This may sound like a really stupid question, but it is really, really unclear as shields seem to be handled as a special case that has conflicting "specific rules". They add +2 to the armor class you get from wearing armor which is different than providing an Armor Class like armor itself does. But they are listed with a Don and Doff time and in sentences with "armor" and used similarly. However... There are Unarmored abilities they say "you still get this benefit if you are wielding a shield" and other abilities that say you must not be wearing armor or wielding a shield. (so these seem to be "specific exceptions to a general rule" but why are both needed? that's confusing, a specifically opposite exception to a general rule, what????) and then some abilities that talk just about wearing armor. I kind of want to key on the difference between "wielding" a shield and "wearing" armor, but the donning and doffing rules muddle that terminology... frustratingly so, which wouldn't be a big deal if there weren't impacts based on "when a target dons armor" (for example) So here are some impacts that I see in RAW:
Fighting Style: Defensive, if you see wielding a shield as "wearing armor", you get the +1 for using just a shield (so it makes a shield by itself a +3) which is kind of nice in a situation where you don't have time to "armor" up. Mage Armor - "the spell ends if the target dons armor" so if I "don" a shield, mage armor is gone? But, stupidly, that would mean if I "don" the shield +before+ casting mage armor, it works just fine to increase my AC by 2? This is what really made me question everything and head down this rabbit hole... seriously? I can wield the shield just fine with mage armor, but "donning" the shield cancels the spell... very silly. And then if donning is viewed differently from wearing/wielding that just leads to: Depending how you look at it, there is either a massive penalty for using a shield without proficiency (disad on everything, no casting, etc) if in the "wearing" a shield camp or really no problem at all for "wielding" a shield since that penalty specifically talks about wearing armor you do not have proficiency in and doesn't say "or wielding a shield" like they add everywhere else when "wielding a shield" seems important. But clearly there is a thought around needing "proficiency" with a shield for some reason and without some penalty why are shields even listed as a 'proficiency' paired with medium armor?
The simple answer is - using a shield is NOT the same as wearing armor.
Any ability that refers to "wearing armor" does not care about whether you are using a shield. If it does care, it will specifically mention shields (as you noted in your post). To look at your examples - Mage Armor allows you to use a shield, because it doesn't say anything about forbidding shields.
However .... the penalties for using a shield when not proficient with it are the same as those for wearing armor when not proficient with it.
OK, then with that sage advice, the general rule is that wearing armor includes wielding a shield unless otherwise noted. That is how it is being applied from the start in the Armor and Shield section, proficiency. Great. So, with that ruling you get the good with the bad:
Defensive fighting style doesn't except shields one way or the other so for this the general rule of "a shield is wearing armor" applies, correct? So you should get the +1 when wielding only a shield? Actually makes this a bit nicer because you can get some quick higher AC if caught out of armor. good!
Mage armor - actually it does forbid the target from wearing any armor when cast on it OR donning any armor during the duration. As established above, the general rule is that this includes shields by default. I mean right in the "donning" table shields are listed as requiring donning. And if it didn't want to include shields in that per the general rule, it should actually say that (like unarmored defense does, for example). It doesn't have to include cannot wear any armor "or wield a shield". It would have to say "but may use a shield" to be a specific exception to the general rule So no mage armor with a shield. I think that is bad, but that is the consistent way to apply the general rule as established in my opinion.
I think you are really overthinking this. There is a great rule of thumb - if a rule refers to armor, it just means armor; if it refers to armor and shields, then it means armor and shields. Don't try to read things into the 5e rules that aren't there. :)
Whilst previous editions have gone to great pains to clarify rules text and would probably state for mage armor that shields are ok, 5e does things differently- if it doesn't say shields, then it doesn't say shields. Simple.
You can't look at the rule for unarmored defense and then try to use the text written there to imply subtext in a rule elsewhere in the book. If it doesn't have it written down, then it isn't a rule.
Shields and armor share the same penalty for use when not proficient with them (see this sage advice article - that's what it is saying).
Defensive fighting style specifically states:
While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.
A shield is not armor, so does not grant the +1 bonus to AC for defensive fighting style. If they had meant armor and/or shield, the rule would specifically state that.
