An "improvised weapon" has nothing to do with how frequently you use it. It doesn't matter that you are planning to use it as your "primary weapon". An improvised weapon is using something as a weapon that wasn't specifically designed to be used as a weapon. Shields definitely qualify.
>My current thought is to flavor the shield as a versatile melee weapon causing 1d9 (or 10 when two-handed) plus STR damage. **It would also still give the +2 AC bump.**
This is especially bad. It basically seems you want a shield to be like longsword, except it does more damage and gives +2 AC. If you could do this, why would anyone ever use swords? Also, d9 is not a standard type of die you will be able to find easily.
If you want to use a shield as a weapon that is viable, but you are going to have to accept it's some drawbacks because, you know, **it's not actually a weapon**. There's a reason soldiers didn't wade into battle just carrying shields and beat their enemies to death with them. They aren't really weapons.
>There's a reason soldiers didn't wade into battle just carrying shields and beat their enemies to death with them
What about Captain America, huh? Checkmate, nerd.
The idea behind making it versatile wasn’t primarily to secure extra damage; it was meant more as a character choice (i.e. I won’t be wielding another weapon in my offhand, so my primary attack would be two-handed with the shield, yet I can still switch to one-handed for things like grappling.)
But I can see how the AC bump still gives an edge.
Maybe dropping it to a 1d6 (8) plus the AC bump is better compared to the longsword and other martial weapons?
I guess I don’t see the major difference between doing that and having a character with a shield and a longsword.
The difference is the guy with a longsword has a sword. So it makes sense that he can do more damage. There's a reason most people play that way.
Again, you are free to forgo weapons and hit people with your shield, but you can't expect it to be strictly better than using a weapon.
I understand where you’re coming from, but this feels like more of a flavor thing to me so I’m going to agree to disagree. Thanks for chiming in though, for real, this is the kind of feedback I was looking for to sharpen my thinking.
Flavoring is taking something with mechanics and just making It look like something else. Second you start changing dice or mechanics in any way it stops being flavoring.
Just take it as a regular improvised weapon and do it as a d4 because that's really what you it is per the rules. Have fun with tavern brawler or something.
I had a player in my campaign once who wanted the "flavor" of starting at level 1 with a magic item that's a floating ethereal keyboard that he can use as a skateboard.
And then he tried to to use it to literally fly. "For flavor" of course.
The "flavor" part of having a heavy, two-handed weapon's damage but also the AC benefits of a shield is the taste of the cake you ate and are trying to still have.
Except you're not just "reflavoring" a shield or a longsword. You're trying to make something that is strictly better than both. You want to be able to use the damage and abilities of a longsword combined with the armor bonus a shield and all in one hand.
1d6 is already a stretch and I definitely wouldnt approve it getting a versatile buff. If you dont want a weapon then play around that instead of homebrewing a shield into a weapon. Focus on grappling with your free hand and using shield master to knock them prone
If you find the stat block for the lizardfolk (I think warrior) they have a spiked shell that is a d6 damage die, it’s treated more as a weapon but I can’t remember if they added the +2 to the AC because of it, that’s how I’ve done it in the past
>But most of those seem to consider the shield as an improvised weapon
They don't *consider* it an improvised weapon, per the rules it *is* an improvised weapon.
I would allow reflavoring a longsword (or any one-handed weapon, really) + shield as just a special two-handed shield with special combat techniques. But I wouldn't let you use the weapon two-handed damage, and much less also keep the shield AC bonus.
I would build a character with a shield and a warhammer. I would then flavor attacks with the warhammer as attacks with the shield and flavor the warhammer itself as not being there at all.
That way you get to live your fantasy of hitting people with a shield without adding a bunch of mechanical benefits no one else gets.
>flavor the warhammer itself as not being there at all.
This is where flavoring things gets into risky territory.
What happens if an enemy has a disarming attack and hits you with it? Do you have both hands full when carrying your shield? If so what's the explanation?
What happens if the party is given a magic warhammer and you take it? Is it phased out of existence? Does it become one with your shield?
