D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

[FrogReaver]

Rules Text:

Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Reading Comprehension Check 1: This paragraph defines what an improvised weapon is.

In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

Reading Comprehension Check 2: This paragraph answers the question of how to handle improvised weapons similar to weapons. The answer is that you use such objects as if it were that weapon (with a special note about proficiency bonus being able to be applied to make sure that isn't misunderstood)

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object).

Reading Comprehension Check 3: This Paragraph answers the question of how to handle improvised weapons not resembling any weapon.

In Conclusion, we know what improvised weapons are and how to handle the 2 categories of them. (Objects similar to weapons and objects that don't resemble weapons).

So then let's go over a few questions.

1. Where is the rule that tells you how much damage an object that is similar to a weapon does? It's in the 2nd paragraph. (An improvised weapon that is similar to a weapon can be treated as if it were that weapon)

2. Where is the rule that tells you how how much damage an object that doesn't resemble a weapon does? It's in the 3rd paragraph and it says such a weapon does 1d4.

3. Ultimate question, where is the rule that tells you how much damage an object does that is not similar to a weapon but resembles one? There is no rule on this.

@Mistwell , [MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION] ​

Why do you think there is no rule on this?

 

[epithet]

...

In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.​

Reading Comprehension Check 2: This paragraph answers the question of how to handle improvised weapons similar to weapons. The answer is that you use such objects as if it were that weapon (with a special note about proficiency bonus being able to be applied to make sure that isn't misunderstood)
...

You might not have passed your own reading comprehension check there. The rule explicitly allows for an improvised weapon (e.g., a shield), to the extent that it is similar to an actual weapon (e.g., focuses impact on a flange or rim like a mace), to be treated as such for its damage die and type. The DM may then, at his option, allow or disallow the application of the proficiency bonus for that "actual weapon" to apply to the "improvised weapon." In other words, your "all or nothing" approach is not mandated by the plain language of the rule you quoted.

Your reading of the Improvised Weapons rule section appears to be that if an improvised weapon is just like a weapon on the table, both proficiency bonus and damage characteristics apply, as do (I would assume) any other weapon properties. A dagger-sized shard of obsidian, for example, would be a finesse weapon. If any of it applies, it all does... and if any of it doesn't apply, none of it does. But that's not what the rule says. It says you can treat it as a similar weapon, then it specifies that it is the DM's option as to whether the similar weapon's proficiency would apply. The rule actually goes out of its way to grant a DM the broadest possible latitude in determining the treatment of an improvised weapon, so that a DM will not have to "house rule" the situation, but can in fact use his discretion within the bounds of the published rules.

If you're going to accuse a bunch of nerds on the internet of a failure of reading comprehension, you had better read the text in question very, very carefully and be very, very certain of your own 'comprehension' thereof before hitting the submit button.

 

[Yunru]

3. Ultimate question, where is the rule that tells you how much damage an object does that is not similar to a weapon but resembles one? There is no rule on this.

Of course not, because only in your weird reality are those two separate things.

It's literally the dictionary definition of resemble:
"resemble [somebody/something]: to look like or be similar to another person or thing"

Between that and "starting" an action being different from "taking" an action...
I don't think you should be talking about reading comprehension.

 

[Mistwell]

Just because you can twist something into saying something it doesn't say does not make it an interpretation. There's plenty of gray area in the rules. I totally agree. This is not one of those places.

Right, hence the debate we have here. Where one side, represented almost entirely by you, says there is only one way to intepret this rule. And the other side, represented by I think 7 people at this point, say there is another interpretation of this rule and both views are valid. And only one of those sides is calling the other sides views "outlandish" and it's the side represented by one guy. You can see how this might raise some eyebrows, right? Nobody is asking you to agree with their intepretation - just to not treat the people using that interpretation as if they are twisting rules for some nefarious end or in some sort of psychological denial.

 

[Mistwell]

Rules Text:



Reading Comprehension Check 1: This paragraph defines what an improvised weapon is.



