Question on the Sage and Shields

[Marnak]

In latest issue of Dragon, the Sage weighs in on armor and shields. He states that a character who possesses a shield proficiency also possesses proficiency in the related shield bash attack. For example, bards can use light shields for AC and so can also use light shields to bash (with or without spikes). This goes against how I read the rules.

According to the SRD under light shields: "Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round)."

If a shield bash is a martial bludgeoning weapon, it has always seemed to me to be the case that only characters with access to martial weapons could bash with it. But perhaps we are supposed to interpret the proficiency listing under each class as applying to shield AC use and shield bash use.

Thus, I should read the SRD: "Bards are proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields)." So, this means bards can defend and attack with shields?

This brings me to my final question, why does SRD go out of its way to define shield bash attacks as "martial" weapons if proficiency in their use is really tied to shield proficiency itself? In other words, no one would ever take Martial Weapon Proficiency (light shield) because another feat, Shield Proficiency, gives you both the defensive and offensive advantages of both the heavy and the light shield.

I kind of like the Sage's ruling from a logical standpoint (shield proficiency is shield proficiency), but I am wondering if it goes along with RAW or not.

Thanks in advance for any input you might provide.

 

[smootrk]

I think it is an appropriate ruling, although it changes Attacks of Opportunity a bit for us. We had always considered characters without weapons out as un-armed (if for instance they are casting a spell, or using an item), but a shield hangs on the arm - at the ready, thus making any shield equipped character 'armed' most of the time.

Anyway, not a bad thing; it just changes up things a bit.

 

[Marnak]

After doing some thinking, the answer to my own question is obvious: shield bash attacks need to be considered martial weapons becuase they have to be something and if they were simple weapons classes that get proficiency in simple weapons but not shields would concievably have the ability to bash with shields but not use them for defense. So, the PHB needed to declare them as martial weapons, even though all characters who can use shields have proficeincy with shields as weapons.

 

[MarkB]

Here's the rules text on Shield Proficiency:

Shield Proficiency [General]

Benefit
You can use a shield and take only the standard penalties.

Normal
When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride checks.

Special
Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.​

If the Sage's interpretation were correct, and shield proficiency also granted you proficiency when attacking with a shield, then the Normal line should include the statement "You take a -4 penalty to attacks made with a shield with which you are not proficient."

 

[Marnak]

MarkB,

Good catch! I hadn't seen that but it confirms that there is something strange going on. Or, as a friend of mine said in an email when I first broached the question, "it sounds like the Sage is on crack ... again."

Marnak