It's not proficient with weapons or armour this is ridiculous.
Any minion-master looks ridiculous if you assume their minions get OAs. Action economy is a helluva drug. It's also easy to hand-wave big damage numbers if you ignore accuracy - PAM generates less damage than GWM does. Also, we're analysing a paladin, not a fighter, so ignoring divine smite is sus.
Level 5 battlesmith (int 18, +7 to hit base) with a +1 greatsword and a defender (+7 to hit, 1d8+3 damage) against AC 15, as recommended for level 5: DPR 22.6
Level 5 paladin (str 16) with PAM and a glaive: 14.175
Level 5 paladin (str 16) with GWM and a greatsword: 15.42
Level 5 paladin with GWM and a greatsword, using L1 spells for divine smite, but only on crits: 17.30
As above, vengeance paladin, oath popped: 30.57
Vengeance paladin, oath, no smites: 26.73
This'll get worse at level 8, when the paladin takes PAM.
Steel Defenders are very good, but you can't upgrade them with feats, by and large.
The paladin is also being crippled because I'm assuming the SAC version of GWF, which adds an amount of damage indistinguishable from 0 (so no-one would ever take it). If you use the PHB version of GWF, the DPR goes up:
If you use Great Weapon Fighting with a feature like Divine Smite or a spell like hex, do you get to reroll any 1 or 2 you roll for the extra damage?
The Great Weapon Fighting feature—which is shared by fighters and paladins—is meant to benefit only the damage roll of the weapon used with the feature. For example, if you use a greatsword with the feature, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you roll on the weapon’s 2d6. If you’re a paladin and use Divine Smite with the greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting doesn’t let you reroll a 1 or 2 that you roll for the damage of Divine Smite.
The paladin is also being crippled because I'm assuming the SAC version of GWF, which adds an amount of damage indistinguishable from 0 (so no-one would ever take it).
I'm lost. Why doesn't this increase your damage? It doesn't increase the *smite* any, but it still adds to the weapon damage.
I think everyone forgets the Steel Defender has a 4 intelligence. Give your dog a shield and see what he does with it. They are a construct. They are hardwired to defend. We went back and forth between DM and I and decided he could use some items not requiring attunement (try to explain how to attune to your Defender) and that his actions are directed by my bonus action. In the event that I become incapacitated then he could act on his own in my defense.
As for beefing him up, he is great as he is. Never surprised. Mending. Force attack. Impose disadvantage on attacks against me. Healing later. I don't think he should be proficient with anything.
That also doesn't meant they can't hold a shield in hand for +2 to AC
Just because they can wear it - doesn't mean they would want to.
Armor Proficiency. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#ArmorandShields) 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 if your Steel Defender equips a shield - they become very much worse at a lot of things.
That also doesn't meant they can't hold a shield in hand for +2 to AC
Just because they can wear it - doesn't mean they would want to.
Armor Proficiency. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#ArmorandShields) 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 if your Steel Defender equips a shield - they become very much worse at a lot of things.
Applying armor proficiency rules to shields is a house rule, sadly - shields aren't armor. They're described in a rules with ARMOR above it, sure, but they're never declared to be armor, and a bunch of other rules treat them as distinct entities.
Because RAW there's no penalty for using a shield while nonproficient, and that's stupid, I've had DMs rule shields work like armor, but also like weapons (so nonproficient people don't benefit from the shield but also aren't penalized), depending on the DM.
But the first two sentences in that rule above are:
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.
The use of "the armor" in the second sentence implies it is referring to the equipment stated in the first sentence - which includes shields. Obviously if you're right (and I'm happy to admit it if you are) and it doesn't apply then the writers adding shields to the first sentence is incredibly misleading (poorly written rules - what a surprise...) - because it heavily implies that not being proficient in shields causes the same issues as not being proficient in armour.
Have to admit I hate using outside sources but SageAdvice has two (1 - 2) instances of devs saying shields count as armour for having a lack of proficiency - and no instances of them saying otherwise. So the intent of the rule is to have all the drawbacks for not having shield proficiency. After all - why would shields even have a proficiency if not having it does absolutely nothing? Also makes sense because shields have to be donned/doffed just like armour.
Wearing a shield without proficiency definitely applies the standard penalties. While the wording could have been cleaner, its pretty explicit in the rules.
But the first two sentences in that rule above are:
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.
