Why are so many opposed to a shield being a weapon?

[OzDragon]

I made a thread a few months ago about making a captain america like character. There seemed to be many that did not like a shield as a weapon. I would like to understand why.

Is it because you don't like that it could be used for offense and defense at the same time?

Is it because historically it was not generally used as a weapon?

Is it because it could break two weapon fighting?

Would you allow it if a feat was required?

Would you allow it if it lost its defensive properties when used as a weapon?

Would you allow it if it was the only weapon the character used?

Other reasons?

There are many fantasy examples of a shield being used as a weapon. Wonder Woman and Captain America are the two most recent examples. I'm a rule of cool guy personally and don't think that it would break or hurt the game at all. I would really like your opinions.

Thanks

[Unoriginal]

The game considers the shield an improvised weapon, which is fitting because it's what it is when used for offense.

Some shields have bits added to make them more dangerous, like the lizardfolk's spiked shield. Otherwise, it's not really a weapon.

[OzDragon]

The game considers the shield an improvised weapon, which is fitting because it's what it is when used for offense.

Some shields have bits added to make them more dangerous, like the lizardfolk's spiked shield. Otherwise, it's not really a weapon.

Why is it ok for Lizardmen to use one as a weapon but not a PC? Serious question not just being facetious.

Are you speaking historically or within fantasy? Historically I would agree, within fantasy I would not.

[Lombra]

Why is it ok for Lizardmen to use one as a weapon but not a PC? Serious question not just being facetious.

Are you speaking historically or within fantasy? Historically I would agree, within fantasy I would not.

Because it opens the can of worms of PC weapons vs NPC weapons. Which nobody really wants to deal with.

A shield can be used as an improvised weapon, what else would you expect?

[OzDragon]

Because it opens the can of worms of PC weapons vs NPC weapons. Which nobody really wants to deal with.

A shield can be used as an improvised weapon, what else would you expect?

Cause me hitting you with the edge or blunt of a shield will hurt more than a punch or a kick or most improvised weapons.

Most NPC weapons are already usable by PCs anyway baring larger ones. In fact I can't think of another NPC weapon that a PC can not use.

[Lombra]

Cause me hitting you with the edge or blunt of a shield will hurt more than a punch or a kick or most improvised weapons.

Most NPC weapons are already usable by PCs anyway baring larger ones. In fact I can't think of another NPC weapon that a PC can not use.

By NPC I also intend actual monsters.

It does more damage than a kick. A kick does 1+STR damage, an improvised weapon deals 1d4+STR. Should it deal more damage than something like a chair? Probably not.

I do find myself dissatisfied with the damage structure of D&D by the way, but it's what it is and besides the point.

Plus, MCU Captain America's shield would likely be a magic item, for which all sort if exceptions could be made.

[OzDragon]

By NPC I also intend actual monsters.

It does more damage than a kick. A kick does 1+STR damage, an improvised weapon deals 1d4+STR. Should it deal more damage than something like a chair? Probably not.

I do find myself dissatisfied with the damage structure of D&D by the way, but it's what it is and besides the point.

Plus, MCU Captain America's shield would likely be a magic item, for which all sort if exceptions could be made.

While I agree that when thrown it would be and for the purposes of this thread I'm ignoring that aspect of his combat. Through normal attacks he makes and with way Wonder Woman uses her shield that would not be magical.

[Lombra]

While I agree that when thrown it would be and for the purposes of this thread I'm ignoring that aspect of his combat. Through normal attacks he makes and with way Wonder Woman uses her shield that would not be magical.

Technically it's made of a special material, which classifies it as "magical" like adamantium armors or weapons.

[OzDragon]

Technically it's made of a special material, which classifies it as "magical" like adamantium armors or weapons.

Yes but those special materials like adamantine do not make an item magical it just gives it properties. Nor do they add additional damage.

[Unoriginal]

Why is it ok for Lizardmen to use one as a weapon but not a PC? Serious question not just being facetious.

It's not "ok for Lizardmen to use one as a weapon but not a PC", it's just that the Lizardfolk have their shield crafted this way, to be more dangerous in combat. If you loot a Lizardfolk shield and want to use it, be my guest.



Are you speaking historically or within fantasy? Historically I would agree, within fantasy I would not.

Well, you would be wrong. Even in fantasy, shields being used as weapons are rare and are almost always specially crafted for this purpose explicitly.



Cause me hitting you with the edge or blunt of a shield will hurt more than a punch or a kick or most improvised weapons.

No. A shield is not a weapon of war, it's not going to do more damage than any other blunt object of that weight you hit people with.

As Lombra pointed out, it does more damage than unarmed strikes (unless the person is trained specifically to do more damage with unarmed strikes or has some natural weapons).

It's already nice that hitting someone with a shield damages them as much as if you used a dagger.


While I agree that when thrown it would be and for the purposes of this thread I'm ignoring that aspect of his combat. Through normal attacks he makes and with way Wonder Woman uses her shield that would not be magical.

Wonder Woman uses her shield as an improvised weapon, as supplement for her swordplay/hand-to-hand combat.

Captain America is the same: he uses hand-to-hand, defend with the shield, and sometime attacks with it. His shield is just better than most improvised weapons.


Yes but those special materials like adamantine do not make an item magical it just gives it properties. Nor do they add additional damage.

So?

The power of Captain America's shield is that it's resistant. It doesn't increase his attack power (though it let him hit things his fists would be hurt by since, again, the purpose of the shield is to protect him).

[Magzimum]

As a DM, I would probably allow it. The "Rule of Cool" is quite important.

I would however take a look at the proficiencies of your character, specifically the ranged and melee weapons. I'd never allow the shield to exceed the max. damage output that you have when you wear the shield as only defense, and you wield a one-handed melee weapon or a ranged throwing weapon (e.g. javelin, sling, dagger). My proposal to a player would be that you start off with it being an improvised weapon. But I would promise that you'd gain proficiency which would increase its damage to that of your max. damage output with regular weapons with which you're proficient.

Using it as a ranged weapon:
Like this, you can throw your shield as much as you want: You would gain one extra (and very cool!) ranged weapon in exchange for a temporary drop in AC. Seems pretty fair to me.

Using it as a melee weapon:
It still takes an action to use. And if you like, you can use it in an off-handed attack (bonus action), where you just don't get to use your Strength modifier (this is certainly not a finesse weapon, it's Strength based). It's bludgeoning when used to smash, and slashing when used sideways. I'd probably even allow you to choose which type of attack on each attack.

tl;dr: I don't see a problem.

[Willie the Duck]

I made a thread a few months ago about making a captain america like character. There seemed to be many that did not like a shield as a weapon. I would like to understand why.
<list of questions>
There are many fantasy examples of a shield being used as a weapon. Wonder Woman and Captain America are the two most recent examples. I'm a rule of cool guy personally and don't think that it would break or hurt the game at all. I would really like your opinions.

I think there are going to be as many answers as there are people who dislike it. Here are a few good explanations.

Just to start with realism-D&D has never done the shield justice. oD&D and 1e came the closest if you used the WeaponVsArmor chart, in that each weapon got different pluses or minuses vs. 'armor X' and 'armor X plus shield.' That should have stuck (but since everyone hated the WvA charts, it didn't). That's because having a shield completely changes the way you fight. Anyways, the reason that this might make you dislike shield-as-weapon is that doing so implies that utilizing the shield as part of one's offense is the exception, and it is not. When you have a shield, you are using it as a weapon all the time--not, mind you, usually by trying to actively kill someone with the shield, but as a positioning thing (bashing some, but also controlling where the opponent could be and actually get a good approach on you, etc.). So to say that now you were going to be using your shield offensively would have falsely implied that you hadn't been this whole time.

Now to the issue of previous editions-both 3e and splat-enhanced 2e had options for heavily investing in being a 'sword and board'-based character. In both cases, they basically worked as allowing you to two-weapon fight with your normal weapon and with your shield as a bashing weapon, and for the most part they kinda sucked.

A related tangential issue is that there has been issues with trying to circumvent the normal creature has two hands, one to protect, one to attack, or use both to attack for greater effect. If one hand can both attack and defend, and the other hand was free to hold another weapon (or torch or whatnot), then shield fighting is always superior to two-weapon fighting (ex. why wield two short swords when a short sword and shield can do the same offensively if you want or defensively if you prefer?).

Other than that, it just seems to be an unnecessary complication to flesh out one very niche character build that the player really should be negotiating with the DM over ('you want to play Captain America and fight with a shield? No problem. Joe over there wants to play the Penguin and fight with an umbrella and Janice over there wants to play the Grim Reaper and fight with a scythe. put your ideas in my in box and I'll work on house rules for them all over the weekend.'). That, or the improvised weapon rules work just fine.

[Pex]

I think there's also a hint of Fighters can't get nice things mentality. When it's proposed a warrior get a new trick there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to forbid it. Part of it is being too much of a stickler for realism. If the person can't fathom it in real life then it can't work because warriors aren't magical. The other side of the same coin is that there's no resource cost. A spellcaster can do anything because it's magic but also it uses up a spell slot. There's a sense of the player paying for it and it's limited. A warrior usually doesn't spend a resource to do something, though 5E gave them some. However, when there's a proposed thing for a warrior to do the idea is the warrior can do it whenever he wants, and that is what some people react against. The concept means to them the character becomes uberpowerful the game fails, not the intent that it's only meant as a Cool Thing and/or Variety.

[Vogie]

I have used the wording of one of the Kensai Monk's feature to apply to shields (as though it was a kensai weapon):


Agile Parry: If you make an unarmed strike as part of the Attack action on your turn and are holding a kensei weapon, you can use it to defend yourself if it is a melee weapon. You gain a +2 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn, while the weapon is in your hand and you aren't incapacitated.

Basically, you choose if you're using it as a weapon or a shield, and the +2 AC the shield "naturally" provides is only available if you aren't using it as a weapon.

[Yagyujubei]

your error is using real world logic to try and rationalize same systems. yes in real life a shield could totally be used as a "weapon" and would hurt much more than a punch. but DnD isnt real life man. follow the rules or homebrew its up to you, but you cant have that mindset.

[Cybren]

The game considers the shield an improvised weapon, which is fitting because it's what it is when used for offense.

Some shields have bits added to make them more dangerous, like the lizardfolk's spiked shield. Otherwise, it's not really a weapon.
Shields are a weapon. Intentionally, by design, for a lot of their use. Not an improvised weapon. A deliberately manufactured one.

[Ignimortis]

I made a thread a few months ago about making a captain america like character. There seemed to be many that did not like a shield as a weapon. I would like to understand why.


Mostly because shields give +2 to AC in 5e, which is a very significant improvement to defense. In comparison, dual-wielding only gives +1 AC...with a feat devoted to the style, and +0 otherwise. While dual-wielding is kinda bad in 5e, actually making a shield into a 1d6 weapon, even non-finesse or so would significantly improve sword-and-board style and leave poor dual-wielding in the dust. 5e operates on a very narrow range of things that are not "unbalanced" and even GWM/SS with their +10 damage can quite severely affect gameplay at lower levels.

To be fair, I would absolutely approve of using a shield offensively as a DM. Then again, I don't DM 5e.

[Strifer]

We had the rule if you used it offensively, you loose your AC bonus of the shield (you aren't blocking with it anymore). Furthermore if it is in your offhand, use the two weapon fighting rules. Came down to 1d4 or 1d4 + str

[Willie the Duck]

I think there's also a hint of Fighters can't get nice things mentality. When it's proposed a warrior get a new trick there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to forbid it. Part of it is being too much of a stickler for realism. If the person can't fathom it in real life then it can't work because warriors aren't magical. The other side of the same coin is that there's no resource cost. A spellcaster can do anything because it's magic but also it uses up a spell slot. There's a sense of the player paying for it and it's limited. A warrior usually doesn't spend a resource to do something, though 5E gave them some. However, when there's a proposed thing for a warrior to do the idea is the warrior can do it whenever he wants, and that is what some people react against. The concept means to them the character becomes uberpowerful the game fails, not the intent that it's only meant as a Cool Thing and/or Variety.

I think this is a very real thing that happens to martials, but I don't see it happening here. Most of the things I see about shield are comparing martial with shield to martial with other weapons (so martial-to-martial comparisons). If the fighter were trying to do something outside of the realm of martial abilities (like replicate a spell effect or something) I can imagine this kind of knee-jerk blowback happening.

[mephnick]

I think it's balance more than people not liking the visual. The drawback of having a shield is that you lose that hand. Half the reason Warcaster exists is to make up for that loss of hand. Simply allowing the +2 AC to also act as the character's weapon introduces some unbalanced restriction avoidance that I'm not comfortable with. Losing the AC bonus for the turn you use attacking with it is probably fair, though. But there are actual mechanical concerns, it's not just that no one likes Cpt. America or Fighters.

[strangebloke]

I think it's balance more than people not liking the visual. The drawback of having a shield is that you lose that hand. Half the reason Warcaster exists is to make up for that loss of hand. Simply allowing the +2 AC to also act as the character's weapon introduces some unbalanced restriction avoidance that I'm not comfortable with. Losing the AC bonus for the turn you use attacking with it is probably fair, though. But there are actual mechanical concerns, it's not just that no one likes Cpt. America or Fighters.

Truth.

Currently a shield deals 1d4 if you use it as a weapon. If you use it as a weapon and a shield, you can effectively have a shield and two weapon fight at the same time. Or a shield and an arcane focus and a weapon at the same time.

"sword and board with the board also acting as a sword" is both a bit silly, and way too strong.

