The technical third which I don't think any DM has ever used is ultra-strict RAW: because the rules state you get the shield bonus to your AC if you wield the shield (with no requirement you be proficient) and because there is no listed penalty for non-proficiency, everyone can just use shields. There are many examples of RAW that absolutely no-one obeys, and this is one of them.
I let anyone use shields. The idea that you need to be proficient in their use to gain benefit from having one is absolutely silly in the first place. It is a giant area of your body now blocked from getting hit even if you barely move it at all. You could strap a shield on some young conscript who has no/minimal training for battle and it increases their survival rates. There are plenty of historical examples of armies.. or, I guess militias, conscripted combatants, that were outfit and sent to fight, and shields were always considered a plus. The amount of time and energy it would take, the minimal training required for their use, for even the slowest of learning, is like a 30 minute coaching lesson. It has never made sense that some classes can use a shield and others cannot. Everyone should be able to use them.
Some classes should just get additional bonuses for using them especially well. Like a shield fighting style or something. But restricting someone from using a shield naw? Anyone can.
Shield proficiency is just flavor text since it lacks any consequence for not having it.
Being proficient in using a shield does not mean strapping a piece of metal and wood to your arm and letting it passively hang there. Try strapping 20 lbs of weight to your non-dominant arm and see how that effects your ability to fight.
Why would I strap a Breastplate to my arm?
(Shields weight 6lbs.)
Even at 6 pounds I think the argument still stands. Wielding a shield when not proficient does increase your AC but at the cost of making you less balanced if unexpected things happen and you can't use your off hand to help extracate yourself from a grapple so the disadvantage make sense. IRL soldiers are unable to cast spells even without a shield so I can't comment on how whether a shield can affect spellcasting.
Regarding the flavor text why talka bout shild in the flavor text if the rule has nothing to do with them. Wolf pointed out shield are listed under a column entitles "armor name" so shields are classsed as armor in D&D.
Also, in real life a shield was something that you actively were moving around with and using. You didn't just let it sit there passively, not only that greatly diminish its protective value it also meant that an opponent had a much greater chance of landing a blow squarely on it, which could break the shield or knock you off your feet. What you really wanted to do with a shield was to intercept and deflect your opponent's strike, throwing them off balance and hopefully letting you get a hit in before they recovered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think we need to insinuate that others should lie (change rules text) to add weight to their point, especially when they're pointing to actual rules text (We don't need alternate facts here). The implications of that little nugget aside, the question here is only how much does a book have to refer to a thing as armor for the players to consider that armor rules apply to it.
"The book doesn't call that thing armor at all" might give us a hypothetical set of answers, but that doesn't apply here. "This one reference isn't enough for my table" is, I guess, a ruling someone could make. Though it leads to the very problematic conclusion "If a book only categorizes a thing once, we can safely ignore rules associated with that category."
Actually the more important distinction is: You wear armor. You wield a shield.
There is only penalties listed for wearing armor.
While wielding a shield, you are not wearing armor. (Obviously unless you also don some suit of armor then you also are wearing armor)
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
And obviously donning a shield to wield involves wearing it.
Not in 5e, no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don/Doff doesn't mention "wearing a shield". Nothing does in 5e. In 5e they refer to "wielding a shield".
Also of note: the phrasing used in don/doff again more than suggests shields are not a type of armor.
Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The verb you want to use for strapping on your shield and whether or not you want to categorize a shield as armor doesn't matter in this case, because if you are not proficient with your shield, you will suffer a penalty, as the rule clearly states below.
The verb you want to use for strapping on your shield and whether or not you want to categorize a shield as armor doesn't matter in this case, because if you are not proficient with your shield, you will suffer a penalty, as the rule clearly states below.
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.
But nothing is listed for carrying a shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Certainly I will admit that I don't think that the rules here are completely consistent and it does seem that the authors are unhappy with the text on the page (hence the changes in the playtest).
Yes, I do. In what way is a Longsword not acknowledged as a weapon?
