D&D 5E Shield Attacks and AC Bonus

[Mistwell]

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?

I think for me, I'd allow mace damage but no proficiency bonus, unless the player made a compelling enough argument about a particular kind of shield which is so similar to an actual weapon that it should allow proficiency.

I see three types of improvised weapons in the rules.

1. An improvised weapon so similar to an actual weapon that it can be treated as the actual weapon: use proficiency bonus and damage as if it were that weapon.

2. An improvised weapon which bears some resemblance to an actual weapon, but which is not so similar that it should be treated as the actual weapon. No proficiency bonus, and damage as if it were that weapon.

3. An object that bears no resemblance to an actual weapon. No proficiency bonus, and 1d4 damage.

A shield falls into category 2 for me, unless a specific shield is successfully lobbied as being category 1 or 3.

As an example of a shield which I think should be treated with proficiency (though not for mace - maybe short sword) I am thinking something like this:

And this one

 

[Satyrn]

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

Fun fact: 5e made clubs and maces weaker than earlier editions. The club is just 1d4

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Fun fact: 5e made clubs and maces weaker than earlier editions. The club is just 1d4

Seriously? I had to double check that. Clearly I do not play many characters that wield a club. So then yea, mace it is.

 

[Satyrn]

What's with the "porthole" near the top? It looks like there's a tiny automaton peeking out. Does he control the flamethrower in the center of the shield?

 

[Oofta]

What's with the "porthole" near the top? It looks like there's a tiny automaton peeking out. Does he control the flamethrower in the center of the shield?

Close. It's a lantern shield, the flap would be opened to shine light and confuse any attackers.

Although a alchemist fire-based squirt gun attachment would be awesome.

 

[Satyrn]

Although a alchemist fire-based squirt gun attachment would be awesome.

Perfect for a tinker gnome paladin!

 

[epithet]

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?

I'll echo most of the answer Mistwell gave to this question. Without a feat or a house rule, I would not give a proficiency bonus to the attack with a shield. While a shield will, I think, hit like a mace, it is not actually swung like a mace.

I would also like to state my opposition to those hubcap/gauntlet/blade combo monstrosities that Mistwell posted pictures of. They ought not to be.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I still have no idea why saying [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] didn't work.

 

[Mistwell]

I still have no idea why saying [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] didn't work.

Me either. Worked that time. Huh. Weird glitch.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think for me, I'd allow mace damage but no proficiency bonus, unless the player made a compelling enough argument about a particular kind of shield which is so similar to an actual weapon that it should allow proficiency.

I see three types of improvised weapons in the rules.

1. An improvised weapon so similar to an actual weapon that it can be treated as the actual weapon: use proficiency bonus and damage as if it were that weapon.

2. An improvised weapon which bears some resemblance to an actual weapon, but which is not so similar that it should be treated as the actual weapon. No proficiency bonus, and damage as if it were that weapon.

3. An object that bears no resemblance to an actual weapon. No proficiency bonus, and 1d4 damage.

A shield falls into category 2 for me, unless a specific shield is successfully lobbied as being category 1 or 3.

As an example of a shield which I think should be treated with proficiency (though not for mace - maybe short sword) I am thinking something like this:

And this one

Focusing on your definition for #2

A few points. I find it interesting that you are using resemble and similar as synonyms above. You are using those two words to mean exactly the same thing (something I claimed the rules were doing a long time ago). I also find it interesting that you are defining degrees of similarity and using that to make your "ruling" when the rules never mention objects similar in some ways but not in others.

What rule allows you to say shields are similar enough to maces to be treated like a mace for damage but not similar enough to a mace to be able to benefit from proficiency?