I just think the one on proficiency contradicts the other two. And MM is known to sage advise wrong answers in the past. If the other two are right, the the proficiency section penalties should not apply to shields because it doesn't specifically say that. It says +anyone+ can wear armor or weild a shield. Then goes on to list the penalties for wearing armor. Period. It does not mention shields at all in the 4 sentences about what happens if you lack +armor+ proficiency. Which as you note is not the same as a shield and should be called out specifically according to like 3 other Sage Advice answers. You literally cannot have the two different sets of rulings be right.
Interesting, I'd not looked at it like that before - you're right, it doesn't actually say anywhere that there is a penalty for using a shield when not proficient with it.
It's strongly implied, because otherwise there is no reason to have a proficiency in shield, but as per the discussion in this thread, it doesn't actually say it (Rules As Written).
I personally feel that it's fairly obvious what the author meant to say (Rules As Interpreted)
It says +anyone+ can wear armor or weild a shield. Then goes on to list the penalties for wearing armor. Period.
If you try to read sentences in isolation you're going to come away with many wrong rulings. Look at where those sentences are:
Chapter 5: Equipment
Armor and Shields
Armor Proficiency
The very first sentence mentions armor and shields collectively
The second sentence which talks about needing proficiency to wear armor effectively in direct contrast with the first sentence.
The third sentence mentions that classes give proficiencies with certain types of armor. Shields are always mentioned in the "armor" section of a class's proficiencies.
The rules are written in natural language. The placement of "Armor Proficiency" under "Armor and Shields" is intentional, and that paragraph is meant to be read as a whole, not as a bunch of unrelated ideas.
For me, I'd rather have it that if you are not proficient with a shield then it just doesn't give you the +2 AC bonus. Wielding a shield to any actual effect, particularly in melee combat is not as simple as just holding it. For ranged attacks I feel that anyone could hold up a shield in the same manner that they might hold up any large wooden board, and hide behind it to give themselves half cover (effective +2 AC). Someone proficient could use the shield in addition to some other source of half cover.
Regarding casting spells, there are already restrictions to casting while holding a shield in that the hand is not free. Wearing armor restricts movement generally but a shield seems an oddly specific object that just holding it in one hand means the other hand can't wave a wand right.
Ok, you are narrowly focus on the text and not applying the two very different sage advice answers as to rules as intended.
Two sage advice answers say natural language and when we say armor we mean just armor and don't read into the fact of the potential overall context that might imply shield or how we included shield in proficiencies or donning or anywhere else, if we intend to have a rule affect shield use we will specifically say so. Dont add things that aren't specifically written.
In the other clarification they are saying take the overall context and placement other places in the rules where we group them and infer text +that is not there specifically+ to mean that when we specifically sat just armor we actually meant armor and shields. That is not a natural reading of the text.
Try this text substitution.
Pet Proficiency: Anyone can walk a dog or put a cat on their shoulder. Only those proficient in walking a dog can walk it effectively. Your class gives you proficiency in certain kinds of dogs. If you walk a dog that you do not have proficiency, you have disadvantage on things that rolls involving STR, DEX, attack, saves and can't cast spells.
The above doesn't say anything about carrying cats. Even if cat proficiency is in the same stat block somewhere else in the rules as dog walking, and both are under the header of Pet Proficiency, and cats and dogs are both small furry beasts with the same stats, they are clearly not the same thing.
A last salvo over the bow, and get ready to break your brain, the Shield Master feat neither requires nor grants shield proficiency in any way... So really? All those penalties but I am a Master of the Shield? Go ahead find a logical reason there. Other extra feats that are related to armor require proficiency with that armor, now don't they? Maybe, just maybe, shields are just much easier to use than armor? Shield proficiency is locked up with medium armor. So no support for lightly armored skirmishers that carry shields (like say Zulu warriors?). Really? Making less and less sense.
I think RAW and RAI are insufficient to describe this situation. It's more a case of RAITDRTVHABTST: Read As If They Didn't Really Think Very Hard About This Specific Thing...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This may sound like a really stupid question, but it is really, really unclear as shields seem to be handled as a special case that has conflicting "specific rules".
