Got a couple of questions regarding what happens when a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer uses a shield (as in the item, not the spell).
Does the sorcerer still get to use their Draconic Resilience? I know that a shield can stack with a full AC calculation, but I don't know if using a shield counts against the "When you aren't wearing armor" condition of Draconic Resilience. I tried looking at both the Barbarian and Monk versions of Unarmored Defense but the Barbarian one explicitly says you can use a shield and still benefit and the Monk one explicitly says when not wearing armor and not using a shield. Draconic Resilience doesn't explicitly mention shields one way or the other.
Would the Sorcerer take the same non-proficiency penalties as if they wore armor (ie, disadvantage on all Strength and Dexterity rolls and inability to cast spells)? The armor proficiency rules only talk about taking penalties when wearing armor and don't say anything about shields, but I'd expect shields to be treated the same way otherwise proficiency with shields (which some classes like Fighter have) would be completely pointless as far as I can tell.
A sorcerer can use a shield and still benefit from their Draconic Resilience, since that ability doesn't make any mention of wearing a shield, unlike the Monk's Unarmored Defense.
Any character without proficiencies in shields suffers from the penalties of wearing armor they're not proficient with, so it would not be beneficial for a base sorcerer to use a shield.
Shields are weird sometimes. Shields can be used on top of an AC calculation formula that does not explicitly prohibit shields (like Monk). Sorcerers, however, are not proficient with shields. They would suffer the penalties.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There is a gap in the rules as written which very obviously imply that wielding an un-proficient shield results in the same penalties one would normally have for wearing un-proficient armor. Shields are a type of armor that is wielded, not worn. Wielding a shield is not wearing armor (see Barbarian's Unarmored Defense), so in this strictest possible reading... wielding a non proficient shield doesn't hurt you in any way, because you aren't wearing armor.
The quoted section should 100% be errata'd to read:
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 or wield a shield 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.
Thanks for your help everyone, and I completely agree with Chicken_Champ's errata.
Incidentally, I almost suggested that wielding a shield should just count as trying to wear medium armor since every class that starts with proficiency with one starts with it with the other as well, and the Moderately Armored feat grants proficiency with both. And then I remembered Mountain Dwarves and College of Swords Bards.
In the strictest sense, the quoted section already dictates that using a shield without proficiency results in the same penalties as armor. There is no reason at all to write "or strap a shield to an arm" if the rule does not apply to shields. I agree it would be better to errata the passage, but that will likely never happen; there's no dire need.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
"Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm."
Game effect translation: Proficient or not, anyone wearing armor or wielding a shield benefits from the AC calculation provided by that armor or shield.
Note: Both in this introduction paragraph, as well as in Chapter 5: Equipment headers and tables, "armor" and "shields" are two seperate categories. I misspoke earlier when I said that a Shield is armor you wield, shields are not armor. Main argument against that: in class descriptions, shield proficiencies appear after an "Armor: ____" bullet; shields appear in the "getting in and out of armor" section further down in Chapter 5. But counter-counterpoint, even when listed after an "Armor: ____" bullet, they are listed as distinct from Armor (see Fighter which treats "shields" as a distinct proficiency from "all armor").
"Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however."
Game effect translation: Wearing non-proficient armor carries some sort of a penalty.
Shields? Mention of them has stopped entirely, there is no indication that wielding a non-proficient shield carries any penalty.
"Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor."
Game effect translation: Your class gives your proficiencies (but see also Race, Feats).
"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."
Game effect translation: Wearing non-proficient armor gives these specific penalties.
Shields? No mention of them, and no indication that wielding a non-proficient shield carries any penalty.
We certainly don't disagree about what the RAI rule is and should be. But what has been written down does not accomplish that. It's very possible that Shields are meant to be worn instead of wielded and otherwise count as "wearing armor"(see the above "strapped to the arm" language; see the fact that picking up a shield requires a full Action instead of being a free interaction like weapons). But if that's the case, some very misleading information has been used elsewhere (such as the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense), and further erratas will be required to reword those sections, instead of simply adding four short words to this one paragraph.
