Weapon + Shield to 2H Weapon?

[ForbidenMaster]

..the point being that in accordance with the rules dropping a shield (whether it is 'equipped or just held in your hands to carry it) is a free action. The rules make no distinction about being 'equipped' in this case, or in any!

If we take your definition of the rules, then you can drop armor as a free action. You are adding lines to the PHB that dont exist. A held item is held, and equipped item is equipped. The PHB says that you can drop a held item with a free action. It does not give rules for dropping an equipped item. When we are presented with a situation that is not covered in the rules it is up to the DM to decide what to do. It is that simple.

For what it is worth:

When you use a shield, you strap it to an arm and sometimes use the hand on that arm—your shield arm and shield hand.

PHB page 213

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The whole game mechanical point of the standard action to (un)equip a shield is to prevent people from gaming the system by dropping the shield, attacking using two-hands, and then reequipping it again all in the same move. Anything which accomplishes that goal is probably OK.

Even assuming you COULD reason from real life to game situations 4e's shields are so unrealistic as to make the whole exercise meaningless. Historically there have been essentially 2 types of shields, those with only a handle and those with 1 or 2 additional strap loops in addition to the handle. The division between the two types was never heavy vs light, it is by period. From prehistory up until sometime around the 12th century shields had a single handle in the center. From around the 12th century onwards it was increasingly popular to also have straps. In no case has there EVER been any sort of shield which left the shield hand free. Presumably the straps added some minor value, but since they didn't exist for 1000's of years and were never used on all shields that value can be deduced to have been reasonably minor. Shields may also have had other longer straps used to carry the shield when NOT fighting, they are not known to have ever been related to the function of the shield AS a shield. If you contrast this to the rules in 4e you will immediately see that there is little correlation with reality and its thus futile to try to extrapolate how the rules should work based on historical examples.

 

[DracoSuave]

...It's a single point of damage difference.

Why does the shield have to go?

 

[LightPhoenix]

For what it is worth:
PHB page 213

That's flavor text; it carries no rules information.

The chart on page 289 is where the ambiguity lies. On the one hand, Equip/Stow a Shield is a Standard Action, but Drop a Held Item is a free action.

Stowing something is different than dropping it; stowing implies you keep it on your person. Dropping implies just letting it go. It's a subtle difference, but there's no rule that says you can't drop a shield, since it's a held item.

Personally, I'd argue the standard action to put the shield back on (per the table) is enough of a penalty; no need to double dip.

 

[CapnZapp]

The whole game mechanical point of the standard action to (un)equip a shield is to prevent people from gaming the system by dropping the shield, attacking using two-hands, and then reequipping it again all in the same move. Anything which accomplishes that goal is probably OK.

This.

As long as you're unable to both enjoy the protection of the shield and the larger damage of the 2H weapon, any interpretation works fine.

 

[eamon]

Stowing something is different than dropping it; stowing implies you keep it on your person. Dropping implies just letting it go. It's a subtle difference, but there's no rule that says you can't drop a shield, since it's a held item.

Holding a weapon isn't the same as wielding it. Holding a shield isn't the same as having it equipped. The "dropping a held item" rule doesn't (clearly) apply.

Personally, I'd argue the standard action to put the shield back on (per the table) is enough of a penalty; no need to double dip.

I agree that that suffices to avoid the balance issue that would arise from being able to freely swap a shield for a two-handed weapon. It still does cause some a minor balance issue; it makes it attractive to walk around with a shield and only drop it when your turn comes around.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If the "dropping an item" rules applies to equipped shields, then shouldn't the "pick up an item" rules apply as well? Obviously, the latter doesn't apply and therefore neither should the former.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I would let a player in my campaign drop his shield as a minor action. Not by the rules maybe, but it feels right.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the "dropping an item" rules applies to equipped shields, then shouldn't the "pick up an item" rules apply as well? Obviously, the latter doesn't apply and therefore neither should the former.

Yes, actually they both do apply. You can pick up your shield with a minor action, and its still not strapped to your arm and equipped properly, which requires a standard action. So, no problem.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yes, actually they both do apply. You can pick up your shield with a minor action, and its still not strapped to your arm and equipped properly, which requires a standard action. So, no problem.

Exactly my point - they don't both apply. But, apparently I wasn't clear about 'they.' In this case, I mean to say that you can't simply drop an equipped shield, just like you can't simply pick up a shield and call it equipped. Allowing dropping a shield that is equipped as a free action is like allowing dropping something out of your backpack as a free action (without the minor to retrieve it first).