You defined a noun by using the adjective form of the same word 🤣
But back on topic and to ChickenChamp’s earlier point, the rules don't define a weapon, which generally means you should use the common definition. And this means an improvised weapon is a weapon.
You defined a noun by using the adjective form of the same word 🤣
But back on topic and to ChickenChamp’s earlier point, the rules don't define a weapon, which generally means you should use the common definition. And this means an improvised weapon is a weapon.
The list for melee/ranged simple/martial weapons is static, so any expansion that adds a weapon declares it as a weapon in the item itself. The Yklwa for example states the following:
A yklwa (pronounced YICK-ul-wah) is a simple melee weapon...
Simply put, everything in the melee/ranged simple/martial tables or items that self declare them to be one, are weapons. Every other item used as to make an attack is an improvised weapon.
The key difference here is intent and purpose. The purpose of a sword is to inflict damage, in order to harm/kill the intended target it's used on. The purpose of a mug is to contain liquid, in order to consume the liquid it holds without making a mess.
So what is the purpose of a shield? To protect the user by deflecting or reducing the damage of an attack aimed at your person. Not quite the intent or purpose a weapon has. Could you use it to harm someone? Sure, that's why its an item with which an improvised attack is made. This doesn't change the description of a shield to "A shield is a simple melee weapon..."
A shield doesn't magically become a weapon by default when you use it to harm someone. If it would then a pet would be a weapon. A cart and wagon would be a weapon. That life size Matt Mercer body pillow you hug to sleep at night would be a weapon (if you used to smother/strangle a person in their sleep).
(no offense intended at the last part, just a slight attempt at humor [panty twists defused])
To further prove my point, carefully read trough the improvised weapon page. In all of those lines of text they make extra care to never call an improvised weapon a weapon:
"...An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands..." (object, as in not a weapon)
"...Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon..." (actual weapon, implying improvised weapons are not)
"...a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object..." (similar object, again as in not a weapon)
"...An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon..." (again, object)
In the improvised weapon section there is also a lovely description that fortifies that the intent matters:
... If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
So if you use a bow as a club or a greatsword as a projectile, it looses all benefits of being a weapon because it's being used in a manner outside it's intended purpose. In that manner it goes from weapon, to object used in an attack.
While I'm sure I'm not adding to this conversation and more likely this already been mentioned but if I allowed a Shield as a weapon during combat in my game I'd consider following the Gladiator Shield Bash action.
Shield Bash.Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 9 (2d4 + 4) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a Medium or smaller creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
While I'm sure I'm not adding to this conversation and more likely this already been mentioned but if I allowed a Shield as a weapon during combat in my game I'd consider following the Gladiator Shield Bash action.
Shield Bash.Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 9 (2d4 + 4) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a Medium or smaller creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.
You are well within RAW to do so as the improvised weapon rules state: - "Often, 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."
Personally if I'd do that I'd stick to 2d4 damage. And then keep the CC effect as part of the Shield Master feat and the proficiency bonus as part of Tavern Brawler. But when not using feats I see no problem with this ruling (other then making shields stronger then intended)
Your class grants proficiency in certain weapons, reflecting both the class's focus and the tools you are most likely to use. Whether you favor a longsword or a longbow, your weapon and your ability to wield it effectively can mean the difference between life and death while adventuring.
The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.
...I see 1) a discussion of how your class uses weapon proficiency, 2) a table that references a list of weapon examples, and 3) a breakdown of subcategories of weapons. I feel like it sure would have been convenient for them to drop in a single sentence definition of what constitutes a weapon in the game. Once that is established, all other things that might not be weapons will either meet or fail to meet that definition. Compare this with the What is a spell? section of the PHB where the very first three words of the very first sentence are "A spell is..." or under the Making an attack section where it defines what constitutes an attack: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure."
