When I read the PHB It seems that it assumes that the players categorize a shield as "armor". So would this apply to spells such as magic armor? I.E if you are wearing armor, you can't cast it? So if you wore a shield you can't cast magic armor?
If not, and its not treated as "armor" would it impose the same disadvantages wearing armor you are not proficient with, if you wore a shield you weren't proficient with? If so, then dang, mages who want to cast magic armor or shadow armor can't wield shield dang T_T
I think whether a shield counts as armor depends on the context. But for mage armor, I'd let you benefit from a shield along with it.
For the proficiency question, if you try to wear a shield you aren't proficient with, I'd impose the penalties. (In that paragraph, and that section in general, they seem to be treating sheilds as a type of armor.)
WanderingBard wrote:
Shields are one of those areas that without a direct answer (e.g. Sage Advice) I don't think your going to get a single answer. The way I rule it doesn't make a huge difference
From page 9 of the basic rules
Your character needs to be proficient with armor and shields to wear and use them effectively, and your armor and shield proficiencies are determined by your class. There are drawbacks to wearing armor or carrying a shield if you lack the required proficiency, as explained in chapter 5.
Which is followed by
Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use.
So you have to have proficiency with a shield, and you either add together armor plus shield or use a different calculation. So mage armor doesn't get a shield bonus because it gives you the new way to calculate AC
Mage Armor 1st-level abjuration Casting Time: 1 action Range: Touch Components: V, S, M (a piece of cured leather) Duration: 8 hours You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.
There's also the argument that a shield is armor because it's listed with armor in "Armor" item list page 44 (basic rules) and "Donning and Doffing Armor" pae 45 (basic rules)
But like I said I don't think it matters. The important thing is that you pick one way of calculating AC and stick with it.
OoftaMeg wrote:
I also consider shields to be seperate from armor, despite them sharing a table, just as unarmed strikes are listed with manufactured weapons. Different sections of the book are inconsistent, but I believe that there are more differences than similarities.
Macv12 wrote:
I don't allow a shield to stack with the armor spell.
jaelis wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
I'd treat a shield as armour given it;'s listed in the armour rules and it has a Don/doff time of 1 action.
(I've houseruled shileds as being able to be dropped like any other objects myself)
Likewise you have the usual non-proficiency penalties.
A fighter who takes the Magic Initiate feat could pick up Mage Armor as a once per day cast spell. So, for 8 hours out of the day, they could run around butt naked with a shield and gain the benefit of mage armor and the shied. Presumably, this fighter has a decent Dex (and hopefully CHA if he/she truly is running around naked) to manage the AC with mage armor.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
There are various rules that indicate Shields are a type of armor.
There are various rules that indicate that Shields are separate from Armor.
Take that as you will...
No armor is 10 + Dex. Armor and/or shield is 10+armor +shield and dex if the armor allows it (as clarified in chapter 5*) . Mage armor is 13 +Dex, it's a different calculation. Choose one.
jaelis wrote:
My question is, why do you count armor and shield in 'base AC' but not those other things?
jaelis wrote:
Well, when you look under "proficiencies armor" for each class, you'll find shields listed under that category. I think shields constitute a type of armor (or it would be listed under "weapons", "tools" or have its own category. Barbarian, for example lists: "Armor: light armor, medium armor and shields". The reading of mage armor uses the word "wearing", which I think, we generally think that a shield is "wielded" rather than "worn." But because shields are listed as a type of armor under proficiencies and on the armor table, I think I'd rule mage armor and a shield would not stack.
Ummm ... because that's what the rules say to do? Shields are not a bonus to your AC, they increase AC by 2 if you use them in your base AC calculation. You can add the sheld bonus to your AC calculation if the calculation of base AC method you are using says you can.
OoftaMeg wrote:
IMHO, it would make more sense if a character who lacked proficiency in shields simply didn't get an AC bonus from them. It seems like you have to actually wield a shield with some skill to be protected by it.
