|
If it's broken it cannot be used for its normal function nor does it grant any bonuses.
The Doubling Rings would be disabled until you fix the shield or move the Ring.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think HumbleGamer means, what happens to a Shield Boss and its Runes when the Shield its attached to becomes broken.
The Shield Boss isn't broken, and since the Shield isn't destroyed, they're both still attached.
I asked myself this same question when I gave my Champion Doubling Rings and couldn't find a solid reason to think they would stop functioning.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if the Shield is broken (not the Boss/Spikes) then it cannot fulfil its functions which include being a valid target for the Shield Boss/Spike so you can't make attacks with it in the first place. Since the Boss/Spike isn't functionally a Weapon anymore the Doubling Ring would just simply fail completely.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but "functionally" does not exist in the RAW. Even if your sword is broken, the Runes on it are still functioning and thus the doubling rings still work. For an unbroken Shield boss, doubly so.
Even a broken melee weapon can be wielded and it is still a melee weapon, even if you cannot attack with it anymore. So the conditions for the doubling rings to work are fulfilled.
|
According to the Attached trait, you can only use Attached weapons by wielding the item it's attached to. Basically, if you can't use the item it's attached to, you can't use the attachment. And I would definitely say that you can't Shield Bash, the action that the attachments modify, with a broken shield.
As for doubling rings, yea it should still work if the gold ring is on the hand with the shield. Though people usually use the shield as a secondary weapon...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually most people w/ Doubling Rings equip the shield as their primary weapon because it only matters for the rings and not for weapon use.
That way they can swap out their actual main weapon and retain the Runes, like if wanting a blunt or silver weapon to address Weaknesses or Resistances.
--
Parsing the vocabulary, who says one can't wield a broken weapon even if one can't use it? (And technically I suspect they could use it as an improvised weapon.) I'd say somebody could wield an empty gun, even if it's unloaded and cannot be used to shoot. Seems similar enough IMO, and I say this as somebody who emotionally leans toward the shield's Runes ceasing to be accessible.
|
|
Actually most people w/ Doubling Rings equip the shield as their primary weapon because it only matters for the rings and not for weapon use.
That way they can swap out their actual main weapon and retain the Runes, like if wanting a blunt or silver weapon to address Weaknesses or Resistances.
^ this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Parsing the vocabulary, who says one can't wield a broken weapon even if one can't use it? (And technically I suspect they could use it as an improvised weapon.) I'd say somebody could wield an empty gun, even if it's unloaded and cannot be used to shoot. Seems similar enough IMO, and I say this as somebody who emotionally leans toward the shield's Runes ceasing to be accessible.
I already linked the rule in question here as the second reply. There is no grey area here, the equipment cannot be used how it is normally intended to be and it cannot grant the user any bonuses whatsoever... I don't see how this could get any more cut-n-dry.
|
|
You cannot Wield a broken shield. The only way to wield spikes or a boss is to have them attached to a shield which you then wield. Doubling rings require you to be wielding the weapon that has the ring attached. You receive no benefit from using the Rings with a broken shield.
Guys, it's not hard, just read the rules, it's all very clearly spelled out and not ambiguous at all, the various traits and rules for these all point directly at losing all benefits from the rings in this situation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will just quote the rule here then since apparently following the link is too hard...
"Broken is a condition that affects objects. An object is broken when damage has reduced its Hit Points to equal or less than its Broken Threshold. A broken object can't be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses— with the exception of armor. Broken armor still grants its item bonus to AC, but it also imparts a status penalty to AC depending on its category: –1 for broken light armor, –2 for broken medium armor, or –3 for broken heavy armor."
Now, the rules on wielding which is strictly defined and has mechanical meaning, it's not just some vaguely defined descriptor...
"Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it."
You cannot use the shield for its NORMAL functions, which includes everything that the rules state you can normally do with it. You cannot raise it, you cannot attack with it, it isn't able to be wielded because you aren't ABLE to use it how it is intended to be used and therefore (You cannot wield ANYTHING that is Broken, full stop) it's not a valid target as a melee weapon for your rings. Wielding the Shield is one of its normal functions and if you're not wielding it you cannot benefit from the ring. No amount of charitable reading here permits the rings to function in this example, that is unless you're somehow trying to argue that you can "use" an item when you're explicitly prohibited from "using" it in any of its normal ways and are playing in some kind of quantum paradox campaign setting where everything is both itself and also it's polar opposite at the same time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's semantics, but saying that you can't use an item for it's normal functions is not the same as saying you can't hold the item in the number of hands to use it effectively.