Reading Comprehension Check 2: This paragraph answers the question of how to handle improvised weapons similar to weapons. The answer is that you use such objects as if it were that weapon (with a special note about proficiency bonus being able to be applied to make sure that isn't misunderstood)



Reading Comprehension Check 3: This Paragraph answers the question of how to handle improvised weapons not resembling any weapon.

In Conclusion, we know what improvised weapons are and how to handle the 2 categories of them. (Objects similar to weapons and objects that don't resemble weapons).

So then let's go over a few questions.

1. Where is the rule that tells you how much damage an object that is similar to a weapon does? It's in the 2nd paragraph. (An improvised weapon that is similar to a weapon can be treated as if it were that weapon)

2. Where is the rule that tells you how how much damage an object that doesn't resemble a weapon does? It's in the 3rd paragraph and it says such a weapon does 1d4.

3. Ultimate question, where is the rule that tells you how much damage an object does that is not similar to a weapon but resembles one? There is no rule on this.

@Mistwell , [MENTION=59848]Hawk Diesel[/MENTION] ​

Why do you think there is no rule on this?

Not sure why you added my name to this list (and poorly as it didn't work but fortunately I just happened to see it) but my argument is the area of the shield you're hitting with is "similar" enough to a mace to be treated as a mace for purposes of using the maces damage die. You disagree and wouldn't play it that way in your game, which is fine. You however want me to say this is somehow a house rule and not an intepretation of the rules, and that's not fine. I've never said there is no rule...I've said the existing rules allow for my intepretation of them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I will reply when I can get on my computer. Properly replying on phone is difficult.

 

[FrogReaver]

I do have two questions to those who say that a shield is similar to a mace.

1. Do you allow the attack to be made with proficiency bonus (with no feats)
2. If you don’t allow proficiency bonus why don’t you?

 

[Satyrn]

Are you arguing with someone else through me? I don't get this.

I don't get this, either!

I've just been trying to clarify my comment you originally replied to. The one I originally thought you made a joking reply to, taking my reasoning to a ridiculous extreme.

But if you weren't making a joke, and instead you took my reasoning to a ridiculous extreme to mange a point, I don't know what you're point was.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I do have two questions to those who say that a shield is similar to a mace.

1. Do you allow the attack to be made with proficiency bonus (with no feats)
2. If you don’t allow proficiency bonus why don’t you?

Personally I would say closer to a club (1d6).

As to proficiency bonus, it depends. Since there is no exotic weapon proficiency in 5e, I may be inclined to grant it along with martial weapon proficiency. I may be more inclined to give proficiency to those with the dueling fighting style. Using the shield as an off-hand improvised weapon would negate the damage bonus of the fighting style for that turn, so I would say it is fair to allow proficiency. I would also allow profiency for a player with the Shield Master feat since it is including use of shields to shove, and for me it is not a far leap to see that as a shield bash. Obviously Tavern Brawler would make the ruling easy as well, since they gain proficiency with all improvised weapons, including a shield.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I do have two questions to those who say that a shield is similar to a mace.

1. Do you allow the attack to be made with proficiency bonus (with no feats)
2. If you don’t allow proficiency bonus why don’t you?

That you are asking these two questions show you don't understand the points being made by others. Go back and read either my post or the one you just posted where you take apart the rule.

The point you have been trying to make is that allowing a shield to use a d6 is a house rule and not a GM ruling about the damage a shield would do.

If one were to allow the shield to be used with a proficiency bonus, that would be a house rule. It would be making the shield a martial weapon in effect (something I would house rule as I think it would be accurate).

Let me illustrate with an example: The characters are in a bar fight. One of the characters hits an NPC with a flimsy table. Another hits an NPC with a solid wood oak chair. In neither of these instances will the characters get their proficiency bonus. However, in the case of the flimsy table the GM rules the damage to be 1d4. In the case of the solid wood oak chair the GM rules the damage is 1d8.

This is no different than ruling a shield would do 1d6 as an improvised weapon instead of a 1d4, it is just done a priori by the GM.

This is the crux of what you have been arguing against which is why everyone in this thread is so perplexed by your intransigence.