane spell failure chance.

Speed
Shields: Shields do not affect a character’s speed.

Player's Handbook page 122


Table 7-6 is on page 123, listing the types of armors and shields. On the next page, the full descriptions are written out:




ARMOR DESCRIPTIONS
The types of armor found on Table 7–6: Armor and Shields are described below (in alphabetical order), along with any special benefits they confer on the wearer (“you”).

Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm...

Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else...

...

Player's Handbook, page 124



This is explicitly providing rules for the (manufactured) shield table 7-6. But that still doesn't define the term shields overall. It sole defines how you should "read the table" and not what "Shields" overall in 3.5 are. Nor does it exclude other types of shields not mentioned in the table and not fitting the table.

If "Shields" would be defined the way you assume, all kind of Shield spells would be dysfunctional since they don't make any call outs to not follow (your assumed) general shield definition.

Sorry, but if you try to pretend that "Shields" are defined you will sole cause much bigger dysfunctions on other parts of the rules...

[YellowJohn]

Armor/Shield Bonus: Each armor grants an armor bonus to AC,
while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a
suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an
armor bonus, such as the mage armor spell or bracers of armor..
Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn’t stack with other
effects that grant a shield bonus, such as the shield spell.

(Emphasis mine)

A shield spell is a source of a shield bonus that is not a shield. It is not a shield. QED.

Edit: Thank you Sir Nibbles for bringing this quote to my attention. I'm surprised you didn't jump on it yourself.

[Gruftzwerg]

A shield spell is a source of a shield bonus that is not a shield. It is not a shield. QED.

Edit: Thank you Sir Nibbles for bringing this quote to my attention. I'm surprised you didn't jump on it yourself.

RAW:
The quote defines "Armor/Shield Bonus:" and not "Shields:". Just the use of a word in-mid of a sentence doesn't make a definition. Otherwise every used word in the rules would be defined if we follow that logic.. And no, I don't wanna imagine the problems that this would cause..

This can be at best used as a RAI argument.

RAI:
But for that, you would at least have to make sure that there ain't another passage using a broader application/definition of "Shield" at least... a single quote for such a often used word lacks the impact as evidence for a RAI assumptions.

[Menzath]

If by 'not defined' you mean there isn't a paragraph along the lines...snip


My issues with using these as exclusive arguments seems counter intuitive for what shields are.

If we use these as the definition of what a shield is then any material not wood or metal now becomes not a shield while still offering a shield bonus.

Also if we use manufactured Items(only from the phb at that) as shields, and no other sources of abilities as shields, then abilities that add a shield bonus that are not explicitly stated to not stack now would.

By not making other sources count as shields this would cause more disfunction than if they were, and go against RAI IMHO.

[Darg]

Bonuses of the same type don't stack.

[Crake]

Why is it that every thread i read these days, gruft is in there arguing some meaningless semantic point that contributes nothing valuable to the conversation and just derails it into a pointless side discussion about “but the raw”


RAW:
The quote defines "Armor/Shield Bonus:" and not "Shields:". Just the use of a word in-mid of a sentence doesn't make a definition. Otherwise every used word in the rules would be defined if we follow that logic.. And no, I don't wanna imagine the problems that this would cause..

This can be at best used as a RAI argument.

RAI:
But for that, you would at least have to make sure that there ain't another passage using a broader application/definition of "Shield" at least... a single quote for such a often used word lacks the impact as evidence for a RAI assumptions.

By your same logic, anything that provides an armor bonus is also armor, but monks can wear bracers of armor without penalty, so youre just straight up wrong. Likewise, a wizard monk could cast the shield spell without penalty, ergo the shield spell is not a shield.

Now, for the love of the game, can you please stop being edgy and contrarian in every facet of this system in an attempt to look like some raw lawyer genius that’s above everyone else’s level? Thank you

[Emberlily]

I kno OP asked for RAW, but, RAW aside I'm curious now, would there be any problems with allowing it? it seems really cool and I don't see a way it'd be unbalanced but maybe I'm missing something?

[Gruftzwerg]

Why is it that every thread i read these days, gruft is in there arguing some meaningless semantic point that contributes nothing valuable to the conversation and just derails it into a pointless side discussion about “but the raw”



By your same logic, anything that provides an armor bonus is also armor, but monks can wear bracers of armor without penalty, so youre just straight up wrong. Likewise, a wizard monk could cast the shield spell without penalty, ergo the shield spell is not a shield.

Now, for the love of the game, can you please stop being edgy and contrarian in every facet of this system in an attempt to look like some raw lawyer genius that’s above everyone else’s level? Thank you

And I would like to know why people get so upset when they read my name that they stop paying attention to what I said and to what they are responding.

Where did I say that anything that gives a Shield bonus is a shield?

I made the claim that everything that is called a "shield" by the rules is a shield!
Even if it is a spell that gives you a "shield" in some manner for its effect.

