Tempest using shield as off-hand weapon

[Artoomis]

That's why the OP assumed the character had improved shield bash.

Uh... right! Missed that, I did.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

EDIT: Already covered.

 

[Liquidsabre]

"...If you use your shield as a weapon you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round)..."

So, yes, you get the AC bonus from the class feature but you would not also get the AC bonus from the shield if you were using it as a weapon unless you have some other feat or class feature that lets you both Shield Bash AND get the AC bonus from the shield at the same time.

Being able to use a shield as a weapon doesn't necessarily classify a shield as being a weapon. The PHB states that a shield can be used to make a bash attack and to treat the shield as a weapon, but it sure looks like a shield is still classified as a piece of armor and technically not a weapon. This would make a shield ineligible for use with the Tempest's special ability.

Unless there is some text that defines a shield as a weapon. Currently the shield is described in the armor section of the equipment chapter. The weapon tables in the PHB aren't applicable here since the entry for a shield is for reference when conducting a shield bash (using a shield as a weapon).

I can pick up a chair and use it as a weapon to bash someone over the head with it, but it's still a piece of furniture and not a weapon.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Unless there is some text that defines a shield as a weapon.

How about the Weapons table in the equipment chapter?

 

[melkorspawn]

How about the Weapons table in the equipment chapter?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Liquidsabre]

How about the Weapons table in the equipment chapter?

Already covered that:

The weapon tables in the PHB aren't applicable since the entry for a shield is for reference when conducting a shield bash (using a shield as a weapon).

Again this doesn't make a shield a weapon (it's still armor) but it does demonstrate that a shield can be used as a weapon in certain cirumstances, when shield bashing in this case. Plus a table isn't text either.

 

[melkorspawn]

I can pick up a chair and use it as a weapon to bash someone over the head with it, but it's still a piece of furniture and not a weapon.

There's no chair post in the weapons table. However... I believe that a Tempest would receive the armor class bonus while wielding a chair as their offhand weapon... with improvised weapon penalties in his attack roll, of course (unless he had at least 4 levels in Drunken Master). With three levels of Tempest, that chair would even be embued with the Weapon Focus, Specialization, etc... of their primary weapon.

D&D is an adaptable game, it's better to rule on function than on form. Otherwise, we'll be stuck on arguements like, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

 

[Liquidsabre]

D&D is an adaptable game, it's better to rule on function than on form. Otherwise, we'll be stuck on arguements like, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Oh I quite agree, to a point. Definitions are quite neccessary when understanding how special abilities, feats, etc. function. A melee weapon is well defined as are other conditions, effects, items, and so on.

Ignoring the fact that a shield is a piece of armor that can be used as a weapon for the case of the tempest's special ability just smells a bit funny to me is all. Sure it takes an extra feat to make the TWF combo function as a Tempest, but it sure looks like a perversion of the concept that the prestige class embodies: that of a two-weapon fighter. Allowing a shield to be counted as a weapon really twists the PrC's concept from the TWF fighter to a weapon and shield (sword and board) fighter-type that actually appears to gain extra benefits compared to the typical TWF Tempests that this PrC should produce. Just seems...odd. Maybe it's just me.

 

[melkorspawn]

So... what you're saying is that you're taking the prescriptive definition of the word 'weapon' (Something intended only for use as a weapon) as opposed to the descriptive definition (Something being used as a weapon) due to your preconcieved notion of the Tempest prestige class? On the second half of this question, would you force a monk to be just like Friar Tuck, as opposed to an eastern monk, or a wizard to be just like Gandalf, as opposed to Questor Thews, or a bard not to suck in a 'kick in the door' campaign (Ok, you got me on that one), due to such preconcieved notions?

How would you rule on this?

Defending: A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

Is it only possible to have a defending sword because of its explicit mention in the text, or can you have a defending mace, or dagger, or hammer?

 

[Zandel]

How about a dwarven buckler axe? (exotic shield/weapon from Complete warrior.)