Why are so many opposed to a shield being a weapon?

[CantigThimble]

Why not just add a line to shields made for combat:

"If you are proficient with shields, you make an off-hand attack as if it were a martial weapon as a bonus action. This shield does not count as a weapon for purposes of fighting styles, class features, or feats. The shield deals 1D6+Strength Bludgeoning damage."


let them keep the shield bonus, but lose out on smiting, duelling style, TWF, etc. D6+str damage is better than improvised, but, as it doesn't count as a weapon, disqualifies it from a lot of the places where the martial might slightly creep up closer to casters or GWF in power.

The ability to use a bonus action to attack for 1d6+str while getting +2 AC is better than TWF or dueling by a wide margin.

Here's my houserule: While you're using a spiked shield you may attack with it for 1d8+str damage. No, you may not attack with it as a bonus action. You may not use two weapon fighting while using a spiked shield. You may use dueling, but only if you aren't holding a weapon in the other hand. If you have shield master you may shove as a bonus action, this deals no damage, it's a normal shove. You may not use another shield, spiked or otherwise, at the same time.

Now it's balanced with sword and board and isn't just TWF and shield bonuses stapled together.

what I'm saying is that this makes sword and board more potent - and I think it should be more potent.

Oh, so you're deliberately trying to buff sword and board? Then your suggestion actually makes sense. It accomplishes that goal. However, I don't agree that sword and board is weak or that it needs a buff.

[alchahest]

The ability to use a bonus action to attack for 1d6+str while getting +2 AC is better than TWF or dueling by a wide margin.

Here's my houserule: While you're using a spiked shield you may attack with it for 1d8+str damage. No, you may not attack with it as a bonus action. You may not use two weapon fighting while using a spiked shield. You may use dueling, but only if you aren't holding a weapon in the other hand. If you have shield master you may shove as a bonus action, this deals no damage, it's a normal shove.

Now it's balanced with sword and board and isn't just TWF and shield bonuses stapled together.

a short sword TWF is bonus action 1D6+(str or Dex) and grants a +1 AC bonus. And the short sword can be used for smiting and other applicable things, and can be drawn quickly. And if you feat into it you can be doing D8s with both hands, and gain weapon-specific benefits.

the +1 over shortsword TWF is certainly a number, but when you consider the other things involved is is a"wide Margin"?

[CantigThimble]

a short sword TWF is bonus action 1D6+(str or Dex) and grants a +1 AC bonus. And the short sword can be used for smiting and other applicable things, and can be drawn quickly. And if you feat into it you can be doing D8s with both hands, and gain weapon-specific benefits.

the +1 over shortsword TWF is certainly a number, but when you consider the other things involved is is a"wide Margin"?

By default, with no fighting styles or feats, you can wield two short swords for one 1d6+str and the other for 1d6.

With your rule, with no fighting styles or feats you can wield a sword and combat shield for 1d8+str and 1d6+str while getting +2 AC.

After you invest the fighting style and feat into TWF you can get +1 Ac and 2x 1d8+str, which STILL isn't as good as the combat shield who can spend their fighting style and feat elsewhere.

[alchahest]

By default, with no fighting styles or feats, you can wield two short swords for one 1d6+str and 1d6.

With your rule, with no fighting styles or feats you can wield a sword and combat shield for 1d8+str and 1d6+str while getting +2 AC.

After you invest the fighting style and feat into TWF you can get +1 Ac and 2x 1d8+str, which STILL isn't as good as the combat shield who can spend their fighting style and feat elsewhere.

perhaps a fighting style for it then?

I think shield bashing needs to come back in a big brash way. and without a whole bunch of conditional stuff like having to wait til your entire attack routine is done, or whatever.

[CantigThimble]

perhaps a fighting style for it then?

I think shield bashing needs to come back in a big brash way. and without a whole bunch of conditional stuff like having to wait til your entire attack routine is done, or whatever.

Are you looking for something that is strictly mathematically better than all the current options or on par with them?

[OzDragon]

perhaps a fighting style for it then?

I think shield bashing needs to come back in a big brash way. and without a whole bunch of conditional stuff like having to wait til your entire attack routine is done, or whatever.