There is no global definition for "shield" that would exclude non-manufactured shields. Pretending that there is a definition while pointing to the definition of something else (armor/shield BONUS:) ain't a RAW definition.


Btw, may I suggest to be more objective when it comes to rule discussions. The purpose of the forum is not to discuss the people who are posting here, but to discuss the stuff around 3.5
Instead of writing overhasty emotional responses, maybe try to pay attention to what you are responding actually. That would have saved both of us time and negative emotions you know...

[BjornBear]

Yeah, it should be allowed. It's not incredibly broken and it's more fun. Plus, it is quite literally a disc made of force, which is just a shield made of a different material. Let the player have fun and if it turns out that it is indeed too strong, have a talk with them about either nerfing the maneuver or not allowing Shield to count. Everybody else here that is arguing what a shield is or isn't really seems to be missing the point.

[JNAProductions]

And I would like to know why people get so upset when they read my name that they stop paying attention to what I said and to what they are responding.

Where did I say that anything that gives a Shield bonus is a shield?

I made the claim that everything that is called a "shield" by the rules is a shield!
Even if it is a spell that gives you a "shield" in some manner for its effect.

There is no global definition for "shield" that would exclude non-manufactured shields. Pretending that there is a definition while pointing to the definition of something else (armor/shield BONUS:) ain't a RAW definition.


Btw, may I suggest to be more objective when it comes to rule discussions. The purpose of the forum is not to discuss the people who are posting here, but to discuss the stuff around 3.5
Instead of writing overhasty emotional responses, maybe try to pay attention to what you are responding actually. That would have saved both of us time and negative emotions you know...

Does the spell Burning Hands create hands on fire?
Does the spell Faerie Fire create elemental/fey hybrids?
Does the spell Eyebite cause someone's eye to be bitten?

[Gruftzwerg]

Yeah, it should be allowed. It's not incredibly broken and it's more fun. Plus, it is quite literally a disc made of force, which is just a shield made of a different material. Let the player have fun and if it turns out that it is indeed too strong, have a talk with them about either nerfing the maneuver or not allowing Shield to count. Everybody else here that is arguing what a shield is or isn't really seems to be missing the point.

The OP asked specifically for a RAW response and not for RAI nor if it is balanced.
The sole balance request came from Emberlily and not from the OP.

So, who is missing the point here...?^^

But to answer emberlily's request:
I don't see any balancing concerns so far.

edit:

Does the spell Burning Hands create hands on fire?
Does the spell Faerie Fire create elemental/fey hybrids?
Does the spell Eyebite cause someone's eye to be bitten?

- you don't get hands of fire
- no elemental fey hybrids
- no eye's bitten

And what's the point of these nonsense questions? How does that add to the discussion?

How can it be compared to abilities/effects making us of the same word: "shield"?

I don't see how these questions are related to your topic here..

edit2:
The Shield spell doesn't say "you get shielded by magical barrier". It even goes so far and states:
"The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance."

[JNAProductions]

Shield as a spell has no text stating "This is a shield."
It provides a shield bonus to AC (and negates Magic Missiles) but it doesn't say it's a shield, as in the item.

You can say "It's called Shield," but Burning Hands, Faerie Fire, Eyebite, and many other spells have names that don't map literally to mechanics.

[Gruftzwerg]

Shield as a spell has no text stating "This is a shield."
It provides a shield bonus to AC (and negates Magic Missiles) but it doesn't say it's a shield, as in the item.

You can say "It's called Shield," but Burning Hands, Faerie Fire, Eyebite, and many other spells have names that don't map literally to mechanics.

read my 2nd edit's quote:

The shield doesn't have any AC penalties or ASF chances.

How could you more obviously call out something as a shield?

edit: I hope that you don't expect me to prove that a shield is a SHIELD...

[Darg]

I just want to point out that the maneuver doesn't actually require a shield to work. You only need a shield bonus.


I kno OP asked for RAW, but, RAW aside I'm curious now, would there be any problems with allowing it? it seems really cool and I don't see a way it'd be unbalanced but maybe I'm missing something?

There wouldn't be any problems with allowing it. The shield spell itself is extremely short lived and can't be enhanced. Even a permanent shield spell wouldn't be any more powerful than an animated shield other than being significantly cheaper (ghost touch and animated properties are combined a +5 bonus).

[Gruftzwerg]

I just want to point out that the maneuver doesn't actually require a shield to work. You only need a shield bonus.



Sorry, but the short description doesn't match the actual ability rule text:


As an immediate action, you can grant an AC bonus to an adjacent ally equal to your shield’s AC bonus + 4.
You don't just add your shield bonus. If you don't have a "shield" you can't apply it's bonus. Even if you somehow got a shield bonus from a non shield source (I guess Gnome Battle Cloak could fit here, dunno.. haven't checked it atm) you couldn't use the maneuver. It simply requires a shield.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Closed for review.