D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

Hawk Diesel · Oct 22, 2018

[MENTION=6812267]Ganymede81[/MENTION] The way I understand him, [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] is placing priority on how an object looks visually to determine whether the damage an object might deal when used as an improvised weapon can be similar to a given weapon when used as a basis for comparison. In his arguments he has made it clear that (for some reason) the force a weapon / object-used-as-an-improvised-weapon might deal can be similar, but that this characteristic cannot be considered when determining if an object resembles a weapon. And so while he has admitted that a mace and a shield could produce a similar force, they would not deal similar damage in a D&D 5e game because they do not look enough alike to resemble each other, which I take to mean that they do not visually resemble each other (despite the fact that they clearly do resemble each other when other qualities outside of visual characteristics are considered, especially those characteristics that are most valuable when assessing the deadlines of weapins and objects being used as weapons).

So while he admits that each object could achieve similar results as an improvised weapon, this quality is not inherent to the actual object and thus does not matter unless it also looks like that weapon being used for comparison.

FrogReaver · Oct 22, 2018

Hawk Diesel said:
No, I don't agree. Because the section you reference deals with whether a character might include their proficiency bonus when using the object as an improvised weapon. It has nothing to do with the amount of damage that object deals when used as a weapon. By this rule, it means that a character proficient with clubs is able to wield a table leg with relatively similar proficiency, and thus include this bonus on attack rolls. It has nothing to do with damage.

I would be fine with someone stating that a person proficient with clubs does not have proficiency using a shield as a weapon, since they are distinct enough in their use that proficiency in clubs would not apply to shields, and thus that character could not include their proficiency bonus in the attack roll.

This is very distinct from how much damage a weapon does. A club and a shield may do similar damage. But they way they are used to deal that damage is different enough that proficiency in one does not entail proficiency in another.

As such, you can hit just as hard with a shield, but maybe not as often.

I want to thank you for being the only one to comment about the substance of my post. So Thank You!

I agree with you that this part is about proficiency. The part about damage starts in the next paragraph but it's still all under the same section.

So reading comprehension and context would dictate that since this part talks about physical similarity of objects to a weapon (aka club to table leg) then the next paragraph that immediately uses the word resemblance is talking about the same kind of similarity (Especially given that you acknowledge my view is a valid one). The authors didn't suddenly shift focus from talking about what I'm terming physical similarity and then suddenly without any additional words start in the very next sentence begin to use resemblance to a weapon as a totally difference concept. It's all connected. So it's actually not distinct at all. It's all the same thing. An improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such, a character can use an object similar to a weapon and apply proficiency bonus, a character when not using an object resembling a weapon does 1d4 damage... All that is saying the same thing. I don't mean to be rude, but this is like basic reading comprehension stuff...

FrogReaver · Oct 22, 2018

Hawk Diesel said:
[MENTION=6812267]Ganymede81[/MENTION] The way I understand him, [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] is placing priority on how an object looks visually to determine whether the damage an object might deal when used as an improvised weapon can be similar to a given weapon when used as a basis for comparison. In his arguments he has made it clear that (for some reason) the force a weapon / object-used-as-an-improvised-weapon might deal can be similar, but that this characteristic cannot be considered when determining if an object resembles a weapon. And so while he has admitted that a mace and a shield could produce a similar force, they would not deal similar damage in a D&D 5e game because they do not look enough alike to resemble each other, which I take to mean that they do not visually resemble each other (despite the fact that they clearly do resemble each other when other qualities outside of visual characteristics are considered, especially those characteristics that are most valuable when assessing the deadlines of weapins and objects being used as weapons).

So while he admits that each object could achieve similar results as an improvised weapon, this quality is not inherent to the actual object and thus does not matter unless it also looks like that weapon being used for comparison.

If I wanted to say visually I would have said visually. That's obviously a silly position. Instead I said physically similar.

Yunru · Oct 22, 2018

FrogReaver said:
I want to thank you for being the only one to comment about the substance of my post. So Thank You!

I'm pretty sure disagreeing with the core of your argument is commenting about the substance of a post.

Yunru · Oct 22, 2018

FrogReaver said:
If I wanted to say visually I would have said visually. That's obviously a silly position. Instead I said physically similar.

