Can you disarm a shield?

[Adumbration]

Q 628

Can a shield be disarmed?

A 628

Yes, but it's not necessarily easy. A shield would qualify as a well-secured, worn item:

Grabbing Items

You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target. If you want to have the item in your hand, the disarm must be made as an unarmed attack.

If the item is poorly secured or otherwise easy to snatch or cut away the attacker gets a +4 bonus. Unlike on a normal disarm attempt, failing the attempt doesn’t allow the defender to attempt to disarm you. This otherwise functions identically to a disarm attempt, as noted above.

You can’t snatch an item that is well secured unless you have pinned the wearer (see Grapple). Even then, the defender gains a +4 bonus on his roll to resist the attempt.

628, rebuttal

A shield would also qualify as a weapon. One that can be readied, on an extremity, in a single move action, and taken off in the same.

In your opinion, would you have to maintain total body control, including partially choking your opponent until he cannot speak, to even have a shot of getting off this item that the defender can take a move and a free action (less than 6 seconds) to toss to the ground? Or would establishing control over a single arm be sufficient to yank it out?

If the latter is true, then that is best represented by either a melee weapon (which a shield is) or a poorly-secured item, and disarmed without a pin.

So what is right? (By the way, Talic is involved in the PbP arena where the question is popped up. He disarmed the shield.)

[Kizara]

If you want an opinion, I treat shields as weapons for purposes like this.

[RMS Oceanic]

I'd personally rule that it depends what the shield was used for. If it has been used to bash, and the wielder doesn't have Improved Shield Bash, then it is a normal weapon, as you consequently lose your AC bonus when you do that. If you do have ISB, then you've kept it secure when you bash, so it would be harder to disarm.

That's just my opinion.

[Duke of URL]

I stand by my original statement that it is a worn item:

Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel

You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else.

...

Shield, Light, Wooden or Steel

You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield’s weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

Note that in both cases, the shield is strapped to the forearm, which makes it worn and secured.

Edit: I've modified the original post in the RAW thread to include this clarification.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I stand by my original statement that it is a worn item:



Note that in both cases, the shield is strapped to the forearm, which makes it worn and secured.

It is also held, which is where I think the problem lies. It does both.

[Brother Oni]

Speaking from a real world point of view, it depends on the shield.

Some shields require to be strapped onto the user to be effective and take some preparation time to wear. These would be harder to disarm, but wouldn't be able to be readied in a move action.

Other shields are just worn on a sling and have additional straps that allow it to be held with one hand. I'd judge these to be able to be readied with a move action, thrown away easily, etc, but also to be disarmed more easily.

My opinion is that before the combat starts, the DM needs to confirm how the shield is worn and whether the user has had suitable preparation time.

[Brother Oni]

It is also held, which is where I think the problem lies. It does both.

Referring back to my earlier post, it depends. Supposing the heavy shield is like the strapped shield in my example, the user wouldn't be able to let go of it, even if he wanted to, so it would be more like a worn item.

Note that this may have interesting effects outside of combat as with a large shield, you wouldn't be able to go through narrow spaces easily.

[Telonius]

I would say that they're both right, depending on the situation.

From the Shield description:

Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else

"Strapped to your forearm" sounds like it's reasonably well-secured, so "Grab an item" wouldn't apply unless the character is pinned.

However:

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.

There's a similar paragraph for Light Shields. So in this way, the shield would be subject to Disarm, as though it were a normal melee weapon. A light shield is a light melee weapon, so would receive a -4 penalty on the opposed attack roll; a heavy shield would receive no penalty. Neither would take a -4 penalty for it not being a melee weapon.

Where this breaks down, at least a little, is for Bucklers. You can't bash with a Buckler, so it's not a weapon. But it also seems to be a bit more like a worn item. So, I'd say that it can't be disarmed at all, unless the character is pinned; though it would be subject to Sundering.

