D&D 5E Using a shield as an 'improvised weapon' while retaining the AC bonus

r0gershrubber said:

One of my players thinks that (a) shields should qualify as 'light' improvised weapons, and (b) characters should retain the shield AC bonus while using a shield as a weapon.

I can't find anything in the PHB about attacking with a shield other than the option in the Shield Master feat. Have I missed something? I know that in previous editions/PF the shield bonus to AC was generally lost when attacking with a shield, and only light shields (+1 AC) were light weapons. It looks like spiked shields in the playtest had balance issues because they worked similarly to my player's interpretation.

It seems to me that, due to the low cost of attacking with an offhand weapon and the already sizable benefit of carrying a shield, this interpretation makes the 'sword and board' option much better than other dual wielding options (and great weapons for that matter).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Depends on how you're running the game. If you are aiming more for a real-world analog, fighting with your actual shield (effectively, more than to merely bash or push) is difficult. In most situations, I wouldn't allow it unless in specific circumstances (action narrative, et al.). If you're running a more fantastic (fantasy) game, you could draft up your own feat, or work with the player for some kind of trade-off; such as losing proficiency in something else, and filling it with some kind of Weapon Proficiency: Shield.

Anyways, I always advise to say Yes and then find a resolution. Makes for more fun. If the player is trying to squeeze the most out of RAW, then you may need to address that separately.

was said:

..No, I have not gone the SCA route with the wooden swords. I have, however, had the opportunity to swing a sword in full chainmail with a metal shield. Being untrained, I was quickly knocked on my backside sparring against a trained opponent.
..Shields are not the light little things players like to imagine them being. Most of them are not particularly light. I cannot imagine wooden props being the same weight.

Click to expand...

I would wager a very great deal that we have vastly different images in mind when we both think "boards as shields".

was said:

Using the shield as a weapon will unbalance you if you are not trained in using it as such. Note the 'improvised' portion of the discussion.
...I would have to disagree with the assertion that an untrained shield fighter would be able to make that attack and recover their stance in a single attack action. Maybe a full-round action.
...Unless I misread the OP, we're not talking about a simple shoulder check to gain advantage of position. We're talking about a heavy strike with the wielders full strength behind it designed to do actual physical damage to an opponent. I tend to see that more of a swinging motion of the arm than a more economic pushing movement.

Click to expand...

Yeah... we're not coming at this with any kind of similar optics I think.

My position :
- any kind of action (even the simple "punch") by an untrained person will put them out of balance. In fact, an untrained person in combat is, most probably, out of balance - not matter what he or she is doing.
- any kind of person wielding a shield with what I equate to D&D-level proficiency is proficient with it in a good range of settings - including offense.
- any kind of adventurer is not equatable to an untrained person (at minimum, I consider even a wizard type to be of equivalent combat ability to a "mass-market" black belt level - barring fluff that he or she isn't really an adventurer: he or she's been caught up in events outside his control, etc)
- I know that an "arm swing" is very often a very weak attack as opposed to strikes powered by legs or hips/core (ie. a shield "swing" will usually have less power than a shield "shove" - the damaging aspect will come more from the angle of the shield, which part of the shield strikes and where it strikes)

None of this is trying to imply that my point is better - I'm simply trying to explicit where I'm coming from and what I consider as baseline.

You seem to have a different baseline - one that is quite possibly shared by more people - with regards to the level of skill implied by proficiency. I'm pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on topics such as these, but I wanted to share where I stand.

I would allow it but it uses your attack and you are not proficient with it. It is not an extra attack like TWF, just something you can do in an emergency. Like if you have been disarmed or your main weeapon sundered.

MoutonRustique said:

You seem to have a different baseline - one that is quite possibly shared by more people - with regards to the level of skill implied by proficiency. I'm pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on topics such as these, but I wanted to share where I stand.

Click to expand...

Yeah..I tend to see more in areas of specialization vs. generalization. For example, I can see a generic regimen of fighter training enabling them to use all sorts of shields as the defensive tools they were designed to be. Special maneuvers, however, such as using them offensively as an improvised weapon would require extra/specialized training. Maybe not to the point of needing to waste a feat on them. I'd probably let it go if the fighter had the sword and shield focus option listed in the class.

