I'm not sure they really lose their weapon properties, vs. just changing their damage dice and losing your proficiency bonus. It may be intended, but the GWM-Tavern Brawler Kensai is a legit RAW build in my eyes.
I'm reasonably confident it loses its Ammunition and Loading properties, though maybe not Two-Handed.
Historically, they were both a weapon and a use of armor, it's not stupid nor impossible, it was quite common. Vikings, Pavisers, etc... they all used shields as a weapon and armor, because there is that mechanical use of it.
Historically, they were both a weapon and a use of armor, it's not stupid nor impossible, it was quite common. Vikings, Pavisers, etc... they all used shields as a weapon and armor, because there is that mechanical use of it.
Not really. The main real-world 'weapon' use of a shield is covered by using it to perform a shove, which is normally possible as an attack, and as a bonus action with Shield Master.
Historically, they were both a weapon and a use of armor, it's not stupid nor impossible, it was quite common. Vikings, Pavisers, etc... they all used shields as a weapon and armor, because there is that mechanical use of it.
Not really. The main real-world 'weapon' use of a shield is covered by using it to perform a shove, which is normally possible as an attack, and as a bonus action with Shield Master.
Sorry, but that is just not true at all. The diversity present in shield use from the 1st Century all the way through to the 17th Century is pretty amazing, and if you think all they were used for was protection and shoving, you're just not informed.
One of the earlier shields was the Pelta, a Greek half-moon shield that was primarily defensive, but it's offshoot, a crescent shield used in the 1st century AD, was used as an offensive weapon alongside one-handed swords and spears.
The height of shields used as weapons came from a buckler variant known as a sword breaker. It was one of the lighter and more modern shields used from the 1200s through the 1600s. It was extremely versatile, consisting of two straps that kept the item affixed to the bearer's forearm, and also had a handle, or sometimes hand-strap, to allow additional control and use as an offensive weapon. They were largely employed by those who used large (versatile) weapons because the secondary hand needed was left free. The versatility was that this shield, usually a 2-foot long iron plate, was reinforced and spiked. When defending, a wielder of a buckler could eschew the use of their second hand from their weapon and engage the handle / strap and use it to not only attempt to shatter or disarm the weapon attacking them, but also could use it to attack exposed areas, often disabling a sword-arm or dealing damage to exposed legs.
In terms of hands-free defense, Norman kite shields were fairly unique in that they were long shields (36" to 60") in a roughly triangular shape. It was unique in that it possessed both loops and handle for standard operation, but also had what is called a guige, or a lopped strap at the top, which allowed the shield to be worn on the neck and free both hands for combat. When used as such, they possessed cinches under the shield that could allow it to be fastened as frontal, side, or rear protection. Side was most frequently used in mounted combat, while rear was mostly used in engaged combat to protect one's back in the chaos of battle.
Then there's a Pavise, which was the traditional shield of crossbowmen & archers from the 1300s onward. These shields were actually quite large and were spiked (or grooved with a stake) on the bottom to allow it to become a mobile defensive station. Imagine you carry it in one hand, and your bow in the other. You get to your position, and spike the shield into the ground, and squat behind it while you get your ammunition set. You're now in full cover. When you fire a volley you stand up, and when you're done, you get back down. The whole time you're benefiting from at least half cover, if not full cover while squatting / kneeling. These shields also had guiges, allowing them to be carried on their back and still provide protection.
I can go on and on into more obscure shields and their myriad of uses, but I think this conveys my point. To say all a shield is used for is to protect and bash is doing nothing more than parroting 5e rules with no knowledge of what shields have actually, historically, been used to accomplish.
And historically, wizards almost never cast forcecage in battle.
Remember, just as D&D isn't a physics simulator, it also isn't a medieval history simulator. Historical precedent doesn't affect the rules. You should make your rules decision based on what you think about the rules, not about what people actually did.
Historically, they were both a weapon and a use of armor, it's not stupid nor impossible, it was quite common. Vikings, Pavisers, etc... they all used shields as a weapon and armor, because there is that mechanical use of it.
That's true of every piece of armour. You can headbutt, elbow strike, kick, etc with all the parts of what you are wearing.