Whereas, shields are NOT stated with the same wording or clarity afforded to nigh everything else. Moreover it has so many contradictory rulings RAW AND RAI that when combined with that most dangerous of all things.. logic there is really no viable reason why it should not only provide its benefit or +2 AC, on the grounds that it is a giant lump of mass by which the WIELDER can cower with no training to do so but also, so long as they meet the strength or dexterity requirements there is no reason why it should come with the aforementioned detriments! I mean perhaps like with EVERYTHING ELSE have different categories of shield, like basic and advanced which in someway denotes the weight, complexity or shape. It weighs 6lb, so does my cod piece ergo I wield it with ease; it is 50cm in its longest dimension, so is my staff but I don't go wacking that into door ways when I'm trying to be quiet, thus stealth should be equally unaffected. But a much heavier shield, or one with melee spikes integrated etc needs more skill.
I DO however see value in a specific feat for shields. It is just regretfully crap in its current form. A more practical version would be that you gain the ability to duel wield shields, as was done in medieval times. You could be a walking full cover tank, think riot shields now or like a true full cover shield from antiquity like a scutum weighing in at 22lb or a standing shield which was effectively a two handed shield weighing in at 50lb, used to advance before plonking it down for cover and then assailing the enemy from behind it with arrows.
Neither of these takes into account the many forms of actual shield combat like those of the armed or spiked pavise shield (not to be confused with the umm.. pavise shield which similar to the scutum in size and weight if not a bit larger).
Make the Shield Master feat allow for proper strikes as effective as a haymaker with a lump of 12lb blunt metal attached to it would be. First hit with weapon then, oh look I'm PROFICIENT with shields, so much so that I'm....a SHIELD MASTER so I know the correct technique and form to use my body weights counterswing to punch this git in the face with this shield while not leaving myself wildly open and off balance.
Whereas, shields are NOT stated with the same wording or clarity afforded to nigh everything else. Moreover it has so many contradictory rulings RAW AND RAI that when combined with that most dangerous of all things.. logic there is really no viable reason why it should not only provide its benefit or +2 AC, on the grounds that it is a giant lump of mass by which the WIELDER can cower with no training to do so but also, so long as they meet the strength or dexterity requirements there is no reason why it should come with the aforementioned detriments! I mean perhaps like with EVERYTHING ELSE have different categories of shield, like basic and advanced which in someway denotes the weight, complexity or shape. It weighs 6lb, so does my cod piece ergo I wield it with ease; it is 50cm in its longest dimension, so is my staff but I don't go wacking that into door ways when I'm trying to be quiet, thus stealth should be equally unaffected. But a much heavier shield, or one with melee spikes integrated etc needs more skill.
Quite good stuff, I'd suggest putting that into a response to the playtests though, as they are currently re-writing rules that is a good place to push your ideas.
Fair call mate. Wasn't so much a bump as a query I was researching opinions on for a character in a campaign. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to have to hit my dm up about removing this function from my character depending on their opinion about this topic, if it's not agreed upon I don't want it. Regretfully there is (depending on your pov) no clear answer. The rest of the rambling was just my brain hyperfocusing. Tbh, I wouldn't even know where to look for the appropriate email for the playtest. Thanks for the response though, its currently 3am and I'm lying here with cv19 in too much pain to sleep.
This thread was an interesting read -- a lot of the opinions were surprising.
If we go back to Post #4 where 3 possible solutions were presented -- the most correct solution is solution #1. The consequences of wielding a shield without proficiency are the same as the consequences of wearing armor without proficiency.
This is another one of those cases where the rules were written in a certain organized way in order to be concise and we have to look at the context clues to get all of the information.
In the PHB Chapter 5: Equipment, there is a large section with a major heading called "Armor and Shields". The next large section with a major heading after this one is called "Weapons". So, this section provides all of the rules for a category of equipment called "Armor and Shields". They are grouped together. They are the rules for armor and shields.
This section begins with a brief introduction that explains that there are many types of armor and shields. Then, it introduces the Armor table, which provides all of the nitty gritty details about each individual piece of equipment which belongs to this category:
The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield.
Next, we have this statement:
The Armor table shows the cost, weight, and other properties of the common types of armor and shields used in the worlds of D&D.
Immediately after this, the text is organized into a few subsections labeled by subheadings which describe and explain the "other properties" and other data which appear in the Armor table as well as other important information related to that table. These include armor proficiency, armor class (AC), Heavy Armor (strength score required), stealth, and shields.
Each of these subsections really should not be viewed as standalone rules that exist alone and out of context -- they each explain portions of the data which appears in the armor table.
One of these subsections says this:
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.
As an aside -- if it's strapped to your arm, you are wearing it.