Here's a question for you, op. Why should a shield be usable as a weapon and as a shield at the same time?

[beargryllz]

A shield is absolutely a weapon. It's an improvised weapon

[JackPhoenix]

Mostly because shields give +2 to AC in 5e, which is a very significant improvement to defense. In comparison, dual-wielding only gives +1 AC...with a feat devoted to the style, and +0 otherwise. While dual-wielding is kinda bad in 5e, actually making a shield into a 1d6 weapon, even non-finesse or so would significantly improve sword-and-board style and leave poor dual-wielding in the dust. 5e operates on a very narrow range of things that are not "unbalanced" and even GWM/SS with their +10 damage can quite severely affect gameplay at lower levels.

To be fair, I would absolutely approve of using a shield offensively as a DM. Then again, I don't DM 5e.

And then you can use shield AND Dual Wielder at the same time, making a shield clearly the best option for TWF. And making S&B TWF better than just using the weapon offensively and shield defensively, as long as you don't have any other use for your bonus action.

[Willie the Duck]

Here's a question for you, op. Why should a shield be usable as a weapon and as a shield at the same time?


Well, technically speaking, the OP never required that it act as both at once.

I think--if you have a strength-based 2 weapon fighter (since shields are not finesse), who has taken dual wielder (since shields are not light), and maybe also Tavern Brawler (since shields are improvised weapons)--if you wanted to use a shield instead of a second longsword to get the opportunity to occasionally not attack with it and instead get the AC bonus, it wouldn't be overpowered.

[CantigThimble]

I think it's balance more than people not liking the visual. The drawback of having a shield is that you lose that hand. Half the reason Warcaster exists is to make up for that loss of hand. Simply allowing the +2 AC to also act as the character's weapon introduces some unbalanced restriction avoidance that I'm not comfortable with. Losing the AC bonus for the turn you use attacking with it is probably fair, though. But there are actual mechanical concerns, it's not just that no one likes Cpt. America or Fighters.

This is it exactly. It's not that 'fighters can't have nice things' its that 'characters can't have better versions of things they already have'. Asking to use your shield just as well as you could use a weapon is asking to do with one hand what you are currently only allowed to do with two. It's like a spellcaster asking for a homebrew spell: "Mistier Step", 2nd level, bonus action, teleport 60ft. IF it already exists and you just want a better version with no drawbacks then the answer is no.

[strangebloke]

Well, technically speaking, the OP never required that it act as both at once.

I think--if you have a strength-based 2 weapon fighter (since shields are not finesse), who has taken dual wielder (since shields are not light), and maybe also Tavern Brawler (since shields are improvised weapons)--if you wanted to use a shield instead of a second longsword to get the opportunity to occasionally not attack with it and instead get the AC bonus, it wouldn't be overpowered.

Yes, that was the result of most of the discussion in the last thread. The rules allow for a shield to act as a 'bludgeoning dagger' of sorts, but not at the same time as it is a shield. OP there was fairly adamant that it be both shield and weapon.

But that's clearly unsupportable. Could such a character get the benefits of dueling and of two-weapon-fighting?

[Talionis]

Ask yourself what the damage should be on a shield used as a weapon. Its probably actually 1d2 blunt damage was the 3.5 rule. Which falls into the improvised weapon range of 1d4.

I am all for a feat that might change this, but Shield Master grants that shove action which is actually a decent action. In theory Dual Weapon Fighting should allow you to add strength to your off hand shield attack.

But think about throwing a shield. How much damage can you legitimately do with it? It has more mass than a baseball, but how much speed can a person really give to a shield. Frisbees fly a lot slower than baseballs. You can probably do more damage with a baseball than a shield. When we see Captain America or Wonder Woman throw a shield they have magical levels of strength (26+) and the damage comes mostly from their massive strength much more than the effectiveness of the shield as a thrown weapon. The both also have super human accuracy so they probably Crit with the thrown shield. I am just saying that a shield isn't a good thrown weapon and magic either by the wielder or the shield needs to be your explanation if it some how becomes a decent thrown weapon.

This edition is over simplified. It could stand to have a little more rules than it does and I think shields beg for house rules. I have no problem with the shield being a weapon and being generous with the interpretations of improvised weapons with simple weapons. But I don't think shield's should be a good weapon or a weapon that does much damage.

I have no problem with a shield that has an axe edge doing more damage, but being treated as a special weapon (magical or mundane). If it is mundane, I might also want to make this be a feat or use the feat that grants weapon proficiency for a special weapon not on the list, since it will grant some mechanical advantages.

On the balance front you do want their to be a reason for feats like War Caster. You also want to be careful not to open the door to someone wanting to wield two shields and what effect mechanically do you want this to impart?

[alchahest]

Why not just add a line to shields made for combat:

"If you are proficient with shields, you make an off-hand attack as if it were a martial weapon as a bonus action. This shield does not count as a weapon for purposes of fighting styles, class features, or feats. The shield deals 1D6+Strength Bludgeoning damage."


let them keep the shield bonus, but lose out on smiting, duelling style, TWF, etc. D6+str damage is better than improvised, but, as it doesn't count as a weapon, disqualifies it from a lot of the places where the martial might slightly creep up closer to casters or GWF in power.

edit: Also there is a lot of historical precedent for using shields offensively, both boss-forward to shove and disorient, and edge-on for serious damage.

[strangebloke]

Why not just add a line to shields made for combat:

"If you are proficient with shields, you make an off-hand attack as if it were a martial weapon as a bonus action. This shield does not count as a weapon for purposes of fighting styles, class features, or feats. The shield deals 1D6+Strength Bludgeoning damage."


let them keep the shield bonus, but lose out on smiting, duelling style, TWF, etc. D6+str damage is better than improvised, but, as it doesn't count as a weapon, disqualifies it from a lot of the places where the martial might slightly creep up closer to casters or GWF in power.

The issue isn't that it's overpowered compared to casters. The issue is that it's overpowered compared to S&B fighter who don't want to shield-bash. And in the case of the bit you just posted, hilariously overpowered compared to TWF.

Why would I ever use TWF when I could get TWF and +2 AC? Granted, it'd be a strength-only thing.
Why would I ever invest a feat in shield bash when I already have a usage of my bonus action that's at least comparable.

[alchahest]

I don't agree with you - adding an option for those who want to bash elevates shield usage. It is similar to saying "well having extra attack makes you overpowered compared to fighters who only want to attack once on their turn".

if the option is there and you choose to not take it, or take a different bonus action, that doesn't mean that those who do take it are overpowered, only that they've exercised an option. which is why I think tying it to shields themselves instead of to a feat is important. it would be available to anyone who wants to use a giant chunk of wood and/or metal to add another dimension to their combat.

what I'm saying is that this makes sword and board more potent - and I think it should be more potent.

and TWF still benefits from things like smite, magic weapon, etc, where my proposed solution would not. In addition, you can stow/draw weapons much faster, where donning a shield still takes an action. And cannot be finessed, and doesn't qualify for sneak attack, and only offers one additional AC over TWF with a short sword.

[CantigThimble]

Why not just add a line to shields made for combat:

"If you are proficient with shields, you make an off-hand attack as if it were a martial weapon as a bonus action. This shield does not count as a weapon for purposes of fighting styles, class features, or feats. The shield deals 1D6+Strength Bludgeoning damage."


let them keep the shield bonus, but lose out on smiting, duelling style, TWF, etc. D6+str damage is better than improvised, but, as it doesn't count as a weapon, disqualifies it from a lot of the places where the martial might slightly creep up closer to casters or GWF in power.

The ability to use a bonus action to attack for 1d6+str while getting +2 AC is better than TWF or dueling by a wide margin.

Here's my houserule: While you're using a spiked shield you may attack with it for 1d8+str damage. No, you may not attack with it as a bonus action. You may not use two weapon fighting while using a spiked shield. You may use dueling, but only if you aren't holding a weapon in the other hand. If you have shield master you may shove as a bonus action, this deals no damage, it's a normal shove. You may not use another shield, spiked or otherwise, at the same time.

Now it's balanced with sword and board and isn't just TWF and shield bonuses stapled together.


what I'm saying is that this makes sword and board more potent - and I think it should be more potent.

Oh, so you're deliberately trying to buff sword and board? Then your suggestion actually makes sense. It accomplishes that goal. However, I don't agree that sword and board is weak or that it needs a buff.

[alchahest]

The ability to use a bonus action to attack for 1d6+str while getting +2 AC is better than TWF or dueling by a wide margin.

Here's my houserule: While you're using a spiked shield you may attack with it for 1d8+str damage. No, you may not attack with it as a bonus action. You may not use two weapon fighting while using a spiked shield. You may use dueling, but only if you aren't holding a weapon in the other hand. If you have shield master you may shove as a bonus action, this deals no damage, it's a normal shove.

Now it's balanced with sword and board and isn't just TWF and shield bonuses stapled together.

a short sword TWF is bonus action 1D6+(str or Dex) and grants a +1 AC bonus. And the short sword can be used for smiting and other applicable things, and can be drawn quickly. And if you feat into it you can be doing D8s with both hands, and gain weapon-specific benefits.

the +1 over shortsword TWF is certainly a number, but when you consider the other things involved is is a"wide Margin"?

[CantigThimble]

a short sword TWF is bonus action 1D6+(str or Dex) and grants a +1 AC bonus. And the short sword can be used for smiting and other applicable things, and can be drawn quickly. And if you feat into it you can be doing D8s with both hands, and gain weapon-specific benefits.

the +1 over shortsword TWF is certainly a number, but when you consider the other things involved is is a"wide Margin"?

By default, with no fighting styles or feats, you can wield two short swords for one 1d6+str and the other for 1d6.

With your rule, with no fighting styles or feats you can wield a sword and combat shield for 1d8+str and 1d6+str while getting +2 AC.

After you invest the fighting style and feat into TWF you can get +1 Ac and 2x 1d8+str, which STILL isn't as good as the combat shield who can spend their fighting style and feat elsewhere.

[alchahest]

By default, with no fighting styles or feats, you can wield two short swords for one 1d6+str and 1d6.

With your rule, with no fighting styles or feats you can wield a sword and combat shield for 1d8+str and 1d6+str while getting +2 AC.

After you invest the fighting style and feat into TWF you can get +1 Ac and 2x 1d8+str, which STILL isn't as good as the combat shield who can spend their fighting style and feat elsewhere.

perhaps a fighting style for it then?

I think shield bashing needs to come back in a big brash way. and without a whole bunch of conditional stuff like having to wait til your entire attack routine is done, or whatever.

[CantigThimble]

perhaps a fighting style for it then?

I think shield bashing needs to come back in a big brash way. and without a whole bunch of conditional stuff like having to wait til your entire attack routine is done, or whatever.

Are you looking for something that is strictly mathematically better than all the current options or on par with them?

[OzDragon]

perhaps a fighting style for it then?

I think shield bashing needs to come back in a big brash way. and without a whole bunch of conditional stuff like having to wait til your entire attack routine is done, or whatever.

How about this then?

Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.

[CantigThimble]

How about this then?

Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.

So it gives the same benefit as the two weapon fighting style but also lets you have +2 AC?

Seriously, this is EXACTLY why people don't like the idea of using shields as a weapon. It's just used as an excuse to make more powerful options because people don't like the current ones.

Now, you could say that TWF is too weak and ought to be buffed, and fair enough, but if that's what you mean then be honest about it and you'll get better feedback.

[Finieous]

I added a feat for it: bonus action attack for 1d4 bludgeoning. Basically PAM for S&B, but with +2 AC instead of reach and extra reaction attacks.

ETA: also added a "mini-power-attack" feat for one-handers with a reaction move, which gives a double boost when used with TWFing. All this **** has to fit together to give players similarly effective options of fighting styles.

[OzDragon]

So it gives the same benefit as the two weapon fighting style but also lets you have +2 AC?

Seriously, this is EXACTLY why people don't like the idea of using shields as a weapon. It's just used as an excuse to make more powerful options because people don't like the current ones.

Now, you could say that TWF is too weak and ought to be buffed, and fair enough, but if that's what you mean then be honest about it and you'll get better feedback.

I apologize if I'm wrong here, but doesn't TWF style give a bonus action attack?(book not available atm) This does not.

[strangebloke]

Two options:

Blade Shield: A shield with a spiked base. Can be used as a short sword or as a shield. You decide which it it as the start of each of your turns, and it acts as a sword or shield until the start of your next turn.

Fighting Style: Shieldbearer: You can attack with shields using two hands. If you do so, the shield is treated both as a shield and as a two-handed weapon that deal 1d8+STR bludgeoning damage.

[Knaight]

your error is using real world logic to try and rationalize same systems. yes in real life a shield could totally be used as a "weapon" and would hurt much more than a punch. but DnD isnt real life man. follow the rules or homebrew its up to you, but you cant have that mindset.
It would also hurt a lot less than getting hit with a sword. There's a standard for proper weapons, and it's not just better than unarmed.


Shields are a weapon. Intentionally, by design, for a lot of their use. Not an improvised weapon. A deliberately manufactured one.
A weapon primarily used to help you get in a good hit with the weapon in your other hand, which was usually a spear, sword, axe, or mace. There's a reason that there's a whole host of developed fencing styles for just one sword, stick fighting styles for just one club (which generally transfer pretty well to most short weapons), and spear fighting styles for just one short spear. All of these are functional as weapons on their own, if generally not up to par with a proper two handed weapon or use with a shield. Meanwhile outside of a handful of weird edge cases around judicial duels with their weird restrictions there's essentially nothing on using just a shield, because they aren't proper weapons in the same way.