As per a topic from a while back where I promised to do so, I should be clear that I'm fine conceding the RAW argument to whoever makes the best points. What I'm arguing for is what seems to make more sense and what I consider more fun, with a sprinkling of "and the rules might agree with me" on top.
It's pretty rare that you're going to have someone that is proficient in shields and not other armor unless you also decide that proficiency in shields isn't required.
In the grand scheme of things I like the established archetypes of a wizard who relies only on magic to protect him or a mage blade/eldritch knight.
Macv12 wrote:
See, I always wondered about this, for those who Multi-class as a Barbarian/ Fighter or a Fighter/ Monk and take the Defensive Fighing Style to gain that extra point in AC. Unarmored Defense for a Barbarian says;
Unarmored Defense
While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class equals 10 + your Dexterity modifer + your Constitution modifer. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit.
But a Monk says..
Unarmored Defense
Beginning at 1st level, while you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifer + your Wisdom modifier.
This brings up the difficult question in regards to a Human Variant Fighter/ Barbarian, Human Variant Fighter/ Monk, Human Variant Barbarian/ Monk, & Human Variant Fighter/ Barbarian/ Monk.
The only rules I find in Chapter 5 that relate to this and shields is under 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." That doesn't seem like a formula to me. If anything it would be a modifier. It's just a single number.
As Coredump pointed out ( earlier in this week we were debating this same thing, shields in conjunction with mage armor ) there are various things that suggest shields are armor, and then suggests they are not armor.
Reasons I think people would say that shields count as armor
Included on Armor table, Included in Armor proficiencies, Included in the Donning and Doffing Armor table. Personally I believe that Shields are listed in these places because they didn't want to write a separate section for them.
Reasons I think people would say shields do not count as armor
Even though shields are on the Armor table, the rules say that the armor table has armors sorted by the types of Light Armor, Medium Armor and Heavy Armor. Shields are not in any category that the rules say armor are sorted into. Why not say just include shields as a category of armor if they are a category of armor and you are making specific reference to categories of armor.
The phrase "Many warriors supplement their armor with a shield. " doesn't make a lot of sense if shields are armor.
The Unarmored Defense feature from monks says " While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10+ your Dexterity modifier + your Wisdom Modifier. " If shields were armor, it shouldn't make a specific distinction, it would already be included since it says it doesn't work with armor. It's possible they phrase it like that since the rules say you wear armor, but you wield shields. If this is the case, then shields should function with Mage Armor because Mage Armor says the target can't be wearing armor ( you would be wielding a shield, not wearing it, by their own terminology ). Mage Armor ends if you put armor on, but you have already donned the shield before casting the spell.
It just feels inconsistent to me that the rules imply that shields are a form of armor sometimes, and other times imply they are not.
Echamil wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
curiousdragon wrote:
You seem to be speaking in unwarranted absolutes. That kind of thing can be embarrassing later on.
A shield is armor that you don and wield, not armor that you don and wear—a distinction that maybe clears up nothing. LOL
curiousdragon wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
In fact, when you look at this table, the rule is quite clear :
Page 45 of the basic rules :
>>Getting Into and Out of Armor
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.
Donning and Doffing Armor
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<<
The shield is clearly considered an armor in this section, so it would not work with the mage armor spell since the mage armor spell stipulates :
Page 96 of the basic rules :
>>You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.<<
Since the shield is considered an armor, as per the table above, then a shield shouldn't work with mage armor. But in the end anyone could accept the opposite if thet wished so. After all, the rules are not set in stone and can be adapted to our needs.
Acrilos wrote:
Slight amendment to my original response to include a couple of other lines other people have quoted.
There are multiple ways of calculating base AC. Without magic, most character classes rely armor and optionally a shield.
From page 9 of the basic rules
Your character needs to be proficient with armor and shields to wear and use them effectively, and your armor and shield proficiencies are determined by your class. There are drawbacks to wearing armor or carrying a shield if you lack the required proficiency, as explained in chapter 5.
