Shields and Gauntlets as Attacks / Weapons

[Max_Killjoy]

Simple questions, but curious.

What rules if any exist for using a shield as a weapon?

What rules if any exist for using a heavy gauntlet as a weapon / bonus punching damage due "metal fist"?



TIY

[Kurt Kurageous]

Improvised weapon rules would seem to apply.

I'd think being shield proficient would make it a d4+STRMOD BLU.

[sophontteks]

See improvised weapon rules. Shields and gauntlets are 1d4 weapons.

Tavern brawler gives profeciency in both and allows you to grapple as a bonus action. Very useful grappling an enemy while attacking without losing your shield bonus.

Shield master feat allows shields to push and trip as a bonus action.

[Max_Killjoy]

Thanks.

Was hoping that there were some standard rules I was missing, since especially on the shield it was pretty much standard historically to use them offensively as well as defensively, and as an active defense -- they weren't just extra armor strapped to the left arm and passively sitting there.

[LordEntrails]

Thanks.

Was hoping that there were some standard rules I was missing, since especially on the shield it was pretty much standard historically to use them offensively as well as defensively, and as an active defense -- they weren't just extra armor strapped to the left arm and passively sitting there.

Yea, the 2 points of AC bonus certainly are not granted just because their is a piece of wood or metal strapped to the left arm and passively sitting there. The AC bonus is because you are actively using it to interfere with the other guy hurting you. You are not just holding it in the way of their weapon, but using it to obstruct their view, their arms, their weapons.

As mentioned, their are already rules for using it to push (effectively) etc

[Rukelnikov]

Thanks.

Was hoping that there were some standard rules I was missing, since especially on the shield it was pretty much standard historically to use them offensively as well as defensively, and as an active defense -- they weren't just extra armor strapped to the left arm and passively sitting there.

You are assumed to be using it actively, just like dodging, even when you don't take the "Dodge" action, your Dex to AC means you are dodging attacks.

As for the offense, yeah, its either shield master or improv attack.

[Max_Killjoy]

It is what it is... just thinking it might be part of the base rules instead of a special thing, since historically just about anyone trained to use a shield in skirmish combat is going to know how to use it offensively.

Thanks for the info. :smallsmile:

[PhantomSoul]

It is what it is... just thinking it might be part of the base rules instead of a special thing, since historically just about anyone trained to use a shield in skirmish combat is going to know how to use it offensively.

Thanks for the info. :smallsmile:

It might help to consider that 1d4 is also the damage of a dagger, a club, a light hammer or a sickle. If anything, it might be too strong!

[sophontteks]

1d4 is only 2 average damage less then a longsword. Using tavern brawler to hit things with a shield is viable. I built my barbarian that way. And shield master really covers the pushing and tripping attacks you can do with a shield very nicely.

Shields were not always offensive weapons. Take 300. In the film it showed spartans bashing people with their shields left and right. In reality the Hoplite shield had virtually zero offensive capability. You can't extend these shields away from your body so well.

Shields were offensively used to mask attacks and create openings to great effect, but at the end of the day they were a bulky weapon with zero reach. They are poor weapons on their own.

[Max_Killjoy]

1d4 is only 2 average damage less then a longsword. Using tavern brawler to hit things with a shield is viable. I built my barbarian that way. And shield master really covers the pushing and tripping attacks you can do with a shield very nicely.


It's not so much the damage, as the need for a special Feat beyond proficiency with shields, that disappoints me.




Shields were not always offensive weapons. Take 300. In the film it showed spartans bashing people with their shields left and right. In reality the Hoplite shield had virtually zero offensive capability. You can't extend these shields away from your body so well.


I'd never look to 300 as a source for anything but annoyance at Hollywood for giving people horrible ideas about history, Greeks, Spartans, Persians, and combat.

That aside, a lot of how mobile a shield is depends on how it's worn or carried. Strapped to the forearm and even held by a shoulder sling, it's optimized for a long grind in a formation such as a phalanx. Held with a center grip, it's far more mobile, often used to actively stop attacks before they start, interfering into the opponent's swing or thrust before it has velocity.

[sophontteks]

It's not so much the damage, as the need for a special Feat beyond proficiency with shields, that disappoints me.

I'd never look to 300 as a source for anything but annoyance at Hollywood for giving people horrible ideas about history, Greeks, Spartans, Persians, and combat.

That aside, a lot of how mobile a shield is depends on how it's worn or carried. Strapped to the forearm and even held by a shoulder sling, it's optimized for a long grind in a formation such as a phalanx. Held with a center grip, it's far more mobile, often used to actively stop attacks before they start, interfering into the opponent's swing or thrust before it has velocity.

300 isn't all bad (the sequel, however, is literally a propaganda film made by a different director). It's a story being told from the POV of a spartan soldier, not a historical account. Considering this, much of the fantastical things actually make sense. The big miss is slavery. Persians didn't have slaves, the Spartans did. I can't defend that and it certainly wasn't fair to Persia. On the positive I thought they did a great job capturing the mentality of the Spartans, and they showed the political power Spartan women wielded quite well too. I liked how many of the lines of the film are things the Spartans allegedly said to the Persians.

As you brought up, the shield is not primarily a weapon. 5e is just plain not set up to capture the details you are looking for with shields creating openings. The +2 AC of a shield is already really, really strong. The difference between the best light, medium, and heavy armors is +3 AC, so the +2 is practically going up a whole class of armor without Dex restrictions. If we give shields more then this then other fighting styles wouldn't be able to keep up.

But, for people who do want to make a character with more of a focus on shields, all they have to do is pick a feat. This is actually common for advanced fighting styles. Take Great Weapon master, dual-wielder, and Polearm Master for example. Advanced tools for combat styles are opened up with feats, and fighters get bonus feats for them.

EDIT: I just wanna mention. The ending of 300 is hilarious, because its all inspirational, but the Persians steamroll them. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

D&D doesn't have parrying rules either. That's rolled up into AC and HPs. But if it really bothers you, there's a Feat and a Battlemaster maneuver available.

The offensive use of shields "historically" is pretty overblown, and not really necessary in a game that hasn't pretended to be a combat simulator for decades. Like many of the combat feats, Shield Master Feat covers the pseudo-historical envisioning most people have if they feel the need for something special to represent it.