This gets back to the question posed in the thread. Just a shield isn't a style of fighting with any real historical backing. Because of that, it isn't a style of fighting in the corpus of literature D&D is based on. That's both of the significant sources right there, and with those out the entire thing just feels out of place. There's a reason it's a superhero trope and not a fantasy one, and the characters and behaviors appropriate for one of these genres aren't necessarily appropriate for the other. Thus, the dislike of just a shield being used as a weapon, particularly when the inspiration is explicitly a superhero.

[CantigThimble]

I apologize if I'm wrong here, but doesn't TWF style give a bonus action attack?(book not available atm) This does not.

You are correct and I misread what you wrote. My bad. If there is no bonus action attack involved then I would be happy with it being mathematically equivalent to sword-and-board, as in the rule I posted earlier where without spending fighting style it deals 1d8+str damage.

As long as it is equally powerful to a guy using a longsword and a shield then its fine rules wise. In terms of flavor, some people may still have issues with a shield doing as much damage as a sword.

[strangebloke]

I apologize if I'm wrong here, but doesn't TWF style give a bonus action attack?(book not available atm) This does not.

TWF isn't a feat. It's just a thing you can do. If you have two light weapons you can make a bonus attack. What has people concerned is that if you TWF with a shield and a short sword, you'll have the benefits of both. TWF, s&b, and GWF are the three major melee weapon sets, each with their pros and cons.

Now, your shield isn't light, so you could't TWF with a shield and a Short sword, unless you had the duel wielder feat and then you wouldn't have the TWF fighting style which makes your attack better. But you'd still be pretty much strictly better than any TWF build out there, and you could always dip fighter to grab TWF style as well.

AND a cleric with this fighting style could completely forgo using a weapon, just having a shield and an arcane focus.

But it's not the worst thing.

[JackPhoenix]

a short sword TWF is bonus action 1D6+(str or Dex) and grants a +1 AC bonus. And the short sword can be used for smiting and other applicable things, and can be drawn quickly. And if you feat into it you can be doing D8s with both hands, and gain weapon-specific benefits.

the +1 over shortsword TWF is certainly a number, but when you consider the other things involved is is a"wide Margin"?

The shield can also be used for smiting. You need to make melee weapon attack for Divine Smite, but it doesn't have to be with a weapon. You can smite with your fist, or with a chair.

D8 damage is inferior to d6 and +2 AC. The 1 extra point of damage on average isn't going to change much.

Even better, you can use BB/GFB with a proper weapon and STILL get the bonus action attack, which won't happen with TWF, which require an attack action.

[Pex]

I think this is a very real thing that happens to martials, but I don't see it happening here. Most of the things I see about shield are comparing martial with shield to martial with other weapons (so martial-to-martial comparisons). If the fighter were trying to do something outside of the realm of martial abilities (like replicate a spell effect or something) I can imagine this kind of knee-jerk blowback happening.

That's quibbling on the details, but the quibbling at least acknowledges the warrior can use a shield as a weapon at all - how much damage, do you keep the AC, etc.? Denying the ability itself falls under not liking it being at will/no resource cost/not realistic.

[Sorlock Master]

I made a thread a few months ago about making a captain america like character. There seemed to be many that did not like a shield as a weapon. I would like to understand why.

Is it because you don't like that it could be used for offense and defense at the same time?

Is it because historically it was not generally used as a weapon?

Is it because it could break two weapon fighting?

Would you allow it if a feat was required?

Would you allow it if it lost its defensive properties when used as a weapon?

Would you allow it if it was the only weapon the character used?

Other reasons?

There are many fantasy examples of a shield being used as a weapon. Wonder Woman and Captain America are the two most recent examples. I'm a rule of cool guy personally and don't think that it would break or hurt the game at all. I would really like your opinions.

Thanks

Because people have been socialized into believing shields are only for defence.

Break down the weapon binary.

Shields can be swords too.

In all seriousness you can simply take the brawler feat and use your shield as an improvised weapon.

P.S.
Historically shields were used as much for offence as for defence.

[JoeJ]

Shields were historically used as much for offence as for defence.

And swords were historically used as much for defense as for offense. So wielding a sword, or any other weapon of a suitable size and shape to parry with, should give you a bonus to AC.

[Sorlock Master]

And swords were historically used as much for defense as for offense. So wielding a sword, or any other weapon of a suitable size and shape to parry with, should give you a bonus to AC.

When did I say that? I was simply correcting a misconception the OP had about historical use of shields.

By the way there are multiple ways for you to get AC bonus' from weapons there is only 1 way for you to really get an attack with your shield.

[OzDragon]

TWF isn't a feat. It's just a thing you can do. If you have two light weapons you can make a bonus attack. What has people concerned is that if you TWF with a shield and a short sword, you'll have the benefits of both. TWF, s&b, and GWF are the three major melee weapon sets, each with their pros and cons.

Now, your shield isn't light, so you could't TWF with a shield and a Short sword, unless you had the duel wielder feat and then you wouldn't have the TWF fighting style which makes your attack better. But you'd still be pretty much strictly better than any TWF build out there, and you could always dip fighter to grab TWF style as well.

AND a cleric with this fighting style could completely forgo using a weapon, just having a shield and an arcane focus.

But it's not the worst thing.

This is what I wrote: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.


This is what I wanted to say: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the Duel Weilding feat.

[Eric Diaz]

Why can't a spear be used with reach? Why can't I strike with the butt of my polearm? Can I brace my spear against a charge? Can I charge with my weapon? Etc.

The answer is the same: you need a feat for that. Not that I LIKE the answer, but it is what is is.

And the feat is shield master, which includes a "bash" of sorts. If you prefer damage instead of that, it is entirely reasonable to create a custom feat or just replace the "...prone" action for "deal 1d4 damage, or 1d6 if the shield is spiked....".

[JoeJ]

When did I say that? I was simply correcting a misconception the OP had about historical use of shields.

As far as I know you didn't say that. I'm simply keying off your correct observation that shields served historically as weapons as well as defense to point out that the same is true of swords.


By the way there are multiple ways for you to get AC bonus' from weapons there is only 1 way for you to really get an attack with your shield.

Why should there have to be a special way, though? Any character proficient in a melee weapon should know how to parry with that weapon; it's a fundamental part of training with a weapon. Unless D&D combat is simply too abstract for that kind of detail. But in that case, it's just as reasonable to abstract away using your shield to do damage.

[strangebloke]

This is what I wrote: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.


This is what I wanted to say: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the Duel Weilding feat.


Eh, fair enough.

I'm not a huge fan, still. I mean, why can't it work with duel wielder? I think I agree with Eric Diaz that just reworking Shield Master is probably the best way. (Or use my homebrew!)

[Longcat]

The player's handbook already has a rule for using shields offensively via the Shield Master feat, which allows you to shieldbash targets to knock them either away or prone. This enhances both the shield user's offense and defense without poaching from TWF.

[OzDragon]

Eh, fair enough.

I'm not a huge fan, still. I mean, why can't it work with duel wielder? I think I agree with Eric Diaz that just reworking Shield Master is probably the best way. (Or use my homebrew!)


The reason I stated it does not work with Dual Wielder is so there is not another AC bonus for using a shield or be able to draw/stow a shield as one would a sword.

[strangebloke]

The reason I stated it does not work with Dual Wielder is so there is not another AC bonus for using a shield or be able to draw/stow a shield as one would a sword.

I'm just saying you're creating a weird interaction where a fighting style is precluding the usage of a feat. That's completely unprecedented.

[Specter]

Of course a shield should be an improvised weapon. It's much easier to swing a mace accurately than it is to throw the side of your offhand along with your body into someone.

[CantigThimble]

I'm just saying you're creating a weird interaction where a fighting style is precluding the usage of a feat. That's completely unprecedented.

Eh, I wouldn't want to publish something like that, but as a houserule to satisfy one player's itch, it's fine.

[alchahest]

The shield can also be used for smiting. You need to make melee weapon attack for Divine Smite, but it doesn't have to be with a weapon. You can smite with your fist, or with a chair.

D8 damage is inferior to d6 and +2 AC. The 1 extra point of damage on average isn't going to change much.

Even better, you can use BB/GFB with a proper weapon and STILL get the bonus action attack, which won't happen with TWF, which require an attack action.

in my statement I was suggesting shields would not benefit from any feat, fighting style, or class feature that requires a weapon. including Smites.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are many fantasy examples of a shield being used as a weapon. Wonder Woman and Captain America are the two most recent examples. I'm a rule of cool guy personally and don't think that it would break or hurt the game at all.
Then play a super hero game.

D&D 5e has tried to apply the KISS principle to a lot of what's in the game. The shield is a defensive tool in this version. Improvised weapon? Fine/

Legendary Magical Item? Go for it. Standard Shield? Neither Captain America nor Wonder Woman owns a standard shield. Those items are, in D&D 5e equivalence, Legendary items or Artifacts.

[smcmike]

I don’t understand what is wrong with the current rules. 1d4 damage is perfectly reasonable. Shoving people as a bonus action with the feat is very strong and also cool. What’s the problem here?

More damage is dumb, because while a shield can make a very fine weapon, it’s still on the bottom end of objects to kill someone with. Would you rather be hit by a shield or stabbed with a dagger? Come on.

[Unoriginal]

Just to say, but I'm pretty 100% sure that it's been clarified (maybe in the FAQ, maybe in the Sage Advice) that if you hit with your shield you still get the +2 AC bonus.



I think there's also a hint of Fighters can't get nice things mentality. When it's proposed a warrior get a new trick there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to forbid it. Part of it is being too much of a stickler for realism. If the person can't fathom it in real life then it can't work because warriors aren't magical. The other side of the same coin is that there's no resource cost. A spellcaster can do anything because it's magic but also it uses up a spell slot. There's a sense of the player paying for it and it's limited. A warrior usually doesn't spend a resource to do something, though 5E gave them some. However, when there's a proposed thing for a warrior to do the idea is the warrior can do it whenever he wants, and that is what some people react against. The concept means to them the character becomes uberpowerful the game fails, not the intent that it's only meant as a Cool Thing and/or Variety.

Why is "a shield is not a great weapon" something against the fighter? I'm strongly against the whole "wizards can do anything 'cause magic so it means martials are weak" bs, but a shield is a shield. Doing 1d4+STR damage is pretty decent.

If you want a shield that do more damage, you need one with spikes or sharpened edges or the like, to the point that it's more dangerous than a dagger.

[MagneticKitty]

Just play mystic soul knife and reflavor the blades as bladed edged / or spiked shields. Done.

Soul Knife
Starting at 1st level, you gain the ability to
manifest a blade of psychic energy. As a bonus
action, you create scintillating knives of energy
that project from both of your fists. You can’t
hold anything in your hands while manifesting
these blades. You can dismiss them as a bonus
action.
For you, a soul knife is a martial melee weapon
with the light and finesse properties. It deals 1d8
psychic damage on a hit.
As a bonus action, you can prepare to use the
blades to parry; you gain a +2 bonus to AC until
the start of your next turn or until you are
incapacitated.

Read the parry part as you using them as shields that round

[MrStabby]

My views have gone a bit backwards and forwards on this - not least swayed by some points in the thread.

At the moment I am coming round to the idea. I am one of the few people who doesn't think two weapon fighting style is far behind things like two handed weapon fighting (not saying it isn't behind - just not far behind), mainly because you get to use dex with two weapon fighting. This is such an important factor that i will go so far as to say that I have never seen two weapon fighting using strength.

A fighting style that at first looks better than two weapon fighting seemed bad but if you a) need t invest a feat to get proficiency in improvised weapons b) need to add an attribute bonus to your off-hand (still - not new) and c) give up dex as your attack stat it actually seems pretty fair.

Is it better than two weapon fighting also using strength? sure. Better than twf outright - less certain. If you are going sword and shield anyway you are having to chose between this and shield mastery, having to chose between two weapon and dueling styles. I think it is probably ok. The investment needed to make it work is just more, compared to taking shield mastery feat then sticking other feats into lucky, mobile, resilient or any other feat.

[Willie the Duck]

Just play mystic soul knife and reflavor the blades as bladed edged / or spiked shields. Done.

Well, quite honestly, if people are willing to refluff something else, this problem disappears almost entirely.

[strangebloke]

Well, quite honestly, if people are willing to refluff something else, this problem disappears almost entirely.

The only way this problem exists at all is if people want something really specific, namely, a non-magical way to allow for a shield to do better than 1d4 damage while still acting as a shield.

Even then, it's not a problem with RAW. RAW is pretty darn unclear about whether an improvised weapon retains it's original function whilst being used as an improvised weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

in my statement I was suggesting shields would not benefit from any feat, fighting style, or class feature that requires a weapon. including Smites.

And as I've noted in my post, Divine Smite doesn't require a weapon to work.

[Snails]

My personal opinion is none of the above.

It is not that shield wielders need more damage, but they deserve better tactical options out of the box.

I would just give all martial PC classes the shove as bonus action for free. No feat tax. (Of course that means tweaking Shield Master, but that is a small wrinkle to iron out.)

IMO, this would balance the Super Dex stat with Str better. Str martials would get a free schtick that could use to shape the battlefield an eentsy bit. Dex PCs get their better Initiative.

[CantigThimble]

My personal opinion is none of the above.

It is not that shield wielders need more damage, but they deserve better tactical options out of the box.

I would just give all martial PC classes the shove as bonus action for free. No feat tax. (Of course that means tweaking Shield Master, but that is a small wrinkle to iron out.)