And yet, being made of metal and used to slam into someone doesn't count?
If I didn't know you better I'd be accusing you of being a troll.

Hawk Diesel · Oct 22, 2018

FrogReaver said:
I want to thank you for being the only one to comment about the substance of my post. So Thank You!

I agree with you that this part is about proficiency. The part about damage starts in the next paragraph but it's still all under the same section.

So reading comprehension and context would dictate that since this part talks about physical similarity of objects to a weapon (aka club to table leg) then the next paragraph that immediately uses the word resemblance is talking about the same kind of similarity (Especially given that you acknowledge my view is a valid one). The authors didn't suddenly shift focus from talking about what I'm terming physical similarity and then suddenly without any additional words start in the very next sentence begin to use resemblance to a weapon as a totally difference concept. It's all connected. So it's actually not distinct at all. It's all the same thing. An improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such, a character can use an object similar to a weapon and apply proficiency bonus, a character when not using an object resembling a weapon does 1d4 damage... All that is saying the same thing. I don't mean to be rude, but this is like basic reading comprehension stuff...

You say you don't want to be rude, but then you attack my ability to understand words because I have a different interpretation than you...

Look. You can read and see it this way if you want. No one is saying you are wrong in your ruling. Where people are so strongly and vehemently disagreeing with you is the assumption that because people are reading the text and understanding it differently than you, that we are house ruling while you are sticking to the RAW.

This is

1) Not ok, because it assumes you have a superior understanding / position from those who differ from you in a ruling regarding a fantasy game that is clearly an abstraction of reality

2) Flat out wrong. While the text is in a section that is thematically similar, the fact that it is a new paragraph means that the primary focus of a specific idea or concept has shifted. An example used in a previous paragraph can support your argument regarding how one could read the way that resemble might mean, but it is not as you purport the only way it could be read. Resemble has many meanings, and there are many characteristics that are important to considered when determining the fitness of an object to be used as a weapon. In fact, I would argue the entire philosophy of 5e, which was created to get away from lawyer-istic interpretations of rules and purposely create ambiguity to allow DMs more leeway in ruling based on their own interpretations and play style, would trump your argument regarding how one (according to you) MUST read that second paragraph.

FrogReaver said:
If I wanted to say visually I would have said visually. That's obviously a silly position. Instead I said physically similar.

Oh, I'm sorry! How is the ability to physically impart force from one object to another NOT a physical characteristic that can thus be considered physically similar to another such object?

Ganymede81 · Oct 22, 2018

WaterRabbit said:
No it is not. You are being imprecise with your terminology. The rhetorical technique he is using is called reductio ad absurdum.

That relies on taking someone's argument to an inevitable absurd extreme.

That is not the case here; they are instead refuting an argument, the argument that "physically similar" means "visually similar," that the other poster did not actually make.

Honestly, I think they might be trolling.

Hawk Diesel · Oct 22, 2018

Ganymede81 said:
Honestly, I think they might be trolling.

Yea, probably. I am beginning to think I may have invested way more into this than I should have.

WaterRabbit · Oct 22, 2018

Rule said:
Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their Weapons and have to Attack with whatever is at hand. An Improvised Weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead Goblin.

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.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee Attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

There are two parts to the rule that are under discussion: can a shield benefit from proficiency and what damage does it do.

Both of these fall under the GM's interpretation and are not house rules per se, since the rule above clearly puts it on the GM to determine this. This was the heart of the disagreement.

It is reasonable for the GM to assign a d6 to a shield as an analog to many of the other weapons that do 1d6 damage.

It is reasonable for a GM to allow a shield attack as part of a two-weapon fighting attack action, but only if the player had the Dual Wielder Feat.

[house rules]
However, unless the GM rules that a shield qualifies as a Light weapon, one would need the feat to pull this off. If ruled as qualifying, then the shield would not get the strength bonus unless negative.
[/house rules]

Previous rulings by Sage advice have stated using a shield as a weapon does not negate its AC bonus.

If the character is using the Dueling fighting style, it would be reasonable to disallow it on the same attack that a shield was used as well.

-----
I believe this summarizes everything in this discussion.