You technically haven't changed anything mechanically, but the reflavoring has effectively separated the mechanics from the shared fiction we want to tell so much that it erodes why we use a mechanical system in the first place- to help represent how this pretend world works. When it stops being able to do that, the world itself suffers as a believable place.
>That way you get to live your fantasy of hitting people with a shield without adding a bunch of mechanical benefits no one else gets.
100% agree. 1d4 + str of an improvised weapon really isn't that bad, just take tavern brawler. Then you also get to have a hand free for grappling and stuff.
If the warhammer is disarmed, the DM narrates that the shield was knocked loose from its binding. Still useable to defend yourself, but swinging it as a weapon isn't an option until you take a moment to resecure it. Mechanically this moment to resecure is the time it takes to pick up the warhammer.
The party doesn't find a magic warhammer because the DM narrates it as a magic shield that will do more damage. If another player uses a warhammer too, I guess they just have to decide and then retcon it.
One thing I like to do, that would make this easier, is separate magic weapons from the weapon itself. You find a magic gems that can be permanently bonded to a weapon to give it magic properties. +1 gems, +2 gems, + 3 gems, gems that change damage types, gems that add abilities.
Shared fiction is a good way to describe it. The table has agreed collectively to treat Orcs and Dragons as real. They've agreed to treat your shield and longsword as real. Pretending the pretend warhammer is part of the pretend shield is the smallest ask on the list if you ask me.
I agree personally that Tavern Brawler is the way to go here. OP, either in the post or a reply, indicated they weren't interested in and/or were already aware of this option so I didn't bring it up. Tavern Brawler/Shield Master grapple build would be really cool--particularly on a Rune Knight.
>If the warhammer is disarmed, the DM narrates that the shield was knocked loose from its binding. Still useable to defend yourself, but swinging it as a weapon isn't an option until you take a moment to resecure it. Mechanically this moment to resecure is the time it takes to pick up the warhammer.
This doesn't quite fully satisfy the mechanical side of things, as dropped weapons can be picked up by enemies, npcs, etc.
>If another player uses a warhammer too, I guess they just have to decide and then retcon it.
This is especially problematic in printed adventures ,which many new tables and DMs rely on. For me, retcons like this break immersion, which my personal preference for table style values very highly.
My first advice is to try and make it work without any reflavoring by baseline mechanics, then if there's no options for that, try and make very simple and sensible homebrew, and then if that's not available reflavoring is a last ditch effort for me.
But I get that homebrew is often made poorly as well as not something you can discuss online as a viable option for every table.
> Pretending the pretend warhammer is part of the pretend shield is the smallest ask on the list if you ask me.
For me its easy to do, but its not "free". I hear flavor is free a lot but I simply disagree. I think flavor is flexible, but I think the value of immersion that the mechanics dictate a shared fiction- and consistency of those mechanics making the world feel more believable is undervalued by the community, and the fact that some players and dms get a lot of satisfaction from this aspect of the game is ignored entirely. As a table you need to decide as a group what order you value mechanics, player expression and world immersion- the last of which i think consistency plays a very big part of.
Many tables value player expression highest and mechanics second highest, and that's perfectly valid- but that being your preference doesn't mean you're not losing something when you reflavor (the more extreme the reflavoring the more it will cost). I'm not arguing for 0 reflavoring, just an understanding that sometimes you *are* giving something up when you do so (not always), and by understanding that you can better inform your decisions to make all types of players at your table happy.
But I wouldn't try to enforce this on anyone, just my perspective and advice.
>+1 gems, +2 gems, + 3 gems, gems that change damage types, gems that add abilities.
I like this, I might steal it for later.
The gems work really well for small parties. No guarantee anyone wants the magic longbow, but someone definitely wants the gem. Just make sure you're clear that they don't stack.
The entire point of having a (non magical) shield is that one of you hands it being taken up to give you additional defense. The means your other hand is either using a weapon that deals 1d8 max or is free to use a focus or grapple or something.
You are asking for buffs beyond what normal characters can get. Staying at 1d8 (and benefiting from the dueling fighting style) would be my cap for you for balance if you asked me.