IMO, this would balance the Super Dex stat with Str better. Str martials would get a free schtick that could use to shape the battlefield an eentsy bit. Dex PCs get their better Initiative.

Are you okay with 50% of every combat being people pushing eachother to the ground, then getting up and pushing the other guy on the ground? Because honestly that just sounds like it would be silly. (and would require way too many opposed dice rolls)

[alchahest]

And as I've noted in my post, Divine Smite doesn't require a weapon to work.

"Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack"

and when improved:

"By 11th level, you are so suffused with righteous might that all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage."

so yeah it does need a weapon to work. Smite is the main reason that my suggested option outlined that it doesn't count as weapon for feats, class features, fighting styles, etc.

[smcmike]

Are you okay with 50% of every combat being people pushing eachother to the ground, then getting up and pushing the other guy on the ground? Because honestly that just sounds like it would be silly. (and would require way too many opposed dice rolls)

While I agree that this sounds annoying as a game, it also sounds pretty reasonable as a simulation of combat. Knocking someone over is a good way to win a fight. It also happens pretty regularly in movie fights, and is one of the few mundane status changes available within the 5e system. Status changes are a good way to create some narrative in a fight and make it more exciting.

[CantigThimble]

While I agree that this sounds annoying as a game, it also sounds pretty reasonable as a simulation of combat. Knocking someone over is a good way to win a fight. It also happens pretty regularly in movie fights, and is one of the few mundane status changes available within the 5e system. Status changes are a good way to create some narrative in a fight and make it more exciting.

Well, if you really want that. My response to that (along with a lot of other things in 5e admittedly) is "I don't want to DM that."

[Kaliayev]

If you don't like this, don't use it. Buckler:

Shield/Simple Weapon (requires proficiency in both)

1d4 bludgeoning damage
+1 AC
Light
Thrown (range 20/60)
Finesse


This does not take an action to doff/don as it uses a simple handle, not a set of straps. The +x magical version takes on the defender trait. You can use the +x for either attack or defense until the start of your next turn. You choose at the start of your turn.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The shield can also be used for smiting. You need to make melee weapon attack for Divine Smite, but it doesn't have to be with a weapon. You can smite with your fist, or with a chair.

D8 damage is inferior to d6 and +2 AC. The 1 extra point of damage on average isn't going to change much.

Even better, you can use BB/GFB with a proper weapon and STILL get the bonus action attack, which won't happen with TWF, which require an attack action.


"Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack"

and when improved:

"By 11th level, you are so suffused with righteous might that all your melee weapon strikes carry divine power with them. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage."

so yeah it does need a weapon to work. Smite is the main reason that my suggested option outlined that it doesn't count as weapon for feats, class features, fighting styles, etc.

Improvised weapons do count as weapons they just offer unique rules if, for example, your DM doesn't want to say that the leg of a chair is similar enough in weight and heft to a small club.

Fists aren't on the weapons table (anymore) and don't count for the purposes of improvised weapons. They also have their own Unarmed Strike rules, so you are correct that you cannot smite with those as the rules for unarmed strikes specifically state that they do not count as a weapon.

Just chiming in to say that "melee weapon" is well defined in the rules, you can smite with a broken chair leg or a shield(improvised melee weapon) but not with your fists (PG 195 PHB defines unarmed strikes as NOT weapons).

I'm a big fan of shields as weapons but the game already has all the tools necessary to treat them like one so I'm not sure what the problem actually is.

[Pex]

Why can't a spear be used with reach? Why can't I strike with the butt of my polearm? Can I brace my spear against a charge? Can I charge with my weapon? Etc.

The answer is the same: you need a feat for that. Not that I LIKE the answer, but it is what is is.

And the feat is shield master, which includes a "bash" of sorts. If you prefer damage instead of that, it is entirely reasonable to create a custom feat or just replace the "...prone" action for "deal 1d4 damage, or 1d6 if the shield is spiked....".

That's a bonus action the feat gives you. What happens when for some reason you don't have your main weapon but have a shield? A player may want to use the shield as his weapon at that time.

[Snails]

Are you okay with 50% of every combat being people pushing eachother to the ground, then getting up and pushing the other guy on the ground? Because honestly that just sounds like it would be silly. (and would require way too many opposed dice rolls)

I concede it may be too much rolling to be fun for many DMs/Players.

But it is not fundamentally more silly than using Dex to improve damage. I am inclined to believe that combat is more like a full contact sport than a dance competition where participants politely stand in their own squares.

[MeeposFire]

As another monster with a shield bash you can see the hobgoblin (I believe it is the captain or the war master or something like that the General if you will). He can make a shield bash and it deals 1d4 base damage and knocks targets to the ground. Also does not lose the AC bonus but interestingly enough it is not using TWF to do it as you can use it as any of your 3 melee attacks in a round so you could do it three times to none if you want.

I am actually a fan of the shield bash and have been using it in many versions of D&D such as 2e (but only after they changed how sword and shield style worked the first one did not allow the keeping of AC but the later version did), 3e (lots of fun relative to other full attackers though like all characters based around the full attack action it gets really screwed over after a while), and even 4e (where having a spiked shield just for AC was great as it allowed for so many things even if you were not prof with it as a weapon).

[OzDragon]

So whats wrong with a fighting style that does not give you an extra attack, can not be used with dual weilder, can not benefit from dueling or protection fighting styles, and only allows you to use a shield as a D6 +str weapon with your normal attacks?

[Knaight]

That's a bonus action the feat gives you. What happens when for some reason you don't have your main weapon but have a shield? A player may want to use the shield as his weapon at that time.

If only there were improvised weapon rules to cover this sort of situation, or grappling rules to cover the other major combat style.

[MagneticKitty]

Improvised weapons do count as weapons they just offer unique rules if, for example, your DM doesn't want to say that the leg of a chair is similar enough in weight and heft to a small club.

Fists aren't on the weapons table (anymore) and don't count for the purposes of improvised weapons. They also have their own Unarmed Strike rules, so you are correct that you cannot smite with those as the rules for unarmed strikes specifically state that they do not count as a weapon.

Just chiming in to say that "melee weapon" is well defined in the rules, you can smite with a broken chair leg or a shield(improvised melee weapon) but not with your fists (PG 195 PHB defines unarmed strikes as NOT weapons).

I'm a big fan of shields as weapons but the game already has all the tools necessary to treat them like one so I'm not sure what the problem actually is.

Actually the difference is in that melee weapon vs melee weapon /attack/. Melee weapon attacks dont require a weapon just a physical attack. Where as spells like green flame blade require a weapon as a material component and specify a weapon so cannot be added to fists.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/25/divine-smite-is-for-melee-weapon-attacks-so-is-it-ok-for-my-monkpaladin-to-use-with-unarmed-strikes/

You can also smite in wild shape with your bites or claws ect. Since these are melee weapon attacks (just not melee weapons)

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/02/druid-divine-smite-claws/

Tldr: fists are melee weapon attacks but not melee weapons

[Kane0]

Is it because you don't like that it could be used for offense and defense at the same time?

Is it because historically it was not generally used as a weapon?

Is it because it could break two weapon fighting?

Would you allow it if a feat was required?

Would you allow it if it lost its defensive properties when used as a weapon?

Would you allow it if it was the only weapon the character used?

Other reasons?


In order:
No
No
Yes, potentially
Yes
That kind of defeats the purpose
Yes

Basically if you allow it without a feat or other opportunity cost you run the risk of someone dual wielding shields or some other silliness much like how quarterstaves are used with PAM. It's not going to break the game in half, but it might annoy some people at the table.

[smcmike]

Well, if you really want that. My response to that (along with a lot of other things in 5e admittedly) is "I don't want to DM that."

I play a barbarogue. I very much do want that. :)

[CantigThimble]

I play a barbarogue. I very much do want that. :)

One player doing it is different than every melee combatant doing it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Actually the difference is in that melee weapon vs melee weapon /attack/. Melee weapon attacks dont require a weapon just a physical attack. Where as spells like green flame blade require a weapon as a material component and specify a weapon so cannot be added to fists.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/25/divine-smite-is-for-melee-weapon-attacks-so-is-it-ok-for-my-monkpaladin-to-use-with-unarmed-strikes/

You can also smite in wild shape with your bites or claws ect. Since these are melee weapon attacks (just not melee weapons)

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/02/druid-divine-smite-claws/

Tldr: fists are melee weapon attacks but not melee weapons

Wow it's in the same paragraph and I just completely ignored it.

This does bring up the distinction between Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite however, you can use Divine Smite with your fists but not Improved Divine Smite, since it calls specifically for hitting with a melee weapon not just a melee weapon attack.

Not that this has anything to do with Shields, as a shield could benefit from both.

Thanks for pointing that out though, feeling really silly making that mistake.

[Snails]

One player doing it is different than every melee combatant doing it.

A plausible compromise is that it is a free bennie to certain martial PC classes. So certain PCs and certain PC classed NPCs could be doing it, but it would not be normal for all combatants to do so.

Of course, anyone who takes the Shield Master feat gains the benefits, which is no different from the RAW.

[CantigThimble]

A plausible compromise is that it is a free bennie to certain martial PC classes. So certain PCs and certain PC classed NPCs could be doing it, but it would not be normal for all combatants to do so.

Of course, anyone who takes the Shield Master feat gains the benefits, which is no different from the RAW.

I mean, I think I prefer the rules as is where people who like manipulating melee all the time can play shield master battlemasters or open hand monks, and some monsters have positioning abilities but it isn't just a staple of combat all the time. If you want it to be really common I think you should probably use a system with more involved combat rules than 5e has. "Prone" and "10 feet away" aren't really enough options to make combat that much more interesting

[Eric Diaz]

That's a bonus action the feat gives you. What happens when for some reason you don't have your main weapon but have a shield? A player may want to use the shield as his weapon at that time.

Use the shield as an weapon, I guess? I'd allow it, ar RAW allows it as an improvised weapon, I'd say.

[Eric Diaz]

This does bring up the distinction between Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite however, you can use Divine Smite with your fists but not Improved Divine Smite, since it calls specifically for hitting with a melee weapon not just a melee weapon attack.

Heh... I love 5e, but I can't believe this kind of stuff... Not intentional, I'd guess.

[Rynjin]

Well, you would be wrong. Even in fantasy, shields being used as weapons are rare and are almost always specially crafted for this purpose explicitly.

Some fantasy, maybe.

D&D fantasy? There's a reason previous edition had clauses like this:


"Shield Bash Attacks
You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."

And Feats like this:


Prerequisite
Shield Proficiency.

Benefit
When you perform a shield bash, you may still apply the shield’s shield bonus to your AC.

Normal
Without this feat, a character who performs a shield bash loses the shield’s shield bonus to AC until his or her next turn.

Special
A fighter may select Improved Shield Bash as one of his fighter bonus feats.

It's a legitimate build that enables more PC concepts and variety. The problem isn't in flavor or that it's "not flavorful" or whatever, it's that 5e is allergic to that concept and would prefer every character be as homogenous as possible.

[Unoriginal]

Some fantasy, maybe.

D&D fantasy? There's a reason previous edition had clauses like this:



And Feats like this:



It's a legitimate build that enables more PC concepts and variety. The problem isn't in flavor or that it's "not flavorful" or whatever, it's that 5e is allergic to that concept and would prefer every character be as homogenous as possible.

...seriously, what the hell?

Hitting people with a shield *can be done*.

Why are people acting as if big bad 5e had stolen their toy?

I'll even do you one better:



oscarhocklee: Shields in 5e: If you attack with one (improvised weapon, ofc), do you keep the +2 AC? Nothing in the RAW says otherwise


Jeremy Crawford: Using a shield to make an improvised attack doesn't deprive you of the AC bonus.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/17/shield-attack/

[Mordaedil]

3rd edition listed shields in the weapons list, just putting that out there.

[Rowan Wolf]

If I recall in myths about the children of Dannan it is mentioned decapitations with the rims of shields. Though they may be too godlike for the feel of D&D martial characters, though Cu Chulainn has be used as a example of a warrior for inspiration.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Already explained by MagneticKitty (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23165881&postcount=79). Also by me two posts up this chain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23164923&postcount=44). There's a difference between melee weapon attack and attack with a weapon.


It's a legitimate build that enables more PC concepts and variety. The problem isn't in flavor or that it's "not flavorful" or whatever, it's that 5e is allergic to that concept and would prefer every character be as homogenous as possible.

5e already enables shield bashing in at least two different ways. Perhaps do your research first (or read through this thread)?


If I recall in myths about the children of Dannan it is mentioned decapitations with the rims of shields. Though they may be too godlike for the feel of D&D martial characters, though Cu Chulainn has be used as a example of a warrior for inspiration.

That's just flavor. If you kill an enemy with shield bash attack, sure, why not? Especially if you have 20+ Str.

[Willie the Duck]

3rd edition listed shields in the weapons list, just putting that out there.

I think how haphazardly 3e handled shields-as-weapons is one of the reasons 5e decided to got the route of making bashing with a shield an improvised weapon attack and making a dedicated shield-basher build be a person who attack normally with their weapons but get to make a bonus-action shove.

3e handled it very oddly. Here's the 3.5e SRD language:

"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right. "

Note how you can't use a shield as a weapon except as an off-hand weapon. That means you can't attack with it until you attack with your primary weapon. Don't have a primary weapon (perhaps because you were disarmed, one of the main reasons you might want to shield bash)? Better be ready to make an unarmed attack (drawing an attack of opportunity, that thing you were trying to avoid by shield bashing in the first place).