I would allow attacking with a shield as an improvise weapon (main attack). If you want to shield bash off hand, it would be TWF, and since it isnt light, you'd need the TWF feat. Then you can bonus action attack with it for d4. I would say this is such a small amount of extra damage that it's fine. On the other hand I can see DMs ruling that if you attack with the shield as bonus action, treating it as a weapon, you lose the AC bonus till the start of your next turn. It just isnt an efficient way to go. Seems to me you are much better off going with shield master and bonus action prone, which can be narrated in a cool way and is all mechanical advantage, a very efficient and powerful feat.

Actually I suppose could work with a paladin and smite.

Not specified as light, so DW feat needed, though I'd let my players get the option of a +1AC "light" shield specifically for this purpose (so no DW needed if you're using a light weapon in combination with it). And proficiency with shield I'd allow for that attack I believe, though no attribute bonus on the damage just as for TWF.

Even then it's probably much more effective to use the actual shield master feat to put that bonus action to use.

Bash someone with a shield? Sure. Shields are good for bashing and Captain American is cool.
Bash someone as a shield while two-weapon fighting... probably not. Okay, a buckler type shield would probably count as a light weapon and thus allow TWF w/o a feat. A full sized shield, that's just too large to pair with a sword.

That said, losing your shield AC bonus to make a second attack isn't that unbalanced. I'd even knock the damage up to 1d6. It's a choice then: extra attack or AC. I'd allow it as a bonus action.

There is honestly no real world reason why you should not be able to bash with a shield and use it as a protective device. In fact, that is often how it was used.

If a person had two-weapon fighting, I would have no problem allowing them to bash with it and attack with their main weapon. That would be using the shield as it was used in the days when they saw much use. Same as knights often used their armor as a weapon to ram people, then cut them with their sword, and deflect attacks. I'd be fine with it. In the hands of a non-2W fighter, it doesn't add ability damage. It uses your only bonus action if you attack with the off-hand. If you use it as a main hand attack, it does less damage than your main weapon. There is no mechanical reason not to allow a bonus action attack for 1d4 damage (no ability modifier without two-weapon fighting style) for a bonus action.

It's not like 3E where you could turn the shield into a substantial weapon. In 5E using an off-hand shield bash is a 1d4 damage attack using a bonus action. Most classes can find a far superior use of a bonus action.

77IM said:

Well if you wear the shield as a hat, would you retain the AC bonus?

Click to expand...

"Rocks fall, everyone dies. Except for 77IM; he was wearing his shield as a hat and shrugs off the rocks-from-above..."

TPK averted!

The Dual Wielder feat cannot be used with a Shield because strictly speaking a Shield is not a "melee weapon": it simply does not appear on the Weapons table. Trying to go the "improvised weapon" route doesn't work either: improvised weapons are, by definition, objects that are either "similar to a weapon" or which "bears no resemblance to a weapon." Improvised Weapons are explicitly not weapons. They're objects, used as weapons.

Fortunately, houserules can save the day.

Matt James said:

or work with the player for some kind of trade-off; such as losing proficiency in something else, and filling it with some kind of Weapon Proficiency: Shield.

Click to expand...

In 5E, there's already a proficiency for Shields. As long as we're talking houseruling, it'd make sense to allow that proficiency to include using a shield as a weapon, and thereby allow adding proficiency bonus to attacks made with a shield.

So make the shield a 1d4 Blunt weapon with the Heavy property when wielded by someone with Proficiency. Just stick it on the Weapons list as a one-handed martial weapon. Then treat it like any other one-handed martial weapon.

Now anyone with proficiency can use a shield as a 1d4 weapon (with Disadvantage on attack rolls if Small). And if you have the Dual Wielder feat, you can TWF with it. Season how you treat the AC bonus (and if it stacks with Dual Wielder) to taste. Personally, I'd keep the +2 to AC always (even when attacking with the shield), but not allow the +1 from DW to stack (in 3E terms, treat the +1 as a Shield bonus).