They add +2 to the armor class you get from wearing armor which is different than providing an Armor Class like armor itself does. But they are listed with a Don and Doff time and in sentences with "armor" and used similarly. However...
There are Unarmored abilities they say "you still get this benefit if you are wielding a shield" and other abilities that say you must not be wearing armor or wielding a shield. (so these seem to be "specific exceptions to a general rule" but why are both needed? that's confusing, a specifically opposite exception to a general rule, what????) and then some abilities that talk just about wearing armor.
I kind of want to key on the difference between "wielding" a shield and "wearing" armor, but the donning and doffing rules muddle that terminology... frustratingly so, which wouldn't be a big deal if there weren't impacts based on "when a target dons armor" (for example)
So here are some impacts that I see in RAW:
Fighting Style: Defensive, if you see wielding a shield as "wearing armor", you get the +1 for using just a shield (so it makes a shield by itself a +3) which is kind of nice in a situation where you don't have time to "armor" up.
Mage Armor - "the spell ends if the target dons armor" so if I "don" a shield, mage armor is gone? But, stupidly, that would mean if I "don" the shield +before+ casting mage armor, it works just fine to increase my AC by 2? This is what really made me question everything and head down this rabbit hole... seriously? I can wield the shield just fine with mage armor, but "donning" the shield cancels the spell... very silly. And then if donning is viewed differently from wearing/wielding that just leads to:
Depending how you look at it, there is either a massive penalty for using a shield without proficiency (disad on everything, no casting, etc) if in the "wearing" a shield camp or really no problem at all for "wielding" a shield since that penalty specifically talks about wearing armor you do not have proficiency in and doesn't say "or wielding a shield" like they add everywhere else when "wielding a shield" seems important. But clearly there is a thought around needing "proficiency" with a shield for some reason and without some penalty why are shields even listed as a 'proficiency' paired with medium armor?
Hopefully, I am just missing something silly....
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersHi there Bill_D,
I can see how this seems confusing.
The simple answer is - using a shield is NOT the same as wearing armor.
Any ability that refers to "wearing armor" does not care about whether you are using a shield. If it does care, it will specifically mention shields (as you noted in your post). To look at your examples - Mage Armor allows you to use a shield, because it doesn't say anything about forbidding shields.
However .... the penalties for using a shield when not proficient with it are the same as those for wearing armor when not proficient with it.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/30/what-about-a-shield-if-you-are-not-proficient/
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
OK, then with that sage advice, the general rule is that wearing armor includes wielding a shield unless otherwise noted. That is how it is being applied from the start in the Armor and Shield section, proficiency. Great.
So, with that ruling you get the good with the bad:
Defensive fighting style doesn't except shields one way or the other so for this the general rule of "a shield is wearing armor" applies, correct? So you should get the +1 when wielding only a shield? Actually makes this a bit nicer because you can get some quick higher AC if caught out of armor. good!
Mage armor - actually it does forbid the target from wearing any armor when cast on it OR donning any armor during the duration. As established above, the general rule is that this includes shields by default. I mean right in the "donning" table shields are listed as requiring donning. And if it didn't want to include shields in that per the general rule, it should actually say that (like unarmored defense does, for example). It doesn't have to include cannot wear any armor "or wield a shield". It would have to say "but may use a shield" to be a specific exception to the general rule So no mage armor with a shield. I think that is bad, but that is the consistent way to apply the general rule as established in my opinion.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI think you are really overthinking this. There is a great rule of thumb - if a rule refers to armor, it just means armor; if it refers to armor and shields, then it means armor and shields. Don't try to read things into the 5e rules that aren't there. :)
Whilst previous editions have gone to great pains to clarify rules text and would probably state for mage armor that shields are ok, 5e does things differently- if it doesn't say shields, then it doesn't say shields. Simple.
You can't look at the rule for unarmored defense and then try to use the text written there to imply subtext in a rule elsewhere in the book. If it doesn't have it written down, then it isn't a rule.