That leads me to believe that the designers are confident we as players and DMs know what a weapon is. And while I take your point drawing a distinction between usage and intent (you said intent and purpose, which are synonyms), the fact of the matter is that an improvised weapon is a weapon. It says it right in the name, you make a weapon attack with it, and for those of us who put value in JC's sage advice, he even says as much. "An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon." It is not a melee weapon, nor is it a ranged weapon, it is an improvised weapon.
As an aside, while researching this, I came across several places that declare that a weapon has to be listed in the weapon table to be considered a weapon. I find this to be a very dubious claim because the paragraph I quoted above says the weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D. If it was meant to be exclusive, they would have simply said "The Weapons table shows the weapons used in the worlds of D&D..."
- "...you said intent and purpose, which are synonyms..."
A sentence to clarify the difference between how I use these words "For what purpose do we exist, and what do I intent to do?" Within that context you can't swap the words around and they have a different meaning. The purpose of a shield is self protection, but I intent to use it to bash skulls in. The intent of the user does not match the purpose of the item.
My apologies for not expressing myself clearly in this manner.
-"I see 1) a discussion of how your class uses weapon proficiency,"
Not the topic of this post, I'm not going to go into it.
-" I feel like it sure would have been convenient for them to drop in a single sentence definition of what constitutes a weapon in the game."
They don't need to. In the PHB they set up the 4 weapon classes or "types". Then they tagged every item with the class they belong to. A Moon-Touched Sword is tagged with "Weapon (any sword), common ". Where a shield is tagged as type: Shield.
This has the added benefit of being able to tell a hammer, from a hammer.
Aside from the tagging, if you'd allow anything to be a weapon because you attacked with it, this would break some mechanics severely. Imagine an Eldritch Knight trying to attune to a bag of holding for the purpose of summoning it trough the weapon bond feature. If the logic "I attacked with it so it is now a weapon" flies, then I could technically swing my Halfling friend around and weapon bond with him. "hello DM, I'd like to summon Halfling please."
In this matter I disagree heavily with JC.
Sure I'd allow smites and such to work with fists and mugs you might wield. In that sense make them weapons. But no, I wouldn't allow you to create the "summon Warship" spell with Weapon Bond because you hit a fool with the Boom of said warship and spent time attuning to it.
If you read a section that tells you any object that can be held may be used as a weapon, and then your instinct is to read it in a way that precludes weapon abilities from working, even though that section never tells you to do so... then I think that you’d probably be looking to do that no matter WHAT words the authors chose. Nothing says “features and abilities that require a weapon are not satisfied by an improvised weapon,” but if that houserule feels important to you, go for it.
Deshiba, I appreciate how you laid out your position, and you defend your case well, but I fundamentally disagree with you. I'm happy to leave it at that.
If you read a section that tells you any object that can be held may be used as a weapon, and then your instinct is to read it in a way that precludes weapon abilities from working, even though that section never tells you to do so... then I think that you’d probably be looking to do that no matter WHAT words the authors chose. Nothing says “features and abilities that require a weapon are not satisfied by an improvised weapon,” but if that houserule feels important to you, go for it.
If you read a section that tells you that any object may be used as a weapon, and your instinct is to read it in a way that all objects are now weapons by default even though that section never tells you that is the case.... Then I think you'd probably be looking to do that no matter WHAT words the author chose. Nothing says "all objects are weapons" but if that houserule feels important to you, go for it.
See how that statements work either which side of the argument you are on?
Deshiba, I appreciate how you laid out your position, and you defend your case well, but I fundamentally disagree with you. I'm happy to leave it at that.
Flipping that around on me is a bit of a stretch, but... What I’m getting at is, there seem to be a couple of different “philosophies” that folks approach rule interpretation from. Folks that emphasize “But what about THIS odd thing a player might do!?” are approaching it from a 180 degree opposite perspective than I have, and that kind of reasoning seems to most often lead to “to avoid that slippery slope, this rule that isn’t printed must be an unwritten rule.” I don’t believe in unwritten rules. I’m not bothered by players finding bizarre (unintended?) rule interactions. There’s no rule book language to say one philosophy or the other is better, it’s just about each DM. It’s irreconcilable, but it’s not a big deal. You do you.