How about this then?

Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.

[CantigThimble]

How about this then?

Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.

So it gives the same benefit as the two weapon fighting style but also lets you have +2 AC?

Seriously, this is EXACTLY why people don't like the idea of using shields as a weapon. It's just used as an excuse to make more powerful options because people don't like the current ones.

Now, you could say that TWF is too weak and ought to be buffed, and fair enough, but if that's what you mean then be honest about it and you'll get better feedback.

[Finieous]

I added a feat for it: bonus action attack for 1d4 bludgeoning. Basically PAM for S&B, but with +2 AC instead of reach and extra reaction attacks.

ETA: also added a "mini-power-attack" feat for one-handers with a reaction move, which gives a double boost when used with TWFing. All this **** has to fit together to give players similarly effective options of fighting styles.

[OzDragon]

So it gives the same benefit as the two weapon fighting style but also lets you have +2 AC?

Seriously, this is EXACTLY why people don't like the idea of using shields as a weapon. It's just used as an excuse to make more powerful options because people don't like the current ones.

Now, you could say that TWF is too weak and ought to be buffed, and fair enough, but if that's what you mean then be honest about it and you'll get better feedback.

I apologize if I'm wrong here, but doesn't TWF style give a bonus action attack?(book not available atm) This does not.

[strangebloke]

Two options:

Blade Shield: A shield with a spiked base. Can be used as a short sword or as a shield. You decide which it it as the start of each of your turns, and it acts as a sword or shield until the start of your next turn.

Fighting Style: Shieldbearer: You can attack with shields using two hands. If you do so, the shield is treated both as a shield and as a two-handed weapon that deal 1d8+STR bludgeoning damage.

[Knaight]

your error is using real world logic to try and rationalize same systems. yes in real life a shield could totally be used as a "weapon" and would hurt much more than a punch. but DnD isnt real life man. follow the rules or homebrew its up to you, but you cant have that mindset.

It would also hurt a lot less than getting hit with a sword. There's a standard for proper weapons, and it's not just better than unarmed.

Shields are a weapon. Intentionally, by design, for a lot of their use. Not an improvised weapon. A deliberately manufactured one.

A weapon primarily used to help you get in a good hit with the weapon in your other hand, which was usually a spear, sword, axe, or mace. There's a reason that there's a whole host of developed fencing styles for just one sword, stick fighting styles for just one club (which generally transfer pretty well to most short weapons), and spear fighting styles for just one short spear. All of these are functional as weapons on their own, if generally not up to par with a proper two handed weapon or use with a shield. Meanwhile outside of a handful of weird edge cases around judicial duels with their weird restrictions there's essentially nothing on using just a shield, because they aren't proper weapons in the same way.

This gets back to the question posed in the thread. Just a shield isn't a style of fighting with any real historical backing. Because of that, it isn't a style of fighting in the corpus of literature D&D is based on. That's both of the significant sources right there, and with those out the entire thing just feels out of place. There's a reason it's a superhero trope and not a fantasy one, and the characters and behaviors appropriate for one of these genres aren't necessarily appropriate for the other. Thus, the dislike of just a shield being used as a weapon, particularly when the inspiration is explicitly a superhero.

[CantigThimble]

I apologize if I'm wrong here, but doesn't TWF style give a bonus action attack?(book not available atm) This does not.

You are correct and I misread what you wrote. My bad. If there is no bonus action attack involved then I would be happy with it being mathematically equivalent to sword-and-board, as in the rule I posted earlier where without spending fighting style it deals 1d8+str damage.

As long as it is equally powerful to a guy using a longsword and a shield then its fine rules wise. In terms of flavor, some people may still have issues with a shield doing as much damage as a sword.

[strangebloke]

I apologize if I'm wrong here, but doesn't TWF style give a bonus action attack?(book not available atm) This does not.

TWF isn't a feat. It's just a thing you can do. If you have two light weapons you can make a bonus attack. What has people concerned is that if you TWF with a shield and a short sword, you'll have the benefits of both. TWF, s&b, and GWF are the three major melee weapon sets, each with their pros and cons.

