|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely not.
Such a caveat exists in no way.
It is 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 threatens, and provides a Shield bonus to AC, at the same time.
|
Isil-zha, responding to your self-quote:
You do actually wind up with a full-turn AC loss. When you use your shield as a weapon, assuming you don't Improved Shield Bash, you lose it from that instant until the beginning of your next turn (one full round). It's not lost for a specific round number, but for the next full round of actions.
Responding to the original question:
As long as the character is proficient with shields as weapons (proficient with martial weapons), then they threaten all adjacent squares with it regardless of the fact that it is also providing a benefit to their AC. The only exception is if they attack and don't have ISB, in which case they threaten but don't have shield to AC.
Logic for needing martial weapon proficiency (shields):
You are trained in how to properly use a shield.
Benefit: When you use a shield (except a tower shield), the shield’s armor check penalty only applies to Strength- and Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
Special: Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers all automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
Says nothing about weapon usage, so a Wizard who takes Shield Proficiency isn't proficient in the use of shields as a weapon, and thus does not threaten. At least, that's how I read that. Counter-argument?
Put another way- what about that strikes you as having the potential to imbalance the game more than, say, any spell?
Wizards being good is not an argument for or against an interpretation of martial mechanics.
|
Put another way- what about that strikes you as having the potential to imbalance the game more than, say, any spell?Wizards being good is not an argument for or against an interpretation of martial mechanics.
It is if the interpretation of the argument revolves around fairness rather than rules as written.
|
|
@Gebnar, where does it state that you need proficiency with a weapon to threaten?
But you want to compare apples to apples. And a character should not be able to use a shield the same way another one does after spending a feat even if just for part of a turn.It is if the interpretation of the argument revolves around fairness rather than rules as written.Put another way- what about that strikes you as having the potential to imbalance the game more than, say, any spell?Wizards being good is not an argument for or against an interpretation of martial mechanics.
Where do you see that in the rules?
A feat doesn't always grant you an ability other people lack- sometimes, it just mitigates a penalty that anyone performing that action would suffer. Martial Weapon Proficiency in a given shield doesn't allow you to threaten or attack, you just avoid the -4 penalty for attacking with a non-proficient weapon. The Two Weapon Fighting feat doesn't allow you to make an additional off-hand attack, it just mitigates the penalty for so doing. And Improved Shield Bash allows you to ALWAYS avoid a penalty to AC after a shield bash attack, whereas bashing with a shield on an attack of opportunity denies you the shield bonus to AC until your next action.
So again, if this isn't some appeal to fairness, then what rule is it based upon?
|
|
If I thought there were a clear rule governing this I wouldn't have asked the question.
I personally think the only existing rule was not written with attacks of opportunity in mind.
edit: and I am aware that there does not need to be an additional rule in the case that BBT's and Nefreet's reading is correct. I'm just wondering about the intend and it would not be the first thing that got overlooked when trying to word things unambiguously.
There is a clear rule governing this. It is entirely unambiguous. The clear rule says that if you use your shield as a weapon, you lose it's armor class bonus until your next turn.
You disagree with it- that's fine. House-rule it differently in your games.
|
Shields are martial weapons. In order for you to threaten with a shield, you either have to have martial weapon proficiency as a class feature, or take a feat to get Weapon Proficiency (Heavy Shield), for instance.
jlighter is right that from the instant you decide to make an attack with your shield, you lose your shield bonus to your AC until the beginning of your next turn. If an opportunity attack is provoked by an opponent moving away from you just before your turn, then you'll have effectively no penalty for opportunity attacking him, as the penalty will disappear the moment your initiative comes up.
I don't recall any rules that require a character to be proficient in a weapon before they can threaten with it.
A wizard is perfectly capable of picking up a sword or polearm and threatening with it. They just suffer a non-proficiency penalty.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you looking to find ambiguity, simply because you don't like it?
This is one of the strangest things I have seen one fight to be different than what is RAW. I wonder what drives you to deny it being as it is.
Should you feel the to houserule, then feel free to do so.
A Shield is as much a weapon as a Longsword.
You may feel the need to blind yourself to this fact, but it remains true.
I hope you come to accept it.
Are you looking to find ambiguity, simply because you don't like it?
This is one of the strangest things I have seen one fight to be different than what is RAW. I wonder what drives you to deny it being as it is.
Should you feel the to houserule, then feel free to do so.
A Shield is as much a weapon as a Longsword.
You may feel the need to blind yourself to this fact, but it remains true.
I hope you come to accept it.
Hee, hee, hee.