Not to put words in your mouth, but what I think you are saying is something else that I think about from time to time. There is explicit RAW where a rule lines up well with particular situation and then there is implicit RAW by way of similar rules that we can apply to a given situation. This is where RAI can be useful even if we don't agree with them because they at least give us a window into the thought process of the rule designers. I acknowledge that my comment on RAI is subjective, but then again, I suppose intention can be subjective as well.
Implicit RAW is where a lot of the conversations in this forum take place because one person might say Rule 1 is specific, and therefore it applies instead of general Rule 2 while someone else might say I don't think Rule 1 implies that thing at all and therefore in my reading of the rule, general Rule 2 still applies.
And then there is "Rules as not contradicted by RAW" and that's just a logical fallacy. "Ain't no rule that says a dog can't play basketball"
Your class grants proficiency in certain weapons, reflecting both the class's focus and the tools you are most likely to use. Whether you favor a longsword or a longbow, your weapon and your ability to wield it effectively can mean the difference between life and death while adventuring.
The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.
...I see 1) a discussion of how your class uses weapon proficiency, 2) a table that references a list of weapon examples, and 3) a breakdown of subcategories of weapons. I feel like it sure would have been convenient for them to drop in a single sentence definition of what constitutes a weapon in the game. Once that is established, all other things that might not be weapons will either meet or fail to meet that definition. Compare this with the What is a spell? section of the PHB where the very first three words of the very first sentence are "A spell is..." or under the Making an attack section where it defines what constitutes an attack: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure."
That leads me to believe that the designers are confident we as players and DMs know what a weapon is. And while I take your point drawing a distinction between usage and intent (you said intent and purpose, which are synonyms), the fact of the matter is that an improvised weapon is a weapon. It says it right in the name, you make a weapon attack with it, and for those of us who put value in JC's sage advice, he even says as much. "An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon." It is not a melee weapon, nor is it a ranged weapon, it is an improvised weapon.
As an aside, while researching this, I came across several places that declare that a weapon has to be listed in the weapon table to be considered a weapon. I find this to be a very dubious claim because the paragraph I quoted above says the weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D. If it was meant to be exclusive, they would have simply said "The Weapons table shows the weapons used in the worlds of D&D..."
An aside from the topic at hand but where did you find those statements? I'm sort of fascinated to read where it applies to the game.
Flipping that around on me is a bit of a stretch, but... What I’m getting at is, there seem to be a couple of different “philosophies” that folks approach rule interpretation from. Folks that emphasize “But what about THIS odd thing a player might do!?” are approaching it from a 180 degree opposite perspective than I have, and that kind of reasoning seems to most often lead to “to avoid that slippery slope, this rule that isn’t printed must be an unwritten rule.” I don’t believe in unwritten rules. I’m not bothered by players finding bizarre (unintended?) rule interactions. There’s no rule book language to say one philosophy or the other is better, it’s just about each DM. It’s irreconcilable, but it’s not a big deal. You do you.
Flipping a statement around doesn't stretch it more or less. It's the same statement but in reverse.
I'm not interpreting rules as “But what about THIS odd thing a player might do!?” I'm clearly looking at texts and literally quoting those. Then I give my opinion on what I think should and shouldn't be allowed. As per RAW:
A shield is of the type shield, not of the type weapon. (melee, ranged, simple or martial)
Any object (including a shield) can be used to make a improvised weapon attack (but remains an object) "...An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage..."
Is a shield a weapon? No. Can it be used to make an improvised weapon attack? Yes.
Outside of RAW my opinion is a little more nuanced. The best example I can give is as such.
A table leg is (part of) furniture.
When I break it off and smash someone it's an improvised weapon.
When I stop wielding the table leg and drop it it becomes litter/trash
When I pick it back up and toss it in a fireplace it becomes firewood
As such the initial classification of a shield is what it's stat block says it is. When you take an action to use it as something else it acts as that thing (improvised weapon). Until you stop using it as that thing. At which point it reverts back to what it was initially, a shield.