Not that 5e was going to end up with the exact same wonkiness, but I imagine it was the fear of that kind of thing that made them decide to go with the rather simple, mostly straightforward* setup.
*It would have been nice for them to include a single sentence confirming whether attacking with the shield meant you lost the AC bonus or not.

[Ganymede]

I let my players use a shield as a weapon if they are willing to doff it and wield it in two hands. Even then, it only counts as an improvised weapon.

If they want to strike someone with a donned shield, I count it as an unarmed attack as I would any other attack with a booted foot, gauntleted fist, or helmed head.


Personally, I have nothing against using a shield as a weapon, I just don't like the "have your cake and eat it, too" combination of the offensive advantage of two weapon fighting and the defensive advantage of a shield.

[Unoriginal]

*It would have been nice for them to include a single sentence confirming whether attacking with the shield meant you lost the AC bonus or not.

5e tends to only mention the penalties that are here, not the ones that are not.

The Sage Advice precises that you DO keep the AC bonus if you use the shield as an improvised weapon.

Also if the shield was *not* an improvised weapon but an actual weapon, the Dueling fighting style wouldn't work with it. So it'd make a lot of shield-using builds worse

[Willie the Duck]

5e tends to only mention the penalties that are here, not the ones that are not.

You (and they) are absolutely correct. There's no specific reason to think that you would lose the AC bonus (other than maybe an appeal to realism, which could be argued twelve ways from sunrise), other than the fact that it occurred in some completely different game (which happens to be a previous edition of D&D).

I still think there are some places where they could have added that one sentence or two just to head off potential issues. Yes, the X% of players who check Sage Advice have answers, the rest... well, the DMs who played 3e are probably going to default to no AC, and new DMs are probably going to default to yes AC and I guess there's no problem up until the two meet.
I guess part of me really loves the new "rulings, not rules" mentality, and part of me wants them to hammer these things out and make them clear (in the printed book).

[Pex]

You (and they) are absolutely correct. There's no specific reason to think that you would lose the AC bonus (other than maybe an appeal to realism, which could be argued twelve ways from sunrise), other than the fact that it occurred in some completely different game (which happens to be a previous edition of D&D).

I still think there are some places where they could have added that one sentence or two just to head off potential issues. Yes, the X% of players who check Sage Advice have answers, the rest... well, the DMs who played 3e are probably going to default to no AC, and new DMs are probably going to default to yes AC and I guess there's no problem up until the two meet.
I guess part of me really loves the new "rulings, not rules" mentality, and part of me wants them to hammer these things out and make them clear (in the printed book).

Asking for clear, concise, and consistent rules from 5E is heretic around here.

[Rynjin]

5e already enables shield bashing in at least two different ways. Perhaps do your research first (or read through this thread)?

It's less that it doesn't allow it at all, and more that it penalizes you quite severely for doing it. You can either do it as a bonus attack (not your main attack) that does no damage for the cost of a Feat, or use it as an improvised weapon, which only works at GM discretion and only does 1d4 damage; given 5e made damage dice matter A LOT more in terms of damage, this is a pretty raw deal.

You certainly can't make a sword and board character like my current most long running Pathfinder character (a Slayer/Horizon Walker that I later retrained to Warder) whose shield (well, Klar (http://pathfindertrue20.wdfiles.com/local--files/equipment/klar.JPG), but it works with any shield) is his primary weapon unless you, funnily enough, dual wield shields, which most people shrug off as being silly and dumb and not welcome in their game (aside: I originally wanted said PF character to TWF with two shields as well, but figured the GM would nix it; he later said he loves that fighting style and would have really enjoyed seeing it. =/).

[MeeposFire]

It's less that it doesn't allow it at all, and more that it penalizes you quite severely for doing it. You can either do it as a bonus attack (not your main attack) that does no damage for the cost of a Feat, or use it as an improvised weapon, which only works at GM discretion and only does 1d4 damage; given 5e made damage dice matter A LOT more in terms of damage, this is a pretty raw deal.

You certainly can't make a sword and board character like my current most long running Pathfinder character (a Slayer/Horizon Walker that I later retrained to Warder) whose shield (well, Klar (http://pathfindertrue20.wdfiles.com/local--files/equipment/klar.JPG), but it works with any shield) is his primary weapon unless you, funnily enough, dual wield shields, which most people shrug off as being silly and dumb and not welcome in their game (aside: I originally wanted said PF character to TWF with two shields as well, but figured the GM would nix it; he later said he loves that fighting style and would have really enjoyed seeing it. =/).

For what is an functionally like an off hand weapon 1d4 is not bad. Without spending a feat the best you are going to have with an off hand weapon is 1d6 and that requires you to wield a 1d6 damage weapon in the main hand as well. Considering that you normal only get one off hand attack at all the difference between a 1d4 damage weapon and the at BEST off hand weapon (requiring a feat mind you) is 1d8 and even counting potential critical damage is what something on the order of 2.2 damage on average per hit. Considering that you are going to get +2 AC +potential magical bonuses (which can boost that AC up to +5 potentially which is probably better than most weapon enchantments and unlike most better weapons the shield will not take up an attunement slot). Also if you allow this it will still allow you to gain dueling bonus damage on your main hand weapon since the shield even if used as a weapon is still not a weapon.

Frankly that sounds like a pretty good deal. Also remember unlike 3e and AD&D you do not need to spend resources to keep your AC when hitting with your shield and unlike 4e you do not need to use specific powers to gain off hand attacks at all. You do have to spend a feat to get your prof to attack but you save once again in that you do not have to spend resources on making your TWF able to even be close to reliable to hit. So really it is not that bad to me.

So personally I do not see a 1d4 damage die on an off hand attack made 1/round is not that bad.

[Rynjin]

Well, you actually need Dual Wielder for a sword and board character anyway, so that point is moot. Remember, by default in 5e if you want to TWF BOTH your weapons need to be Light...you can't TWF with, say, a sword and dagger. I always thought that was dumb, and it sticks out because my first character (a Rogue) wanted to rapier/dagger but couldn't.

Anyway, a shield would (most likely) be classed as a one handed non-light weapon...though to be fair with the wonky weapon weights in 5e (ex: a scimitar is classed as a Light weapon despite being 1 lb HEAVIER than the non-Light Rapier...another thing that stuck out while playing that same character) that MAY not be the case, but probably is.

You also don't get your Proficiency bonus with weapons you aren't proficient in, necessitating YET ANOTHER Feat (Tavern Brawler) to make it even vaguely viable.

That's a hell of a lot of hoops to jump through for an iconic fighting style in a system where Feats are (nominally) meant to be "extra goodies" and not assumed for every game to use.

I'm just saying, it's weird that a game that is supposed to be a simplified version of previous editions makes a very simple fighting style as complicated as attempting to build a Crossbow user in Pathfinder (for posterity, it takes AT MINIMUM four Feats to make a crossbow user usable past 6th level. TBF TWO of those Feats are ones you would take on all ranged characters, but that still puts you at extra investment for less effectiveness).

[Rusvul]

Rules As Written already handles this perfectly, IMO.

Shields are improvised weapons. If you want to use a shield as a primary weapon, take the Tavern Brawler feat. There: Captain America, sans shield-throwing. Shield Master works well with this: it doesn't specify that you must use the Attack action to attack with something other than your shield. It works thematically, too: the shove attempt is an additional effect to the shield bash, rather than a shield bash in addition to a sword swing.

If you also want to use a sword (or similar), take the Dual Wielder feat. Comparing this sword-and-board two-weapon fighter to a normal TWF character:

Sword & board guy has 2 more AC than two weapon guy. In order to accomplish this, he needs one more feat than two weapon guy, he must use an off-hand weapon dealing 1d4 damage, and he must be strength-based. That seems like a fair trade-off to me, or at least not a game-breaking one. (A generous DM might rule that a bladed or spiked shield deals more damage, but personally I'd keep it at 1d4 and just change the damage type.)



So... shields--which aren't designed as weapons--can be effectively used as weapons if you specialize in them? That sounds exactly right to me.


(Now I kind of want to play a character who dual wields shields. Mechanically idiotic? Yes. Thematically absurd? Yes. Fun, in a game with the right tone? Hell yes.)

[Rynjin]

Essentially what you're saying is +2 AC is worth the cost of a Feat. That doesn't seem to quite math out. Most 5e Feats have a bit more impact than that.

Dual Wielder, for example, gives +1 AC, +1-4 extra damage, and better action economy on drawing weaponry. Alert gives +5 Initiative and a conditional +5 to AC. Hell, just not choosing a Feat at all can give you +2 Dexterity (+1 AC, +1 attack rolls, +1 damage, +1 Reflex saves, and +1 to a few skills).

Admittedly SOME Feats are under-tuned (like Defensive Duelist, which I think most agree is pretty lackluster), but it's a minority of them.

Then factor in that you're REALLY essentially saying +2 AC is worth two Feats (Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder are BOTH necessary to get the offhand attack at any reasonable attack bonus) and it doesn't really ring true.

[Rusvul]

I think 2 AC can absolutely be worth an extra feat, if you're doing everything else you can to get your AC as high as possible. Once you get into the 20+ range, each point of AC becomes even more impactful than it already is, especially at low levels.

A dex-based dual wielder TWF character's AC maxes out at 18 (12 studded leather + 5 dex + 1 dual wielder) whereas a S&B TWF character's AC can reach 21 (18 full plate + 2 shield + 1 dual wielder) without difficulty. Multiclassing to get the Defense fighting style is probably a good idea. S&B guy's DPR is a two points lower on average, but that's almost inconsequential.

It has a much higher opportunity cost than normal TWF builds or normal S&B builds, but you get the best of both worlds: the DPR that TWF allows, and the AC that comes with using a shield. I think that's at least comparable. At the very least, the question ought to be "Why is using a shield as a weapon suboptimal" rather than "Why are so many opposed to a shield being a weapon?" (I think the answer is pretty clear: It's a shield. No matter how much you train in it, it's not intended as a lethal weapon.) As per RAW, you can use a shield effectively as a weapon. It probably isn't a top-tier build, but it's not an awful choice, and it'll keep up just fine in any game that isn't very high-op.

It still probably falls short to GWM + PAM builds, but... that's an issue with TWF builds in general.

Honestly, I think this is a really cool rules interaction I hadn't noticed before. 5e has slightly more elegance-of-design than I gave it credit for. (Side note: is this the best S&B build for straight-up AC and damage? Shield Master is excellent for defense against spells/traps/effects and battlefield control, but it loses to S&B TWF guy as far as DPR and AC goes.)

EDIT: And no, I'm really not saying +2 to AC is worth two feats. Yes, you do need both Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler, but we're comparing it to a TWF build--that's what it has two AC more than, remember--which would already have Dual Wielder, if it cared at all about its AC.

[OzDragon]

I think the biggest issue here is that to be able to use a shield effectively in combat there is a three feat tax.

You need Dual wielder, Tavern Brawler, and Shield Master.

Tavern brawler just to make the shield a weapon and do damage with it, Dual wielder to be able to use your shield as an off hand weapon, and Shield Master to do things that shields should do.

With the exception of shield master TWF fighting style grants this at level 1. The only thing that the shield wearer gets is +2 AC and a three feat tax.

The earliest the shield guy gets this is level 6 as a human fighter only, non human non fighters can not get it till 12.

[Rusvul]

Shield Master doesn't really help much if you're two-weapon-fighting. The shove it grants is a bonus action, and so is an off-hand attack. It's still nice to have for the versatility and other benefits, but it's no more mandatory than it is for any other character that uses a shield, and it's less useful for you than for most characters that use a shield.

[OzDragon]

Shield Master doesn't really help much if you're two-weapon-fighting. The shove it grants is a bonus action, and so is an off-hand attack. It's still nice to have for the versatility and other benefits, but it's no more mandatory than it is for any other character that uses a shield, and it's less useful for you than for most characters that use a shield.

It would still be useful given the survivability it offers. The bonus to dex spells is huge given your most likely low dex.

But you are correct it is not required. So instead of level 6 you can get this online as early as 4 as a human fighter and 8 as a non human non fighter. Which is still a long time to wait for something TWF get at level 1. And some people say that getting AC while attacking with a shield is too much...I say neigh neigh!

[Rusvul]

It's not the best choice mechanically, no. But it's not awful--I think it's significantly better than, say, Beastmaster (which is a much more common thing in D&D-style fantasy than shield bashing). It has a legitimate niche in which it excels, even if it takes a while to come online. That's true of all kinds of builds. The idea that 5e makes shield bashing inordinately difficult is, in my opinion, off-base.

[bid]

You need Dual wielder, Tavern Brawler, and Shield Master.
Nope, patently false.
You only need tavern brawler to attack with your shield instead of your weapon, doing 1d4+Str.

Everyone needs DW to get an extra BA attack. You'd need a lot of bad faith to call it a "shield tax".
Any attack can be used to shove a creature. Shield master is wholly unnecessary.
Calling those necessary is laying it on thick.


Moreover, the real world comes knocking.
Piercing weapon do more damage because they concentrate the whole impact on a small surface, the point of the blade. Slashing and blunt weapons use leverage, rotating a full 3 feet from the shoulder. A shield bash has none of that, with a short leverage from the elbow.


Somehow, "being a weapon" took a strange meaning where it should give you a free BA and do 1d6+Str. That fantasy far removed from real world or mechanical balance is typical munchkin double-talk.

[DnDegenerates]

I've been shield punched by both centerboss and strapped round, rectangle, scutum, etc. Shields. Each had more than enough force to break bones were I not wearing proper protection for the sport. It's worth mentioning that this is with the edge of the shield, as a force multiplier.