As someone who has done actual armored combat and studied the craft of medieval armoring, I can say that without a doubt a shield can be used for punching or elbowing weapon. Everyone that fights has had their bell rung by someone’s shield if even by accident in a melee tussle. Using only the shield, it is an improvised weapon only. One attack. I would rule that a shield can be use as a bludgeoning offhand improvised weapon if you can wield it and you have two weapon fighting and both shield and weapon have to be light. You need the Dual Wielding Feat to use it as an improvised weapon. During that round, I wouldn’t allow the shield’s inherent AC bonus to be included. The dual wielding feat gives an AC bonus also and that balances the build. All other special abilities from shield master would still be available. You just have to give up a point or two of AC but I would allow any magical bonuses on the shield to count as a bonus to attack and damage during a round that it was used as a weapon. Without Dual Wielder feat it’s 1d4+STR range 20/60 with no Proficiency bonus to attack or damage. With Dual Wielder and proficiency with a shield, I would allow the shield attacks to use proficiency bonus the same as any other weapon.
And historically, wizards almost never cast forcecage in battle.
Remember, just as D&D isn't a physics simulator, it also isn't a medieval history simulator. Historical precedent doesn't affect the rules. You should make your rules decision based on what you think about the rules, not about what people actually did.
Never said medieval history needed to be reflected within D&D. I was specifically pointing out to Pantagruel666 (the person I quoted) that his notion that "The main real-world 'weapon' use of a shield is ... to perform a shove" is utterly incorrect. Never did I assert that the rules should change.
My personal stance, because I am an enthusiast of creating items & abilities that add a bit of realism, is that I created a few items to address variety in shield use. In fact, I posted it a few pages back. The relevant part was:
Shield Buckler is "wondrous item" worn on one arm of choice, and provides a +1 bonus to AC so long as the bearer isn't wielding a shield. (Thus leaving the off-hand free to dual wield without restriction)
Spiked Shield is a lighter shield that provides +1 AC, and is treated as a light weapon requiring martial proficiency to use for purposes of dual wielding, dealing 1d6 piercing damage. (In the hands of a "Dual Wielder" it adds that +1 AC from the feat, because it's treated as a light weapon, to make it as good as a normal shield and still gets the dual-wielding benefit) Tower Shield is a heavy shield that provides +3 AC, reduces movement by 5-feet, and provides half cover against ranged attacks. It requires 2 rounds to don/doff.
Much easier than having the argument over and over again as to why or why not my players can't use a shield the way they want in a way that makes mechanical sense, but is vague in the RAW.
Shields, Buckler, Spiked, and Tower, as magic items all seem fine. The only problem with them is that players could be confused and think they could do anything similar with non-magical Shields. I believe they kept things very simple given that in history there were *lots* of kinds of shields, and pretty soon someone is going to expect a razor edged clip on lantern-buckler that they can throw like a Frisbee and do fire, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Then they will want to dual wield them.
Question about the Tower Shield. That would be a "Pavise" I think, but to be so heavy as to reduce movement speed, I have to wonder. What exactly is that thing?
Shields, Buckler, Spiked, and Tower, as magic items all seem fine.
The only magical property stated above would be the wondrous item: Shield Buckler. All the rest are non-magical but they are different to the base models.
Question about the Tower Shield. That would be a "Pavise" I think, but to be so heavy as to reduce movement speed, I have to wonder. What exactly is that thing?
A pavise weighs roughly 5159 grams, or just over 11 pounds, whereas a tower shield weighs roughly 45 pounds. If the tower shield didn't reduce movement speed that would be insane. Also historically they are very similar, it's just the pavise was originally used by archers to gain ground whilst being shot at by other archers. I think the devs might've gone a bit wild with the weight of a tower shield but they are two-handed, whereas the pavise would be considered versatile in D&D standards.
and pretty soon someone is going to expect a razor edged clip on lantern-buckler that they can throw like a Frisbee and do fire, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Then they will want to dual wield them.
First of all, the shield does not have a thrown property, hence they would be at a disadvantage to attack, and the distance would be somewhere around 20 feet. Secondly, it is stated that they only do one of each type of physical damage at any time, depending on how the shield is kitted out. Thirdly, if you cast a spell like heat metal onto it whilst it's in the air, yes it would do heat damage if it came into contact with an enemy. You could even cast smites onto the shield and make attacks with it, so as it could blind, deafen, burn, deal extra radiant damage, and **** it you can cast hail of thorns on it, then throw it... All of those are viable options as a player, as long as the dm allows it, and they account for player creativity. My dm has let me throw short-swords a short distance before but I got advantage on the roll, because that's how balancing works. Oh and finally, the whole point of the shield buckle is so as you can dual wield weapons whilst still having an innate bonus to your AC, and on top of that, yes you can dual wield two shields, but the AC does not stack, as you cannot gain a bonus to AC from wielding more than one shield, and you can't dual wield any shield other than the spiked shield, which only gives you a plus 2 bonus to AC if wielded with another weapon, because it was designed around the Dual Wielding feat.