Which is followed by
Some spells and class features give you a different way to calculate your AC. If you have multiple features that give you different ways to calculate your AC, you choose which one to use.
On page 44 of the basic rules under category "Armor and Shields"
Armor Class (AC). Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.
Later on the page it states
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 important to note that this is in the section on armor and shields, where it is talking about how armor works as referenced back on page 9 "as explained in chapter 5." In addition, it is not listed as a bonus to AC, it increases your base Armor Class.
Some classes also have features which give you a different base AC calculation. The barbarian feature
Unarmored Defense
While you are not wearing any armor, your Armor Class
equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Constitution
modifier. You can use a shield and still gain this benefit.
On the other hand, Mage Armor just gives you a new way to calculate AC
Mage Armor 1st-level abjuration Casting Time: 1 action Range: Touch Components: V, S, M (a piece of cured leather) Duration: 8 hours You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.
If taken in context, I think the rules are quite clear. When wearing armor or using the Barbarian's Unarmored Defense, you add in the shield modifier to your base AC because it tells you to. Mage Armor gives you a different method of calculating AC which doesn't include the shield modifier.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 
Coredump00 wrote:
Jamwes wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I would say shields are armor since they are an armor proficiency and show up on the armor table. The reason Unarmored Defense mentions shields is to establish an exception, a rule more specific than the general. So while a barbarian gains unarmored defense only when not wearing armor, shields can still be worn, per the wording of the ability.
Monks don't gain unarmored defense if using a shield (as a shield) because they would be wearing armor. I think the distinction is that if a monk picks up a shield to use it as an improvised weapon, but doesn't don the shield, they aren't "wearing armor", don't gain the shield AC bonus, and don't lose the use of unarmored defense merely from holding a shield.
I'd also rule that using a shield would nullify the benefit of Mage Armor. Since the spell does say that the spell ends if a character "dons armor", and the only way to gain the AC benefit of a shield is to don it, and the only use of the word "don" is in reference to armor, and since Mage Armor, unlike the barbarian's unarmored defense, doesn't explicitly allow the use of a shield in conjunction with the spell, it seems the spell shouldn't work with shields.
Shields are a subset of armor that have special rules setting them apart from suits of armor. Armor in general is worn, and must be donned to convey their benefit. In this respect, shields are most definitely armor. The benefit they convey is different from suits of armor though. They are armor nonetheless since they are by definition a worn protective covering that provides defense when donned.
The rules purposely set wearing/holding apart from wearing/donning. Picking up a shield and donning a shield aren't the same thing. Picking up a shield can be a free object interaction... donning a shield requires the use of your action.
Mage Armor technically is a protective covering that provides defense, but isn't donned/worn, so while it behaves like armor, it isn't armor since it isn't worn/donned. It literally cannot be doffed. It has to be dispelled, ended by the caster, or ended by donning armor.
Obviously, this is just how I interpret the text. I'm by no means saying this is the "correct answer". So to summarize: I don't allow Mage Armor to stack with shields. Mage Armor however can definitely stack with the shield spell.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Acrilos wrote:
There actually was a tweet about this. At least for part of the question.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524716308097560576
Hamsterkill wrote:
So a wizard can have mage armor and a shield to set their base AC to 15 + dex, but since they aren't proficient with shields, they can't cast spells because they can't cast spells when wearing armor they're not proficient with, but if they're wearing armor at all, mage armor doesn't work, but if mage armor works with shields, shields aren't considered armor in reference to spells so they should be able to cast spells, which establishes a contradiction to the rules for armor proficiency...
I'm sticking with my simple and effective "shields are armor" ruling otherwise I'm going to have a wizard at my table saying he doesn't have to be proficient with a shield to cast spells, and likely, I'll have another person say that since shields aren't armor, then the penalties for lacking proficiency doesn't apply since the penalty is only if you lack proficiency with armor. There's no penalty associated with lacking shield proficiency so there must not be one.
You're so black and white I'm happy to say the shields count as armor for some purposes and not for others.
jaelis wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote: