Shield as Pact Weapon?

[Chalkarts]

Is a spiked shield (or any shield) a Melee Weapon, if so can it be my Warlocks pact weapon?

[Corpsecandle717]

It's not listed under the weapons table so, no.

Yes you can do damage with a shield as an 'improvised weapon' in the game and in plain English anything that can hurt something else would be considered a weapon, however for the purposes and structures of the game it's not recognized as a weapon.

[LibraryOgre]

I'd allow it; it's a bit of a variation, but I can think of two strong examples of shield-as-weapon, oddly both named Steve... Steve Rogers and Steve(n) Universe.

[Chalkarts]

I was thinking something more tanky, less throwy.

I was actually thinking of Eric, the Cavalier from the 80s D&D cartoon.

A warlock who has an indestructible shield. It can be destroyed technically but he just summons it again.

No weapon, just E-blast and a glowing shield.

[Snowbluff]

Yes you can do damage with a shield as an 'improvised weapon' in the game and in plain English anything that can hurt something else would be considered a weapon, however for the purposes and structures of the game it's not recognized as a weapon.
This is iffy. They are weapons in plain english, as they are improvised weapons, and attacks with them are weapon attacks. The weapons table isn't exclusive either, as there are weapons in the game that aren't on the table (like a lizardfolk spiked shield).

However, this causes things to break in the game. For example, the dueling style requires you to not have a weapon in your off hand, but since anything can and is a weapon then dueling style doesn't work with a shield as intended. As a result, there is a handy Tweet from JC which (for a change), actually clarifies this and makes it so an improvised weapon is only a weapon when it's used to attack. This is good to know if you want to TWF with a shield.

Personally, at a home game, I would allow it. Treating shields as weapon for certain purposes isn't really game breaking, so rule as fun applies here.

[LordEntrails]

What would having a pact shield do or what would it break? Is it just flavor or is there some mechanical/optimizing aspect I'm not seeing?

[LibraryOgre]

What would having a pact shield do or what would it break? Is it just flavor or is there some mechanical/optimizing aspect I'm not seeing?

There's that, too. And how does it interact with invocations that are designed to work with a pact blade?

[JackPhoenix]

This is iffy. They are weapons in plain english, as they are improvised weapons, and attacks with them are weapon attacks. The weapons table isn't exclusive either, as there are weapons in the game that aren't on the table (like a lizardfolk spiked shield).

Lizardfolk spiked shield isn't "a weapon". It's a NPC attack option.


However, this causes things to break in the game. For example, the dueling style requires you to not have a weapon in your off hand, but since anything can and is a weapon then dueling style doesn't work with a shield as intended. As a result, there is a handy Tweet from JC which (for a change), actually clarifies this and makes it so an improvised weapon is only a weapon when it's used to attack. This is good to know if you want to TWF with a shield.

The same rules that allow Dueling working with a shield disalows it to be used with TWF. If it's a weapon only in the moment you use it do attack, you won't get the TWF BA attack, as that requires wielding (light, without Dual Wielder) melee weapons in both hands. You would need it to count as a weapon to qualify for an attack that would make it count as a weapon.


What would having a pact shield do or what would it break? Is it just flavor or is there some mechanical/optimizing aspect I'm not seeing?

Free proficiency with a shield on a class that doesn't otherwise get it (except with Hexblade), and OP just wants to use it for a free AC bonus while he uses Eldritch Blast to make actual attacks, unlike "real" blade pact users.

[Snowbluff]

Lizardfolk spiked shield isn't "a weapon". It's a NPC attack option.

It's a melee weapon attack, weapon attacks are made with weapons.


The same rules that allow Dueling working with a shield disalows it to be used with TWF. If it's a weapon only in the moment you use it do attack, you won't get the TWF BA attack, as that requires wielding (light, without Dual Wielder) melee weapons in both hands. You would need it to count as a weapon to qualify for an attack that would make it count as a weapon.

You can make the first attack with your shield, and the same instant its a weapon is the same instant that you would check to see if you have 2 weapons, which is the case in that time frame. I do agree you need the Dual Wielder Feat (which wouldn't give you the bonus AC for any other time than when you're attacking with the shield).

So
1) Attack Action
Shield attack, checks for TWF, TWF triggers
Sword Attack
2) Bonus action, sword attack.

[JackPhoenix]

It's a melee weapon attack, weapon attacks are made with weapons.

Not true. See: unarmed attacks or any creature with natural weapon(s). Do you claim that I can somehow loot dragon's bite attack option and use it as a weapon? Also, improvised weapons, which count as weapons only in the moment you use them to attack and not before and after.... see below


You can make the first attack with your shield, and the same instant its a weapon is the same instant that you would check to see if you have 2 weapons, which is the case in that time frame. I do agree you need the Dual Wielder Feat (which wouldn't give you the bonus AC for any other time than when you're attacking with the shield).

So
1) Attack Action
Shield attack, checks for TWF, TWF triggers
Sword Attack
2) Bonus action, sword attack.

Actually, no. It's still not a melee weapon, which is one of the qualifiers for TWF. It's an improvised weapon if used as such.

[Snowbluff]

Natural weapons are often weapons as the exception, but not the rule. The tweets and errata have actually gone back and forth on this. I remember there being arguments about being able to smite with a druid's shape.

Also, improvised weapons, which count as weapons only in the moment you use them to attack and not before and after.... see below

Actually, no. It's still not a melee weapon, which is one of the qualifiers for TWF. It's an improvised weapon if used as such.

You're contradicting yourself. These two statements are mutually exclusive. If it's not a weapon you can't make weapon attack with it, and if it's a weapon you can TWF with it.

The tweet says it's a weapon when you attack with it, full stop. All weapons are melee or ranged, melee weapons are ones that attack within reach. TWF says "when" you attack with it. These two conditions are identical. If you haven't noticed, I've researched this before.

[JackPhoenix]

Natural weapons are often weapons as the exception, but not the rule. The tweets and errata have actually gone back and forth on this. I remember there being arguments about being able to smite with a druid's shape.

You can use Divine Smite with natural weapons and unarmed strikes just fine, it requires melee weapon attack, but not actual weapons. There's no "back and forth" about that. It is true, and it was always true.


You're contradicting yourself. These two statements are mutually exclusive. If it's not a weapon you can't make weapon attack with it, and if it's a weapon you can TWF with it.

Not true. You can only make TWF attacks with melee weapons. Not ranged weapons, not improvised weapons. And you can make weapon attacks with unarmed strikes and natural weapons, despite them not being weapons either.


The tweet says it's a weapon when you attack with it, full stop. All weapons are melee or ranged, melee weapons are ones that attack within reach. TWF says "when" you attack with it. These two conditions are identical. If you haven't noticed, I've researched this before.

It is true it's a weapon when you attack with it. It's still not a melee weapon, but improvised weapon. Improvised weapons lack any weapon properties, which includes the distinction if the weapon is ranged or melee. Bow used as an improvised weapon to hit an opponent with melee attack isn't a melee weapon, though it uses improvised weapon rules (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/27/so-when-you-throw-a-dagger-it-becomes-a-ranged-weapon/), and it doesn't count as a ranged weapon either. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/02/26/can-you-use-a-longbow-in-melee-to-get-great-weapon-master-and-sharpshooter-in-a-single-attack-for-20-damage/) And just for good measure, to show JC is consistent in that. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/03/can-a-barbarianfighter-use-a-dart-in-melee-to-benefit-from-rage-and-archery-fighting-style/)

I don't know (or really care) what you've been researching, but your research is wrong.

[Snowbluff]

You can use Divine Smite with natural weapons and unarmed strikes just fine, it requires melee weapon attack, but not actual weapons. There's no "back and forth" about that. It is true, and it was always true.
No, it hasn't always been the case.



Not true. You can only make TWF attacks with melee weapons. Not ranged weapons, not improvised weapons. And you can make weapon attacks with unarmed strikes and natural weapons, despite them not being weapons either.



It is true it's a weapon when you attack with it. It's still not a melee weapon, but improvised weapon. Improvised weapons lack any weapon properties, which includes the distinction if the weapon is ranged or melee. Bow used as an improvised weapon to hit an opponent with melee attack isn't a melee weapon, though it uses improvised weapon rules (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/04/27/so-when-you-throw-a-dagger-it-becomes-a-ranged-weapon/),

I don't know (or really care) what you've been researching, but your research is wrong.



Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to Attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to Attack a target at a distance.

If he contradicts the rules directly, he's ruling RAI which is irrelevant without a DM. The improvised weapon is a weapon when used to attack. All weapons are ranged or melee. Ergo, he's directly contradicted himself and the rules.

So you're wrong. And you should care, because you're wrong. :smallsmile:


and it doesn't count as a ranged weapon either. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/02/26/can-you-use-a-longbow-in-melee-to-get-great-weapon-master-and-sharpshooter-in-a-single-attack-for-20-damage/) And just for good measure, to show JC is consistent in that. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/03/can-a-barbarianfighter-use-a-dart-in-melee-to-benefit-from-rage-and-archery-fighting-style/)

If you turn the page, you'll see the standard thing to do with a ranged weapon being used as a melee weapon.
These tweets not only contradict your opinion but also support my statement. Here he calls it a melee weapon. The other one says it doesn't have any of it's normal properties, but that doesn't explain it's behavior when it's mimicking another type of weapon.

[Joe the Rat]

Not valid by RAW, but as a DM I would consider it. Mostly because I also consider shield a reasonable option for EK weapon bonding.

[JackPhoenix]

No, it hasn't always been the case.

Yes, it was, since the PHB was released.


If he contradicts the rules directly, he's ruling RAI which is irrelevant without a DM. The improvised weapon is a weapon when used to attack. All weapons are ranged or melee. Ergo, he's directly contradicted himself and the rules.

It talks specifically about the weapons in the table in PHB. Improvised weapons aren't in the table, and use rules you can find few pages later.


These tweets not only contradict your opinion but also support my statement. Here he calls it a melee weapon. The other one says it doesn't have any of it's normal properties, but that doesn't explain it's behavior when it's mimicking another type of weapon.

He doesn't call it a melee weapon. He says you should check the appropriate section to see what happens if you try to use ranged weapon as a melee weapon. Which is "use the improvised weapon rules", not "it turns into a melee weapon". And bow used in melee isn't "mimicking another type of weapon". It's "being used as an improvised weapon".


Not valid by RAW, but as a DM I would consider it. Mostly because I also consider shield a reasonable option for EK weapon bonding.

Funny you say that... (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/16/can-an-eldritch-knight-bond-to-a-shield-or-a-quiver/) (not dismissing your rulings/houserules, just that it came up when I was looking for the SA for my previous post.

[Misterwhisper]

Yes, it was, since the PHB was released.



It talks specifically about the weapons in the table in PHB. Improvised weapons aren't in the table, and use rules you can find few pages later.



He doesn't call it a melee weapon. He says you should check the appropriate section to see what happens if you try to use ranged weapon as a melee weapon. Which is "use the improvised weapon rules", not "it turns into a melee weapon". And bow used in melee isn't "mimicking another type of weapon". It's "being used as an improvised weapon".

Also there is the point that it loses all traits.

Ex. If I use my longbow as an improvised weapon to make a melee attack, I do not get to use great weapon master simply because it has the trait heavy. As an improvised weapon it does not have that trait.

Things like this come from a basic misconception:

May people believe weapons are broken down as thus:

Melee weapon
Ranged weapon
Improvised melee weapon
Improvised ranged weapon

However that is not what it really is, weapons are actually categorized as:

Melee weapon
Ranged weapon
Improvised weapon: note NOT melee, and NOT ranged.

Improvised weapons are not melee weapons and not ranged weapons.
Your DM might consider one a weapon of the appropriate type if you have proficiency in a weapon that is very similar.
ex.
Using a chair leg, eh call it a club
Using a tent spike, call it a dagger

THEN you can just consider it the weapon as the dm called it, but then it is not an improvised weapon anymore.

If your DM is VERY lenient and very loose with the definitions they might consider a shield as a club but that is being very generous.

In general, no, you can not just use an ability that gives you a magical weapon to use to get shield proficiency and 2 AC.

[Corpsecandle717]

A lot of these arguments are why I went with the "Not on the weapons table not a weapon". Yes it's overly simplistic, and not very nuanced. However if EVERYTHING can be a 'weapon' then any requirement that something be done 'with a weapon' is effectively null. I'm leaning on the 'specific over general' rules here and assuming that Weapons and Improvised Weapons are in fact two separate categories of 'tools to harm the enemy'. In plan English one is a simply a subcategory of the other. However in the game they're treated both very differently.

I should have included a rider that, yeah I don't really feel like using a shield as a pact weapon would break anything, but if I had to make an official ruling in Adventure League I would argue RAW and RAI both say that Weapons and Improvised Weapons are two completely different categories of damage dealing implements.

[Snowbluff]

The problem with Mr. Whisper's interpretation is that it relies on a very undefined definition of what constitutes a melee or ranged weapon.

I do agree a ranged weapon being used a melee weapon wouldn't have it's properties it had as a ranged weapon (Ie, heavy, finesse, etc are the properties in the game) by RAI.


Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her Proficiency Bonus. I would say that an improvised weapon is still improvised even if it's similiar to an "actual" one. This doesn't say it being improvised is exclusive with it being treated as an "actual" weapon. I wouldn't say that a tent spike isn't still a improvised weapon, but if it's similiar to a dagger you get to use your prof bonus.



It talks specifically about the weapons in the table in PHB. Improvised weapons aren't in the table, and use rules you can find few pages later.


Define "all" for me, then we can be talking in the same language.

But there is the lizardfolk spiked shield, a melee weapon attack made with a weapon that is a spiked shield. That's a weapon.

[Ganymede]

This is iffy. They are weapons in plain english, as they are improvised weapons, and attacks with them are weapon attacks.

You can hurt someone by using a dead halfling as an improvised weapon. That doesn't mean you can summon a dead halfling as your pact weapon.

[Snowbluff]

You can hurt someone by using a dead halfling as an improvised weapon. That doesn't mean you can summon a dead halfling as your pact weapon.

This is where Corpsecandle's stance is handy, and why erring on the ruling that an improvised weapon is only a weapon when being used as one is useful. Imagine how silly the game would be if you say, summoned a piano every time you wanted to fight.

... damn, now I want to summon like a saxophone and attack with epic sax tunes as a warlock now...

[Man_Over_Game]

It'd require a lot of homebrew decisions. Not only are you technically not able to summon the shield, but just because you summoned it doesn't necessarily mean it's donned. It'd require two actions for you to summon your shield and equip it.

Now, this is stupid and Pact of the Blade is already so bad that anything less than a free feat won't convince people to use it, so I'd still let it happen if it fit with the patron.

[Misterwhisper]

It'd require a lot of homebrew decisions. Not only are you technically not able to summon the shield, but just because you summoned it doesn't necessarily mean it's donned. It'd require two actions for you to summon your shield and equip it.

Now, this is stupid and Pact of the Blade is already so bad that anything less than a free feat won't convince people to use it, so I'd still let it happen if it fit with the patron.

The bigger issue is that only hexblades are proficient with shields.

Giving free proficiency and 2 ac is a big deal.

[greenstone]

The problem with Mr. Whisper's interpretation is that it relies on a very undefined definition of what constitutes a melee or ranged weapon.

I think the definition is very well defined. "If an item is on the weapon table then it's a weapon. If it's not, it's not."

My games have an additional definition of, "If it's worn, it's not a weapon." Shields are not weapons, just like gauntlets and boots and gloves and helms are not weapons. If a player in my game wants their character to smack a foe with a shield, I get them to make an unarmed attack roll.

I agree that the rules could have used better phrasing, but I'm not sure what terms would be better than "melee weapon attack", "ranged weapon attack", "melee spell attack", and "ranged spell attack." What would you have used?

[Snowbluff]

The bigger issue is that only hexblades are proficient with shields.

Giving free proficiency and 2 ac is a big deal.

Just for everyone's information, this is what happens when you wear something you're not prof in.

Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells.

You can't cast your spells without prof, most importantly. This isn't like 3e or PF where you can make a shield with literally no penalties for wearing it without knowing what it is.

I think the definition is very well defined. "If an item is on the weapon table then it's a weapon. If it's not, it's not."



The Weapons table shows the most Common Weapons used in the fantasy gaming worlds, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. The list is only the most common. It's admitting here that it's neither comprehensive nor exclusive.
Well, we now know that's not the definition. Do you have something not made on a false premise?



My games have an additional definition of, "If it's worn, it's not a weapon." Shields are not weapons, just like gauntlets and boots and gloves and helms are not weapons. If a player in my game wants their character to smack a foe with a shield, I get them to make an unarmed attack roll.

I agree that the rules could have used better phrasing, but I'm not sure what terms would be better than "melee weapon attack", "ranged weapon attack", "melee spell attack", and "ranged spell attack." What would you have used?

My spiked gauntlets weep.

I will say making it only 4 attack categories is perfectly fine. I see no problem with letting people say, smite by bonking them with a shield or a chalice. I am against saying something is an improvised weapon somehow precludes it from the ranged and melee categories all weapons have, both because it's not what the rules say (RAI and RAW) and also because it makes the game less fun and have fewer options.

