D&D 5E rules for attacking with a shield?

[Warmaster Horus]

I've always ruled it that you can do a bonus attack with a shield (base dmg 1d6), but when you do, you lose the AC bonus until the start of your next turn.

I don't see a problem with that. I wouldn't allow an armor magical bonus be applied to-hit or damage, either.

 

[GlassJaw]

My take, based on what is actually in the rules:

You can use a shield as an improvised weapon. That means it isn't used as a shield that round. Improvised, and so generally unskilled, deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage, not a light weapon.
(1d4 because of consistency. Easy to remember, and it does not matter much if it is 1d2 or 1d4. I could even go for 1d6 if used in two hands to batter with the rim, just because of fictional precedence*.)

With skill, that is Shield Master feat, you can also use it to shove others around.

Simple enough.



There's nothing wrong with house rules, but if you allow a shield to be used to attack and keep the AC bonus the same round (and even make it Light) it becomes a better alternative to two weapon fighting, and shield users would start taking two weapon fighting styles and feats. Which is really weird and steals the thunder in a major way from cooler TWF.

I like this since it piggy-backs off of existing rules. I would probably treat shields as non-light weapons, thus requiring Dual Wielder if you wanted to use it for TWF.

I'm less concerned about whether you maintain the AC bonus if you attack with a shield since Shield Master already has a similar mechanic; you don't lose your AC if you shove an opponent.

That said, I do see validity in losing the AC bonus if you use a bonus action to attack with the shield while TWF. As Henrix said, that would take away a lot of the TWF thunder. Maintaining the AC in that case feels like a feat, and I think it would ok to bring that under the umbrella of Shield Master.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Good point about not making it a Light Weapon and requiring TWF to use properly. Not sure if they would be improvised weapons for those trained in them, though. Hmm.

 

[ccooke]

I think removing the AC bonus if you attack with a shield is just too much faff. One of the best things about 5e is that it doesn't need constant recalculation.

Consider:

Under the actual rules of 5e, you get the AC bonus from a shield while you wield it. There is no condition or exemption - wear a shield, get +2 to AC.
Keeping the bonus to AC isn't a house rule; removing it is.

As to the suggestion that shields not losing their AC bonus when you attack with them gives the Sword-and-Board fighter an advantage over the Two-Weapon Fighter, I have to admit I find that hilarious. Under the rules, a sword-and-board fighter can choose to either attack with their proficient, probably 1d8 damage weapon or they can attack with their shield as an improvised weapon, doing 1d4 damage and with a minimum -2 penalty to hit. Even with the +2 to AC, I don't see how that can possibly encroach upon the TWF's territory. If you allow the Sword-and-Board fighter the Dual Wielder feat, they can attack with a bonus action using their shield... still at a minimum -2 to hit and for only 1d4+STR mod damage. However, to be fair you would also have to allow the TWF the same feat. Which means the two-weapon specialist can now dual wield weapons that do 1d8 damage rather than 1d6, and they get a +1 AC bonus to boot.

Note that the sword-and-board fighter with the Dual Wielder feat does not get an extra +1 to AC by the rules as written; the extra bonus applies only when the character has a one-handed melee weapon in each hand. Shields are not weapons.

 

[rocket1969]

I think removing the AC bonus if you attack with a shield is just too much faff. One of the best things about 5e is that it doesn't need constant recalculation.

Consider:

Under the actual rules of 5e, you get the AC bonus from a shield while you wield it. There is no condition or exemption - wear a shield, get +2 to AC.
Keeping the bonus to AC isn't a house rule; removing it is.

As to the suggestion that shields not losing their AC bonus when you attack with them gives the Sword-and-Board fighter an advantage over the Two-Weapon Fighter, I have to admit I find that hilarious. Under the rules, a sword-and-board fighter can choose to either attack with their proficient, probably 1d8 damage weapon or they can attack with their shield as an improvised weapon, doing 1d4 damage and with a minimum -2 penalty to hit. Even with the +2 to AC, I don't see how that can possibly encroach upon the TWF's territory. If you allow the Sword-and-Board fighter the Dual Wielder feat, they can attack with a bonus action using their shield... still at a minimum -2 to hit and for only 1d4+STR mod damage. However, to be fair you would also have to allow the TWF the same feat. Which means the two-weapon specialist can now dual wield weapons that do 1d8 damage rather than 1d6, and they get a +1 AC bonus to boot.