I'm new to 5th edition, but I've played D&D for a long while. Just kinda starting to get back into it, and was looking for an answer on "can a shield be considered a weapon" - reason being, for the game I'm joining, I'm creating an Eldritch Knight, and one of the class features is "Weapon Bond" - per the book, I can bond up to 2 weapons, and summon from anywhere in the same plane as a bonus action on my turn.
So - I'm going Sword & Board on this character, and it hit me - why do I have to carry around my sword? I can just bond it, and leave the encumbrance at home, last camp, in a tree branch, where ever. But I can do TWO weapons...can I consider my shield as an 'improvised weapon'? If so, could I bond it, and then leave IT behind where ever and just summon it to my hands whenever I need it?
Bonding an improvised weapon is stretching the rule, but Summoning your shield fully donned is probably breaking it. So unless you have a friendly DM willing to help the EK out a bit with a houserule (it’s a mechanically unoptimal class), you’ll still need to use an action to Donn it after the bonus action to summon it. And your bonus action only summons one of your two “weapons” per use, so you’ll spend round 1 summoning and donning the shield, and round 2 summoning the sword and Attacking with it or the Shield.
Oh - I figured it would just 'appear' in my hand and I'd have to don it. That's not a problem really, wasn't planning on doing it mid-battle. It was just the mechanics of it - if you can classify a shield as an "improvised weapon" - then it technically IS a weapon, and thus eligible to for the bonding process, RAW. It would be a terribly inefficient use of the ability, totally agree - just was curious if it was doable.
And from ALLLL the way back in AD&D, to current, I'm aware the most 'optimal' class for pure power is still a wizard. Nothing changes on that front. But EK seemed amusing for a "getting back into the game" sort of character. If I wanted the most 'optimal' class, I'd be going with some variant of a Divine Soul sorc...but how fun is that?
Oh - and thanks for the quick reply...I do much appreciate it.
This is completely a RAF ruling: If you want to make it so that you can summon an un-donned shield in place of a second weapon for your EK ability, that is probably fine and sounds thematic.
And I don't exactly agree with C_C on the EK thing either. It isn't like its a champion or a purple dragon knight or an alchemist artificer or a monk. You'll do fine with EK. Fighters are strong, there are good abjuration spells, and evocation has a bit of value.
War Caster feat - "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands." Other than that, just make sure you choose your spell list well, and as far as I can see, I'm golden. They're designed to cast in mid combat.
Oh, no worries there. I started playing D&D back in Jr High, with an original Red Box set (still have the d20, d12, and d8 from it) - so...around 40 years. I've had at least the basic books for every iteration from there to 3.5. I just switched to Pathfinder when 4 came out, and haven't played since then, so not familiar with 5th ed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm reasonably confident it loses its Ammunition and Loading properties, though maybe not Two-Handed.
Historically, they were both a weapon and a use of armor, it's not stupid nor impossible, it was quite common. Vikings, Pavisers, etc... they all used shields as a weapon and armor, because there is that mechanical use of it.
Not really. The main real-world 'weapon' use of a shield is covered by using it to perform a shove, which is normally possible as an attack, and as a bonus action with Shield Master.
Sorry, but that is just not true at all. The diversity present in shield use from the 1st Century all the way through to the 17th Century is pretty amazing, and if you think all they were used for was protection and shoving, you're just not informed.
One of the earlier shields was the Pelta, a Greek half-moon shield that was primarily defensive, but it's offshoot, a crescent shield used in the 1st century AD, was used as an offensive weapon alongside one-handed swords and spears.
The height of shields used as weapons came from a buckler variant known as a sword breaker. It was one of the lighter and more modern shields used from the 1200s through the 1600s. It was extremely versatile, consisting of two straps that kept the item affixed to the bearer's forearm, and also had a handle, or sometimes hand-strap, to allow additional control and use as an offensive weapon. They were largely employed by those who used large (versatile) weapons because the secondary hand needed was left free. The versatility was that this shield, usually a 2-foot long iron plate, was reinforced and spiked. When defending, a wielder of a buckler could eschew the use of their second hand from their weapon and engage the handle / strap and use it to not only attempt to shatter or disarm the weapon attacking them, but also could use it to attack exposed areas, often disabling a sword-arm or dealing damage to exposed legs.