[kamikasei]

Why does "you can bash with it" mean "it's a weapon, so you can disarm it"? Can you disarm armor spikes?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Why does "you can bash with it" mean "it's a weapon, so you can disarm it"? Can you disarm armor spikes?

It's held. That's the issue. It's held in your hand, which means it's Disarmed like a weapon, but it's also strapped onto your arm, which means it should be treated like a worn object.

[Triaxx]

Disarming a Buckler is likely akin to disarming a dagger. A small shield is easier, but beyond that it's more difficult.

When does it become more useful to simply Sunder the shield instead of trying to disarm it? When you're not sititing within arms reach of the opponent's player, that's when.

[metagaia]

It should have some penalty to disarm though, since dropping a shield takes a move action, as opposed to a free action for a weapon.

The locked gauntlet gives any weapon a +10 against disarm checks, and it takes a full-round action to drop a weapon from a locked gauntlet.

I would thus rule than a +5 bonus to avoid a shield being disarmed seems appropiate.

[kamikasei]

It's held. That's the issue.

It's not the only issue. For example, RMS Oceanic above suggests that it may become disarmable or not depending on whether it was used to do damage in that round.

The fact that it is strapped to the arm to me says it's worn and has to be disarmed as a worn item - it's not being held in the hand so that it can be knocked out and dropped. The hand is being used to secure and control it, not to keep it from falling off.

You could disarm it as a worn item to cut the straps and cause it to fall off. Or you could disarm it as a held item to make it hard/impossible to control - you lose the AC or take a penalty, and you can't bash with it, but it's still on your arm and you can immediately grasp it again and regain all its benefits the next round.

[Kizara]

Disarming a Buckler is likely akin to disarming a dagger. A small shield is easier, but beyond that it's more difficult.

When does it become more useful to simply Sunder the shield instead of trying to disarm it? When you're not sititing within arms reach of the opponent's player, that's when.

I say anything that's not one of the wierd Races of Stone exotic shields or a tower shield is effectively a weapon for this purpose.

Considering it IS strapped to your arm, I'd grant a +2 bonus against it being disarmed, ala similar effects.

Honestly, the game treats them as such in many ways as well, and I'm surprized that disarming shields isn't directly addressed anywhere, it seems a fairly obvious tactic.

EDIT: Actually, I agree with the logic of the +5 above. TBH, this has never actually come up in one of my games. Once someone Sundered a shield, but people just generally attack the wielder.

[Duke of URL]

It's held. That's the issue. It's held in your hand, which means it's Disarmed like a weapon, but it's also strapped onto your arm, which means it should be treated like a worn object.

It's a grey area, for sure, but as far as I read it, RAW is that it is secured due to being strapped to your body. But I will allow that the rules are not entirely explicit here.

As an aside, I'd probably not rule it this way in a game I was DMing, but rather use the following interpretation:

A shield is a worn item that is neither poorly-secured nor well-secured, and subject to a normal disarm attempt; however, since it is strapped to the body, this disarm attempt would only release it from the hand, not the body, and thus it could be re-equipped on the wearer's next turn. However, until then, the wearer would not gain any benefit from the shield.

[Telonius]

I almost put the locked gauntlet comparison in my post as well, but that would technically be a houserule and not RAW. I think it would be an extremely logical houserule, though.

[Enlong]

Yeah, you can disarm a shield, as long as the shield isn't securing its weapons with a locked gauntlet.

[Matthew]

I would imagine that you could disarm a light or heavy shield with a normal disarm attempt; however that would only mean that you had knocked it from "readied" to "unreadied", as the shield is secured to the character, either by being strapped to the arm or via a shoulder strap.

[Another_Poet]

It's held. That's the issue. It's held in your hand, which means it's Disarmed like a weapon, but it's also strapped onto your arm, which means it should be treated like a worn object.

I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning is flawed.

If it's strapped AND held... then it's as secure as something strapped. The fact that you add extra security to it (holding it) does not make the straps any weaker, nor does it mean you get to ignore them.