In real life, shields are very capable of being an offensive weapon. Shield punching into someone's armpit and planting it there actual makes it so they can not use their weapon arm as well, forcing them to move and potentially present an opening if they want to free said arm.

In d&d I still prefer to rule them as per intended. Improvised. It's better than typical unarmed damage and most folks aren't trained to use them offensively. And you should lose shield ac bonus if using it to attack.

Homebrew could be different. Perhaps introduce a feat or add special clauses to shield proficiency for certain martial classes. Battlemaster specifically I could see having cool maneuvers. barbarian could also be thematically appropriate. I definitely see it more as a tactical application though, more common among duelists.

[Mordaedil]

I think how haphazardly 3e handled shields-as-weapons is one of the reasons 5e decided to got the route of making bashing with a shield an improvised weapon attack and making a dedicated shield-basher build be a person who attack normally with their weapons but get to make a bonus-action shove.

3e handled it very oddly. Here's the 3.5e SRD language:

"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right. "

Note how you can't use a shield as a weapon except as an off-hand weapon. That means you can't attack with it until you attack with your primary weapon. Don't have a primary weapon (perhaps because you were disarmed, one of the main reasons you might want to shield bash)? Better be ready to make an unarmed attack (drawing an attack of opportunity, that thing you were trying to avoid by shield bashing in the first place).

Not that 5e was going to end up with the exact same wonkiness, but I imagine it was the fear of that kind of thing that made them decide to go with the rather simple, mostly straightforward* setup.
*It would have been nice for them to include a single sentence confirming whether attacking with the shield meant you lost the AC bonus or not.
I would assume there would be a difference in using a shield as your main weapon and using a shield as a shield, but resorting to occasional "shield bashing". At least, I'd allow a fighter to use a shield as their main weapon if they really wanted to and not use the shield bash entry as he wouldn't be using a weapon in his other hand.

[JoeJ]

The Dueling fighting style gives you a +2 damage on a hit. I don't see any reason why a sword & board fighter couldn't narrate that as hitting with both the sword and the shield.

[MrStabby]

Nope, patently false.
You only need tavern brawler to attack with your shield instead of your weapon, doing 1d4+Str.

Everyone needs DW to get an extra BA attack. You'd need a lot of bad faith to call it a "shield tax".
Any attack can be used to shove a creature. Shield master is wholly unnecessary.
Calling those necessary is laying it on thick.


Moreover, the real world comes knocking.
Piercing weapon do more damage because they concentrate the whole impact on a small surface, the point of the blade. Slashing and blunt weapons use leverage, rotating a full 3 feet from the shoulder. A shield bash has none of that, with a short leverage from the elbow.


Somehow, "being a weapon" took a strange meaning where it should give you a free BA and do 1d6+Str. That fantasy far removed from real world or mechanical balance is typical munchkin double-talk.

This isn't quite true. Only an attack made as part of an attack action can be used as a shove, so no swapping out your weakest d4 attack with polearm mastery or pushing people over as part of an opportunity attack as they move away.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The Dueling fighting style gives you a +2 damage on a hit. I don't see any reason why a sword & board fighter couldn't narrate that as hitting with both the sword and the shield.

It's very important to note that the Dueling fighting style only works if you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons.

If shields counted as a simple/martial weapon rather than an improvised weapon then Dueling would no longer work while you have a shield equipped. It would be a direct nerf to a character build that many already feel is inferior to just running a 2H Weapon.

If you mean that from a purely narrative standpoint, it works, but it's not a solution to the proposed issue. It also runs into the issue that with this same narrative a character who uses dueling with only a sword equipped receives the same damage bonus that the player narrating his shield in does.

[OzDragon]

Nope, patently false.
You only need tavern brawler to attack with your shield instead of your weapon, doing 1d4+Str.

Everyone needs DW to get an extra BA attack. You'd need a lot of bad faith to call it a "shield tax".
Any attack can be used to shove a creature. Shield master is wholly unnecessary.
Calling those necessary is laying it on thick.


Moreover, the real world comes knocking.
Piercing weapon do more damage because they concentrate the whole impact on a small surface, the point of the blade. Slashing and blunt weapons use leverage, rotating a full 3 feet from the shoulder. A shield bash has none of that, with a short leverage from the elbow.


Somehow, "being a weapon" took a strange meaning where it should give you a free BA and do 1d6+Str. That fantasy far removed from real world or mechanical balance is typical munchkin double-talk.

I think you might be confusing Dual Wielder with Two Weapon Fighting which any character can do.

Two weapon fighting requires a light weapon in both hands grants you a free bonus action attack.

Dual wielder allows you to use weapons that aren't light. A shield is not light so you would need this feat to get the bonus action attack. So yes a feat tax.

[greenstone]

The game uses hands as a type of action economy. Want to hit someone? Need to use a hand (two hands if it is a big weapon or a missile weapon). Want to defend yourself? Need a hand. Want to cast a spell? Need a hand. Only have two hands? You need to make choices.

Allowing a shield to be both a weapon and a shield breaks this economy badly.

It takes a feat to let a second weapon be used for defence as well as offence, and that only gives +1 AC. Allowing a normal shield to be a weapon and still give +2 AC is too powerful.

Additionally, weapons can be disarmed; shields cannot.

In my games, I've ruled that anything you wear (i.e. takes an Action or more to don or doff) is not any sort of weapon. If you want to bash someone with a shield, that is covered by the unarmed attack rules, exactly the same as if you wanted to kick someone with armoured boots or headbutt them with a helm or punch them with heavy gauntlets. An improvised weapon is something you can pick up easily or drop quickly.

[OzDragon]

The game uses hands as a type of action economy. Want to hit someone? Need to use a hand (two hands if it is a big weapon or a missile weapon). Want to defend yourself? Need a hand. Want to cast a spell? Need a hand. Only have two hands? You need to make choices.

Allowing a shield to be both a weapon and a shield breaks this economy badly.

It takes a feat to let a second weapon be used for defence as well as offence, and that only gives +1 AC. Allowing a normal shield to be a weapon and still give +2 AC is too powerful.

Additionally, weapons can be disarmed; shields cannot.

In my games, I've ruled that anything you wear (i.e. takes an Action or more to don or doff) is not any sort of weapon. If you want to bash someone with a shield, that is covered by the unarmed attack rules, exactly the same as if you wanted to kick someone with armoured boots or headbutt them with a helm or punch them with heavy gauntlets. An improvised weapon is something you can pick up easily or drop quickly.


This is your opinion and no where stated in RAW or RAI. To me an improvised weapon is anything that is not a weapon used to hit and damage someone as a weapon.

A large stone that weighs 100 pounds technically is an improvised weapon for PCs as there are no rules for it. According to rules it only does 1d4+strength with a feat. Which is hilariously absurd in my opinion.

[TheFryingPen]

It takes a feat to let a second weapon be used for defence as well as offence, and that only gives +1 AC. Allowing a normal shield to be a weapon and still give +2 AC is too powerful.


It also takes a (that) feat to make use of a shield as secondary weapon. And it does less damage (with the die and proficiency depending on DM, giving plenty of room to balance it), so having more AC in return seems fair. For example, if you take a d4 for damage, allow proficiency but don't let the shield user get the AC from the trait, it's exactly the same trade-off you get by choosing Defense over Dueling fighting style number-wise (1d4 instead of 1d8 is 2 damage less on average, while you have 1 more AC).
If someone wants to use it as primary (only) weapon the trade-off is better (2 damage less, 2 AC more), without any trait requirements. But that only is more powerful when you can do other things to not "waste" your second hand. A comparable character could still use untraited TWF with 2 shortswords and deal higher damage. And only attacking with a shield would also lock you in a single damage type.



Additionally, weapons can be disarmed; shields cannot.


Weapons can be equipped and unequipped as an object interaction, shields can not. If you ever want to switch weapons (going ranged), have free hand for grappling or casting or have not equipped it at the start of combat it takes another turn. Again, pretty balanced trade-off, imo.



In my games, I've ruled that anything you wear (i.e. takes an Action or more to don or doff) is not any sort of weapon. If you want to bash someone with a shield, that is covered by the unarmed attack rules, exactly the same as if you wanted to kick someone with armoured boots or headbutt them with a helm or punch them with heavy gauntlets. An improvised weapon is something you can pick up easily or drop quickly.



An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

When you don a shield, you wield it with your hand (the hand isn't free for anything else). If you would "wear" it in the sense of how you wear armor or clothes, it wouldn't take a hand to use.


Overall I don't really see a problem with shield as a improvised weapon, it has some advantages, some disadvantages, adds fluff and doesn't do anything that breaks the game.

[Willie the Duck]

I would assume there would be a difference in using a shield as your main weapon and using a shield as a shield, but resorting to occasional "shield bashing". At least, I'd allow a fighter to use a shield as their main weapon if they really wanted to and not use the shield bash entry as he wouldn't be using a weapon in his other hand.

It wasn't so much the specifics of the 3.5e shield-bashing rules, so much as how much of a hot mess they were. Shield bashing is a little like size large PCs and 4-armed PCs--every edition of D&D seems to have done it once (or more), and for the most part each attempt has either been so bad no one would ever do it, or so good few people would ever not--or, like in this case, a reasonable choice for a specific build, but one that specifically omits the one most common reason someone would choose to shield bash (because they'd just been disarmed and wanted to avoid an attack of opportunity).


I think the biggest issue here is that to be able to use a shield effectively in combat there is a three feat tax.

You need Dual wielder, Tavern Brawler, and Shield Master.


It would still be useful given the survivability it offers. The bonus to dex spells is huge given your most likely low dex.

So we've gone from you needing 3 feats, to the total shield-basher build having 3 feats available that benefit it (along with an array of additional advantages). That's not selling me that there's a problem with the rules as is (other than the overarching one--that 2-weapon-fighting overall underperforms). You can create a shield-bash build with one feat. You can create a shield-as-primary-weapon build with two feats. You can create a multi-option shield-bash build who also can hold their own when unarmed and survive dex spells despite a likely low dex with three feats. That sounds... niche (as it should be), but competitive.

[Unoriginal]

Somehow, "being a weapon" took a strange meaning where it should give you a free BA and do 1d6+Str. That fantasy far removed from real world or mechanical balance is typical munchkin double-talk.



So we've gone from you needing 3 feats, to the total shield-basher build having 3 feats available that benefit it (along with an array of additional advantages). That's not selling me that there's a problem with the rules as is (other than the overarching one--that 2-weapon-fighting overall underperforms). You can create a shield-bash build with one feat. You can create a shield-as-primary-weapon build with two feats. You can create a multi-option shield-bash build who also can hold their own when unarmed and survive dex spells despite a likely low dex with three feats. That sounds... niche (as it should be), but competitive.

It's quite telling that the 3.X way of doing it is getting praised despire how cumbersome it is compared to the 5e one.

Because what the shields-as-weapons-were-better-in-3.X defenders aren't telling is how much damage you shields did back then:

Damages (for Small/for Medium characters)

Shield, light: 1d2/1d3

Spiked shield, light: 1d3/1d4¨

Shield, heavy: 1d3/1d4

Spiked shield, heavy: 1d4/1d6

I'd be curious to see the great shield-as-weapon permissive system people have been talking about.

Not to mention that as it has been said, the shield was limited as counting as an off-hand weapon.

[Knaight]

It's quite telling that the 3.X way of doing it is getting praised despire how cumbersome it is compared to the 5e one.

Because what the shields-as-weapons-were-better-in-3.X defenders aren't telling is how much damage you shields did back then:

Damages (for Small/for Medium characters)

Shield, light: 1d2/1d3

Spiked shield, light: 1d3/1d4¨

Shield, heavy: 1d3/1d4

Spiked shield, heavy: 1d4/1d6

I'd be curious to see the great shield-as-weapon permissive system people have been talking about

Those numbers are a bit deceptive - design differences tend to make damage die matter a lot more in 5e than 3e. 3e was the edition of 1d12+750 damage, where massive piles of power attack, sneak attack, skirmish, maneuvers, or whatever else made the damage die largely irrelevant. You could be using a proper weapon or you could be using a hairpin, either way your damage was about the same.

5e, by contrast, rewards you for bringing an actual weapon to a fight.

[Unoriginal]

Those numbers are a bit deceptive - design differences tend to make damage die matter a lot more in 5e than 3e. 3e was the edition of 1d12+750 damage, where massive piles of power attack, sneak attack, skirmish, maneuvers, or whatever else made the damage die largely irrelevant. You could be using a proper weapon or you could be using a hairpin, either way your damage was about the same.

5e, by contrast, rewards you for bringing an actual weapon to a fight.

So you're saying that shield-as-your-weapon only worked in 3.X because it didn't matter what you used as a weapon (aside from which feat/class feature you could use with which weapon)?

That's not really a shining endorsement of shields to say they were made nearly equal to hairpins.

[OzDragon]

So you're saying that shield-as-your-weapon only worked in 3.X because it didn't matter what you used as a weapon (aside from which feat/class feature you could use with which weapon)?

That's not really a shining endorsement of shields to say they were made nearly equal to hairpins.


That applied to every weapon in 3/3.5. Just stating shields to justify your point does not accomplish anything.

The go to weapon for rogues from my observation was daggers in previous editions. Now it's the rapier. Why, damage die matters more now.

[JackPhoenix]

If you also want to use a sword (or similar), take the Dual Wielder feat. Comparing this sword-and-board two-weapon fighter to a normal TWF character:

You don't even need Dual Wielder, unless you insist on having the shield bash as bonus action. Extra attack allows the attacks be done with separate weapons, if you want, something that wasn't actualy possible in 3e.

