adamantine shields

[fl8m]

I can't seem to find the price for an adamantine shield in the DMG, also does an adamantine shield have any benefit other than increased hardness?

also if i have a throwing axe and shield and I throw my axe then bash with my shield, does my shield bash still count as my off hand for damage? (1/2 str)

thanks

 

[fl8m]

well i'll be, 10 minutes later i find my answer on the d&d faq
well, if anybody else is wondering adamantine shields cost 5000gp and are considered masterwork, so -1 armor check

 

[bertman4]

Also, since they are masterwork, if you use your shield as a weapon (shield bash), it should be +1 to hit.

As far as your other question, yes, your shield bash does count for off hand damange. However, the other possibility is to use your shield bash as your primary weapon and your throwin axe as your off hand with 1/2 Str damage. This is assuming you have Two Weapon Fighting feat.

Bertman

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, Masterwork Shields do not get a bonus to attack when used as a bashing weapon.

SRD on Masterwork Weapons:

Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

[Double Post]

Edited. Anyone else notice that the site is running really slowly today?

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, the other possibility is to use your shield bash as your primary weapon and your throwin axe as your off hand with 1/2 Str damage.

The shield bash is still an off-hand attack; any shield bash is explicitly treated an off-hand weapon, and thus applies the 1/2 Str bonus... regardless of which hand you're actually using.

From the Armor chapter of the PHB:
"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."

-Hyp.

 

[Iku Rex]

The shield bash is still an off-hand attack; any shield bash is explicitly treated an off-hand weapon, and thus applies the 1/2 Str bonus... regardless of which hand you're actually using.

From the Armor chapter of the PHB:
"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."

Mandatory rebuttal: The paragraph you quoted doesn't say what you claim it does. Yes, you can "bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon". This does not contradict the basic rules for weapons, among which the shields are listed.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

According to the weapons tables, a heavy shield is a one-handed weapon. Therefore, "a [heavy shield] can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand..."

Example:
1) A scimitar can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.
2) You can slash an opponent with a scimitar, using it as an off-hand weapon.

Are these two sentences both true?

 

[Hypersmurf]

According to the weapons tables, a heavy shield is a one-handed weapon. Therefore, "a [heavy shield] can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand..."

Bear in mind that by this reading, you still can't gain full Str bonus if you are retaining your bonus to AC via the Improved Shield Bash feat.

You can either attack with the shield in your primary hand; or you can bash with the shield, treating it as an off-hand weapon. You only get to retain your shield bonus to AC while bashing, not during any other use of the shield as a weapon.

Likewise, if you are using the Bashing special ability to treat the shield as a +1 weapon, that only applies 'when used to bash', so you can only apply 1/2 Str bonus to damage if you are benefiting from the special ability.

It's also worth noting for the 3E players that this debate only exists in 3.5; in 3E, shields are not listed on the weapon tables, so the only way they can be used to attack is via the bashing rules.

-Hyp.

 

[Iku Rex]

Bear in mind that by this reading, you still can't gain full Str bonus if you are retaining your bonus to AC via the Improved Shield Bash feat.

You can either attack with the shield in your primary hand; or you can bash with the shield, treating it as an off-hand weapon. You only get to retain your shield bonus to AC while bashing, not during any other use of the shield as a weapon.

What makes you think an attack with a shield isn't always a shield bash?

1) A scimitar can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.
2) You can slash an opponent with a scimitar, using it as an off-hand weapon.

Are these two sentences both true? If yes, does 2) prove that you can't slash an opponent with a scimitar wielded in your primary hand?

It's also worth noting for the 3E players that this debate only exists in 3.5;

Not true - the 3.0 rules also specify that the shield is a martial weapon when used to bash. Nowhere does it say that the usual rules for martial weapons don't apply. (3.0 requires a DM decision on which size category of martial weapon a shield is, but that does not require you to contradict any rules.)

Let me ask you this Hypersmurf: Do you think it's reasonable that a shield is always an off-hand weapon?

Because your argument, IMO, rests heavily on the intent of the writer. I think the shield write-up says what it does because it didn't occur to the writer that anyone might want to wield a shield in their primary hand. Had he wanted the rules to work as you say, he would have spelled it out explicitly.

 

[Darklone]

You asked Hyp, but I'll chime in here: Shield bashing is a superior TWF Style if you allow it to be used with just one feat for extra AC goodness and additional attacks. The only balancing (AND realistic) factor in here is the "Shieldbashes are always offhand attacks" sentence.

Since Hyps interpretation looks more balanced, it might be reasonable to assume that the writer was in accordance with Hyp, right?