Comparisons:

Spoiler

Show

If a chest has two locks--an "average lock" and an "amazing lock"--you have to overcome both to open it. Beating the Open Lock DC of the average lock does not open the chest on its own.

If a doorway is barricaded by wooden planks (break DC 18) and a slab of stone (break DC 50), you don't get through by rolling a 30, even though you broke the wooden planks.

If a goblin wears a Ring of Protection +1 and a Ring of Protection +3, your attack roll better be at least 3 higher than its normal (non-magicked) AC; rolling high enough to get past the weaker Ring of Protection doesn't mean anything.

In all these cases, it would be ludicrous for a player to claim that they succeed because they got past the weaker of two obstacles. Disarming something "held" is easier than grabbing something "secured" (in this case, strapped). If something is both held and secured, you have to overcome at least the more difficult odf the two, the "secured" part. A shield doesn't stop being secured just because it is also held, nor because the shield is used for an attack roll. The straps stay on regardless.

A kind DM would use the rules for a worn, secured item. A stickler DM would require separate disarm attempts for the strap (worn, secured) and the hand (held). Anything else is a house rule.

ap

[kamikasei]

I would imagine that you could disarm a light or heavy shield with a normal disarm attempt; however that would only mean that you had knocked it from "readied" to "unreadied", as the shield is secured to the character, either by being strapped to the arm or via a shoulder strap.

I would say this is the consensus for how one should reasonably houserule it. Whether it's what the rules actually say... But if a ruling to use in your game is what you desire, go with this.

[Roderick_BR]

I agree that it should be threated as a "weapon" with a locked gauntlet.
An interesting option from one of those old 3.0 books (sword & fist, I believe), is a feat that allow you to use your off-hand weapon to strike a shield, denying it's AC bonuses only for the rest of that round, with the target being able to reposition it as a free action after that attacker's turn is done. You could rule that someone with multiple attacks (or multiple attackers) could use one of his attacks to knock a shield outta the way (without making it actually drop), or take the -5/-10 to fully knock it off.

[Tacoma]

Can you disarm someone's helmet? It is, after all, held on by just one strap. Maybe a hinge or something.

What about his boot? Can you disarm his boot? He can take it off in one action!

The answer is, it depends on the shield. If the shield is one that is securely strapped on, then the wielder needs to be pinned down or incapacitated. But the disarmer must simply take off the shield at that point - unstrap it as the wielder would have to do.

If the shield is a normal one, where you slide your arm through a strap and then grip a handle, I can see it being disarmed. It could be grabbed and pulled off strenuously. Or struck so hard you lose your grip, your arm swings wide, and it slides off your arm. This kind of shield could be dropped by the wielder in a single action. But I would give a -4 to disarm it.

If it's simply held, like a weapon, and can be dropped for a free action, then there is no disarm penalty - it's just like a weapon.

Nobody start disarming boots now, please.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Nobody start disarming boots now, please.

You can sunder them, though. While someone's wearing them. Helmets, too.

Figure that one out.

[Tacoma]

Sunder has all its own problems.

Note that the material of a stereotypical "plain gold ring" from which almost all magic rings seem to be made has poor Hardness and horrible HP as it is rarely more than a quarter-inch thick.

And that you can blast a ring off a Wizard's hand with 50 points overflow Greataxe damage without giving him a scratch.

[Curmudgeon]

Gauntlet, Locked

This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus on any roll made to keep from being disarmed in combat.

We've got a precedent for weapons being strapped on here. Why not just extend this to the strapped on shields (light & heavy)?

As for sundering a ring, I think the problem comes not from the actual sunder mechanics, but from the DM not enforcing the Spot rules regarding such items.

