D&D 5E rules for attacking with a shield?

[pepticburrito]

There is nothing in the rules that say a shield is a light weapon. In fact it is quite contra intuitive. Thus you can normally choose whether you want to use it or your main hand weapon to attack with, but not both.

There's nothing in the rules that say you can get AC from an improvised (or other) weapon you use to attack with.

There's nothing in the rules for a LOT of things in 5e. For example, there's nothing in the rules to help the GM or player know what to do with a Spiked Shield they took off a Lizardfolk's dead body. Is it a martial or simple weapon? Is it a light weapon? Is it a weapon at all or is proficiency in a shield good enough to use it as an attack?

In fact, if you're GM and you're using a Lizardfolk against the party, what happens to the Lizardfolk's AC when he attacks with his spiked shield?

Saying there's "nothing" in the rules that says something can happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen. There's nothing in the rules or player inventory about spiked shields, yet they exist in the game.

 

[ccooke]

Fighters are proficient in all armor and all shields. They are also proficient in the only two existing categories of weapons.

Why would a Fighter not be proficient in a Spiked Shield that he took of a Lizardfolks body?

Fighters are proficient with simple weapons and martial weapons. Spiked shields are not on that list.
In order to be considered proficient with a weapon, you need to have proficiency in it as a weapon. Would you consider a character who is proficient in heavy armour to also be able to add their proficiency bonus when swinging an unworn articulated leg of plate armour at someone?

I personally would not, but that's more of a ruling so I can see that some might allow it. For comedy value, if nothing else!

(It looks like I've been missing a change from the playtest in this thread, though - it looks like the final rules don't actually have the "You have disadvantage when you attack without proficiency" rule that the playtest did. Unless I'm being blind searching the PHB and failing to use Ctrl-F well with the Basic PDF, the only disadvantage (sorry) to attacking without proficiency is that you attack without proficiency. Or can anyone point me at the rule?)

 

[Joe Liker]

A shield is not a weapon with the Light property.

Only weapons with the Light property can be used to make an off-hand attack, and even then, only if the primary weapon is also Light.

Therefore, a shield cannot normally be used to make an off-hand attack.

If you want to use a shield as a primary weapon, it's improvised as others have mentioned above.

The Shield Mastery feat is the only way to get a second attack of any kind out of your shield without taking improvised weapon penalties.

There are very solid balance reasons behind these rules. You are free to house rule more options, but you will be making the sword-and-board fighter substantially OP.

 

[ccooke]

There's nothing in the rules for a LOT of things in 5e. For example, there's nothing in the rules to help the GM or player know what to do with a Spiked Shield they took off a Lizardfolk's dead body. Is it a martial or simple weapon? Is it a light weapon? Is it a weapon at all or is proficiency in a shield good enough to use it as an attack?

I think the rules are clear on those points.
Spiked Shields are not martial or simple. They are not on the list or martial or simple weapons.
Spiked Shields are not light. They do not say they are light. They're also not versatile, finesseable and you don't need to load them. Weapons are assumed to not have a keyword unless they have the keyword.
Spiked Shields can be used as improvised weapons, and proficiency with Shields is not enough to be able to attack because it does not give you the ability to attack with normal shields, other than as improvised weapons.

In fact, if you're GM and you're using a Lizardfolk against the party, what happens to the Lizardfolk's AC when he attacks with his spiked shield?

Saying there's "nothing" in the rules that says something can happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen. There's nothing in the rules or player inventory about spiked shields, yet they exist in the game.

Lizardfolk do not lose their shield bonus to AC when they attack with their spiked shields. If they did, the MM would say so.

 

[pepticburrito]

If a spiked shield is a weapon and fighters are proficient with ALL shields, then it stands to reason that a fighter can make a proficient attack with a spiked shield.

There is no disadvantage to attacking without proficiency. Either you add your proficiency bonus to the attack or you don't.

 

[Paraxis]

A shield is not a weapon with the Light property.

Only weapons with the Light property can be used to make an off-hand attack, and even then, only if the primary weapon is also Light.

Therefore, a shield cannot normally be used to make an off-hand attack.

If you want to use a shield as a primary weapon, it's improvised as others have mentioned above.

The Shield Mastery feat is the only way to get a second attack of any kind out of your shield without taking improvised weapon penalties.

There are very solid balance reasons behind these rules. You are free to house rule more options, but you will be making the sword-and-board fighter substantially OP.

If you have the dual wielder feat you can use the shield as a bonus action attack because then the limit of "light" weapons is removed. You still wouldn't also have proficiency in an improvised weapon like the shield in this case unless you also took the Tavern Brawler feat. If someone wanted to do this so badly that they took both of those feats just to be able to attack and do damage with a shield more power to them, I think using the shove from from Shield Mastery to knock your target down giving your main attacks advantage and a few allies probably advantage against him is way better.

 

[ccooke]

If a spiked shield is a weapon and fighters are proficient with ALL shields, then it stands to reason that a fighter can make a proficient attack with a spiked shield.

Fighters are not proficient in "ALL shields". They are proficient in "Shields". As armour. Of course, you are perfectly entitled in your own game to allow proficiency with armour to allow a character to use that armour as a weapon. I personally will not allow it in my games, because I do not believe that knowing how to wear heavy armour means you should add your proficiency bonus when trying to swing an articulated leg of plate at me. I suspect that my view would be the default on this... barring amusing one-off events

There is no disadvantage to attacking without proficiency. Either you add your proficiency bonus to the attack or you don't.

Yes, I said that:

(It looks like I've been missing a change from the playtest in this thread, though - it looks like the final rules don't actually have the "You have disadvantage when you attack without proficiency" rule that the playtest did. Unless I'm being blind searching the PHB and failing to use Ctrl-F well with the Basic PDF, the only disadvantage (sorry) to attacking without proficiency is that you attack without proficiency. Or can anyone point me at the rule?)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I find ccooke's reasoning compelling.

As for the lizardfolk, presumably that is the equivalent of an Exotic Weapon and the lizard warriors get a racial proficiency in that weapon. IMHO the game would not be improved by a short treatise on that topic stuffed into the D&D MM description of lizardfolk -- we can accept that fantastical creatures have the occasional peculiar special skills that eerily resemble the rules for PCs while being slightly different. YMMV.

 

[Joe Liker]

If you have the dual wielder feat you can use the shield as a bonus action attack because then the limit of "light" weapons is removed. You still wouldn't also have proficiency in an improvised weapon like the shield in this case unless you also took the Tavern Brawler feat. If someone wanted to do this so badly that they took both of those feats just to be able to attack and do damage with a shield more power to them, I think using the shove from from Shield Mastery to knock your target down giving your main attacks advantage and a few allies probably advantage against him is way better.

I almost mentioned that because I knew you'd be along to do so if I didn't, but it's such a terrible character build (as you noted) that I decided to skip it.

 

[pepticburrito]

Spiked shield is a peice of armor that is also used as a weapon. It's a specific exception to the general rule in shields. Specific overrides general, that's one of the first rules in the PHB.

Since fighters are proficient in shields, a spiked shield is a weapon,and proficiency in a weapon allows you to add your proficiency bonus to attack, therefore by the rules a fighter can use a spiked shield as a weapon.

Your ruling is a house rule that runs contrary to what's found in the actual rules. With the proper feat, a fighter can attack with a light weapon and Attack as a bonus action with a spiked shield.