Shield as a weapon

[Prism]

I'm considering making the shield into a melee weapon in my game. As it stands its an improvised weapon doing 1d4 points of damage but without the proficiency bonus to attack. If I made it into a full melee weapon it would mean that a character could use their proficiency bonus to attack with.

A few points I can thing of

It would only really work as a shield bash with the dual wielder feat. Undecided if the AC bonus from that feat should stack with the shield bonus - gut feeling is not

It would prevent the dueling fighting style working with a shield. I would prefer dueling to represent a free hand style. Dueling is a little too strong as it stands

A spiked shield would do 1d4 piercing damage

Any other thoughts?

 

[jaelis]

Why do you want to make this change?

 

[Mephista]

Sure, go for it. I wouldn't even bother with the duel wielder feat, and just go with tweaking the Shield Master one.

 

[Bupp]

Why do you want to make this change?

In many historical cases (the vikings in particular), the shield was often used more than the axe or sword in combat.

 

[Shiroiken]

The spiked shield is 1d6 piercing (per the MM), so I'd make a normal shield 1d6 bludgeoning, both with no properties. TWF would require the Feat, but I'd probably not allow the +1 extra AC from the Feat to stack with the Shield. Another option would be to give the Shield Master Feat the additional benefit "you may use shields as a 1d6 bludgeoning light weapon." Realize that both of these mess with the Duelist Fighting style, because the Shield then becomes a weapon.

 

[Kobold Stew]

1d6 bludgeoning is a lot of damage -- remember being stabbed by a dagger (3-5" blade?) only does 1d4.

Honestly, the rules have it right -- a 1d4 bludgeoning improvised weapon. If you are proficient in shields, then you can add your proficiency to attack, but (I would say) you do not get the defensive bonus for that round.

 

[Oofta]

You can do this now, although it does take the Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler. Exactly how the +1 to AC from Dual Wielder stacks with the shield bonus is up to the DM. According to Sage Advice, you don't lose your AC bonus when attacking so it probably should.

I actually think it could be kind of fun. Heck, throw in Shield Bash and leave your other weapons at home.

 

[Prism]

You can do this now, although it does take the Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler. Exactly how the +1 to AC from Dual Wielder stacks with the shield bonus is up to the DM. According to Sage Advice, you don't lose your AC bonus when attacking so it probably should.

I actually think it could be kind of fun. Heck, throw in Shield Bash and leave your other weapons at home.

Yup, that's true. I was intending on doing this without the need for the tavern brawler feat simply by being liberal with the improvised weapon rules which already allow for the use of the proficiency bonus if the DM permits (that would be me and I do).

As Shiroiken points out, this would likely change the effect of duelist fighting style, which is intentional.

I also like that fact that this could be used as an option at low level (pre feats) if the need arose, although I don't envision many characters regularly wanting to bash something for 1d4 + stat damage when they also have a perfectly good weapon. Skeletons spring to mind

 

[Ancalagon]

As someone's who's done some sword and shield fighting, if you are using your shield as a weapon, it's not protecting you... I will also note that a shield takes a lot of room, and will interfere with your other weapon while you are attacking with it.

We might use the shield as a "weapon" to be shoving someone away, but the goal wasn't to cause damage, just gain a momentary positional advantage.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Why not just treat it as an unarmed attack? Smacking someone with a shield is no different to kicking them or headbutting them or elbow striking them, and it keeps the game simple (once you rule a shield to be a weapon, someone is going to ask about heavy gauntlets, elbow spikes, steel-capped boots, and so on).