[Talionis]

I think I’d allow it, but an issue I see that I don’t think has been brought up is what if I have a magic maguffin. If I can pick the Maguffin up, I can use it as an improvised weapon, I can this bond with this weapon and hide the Maguffin in the Blade Pact pocket dimension.

[JackPhoenix]

Just for everyone's information, this is what happens when you wear something you're not prof in.


Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells.

You can't cast your spells without prof, most importantly. This isn't like 3e or PF where you can make a shield with literally no penalties for wearing it without knowing what it is.

Exactly. And PotB warlocks are proficient with the "weapon" they summon, which is why trying to get a shield as a pact weapon is blatant power grab, especially as the OP's intention is to use EB instead of using the pact weapon for attacks.

[JoeJ]

Exactly. And PotB warlocks are proficient with the "weapon" they summon, which is why trying to get a shield as a pact weapon is blatant power grab, especially as the OP's intention is to use EB instead of using the pact weapon for attacks.

Unless you rule that they're only proficient in using it as a weapon, and not for protection.

[Chronos]

I think that, RAW, you can't do it. And it opens up a huge can of worms if you allow an improvised weapon to be a Pact Weapon, because that would mean that a bladelock can conjure up any object imaginable (remember that you can change the form of your pact weapon).

It might be more reasonable if we just say that it can be a shield specifically. But the fact that you can change it every time you summon it would still make that pretty powerful: When you're close, summon a weapon as normal, but when you're at a distance and reduced to using Eldritch Blast, then make it a shield.

I might allow a "Pact of the Shield" as an alternative to Pact of the Blade, that let you change it into a different shield, but only a shield. That'd be useful to a blasting warlock, but it'd mean giving up the benefits of the other pact boons, which are probably more significant.

[Misterwhisper]

I think that, RAW, you can't do it. And it opens up a huge can of worms if you allow an improvised weapon to be a Pact Weapon, because that would mean that a bladelock can conjure up any object imaginable (remember that you can change the form of your pact weapon).

It might be more reasonable if we just say that it can be a shield specifically. But the fact that you can change it every time you summon it would still make that pretty powerful: When you're close, summon a weapon as normal, but when you're at a distance and reduced to using Eldritch Blast, then make it a shield.

I might allow a "Pact of the Shield" as an alternative to Pact of the Blade, that let you change it into a different shield, but only a shield. That'd be useful to a blasting warlock, but it'd mean giving up the benefits of the other pact boons, which are probably more significant.

Pact of the shield would be far easier. Just make a few new invocations.

Like at 5 make an invocation to allow the shield to be an arcane foci and + 1.

At 12 make an invocation where the shield does not occupy the hand it is attached to.

[Xetheral]

Also there is the point that it loses all traits.

Ex. If I use my longbow as an improvised weapon to make a melee attack, I do not get to use great weapon master simply because it has the trait heavy. As an improvised weapon it does not have that trait.

Things like this come from a basic misconception:

May people believe weapons are broken down as thus:

Melee weapon
Ranged weapon
Improvised melee weapon
Improvised ranged weapon

However that is not what it really is, weapons are actually categorized as:

Melee weapon
Ranged weapon
Improvised weapon: note NOT melee, and NOT ranged.

Improvised weapons are not melee weapons and not ranged weapons.
Your DM might consider one a weapon of the appropriate type if you have proficiency in a weapon that is very similar.
ex.
Using a chair leg, eh call it a club
Using a tent spike, call it a dagger

THEN you can just consider it the weapon as the dm called it, but then it is not an improvised weapon anymore.

If your DM is VERY lenient and very loose with the definitions they might consider a shield as a club but that is being very generous.

In general, no, you can not just use an ability that gives you a magical weapon to use to get shield proficiency and 2 AC.

I disagree with your interpretation of melee weapons and ranged weapons. We know from the text of the PHB that all weapons are either melee weapons or ranged weapons. We know from JC that improvised weapons are weapons when you attack with them. Ergo, improvised weapons are either melee weapons or ranged weapons when you attack with them.

I also disagree that an improvised weapon stops being improvised if the DM decides it is sufficiently similar to a weapon on the weapons table. The improvised weapon rules apply to objects that were not designed as weapons. Just because one might be similar enough to a weapon on the table to use its stats doesn't mean it was suddenly designed to be a weapon.

Your interpretation also leads to a contradiction with the text of the PHB. The PHB says: "a table leg is akin to a club". Under your interpretation, that would mean a table leg isn't an improvised weapon. But the PHB also explicitly includes a table leg on its list of example improvised weapons.