But the main point here is that this subsection is explaining the rules related to proficiency as they relate to the current category of equipment called Armor and Shields, the details of which are listed in the Armor table. The same is true for the other subsections.
Next, we can see from the Armor table itself that Shields are listed along with all types of armor. Together, they make up all of the equipment within this category of Armor and Shields. Just like armor, the entry for shields has data related to the cost, weight, armor class (AC), Strength (Heavy Armor), and Stealth. This data, along with the information about proficiency, pertains to the entire category of Armor and Shields. In D&DBeyond the Armor table is kind of a mess, but in the PHB the entire table exists together -- the shields are listed along with the armor in the same table.
Lastly, there is the rule for Getting Into and Out of Armor:
The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don.This is the time it takes to put on the item. You benefit from its AC only if you take the full time to don it.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off the item. If you have help removing armor, reduce this time by half.
Category
Don
Doff
Light Armor
1 minute
1 minute
Medium Armor
5 minutes
1 minute
Heavy Armor
10 minutes
5 minutes
Shield
1 action
1 action
Interestingly, this part had some errata along the way in order to become even more explicit that these rules included shields, as they always did but it wasn't spelled out as clearly. It used to read like this:
The time it takes to don or doff armor depends on the armor's category.
Don.This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half.
So, this entire section, including the armor table, was originally written as Shields being a category of armor, and therefore all of the rules which referenced armor applied to shields as well. They since changed it so that Shields are no longer considered to be a category of armor, but instead they are now simply a portion of the Armor and Shields category and they relied on the fact that the rules within the Armor and Shields section apply to all armor and shields.
This thread was an interesting read -- a lot of the opinions were surprising.
If we go back to Post #4 where 3 possible solutions were presented -- the most correct solution is solution #1. The consequences of wielding a shield without proficiency are the same as the consequences of wearing armor without proficiency.
This is another one of those cases where the rules were written in a certain organized way in order to be concise and we have to look at the context clues to get all of the information.
In the PHB Chapter 5: Equipment, there is a large section with a major heading called "Armor 😀and Shields".😀 The next large section with a major heading after this one is called "Weapons". So, this section provides all of the rules for a category of equipment called "Armor 😀and Shields".😀 They are grouped together. They are the rules for armor 😀and shields. 😀
This section begins with a brief introduction that explains that there are many types of armor 😀and shields.😀 Then, it introduces the Armor table, which provides all of the nitty gritty details about each individual piece of equipment which belongs to this category:
The 💜Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor💜 found in the game and 💯separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor.💯 Many warriors 🤯supplement their armor with a shield.🤯
Next, we have this statement:
The Armor table shows the cost, weight, and other properties of the common types of armor 😀and shields😀 used in the worlds of D&D.
Immediately after this, the text is organized into a few subsections labeled by subheadings which describe and explain the "other properties" and other data which appear in the 😁Armor table as well as other important information related to that table. These include armor proficiency, armor class (AC), Heavy Armor (strength score required)😁, 😜stealth, and shields.😜
Each of these subsections really should not be viewed as standalone rules that exist alone and out of context -- they each explain portions of the data which appears in the armor table.
One of these subsections says this:
😀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.
As an aside -- if it's strapped to your arm, you are wearing it.
But the main point here is that this subsection is explaining the rules related to proficiency as they relate to the current category of equipment called Armor and Shields, the details of which are listed in the Armor table. The same is true for the other subsections.
Next, we can see from the Armor table itself that Shields are listed along with all types of armor. Together, they make up all of the equipment within this category of Armor and Shields. Just like armor, the entry for shields has data related to the cost, weight, armor class (AC), Strength (Heavy Armor), and Stealth. This data, along with the information about proficiency, pertains to the entire category of Armor and Shields. In D&DBeyond the Armor table is kind of a mess, but in the PHB the entire table exists together -- the shields are listed along with the armor in the same table. 😳😳Disagree that these imply to be taken together just because they are next to each other. "Weapons" states clearly all types of weapons but then you have other places which explicitly exclude some for lack of prof', str', etc. Example Monks can use a quarter staff 2 handed, but it is stated that they are NOT able to use many other 2 handed weapons. It is stated using another category from the weapons section which in and of itself separates it from other weapons. This is also true of armour and shields. In that section is states IMPLICITLY without ambiguity the following;
....available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor. Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield.