Difficulty (DC): Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)

Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action.
...
Per 10 feet of distance: -1 penalty

When characters first have line of sight (and are within the maximum viewing distance permitted by the terrain), both sides get a chance to make a Spot check to notice the other party. This is a reactive check, and requires no stated action by the player. After that, there is generally no possibility of seeing anything missed on that first Spot check without making a stated Spot check, and using a move action for the purpose. (The Quick Reconnoiter feat is a way around this, providing an extra Spot chance each round.) Did the Barbarian Spot the Wizard's ring when they first had line of sight at 50' separation? Probably not. Did the Barbarian use up a move action to get more information about the small gear the Wizard is carrying or wearing? If not, simply following the rules makes it impossible for the Barbarian to sunder a ring that was never perceived.

We've got too may DMs and players playing D&D as if the automatic encounter rules of 3.0 and earlier editions were still in effect. They're not. 3.5 is a more tactically complex game. If you fail to Spot something -- even an adjacent person attacking you -- you have to treat them as visually undetectable until you succeed on a check. Keen eyesight and automatic tactical assessment of all items on a battlefield isn't a given. You've simply got to have the skill -- or at least luck on your d20 rolls.

[Matthew]

We've got too may DMs and players playing D&D as if the automatic encounter rules of 3.0 and earlier editions were still in effect. They're not. 3.5 is a more tactically complex game. If you fail to Spot something -- even an adjacent person attacking you -- you have to treat them as visually undetectable until you succeed on a check. Keen eyesight and automatic tactical assessment of all items on a battlefield isn't a given. You've simply got to have the skill -- or at least luck on your d20 rolls.

For what it is worth, I completely disagree with this assessment.

[Curmudgeon]

For what it is worth, I completely disagree with this assessment.

Huh? What do you disagree with? The existence of the rules, my interpretation of them, or something else?

[ericgrau]

Shields are not held, they are strapped to your arm. You even need one move action to get your shield, and a second move action to strap it on. Disarming a well secured object requires pinning a target first (see grapple rules), and the target gets a +4 bonus even after you pin him. Whether or not a shield is well secured depends on which picture you look at. One involves buckles like a belt, another just loose straps. But loose straps wouldn't take a move action IMO; you would strap it on as you draw it. Or you could rule that a shield strapped on that well couldn't be disarmed at all.
Or house rule what Curmudgeon said or etc.

EDIT: It also seems like the straps on shields are secure since you're allowed to hold any item in your shield hand. You can't swing a weapon unless the shield is a buckler and you can't use the hand for casting, but you could hold just about anything in that hand. Like, say, a lantern. I would think that if a shield were loosely strapped it would make this at least highly annoying and perhaps impossible.

Curmudgeon & spot checks: You don't need to take a move action or any action to make a spot check, even after the encounter begins. You get one automatically each round, but may spend a move action to get an extra one. As the DM you may reroll for the barbarian or rule that the barbarian uses his original spot check but without the -5 distance penalty once he gets up close (i.e., if he closes in the same round IMO). And once the ring was pointed out to him he would likely see it regardless. I forget exactly what the rules say on this; it might be a +X bonus or it might simply rely on common sense.

[Curmudgeon]

You don't need to take a move action or any action to make a spot check, even after the encounter begins. You get one automatically each round

True, but those are to react to new situations -- things that weren't there to be seen before.

but may spend a move action to get an extra one.

No, that's something different entirely. You may use a move action Spot check to try to see things you missed previously. That's the rule.

Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action.

As the DM you may reroll for the barbarian or rule that the barbarian uses his original spot check but without the -5 distance penalty once he gets up close (i.e., if he closes in the same round IMO).

That's a house rule that's directly in contradiction to the RAW. The D&D rules require using a move action Spot check.

And once the ring was pointed out to him he would likely see it regardless.

Sure, that would make sense to include a circumstance bonus to a new check, but who's going to point it out, and how -- using up a move action to point? And then the Barbarian still needs to use a move action to make the new check, and still must succeed before the ring is perceived.

To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. ... Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

You don't Spot anything until you succeed on your check. So sayeth the RAW.

[elliott20]

or you can chop off the whole arm and make it a literal disarm! *ba-dum-chh*

okay, I'll just go over there in the corner now.