Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 NirvanS Dec 04, 2014 2:55:09	If I dont have shield proficiency, but take the Shield Master feat, do I gain proficiency in the shield? There is no prerequisite to already having shield proficiency.
#2 El_Condoro Dec 04, 2014 3:39:04	Interesting question. A lot of classes don't have "shields" mentioned in their armor proficiencies, however, there does not seem to be any non-proficiency penalty for shields. Their description on PHB144 just says they increase "your AC by 2". In the Armor Proficiency section on the same page, it says that not being proficient with armor will give disadvantage in certain circumstances but doesn't mention shields. In fact, there is a clear distinction between them: "Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm". Paraphrased: anyone can use a shield.   So, going by those references, it seems to me that no-one suffers any penalty for not being proficient with shields and, therefore, Shield Master assumes that and just gives its benefits.   [Edit]: If shields fall under the category of Armor (they are in the Armor table and on the Don/Doff Armor table) and attract the same penalties for non-proficency, they are very stiff penalties.
#3 Macv12 Dec 04, 2014 4:34:57	They are stiff penalties. That's why the proficiencies are so jealously guarded, and everyone wants to take Cleric or Fighter level dips just for armor/shields.   Shield proficiency is a thing, so presumably there's a drawback to not having it. It's given in the same way armor proficiency is, it's referred to in the same Armor and Shields section, and shields appear on the Armor table in equipment. You'd have to rules-lawyer that section awfully carefully to come to the conclusion that shields are just a flat bonus with no penalties; the game is treating them as a kind of armor as far as I can tell. The "anyone can wear a shield" line is in the same context as "anyone can wear armor," but then it goes right into describing what the penalties are for not being proficient. Disadvantage in all STR and DEX rolls (so your physical attacks are in the tank), and no spells (so no other attacks). Ouch.   Anyway.   Shield Master doesn't say you get proficiency, so you don't. It would not be a very good idea to take the feat if you're not proficient, since literally every benefit it provided falls under the category of "things you are laughable at because you're wearing non-proficient armor," but for some reason you can anyway, so go nuts.
#4 Undrhil Dec 04, 2014 5:28:36	Shields are *not* armor, since anything which limits something based on armor specifically has to call out shields as being included in that limitation: see the Monk and Barbarian 'Unarmored Defense' class features, for example.   I would say that if, as a caster, you were to wear a shield without proficiency, you'd get the +2 to AC but you wouldn't be able to cast.  Kind of a best of both worlds approach.  However, there is currently no penatly for using a shield without proficiency, according to RAW.  Maybe someone can tweet Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford about this?
#5 Nachturnus Dec 04, 2014 5:45:58	Page 144 clearly describes shields as sepparate from armor, both from the semantics of "Armor and Shields" in the fluff "Many warrior supplement their armor with shields."  p.145 decides the opposite, including Shields in armor headings. The shield is also not included in the list of armor trypes, and is included under it's own heading in the armor chart, sepparating it from the other three extant types of armor, but still listing it in the same 'class' of objects as armor.  Shields are also included as a subset of armor in the armor proficiencies sections of class documents.  The way I would rule: Shields are apparently half-way between armor and not, mechanically. I would rule that they impose the full penalty of non-proficiency on spellcasting and attack rolls of one uses them without proficiciency.
#6 Sorxores Dec 04, 2014 6:04:36	your have an ARMOR table which list all the ARMOR in the game. Their is 4 subclass of armor: light armor medium armor Heavy armor Shield.   Shield is a subclass of armor that stack with the other Subclass of armor(light/medium/heavy armor.)   The same with the WEAPON table: Unarmed attack are listed under WEAPON making them WEAPON   So yes if you are not proficient with shield and strap a shield on your forearm (since everyone can strap a shield) you will benefit fromt he +2, but you are nto used to carried this extra wiehgt on your forehand and never learn to fight that way, this extra weight will outbalance you and therefore DIsavantage everytime you try to move your arm (AKA strenght/dex check)
#7 NirvanS Dec 04, 2014 8:14:50	I thought that for many feats or abilities, they listed prerequisites. IE Str or Int 13, or need of casting one spell. For Shield Master, it had no prerequisite for shield proficiency
(Reply to #7) Nachturnus	NirvanS wrote:
#9 Plaguescarred4 Dec 04, 2014 12:25:26	The Shield Master feat doesn't require shield proficiency, neither does it grant it.   Shields are found under the Armor table and IMO should be considered a subset of them, because If shields are not armor, there is no downside in the rules to wear one without proficiency otherwise;     PHB143 Armor Proficiency:  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.