This leads me to opine that you can use an ability like Smite with a shield. But cant use an ability like weapon bond with a shield.
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage.
That passes the test for me. We can debate whether a shield is ever truly a weapon, but I think we are all in agreement you can make a melee weapon attack with a shield.
As for weapon bond...
At 3rd level, you learn a ritual that creates a magical bond between yourself and one weapon.
ooooh that one's a little murky. It's also absolutely hilarious to imagine, so I would not only allow, but encourage a player who wanted to do it. My precious clubbin shield, I love you so. Now you can be a part of me forever!
At 3rd level, you learn a ritual that creates a magical bond between yourself and one weapon.
ooooh that one's a little murky. It's also absolutely hilarious to imagine, so I would not only allow, but encourage a player who wanted to do it. My precious clubbin shield, I love you so. Now you can be a part of me forever!
It's all fun and games, even when the fighter keeps summoning Goblin corps.. uhm, clubs. He summons clubs. :-D
It's all fun and games, even when the fighter keeps summoning Goblin corps.. uhm, clubs. He summons clubs. :-D
Why corpses? It's perfectly legal to use a living goblin as an improvised weapon.
Not explicitly raw. Creatures aren't generally considered Objects (it's a distinction that's very often meaningful for plenty of spells, in particular), and the only example provided in the Improvised Weapons section is swinging a corpse.
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.
Rule of cool, I'd usually allow it, but it's a little outside the bounds of "perfectly legal."
Wait wait wait. A live body is not an object (even though it is still a distinct thing) but an object that is completely distinct from "an actual weapon" is a weapon? That is a double standard in your interpretation chicanery.
A shield is of the type shield, not of the type weapon. (melee, ranged, simple or martial)
Any object (including a shield) can be used to make a improvised weapon attack (but remains an object) "...An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage..."
Is a shield a weapon? No. Can it be used to make an improvised weapon attack? Yes.
...
This leads me to opine that you can use an ability like Smite with a shield. But cant use an ability like weapon bond with a shield.
So, what about a gauntlet? A glove? A shoe?
Does the above rulling mean that hitting someone with a glove (by punching them) does 1d4+STR damage?
I worry that this is a slippery slope that ends up with unarmed strikes always doing 1d4, not 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You defined a noun by using the adjective form of the same word 🤣
But back on topic and to ChickenChamp’s earlier point, the rules don't define a weapon, which generally means you should use the common definition. And this means an improvised weapon is a weapon.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well actually, the rules do define weapons in the PHB https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/equipment#Weapons
On that page they declare Melee and Ranged weapons of the simple and martial variety, define the properties of those weapons and declare rules for what to do with items that aren't weapons but are used to make attacks.
The list for melee/ranged simple/martial weapons is static, so any expansion that adds a weapon declares it as a weapon in the item itself. The Yklwa for example states the following:
Simply put, everything in the melee/ranged simple/martial tables or items that self declare them to be one, are weapons. Every other item used as to make an attack is an improvised weapon.
The key difference here is intent and purpose. The purpose of a sword is to inflict damage, in order to harm/kill the intended target it's used on. The purpose of a mug is to contain liquid, in order to consume the liquid it holds without making a mess.
So what is the purpose of a shield? To protect the user by deflecting or reducing the damage of an attack aimed at your person. Not quite the intent or purpose a weapon has. Could you use it to harm someone? Sure, that's why its an item with which an improvised attack is made. This doesn't change the description of a shield to "A shield is a simple melee weapon..."
A shield doesn't magically become a weapon by default when you use it to harm someone. If it would then a pet would be a weapon. A cart and wagon would be a weapon. That life size Matt Mercer body pillow you hug to sleep at night would be a weapon (if you used to smother/strangle a person in their sleep).
(no offense intended at the last part, just a slight attempt at humor [panty twists defused])
To further prove my point, carefully read trough the improvised weapon page. In all of those lines of text they make extra care to never call an improvised weapon a weapon:
In the improvised weapon section there is also a lovely description that fortifies that the intent matters:
So if you use a bow as a club or a greatsword as a projectile, it looses all benefits of being a weapon because it's being used in a manner outside it's intended purpose. In that manner it goes from weapon, to object used in an attack.