You're really overthinking it dude. There's no reason for them to have written two separate paragraphs about armor & shield proficiency when they both--with respect to proficiency penalties--behave exactly the same way. The armor proficiency clause already includes shields.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
They didn't need to write another paragraph, they needed to write four more words to satisfy me.
Shields and armor are distinct concepts, both mechanically and logically. If you're wearing armor you're wearing armor, there's no way to argue you're just "carrying" it. But the line between wielding something in your hand and holding it is very fuzzy indeed, and a savvy player might try to say "I'm going to start wielding the shield to give me an AC bonus at the end of my turn, but right now I'm just carrying it like an object so that I can still cast spells!" (at least, Bonus Action/Quickened spells, because to start wielding it at the end of their round will require an Action per Chapter 5).
I mean, I guess even my errata wouldn't stop that kind of cheese, but still... logically, it makes sense why being inside of something that you aren't trained to wear would impact your mobility or interfere with the flow of your magical essence. It's less clear that carrying a heavy object in one of your hands should throw your mojo off any more than carrying a heavy sack of turnips would.... and right now, the rules as written treat that non-proficient shield and those turnips the same.
Hell, now that I'm writing it out and realizing the held/wielded cheese that including shields in the non-proficient armor paragraph incentivizes... maybe it was intended not to include Shields in the first place, just to avoid that? Who knows, it'll take an errata to figure it out.
No, it won't. The rule is clear. You're overthinking it to an extreme.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
A shield worn is not merely held in the hand. Shields in general have an arm strap as well as a handle, which is why it takes an action and not an object interaction to put on/take off a shield. If you're not using the arm strap (aka not taking the full action to put on the shield) then you don't gain the AC benefits and you don't suffer from the penalties if you're not proficient.
I agree that the paragraph would be clearer if they mentioned shields again, but as they already talked about shields in the first line, the penalties for wearing armor that you're not proficient with also apply to shields.
I don't believe they ever count as armor. But sometimes, they are discussed in sections with headings that talk about armor, rather than getting their own sections or section titles with longer names.
No, it won't. The rule is clear. You're overthinking it to an extreme.
Except it's NOT clear. The only reference to Shields in that paragraph is in the flavorful entry line, which is not giving any information. It's a fluff sentence that would be omitted if a more condensed version were required.
Thanks for your help everyone, and I completely agree with Chicken_Champ's errata.
Incidentally, I almost suggested that wielding a shield should just count as trying to wear medium armor since every class that starts with proficiency with one starts with it with the other as well, and the Moderately Armored feat grants proficiency with both. And then I remembered Mountain Dwarves and College of Swords Bards.
There are instances where you can get shield proficiency without medium armor. In particular, multiclassing into barbarian will give shields but no armor at all.
So basically, instead of shields consistently counting as armor or consistently not counting as armor, they sometimes do and sometimes don't.
Kinda. They don't ever count as armor; that would omit their use from all AC calculation formulas other than the default. They are just an equipable item that functions like armor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Got a couple of questions regarding what happens when a Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer uses a shield (as in the item, not the spell).
Thanks in advance.
A sorcerer can use a shield and still benefit from their Draconic Resilience, since that ability doesn't make any mention of wearing a shield, unlike the Monk's Unarmored Defense.
Any character without proficiencies in shields suffers from the penalties of wearing armor they're not proficient with, so it would not be beneficial for a base sorcerer to use a shield.
Shields are weird sometimes. Shields can be used on top of an AC calculation formula that does not explicitly prohibit shields (like Monk). Sorcerers, however, are not proficient with shields. They would suffer the penalties.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There is a gap in the rules as written which very obviously imply that wielding an un-proficient shield results in the same penalties one would normally have for wearing un-proficient armor. Shields are a type of armor that is wielded, not worn. Wielding a shield is not wearing armor (see Barbarian's Unarmored Defense), so in this strictest possible reading... wielding a non proficient shield doesn't hurt you in any way, because you aren't wearing armor.