This single statement shows that they are indeed separate in use, function and classification of item, merely broadly stated together for simplicity and end result of function.😳😳
Lastly, there is the rule for Getting Into and Out of Armor: 🤗I feel that everything above demonstrates that the below is no different than saying it takes an action for a wizard to swap from 2 handing a staff to getting his spell book and casting.🤗
The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don.This is the time it takes to put on the item. You benefit from its AC only if you take the full time to don it.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off the item. If you have help removing armor, reduce this time by half.
Category
Don
Doff
Light Armor
1 minute
1 minute
Medium Armor
5 minutes
1 minute
Heavy Armor
10 minutes
5 minutes
Shield
1 action
1 action
Interestingly, this part had some errata along the way in order to become even more explicit that these rules included shields, as they always did but it wasn't spelled out as clearly. It used to read like this:
The time it takes to don or doff armor depends on the armor's category.
Don.This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half.
So, this entire section, including the armor table, was originally written as Shields being a category of armor, and therefore all of the rules which referenced armor applied to shields as well. They since changed it so that Shields are no longer considered to be a category of armor, but instead they are now simply a portion of the Armor and Shields category and they relied on the fact that the rules within the Armor and Shields section apply to all armor and shields.
The thing is no matter how clear any of us try to be there is a large degree of interpretation. I read as verbatim, rules as WRITTEN. Meaning unless explicitly stated or not stated something is or is not applicable. I have used emoji to act as obvious brackets to illustrate the points I feel state shields are NOT armour.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The feat Moderately Armored grant shield proficiency.
You are correct. My mistake.
Apologies to all.
Also, in real life a shield was something that you actively were moving around with and using. You didn't just let it sit there passively, not only that greatly diminish its protective value it also meant that an opponent had a much greater chance of landing a blow squarely on it, which could break the shield or knock you off your feet. What you really wanted to do with a shield was to intercept and deflect your opponent's strike, throwing them off balance and hopefully letting you get a hit in before they recovered.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Chapter 5 deals with the aforementioned penalties imposed by using armor with which you are not proficient.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Actually the more important distinction is: You wear armor. You wield a shield.
There is only penalties listed for wearing armor.
While wielding a shield, you are not wearing armor. (Obviously unless you also don some suit of armor then you also are wearing armor)
The rules are super clear on this.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
And obviously donning a shield to wield involves wearing it.
Not in 5e, no.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So you don't have to don a shield?
Don/Doff doesn't mention "wearing a shield". Nothing does in 5e. In 5e they refer to "wielding a shield".
Also of note: the phrasing used in don/doff again more than suggests shields are not a type of armor.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
And the shield table suggests that it is a type of armor. And if donning a shield doesn't involve wearing it, then how do you don a shield?
The verb you want to use for strapping on your shield and whether or not you want to categorize a shield as armor doesn't matter in this case, because if you are not proficient with your shield, you will suffer a penalty, as the rule clearly states below.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That penalty is:
But nothing is listed for carrying a shield.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
So when the rule says there are drawbacks, the drawback they are referring to is no drawback. Got it
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Certainly I will admit that I don't think that the rules here are completely consistent and it does seem that the authors are unhappy with the text on the page (hence the changes in the playtest).
Yes, I do. In what way is a Longsword not acknowledged as a weapon?
Whereas, shields are NOT stated with the same wording or clarity afforded to nigh everything else. Moreover it has so many contradictory rulings RAW AND RAI that when combined with that most dangerous of all things.. logic there is really no viable reason why it should not only provide its benefit or +2 AC, on the grounds that it is a giant lump of mass by which the WIELDER can cower with no training to do so but also, so long as they meet the strength or dexterity requirements there is no reason why it should come with the aforementioned detriments! I mean perhaps like with EVERYTHING ELSE have different categories of shield, like basic and advanced which in someway denotes the weight, complexity or shape. It weighs 6lb, so does my cod piece ergo I wield it with ease; it is 50cm in its longest dimension, so is my staff but I don't go wacking that into door ways when I'm trying to be quiet, thus stealth should be equally unaffected. But a much heavier shield, or one with melee spikes integrated etc needs more skill.
