RAW using a shield while not proficiency currently has no downside I believe, which is something they appear to be correcting with the new Armor Training rule
Shield is listed under the Armor proficiencies, so the Armor Proficiency rules apply:
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.
And this is implemented on dndbeyond character sheets.
I’m guessing the Armor Training is literally only the new description for Armor Proficiency (which I like)
Is this how lack of proficiency with shields always worked:
No bonus to AC?
I always wondered how shield proficiency applied
The RAW is currently silent on the issue. There have always been two (well, technically three) solutions.
One is Farling's, which is based on the assumption (never stated anywhere in the RAW) that the penalty for wearing armor you aren't proficient in applies to armor you aren't wearing (as in order to gain the +2 AC from a shield you must wield it, not wear it) and that shields count as armor (which we know to be false, as Barbarian Unarmored Defense works in conjunction with a shield - and even if we didn't, there simply is no rule in the book stating that shields are armor). Under this theory, you gain the +2 AC even while not proficient, but you also gain the penalties they listed in their post.
The second has always been the one in the UA, which is how every other proficiency in the game works: if you're not proficient, you simply don't get the bonus.
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.
The UA lists the second one, and for the entirety of 5E, including right now, Davyd has been correct: we have no RAW on the matter, so you have to ask your DM how they're ruling at their table.
I'm with Farling. Shields are specifically mentioned in the rule on Armor proficiancy and Armor and Shields are in the same section of the PHB.
5e rules are written in a way designed to be consise and intelligable rather than precise but hard to understand legalise otherwise we would have something like:
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, and only those proficient in a shield's use know how to wield it effectively however. Your class, or race may gives you proficiency with certain types of armor or shields or you may obtain it via a feat. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with 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.
No one above pointed out that the rule on armor proficiency states to get armor proficiency from your class so it is not clear whether a mountain dwarf can not cast spells while wearing armor because he didn't get proficiency from his class.
There are areas where the rules are not clear but I don't think this is one of them like I don't think create and destroy water can be used to remove up to 10 gallons of water from the enemies body (which would insta kill any humanoid and many other creatures)
Note the first sentence of 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."
I feel like something is being implied there, but I can't quite figure out what...
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.)
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 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.
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.
That's an opinion you can have, sure. Another is that shields and armor are often specifically separately named, and are not the same thing. They operate differently, and the game very much treats them differently.
Moreover, the non-proficient armor rules require you to wear the armor in question, so even if we agreed that a shield was armor, which we don't. There certainly wouldn't be agreement that you are wearing a shield. You wield a shield. And the game lists no penalties for 'wielding an armor you're not proficient with'.
Armor and Shield Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor or shield’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor and/or with shields. 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.
^ It is certainly possible they meant to add the red text here and just, you know, forgot. And you're totally welcome to play how you like and pretend that the red text I added is there and was there all along. I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone that. Play the way you enjoy.
Someone earlier stated no one plays it strictly per raw, in the sense that there is zero penalty for using a shield if your character lacks proficiency. Yet, I do. I know others who do as well. And, there is not a whole lot to be gained from convincing me playing how I enjoy is wrong. This is one of those cases where I think they got it accidentally correct. Anyone should be able to use a shield without penalty. Well, other than the penalty that their whole hand is occupied with wielding a shield they cannot easily free it for other tasks. That's all the penalty needed.
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.
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. Take a look at the monk’s Unarmored Defense feature and compare it to the barbarian’s version. In the monk’s version, you must both forgo wearing armor and forgo wielding a shield if you want to benefit from the feature, whereas a barbarian must only forgo wearing armor.
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."
Someone earlier stated no one plays it strictly per raw, in the sense that there is zero penalty for using a shield if your character lacks proficiency. Yet, I do. I know others who do as well. And, there is not a whole lot to be gained from convincing me playing how I enjoy is wrong. This is one of those cases where I think they got it accidentally correct. Anyone should be able to use a shield without penalty. Well, other than the penalty that their whole hand is occupied with wielding a shield they cannot easily free it for other tasks. That's all the penalty needed.
In general, I disagree with most of what you have said about shields as armor. I agree with you, however about gatekeeping each other's play styles, and if you want to give out free armor proficiency at your table, go for it. I played at a table with a guy who had house ruled that attack rolls had to exceed AC to hit, and that the tie goes to the defender. Is that wrong? Absolutely. It specifically contradicts the PHB where it unambiguously says that an attack roll that equals or exceeds AC hits. Did it break the game or make the play experience less fun? Not at all.
Furthermore, looking over the feats in the PHB, one is rather more attracted to your view. There is a feat to gain proficiency in light, medium, and heavy armor. There are feats to exploit existing proficiency in medium and heavy armor. Medium armor proficiency feat requires proficiency in light armor. Medium armor mastery feat requires proficiency in medium armor. There is no feat to gain proficiency in a shield, and the shield master feat does not require proficiency in shields.