Note that the sword-and-board fighter with the Dual Wielder feat does not get an extra +1 to AC by the rules as written; the extra bonus applies only when the character has a one-handed melee weapon in each hand. Shields are not weapons.

Well thought out. i guess the main difference in the arguments is one of rules versus reality. A shield in reality is very much a weapon. in the game not so much. I'd play it as a two weapon fighting circumstance with the shield not being a light weapon. Point of fact--a sword and shield wielder in real life was cross cultural. it existed for a reason...protection and the ability to use it as an offensive weapon. You saw plenty of historical fighters with eapon and shield. Not so many wielding two weapons. I'm not going to belabor the point. RAW i would have to go with what you have written. Gming it? d4 off hand attack as if they were using a normal weapon. i don't see it as particularly imbalancing. \

 

[Henrix]

In real life a shield was used offensively to unbalance the opponent*, not to deal real damage.

A shield has no reach to speak of. No sharp edges, no momentum. It's like a very clumsy fist.

Get a shield, and try to imagine how you would damage a guy with armour, a shield, or just plain unencumbered agility, while he's wielding a weapon with longer reach than your shield (not just fists).
If you're locked in a shield wall with him you could try to bash him with the rim, but you'd be pressed up against his shield which would make it very hard.

Using a shield like that is firmly in the territory of (modern) hollywood, as far as realism goes.


Now imagine making a TWF fighter or ranger. You can choose a weapon that deals 1d6 damage, or one that deals 1d4 and gives you +2 AC.
There's nothing else in the game that gives you +2 AC just like that (barring magic items), not even a spell.

But then, it is your game, your house rules. (But don't blame real life.)


* We call that shoving in D&D5.

 

[SkidAce]

Calling a shield an improvised weapon interacts with the Tavern Brawler feat, allowing you to use prof. and grapple as a bonus action with the shield.

 

[Joe Liker]

I think removing the AC bonus if you attack with a shield is just too much faff. One of the best things about 5e is that it doesn't need constant recalculation.

Consider:

Under the actual rules of 5e, you get the AC bonus from a shield while you wield it. There is no condition or exemption - wear a shield, get +2 to AC.
Keeping the bonus to AC isn't a house rule; removing it is.

...

Even with the +2 to AC, I don't see how that can possibly encroach upon the TWF's territory.

A +2 to AC is a Very Big Deal. To state the obvious, it turns a 45% chance to hit into a 35% chance.

As for the written rule about +2 just for wearing a shield, note that that rule is written with the supposition that you're not constantly swinging it about, trying to inflict damage with it. Otherwise, it would be listed on the weapon table and be given a damage expression.

Yes, you can use it to shove and retain the AC bonus, but only as a feat, which is another Very Big Deal. Taking the feat means you've put a lot of extra training into being able to do this particular maneuver without sacrificing defense.

To be able to do the same thing as the existing feat, only deal damage instead of shoving, should require at least as much sacrifice as the shoving maneuver. Which means it should probably require a feat to learn how to do it.

It's not a question of whether it's possible to attack with a shield -- no one doubts that it is possible. It's not even about applying a temporary penalty when you do use it that way. The question is, what does it take to learn how to do such a thing in the first place?

I know that in the real world, I personally could never in a million years deal any real damage with a shield I was trying to use defensively. But I can easily imagine someone training hard and learning to do exactly that. It wouldn't be part of learning to use the shield defensively (i.e., proficiency). It would be something extra -- something like a feat.

 

[ccooke]

A +2 to AC is a Very Big Deal. To state the obvious, it turns a 45% chance to hit into a 35% chance.