While I'm sure I'm not adding to this conversation and more likely this already been mentioned but if I allowed a Shield as a weapon during combat in my game I'd consider following the Gladiator Shield Bash action.
You are well within RAW to do so as the improvised weapon rules state:
- "Often, 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."
Personally if I'd do that I'd stick to 2d4 damage. And then keep the CC effect as part of the Shield Master feat and the proficiency bonus as part of Tavern Brawler. But when not using feats I see no problem with this ruling (other then making shields stronger then intended)
When I re-read these paragraphs:
...I see 1) a discussion of how your class uses weapon proficiency, 2) a table that references a list of weapon examples, and 3) a breakdown of subcategories of weapons. I feel like it sure would have been convenient for them to drop in a single sentence definition of what constitutes a weapon in the game. Once that is established, all other things that might not be weapons will either meet or fail to meet that definition. Compare this with the What is a spell? section of the PHB where the very first three words of the very first sentence are "A spell is..." or under the Making an attack section where it defines what constitutes an attack: "Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure."
That leads me to believe that the designers are confident we as players and DMs know what a weapon is. And while I take your point drawing a distinction between usage and intent (you said intent and purpose, which are synonyms), the fact of the matter is that an improvised weapon is a weapon. It says it right in the name, you make a weapon attack with it, and for those of us who put value in JC's sage advice, he even says as much. "An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon." It is not a melee weapon, nor is it a ranged weapon, it is an improvised weapon.
As an aside, while researching this, I came across several places that declare that a weapon has to be listed in the weapon table to be considered a weapon. I find this to be a very dubious claim because the paragraph I quoted above says the weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D. If it was meant to be exclusive, they would have simply said "The Weapons table shows the weapons used in the worlds of D&D..."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
- "...you said intent and purpose, which are synonyms..."
A sentence to clarify the difference between how I use these words "For what purpose do we exist, and what do I intent to do?" Within that context you can't swap the words around and they have a different meaning. The purpose of a shield is self protection, but I intent to use it to bash skulls in. The intent of the user does not match the purpose of the item.
My apologies for not expressing myself clearly in this manner.
-"I see 1) a discussion of how your class uses weapon proficiency,"
Not the topic of this post, I'm not going to go into it.
-" I feel like it sure would have been convenient for them to drop in a single sentence definition of what constitutes a weapon in the game."
They don't need to. In the PHB they set up the 4 weapon classes or "types". Then they tagged every item with the class they belong to. A Moon-Touched Sword is tagged with "Weapon (any sword), common ". Where a shield is tagged as type: Shield.
This has the added benefit of being able to tell a hammer, from a hammer.
Aside from the tagging, if you'd allow anything to be a weapon because you attacked with it, this would break some mechanics severely. Imagine an Eldritch Knight trying to attune to a bag of holding for the purpose of summoning it trough the weapon bond feature. If the logic "I attacked with it so it is now a weapon" flies, then I could technically swing my Halfling friend around and weapon bond with him. "hello DM, I'd like to summon Halfling please."
In this matter I disagree heavily with JC.
Sure I'd allow smites and such to work with fists and mugs you might wield. In that sense make them weapons.
But no, I wouldn't allow you to create the "summon Warship" spell with Weapon Bond because you hit a fool with the Boom of said warship and spent time attuning to it.
If you read a section that tells you any object that can be held may be used as a weapon, and then your instinct is to read it in a way that precludes weapon abilities from working, even though that section never tells you to do so... then I think that you’d probably be looking to do that no matter WHAT words the authors chose. Nothing says “features and abilities that require a weapon are not satisfied by an improvised weapon,” but if that houserule feels important to you, go for it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Deshiba, I appreciate how you laid out your position, and you defend your case well, but I fundamentally disagree with you. I'm happy to leave it at that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If you read a section that tells you that any object may be used as a weapon, and your instinct is to read it in a way that all objects are now weapons by default even though that section never tells you that is the case.... Then I think you'd probably be looking to do that no matter WHAT words the author chose. Nothing says "all objects are weapons" but if that houserule feels important to you, go for it.