Now, your shield isn't light, so you could't TWF with a shield and a Short sword, unless you had the duel wielder feat and then you wouldn't have the TWF fighting style which makes your attack better. But you'd still be pretty much strictly better than any TWF build out there, and you could always dip fighter to grab TWF style as well.

AND a cleric with this fighting style could completely forgo using a weapon, just having a shield and an arcane focus.

But it's not the worst thing.

[JackPhoenix]

a short sword TWF is bonus action 1D6+(str or Dex) and grants a +1 AC bonus. And the short sword can be used for smiting and other applicable things, and can be drawn quickly. And if you feat into it you can be doing D8s with both hands, and gain weapon-specific benefits.

the +1 over shortsword TWF is certainly a number, but when you consider the other things involved is is a"wide Margin"?

The shield can also be used for smiting. You need to make melee weapon attack for Divine Smite, but it doesn't have to be with a weapon. You can smite with your fist, or with a chair.

D8 damage is inferior to d6 and +2 AC. The 1 extra point of damage on average isn't going to change much.

Even better, you can use BB/GFB with a proper weapon and STILL get the bonus action attack, which won't happen with TWF, which require an attack action.

[Pex]

I think this is a very real thing that happens to martials, but I don't see it happening here. Most of the things I see about shield are comparing martial with shield to martial with other weapons (so martial-to-martial comparisons). If the fighter were trying to do something outside of the realm of martial abilities (like replicate a spell effect or something) I can imagine this kind of knee-jerk blowback happening.

That's quibbling on the details, but the quibbling at least acknowledges the warrior can use a shield as a weapon at all - how much damage, do you keep the AC, etc.? Denying the ability itself falls under not liking it being at will/no resource cost/not realistic.

[Sorlock Master]

I made a thread a few months ago about making a captain america like character. There seemed to be many that did not like a shield as a weapon. I would like to understand why.

Is it because you don't like that it could be used for offense and defense at the same time?

Is it because historically it was not generally used as a weapon?

Is it because it could break two weapon fighting?

Would you allow it if a feat was required?

Would you allow it if it lost its defensive properties when used as a weapon?

Would you allow it if it was the only weapon the character used?

Other reasons?

There are many fantasy examples of a shield being used as a weapon. Wonder Woman and Captain America are the two most recent examples. I'm a rule of cool guy personally and don't think that it would break or hurt the game at all. I would really like your opinions.

Thanks

Because people have been socialized into believing shields are only for defence.

Break down the weapon binary.

Shields can be swords too.

In all seriousness you can simply take the brawler feat and use your shield as an improvised weapon.

P.S.
Historically shields were used as much for offence as for defence.

[JoeJ]

Shields were historically used as much for offence as for defence.

And swords were historically used as much for defense as for offense. So wielding a sword, or any other weapon of a suitable size and shape to parry with, should give you a bonus to AC.

[Sorlock Master]

And swords were historically used as much for defense as for offense. So wielding a sword, or any other weapon of a suitable size and shape to parry with, should give you a bonus to AC.

When did I say that? I was simply correcting a misconception the OP had about historical use of shields.

By the way there are multiple ways for you to get AC bonus' from weapons there is only 1 way for you to really get an attack with your shield.

[OzDragon]

TWF isn't a feat. It's just a thing you can do. If you have two light weapons you can make a bonus attack. What has people concerned is that if you TWF with a shield and a short sword, you'll have the benefits of both. TWF, s&b, and GWF are the three major melee weapon sets, each with their pros and cons.

Now, your shield isn't light, so you could't TWF with a shield and a Short sword, unless you had the duel wielder feat and then you wouldn't have the TWF fighting style which makes your attack better. But you'd still be pretty much strictly better than any TWF build out there, and you could always dip fighter to grab TWF style as well.

AND a cleric with this fighting style could completely forgo using a weapon, just having a shield and an arcane focus.

But it's not the worst thing.

This is what I wrote: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.


This is what I wanted to say: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the Duel Weilding feat.

[Eric Diaz]

Why can't a spear be used with reach? Why can't I strike with the butt of my polearm? Can I brace my spear against a charge? Can I charge with my weapon? Etc.