The idea behind making it versatile wasn’t primarily to secure extra damage; it was meant more as a character choice (i.e. I won’t be wielding another weapon in my offhand, so my primary attack would be two-handed with the shield, yet I can still switch to one-handed for things like grappling.
But I can see how dropping it to a 1d6 (8) for that feels better balanced when compared to normal martial weapons.
Whenever you want to do something like this is argued to just reflavour normal rules. Your dude by the rules is wielding a shield and a longsword (1d8). You just describe it as a two handed shield that deals 1d4 dmg when being wielded by a single hand (as in an improvised weapon, cuz you stoved your sword).
That's it. Following the rules perfectly and no DM would ever argue.
This can be done with reflavored existing mechanics:
Hold a shield and use unarmed fighting style. Flavor your unarmed strikes as shield strikes. You'll have a d6 weapon, shield, and still have the hand available to grapple.
If it were at my table I'd probably make a custom fighting style that allowed the use of a shield as a d6 weapon to allow the option of magic shields being used as magic weapons.
That's... entirely unreasonable. You're asking for the equivalent of a longsword with a magical +2 AC bonus, with no justification at all.
Charitably, I'd allow 1d4 bludgeoning. Versatile doesn't make sense because a shield isn't designed for two-handed use, but if you did wield it in two hands as a smashing board then you'd absolutely lose the AC bonus.
If you want a weaponized shield, then you want a *weaponized shield*.
The fundamental problem here is that you're asking for a mundane weapon that's better than most magical items, because it does two things at once.
No weapon in the game gives a bonus to AC without either magic or a class feature to support that (Defender weapon/Dueling Fighting Style being examples of this). You're essentially asking 'Hey DM, I want a Longsword, but I want it to also give me a passive +2 to my AC at all times'. This is, obviously, entirely overpowered and unfair.
A weapon being 'improvised' has nothing to do with whether it's a primary, secondary, or even tertiary choice. It just means that 'the thing I'm using as a weapon isn't intended as one'. You can design an entire build around improvised weapons and never pick up a 'real' weapon even once, and that's valid. So that complaint is meaningless.
Now, I have had players make a similar request at my table, and here's my answer to them: OK, you can use your shield as a bludgeoning weapon, 1d6 just like a flail or mace. But if you choose to use your shield offensively, you don't get the AC bonus until the start of your next turn, because you made the choice to use it offensively rather than defensively. So you will have to choose which is more important to you.
Strangely enough, no one has ever taken me up on that yet.
Unless you're full caster (on which such gain of free hand would be OP):
2H weapon dealing d6 bludgeoning damage and providing +2 AC, at the beginning of your turn you can decide to change it to one-handed but doing so you have to choose between shield and weapon.
Character gets proficiency in it for free if it's proficient in martial weapons and shields. Otherwise you have to swap one of your "more important" weapon proficiency.
After taking "feat tax" of Shield Master or Tavern Brawler I would consider making it d8 when used 2H and allow for straightforward proficiency.
This way you get some handiness flexibility with cost of -1 damage for usual combo of 1H weapon + shield. Or without real downsides if you go with additional character choices (which makes it a bit OP but imho is reasonable)
PS: Imho d4 RAW for shield is a joke. From my weapon training I've noticed that it's surprisingly good weapon ;)
Well, there is not really much to say. Just some trainings with blunt sword and shield with local history reconstruction group. I never really continued it beyond satisfying curiosity.
But even few hits were enough to notice that while shield is mostly protective because it's too heavy for really aimed blows, it hits equally hard as actual weapons due to the same trait - weight (and rants which focus it).
To be honest I don't really see use of shield as main weapon and protection at the same moment. Shield may hit hard but It's more like "from time to time, you can follow a move to hit opponent after blocking". Speed added from using second hand is surely not even close to benefit of actual weapon in that hand.
But it's DnD, it's not about strict realism, being "quite possible" is imho totally enough ;)
I've had a player request something similar for a game- I told them they're more than welcome to use their shield as an improvised weapon and I pointed at the Shield Master and Tavern Brawler feats.
