current community

your communities

more stack exchange communities

company blog
Stack Exchange Inbox Reputation and Badges
tour help
up vote 12 down vote favorite

PHB describes the downsides of wearing an armor you are not proficient with:

Armor Proficiency.
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.

However, a shield is not armor.

The Spellcasting chapter says about armor explicitly, and not shields:

Casting in Armor
Because of the mental focus and precise gestures required for spellcasting, you must be proficient with the armor you are wearing to cast a spell. You are otherwise too distracted and physically hampered by your armor for spellcasting.

It seems a Sorcerer can easily wield a shield. What exactly are the downsides of not being proficient with shields?

share|improve this question
up vote 28 down vote accepted

The disadvantages are the same as wearing regular armor you lack proficiency with

(Note, I used the basic rules pg.44 as a reference, but the information should be the same as in the PHB, pg. 144)

You claim that shields are not armor. I challenge this assertion. Shields are not body armor (as noted in this answer on the first linked question). The answer on the first linked question is pointing out that all body armor changes how AC is calculated, while shields give a flat +2 AC.

However, shields are still listed in the armor table along with all light, medium, and heavy armor. The section title that you quote is "Armor and Shields" and the section begins:

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.

Additionally, shield proficiency is noted in the "armor proficiences" section of the class description.

Based on the fact that shields are lumped together when talking about armor in the armor table itself, in the beginning of the preceding section, as well as in the armor proficiencies of the class description, shields are meant to be considered armor. Thus, whatever disadvantages come from using armor that you are not proficient with also apply to using shields if you lack proficiency.

As an aside and a note on your second linked question, just because a shield does not interfere with the Draconic Resilience of the sorcerer, doesn't mean that the sorcerer doesn't need to get a shield proficiency from somewhere else, like multiclassing, to use it effectively.

share|improve this answer
5  
Shields are also written down in the "armor proficiences" section of a class description. – Urist McDorf 16 hours ago
2  
This information can be found in the PHB on page 144, for reference. – UrhoKarila 16 hours ago
2  
@enkryptor Wearing a shield on your back is good enough for a new question devoted to it I think, but I would say that it should be fine. I feel that the fact that shield proficiencies are in the class description for armor, as well as shields being in the armor table is enough RAW reference that using a shield without proficiency is intended to cause the disadvantages. I don't have much more other than by RAW all shields are technically strapped to the arm, since my quote is the only mention of how to use a shield. Thus, all shields are technically worn when in use. – Adam 15 hours ago
1  
@enkryptor "wearing a shield on your back" is not "wearing". It's carrying. No reason why you can't carry it, you just don't get any benefits/detriments as if you're wearing it. – NautArch 15 hours ago
1  
@enkryptor as I said, my whole answer is my RAW reference. Shield is listed under armor proficiencies and the armor table in the rules. therefore, a shield is armor. Therefore, since there is no specific rule for disadvantages to using shields without proficiency, we use the normal rules for using armor without proficiency. – Adam 14 hours ago
up vote 3 down vote

The point of Shield proficiency is to have the ability to wield a shield without penalty.

PHB 144 states:

Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm...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.

This description under Armor Proficiency includes shields in the first sentence and therefore the description of non-proficient use includes both Shields and Armor.

As for the question regarding the link to Draconic Sorcerer/shield bonus to AC synergy - there is a difference between it working together and working together while still allowing spellcasting.

Note: There is still a difference in shields vs worn armor when looking at things like Mage Armor, Unarmored Defense, etc. This is a discussion on proficiency, not on how it interacts with other capabilities.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.