D&D 5E How do you handle a shield bash?

[Sithlord]

Did ya actually read what I wrote?

Yeah, it's an improvised weapon. That's not being debated. But if a table leg which also isn't on the list of martial or simple weapons can be an improvised weapon that allows a warrior to add their proficiency, then why can't a 6 pound slab of reinforced metal strapped to the soldier's arm do the same?

Did ya actually read what I wrote?

Yeah, it's an improvised weapon. That's not being debated. But if a table leg which also isn't on the list of martial or simple weapons can be an improvised weapon that allows a warrior to add their proficiency, then why can't a 6 pound slab of reinforced metal strapped to the soldier's arm do the same?

Wasn’t arguing or disagreeing. Just clarifying.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm with you on this one because I don't consider a shield to be an improvised weapon. I assume training involving shields includes how to use them offensively.

Yep. It’s a solid case of the rules simply being incorrect. Easy fix, luckily.

 

[loverdrive]

My ruling would be:
Melee weapon attack, one creature within 5', +STR+Prof. with shields. Hit: 1d4+STR Bludgeoning and the target must pass Strength save (DC 8+Str+Prof.) or be knocked prone.

 

[Dausuul]

I would check the expected damage compared to a regular attack. If this is less than the normal attack (taking into account the relevant vulnerabilities/resistances/immunities), then I would not care because I would consider it flavor (i.e. roleplaying).

Likewise, if a player would be smart enough to discuss this while in a town with a smithy, and they might as well buy a warhammer or other bludgeoning-dealing-weapon, but would ask me to flavor it such that the shield would act as that weapon, then I'd allow it... on the condition that the shield does not give an AC bonus in the turn that it's used on the attack.

But if a powergamer would want to maximize damage right there on the spot, with no preparations, then I would likely explain that it is an improvised weapon and push back. I hate powergamers that are playing this game exclusively to be the most powerful player. But on that matter, I am probably not your average DM.

If you consider "using a shield as an improvised weapon because skeletons are more vulnerable to bludgeoning damage" to be powergaming, I don't even know what to say.

It isn't like the skeleton's vulnerability is some big secret. It's a bunch of dry bones. Of course it's going to be more affected by smashing it than by stabbing or slashing.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

A table leg is close enough to a club to be considered a club. There's no weapon that is wielded like a shield in the book.

The PH also says that two sticks tied together count as a club.

For example, you might use a club that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain (called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter blade (called a kama).

Monk

Monk Class Details Her fists a blur as they deflect an incoming hail of arrows, a half-elf springs over a barricade and throws herself in...

www.dndbeyond.com

One might similarly ask if you read what you quoted. What weapon in the PHB is similar to a shield? A shield is strapped to your arm, reducing the momentum you can generate on a swing, as well as limiting the angle you can use it in fighting. There is no weapon in the PHB shaped like it, or used like it - not even remotely.

Further, if there was an intention for it to be used as a weapon, it would be a pretty massive oversight not to list it. It seems pretty clear that the intention was not to allow it to be used as a weapon with proficiency bonus, or do more than d4 damage, without some additional ability.

DMs can rule anything they want, of course, but there is no basis to assume that the shield was intended to be allowed to be used with proficiency, or to deal more damage than any other basic improvised weapon (d4).

As stated above, the rules clearly don't limit things to perfectly matching up and allow for flexibility. And there's a wealth of weapons that weren't updated from past editions and weapons from history or other cultures.

By RAW, the DM is empowered to grant a character proficiency and/or higher damage.
By RAI, improvised weapon rules were designed to encourage creativity not discourage it and left open to empower DMs to say "yes."
By realism, shields are great weapons and were historically used in combat all the dang time.
By coolness, Captain America is a thing.

If you choose not to that's fine. But don't hide behind the rules. It's YOU saying "no" to the player.
And why? There's really no good reason to shut the player down.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Say a barbarian with a sword and shield wishes to do blunt damage so he smashes a skeleton with his shield. How do you handle this? Are there explicit 5e rules for this?

Thanks.

By the rules, improvised weapon. The only adjustment I'd make is allowing proficiency bonus to attack if the user is proficient in shields.

I'd stick with d4 damage I think if making an actual rule for fighting with shields. They are unwieldy as weapons and I can see most of the effect coming from the power of the wielder. (Technically I'd probably think higher damage but harder to attack, but 5e weapons have a limited amount of knobs to turn.)
No special properties.

Shield Master feat allows an attack as a bonus action.

 

[NotAYakk]

It is a 1d4 damage improvised weapon. If you are proficient in shields, I would let you be proficient with a shield bash attack.

And I like the idea of not granting AC from it, but I might tweak; if you miss all of your attacks, you don't get AC from it.

 

[Necrozius]

What weapon in the PHB is similar to a shield? A shield is strapped to your arm, reducing the momentum you can generate on a swing, as well as limiting the angle you can use it in fighting. There is no weapon in the PHB shaped like it, or used like it - not even remotely.

Further, if there was an intention for it to be used as a weapon, it would be a pretty massive oversight not to list it. It seems pretty clear that the intention was not to allow it to be used as a weapon with proficiency bonus, or do more than d4 damage, without some additional ability.

In human history, the shield was used for offense as well as defence. True, it doesn’t resemble any weapon in the PHB. But as I stated earlier, D&D designers have definitely missed out on the opportunity to take inspiration from real life to make the game more interesting.
I mean, I feel sorry for players who want to use Captain America as inspiration for a Paladin. Dat guy used a shield quite formidably.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

By the rules, improvised weapon. The only adjustment I'd make is allowing proficiency bonus to attack if the user is proficient in shields.

I'd stick with d4 damage I think if making an actual rule for fighting with shields. They are unwieldy as weapons and I can see most of the effect coming from the power of the wielder. (Technically I'd probably think higher damage but harder to attack, but 5e weapons have a limited amount of knobs to turn.)
No special properties.

Shield Master feat allows an attack as a bonus action.

I’d also increase the damage by one die step with Shield Master, but otherwise that makes sense to me.

 

[smetzger]

It’s too bad that the game designers for D&D over the years never took more inspiration on how shields were really used throughout history. They definitely did more than passively made you harder to get hit.

uhmm... actually in 3.5 there are rules for using Shields can as a weapon.
They do 1d4/x2 damage. Your strength modifier applies to the damage as normal. If your proficient with a shield, well then your proficient.
You can also add spikes to the shield to increase damage to 1d6.

When attacking with the shield you lose the AC benefit... unless you have the Improved Shield Bash feat.