You are still holding the shield in the appropriate number of hands. I see no reason why wouldn't be able to use the attached weapon despite the shield being broken. Destroyed, sure, since then the boss/spike or what have you is no longer attached to the shield.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh for cripes sake, here are the Wielding Rules linked and here are Broken Condition rules and lastly, the blasted ring rules.
You CANNOT wield a broken item, weapon, or shield at all. To do that you MUST be able and ready to USE it which you are prevented from doing via the Broken Condition.
I don't understand how this is so hard to grok...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
First things first: U mad bro?
Second: What is stopping a character from wielding a broken shield as an improvised weapon, and using the attached weapon that way? Nothing as far as I can see.
I don't understand what's so hard to "grok...", whatever that means.
|
|
I wouldn't say mad but it is certainly frustrating trying to explain this, especially when I've gone out of my way to link to the references, quote the Rules, and illustrate the point only to be met by dismissals that don't even discuss the ... RULES.
So, this is the last time I try ... I'll again point back to the rules I linked, if something has the Broken Condition you cannot USE it for ANY of the functions by which it's formally defined. Being able to use the Shield to Bash is one of the defined functions of it, when it's Broken you cannot Attack with it and you cannot Wield it, it's absolutely 100% rock-solid concrete indisputable, that is if one bothers to read the rules that actually relate to the question.
This is a Rules discussion, Improvised Weapon usage is 100% GM fiat and does not fall within the scope of discussions on this sub-forum, it will always be subject to table variation and therefore must be excluded as a potential point of discussion... that is how this forum works, otherwise the distinction between Advice, General Discussion, Rules, and Homebrew are utterly meaningless. Call me a gatekeeper and insult me if you wish, but I'd very much like to see a Rule-based argument that shows in writing where the books state you can "use" something that you by definition are NOT allowed to "use." I'll wait that does not rely on Rule 0 of "ask your GM."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So here's the thing, you aren't trying to "use" the shield when you attack with the attached weapon. The boss or spike is being used to attack, not the shield. Attached Trait for reference. In order to qualify to attack with the attached weapon, you must be either wearing or wielding the attached item. I see no reason in any of the rules that you quoted that you cannot "wear or wield" a broken item.
You stated that, "You CANNOT wield a broken item, weapon, or shield at all." As far as I can tell this is strictly not true. The wielding rules that you linked state the following:
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it.
Let's parse this a bit.
1. You're wielding an item any time you're holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. Nothing about how you are holding the shield changed based on it gaining broken, so this is still true. You are still holding the shield in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.2. When wielding an item, you're not just carrying it around—you're ready to use it. This is also still true with a Broken shield. You may not be able to actually raise it, but you are carrying it around "ready to use" until you drop or otherwise change your hold on it. Ready to use does not equal Able to use.
So with this in mind, return to Attached. You aren't performing a Shield Bash with the broken shield, you are performing an attack with the attached weapon.
TLDR: Ready to use =/= Able to use, so a broken shield can be "wielded" for the purposes of allowing the use of an attached weapon, in the same way that a weapon attached to broken armor would still be able to be used.
Edit: As to Improvised Weapons, what part of that would require GM Fiat? They are part of the core rules. The only GM decision that needs to be made is what type of damage they do, not whether a player could use one. And in this case it's even easier, since the GM wouldn't have to decide on a damage amount/type or any traits. The player would only have to declare that they are now using the shield as an improvised weapon. So even if you don't buy my argument that ready doesn't equal able to use, a player can STILL use their attached weapon legally within the rules using this route.
At the end of the day, a potentially core part of a character's build shouldn't be able to be completely shut down by using their own abilities. Shield Blocking shouldn't turn into a negative that locks the character out of using their own abilities/gear. Well beyond not being able to raise the shield anymore.
A broken object can't be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses— with the exception of armor.
Being wielded is a normal function of the shield so if it's broken then it can't be wielded.
For example, shield spikes are attached to a shield, allowing you to attack with the spikes instead of a shield bash, but only if you're wielding the shield.
So you can only attack with the spikes if you are wielding the shield.
We've already established that broken shields can't be wielded so the spikes can't be used to attack.
Seems straightforward to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being wielded is a normal function of the shield so if it's broken then it can't be wielded.
