Is a shield a weapon for the purpose of threatening and flanking? The character does not carry any other weapons, but can make a shield bash (at a -8 attack roll) as a melee attack.
Yes, and I believe the penalty would only be -4 (for non-proficiency). If the character has martial weapon proficiency he would actually have no penalties.
Absolutely.
Listed in the Weapon Section, as a Martial Weapon, in the Fighter Weapon Group(Close), and a valid option for the Weapon Focus feat, along with the ability to be enchanted with Weapon enchantments.
It is, without doubt, a weapon, within the rules, and throughout history.
Ok, thanks. I thought so but was having someone disagree with me.
Please point them to the weapons table, Fighter Weapon Group Table, and the description of the Shield, noting it can be enchanted as the weapon it is.
wear a gauntlet, and always have a weapon ready!
Captain Xenon wrote: wear a gauntlet, and always have a weapon ready!
He has a weapon ready.
It is his Shield.
Having been illegally shield bashed in the SCA, the Shield IS a weapon! Having hid behind one, I grant all shields a further +1 to AC.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bwang, did you ever deal with the trial runs with punch shields? They were bucklers with thrusting tips. If the person you came up against had quick enough hands it was just sickening how good they were. Yes, shiBut not everyone is capable of using them as such.
Everyone in Pathfinder is capable of using them as such.
Thus came up because I play a blackened life oracle. I don't carry any weapon at all, but I do carry a shield for the extra AC. Well last night we got into a fight with some skeletons and I decided to shield bash them. Because of lack of proficiency and blackened curse, I needed to roll a nat 20 to hit, which I did, followed by a nat 20 to confirm the critical. I then moved into flanking position, but the warrior was told he doesn't get a flanking bonus because I don't threaten.
The only melee weapon that characters do not threaten with when they are not proficient is an unarmed strike.
It depends on what type of shield. If its legal to make a bash attack with, then it threatens. So a light shield and a heavy shield threaten, but a buckler and a tower shield do not.
It's a heavy wooden shield.
I was the GM. It was a situation that I had not yet encountered so was unsure whether you qualified as threatening with just a shield. I tried looking it up on the spot but couldn't find what I was looking for and didn't want to spend all night looking up rules so I just ruled that it didn't and I'd find out afterward. It didn't really make a difference in the outcome of the battle(s) anyway. If it would have, I would have spent more time to make sure I was right...or wrong in this case.
It was pretty epic though that he rolled not just one natural 20, which he absulutely needed just to hit, but also a 20 on the confirmation. I was flabbergasted!
Bigdaddyjug wrote: It's a heavy wooden shield. Then yes, it should threaten, as others have pointed out. If you ever actually do take an attack of opportunity with it, you'll lose your shield bonus until your turn comes up again like normal when you use a bash, but nothing should stop it from threatening.
I have to disagree on the general note. On a person's turn they have to decide whether they ready their shield for defense or as a weapon. You cannot have it both ways (until you have the appropriate feats/item qualities/class abilities/whatever else is out there).
The character cannot gain his shield bonus to AC for almost the whole turn and then decide to make an attack of opportunity towards the end of that turn which would invalidate the shield bonus for the whole turn (most of which has already past).
That said, in the described case the character already attacked with the shield and then went into flanking position. Ergo the oracle had used the shield as a weapon and lost his AC bonus, and therefore, for this turn, treats the shield as a weapon and hence threatens, provides flanking etc.
You absolutely maintain a shield bonus, and threaten with the shield.
There is nothing within RAW to suggest otherwise.
Attacking with the Shield is how you lose it's bonus to AC.
Not threatening with it.
Attacking with it lets you lose the AC bonus for a full turn. This would mean retroactively.
A: *fends of 15 attacks with his shield (all miss by 1)*
B: *moves through A's "threatened" area before A's next turn*
A: *takes attack of opportunity, loses his shield bonus for this turn, now all the 15 attacks are suddenly hits and he goes down from all the damage incapable of even taking an AoO"
doesn't make sense? Exactly!!
If you want to be able to use a shield interchangeably as AC enhancer AND weapon you have to pay for it. Otherwise it only works as one of the two in any given turn.
Retroactive loss of AC?
Who suggested that?
The exact wording is "If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn." That clearly indicates that it's from that point forward. Why would you retroactively apply the loss of AC? When do you ever retroactively apply anything in this game?
Since I realise that I'm drifting more towards an RAI discussion than RAW (which does not quite support either stance fully, methinks) I will withdraw my comment.
You only lose it until your next turn when you use it as a weapon. Nothing about it states it goes retroactively or for a full turn.
[quote = Heavy Shield, Steel or Wooden]If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. You don't even need to decide whether to use it for defense or use it as a weapon. You threaten any square that you can make an attack into.
The question is more: can you still make an attack if you already benefited from the AC bonus in the same round. (I say you can't but I fully admit that there is no RAW language supporting this stance. However the often cited part does not seem to be written with AoOs in mind either and hence suggests a full turn AC loss was intended - at least to me)
I agree that you threaten with the shield even if you're using it to improve your AC. If you actually make an AoO with the shield you'd lose the shield bonus to AC until your next turn though unless you have Improved Shield Bash.
If you really wanted to get the AC bonus and also attack a foe I guess you could ready an action to attack after the enemy is finished attacking. Of course this would only help for one round, but maybe one of your allies would finish off the monster before it got another turn.
The OP's PC should probably invest a few gp in a spiked gauntlet. It is a simple weapon, and it doesn't prevent the hand wearing it from being used for other stuff like casting spells.
You are incorrect the shield bash state you lose your ac bonus till your next turn if you attack with it. Not for the whole turn. If there are 15 attacks before my turn I get the shield bonus, if I attack with the shield I don't lose that bonus for those first 15 attacks just the ones after my action. Which ever action it is that I choose to attack on.
Sorry on my tablet didn't get all the post stating this info
Devilkiller wrote: I agree that you threaten with the shield even if you're using it to improve your AC. If you actually make an AoO with the shield you'd lose the shield bonus to AC until your next turn though unless you have Improved Shield Bash.
If you really wanted to get the AC bonus and also attack a foe I guess you could ready an action to attack after the enemy is finished attacking. Of course this would only help for one round, but maybe one of your allies would finish off the monster before it got another turn.
The OP's PC should probably invest a few gp in a spiked gauntlet. It is a simple weapon, and it doesn't prevent the hand wearing it from being used for other stuff like casting spells.
I actually never intended to ever make a weapon attack with this character, it just turned out that I had nothing else to do. The character in question is a life oracle with the blackened curse. When I need offense out of her, I typically use one of her first level slots to throw out a burning hands. In this case, I was trying to conserve resources as I wasn't sure how much longer the scenario would last. We were fighting skeletons, so I could have channeled to harm undead, but again with that cnserving resources thing. As sort of a joke, I decided to shield bash. It's a joke because the character was making the shield bash attempt at -10 (or maybe worse), so I was only hitting on a nat 20. Well I rolled the nat 20 and then another to confirm the crit. I did all of 2 damage on the hit, lol.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