See how that statements work either which side of the argument you are on?
I can respect that
Flipping that around on me is a bit of a stretch, but... What I’m getting at is, there seem to be a couple of different “philosophies” that folks approach rule interpretation from. Folks that emphasize “But what about THIS odd thing a player might do!?” are approaching it from a 180 degree opposite perspective than I have, and that kind of reasoning seems to most often lead to “to avoid that slippery slope, this rule that isn’t printed must be an unwritten rule.” I don’t believe in unwritten rules. I’m not bothered by players finding bizarre (unintended?) rule interactions. There’s no rule book language to say one philosophy or the other is better, it’s just about each DM. It’s irreconcilable, but it’s not a big deal. You do you.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Not to put words in your mouth, but what I think you are saying is something else that I think about from time to time. There is explicit RAW where a rule lines up well with particular situation and then there is implicit RAW by way of similar rules that we can apply to a given situation. This is where RAI can be useful even if we don't agree with them because they at least give us a window into the thought process of the rule designers. I acknowledge that my comment on RAI is subjective, but then again, I suppose intention can be subjective as well.
Implicit RAW is where a lot of the conversations in this forum take place because one person might say Rule 1 is specific, and therefore it applies instead of general Rule 2 while someone else might say I don't think Rule 1 implies that thing at all and therefore in my reading of the rule, general Rule 2 still applies.
And then there is "Rules as not contradicted by RAW" and that's just a logical fallacy. "Ain't no rule that says a dog can't play basketball"
"Not all those who wander are lost"
An aside from the topic at hand but where did you find those statements? I'm sort of fascinated to read where it applies to the game.
Flipping a statement around doesn't stretch it more or less. It's the same statement but in reverse.
I'm not interpreting rules as “But what about THIS odd thing a player might do!?” I'm clearly looking at texts and literally quoting those. Then I give my opinion on what I think should and shouldn't be allowed.
As per RAW:
Is a shield a weapon? No. Can it be used to make an improvised weapon attack? Yes.
Outside of RAW my opinion is a little more nuanced. The best example I can give is as such.
As such the initial classification of a shield is what it's stat block says it is. When you take an action to use it as something else it acts as that thing (improvised weapon). Until you stop using it as that thing. At which point it reverts back to what it was initially, a shield.
This leads me to opine that you can use an ability like Smite with a shield. But cant use an ability like weapon bond with a shield.
That passes the test for me. We can debate whether a shield is ever truly a weapon, but I think we are all in agreement you can make a melee weapon attack with a shield.
As for weapon bond...
ooooh that one's a little murky. It's also absolutely hilarious to imagine, so I would not only allow, but encourage a player who wanted to do it. My precious clubbin shield, I love you so. Now you can be a part of me forever!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's all fun and games, even when the fighter keeps summoning Goblin corps.. uhm, clubs. He summons clubs. :-D
Why corpses? It's perfectly legal to use a living goblin as an improvised weapon.
When repeatedly summoned and used as clubs I imagine they won't live for long...
Not explicitly raw. Creatures aren't generally considered Objects (it's a distinction that's very often meaningful for plenty of spells, in particular), and the only example provided in the Improvised Weapons section is swinging a corpse.
Rule of cool, I'd usually allow it, but it's a little outside the bounds of "perfectly legal."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wait wait wait. A live body is not an object (even though it is still a distinct thing) but an object that is completely distinct from "an actual weapon" is a weapon? That is a double standard in your interpretation chicanery.
So, what about a gauntlet? A glove? A shoe?
Does the above rulling mean that hitting someone with a glove (by punching them) does 1d4+STR damage?
I worry that this is a slippery slope that ends up with unarmed strikes always doing 1d4, not 1.