Is it though? I would put forward that being wielded isn't the function of any item, it is a state the item has when you are holding said item in the number of hands required to use it, whether you are able to use it or not.
And even if you rule it that way, that still doesn't stop a player from declaring that their now broken shield is an improvised weapon that they are wielding. I don't think this sort of work around is necessary, but it is pretty much legal as far as I can tell if required by the GM's ruling. Nothing in the Attached trait indicates that the item can't be broken if you want to use the attached weapon after all.
Is it though? I would put forward that being wielded isn't the function of any item, it is a state the item has when you are holding said item in the number of hands required to use it, whether you are able to use it or not.
Hmm. I see your point, now. But I wonder about this part.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it.
I'm not clear if you can be ready to use an item that can't currently be used because it is broken.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In normal English, somebody can wield an unloaded pistol, or even a broken and unloaded pistol. I don't see that the PF2 definition varies in meaning. And of course there's the fact one may wield anything due to Improvised Weapon rules.
So yeah, even though it annoys a certain part of me, as long as the shield's occupying that arm and the Runes are as active as usual, the Doubling Rings should apply the effects to the other hand's weapon.
If a weapon is damaged by acid and broke it looses all their abilities and the rings looses their effects to other weapon in other hand. This works like a compensation risk in trade off avoid put runes in both weapons. I don't see why a shield would be an exception just because the player can choose to broken it.
I also remember something that some people says here in the forum: "Don't try to use reality as rule in PF2 you probably would broke the balance or something else". Ex.: Remember that we choose to block or not based in final physical damage calc, this is not realistic, to be honest is almost a metagame but this is just like the rules works and are balanced to.
The use of Doubling Rings is almost a workaround to freely switch weapons when using a shield when theses rings are cleary created in order to allow a 2-weapon combatant to not waste the double of money was not made thinking that shield users would exploit them to power up all weapons they uses. So is fair enough that if shield broke this players looses this power.
Don't matter if broken or destroyed. A broken item does not grant bonus. Simple that. The rings cannot copy the bonus from an item that's no more giving them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't matter if broken or destroyed. A broken item does not grant bonus. Simple that. The rings cannot copy the bonus from an item that's no more giving them.
You missed the question though: it's the 100% fine and NOT broken or destroyed weapon attached to the broken or destroyed item. Hence, a shield not granting bonuses is pretty much a moot point. No one is debating if a broken shield grants a bonus to AC.
If the PC is in a bad enough shape to get their shield destroyed, do they also need to lose the magic properties of their weapon ?
I think not.
I'm just trying to figure out the rules.
Don't matter if broken or destroyed. A broken item does not grant bonus. Simple that. The rings cannot copy the bonus from an item that's no more giving them.
Sure. But in this scenario, the broken item in question is the shield. The attached shield boss/spike OTH is not broken. Therefore, the runes on the attached weapon are very much still active.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprise nobody quoted the following
The replication functions only if you wear both rings, and it ends as soon as you cease wielding a melee weapon in one of your hands. Consequently, the benefit doesn’t apply to thrown attacks or if you’re holding a weapon but not wielding it (such as holding in one hand a weapon that requires two hands to wield).
So the question is: if the shield is broken - can you still wield the shield spike or not?
An attached weapon must be combined with another piece of gear to be used. The trait lists what type of item the weapon must be attached to. You must be wielding or wearing the item the weapon is attached to in order to attack with it. For example, shield spikes are attached to a shield, allowing you to attack with the spikes instead of a shield bash, but only if you're wielding the shield.
Broken is a condition that affects objects. An object is broken when damage has reduced its Hit Points to equal or less than its Broken Threshold. A broken object can't be used for its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses— with the exception of armor.
So in my view:
Step 1: Shield is broken, you can't use it for it's normal function.Step 2: You must be wielding or wearing the shield in order to attack with it.
Step 3: Merely holding the weapon (see two handed sword in one hand) is not sufficient
So in my view - if you have a doubling ring and a shield boss/spike you have to make a decision if you want to take the damage and keep your doubling ring working or break the shield and keep the health but lose the benefit of the doubling ring.
Attached says - you have to be wielding the item it is attached to. You can't just declare it an improvised weapon - otherwise attached has no meaning.
Edit:To clarify - in my view you hold a broken shield - you don't wield it anymore as it can't be used for it's supposed function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Snip for Brevity.
