Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 6376944" data-attributes="member: 1879">How does that matter? A shove is an attack action. Whether that attack action is taken as a regular action or bonus action should be immaterial to the idea that attacking with a shield on your turn deprives you of the defensive benefit of that shield until your next turn.The rules quite clearly allow the use of the shield as an improvised weapon. There is nothing anywhere in the rules to suggest that using an item in this way voids its original function. Not in the improvised weapon section, not in the shield section, not in the combat section. It is not a grey area.Taking away the shield bonus to AC is a house rule, and furthermore one that opens a can of worms. If the Fighter cannot use his shield in his own defense does that mean he also cannot use it defend another with the protection fighting style? Can he use it defensively against a spell using the Shield Mastery feat? If so why? If he does does he regain the AC benefit of his shield since he is clearly now employing it as a shield? Does that make the rule: "Using a shield to make an attack on your turn as an action, but not as a bonus action (unless that bonus action attack deals damage) removes the shield bonus to armour until the start of your next turn or until you use the shield in a defensive reaction, whichever comes first." And if so can he also spend his free "futz with an object once per round" to restore the shield to it's defensive glory?It's fine as a house rule, but you should not pretend there is the slightest scrap of evidence that the rules provide for, or even hint at the intent of reducing the utility of a shield or any other improvised weapon when it's employed as such.At least half the arguments against the use of the shield this way have been couched in terms of verisimilitude, it is hardly a strawman to address those arguments on their own basis.Is your own position then that spending two feats to deal an extra 1d4+str damage a round is so overpowering that it must be payed for with a loss of AC on the grounds of maintaining game balance?</blockquote>

Verification