Rogues and Shields

[SeaJay]

Rogues are not proficient with shields.

How's this work again, they can't use shields at all?

 

[Mr.E_Danger]

from d20: "When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving."

 

[SnowleopardVK]

(What Mr. E_Danger said.)

They are however, proficient with meatshields.

 

[SeaJay]

Ok thanks

 

[Derfmancher]

I think the better question might be why would a rouge NEED to be proficient with a shield. Stealth is his shield

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

As quoted. Note that a masterwork light shield or buckler has NO armor check penalty. Ditto for a darkwood or mithral heavy shield.

So a rogue can use a shield w/o penalty. it just has to be the right kind of shield...

 

[AeroDm]

As quoted. Note that a masterwork light shield or buckler has NO armor check penalty. Ditto for a darkwood or mithral heavy shield.

So a rogue can use a shield w/o penalty. it just has to be the right kind of shield...

In truth that always sort of bothered me. Darkwood is too cheap if it is going to completely get around a feat. What is it, 254 gp (iirc)? That really undercuts shield prof.

 

[paradox42]

In truth that always sort of bothered me. Darkwood is too cheap if it is going to completely get around a feat. What is it, 254 gp (iirc)? That really undercuts shield prof.

In this case, I think, actually the opposite problem is true. It's not a pointer to the item being too good; it's a pointer to the feat being too weak to be worth a feat slot. Think about what Shield Proficiency actually does; most of the time you're talking about removal of a -1 penalty to certain rolls (not all rolls, just some) under circumstances of using a specific type of item that not every character uses anyway.

The feat has existed since 3.0, back in 2000, and in all that time, I have never once known a player who took the feat for any character.

Of course, some classes get it free, but again, I think that tends to weaken it as a feat rather than the reverse.

IMO it should probably be folded into one of the Armor Proficiency feats, like Light Armor.

 

[AeroDm]

In this case, I think, actually the opposite problem is true. It's not a pointer to the item being too good; it's a pointer to the feat being too weak to be worth a feat slot. Think about what Shield Proficiency actually does; most of the time you're talking about removal of a -1 penalty to certain rolls (not all rolls, just some) under circumstances of using a specific type of item that not every character uses anyway.

The feat has existed since 3.0, back in 2000, and in all that time, I have never once known a player who took the feat for any character.

Of course, some classes get it free, but again, I think that tends to weaken it as a feat rather than the reverse.

IMO it should probably be folded into one of the Armor Proficiency feats, like Light Armor.

That's a good point. It is sort of interesting that you could similarly make the feat more powerful just by increasing the penalty. If you got no benefit of a shield without the feat, it'd suddenly be a more powerful feat. Kind of an odd relationship.

 

[Qik]

So, for instance, a spell caster could use a mithral heavy shield with no penalty?