I will note that the very next parenthetical gives an example of holding a weapon rather than wielding it, that being holding a 2 handed weapon with a single hand. It may very well not be the Only example of holding vs. wielding, but it is the only one given. And in my mind it lines up nicely with the game definition of "wielding", that being holding the item in the proper number of hands to use it effectively.
I see nothing there that shows that being wielded is a function of the shield that can no longer be used due to broken.
So, why couldn't you declare the shield an improvised weapon? You weren't very clear on that point. You basically just said that you can't. Doing so has no bearing on the attached weapon that I can see. Can you elaborate?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had read (but forgot) about a few arguments earlier. So to a certain degree we are going in circles.
Beowulf already mentioned some parts earlier - and came to a different conclusion as he said you could still 'wield' the shield. So I wondered - how can we read the same rules but come to such different conclusions.
A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks, using the statistics listed for a shield bash on Table 6–7: Melee Weapons (page 280). The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons. A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes.
So the issue is:
The attach trait trait treat a shield plus shield boss/spike as 1 weapon (see above)
The runes differentiate between the shield (no runes allowed) and the boss/spike - weapon runes can be added. So it treats it as separate.
So we both agree that you can't wield a shield to defend - but treating the shield and boss/spike as a unit I also see it as no - you can't use it to attack while treating it separate you might get to the conclusion no defense but I still allow attack.
The broken condition doesn't go into detail what is broken with the shield. I have problems to visualize how it is broken and can't protect me but isn't broken and I can just attack someone. If it is stable enough to transfer the force of an attack to my enemy - why isn't it stable enough anymore to give me any protection?
But I guess there will be no convincing the other side.
|
|
So, why couldn't you declare the shield an improvised weapon? You weren't very clear on that point. You basically just said that you can't. Doing so has no bearing on the attached weapon that I can see. Can you elaborate?
Seems we just cross posted
Why not using a broken shield as improvised weapon?
RAI in my view this isn't intended.
What stops you to use a 2 handed weapon as improvised in a single hand?
What stops you to use a ranged weapon as improvised in a single hand?
Improvised gives an item penalty / magic weapon gives an item bonus. With the ring you take the benefit (the bonus) but you avoid the penalty (improvised -2).
So would I allow a broken shield being used as improvised weapon.
Maybe as two handed improvised weapon. Broken doesn't specify what is broken (the strip, is it no longer stable, etc.) Most of these issues would be overcome by holding the shield (or what remains) awkwardly in 2 hands.
The GM determines the amount and type of damage the attack deals, if any, as well as any weapon traits the improvised weapon should have.
So yes - I might allow to circumvent the attached trait by using a 2-handed trait instead. I know you would rule differently.
A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks, using the statistics listed for a shield bash on Table 6–7: Melee Weapons (page 280). The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons. A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes.
So the issue is:
The attach trait trait treat a shield plus shield boss/spike as 1 weapon (see above)
The runes differentiate between the shield (no runes allowed) and the boss/spike - weapon runes can be added. So it treats it as separate.
So we both agree that you can't wield a shield to defend - but treating the shield and boss/spike as a unit I also see it as no - you can't use it to attack while treating it separate you might get to the conclusion no defense but I still allow attack.
That is pretty much where I arrive when I read through the rules. The Attached trait even notes that you are attacking with the attached weapon, rather than the shield or other item it is attached to. At this time, there are no attached weapons that go onto armor, but if there were, and your armor were to be broken, you would definitely still be able to use said hypothetical weapon to attack. Though this could also be chalked up to Armor being a specifically called out exception to the Broken rules that may hinder a shield.
Overall, I lean towards the option that causes the least grief for a player.
The broken condition doesn't go into detail what is broken with the shield. I have problems to visualize how it is broken and can't protect me but isn't broken and I can just attack someone. If it is stable enough to transfer the force of an attack to my enemy - why isn't it stable enough anymore to give me any protection?
But I guess there will be no convincing the other side.
I can be convinced, I just haven't heard any arguments that are sound enough to shake my current stance.
As to attacking with a broken shield, one that you couldn't use to defend yourself, the answer is as nebulous as the broken trait itself. Broken is an abstraction, one that you are meant to apply and not think about altogether too much. It does what it says on the tin, so you can't use the broken item for it's normal functions. For shields that means you can't raise them or shield bash with them. Since you can't raise them, you can't shield block/use any other similar feat. If you had a shield with no boss or spike, it would operate pretty much how Themetricsystem says it should, though I would still argue that you Can wield said shield, even if you aren't eligible to attack with or raise it.