If +2AC is a Very Big Deal, what do you think about an attack that gives your target a minimum of +2 and a maximum of +6 to AC?

Because that is what happens if you attack someone with a shield, without having the Tavern Brawler feat to support it.

In my opinion, the penalty for attacking with an improvised weapon is already high enough that it won't happen much.

As for the written rule about +2 just for wearing a shield, note that that rule is written with the supposition that you're not constantly swinging it about, trying to inflict damage with it. Otherwise, it would be listed on the weapon table and be given a damage expression.

You're reading things in to the written rules that don't actually exist, and claiming to know what the designers intended. In this case, they're pretty responsive - why don't we just ask them on twitter?

In the general case, this is just a ruling. I'm hewing towards the RAW in this case because I think the penalty is already enough to discourage bad behaviour. You want to houserule something that you are perceiving to be an issue. I'd say wait and see if anyone actually tries it in your game, but obviously it doesn't actually matter what either of us think; we're going to go off and play the game the way we think is right, and that's perfectly good.

Yes, you can use it to shove and retain the AC bonus, but only as a feat, which is another Very Big Deal. Taking the feat means you've put a lot of extra training into being able to do this particular maneuver without sacrificing defense.

To be able to do the same thing as the existing feat, only deal damage instead of shoving, should require at least as much sacrifice as the shoving maneuver. Which means it should probably require a feat to learn how to do it.

It's not a question of whether it's possible to attack with a shield -- no one doubts that it is possible. It's not even about applying a temporary penalty when you do use it that way. The question is, what does it take to learn how to do such a thing in the first place?

I know that in the real world, I personally could never in a million years deal any real damage with a shield I was trying to use defensively. But I can easily imagine someone training hard and learning to do exactly that. It wouldn't be part of learning to use the shield defensively (i.e., proficiency). It would be something extra -- something like a feat.

This is a perfectly fine, consistent houserule.

But still a houserule, by my reading of the rules. While you wield a shield, you get +2 to AC. There are no conditions. The only limitation is that you can't benefit from more than one shield at a time.

But seriously, this thread has turned into one of those silly places where people with different expectations of the game repeatedly try to convince other people that their interpretation is superior. It's not, for any of us.

I don't believe there's any chance I'll convince you, Hendrix or anyone else who seems to have a visceral "Nope" reaction to the RAW 5e shield that I'm right, and frankly I shouldn't even try.

I'm mildly curious enough to ask the question on Twitter though, so I'll do that. And, obviously, I'll ignore any such official ruling if I don't agree with it. You should, too

(Although I will accept that my preferred version is a houserule if there's a ruling that goes against it. I am magnanimous like that)

 

[Joe Liker]

But still a houserule, by my reading of the rules. While you wield a shield, you get +2 to AC. There are no conditions. The only limitation is that you can't benefit from more than one shield at a time.

I have no problem with that. But you are taking liberties with what the rules mean by "wielding a shield." They very explicitly spell out that it's not enough just to hold it in your hand -- it's actually worn on the arm. That's a huge difference, and probably the thing that sets off my cheese alert.

The rules treat the shield as armor for all intents and purposes because it is a worn item, not something that is casually picked up and carried. It takes actual game time to put one on or take it off. It cannot normally be disarmed because it is strapped very securely to your person.

An item that is secured to you in this fashion is considerably more unwieldy than what the rules refer to as an improvised weapon. If you pick up a shield and start swinging it around, yes, you're using it as a weapon. But you didn't take the time to strap it on, so you're not wearing it as a shield (per the "donning and doffing" rules), so you don't get the +2 AC.

Conversely, under "improvised weapons," it says you must wield an improvised weapon "in one or two hands," not strapped to your arm, so RAW you cannot use a worn shield as a weapon unless you have an ability like Shield Mastery that tells you you can.

But yes, feel free to tweet. I'd be interested to see the result. I won't, however, consider it valid if the question doesn't bring up the Shield Mastery feat. Mearls' Twitter responses don't have the reputation of being particularly well researched.