[Man_Over_Game]

It'd require a lot of homebrew decisions. Not only are you technically not able to summon the shield, but just because you summoned it doesn't necessarily mean it's donned. It'd require two actions for you to summon your shield and equip it.

Now, this is stupid and Pact of the Blade is already so bad that anything less than a free feat won't convince people to use it, so I'd still let it happen if it fit with the patron.


The bigger issue is that only hexblades are proficient with shields.

Giving free proficiency and 2 ac is a big deal.

Well, it's more like free proficiency FOR +2 AC.

Consider that Pact Tome basically gets you Magic Initiate, or that Pact of the Chain gets you an invisible flying familiar that can attack (and nobody else can duplicate), is +2 AC at the cost of not dealing magic damage really that big of a deal?

Or, put another way:

You can choose between getting Magic Initiate, an invisible flying scout that can cast spells for you, or +2 AC. Which do you choose?

[Misterwhisper]

Well, it's more like free proficiency FOR +2 AC.

Consider that Pact Tome basically gets you Magic Initiate, or that Pact of the Chain gets you an invisible flying familiar that can attack (and nobody else can duplicate), is +2 AC at the cost of not dealing magic damage really that big of a deal?

Or, put another way:

You can choose between getting Magic Initiate, an invisible flying scout that can cast spells for you, or +2 AC. Which do you choose?

It is not a cost of not dealing magic damage, because every warlock can just cast Agonizing blast for damage that is just as good as anything you would be swinging anyway unless you put a LOT into it.

The familiar can only attack if you give up your attack, which is going to be VERY rare that it would ever be used.


Just because pact of the blade is pretty horrible does not mean you can just give it whole new set of abilities that fit the class great as an interpretation of what it normally does.

If someone wants to let pact of the blade summon shields that is their business but don't try to play it off as RAW or RAI, it is home brew bandaging a crummy class option.

[Man_Over_Game]

If someone wants to let pact of the blade summon shields that is their business but don't try to play it off as RAW or RAI, it is home brew bandaging a crummy class option.

Oh, I agree that it's a homebrew choice (I don't think anyone really believes that a shield is a qualifying weapon), I'm just saying there's no reason not to allow it anyway.

[LibraryOgre]

Well, also, how does this change if Bladed/Spiked shields DO become PC available weapons? What if the Dark Sun Campaign setting includes Turtle Blades? Or the Complete Book of Lizard Men includes those spiked shields?

And, if you don't it as a core option, what would you consider an appropriate cost? A feat? An invocation?

[Man_Over_Game]

Well, also, how does this change if Bladed/Spiked shields DO become PC available weapons? What if the Dark Sun Campaign setting includes Turtle Blades? Or the Complete Book of Lizard Men includes those spiked shields?

And, if you don't it as a core option, what would you consider an appropriate cost? A feat? An invocation?

An invocation would be cool.


Shields are now available for your Pact of the Blade feature, and can be donned for free when you summon it. You can also now summon your Pact Weapon as a Bonus Action, and Improvised attacks with your Pact Weapon deal magic damage.

Total, this means you can throw any Pact Weapon and summon it back to you. You're proficient in doing so, and you still get the bonus of dealing magic damage. A poor man's Shadow Blade.

This makes you a pretty cool skirmisher who can focus on using a shield, throwing weapons, or even throwing shields.

[Misterwhisper]

Well, also, how does this change if Bladed/Spiked shields DO become PC available weapons? What if the Dark Sun Campaign setting includes Turtle Blades? Or the Complete Book of Lizard Men includes those spiked shields?

And, if you don't it as a core option, what would you consider an appropriate cost? A feat? An invocation?

They will never release a a shield that is a weapon, it would break too many class abilities.

The might however release a shield that, if proficient, can be used to make a bonus action attack as a special property.

[LordEntrails]

Jeremy's tweets are not RAW or RAI. They have no official status. They are the opinions of one person. He has even said as much and that until they show up in Errata, they are nothing more than the opinion of one person, who has no more standing that any other person.

So, you can quote him as much as you want, and even use his rulings as your rulings, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are rules.

[LibraryOgre]

Not having a big collection, is there an Invocation that lets you summon a second pact blade?

[Man_Over_Game]

Not having a big collection, is there an Invocation that lets you summon a second pact blade?

Nope. But technically, you could go Hexblade and can use your Cha-attacking ability on one weapon and a separate Pact blade. So you can't have two pact weapons, but you can have two Cha-attacking weapons.