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

[r0gershrubber]

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?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Using an improvised weapon is not particularly optimal, so it won't break the game -- if you want to allow it, go for it.

I wouldn't, personally. I like to retain some niche protection for the various fighting styles, so allowing one to encroach on another in this way just rubs me the wrong way. Why do sword & board if I can do TWF and get all of the same benefits plus the TWF benefits (and vice versa)? The idea of tough choices that trade off abilities are part of the balance of the game; I understand players want everything for nothing but that doesn't mean they should get it.

 

[Paraxis]

Don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. Also don't ever use lizardfolk or your player will wonder why he cant just use their spiked shields.

 

[77IM]

I'd allow it as an improvised weapon, but not a light one. I think it's also fair to rule that you have to give up the AC benefit for this.

Ask your player whether they want every single shield-bearing monster to be getting these extra attacks all the time against the PCs.

I think the existence of Shield Master implies that attacking effectively with both weapon+shield requires a special ability.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Shield are not weapons with the light property, so i wouldn't treat them as such. But I'd definitly let a player use one as an improvised weapon while retaining its AC bonus. The tradeof would be the loss of his proficiency bonus on the attack roll in fact.

I don't see most PC doing this unless one needs a free hand for something else.

 

[Bupp]

You don't get an AC bonus when two weapon fighting, so if they want to attack with their shield, I'd rule that the forfeit the AC bonus. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Paraxis]

They are not light weapons so you would need the dual wielder feat to attack without disadvantage, you would get to add your strength mod to the damage which would be nice too.

There is no rule even close to saying they should lose the AC bonus, in fact with the dual wielder feat the AC would go up by 1.

 

[77IM]

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

 

[Paraxis]

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

No because it is not in hand and that is part of using a shield, nothing about not gaining the AC bonus if you attack with it.

Shields.
A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.


AC in 5e is supposed to be simple, there is no flat footed AC or touch AC, if you are unconscious you still add your dexterity modifier to your AC, they do this to make it simple. Changing your AC up every round because you shield bash or not is going against the grain of 5e.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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

Only against head shots.