This whole argument confuses me. Why would you not be able to attack after using your shield AC? The rules have no precedent for such an action, only the reverse (loss of AC after you attack). Furthermore, why would we care? This is an extremely niche situation of the kind that recieves a 'no FAQ necessary' response IE 'use common sense and/or houserule it, you fools'.
|
|
Okay. I've seen the counter-argument I was hoping to see about not threatening if not proficient. I stand corrected on that score.
Isil-zha, one can never read anything into Dev silence on any Rules question. They frequently don't respond to questions for any number of reasons. Some I've seen:
And yes, in the scenario you proposed, what you described does happen. You only lose the shield bonus to AC until you have time to reset yourself. If it just so happens that you lose it during the brief period between the character normally going before you and your own turn, then that's how it works.
Say an opponent was waiting for a member of your party to let their guard down. Readied action allows them to slide right in that gap and attack you at lowered AC.
Just because you've found one scenario (a reasonably rare one) where the character will essentially dodge the penalty doesn't mean that the developers intended something entirely different. The vast majority of cases will have a period where the character with the shield actually does have to deal with that penalty existing. That is, unless they have ISB.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, there is nothing that suggest a separation of a Shield's ability to provide a bonus to AC, and it's nature as a weapon.
You threaten with a weapon, that you wield, and could attack with.
You are not unable to attack with a shield, just because you are gaining a bonus to AC from it.
The loss of AC, comes after you attack with it, and not before.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By your interpretation, a PC with the Improved Shield Bash loses his bonus to AC, if he threatens, but not when he performs a Shield Bash.
You use Power Attack as an example, but you forget that you could use it at any time you make an attack.
So, you could Full Attack, choose not to use Power Attack, then, on an AoO, choose to use it.
You don't need to declare at the beginning of your turn to use it later.
Just as you don't need to choose to lose your shield bonus to AC, to attack with it later, such as on an AoO.
It very important to remember that is only after an attack with a shield, that you lose it's bonus to AC.
Actually, tone is really hard thing to put across in text.
If I came across as mocking, I apologize. It was not my intent.
It may be partly related to the 'troll' in your name. People(some, not accusing all) just read your posts in the tone of a Fox News - War on Christmas Special.
About the duality of a shield. My view and what I consider the view of the rules: You defend yourself with a shield until the time you decide to whack somebody over the head with it.
Two weapon defense gives you a shield bonus from wielding two weapons(or a double weapon). That has no limitation to the shield bonus if you decide to attack. To me, improved shield bash is a more specific training with shields. With TWD and a heavy shield, you still get the +1 from TWD even when bashing with the shield, because you are wielding two weapons(presumably).
Okay, that went a bit off point.
Are you saying there once was a "before the Internet"? I'm a young earth creationist and my teachings say the world started with the internet, all this so called 'history' on the internet - planted by trolls...
I noticed it when I felt very provoked py a post of yours, wrote an answer in anger, reread your post and could not find the reason for my anger. Decided not to reply.
EDIT: sorry for being funny and going so much off topic...
|
|
I forget exactly which thread, but "wield" was clarified as meaning "attack" when they decided that two-weapon fighting penalties only applied when you got an extra attack from using two weapons, not when using iterative attacks to use two weapons. An area where the rules were more vague than this, hence huge amounts of debate.
The closest definition given for when you "threaten" is just "you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack," with a modifier for being unarmed.
Isil-zha, what is your reasoning that attacking with a shield should be or is regarded as a stance? I'm seeing nothing in the rules text that implies that this is so.
|
|
Mark Moreland's stance is in direct contradiction to RAW, and the comments of other Devs.
He may be a great guy, but his one comment has done nothing but damage any progress in the community's understanding of what it means to wield.
Every time anyone mentions that one comment, I verbally groan.
Anyone who understands the issue will know why.
By the way, this still has nothing to do with a shield's ability to threaten.
|
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
There's a couple other related quotes down page.
It clearly states that you lose the AC bonus until your next turn, nor does it have any text for special circumstances when "your next turn" just happens to be the very next thing that happens.
I'm surprised how fast people become defensive and offensive with each other here. Lets not call out each other specifically shall we? Accusing people over the internet doesn't do much good.
Deciding it's a weapon is as natural to fighters as deciding how to use your fork to grab food from your plate. Do I scoop, or skewer my food? Just depends on the circumstance, no thought required, no "action" to switch forms. It just happens. If I use my fork to scoop food, I lose the ability to twist my fork while maintaining the food on it... I really do hope the analogy makes sense and isn't taken too far...
Point is, switching from using a shield as a shield to a weapon is a none action, no thought required. I don't see how else it would be in real life.
That's like... The most brilliant analogy I've ever seen in this forum!
You, sir, have my compliments and applause...