Now, for me this means a house rule either that one must be proficient in shields to take the shield master feat, or that taking the feat confers proficiency, because making a house rule that shields aren't armor doesn't make sense to me. But it requires a house rule one way or the other for certain.
I’m guessing the Armor Training is literally only the new description for Armor Proficiency (which I like)
Is this how lack of proficiency with shields always worked:
No bonus to AC?
I always wondered how shield proficiency applied
RAW using a shield while not proficiency currently has no downside I believe, which is something they appear to be correcting with the new Armor Training rule
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Shield is listed under the Armor proficiencies, so the Armor Proficiency rules apply:
And this is implemented on dndbeyond character sheets.
The RAW is currently silent on the issue. There have always been two (well, technically three) solutions.
One is Farling's, which is based on the assumption (never stated anywhere in the RAW) that the penalty for wearing armor you aren't proficient in applies to armor you aren't wearing (as in order to gain the +2 AC from a shield you must wield it, not wear it) and that shields count as armor (which we know to be false, as Barbarian Unarmored Defense works in conjunction with a shield - and even if we didn't, there simply is no rule in the book stating that shields are armor). Under this theory, you gain the +2 AC even while not proficient, but you also gain the penalties they listed in their post.
The second has always been the one in the UA, which is how every other proficiency in the game works: if you're not proficient, you simply don't get the bonus.
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.
The UA lists the second one, and for the entirety of 5E, including right now, Davyd has been correct: we have no RAW on the matter, so you have to ask your DM how they're ruling at their table.
Real quick question about this statement: do you acknowledge that a longsword is a weapon, according to the rules?
I see what you're up to :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm with Farling. Shields are specifically mentioned in the rule on Armor proficiancy and Armor and Shields are in the same section of the PHB.
5e rules are written in a way designed to be consise and intelligable rather than precise but hard to understand legalise otherwise we would have something like:
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, and only those proficient in a shield's use know how to wield it effectively however. Your class, or race may give
syou proficiency with certain types of armor or shields or you may obtain it via a feat. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with 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.No one above pointed out that the rule on armor proficiency states to get armor proficiency from your class so it is not clear whether a mountain dwarf can not cast spells while wearing armor because he didn't get proficiency from his class.
There are areas where the rules are not clear but I don't think this is one of them like I don't think create and destroy water can be used to remove up to 10 gallons of water from the enemies body (which would insta kill any humanoid and many other creatures)
Note the heading of the first column.
Note the first sentence of 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."
I feel like something is being implied there, but I can't quite figure out what...
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
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.
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.
I mean, armor proficiency is literally one of the only rules in the game that has consequences spelled out if you break 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.
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.
In real life a shield is as much a weapon as the hammer or sword.
Why would I strap a Breastplate to my arm?
(Shields weight 6lbs.)
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.
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.
That's an opinion you can have, sure. Another is that shields and armor are often specifically separately named, and are not the same thing. They operate differently, and the game very much treats them differently.
Moreover, the non-proficient armor rules require you to wear the armor in question, so even if we agreed that a shield was armor, which we don't. There certainly wouldn't be agreement that you are wearing a shield. You wield a shield. And the game lists no penalties for 'wielding an armor you're not proficient with'.
^ It is certainly possible they meant to add the red text here and just, you know, forgot. And you're totally welcome to play how you like and pretend that the red text I added is there and was there all along. I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone that. Play the way you enjoy.
Someone earlier stated no one plays it strictly per raw, in the sense that there is zero penalty for using a shield if your character lacks proficiency. Yet, I do. I know others who do as well. And, there is not a whole lot to be gained from convincing me playing how I enjoy is wrong. This is one of those cases where I think they got it accidentally correct. Anyone should be able to use a shield without penalty. Well, other than the penalty that their whole hand is occupied with wielding a shield they cannot easily free it for other tasks. That's all the penalty needed.
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.
A Sage Advice's official ruling in that sense
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."
At the same time, if there's no downside to wielding a shield without proficiency, what is the point of having one?
In general, I disagree with most of what you have said about shields as armor. I agree with you, however about gatekeeping each other's play styles, and if you want to give out free armor proficiency at your table, go for it. I played at a table with a guy who had house ruled that attack rolls had to exceed AC to hit, and that the tie goes to the defender. Is that wrong? Absolutely. It specifically contradicts the PHB where it unambiguously says that an attack roll that equals or exceeds AC hits. Did it break the game or make the play experience less fun? Not at all.
Furthermore, looking over the feats in the PHB, one is rather more attracted to your view. There is a feat to gain proficiency in light, medium, and heavy armor. There are feats to exploit existing proficiency in medium and heavy armor. Medium armor proficiency feat requires proficiency in light armor. Medium armor mastery feat requires proficiency in medium armor. There is no feat to gain proficiency in a shield, and the shield master feat does not require proficiency in shields.
Now, for me this means a house rule either that one must be proficient in shields to take the shield master feat, or that taking the feat confers proficiency, because making a house rule that shields aren't armor doesn't make sense to me. But it requires a house rule one way or the other for certain.