But then we have the attached boss or spike. It makes sense to me that even if you are holding a "broken" shield that the boss or spike, in theory being solidly built out of metal, would still be potent for striking. In fact the boss or spike is specifically called out as likely surviving the complete destruction of a shield.
And since the attached trait makes it clear that you are attacking with the boss or spike rather than the shield, that is all I need to know.
Edit: We did crosspost. Lol
I would certainly rule it different, I've made that clear. Again, broken is a blank abstraction. The details of what is broken really aren't important. You just know that Something is broken that stops the shield from being effectively used as a shield. That means that it is now a blunt object in your hand imo.
Using a weapon as an improvised weapon sounds weird at first, but really there are plenty of reasons to do so. If you decided to bring a sword against an enemy with Resistance to Slashing for instance, it may be more appropriate to flip the sword over and "end him rightly" with the pommel. That would be an improvised attack using a (part of a) martial weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If something can't be used, how can you hold it in the correct number of hands to use it effectively?
The shield can't be used? So it doesn't exist anymore then?
The shield can't be used for it's normal functions, that doesn't mean it is no longer a physical object with other uses. Anything you can grab can be used for something, even if it wasn't designed for whatever purpose you wield it towards.
Note in the wielding items rule, it doesn't specify what you are, "using it effectively," for. Or what you are, "ready to use it," for.
"Cannot be used for it's normal function," also insinuates that there are abnormal functions that the item may be used for. Thus you can still wield the object.
I would assert one could use a great sword (etc.) in one hand as an improvised weapon. Or ranged one in melee, as in strike them with your bow. But it's going to do lousy damage and have few if any traits (other than for damage type).
Whether Runes would remain functional is a difficult question though, and ties IMO to the effect of "improvised". Shields w/o attachments can't take weapon Runes, so it's not like any ol' object can. But if the Runes on the blade are functional when hitting with the hilt, they'd be functional for the "spike in a broken shield" improvised weapon too IMO, and hence work with Doubling Rings.
Yes, that "if" is unresolved. :)
---
I find this a telling line, and it nudges me toward "no".
"You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon."
It does sound like a singular entity, which does imply the package is broken. But does being broken keep an object from being wielded?
IMO no because wielding a broken weapon is something one can do in real life as well as via the Improvised Weapon rules (for much less damage) which brings us back to the "if" above.
I can see others inextricably link "wield" (ready to use) to "able to use (in its normal capacity)", but I interpret them as separable.
---
I lean toward Improvised Weapons being unable to use Runes, but that has led before to a long discussion sans resolution.
I lean toward Improvised Weapons being unable to use Runes, but that has led before to a long discussion sans resolution. Or ranged one in melee, as in strike them with your bow.
IMO, what makes it a firm 'yes you can add runes to improvised weapons' is this from Improvised Weapons: "Improvised weapons are simple weapons." Not "For the purpose of determining your proficiency" only like some Ancestry weapon feats are worded but ARE Simple Weapons and as such I see no reason to treat them any different than any other Simple Weapon.
I would assert one could use a great sword (etc.) in one hand as an improvised weapon.
I'd agree.
"You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon."
Well, Broken is quite nebulous on what that means in terms of actual damage. let me give you a scenario: Lets say the tech book comes out and you have a rifle with an Attached bayonet and the rifle gets Broken by a misfire... Does the rifle then become unusable as a makeshift spear, making the bayonet unusable? And if the answer is no, why does that differ from the shield?
But if you are using a broken shield as an improvised weapon then are you wielding a shield or an improvised weapon?
To use a shield spike you need to be wielding a shield to which it is attached. In this case you would be wielding an improvised weapon to which it is attached.
But if you are using a broken shield as an improvised weapon then are you wielding a shield or an improvised weapon?
To use a shield spike you need to be wielding a shield to which it is attached. In this case you would be wielding an improvised weapon to which it is attached.
A shield by any other name would still have the weapon attached. When you wield a table leg as an improvised club, does that change what the item is? Or when asked will you still say that you are wielding a table leg?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you are using a broken shield as an improvised weapon then are you wielding a shield or an improvised weapon?
To use a shield spike you need to be wielding a shield to which it is attached. In this case you would be wielding an improvised weapon to which it is attached.