The use of "the armor" in the second sentence implies it is referring to the equipment stated in the first sentence - which includes shields. Obviously if you're right (and I'm happy to admit it if you are) and it doesn't apply then the writers adding shields to the first sentence is incredibly misleading (poorly written rules - what a surprise...) - because it heavily implies that not being proficient in shields causes the same issues as not being proficient in armour.
Have to admit I hate using outside sources but SageAdvice has two (1 - 2) instances of devs saying shields count as armour for having a lack of proficiency - and no instances of them saying otherwise. So the intent of the rule is to have all the drawbacks for not having shield proficiency. After all - why would shields even have a proficiency if not having it does absolutely nothing? Also makes sense because shields have to be donned/doffed just like armour.
Problem is, if shields are armor, donning a shield (which is well-defined - you don and doff shields, no question) makes Mage Armor end, as the spell ends if you don armor. The SAC (the rules document from WOTC, not anyone's twitter feed or anything) explicitly states that you can don a shield without ending Mage Armor, which means shields aren't armor, they're simply - as also stated in the SAC - grouped with armor:
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.
Since shields aren't armor - they're simply grouped with armor in the equipment rules - they have no RAW nonproficiency penalty. The above ruling is backed up by the simple lack of any rule in the PHB stating that shields are armor, and examples above and beyond Mage Armor abound where it's super relevant that shields aren't armor and don't follow armor rules.
Even that SAC quote says "various" feature distinguish - as in: not all of them - but specifically the equipment section (where the proficiency penalty rule is written) doesn't because it groups them together. So I'm still perfectly happy to say that RAW equipping a shield without proficiency causes the penalties - and doesn't interfere with Mage Armor and other cases like it.
It's still terrible writing - but we all knew that already.
Wearing a shield without proficiency definitely applies the standard penalties. While the wording could have been cleaner, its pretty explicit in the rules.
It might not be the clearest RAW, but it's pretty obvious. Without those penalties, proficiency with Shields would be meaningless. The intent is clear.
Besides, if you use dndbeyond (you know, the software this whole site is about), and equip a shield without proficiency, it gives you the penalties.
Wearing a shield without proficiency definitely applies the standard penalties. While the wording could have been cleaner, its pretty explicit in the rules.
It might not be the clearest RAW, but it's pretty obvious. Without those penalties, proficiency with Shields would be meaningless. The intent is clear.
Besides, if you use dndbeyond (you know, the software this whole site is about), and equip a shield without proficiency, it gives you the penalties.
Dndbeyond is third party and has many things in it which do not match the RAW - for example, nets are listed as dealing 0 bludgeoning damage, which is not correct.
I strongly disagree about the intent being clear. I can tell you with certainty, having played with both DM rulings, it's genuinely more fun if shields behave like weapons, not armor - so proficiency gets you the +2, but nonproficiency has no additional penalty beyond wasting your hand on a useless shield.
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.
Emmber already posted this but shields have the same drawbacks of lack of proficiency as does armor. They are in the same chapter. A nice little paragraph says...
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.
The game reason why they use any words making shields different from armor at all is that it is the one piece of defensive equipment that does stack, unlike normal AC bonuses.
Shields are not weapons, and are not armor, they are Shields. A lot of the hand wringing that people come up with about them comes down to trying to force them into the Weapon or Armor category, instead of recognizing that they're their own thing, just like a Spell Focus. They have some things in common with weapons (are wielded, occupy a hand, can be used to make Improvised Weapon attacks), and they have some things in common with armor (they provide AC bonuses, they take a long time to "don" or "doff"), but they also have unique features as well (provide a stacking AC bonus, aren't part of the light->medium->heavy armor proficiency progression).
There's nothing explicit that provides that the Armor Proficiency paragraph applies to wielding non-proficient Shields, because they aren't "armor" and because you don't "wear" them.
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.
Is that intended? No, probably not. Should have probably been errata'd at some point to more directly address what happens when you wield/don an unproficient shield, so ruling that nonproficient shields trigger the normal nonproficient armor penalties from this paragraph is a reasonable RAI ruling. Ruling that they don't trigger those penalties, but also don't provide an AC bonus at all... i'd say that's probably no less reasonable, but is probably much less likely to be RAI, since there's no other examples of weapons or armor or items that simply don't function in untrained hands, outside of certain attunable magic items that only attune to certain classes?
Whether or not shields are armor I think is irrelevant. Shield proficiency is explicitly listed as an armor proficiency in every class that grants it.