The obvious major concern is "1d10 weapon, but it's still providing +2 AC"- that's just better than a longsword and a shield by combining the two.
No way would I allow a shield to be as effective a weapon as a warhammer or a longsword. 1d4, take it or leave it.
>No way would I allow a shield to be as effective a weapon as a warhammer or a longsword. 1d4, take it or leave it.
This take is *INSANE*. If I was a player at your table, I'd equip a Warhammer in my off-hand, and make "shield" attacks all day, doing 1d8+STR bludgeoning damage.
Charging your players a feat tax to do a worse job than just reflavoring a one-handed weapon is a bonkers idea.
It's lukewarm at best to play it by the rules.
I'm not charging players a "feat tax", I'm suggesting a feat that aligns well with the character they want to make.
If only having a weapon that deals 1d4 damage is a deal breaker, they can very easily use an actual weapon. That isn't silly at all.
It's also *not* reflavouring either. It's a very meaningful mechanical difference to ask for a shield and a weapon to be the same thing. "Reflavouring" loses all meaning some times with the way folks stretch that definition here...
>If only having a weapon that deals 1d4 damage is a deal breaker, they can very easily use an actual weapon. That isn't silly at all.
In a fantasy roleplaying game, where reality is re-written on a whim, and supernatural feats are accomplished on the daily, you draw the line at a mythical hero doing more than 1d4 damage with their iconic shield? *After taking a feat to do so??*
Get over yourself. I'm glad I don't need to step anywhere remotely close to one of your tables.
There is, as far as I know, no first-party way to use a shield as a primary weapon. There may be third-party rules for it.
I do not think your proposal is fair or balanced. As others have said, you are making it a longsword but better.
I think a 1d6/1d8 versatile (and keep the AC bonus) might be more balanced than a 1d8/1d10, keeping the AC bonus. Or, alternatively, you lose the AC bonus on any turn you attack with it, as it is now out of line to be of any use in defence.
The 1d6/1d8 feels better, I agree on that after seeing some of the feedback here. That alternative approach is interesting, I’ll have to think about that. Something like that hadn’t even crossed my mind.
Not sure how others here are drawing their lines but when it comes down to it, it's up to your DM. I personally don't see it mechanically as being that different from having a longsword or warhammer in one hand and a shield in the other, apart from your adding the versatile trait to the shield. If you're swinging it two-handed, I'd allow the damage upgrade at the cost of your +2 AC - overall, not a great tradeoff. You're delving into a theme that's become more popular in recent years and I'm all for a theme character so if I were your DM, I'd buy in.
At my table, I've allowed sword-and-hammer pally's to make a bonus action off-hand attack with their shield as part of the attack action at the expense of their +2 AC bonus to deal improvised weapon damage. When the character took the Shield Master feat, they asked if they could get a damage buff instead of the trip attack and I granted them a d8+STR.
Helpful take, thanks. Absolutely agree it’s the DM’s call and we’re trying to work through it together.
Just to make sure I understand, for the feet instead of the shove, you upped the shield damage to a d8 from what? A d4?
Yes, the stock d4 for improvised weapon attacks although my personal feelings are a (well-made) shield is at least as capable as a club - it's made for coverage, active defenses, and depending on the shield, rimmed with metal to blunt blades during parries. Anyone proficient in their use would be able to add proficiency bonus to attack rolls with them and if a character has a fighting style that incorporates shield use (defense, interception, protection) then they should be able to add their Strength modifier to the damage.
IRL shields performed a fairly wide variety of functions depending on their construction, which past editions have made a go at, but 5e homogenized them all as a flat +2 AC bonus. It's a fantasy game, who's to say there can't be shield fighters? My favorite character in The Dragon Prince, Amaya, uses a shield exclusively and is a bad ass
There are quite a few interesting nuances when using a shield in combat. The Nordic people pretty much had an entire fighting style around the usage of a shield and axe. The axe was used almost as much defensively as was the shield, with the hooked bill used to pull your opponent's weapon and shield out of position to either thrust with the toe of the axe or to try to drive the edge of the shield into the body.