Well it goes like this:
#1 An attached weapon must be combined with another piece of gear to be used.#2 You must be wielding or wearing the item the weapon is attached to in order to attack with it.
#3 A Broken shield still has #1 and #2 can be satisfied be using it as an improvised weapon. The rule is you have to wield the base item not that you must wield it in a particular way. For instance, if that rifle was being used as an improvised club smacking someone with the butt, the bayonet is still attached to the weapon and that weapon is still being wielded.
A shield by any other name would still have the weapon attached. When you wield a table leg as an improvised club, does that change what the item is? Or when asked will you still say that you are wielding a table leg?But if you are using a broken shield as an improvised weapon then are you wielding a shield or an improvised weapon?
To use a shield spike you need to be wielding a shield to which it is attached. In this case you would be wielding an improvised weapon to which it is attached.
It kind of does change what the item is, doesn't it?
A broken longbow wielded as an improvised club is a simple weapon rather than martial, deals bludgeoning damage rather than piercing, is thrown melee rather than projectile ranged, and possibly changes it's damage die. I'm not sure in what sense wielding that object in that way would be considered to be wielding a bow.
To be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just genuinely uncertain how these rules interact.
A shield by any other name would still have the weapon attached. When you wield a table leg as an improvised club, does that change what the item is? Or when asked will you still say that you are wielding a table leg?But if you are using a broken shield as an improvised weapon then are you wielding a shield or an improvised weapon?
To use a shield spike you need to be wielding a shield to which it is attached. In this case you would be wielding an improvised weapon to which it is attached.
It kind of does change what the item is, doesn't it?
A broken longbow wielded as an improvised club is a simple weapon rather than martial, deals bludgeoning damage rather than piercing, is thrown melee rather than projectile ranged, and possibly changes it's damage die. I'm not sure in what sense wielding that object in that way would be considered to be wielding a bow.
To be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just genuinely uncertain how these rules interact.
It changes how the item is used, not what the item is. That longbow is still a longbow, even if you aren't using it as a longbow at the time. It is not as though the longbow disappears and a club appears in your hand after all.
Same goes for the shield. You may not be using it to block or fend off attacks, but the shield is the same shield you had before, complete with the attached weapon. At least that is how I see it.
See, I kind of think it's a club improvised from a broken bow. At that moment I would say that I'm wielding an improvised club, not that I'm wielding a longbow.
I keep thinking about this part.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it.
You can use the broken longbow as an improvised club, so you are wielding an improvised club. But you can't use the broken longbow as a longbow (since it's broken) so I'm not sure you are wielding a longbow.
(I do realize that the shield spike situation might be different since it's attached to a broken item rather than broken itself. I'm trying to work through this simpler example before I add that element in.)
You can use the broken longbow as an improvised club, so you are wielding an improvised club. But you can't use the broken longbow as a longbow (since it's broken) so I'm not sure you are wielding a longbow.
I think this is where the disconnect is: You don't have to wield it as a shield, you just have to wield the shield which are different things. Most times they are the same thing but they do not have to be: a halberd isn't being wielded as a halberd when you hit someone with the haft but you are still wielding it. Same with the shield: you are wielding the shield but not as a shield and attached is only looking for the first and not the second.
"You must be wielding or wearing the item the weapon is attached to in order to attack with it.": the shield turning into a simple weapon [improvised weapon] doesn't change the fact that it's Attached or that the base item is wielded. Attached it's not looking for particular base item, just that it's wielded.
"For example, shield spikes are attached to a shield, allowing you to attack with the spikes instead of a shield bash, but only if you're wielding the shield.": nothing indicates this is the only way to use it, just the most common. I see nothing preventing you from picking up a shield in 2 hands and bashing someone with it or a spike/boss without using the normal procedure to wear one: you're wielding the shield, just not as a shield, and the Attached weapon is still attached.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is where the disconnect is: You don't have to wield it as a shield, you just have to wield the shield which are different things.
That is where i got stuck.
"You must be wielding or wearing the item the weapon is attached to in order to attack with it."
Ok, I get it. Wielding the item as a shield or as an improvised weapon doesn't matter because it is the same item regardless of whether it is the same weapon. So my simpler example is actually more complicated.
Alright, I'm convinced. Thanks for pounding that into my old brain beowulf99 and graystone! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for pounding that into my old brain beowulf99 and graystone! :)
Happy to help! ;)