D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

[epithet]

How? "You can benefit from only one shield at a time." Basic shield rule, PHB p.144.

By the magic of setting up the Orcus joke, that's how.

 

[Satyrn]

By the magic of setting up the Orcus joke, that's how.

I laughed.

 

[S'mon]

A club, mace, greatclub, or maul is, essentially, just a blunt heavy object that you can hit someone with. A club is the most basic, a weapon anyone can pick up and use. A mace has flanges to concentrate the kinetic energy into a smaller point of impact, requiring a little skill to use right. A shield isn't an intuitive weapon like a club, and it is bigger that a club or a mace, but not as big as a greatclub or a maul. The size of it should somewhat offset the fact that it doesn't extend as far from the wielder's hand to augment the inertia of a weapon swing. The edge, if used to strike with in a Gallic style of shield fighting, would serve to concentrate the kinetic energy like the flanges of a mace, and if you're just bashing someone with the flat surface I think the mass of the shield combined with the easy of putting your body weight into the strike should beat the basic club.

Just because the shield doesn't cosmetically resemble a specific item on the weapon table doesn't mean there aren't similarities and analogs. If your improvised weapon is just whatever comes to hand, like a beer mug or a dead raccoon, then just using a basic d4 is the right way to go. If your improvised weapon is a piece of fighting equipment designed to be used in combat, though perhaps not for the express purpose of whacking bad guys, then it is only reasonable to take a more considered approach. The fact is that shields have been used as weapons not infrequently, and have sometimes been actually designed to accommodate that purpose. When you have a character who is using a shield as a weapon on a regular basis as part of their standard attack routine, it's not really an improvised weapon any more, and you might be better off thinking of it as an "exotic" weapon, even though the 5e rules don't specifically accommodate them. A shield may be an "improvised weapon" under the rules, but it still a piece of military hardware designed to be used in combat.

The job of the DM is not to enforce the rules and keep the player characters in line, it is to accommodate the narrative and fantasy within the rules and direct the action accordingly.

Lizardmen in the Monster Manual have special spiked shields they can strike with for d6 damage, so it's certainly possible for a shield to do d6. It just needs to be designed that way - IMO you shouldn't be handing out d6s to every shield, the rules clearly intend it's a d4 improvised non-light STR weapon. But if a PC's fighting style uses a shield as a weapon it seems reasonable they could get a d6 spiked shield.

 

[FrogReaver]

A club, mace, greatclub, or maul is, essentially, just a blunt heavy object that you can hit someone with. A club is the most basic, a weapon anyone can pick up and use. A mace has flanges to concentrate the kinetic energy into a smaller point of impact, requiring a little skill to use right. A shield isn't an intuitive weapon like a club, and it is bigger that a club or a mace, but not as big as a greatclub or a maul. The size of it should somewhat offset the fact that it doesn't extend as far from the wielder's hand to augment the inertia of a weapon swing. The edge, if used to strike with in a Gallic style of shield fighting, would serve to concentrate the kinetic energy like the flanges of a mace, and if you're just bashing someone with the flat surface I think the mass of the shield combined with the easy of putting your body weight into the strike should beat the basic club.

Just because the shield doesn't cosmetically resemble a specific item on the weapon table doesn't mean there aren't similarities and analogs. If your improvised weapon is just whatever comes to hand, like a beer mug or a dead raccoon, then just using a basic d4 is the right way to go. If your improvised weapon is a piece of fighting equipment designed to be used in combat, though perhaps not for the express purpose of whacking bad guys, then it is only reasonable to take a more considered approach. The fact is that shields have been used as weapons not infrequently, and have sometimes been actually designed to accommodate that purpose. When you have a character who is using a shield as a weapon on a regular basis as part of their standard attack routine, it's not really an improvised weapon any more, and you might be better off thinking of it as an "exotic" weapon, even though the 5e rules don't specifically accommodate them. A shield may be an "improvised weapon" under the rules, but it still a piece of military hardware designed to be used in combat.

The job of the DM is not to enforce the rules and keep the player characters in line, it is to accommodate the narrative and fantasy within the rules and direct the action accordingly.

You could have saved 3 paragrpahs of justification and just said I'm houseruling shields because I don't like how improvised weapon rules apply to shields. That's all I wanted to know.

 

[Li Shenron]

I was going to say "Oh no, not this again" but then I saw this:



Was the only response. So my answer is that ^.

I think you were right the first time, but thanks.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

You could have saved 3 paragrpahs of justification and just said I'm houseruling shields because I don't like how improvised weapon rules apply to shields. That's all I wanted to know.

There's nothing wrong for providing a reasoning or rationale behind the way a person might rule at their table. For me, I prefer that from a DM much better than, "Them's the rules and how I see 'em, and that's that!"

After all, isn't this a discussion? Otherwise, its just a poll or a vote regarding whether a person rules one way or another.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's nothing wrong for providing a reasoning or rationale behind the way a person might rule at their table. For me, I prefer that from a DM much better than, "Them's the rules and how I see 'em, and that's that!"

After all, isn't this a discussion? Otherwise, its just a poll or a vote regarding whether a person rules one way or another.

I was discussing to figure out where the ruling for >1d4 shield attacks came from. Turns out it’s a house rule which is fine. Some of my favorite rules are house rules. But the reason this was important was because the justification was dressing up the house rule to make it almost seem like it was a ruling from the rules instead of a house rule.

Now that we have crossed this bridge I don’t mine to discuss the >1d4 shield attack house rule.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I can also see them being treated as light weapons,

I can't. Shields are 6 lbs in weight and take an entire round to put on. That's not light.

In my games, I rule that weapons are something you pick up and use; not something you wear. If you want to hit someone with something you wear, like a shield, then I use exactly the same rules as if you wanted to punch or headbutt or elbow strike or kick someone, that is, an unarmed attack. I do allow for extra damage depending on the armour you are wearing (kicking someone with plate boots hurts).

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I can't. Shields are 6 lbs in weight and take an entire round to put on. That's not light.

In my games, I rule that weapons are something you pick up and use; not something you wear. If you want to hit someone with something you wear, like a shield, then I use exactly the same rules as if you wanted to punch or headbutt or elbow strike or kick someone, that is, an unarmed attack. I do allow for extra damage depending on the armour you are wearing (kicking someone with plate boots hurts).

It's also an item meant to be actively used by your off hand and has historical precedent as being used offensively to deadly effect. To me, this is not a big leap, even if RAW might not agree.

 

[S'mon]

has historical precedent as being used offensively to deadly effect

Daggers also have historical precedent as being used offensively to deadly effect...