The quoted section should 100% be errata'd to read:
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Thanks for your help everyone, and I completely agree with Chicken_Champ's errata.
Incidentally, I almost suggested that wielding a shield should just count as trying to wear medium armor since every class that starts with proficiency with one starts with it with the other as well, and the Moderately Armored feat grants proficiency with both. And then I remembered Mountain Dwarves and College of Swords Bards.
In the strictest sense, the quoted section already dictates that using a shield without proficiency results in the same penalties as armor. There is no reason at all to write "or strap a shield to an arm" if the rule does not apply to shields. I agree it would be better to errata the passage, but that will likely never happen; there's no dire need.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The quoted section dictates the following:
We certainly don't disagree about what the RAI rule is and should be. But what has been written down does not accomplish that. It's very possible that Shields are meant to be worn instead of wielded and otherwise count as "wearing armor"(see the above "strapped to the arm" language; see the fact that picking up a shield requires a full Action instead of being a free interaction like weapons). But if that's the case, some very misleading information has been used elsewhere (such as the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense), and further erratas will be required to reword those sections, instead of simply adding four short words to this one paragraph.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You're really overthinking it dude. There's no reason for them to have written two separate paragraphs about armor & shield proficiency when they both--with respect to proficiency penalties--behave exactly the same way. The armor proficiency clause already includes shields.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
They didn't need to write another paragraph, they needed to write four more words to satisfy me.
Shields and armor are distinct concepts, both mechanically and logically. If you're wearing armor you're wearing armor, there's no way to argue you're just "carrying" it. But the line between wielding something in your hand and holding it is very fuzzy indeed, and a savvy player might try to say "I'm going to start wielding the shield to give me an AC bonus at the end of my turn, but right now I'm just carrying it like an object so that I can still cast spells!" (at least, Bonus Action/Quickened spells, because to start wielding it at the end of their round will require an Action per Chapter 5).
I mean, I guess even my errata wouldn't stop that kind of cheese, but still... logically, it makes sense why being inside of something that you aren't trained to wear would impact your mobility or interfere with the flow of your magical essence. It's less clear that carrying a heavy object in one of your hands should throw your mojo off any more than carrying a heavy sack of turnips would.... and right now, the rules as written treat that non-proficient shield and those turnips the same.
Hell, now that I'm writing it out and realizing the held/wielded cheese that including shields in the non-proficient armor paragraph incentivizes... maybe it was intended not to include Shields in the first place, just to avoid that? Who knows, it'll take an errata to figure it out.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, it won't. The rule is clear. You're overthinking it to an extreme.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
A shield worn is not merely held in the hand. Shields in general have an arm strap as well as a handle, which is why it takes an action and not an object interaction to put on/take off a shield. If you're not using the arm strap (aka not taking the full action to put on the shield) then you don't gain the AC benefits and you don't suffer from the penalties if you're not proficient.
I agree that the paragraph would be clearer if they mentioned shields again, but as they already talked about shields in the first line, the penalties for wearing armor that you're not proficient with also apply to shields.
So basically, instead of shields consistently counting as armor or consistently not counting as armor, they sometimes do and sometimes don't.
I don't believe they ever count as armor. But sometimes, they are discussed in sections with headings that talk about armor, rather than getting their own sections or section titles with longer names.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except it's NOT clear. The only reference to Shields in that paragraph is in the flavorful entry line, which is not giving any information. It's a fluff sentence that would be omitted if a more condensed version were required.
There are instances where you can get shield proficiency without medium armor. In particular, multiclassing into barbarian will give shields but no armor at all.
Oh yeah I forgot about multiclassing.
Kinda. They don't ever count as armor; that would omit their use from all AC calculation formulas other than the default. They are just an equipable item that functions like armor.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.