In the last session I ran, a dilemma came up. For simplicity's sake, I'll just say we were fighting a Large skeleton. The dwarven fighter had a dwarven waraxe and a spiked heavy shield. The suggestion comes up for the dwarf to shield bash the thing to bypass it's DR. I said, "No, he's put spikes on it. It deals piercing damage." Sexi Golem says the reason skeletal creatures have DR is because piercing and slashing weapons pass through the gaps between its bones, whereas bludgeoning weapons do not. As such, the spikes on the armor could slide right through the creature, allowing the flat surface of the shield to deal bludgeoning damage as if it weren't spiked. I allowed the maneuver with a -2 penalty just to allow the game to continue, but promised to raise the issue here.
I suppose there's a minor question about a skelenton's (and zombie's) damage reduction; I'm the kind of guy who feels "the MM says DR 5/bludgeoning, so it's 5/bludgeoning, no more rationalizing to it." (This would be 5/slashing for a zombie, of course). I know there's a pseudo-logical premise behind it, but it's more to give a cool ability to skeletons and for game balace, I think. Then again, letting players be creative and do cool things is always good. I'm not even sure what the real question here is, but feel free to post whatever thoughts you may have regarding skeletal, zombie, or any other form of damage reduction as it pertains to this issue.
The real, and much more direct, question is whether or not a spiked shield can still be used to do bludgeoning damage. I don't believe it can, and there seems to be no rule on the matter which I can find.
As an aside, the rules on shield bashes (PHB 125) say that light shields can be used to make shield bashes; it says nothing about heavy shields in and of themselves. In seclusion, this would seem to rule out the ability of heavy shields to shield bash, but the weapon charts have entries for both light and heavy (and spiked versions thereof) shields and the damage they do on a bash. I believe the text on page 125 is in error.
Thanks in advance!
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'd say you can use a spiked shield to deal bludgeoning damage instead of piercing, but it would use the base shield damage (instead of the spike damage). I would say that a spiked shield deals bludgeoning and piercing, much like a morningstar. I probably wouldn't even impose a penalty to use a spiked shield for bludgeoning damage against a skeleton because the weapon is really basically dealing both kinds at once.
Okay, thanks. When I agreed to allow the attack at -2, everyone thought it was fair. I'll continue to allow the option.
The -2 seems like a good solution, but you might also consider simply revising the spiked shield rules to do bludgeoning and piercing damage, like a morningstar.
You can also use a heavy spiked shield (piercing) underwater more easily than a longsword(slashing)..........makes perfect sense, eh?
;PFH
Of course, this comes from the fact that water elementals are big fans of shield bash fighting styles, and thus assist anyone attempting such a maneuver in their domain. If you succeed on a DC 30 Listen check while performing the action, you can hear small whispered comments like, "Yeah, get that ^&*#!", "$%^& him up!", "Awesomeness!", and general cackling laughter.
Duh.
Of course, if you changed the damage type to bludgeoning /and/ piercing, you could easily rule that because it also does bludgeoning damage it's subject to the limitations of bludgeoning weapons underwater.
I shudder to consider the logistics of bite attacks (bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage).
Then again, underwater combat in general is kind of nightmarish... hence my idea for a Necklace of Adaptation that generates water instead of air.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Of course, this comes from the fact that water elementals are big fans of shield bash fighting styles, and thus assist anyone attempting such a maneuver in their domain. If you succeed on a DC 30 Listen check while performing the action, you can hear small whispered comments like, "Yeah, get that ^&*#!", "$%^& him up!", "Awesomeness!", and general cackling laughter.
Duh.
I lol'd.
Boo hiss I say. Piercing is piercing and the rules are psuedo sacred. The DM should be able to change them on whim but the players should never have any input into their modification!
Actually I'd have not let this fly but thats just me.
|
In slightly more practical terms, striking with the face of the shield is much more in keeping with a bull rush or overrun attack when you're dealing with non-spiked shields. Striking for bludgeoning damage is generally more effective when punching or swinging so as to strike a foe with the rim of the shield. I really do think that someone who has spent the extra cash to add spikes to a shield should be able to choose between the two strictly damage-type options (spiked or non-spiked shield damage) when they are proficient with the type of shield.
Think of it this way... If you get hit by a door that someone accidentally slams open into you you are a bit more likely to get knocked down than knocked out, compared to getting shoved (hard) into the edge of the door. Another analogy is to compare hitting someone with the flat or the edge of a 1" x 12" board swung just as hard either way. The edge focuses the force applied into a smaller area (like the flat of a dull sword vs the edge).
The concept of a spiked shield is like adding a big nail to the middle of the board, which will probably hurt a humanoid more than getting hit with the narrow edge of the board, but not so much against a skeletal opponent.