In terms of hands-free defense, Norman kite shields were fairly unique in that they were long shields (36" to 60") in a roughly triangular shape. It was unique in that it possessed both loops and handle for standard operation, but also had what is called a guige, or a lopped strap at the top, which allowed the shield to be worn on the neck and free both hands for combat. When used as such, they possessed cinches under the shield that could allow it to be fastened as frontal, side, or rear protection. Side was most frequently used in mounted combat, while rear was mostly used in engaged combat to protect one's back in the chaos of battle.
Then there's a Pavise, which was the traditional shield of crossbowmen & archers from the 1300s onward. These shields were actually quite large and were spiked (or grooved with a stake) on the bottom to allow it to become a mobile defensive station. Imagine you carry it in one hand, and your bow in the other. You get to your position, and spike the shield into the ground, and squat behind it while you get your ammunition set. You're now in full cover. When you fire a volley you stand up, and when you're done, you get back down. The whole time you're benefiting from at least half cover, if not full cover while squatting / kneeling. These shields also had guiges, allowing them to be carried on their back and still provide protection.
I can go on and on into more obscure shields and their myriad of uses, but I think this conveys my point. To say all a shield is used for is to protect and bash is doing nothing more than parroting 5e rules with no knowledge of what shields have actually, historically, been used to accomplish.
And historically, wizards almost never cast forcecage in battle.
Remember, just as D&D isn't a physics simulator, it also isn't a medieval history simulator. Historical precedent doesn't affect the rules. You should make your rules decision based on what you think about the rules, not about what people actually did.
That's true of every piece of armour. You can headbutt, elbow strike, kick, etc with all the parts of what you are wearing.
As someone who has done actual armored combat and studied the craft of medieval armoring, I can say that without a doubt a shield can be used for punching or elbowing weapon. Everyone that fights has had their bell rung by someone’s shield if even by accident in a melee tussle. Using only the shield, it is an improvised weapon only. One attack. I would rule that a shield can be use as a bludgeoning offhand improvised weapon if you can wield it and you have two weapon fighting and both shield and weapon have to be light. You need the Dual Wielding Feat to use it as an improvised weapon. During that round, I wouldn’t allow the shield’s inherent AC bonus to be included. The dual wielding feat gives an AC bonus also and that balances the build. All other special abilities from shield master would still be available. You just have to give up a point or two of AC but I would allow any magical bonuses on the shield to count as a bonus to attack and damage during a round that it was used as a weapon. Without Dual Wielder feat it’s 1d4+STR range 20/60 with no Proficiency bonus to attack or damage. With Dual Wielder and proficiency with a shield, I would allow the shield attacks to use proficiency bonus the same as any other weapon.
Never said medieval history needed to be reflected within D&D. I was specifically pointing out to Pantagruel666 (the person I quoted) that his notion that "The main real-world 'weapon' use of a shield is ... to perform a shove" is utterly incorrect. Never did I assert that the rules should change.
My personal stance, because I am an enthusiast of creating items & abilities that add a bit of realism, is that I created a few items to address variety in shield use. In fact, I posted it a few pages back. The relevant part was:
Shields, Buckler, Spiked, and Tower, as magic items all seem fine. The only problem with them is that players could be confused and think they could do anything similar with non-magical Shields. I believe they kept things very simple given that in history there were *lots* of kinds of shields, and pretty soon someone is going to expect a razor edged clip on lantern-buckler that they can throw like a Frisbee and do fire, bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Then they will want to dual wield them.
Question about the Tower Shield. That would be a "Pavise" I think, but to be so heavy as to reduce movement speed, I have to wonder. What exactly is that thing?
<Insert clever signature here>
The only magical property stated above would be the wondrous item: Shield Buckler. All the rest are non-magical but they are different to the base models.
The point here is that they do things similar to regular shields, but they account for some feats, actions and abilities that regular shields do not.
A pavise weighs roughly 5159 grams, or just over 11 pounds, whereas a tower shield weighs roughly 45 pounds. If the tower shield didn't reduce movement speed that would be insane. Also historically they are very similar, it's just the pavise was originally used by archers to gain ground whilst being shot at by other archers. I think the devs might've gone a bit wild with the weight of a tower shield but they are two-handed, whereas the pavise would be considered versatile in D&D standards.