The answer is the same: you need a feat for that. Not that I LIKE the answer, but it is what is is.

And the feat is shield master, which includes a "bash" of sorts. If you prefer damage instead of that, it is entirely reasonable to create a custom feat or just replace the "...prone" action for "deal 1d4 damage, or 1d6 if the shield is spiked....".

[JoeJ]

When did I say that? I was simply correcting a misconception the OP had about historical use of shields.

As far as I know you didn't say that. I'm simply keying off your correct observation that shields served historically as weapons as well as defense to point out that the same is true of swords.

By the way there are multiple ways for you to get AC bonus' from weapons there is only 1 way for you to really get an attack with your shield.

Why should there have to be a special way, though? Any character proficient in a melee weapon should know how to parry with that weapon; it's a fundamental part of training with a weapon. Unless D&D combat is simply too abstract for that kind of detail. But in that case, it's just as reasonable to abstract away using your shield to do damage.

[strangebloke]

This is what I wrote: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the two weapon fighting feat.


This is what I wanted to say: Fighting Style Shield Mastery: You are proficient in using your shield as a weapon. It becomes a bludgeoning weapon dealing 1d6 +strength modifier. You may not benefit from the Duel Weilding feat.

Eh, fair enough.

I'm not a huge fan, still. I mean, why can't it work with duel wielder? I think I agree with Eric Diaz that just reworking Shield Master is probably the best way. (Or use my homebrew!)

[Longcat]

The player's handbook already has a rule for using shields offensively via the Shield Master feat, which allows you to shieldbash targets to knock them either away or prone. This enhances both the shield user's offense and defense without poaching from TWF.

[OzDragon]

Eh, fair enough.

I'm not a huge fan, still. I mean, why can't it work with duel wielder? I think I agree with Eric Diaz that just reworking Shield Master is probably the best way. (Or use my homebrew!)

The reason I stated it does not work with Dual Wielder is so there is not another AC bonus for using a shield or be able to draw/stow a shield as one would a sword.

[strangebloke]

The reason I stated it does not work with Dual Wielder is so there is not another AC bonus for using a shield or be able to draw/stow a shield as one would a sword.

I'm just saying you're creating a weird interaction where a fighting style is precluding the usage of a feat. That's completely unprecedented.

[Specter]

Of course a shield should be an improvised weapon. It's much easier to swing a mace accurately than it is to throw the side of your offhand along with your body into someone.

[CantigThimble]

I'm just saying you're creating a weird interaction where a fighting style is precluding the usage of a feat. That's completely unprecedented.

Eh, I wouldn't want to publish something like that, but as a houserule to satisfy one player's itch, it's fine.

[alchahest]

The shield can also be used for smiting. You need to make melee weapon attack for Divine Smite, but it doesn't have to be with a weapon. You can smite with your fist, or with a chair.

D8 damage is inferior to d6 and +2 AC. The 1 extra point of damage on average isn't going to change much.

Even better, you can use BB/GFB with a proper weapon and STILL get the bonus action attack, which won't happen with TWF, which require an attack action.

in my statement I was suggesting shields would not benefit from any feat, fighting style, or class feature that requires a weapon. including Smites.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are many fantasy examples of a shield being used as a weapon. Wonder Woman and Captain America are the two most recent examples. I'm a rule of cool guy personally and don't think that it would break or hurt the game at all.

Then play a super hero game.

D&D 5e has tried to apply the KISS principle to a lot of what's in the game. The shield is a defensive tool in this version. Improvised weapon? Fine/

Legendary Magical Item? Go for it. Standard Shield? Neither Captain America nor Wonder Woman owns a standard shield. Those items are, in D&D 5e equivalence, Legendary items or Artifacts.

[smcmike]

I don’t understand what is wrong with the current rules. 1d4 damage is perfectly reasonable. Shoving people as a bonus action with the feat is very strong and also cool. What’s the problem here?

More damage is dumb, because while a shield can make a very fine weapon, it’s still on the bottom end of objects to kill someone with. Would you rather be hit by a shield or stabbed with a dagger? Come on.