D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

WaterRabbit · Oct 22, 2018

I would like to add that giving a shield a d6 damage as an improvised weapon is entirely reasonable. In the SCA, hitting someone with a shield is not allowed as the energy from a hit (with shields that have been nerfed, btw) can knock out or kill someone wearing armor -- especially a blow to the head. This energy is generated just by extending the arm, so not much distance needed.

A shield punch is a common historical technique. With a shield punch you would also retain your AC as you are only using the edge of the shield.

What 5e doesn't address is the different types of shields. So a buckler would not be nearly as effective as a heater, so a d4 would be entirely appropriate. A tower shield would be too large to use as an improvised weapon except as part of a charge.

"Outlandish" is and "outlandish" exaggeration of allowing a d6 for a normal shield as represented in the PHB.

FrogReaver · Oct 22, 2018

WaterRabbit said:
I would like to add that giving a shield a d6 damage as an improvised weapon is entirely reasonable. In the SCA, hitting someone with a shield is not allowed as the energy from a hit (with shields that have been nerfed, btw) can knock out or kill someone wearing armor -- especially a blow to the head. This energy is generated just by extending the arm, so not much distance needed.

A shield punch is a common historical technique. With a shield punch you would also retain your AC as you are only using the edge of the shield.

What 5e doesn't address is the different types of shields. So a buckler would not be nearly as effective as a heater, so a d4 would be entirely appropriate. A tower shield would be too large to use as an improvised weapon except as part of a charge.

"Outlandish" is and "outlandish" exaggeration of allowing a d6 for a normal shield as represented in the PHB.

I have no problem with it being reasonable. I have a problem with calling it an interpretation of the rules. It’s not derived from the rules as evidenced that most arguments in favor have essentially been that it’s realistic for shields to cause a lot of damage when you hit with them.

That realism argument doesn’t impact the rules one bit. The rules are about resembling and a shield resembles no weapon even if it can realistically be used to apply equal or greater amounts of force compared with other weapons.

Hawk Diesel · Oct 22, 2018

Player's Handbook said:
In many cases, 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 DM’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 DM 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.

Emphasis mine. Nowhere in the entry does the official RAW say what damage an improvised weapon must do, but that the damage assigned is strictly the DM's discretion. It does provide an example to measure against as a benchmark, stating that an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage. However, it does not specify whether that is meant to be visible resemblance (your example of a kitchen knife versus a greatsword) or functional resemblance (a shield being able to be used in similar fashion and to similar effect as a club).

So I'm sorry [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION], but this is not a matter of house rule versus RAW. This is a merited interpretation of the rules, since it clearly states that the DM determines the appropriate damage. It does not state that all objects that are not directly in 1-to-1 correspondence to existing weapons must deal 1d4 damage, nor does it strictly clarify how the rules define "resemblance" in regards to an object compared to a weapon.

FrogReaver · Oct 22, 2018

Hawk Diesel said:
Emphasis mine. Nowhere in the entry does the official RAW say what damage an improvised weapon must do, but that the damage assigned is strictly the DM's discretion. It does provide an example to measure against as a benchmark, stating that an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage. However, it does not specify whether that is meant to be visible resemblance (your example of a kitchen knife versus a greatsword) or functional resemblance (a shield being able to be used in similar fashion and to similar effect as a club).

So I'm sorry @FrogReaver, but this is not a matter of house rule versus RAW. This is a merited interpretation of the rules, since it clearly states that the DM determines the appropriate damage. It does not state that all objects that are not directly in 1-to-1 correspondence to existing weapons must deal 1d4 damage, nor does it strictly clarify how the rules define "resemblance" in regards to an object compared to a weapon.

It doesn’t say the DM determines the damage. It says the DM determines the damage type. It does say that if an object resembles a weapon then You can use it as if it were that weapon. If not then it does 1d4 damage or DM determines appropriate type.

I mean seriously? You are now trying to twist inthe “the dm determines the damage” thought when that’s not present and openly contradicted in the rules you quoted

Satyrn · Oct 22, 2018

FrogReaver said:
When your interpretation is so outlandish that you are claiming that a shield resembles a mace then it’s a house rule.

His interpretation isn't outlandish. I find it reasonable, and his reasoning compelling.

epithet · Oct 22, 2018

FrogReaver said:
... The rules are about resembling and a shield resembles no weapon even if ...

A few people have now told you that they perceive similarities between a shield (used to hit someone) and a flanged mace. We all (I think) agree that a shield doesn't look like a mace, but in the context of hitting people with things some of us consider a shield to functionally resemble a mace.

You don't see any similarity between the two, whatsoever. Fine, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. We don't agree, I understand that. What I don't understand is why you "have a problem with calling it an interpretation of the rules." Just because you don't agree with that interpretation doesn't mean is isn't an interpretation at all.