Hell, with Extra Attack, you can "TWF" with non-light weapons without any feat requirement, and you'll get full ability modifier to damage too. It's only the bonus action attacks that has limits and requirements.

[Unoriginal]

That applied to every weapon in 3/3.5. Just stating shields to justify your point does not accomplish anything.

It accomplish that it shows the 3.X way was not better for shield-users, it just didn't matter which weapon you used when dealing damages.

Keep in mind that using a shield had additional conditions of use and penalties (off-hand only with the negative modifiers it implies, no AC bonus when attacking with it, etc) and still required a feat (or perhaps more) to be used efficiently, so no, I don't see how it can be counted as a system where you could use a shield as a weapon more freely than in 5e.



The go to weapon for rogues from my observation was daggers in previous editions. Now it's the rapier. Why, damage die matters more now.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get what you mean. Are you saying that it's a bad thing or not?

Also, FYI, it's not only because damage dice matter now that the rapier is used more.

It's (also) because in 3.X to use your DEX bonus with a rapier you needed the Weapon Finesse feat, while 5e has the Finesse trait inherent to the weapon.

[OzDragon]

You don't even need Dual Wielder, unless you insist on having the shield bash as bonus action. Extra attack allows the attacks be done with separate weapons, if you want, something that wasn't actualy possible in 3e.

Hell, with Extra Attack, you can "TWF" with non-light weapons without any feat requirement, and you'll get full ability modifier to damage too. It's only the bonus action attacks that has limits and requirements.

The reason two weapon fighting works in this game is because of the extra bonus action attack other wise you are just using two weapons to accomplish the same thing you can do with one.

[JackPhoenix]

The reason two weapon fighting works in this game is because of the extra bonus action attack other wise you are just using two weapons to accomplish the same thing you can do with one.

Sure, but some people are more interested in flavor than in mechanical effectivness. (heresy, I know)

I've even seen low level "TWF" character with two battleaxes, attacking with each every other turn. When he got better, he could use both in the same turn, and when he got even better, he could make one extra attack as bonus action too!

[OzDragon]

It accomplish that it shows the 3.X way was not better for shield-users, it just didn't matter which weapon you used when dealing damages.

Keep in mind that using a shield had additional conditions of use and penalties (off-hand only with the negative modifiers it implies, no AC bonus when attacking with it, etc) and still required a feat (or perhaps more) to be used efficiently, so no, I don't see how it can be counted as a system where you could use a shield as a weapon more freely than in 5e.



I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get what you mean. Are you saying that it's a bad thing or not?

Also, FYI, it's not only because damage dice matter now that the rapier is used more.

It's (also) because in 3.X to use your DEX bonus with a rapier you needed the Weapon Finesse feat, while 5e has the Finesse trait inherent to the weapon.

Not at all. I personally think the shield should do more than a D4 for damage.

I agree with this but are they using it cause it's cool or character reasons or cause of the damage die. Personally I don't think assassins with rapiers should be a thing. I just can't visualize it. Not that it isn't a viable way to build a character.

[OzDragon]

Sure, but some people are more interested in flavor than in mechanical effectivness. (heresy, I know)

I've even seen low level "TWF" character with two battleaxes, attacking with each every other turn. When he got better, he could use both in the same turn, and when he got even better, he could make one extra attack as bonus action too!

For mechanics purposes though he was not a two weapon fighter until he got that bonus attack.

[JackPhoenix]

I agree with this but are they using it cause it's cool or character reasons or cause of the damage die. Personally I don't think assassins with rapiers should be a thing. I just can't visualize it. Not that it isn't a viable way to build a character.

Ever played Assassin's Creed?

In real life, there are different weapons for different situations. If the assassin tries to smuggle a weapon somewhere, dagger is better than rapier. But if you expect to fight the enemy (and propably his friends) in combat, rapier is the better choice.


For mechanics purposes though he was not a two weapon fighter until he got that bonus attack.

Sure. But he had two separate weapons, and used both of them in combat. That's the (non-mechanical) definition of two-weapon fighting.

[OzDragon]

Ever played Assassin's Creed?

In real life, there are different weapons for different situations. If the assassin tries to smuggle a weapon somewhere, dagger is better than rapier. But if you expect to fight the enemy (and propably his friends) in combat, rapier is the better choice.



Sure. But he had two separate weapons, and used both of them in combat. That's the (non-mechanical) definition of two-weapon fighting.

It is also not the game definition of two weapon fighting.

[JackPhoenix]

It is also not the game definition of two weapon fighting.

Yes, the mechanical definition of TWF is the game definition of TWF. Duh.

[OzDragon]

Yes, the mechanical definition of TWF is the game definition of TWF. Duh.

Then what was the point of all of these you can two weapon fight without two weapon fighting comments. They brought nothing to the discussion at hand.

[Unoriginal]

Not at all. I personally think the shield should do more than a D4 for damage.

Again, why?

There is no reason why being slapped by something like a shield would do more damage than a club.



I agree with this but are they using it cause it's cool or character reasons or cause of the damage die.


Depend the person. Optimization guides would suggest it for the damage die.



Personally I don't think assassins with rapiers should be a thing. I just can't visualize it.

What, you've never seen assassins in a swashbuckler story?

Heroes get somewhere and bam! a black-cloaked figure, most likely wearing a mask, shows up?


Then what was the point of all of these you can two weapon fight without two weapon fighting comments. They brought nothing to the discussion at hand.

If you want to do it because it looks cool or character reasons, you can do it without the mechanics.

Someone with one weapon in each hands and using one for a turn, the other for the next, is fighting with two weapons. It looks cool, and it can fit a character concept. Then this someone get Extra Attacks, and they can use both weapons the same turn. And then they get the appropriate feat, and they can use both weapons in the same turn as their Attack action and a bonus action.

But all the way this person is fighting with two weapons.

[OzDragon]

Again, why?

There is no reason why being slapped by something like a shield would do more damage than a club.




I personally think it should due to the metal and wood construction. Also should a 100 pound rock do more damage than a club? By rules they both do d4+strength for PCs.

And on the two weapon fighting without them being light or having the dual wielder feat. Yes we can argue the semantics of holding two weapons and using them as two weapon fighting but by the rules its not.

[Willie the Duck]

I personally think it should due to the metal and wood construction. Also should a 100 pound rock do more damage than a club? By rules they both do d4+strength for PCs.

I'm pretty sure that 100 pound rocks are not meant to fit in the improvised weapon mindspace, so much as the rulings over rules space.

Regardless, the fact that there is no space between a club and a full-on dedicated offhand weapon such as a shortsword does not provide adequate room for something like a shield (that will please everyone). Chalk that one up to the granularity of the system.

[Glorthindel]

Not at all. I personally think the shield should do more than a D4 for damage.

And this is ultimately what the arguement for changing using shields in combat boils down to - they just want to use a bigger damage dice. I'm sure people who use daggers and whips for thematic reasons would like a bigger damage dice, but they don't, they have a D4, so a Shield (and their users) are not being punished by putting in the same category as these weapons.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, honestly I'm not against a (houseruled, DM gets to ban abuses) damage bump for such things. The primary difference being that those don't create a "strictly-better" situation in comparison to another well-loved (and frankly already somewhat underpowered) character concept (the normal, non-shield, dual-wielder). If OzDragon wants to spell out a specific build or concept (be it weapon and shield or shield only), explain a ruleset and the changes (and constraints thereof), and show how it doesn't make dual scimitar builds or the like obsolete, I'm all in favor of the idea in theory.

[Wryte]

Not at all. I personally think the shield should do more than a D4 for damage.

Bottom line, if shields did more than 1d4, they would be objectively better than TWF. Heck, I'd argue that at 1d4 it already outclasses TWF without the DW feat, as a +2 AC bonus is well worth a measly difference of one damage die size.

[OzDragon]

Bottom line, if shields did more than 1d4, they would be objectively better than TWF. Heck, I'd argue that at 1d4 it already outclasses TWF without the DW feat, as a +2 AC bonus is well worth a measly difference of one damage die size.

So you would argue that its better without the feat. Without the feat it can not use a bonus attack which is TWFs shtick.

Right now it takes Tavern brawler and dual wielding to do what two weapon fighting can do with no investment. The only thing it has after that is +2 ac. Two weapon fighting has 2 ASI/Feats that it can do whatever with. One of those could be dual wielding but its not needed for them.

How does that outclass TWF??

[smcmike]

I can’t belive this huge thread comes down to whining about the (perfectly reasonable) damage dice.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I can’t belive this huge thread comes down to whining about the (perfectly reasonable) damage dice.

And how the shield is perfectly usable as a weapon within the rules already.

[Cybren]

Also, FYI, it's not only because damage dice matter now that the rapier is used more.

It's (also) because in 3.X to use your DEX bonus with a rapier you needed the Weapon Finesse feat, while 5e has the Finesse trait inherent to the weapon.

You needed the weapon finesse feat to use your dex bonus with any melee weapon, though.

[OzDragon]

And how the shield is perfectly usable as a weapon within the rules already.


As it stands to be a perfectly usable weapon you need two feats to do it. No other build requires that much investment.

What would be wrong with it being a d6 strength weapon that requires shield proficiency from the get go? The only argument is +2 AC....everyone will get a level of fighter, pally.

[GlenSmash!]

The only argument is +2 AC.

That's hardly the only argument.

It doing more damage than Daggers, Clubs, and Light Hammers, and equal damage to Spears, Shortwords. Handaxes, Scimitars, Tridents, while still giving +2 to AC is another argument.

A big argument.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As it stands to be a perfectly usable weapon you need two feats to do it. No other build requires that much investment.

What would be wrong with it being a d6 strength weapon that requires shield proficiency from the get go? The only argument is +2 AC....everyone will get a level of fighter, pally.

You don't need any feats, while it would be nice to have Tavern Brawler it's not necessary.

Shield:
-1d4+Str damage
-1d20+Str to hit
-AC +2

A standard TWF requires that much investment to be on par with another build.

[OzDragon]

That's hardly the only argument.

It doing more damage than Daggers, Clubs, and Light Hammers, and equal damage to Spears, Shortwords. Handaxes, Scimitars, Tridents, while still giving +2 to AC is another argument.

A big argument.

So it would be strength so it brings it up some in the str/dex debate. It would not benefit from dueling fighting style due to having 2 weapons in hand, would not benefit from Two weapon fighting fighting style as its not light. It would still require Dual wielder to bring it into the realm of two weapon fighting. I would call that a decent trade off.

[OzDragon]

You don't need any feats, while it would be nice to have Tavern Brawler it's not necessary.

Shield:
-1d4+Str damage
-1d20+Str to hit
-AC +2

A standard TWF requires that much investment to be on par with another build.

Which book are those stats in?

[Willie the Duck]

As it stands to be a perfectly usable weapon you need two feats to do it. No other build requires that much investment.

Shield Master is one (1) feat. With it, all by itself, you can make a shield-bash based character concept.
Tavern Brawler is one (1) feat. With it, you can very competently make a character who can wield their shield as a weapon.
Wielding an improvised weapon does not even require a feat. You can do it naturally without expenditure. the only downside is losing proficiency bonus on attack rolls.

The only case that needs two feats is the highly specific instance of wanting to use a shield as part of a two-weapon fighting routine, with full proficiency. One of many very specific character concepts which don't perfectly meld with the rules.


What would be wrong with it being a d6 strength weapon that requires shield proficiency from the get go?

I'm not going to argue that it doesn't underperform. It does. So does longsword and dagger (you need the same DW feat as longsword and longsword, but don't gain the same benefit). If I'm in the mood to offset penalties people deliberately give themselves to make a flavorful build, I would probably throw both the same bone.


The only argument is +2 AC....everyone will get a level of fighter, pally.

I would hesitate before declaring what the only arguments are, but this one has more than that. It is +2 AC... with an option on +5 (depending on the magic item distribution of the world), along with the benefits and hindrances of having a shield strapped to one's arm.

What do you mean, "everyone will get a level of fighter, pally?" How do you figure?


Which book are those stats in?
Those are the rules for a shield out of the gate (pre-feat-investment). You can use one as an improvised weapon without tavern brawler or and 2wf feats.

[JackPhoenix]

You needed the weapon finesse feat to use your dex bonus with any melee weapon, though.

If by any, you mean light weapons, whip and rapier, then sure. Which technically is broader category, but it was only for attack, damage still used Str. And, after checking SRD, you took armor check penalty to attack if you were using a shield at the same time.

[OzDragon]

Shield Master is one (1) feat. With it, all by itself, you can make a shield-bash based character concept.
Tavern Brawler is one (1) feat. With it, you can very competently make a character who can wield their shield as a weapon.
Wielding an improvised weapon does not even require a feat. You can do it naturally without expenditure. the only downside is losing proficiency bonus on attack rolls.

The only case that needs two feats is the highly specific instance of wanting to use a shield as part of a two-weapon fighting routine, with full proficiency. One of many very specific character concepts which don't perfectly meld with the rules.



I'm not going to argue that it doesn't underperform. It does. So does longsword and dagger (you need the same DW feat as longsword and longsword, but don't gain the same benefit). If I'm in the mood to offset penalties people deliberately give themselves to make a flavorful build, I would probably throw both the same bone.



I would hesitate before declaring what the only arguments are, but this one has more than that. It is +2 AC... with an option on +5 (depending on the magic item distribution of the world), along with the benefits and hindrances of having a shield strapped to one's arm.

