Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sezarious" data-source="post: 6592940" data-attributes="member: 6792106">Wow!  This thread has taken off!  Behold the chaos Mwahaha!  Just to add, gauntlets were once a weapon in previous editions I can't remember the damage they did.  You're right.  It's broken.  A mage could wear thick leather gloves with studs over the knuckles and, according to the rules could do d4 damage without proficiency.My question regarding the shield is, if you guys are so harsh about subtracting an AC bonus from the shield with this combination, then what about the shield mastery feat?A shove attack is a TYPE of attack with your shield that doesn't do a bit of damage, but INSTEAD knocks the opponent over.  Now fair enough, the '1d4 damage' shield bash may be imagined as a 'wild swing' by those who would deduct AC, but then shouldn't a shove attack, strong enough to knock your opponent to the ground be pretty fierce too?RAW rules it's all there.  A shield is both according to the RAW.  It's strapped to your arm with a handle to hold so you can better manoeuvre it, so it is in your hand.The reason this conflict has occurred, is because several chunks of rules were broad enough, that the shield fell pretty clearly under each category.  They could have simply added under the dual wielding feat 'a shield can not benefit from this', but why would they spell this out?  Because whilst a shield is not a weapon (unless you make shove attacks with it), it is technically an improvised weapon.Maybe in improvised weapons where they say "any object", they should have added "except a shield".  They did not.  Yes it might be broken, and I'll tell you why, because in 5e, an additional +1 to AC that a tank manages to munchkin is much better than a +1 in an addition in 3.5.  Magic weapons and armor are much more difficult to obtain, and player and creatures "to hit" bonuses don't increase in level the way they used to.  A level 20 fighter's to 'proficiency bonus' equivalent on their first attack was +20 in 3.5.  What is it now? +6 at that level.  In 3.5, what's an AC of even say 30 to a 3.5 lv 20 fighter?  Probably a d20 roll of under 10 with ability mods and magic weapons would hit..In 5th edition an AC of 30 is going to take a lv 20 fighter with (str +5 prof +6) a 19+ to hit!  16+ With a +3 weapon.That's why people are against it, if it doesn't unbalance the game, it may not be the only loophole. What if it didn't stop there?  Others have in fact pointed out other loopholes already (mages wearing heavy gloves to always be wearing improvised weapons).  Where will it end.My original question was never about what your ruling would be as a DM, though I will mention, I think with these situations it is important to make rulings. My question was purely, according to RAW, is this how it works?We all can see the mechanics indicate the theory can work, but should we allow this at our own table?  We can all argue with each other until we are out of breath, but at the end of the day, we all know what we found here, we all had our own ideas and we always will.  Great discussion everyone!</blockquote>

Verification