But it's not part of medium armor proficiency, as mountain dwarves prove, and 5E does not have "tight" enough rules that we can necessarily draw conclusions from where a rules dev puts terms or not - see e.g. monster statblocks, where I can show you monsters that have a language but their statblock says Languages -.
Whether or not shields are armor I think is irrelevant. Shield proficiency is explicitly listed as an armor proficiency in every class that grants it.
And in Fighter, Shield proficiently is defined so as to clearly not fall under the scope of "all armor," since they're a separate proficiency.
Proficiencies
Armor: All armor, shields
Its inconsistent from section to section whether the plain language agitates in favor of treating shields as armor or not, you aren't going to find a magic bullet that clearly resolves it. Monks and Barbarians are both explicit that wielding a shield is not the same as wearing armor, while Warforged racial entry treats Shield as a type of armor (that is not eligible for integrated protection), and on and on and on. It was poorly defined at publication, hasn't been errata'd, and individual sections lean more in favor of one or the other.
Any minion-master looks ridiculous if you assume their minions get OAs. Action economy is a helluva drug. It's also easy to hand-wave big damage numbers if you ignore accuracy - PAM generates less damage than GWM does. Also, we're analysing a paladin, not a fighter, so ignoring divine smite is sus.
Level 5 battlesmith (int 18, +7 to hit base) with a +1 greatsword and a defender (+7 to hit, 1d8+3 damage) against AC 15, as recommended for level 5: DPR 22.6
Level 5 paladin (str 16) with PAM and a glaive: 14.175
Level 5 paladin (str 16) with GWM and a greatsword: 15.42
Level 5 paladin with GWM and a greatsword, using L1 spells for divine smite, but only on crits: 17.30
As above, vengeance paladin, oath popped: 30.57
Vengeance paladin, oath, no smites: 26.73
This'll get worse at level 8, when the paladin takes PAM.
Steel Defenders are very good, but you can't upgrade them with feats, by and large.
The paladin is also being crippled because I'm assuming the SAC version of GWF, which adds an amount of damage indistinguishable from 0 (so no-one would ever take it). If you use the PHB version of GWF, the DPR goes up:
Paladin, PHB GWF, S16, L1 Divine Smite on crits only, oath popped: 33.18
I somehow responded to the wrong comment. Someone else was talking about giving the steal defender a shield and weapons etc.
I'm lost. Why doesn't this increase your damage? It doesn't increase the *smite* any, but it still adds to the weapon damage.
<Insert clever signature here>
I think everyone forgets the Steel Defender has a 4 intelligence. Give your dog a shield and see what he does with it. They are a construct. They are hardwired to defend. We went back and forth between DM and I and decided he could use some items not requiring attunement (try to explain how to attune to your Defender) and that his actions are directed by my bonus action. In the event that I become incapacitated then he could act on his own in my defense.
As for beefing him up, he is great as he is. Never surprised. Mending. Force attack. Impose disadvantage on attacks against me. Healing later. I don't think he should be proficient with anything.
They're not proficient with anything.
That also doesn't meant they can't hold a shield in hand for +2 to AC
Just because they can wear it - doesn't mean they would want to.
So if your Steel Defender equips a shield - they become very much worse at a lot of things.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Applying armor proficiency rules to shields is a house rule, sadly - shields aren't armor. They're described in a rules with ARMOR above it, sure, but they're never declared to be armor, and a bunch of other rules treat them as distinct entities.
Because RAW there's no penalty for using a shield while nonproficient, and that's stupid, I've had DMs rule shields work like armor, but also like weapons (so nonproficient people don't benefit from the shield but also aren't penalized), depending on the DM.
But the first two sentences in that rule above are:
The use of "the armor" in the second sentence implies it is referring to the equipment stated in the first sentence - which includes shields. Obviously if you're right (and I'm happy to admit it if you are) and it doesn't apply then the writers adding shields to the first sentence is incredibly misleading (poorly written rules - what a surprise...) - because it heavily implies that not being proficient in shields causes the same issues as not being proficient in armour.
Have to admit I hate using outside sources but SageAdvice has two (1 - 2) instances of devs saying shields count as armour for having a lack of proficiency - and no instances of them saying otherwise. So the intent of the rule is to have all the drawbacks for not having shield proficiency. After all - why would shields even have a proficiency if not having it does absolutely nothing? Also makes sense because shields have to be donned/doffed just like armour.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Wearing a shield without proficiency definitely applies the standard penalties. While the wording could have been cleaner, its pretty explicit in the rules.