What do you mean, "everyone will get a level of fighter, pally?" How do you figure?


Those are the rules for a shield out of the gate (pre-feat-investment). You can use one as an improvised weapon without tavern brawler or and 2wf feats.

This is always the case with characters who have shields vs those that don't.

I apologize I thought he was reading it from weapon stats. Was not even thinking about imp weapon rules.

Also without tavern brawler compared to other weapons you will get progressively worse with it as you level due to no proficiency.

[OzDragon]

If by any, you mean light weapons, whip and rapier, then sure. Which technically is broader category, but it was only for attack, damage still used Str. And, after checking SRD, you took armor check penalty to attack if you were using a shield at the same time.

In 3e you also had arcane spell failure chance when wearing armor. Which is no longer a thing.

[alchahest]

shield as compared to dagger as an offhand with no feat or fighting style:


Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can not be used to offhand attack with as a bonus action as it is not a light weapon.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, without adding str/dex to damage, if main hand weapon is also light.



With Two Weapon Fighting Style:

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can not be used to offhand attack with as a bonus action as it is not a light

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4+str/dex for damage, if main hand weapon is also light.


With Dual Wielder

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can be be used to offhand attack at 1D20+str to hit and 1D4 damage.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, +1 AC 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown. can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4 for damage.


With dual wielder and Two Weapon Fighting

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can be used to offhand attack at 1D20+str to hit and 1D4+Str damage.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, +1 AC 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4+str/dex for damage


With Tavern Brawler, dual wielder and Two Weapon Fighting

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +3 AC, action to ready. Can smite.
Can be used to offhand attack at 1D20+proficiency+str to hit and 1D4+Str damage.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, +1 AC 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4+str/dex for damage.



Neither qualifies for the bonus action grapple if they're attacking off hand as a bonus - the grapple requires a bonus action and requires a free hand. Also you can go larger, to a D6 or D8 for your offhand weapon once you've got dual wielder. Also Tavern Brawler relies on your DM granting that a shield counts as weaponlike enough.

I'm just trying to list this for information purposes, not as an argument

[OzDragon]

shield as compared to dagger as an offhand with no feat or fighting style:


Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can not be used to offhand attack with as a bonus action as it is not a light weapon.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, without adding str/dex to damage, if main hand weapon is also light.



With Two Weapon Fighting Style:

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can not be used to offhand attack with as a bonus action as it is not a light

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4+str/dex for damage, if main hand weapon is also light.


With Dual Wielder

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can be be used to offhand attack at 1D20+str to hit and 1D4 damage.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, +1 AC 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown. can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4 for damage.


With dual wielder and Two Weapon Fighting

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +2 AC, action to ready.
Can be used to offhand attack at 1D20+str to hit and 1D4+Str damage.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, +1 AC 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4+str/dex for damage


With Tavern Brawler, dual wielder and Two Weapon Fighting

Shield: 1D20+str to hit, 1D4+str damage, +3 AC, action to ready. Can smite.
Can be used to offhand attack at 1D20+proficiency+str to hit and 1D4+Str damage.

Dagger: 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit, +1 AC 1D4+str/dex damage, draw without an action, sneak attack and smite ready, can be thrown.
can be used to offhand attack with a bonus action, at 1D20+str/dex+proficiency to hit and 1D4+str/dex for damage.



Neither qualifies for the bonus action grapple if they're attacking off hand as a bonus - the grapple requires a bonus action and requires a free hand. Also you can go larger, to a D6 or D8 for your offhand weapon once you've got dual wielder. Also Tavern Brawler relies on your DM granting that a shield counts as weaponlike enough.

I'm just trying to list this for information purposes, not as an argument

Two small things.

When you take dual wielder you would have +3 ac on the Shield.

You would get proficiency bonus once you took Tavern Brawler.

[OzDragon]

Ok so I just found this which does definitely makes Sword and Shield with tavern brawler and dual wielder better than all the others. Although it just confuses things more.

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford

An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise.

2:04 PM - Nov 17, 2015

So according to this you can get Duelist fighting style for +2 damage when wanted, and the +1 to AC and a bonus attack when you attack with your shield from Duel wielder.

Tactical options abound!

[Rusvul]

OzDragon, if you don't mind my asking, what's your point here? It seems like you want shield bashing as part of a two-weapon-fighting attack routine to be more effective than it is (or require less investment), but I'm having trouble telling how or why, and it seems like your proposed fix ("make shields a weapon that deal 1d6 damage without feat investment") completely invalidates character concepts that use two traditional weapons (read: no shield), as well as hindering a S&B character with no intention of shield bashing (because if a shield is a weapon, then they can't use their Dueling fighting style). If that "shields are weapons, 1d6 damage" rulin will make everyone at your table happier, by all means, but it doesn't sound like a desirable outcome to me.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth: please correct me if I've misrepresented you.

[alchahest]

right - that may have been a table ruling, we had set that an object won't count as a weapon for the purposes of the bonus AC unless it is a weapon (that you may or may not be proficienct in) or you become proficient with the object as a weapon. Sorry about that - the clarity is lacking when it comes to "wielding a weapon" in that regard.

it's messy, because under dual wielding currently any handheld object can be used for a +1 AC bonus, as it could be used as an improvised weapon. perhaps it is an intentional interaction, but we definitely prefer it to be only allowable with tavern brawler.

[OzDragon]

OzDragon, if you don't mind my asking, what's your point here? It seems like you want shield bashing as part of a two-weapon-fighting attack routine to be more effective than it is (or require less investment), but I'm having trouble telling how or why, and it seems like your proposed fix ("make shields a weapon that deal 1d6 damage without feat investment") completely invalidates character concepts that use two traditional weapons (read: no shield), as well as hindering a S&B character with no intention of shield bashing (because if a shield is a weapon, then they can't use their Dueling fighting style). If that "shields are weapons, 1d6 damage" rulin will make everyone at your table happier, by all means, but it doesn't sound like a desirable outcome to me.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth: please correct me if I've misrepresented you.

Oh I would be more than ok with a feat that makes shields a weapon with proficiency and a D6 die.

I think they should be one already and wish there were more to them. Making them a weapon would give them more options in my opinion.

[Rynjin]

I feel like people wanting the shield to be a d6 are looking at this the wrong way. The issue is not that the shield does less damage. It's that the shield does less damage AND requires more investment. Taking away the Tavern Brawler tax and leaving it as a d4 weapon (an actual weapon) is the better fix, since it fixes all the other issues, like shields remaining non-magical for damage purposes even if they're +1-3, leaving them useless against many things.

[JackPhoenix]

In 3e you also had arcane spell failure chance when wearing armor. Which is no longer a thing.

Aaaaand that's relevant to Weapon Finesse how?

[OzDragon]

Aaaaand that's relevant to Weapon Finesse how?

The same way weapon finesse is relevant in 5e not at all.

[OzDragon]

I feel like people wanting the shield to be a d6 are looking at this the wrong way. The issue is not that the shield does less damage. It's that the shield does less damage AND requires more investment. Taking away the Tavern Brawler tax and leaving it as a d4 weapon (an actual weapon) is the better fix, since it fixes all the other issues, like shields remaining non-magical for damage purposes even if they're +1-3, leaving them useless against many things.

Maybe I have been reading too much today. I'm not sure if you are for or against shields being weapons. I agree with this post though. The D6 is just a personal thing as I feel it should be that. I would be ok with it just being a weapon and counting as such.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is your opinion and no where stated in RAW or RAI. Greenstone's approach is very much within RAI and RAW given how the game mechanically works. What he tried to do was explain the how and the why within the constraints of what the rules do say.

And they make perfect sense within the constraints of
Bounded accuracy
KISS principle/speed of play as an objective design goal
Fewer exploits and fiddly bits as an objective design goal

[JoeJ]

If you mean that from a purely narrative standpoint, it works, but it's not a solution to the proposed issue. It also runs into the issue that with this same narrative a character who uses dueling with only a sword equipped receives the same damage bonus that the player narrating his shield in does.

Without the shield, the Dueling style character would presumably narrate how their lack of encumbrance allows them to hit faster and/or harder with their one weapon, thus accounting for the extra damage.

[MeeposFire]

You don't even need Dual Wielder, unless you insist on having the shield bash as bonus action. Extra attack allows the attacks be done with separate weapons, if you want, something that wasn't actualy possible in 3e.

Hell, with Extra Attack, you can "TWF" with non-light weapons without any feat requirement, and you'll get full ability modifier to damage too. It's only the bonus action attacks that has limits and requirements.

Actually you could do that in 3e but just like in 5e you generally do not since there really is no point in it. You only took two weapon fighting penalties if you used a full attack and essentially declared that you were going to go for the extra attacks from two weapon fighting but if you did not do that you could potentially opt to use your first regular attack with one weapon and then use a different weapon for the second. You never really see that though since there was no real advantage to it but it could be done.

But yea nothing is stopping you from using one of your normal attack action attacks to make a shield bash though I am not entirely sure what the real benefit at the moment would be unless it is just for fun.

[MeeposFire]

Those numbers are a bit deceptive - design differences tend to make damage die matter a lot more in 5e than 3e. 3e was the edition of 1d12+750 damage, where massive piles of power attack, sneak attack, skirmish, maneuvers, or whatever else made the damage die largely irrelevant. You could be using a proper weapon or you could be using a hairpin, either way your damage was about the same.

5e, by contrast, rewards you for bringing an actual weapon to a fight.

I agree with you in general on this but considering that most of us are talking about an off hand attack I think you are overstating the issue since even in 5e the difference between a low damage die and low damage die is very low when it is at most one attack per round. I think even if you include criticals you are looking at an average of around 2.2 damage which is not nothing but not exactly a huge difference.

[Cybren]

I agree with you in general on this but considering that most of us are talking about an off hand attack I think you are overstating the issue since even in 5e the difference between a low damage die and low damage die is very low when it is at most one attack per round. I think even if you include criticals you are looking at an average of around 2.2 damage which is not nothing but not exactly a huge difference.

Critical hits doubled all the damage in 3.X though, not just the dice. It's not an "even if you include criticals" it's "they are a significant reason why the math in the two games works out differently"

[MeeposFire]

Critical hits doubled all the damage in 3.X though, not just the dice. It's not an "even if you include criticals" it's "they are a significant reason why the math in the two games works out differently"

Well to be pedantic 3e gave a multiple on a confirmed crit that multiplied the base damage dice (so with a weapon the damage dice of the weapon itself) and all static modifiers. It however did NOT multiply bonus damage dice such as sneak attack or the extra d6 fire damage from a flaming sword.

Regardless how it works in 3e does not matter because my point is based directly on 5e. The other poster was remarking that base damage dice was more important in 5e than it was in 3e and in general I can get behind that but for this particular conversation we are talking about 1 attack per round at most and even in 5e one attack with a weapon with a smaller damage die is not that significant. On one attack per round the difference between a d4 and a d8 is just not that big a difference.

If I was being confusing about talking about "including criticals" then drop that part of my comment and I wil stick without and say that the difference between using this hypothetical shield attack with your off hand and a full size one handed weapon is 1d4 and 1d8 which is an average of a 2 point difference of damage per round. I do not personally see that as a significant difference though perhaps you feel differently?

[Rusvul]

I mean, 2 damage is all the Dueling style grants, but like... the benefits of having a shield (+2 AC) far outweigh the smaller damage die, especially if the DM rules that the +1 AC from Dual Wielder applies if the off-hand weapon is improvised (like a shield). Which, honestly I would--if someone sinks two feats into S&B dual wielding, they deserve their bonus point of AC from Dual Wielder.

[Eric Diaz]

This is your opinion and no where stated in RAW or RAI. To me an improvised weapon is anything that is not a weapon used to hit and damage someone as a weapon.

A large stone that weighs 100 pounds technically is an improvised weapon for PCs as there are no rules for it. According to rules it only does 1d4+strength with a feat. Which is hilariously absurd in my opinion.

Wait, what? Would you rather fight with a large stone that weighs 100 pounds or a dagger in your hands?

With that said... I agree with your point about shield being a weapon. Just require a bonus action to put it into offensive mod, lose the AC bonus for a while, and you're done. Or require a feat. anything that suits your game.

[MeeposFire]

I mean, 2 damage is all the Dueling style grants, but like... the benefits of having a shield (+2 AC) far outweigh the smaller damage die, especially if the DM rules that the +1 AC from Dual Wielder applies if the off-hand weapon is improvised (like a shield). Which, honestly I would--if someone sinks two feats into S&B dual wielding, they deserve their bonus point of AC from Dual Wielder.

Well dueling is +2 damage but it is being applied multiple times a round. For instance our high level fighter could be getting 3-4 instances of that because the attack action is giving him that many attacks and they could be getting more from that ability due to other ways to get more attacks (things like PAM, opportunity attacks, haste, etc) and none of those apply to an off hand attack. That is my point in this case dueling is going to have 2x or more of an impact on your damage than the difference between your damage die of your off hand weapon and that is assuming we go with the worst case which is that the off hand is a d8 weapon if it is not the difference is less.

[Lombra]

Arguing over 1 average point of damage. Really? The game supports bashing people with shields, and has a feat to make you proficient in it, where is the problem?

[Fnissalot]

If a player wanted it when I was a DM I would allow it but rule it similar to how Kensei use their weapon for defense; you won't get the +2 AC if you attack with a shield. You can either have +2 AC for a round or you can attack as if it was a improvised weapon. If they attack with it, they would be dual wielding and if they use it as sword and board for defense it would count for the duelist fighting style for that round.