First of all, the shield does not have a thrown property, hence they would be at a disadvantage to attack, and the distance would be somewhere around 20 feet. Secondly, it is stated that they only do one of each type of physical damage at any time, depending on how the shield is kitted out. Thirdly, if you cast a spell like heat metal onto it whilst it's in the air, yes it would do heat damage if it came into contact with an enemy. You could even cast smites onto the shield and make attacks with it, so as it could blind, deafen, burn, deal extra radiant damage, and **** it you can cast hail of thorns on it, then throw it... All of those are viable options as a player, as long as the dm allows it, and they account for player creativity. My dm has let me throw short-swords a short distance before but I got advantage on the roll, because that's how balancing works. Oh and finally, the whole point of the shield buckle is so as you can dual wield weapons whilst still having an innate bonus to your AC, and on top of that, yes you can dual wield two shields, but the AC does not stack, as you cannot gain a bonus to AC from wielding more than one shield, and you can't dual wield any shield other than the spiked shield, which only gives you a plus 2 bonus to AC if wielded with another weapon, because it was designed around the Dual Wielding feat.
I hope this helps, and have fun in your games
meh
Thanks PseudoGeneric. I needed a laugh.
<Insert clever signature here>
Or you could just loot a lizardfolk's spiked shield.
SIGNATURE REDACTED
Thread necro time - sorry.
I'm new to 5th edition, but I've played D&D for a long while. Just kinda starting to get back into it, and was looking for an answer on "can a shield be considered a weapon" - reason being, for the game I'm joining, I'm creating an Eldritch Knight, and one of the class features is "Weapon Bond" - per the book, I can bond up to 2 weapons, and summon from anywhere in the same plane as a bonus action on my turn.
So - I'm going Sword & Board on this character, and it hit me - why do I have to carry around my sword? I can just bond it, and leave the encumbrance at home, last camp, in a tree branch, where ever. But I can do TWO weapons...can I consider my shield as an 'improvised weapon'? If so, could I bond it, and then leave IT behind where ever and just summon it to my hands whenever I need it?
Sure :)
Bonding an improvised weapon is stretching the rule, but Summoning your shield fully donned is probably breaking it. So unless you have a friendly DM willing to help the EK out a bit with a houserule (it’s a mechanically unoptimal class), you’ll still need to use an action to Donn it after the bonus action to summon it. And your bonus action only summons one of your two “weapons” per use, so you’ll spend round 1 summoning and donning the shield, and round 2 summoning the sword and Attacking with it or the Shield.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh - I figured it would just 'appear' in my hand and I'd have to don it. That's not a problem really, wasn't planning on doing it mid-battle. It was just the mechanics of it - if you can classify a shield as an "improvised weapon" - then it technically IS a weapon, and thus eligible to for the bonding process, RAW. It would be a terribly inefficient use of the ability, totally agree - just was curious if it was doable.
And from ALLLL the way back in AD&D, to current, I'm aware the most 'optimal' class for pure power is still a wizard. Nothing changes on that front. But EK seemed amusing for a "getting back into the game" sort of character. If I wanted the most 'optimal' class, I'd be going with some variant of a Divine Soul sorc...but how fun is that?
Oh - and thanks for the quick reply...I do much appreciate it.
This is completely a RAF ruling: If you want to make it so that you can summon an un-donned shield in place of a second weapon for your EK ability, that is probably fine and sounds thematic.
And I don't exactly agree with C_C on the EK thing either. It isn't like its a champion or a purple dragon knight or an alchemist artificer or a monk. You'll do fine with EK. Fighters are strong, there are good abjuration spells, and evocation has a bit of value.
The big problem with the sword-and-board EK is that, without feats or specific magic items, you can't cast most spells while using a sword and shield.
War Caster feat - "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands." Other than that, just make sure you choose your spell list well, and as far as I can see, I'm golden. They're designed to cast in mid combat.
Joe, don’t let us talk you out of enjoying the EK! We’re jaded old optimizers!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh, no worries there. I started playing D&D back in Jr High, with an original Red Box set (still have the d20, d12, and d8 from it) - so...around 40 years. I've had at least the basic books for every iteration from there to 3.5. I just switched to Pathfinder when 4 came out, and haven't played since then, so not familiar with 5th ed.