Problem is, if shields are armor, donning a shield (which is well-defined - you don and doff shields, no question) makes Mage Armor end, as the spell ends if you don armor. The SAC (the rules document from WOTC, not anyone's twitter feed or anything) explicitly states that you can don a shield without ending Mage Armor, which means shields aren't armor, they're simply - as also stated in the SAC - grouped with armor:
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.
Since shields aren't armor - they're simply grouped with armor in the equipment rules - they have no RAW nonproficiency penalty. The above ruling is backed up by the simple lack of any rule in the PHB stating that shields are armor, and examples above and beyond Mage Armor abound where it's super relevant that shields aren't armor and don't follow armor rules.
Even that SAC quote says "various" feature distinguish - as in: not all of them - but specifically the equipment section (where the proficiency penalty rule is written) doesn't because it groups them together. So I'm still perfectly happy to say that RAW equipping a shield without proficiency causes the penalties - and doesn't interfere with Mage Armor and other cases like it.
It's still terrible writing - but we all knew that already.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
It might not be the clearest RAW, but it's pretty obvious. Without those penalties, proficiency with Shields would be meaningless. The intent is clear.
Besides, if you use dndbeyond (you know, the software this whole site is about), and equip a shield without proficiency, it gives you the penalties.
I think the +2 isn't just about holding the shield, but actually blocking with it.
Dndbeyond is third party and has many things in it which do not match the RAW - for example, nets are listed as dealing 0 bludgeoning damage, which is not correct.
I strongly disagree about the intent being clear. I can tell you with certainty, having played with both DM rulings, it's genuinely more fun if shields behave like weapons, not armor - so proficiency gets you the +2, but nonproficiency has no additional penalty beyond wasting your hand on a useless shield.
Emmber already posted this but shields have the same drawbacks of lack of proficiency as does armor. They are in the same chapter. A nice little paragraph says...
The game reason why they use any words making shields different from armor at all is that it is the one piece of defensive equipment that does stack, unlike normal AC bonuses.
Shields are not weapons, and are not armor, they are Shields. A lot of the hand wringing that people come up with about them comes down to trying to force them into the Weapon or Armor category, instead of recognizing that they're their own thing, just like a Spell Focus. They have some things in common with weapons (are wielded, occupy a hand, can be used to make Improvised Weapon attacks), and they have some things in common with armor (they provide AC bonuses, they take a long time to "don" or "doff"), but they also have unique features as well (provide a stacking AC bonus, aren't part of the light->medium->heavy armor proficiency progression).
There's nothing explicit that provides that the Armor Proficiency paragraph applies to wielding non-proficient Shields, because they aren't "armor" and because you don't "wear" them.
Is that intended? No, probably not. Should have probably been errata'd at some point to more directly address what happens when you wield/don an unproficient shield, so ruling that nonproficient shields trigger the normal nonproficient armor penalties from this paragraph is a reasonable RAI ruling. Ruling that they don't trigger those penalties, but also don't provide an AC bonus at all... i'd say that's probably no less reasonable, but is probably much less likely to be RAI, since there's no other examples of weapons or armor or items that simply don't function in untrained hands, outside of certain attunable magic items that only attune to certain classes?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Disagree.
They are in the same section as armor. (The section is literally titled Armor and Shields.)
They are defensive equipment.
You don and doff them just like armor.
They require proficiency just like armor.
Whether or not shields are armor I think is irrelevant. Shield proficiency is explicitly listed as an armor proficiency in every class that grants it.
But it's not part of medium armor proficiency, as mountain dwarves prove, and 5E does not have "tight" enough rules that we can necessarily draw conclusions from where a rules dev puts terms or not - see e.g. monster statblocks, where I can show you monsters that have a language but their statblock says Languages -.
And in Fighter, Shield proficiently is defined so as to clearly not fall under the scope of "all armor," since they're a separate proficiency.
Its inconsistent from section to section whether the plain language agitates in favor of treating shields as armor or not, you aren't going to find a magic bullet that clearly resolves it. Monks and Barbarians are both explicit that wielding a shield is not the same as wearing armor, while Warforged racial entry treats Shield as a type of armor (that is not eligible for integrated protection), and on and on and on. It was poorly defined at publication, hasn't been errata'd, and individual sections lean more in favor of one or the other.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.