I DO however see value in a specific feat for shields. It is just regretfully crap in its current form. A more practical version would be that you gain the ability to duel wield shields, as was done in medieval times. You could be a walking full cover tank, think riot shields now or like a true full cover shield from antiquity like a scutum weighing in at 22lb or a standing shield which was effectively a two handed shield weighing in at 50lb, used to advance before plonking it down for cover and then assailing the enemy from behind it with arrows.
Neither of these takes into account the many forms of actual shield combat like those of the armed or spiked pavise shield (not to be confused with the umm.. pavise shield which similar to the scutum in size and weight if not a bit larger).
Make the Shield Master feat allow for proper strikes as effective as a haymaker with a lump of 12lb blunt metal attached to it would be. First hit with weapon then, oh look I'm PROFICIENT with shields, so much so that I'm....a SHIELD MASTER so I know the correct technique and form to use my body weights counterswing to punch this git in the face with this shield while not leaving myself wildly open and off balance.
Not sure this needed a bump after being dead for a year+. Nor do I know whose points you are arguing with.
Quite good stuff, I'd suggest putting that into a response to the playtests though, as they are currently re-writing rules that is a good place to push your ideas.
Fair call mate. Wasn't so much a bump as a query I was researching opinions on for a character in a campaign. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to have to hit my dm up about removing this function from my character depending on their opinion about this topic, if it's not agreed upon I don't want it. Regretfully there is (depending on your pov) no clear answer. The rest of the rambling was just my brain hyperfocusing. Tbh, I wouldn't even know where to look for the appropriate email for the playtest. Thanks for the response though, its currently 3am and I'm lying here with cv19 in too much pain to sleep.
Look up top for "Sources" and pick "Unearthed Arcana", there are the PDF files and all other info.
This thread was an interesting read -- a lot of the opinions were surprising.
If we go back to Post #4 where 3 possible solutions were presented -- the most correct solution is solution #1. The consequences of wielding a shield without proficiency are the same as the consequences of wearing armor without proficiency.
This is another one of those cases where the rules were written in a certain organized way in order to be concise and we have to look at the context clues to get all of the information.
In the PHB Chapter 5: Equipment, there is a large section with a major heading called "Armor and Shields". The next large section with a major heading after this one is called "Weapons". So, this section provides all of the rules for a category of equipment called "Armor and Shields". They are grouped together. They are the rules for armor and shields.
This section begins with a brief introduction that explains that there are many types of armor and shields. Then, it introduces the Armor table, which provides all of the nitty gritty details about each individual piece of equipment which belongs to this category:
Next, we have this statement:
Immediately after this, the text is organized into a few subsections labeled by subheadings which describe and explain the "other properties" and other data which appear in the Armor table as well as other important information related to that table. These include armor proficiency, armor class (AC), Heavy Armor (strength score required), stealth, and shields.
Each of these subsections really should not be viewed as standalone rules that exist alone and out of context -- they each explain portions of the data which appears in the armor table.
One of these subsections says this:
As an aside -- if it's strapped to your arm, you are wearing it.
But the main point here is that this subsection is explaining the rules related to proficiency as they relate to the current category of equipment called Armor and Shields, the details of which are listed in the Armor table. The same is true for the other subsections.
Next, we can see from the Armor table itself that Shields are listed along with all types of armor. Together, they make up all of the equipment within this category of Armor and Shields. Just like armor, the entry for shields has data related to the cost, weight, armor class (AC), Strength (Heavy Armor), and Stealth. This data, along with the information about proficiency, pertains to the entire category of Armor and Shields. In D&DBeyond the Armor table is kind of a mess, but in the PHB the entire table exists together -- the shields are listed along with the armor in the same table.
Lastly, there is the rule for Getting Into and Out of Armor:
Interestingly, this part had some errata along the way in order to become even more explicit that these rules included shields, as they always did but it wasn't spelled out as clearly. It used to read like this:
So, this entire section, including the armor table, was originally written as Shields being a category of armor, and therefore all of the rules which referenced armor applied to shields as well. They since changed it so that Shields are no longer considered to be a category of armor, but instead they are now simply a portion of the Armor and Shields category and they relied on the fact that the rules within the Armor and Shields section apply to all armor and shields.
The thing is no matter how clear any of us try to be there is a large degree of interpretation. I read as verbatim, rules as WRITTEN. Meaning unless explicitly stated or not stated something is or is not applicable. I have used emoji to act as obvious brackets to illustrate the points I feel state shields are NOT armour.