So, shields are not armor.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/03/04/do-shields-fall-within-light-or-medium-armor/
Shields and armor share the same penalty for use when not proficient with them (see this sage advice article - that's what it is saying).
Defensive fighting style specifically states:
A shield is not armor, so does not grant the +1 bonus to AC for defensive fighting style. If they had meant armor and/or shield, the rule would specifically state that.
Relevant sage advice on that:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/18/does-a-shield-count-as-wearing-armor/
Mage Armor, as I explained above, states armor - it says nothing about shields.
Sage advice on that:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/10/mundane-shield-and-mage-armor/
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Short version: You don't wear shields, you wield them.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Thanks. The individual answer are clear.
I just think the one on proficiency contradicts the other two. And MM is known to sage advise wrong answers in the past. If the other two are right, the the proficiency section penalties should not apply to shields because it doesn't specifically say that. It says +anyone+ can wear armor or weild a shield. Then goes on to list the penalties for wearing armor. Period. It does not mention shields at all in the 4 sentences about what happens if you lack +armor+ proficiency. Which as you note is not the same as a shield and should be called out specifically according to like 3 other Sage Advice answers. You literally cannot have the two different sets of rulings be right.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersInteresting, I'd not looked at it like that before - you're right, it doesn't actually say anywhere that there is a penalty for using a shield when not proficient with it.
It's strongly implied, because otherwise there is no reason to have a proficiency in shield, but as per the discussion in this thread, it doesn't actually say it (Rules As Written).
I personally feel that it's fairly obvious what the author meant to say (Rules As Interpreted)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
The rules are written in natural language. The placement of "Armor Proficiency" under "Armor and Shields" is intentional, and that paragraph is meant to be read as a whole, not as a bunch of unrelated ideas.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
For me, I'd rather have it that if you are not proficient with a shield then it just doesn't give you the +2 AC bonus. Wielding a shield to any actual effect, particularly in melee combat is not as simple as just holding it. For ranged attacks I feel that anyone could hold up a shield in the same manner that they might hold up any large wooden board, and hide behind it to give themselves half cover (effective +2 AC). Someone proficient could use the shield in addition to some other source of half cover.
Regarding casting spells, there are already restrictions to casting while holding a shield in that the hand is not free. Wearing armor restricts movement generally but a shield seems an oddly specific object that just holding it in one hand means the other hand can't wave a wand right.
Ok, you are narrowly focus on the text and not applying the two very different sage advice answers as to rules as intended.
Two sage advice answers say natural language and when we say armor we mean just armor and don't read into the fact of the potential overall context that might imply shield or how we included shield in proficiencies or donning or anywhere else, if we intend to have a rule affect shield use we will specifically say so. Dont add things that aren't specifically written.
In the other clarification they are saying take the overall context and placement other places in the rules where we group them and infer text +that is not there specifically+ to mean that when we specifically sat just armor we actually meant armor and shields. That is not a natural reading of the text.
Try this text substitution.
Pet Proficiency: Anyone can walk a dog or put a cat on their shoulder. Only those proficient in walking a dog can walk it effectively. Your class gives you proficiency in certain kinds of dogs. If you walk a dog that you do not have proficiency, you have disadvantage on things that rolls involving STR, DEX, attack, saves and can't cast spells.
The above doesn't say anything about carrying cats. Even if cat proficiency is in the same stat block somewhere else in the rules as dog walking, and both are under the header of Pet Proficiency, and cats and dogs are both small furry beasts with the same stats, they are clearly not the same thing.
A last salvo over the bow, and get ready to break your brain, the Shield Master feat neither requires nor grants shield proficiency in any way... So really? All those penalties but I am a Master of the Shield? Go ahead find a logical reason there. Other extra feats that are related to armor require proficiency with that armor, now don't they? Maybe, just maybe, shields are just much easier to use than armor? Shield proficiency is locked up with medium armor. So no support for lightly armored skirmishers that carry shields (like say Zulu warriors?). Really? Making less and less sense.
I think RAW and RAI are insufficient to describe this situation. It's more a case of RAITDRTVHABTST: Read As If They Didn't Really Think Very Hard About This Specific Thing...