As far as your dismissal of "that realism argument," I can only assume that you have an image of a shield and an image of a mace in your mind, each based off of a real example of an item of that type, and your argument is founded on the fact that those images in your mind have little in common. You are focussed on the "realism" of those mental images, despite the fact that in terms of the rules of D&D both of these items are just abstractions, line items with certain properties associated with them. There are many types of historical shield, some of which have more in common with certain types of historical mace than they do with some other types of shield. All of these are just "shield" in the D&D rules. There's not much difference between arguing that "this real thing would do similar damage to this other real thing if you were to hit someone with it" and "this real thing doesn't look like this other real thing."

Anyway, you asked a question, and I answered it. Then, I explained my answer. If my answer didn't give you quite what you were looking for, well... that's on you.

Hawk Diesel · Oct 22, 2018

FrogReaver said:
It doesn’t say the DM determines the damage. It says the DM determines the damage type. It does say that if an object resembles a weapon then You can use it as if it were that weapon. If not then it does 1d4 damage or DM determines appropriate type.

I mean seriously? You are now trying to twist inthe “the dm determines the damage” thought when that’s not present and openly contradicted in the rules you quoted

Alright, that is fair in regards to damage type. My eyes read over that and saw it as the damage die. But still, there is no clear definition in regards to what resemblance means, and thus this is still a valid avenue for a DM to have leeway in determining if a shield appropriately resembles a club in either form or function when used as a weapon.

FrogReaver · Oct 22, 2018

epithet said:
A few people have now told you that they perceive similarities between a shield (used to hit someone) and a flanged mace. We all (I think) agree that a shield doesn't look like a mace, but in the context of hitting people with things some of us consider a shield to functionally resemble a mace.

You don't see any similarity between the two, whatsoever. Fine, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. We don't agree, I understand that. What I don't understand is why you "have a problem with calling it an interpretation of the rules." Just because you don't agree with that interpretation doesn't mean is isn't an interpretation at all.

As far as your dismissal of "that realism argument," I can only assume that you have an image of a shield and an image of a mace in your mind, each based off of a real example of an item of that type, and your argument is founded on the fact that those images in your mind have little in common. You are focussed on the "realism" of those mental images, despite the fact that in terms of the rules of D&D both of these items are just abstractions, line items with certain properties associated with them. There are many types of historical shield, some of which have more in common with certain types of historical mace than they do with some other types of shield. All of these are just "shield" in the D&D rules. There's not much difference between arguing that "this real thing would do similar damage to this other real thing if you were to hit someone with it" and "this real thing doesn't look like this other real thing."

Anyway, you asked a question, and I answered it. Then, I explained my answer. If my answer didn't give you quite what you were looking for, well... that's on you.

A club in d&d is nearly the same as a club in the real world. Trust me that No one wants to go down the path that d&d objects are devoid of all properties except what is written under their statistics. We did that one long ago on the official d&d forums. What turned out was a game no one wanted to play. One where you could walk through walls walk straight up etc. it was a mess.

D&D has a number of blunt weapons listed in its weapon list. Clubs maces etc. some do d4. Some d6. Some d8. Some 2d6 etc. most of of those weapons all follow the same concept. A heavy blunt object that you hit things with.

There’s also other heavy blunt objects in various shapes and sizes that never were used in combat but would resemble all these weapons following the logic you applied to the shield. Are you treating them all as maces?

FrogReaver · Oct 22, 2018

Hawk Diesel said:
Alright, that is fair in regards to damage type. My eyes read over that and saw it as the damage die. But still, there is no clear definition in regards to what resemblance means, and thus this is still a valid avenue for a DM to have leeway in determining if a shield appropriately resembles a club in either form or function when used as a weapon.

The google definition of resemble.
have qualities or features, especially those of appearance, in common with (someone or something); look or seem like.

A shield does not resemble a mace. It has one property similar to a mace, it can be used to produce blunt force as can many many objects. Being able to produce blunt force does not make something resemble a mace

Hawk Diesel · Oct 22, 2018

FrogReaver said:
The google definition of resemble.
have qualities or features, especially those of appearance, in common with (someone or something); look or seem like.

A shield does not resemble a mace. It has one property similar to a mace, it can be used to produce blunt force as can many many objects. Being able to produce blunt force does not make something resemble a mace

Dictionary.com said:
Resemble
verb (used with object), re·sem·bled, re·sem·bling.

to be like or similar to.
Archaic. to liken or compare.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary said:
Definition of resemble
transitive verb

1. to be like or similar to
he resembles his father

2. archaic : to represent as like

Examples of resemble in a Sentence:
He strongly resembles his father in appearance and in temperament.
Terrier dogs closely resemble each other.

Yes. Resemble can mean in appearance. But it is not only in appearance. Even in the example provided by Merriam-Webster is not only limited resemblance to appearance, but also in temperament. Resemblance is not limited, or even mostly, in terms of appearance.

Perhaps you do not see the resemblance as I do. Perhaps you are focusing on different qualities or weighting these similarities differently. That's fine. But regardless, it does not make my rulings any less merited as a fair interpretation than your interpretation.

D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

WaterRabbit

Explorer

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Satyrn

First Post

epithet

Explorer

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

Similar Threads