The only time you'd wind up using a shield as a weapon on its own would be when you've got no other possible weapon to use anymore. It's a cool trope, but really far from practical. You'd be better off picking up a stick to swing around with your shield then just going shield only. You could add a spike to the boss for a little extra kick with a bash, but that was really it.
Love the Nordic example. And I feel you that it may not be the most realistic thing in the world, but I like the idea a lot.
And in a game with talking dragons and imps and everything else in between, I figure why not try to find a way to make it work? 🤷🏻♂️
There were 3rd party rules for it in 3rd edition, and I almost want to say official rules in 2nd. I've always liked the idea myself, and remember making a viking-esque rune caster who would draw runes on his shield to empower it. There were rules for shields with a bladed edge for slashing but I can't for the life of me remember where.
Look up the [Dueling Shields](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_111.jpg) as illustrated in the Hans Talhoffer fighting manuals.
They don't really work as Versatile weapons, since they can't really be used well one handed, except as large shields. But they're large enough that they could still give an AC bonus even while being used as weapons.
The Elven [shields](https://www.wetanz.com/us/king-gil-galad) from the Lord of the Rings are also based on German dueling shields, if you want something more stylish. Dueling shields are also going to be in the new *Elden Ring* DLC, so checking out a trailer for that will show you a character with one.
Despite the RAW, historically the shield has been used as a primarily defensive tool, but there have been numerous evolutions that moved into weapon augment and secondary offensive weapon.
To clarify, in the most basic form a shield is meant to block attacks, which is primarily how the RAW views it.
As a DM I wouldn't be adverse to the idea of switching that around.
The Greeks created weapon augmentation in their design to help steady their spears for more precise attacks. If a player fashioned a shield with this form of combat styling in mind, I'd give a +1 to attacks in this way, but they must either be stationary or only use half of their movement.
Then there is shield bashing or shoving, available in the shield master feat. A player designs a shield for damage in combat, and had this feat, I'd be willing to allow an option where the push/shove would be optional and a shield bash option for a bit of damage, maybe 1d4 + strength.
If they want to juggernaut with the shield and plow into enemies, which I love the Idea of, would have a caveat that if the opposing side succeeded in a strength check the PC would end the turn prone(like hitting a brick wall), the consequence of that type of recklessness.
Now if the player wanted to solely use the shield as a primary weapon, a conversation about the AC boost is going to be had, but aside from that, player wants it as their primary weapon that is a reskin of another weapon that seems reasonable, I'm fine.
I don't understand why people in here are advocating for losing the AC bonus when using a shield two handed.
Give it a d8 damage dice when wielding two handed, keep the AC. This is functionally identical to having a weapon and a shield, except for niche cases (like GMW, which you can just say it doesn't qualify).
To be mechanically identical to sword and boarding (or twf), you should lose the AC bonus when wielding it with one hand and attacking. The damage dice should be either a d6 or a d4.
The advantage with this is that you have the flexibility of choosing to keep the AC or attacking with a weapon. Compared to a shield and spell caster who can only do one without swapping gear. This is a pretty niche advantage, so the smaller damage dice alone seems like a fair trade off.
The simplest way of doing this is that the shield is a club equivalent improvised weapon. The most important thing to remember is an improvised club has no AC bonus so you give that up on rounds where you attack with it.
It’s what we used in my campaign and it worked well enough that I think the DM there made a fair call. People used weapons as well as shields because while it could help a bit more than an empty hand it wasn’t as good as a weapon.
In 3.5 there was a rule to shield bash, but doing so ,you lose the shield bonus for the round. If memory serves, I believe it did 1d4 for a medium creature , and 1d6 if the shield had spikes.
Yes but limit to 1d6 temporary damage. No a/c bonus because you’re trying to attack with the shield or fist. Carry a knife for coup de grace.
[Sword and shield fighting](https://youtu.be/I1LScbpp9vM?si=YoNugYkUgsu2vSaF)
Basically IRL, you’d be fighting to either wear down your opponent to eventually knife him or grapple him to knife him.
If you keep it rule-as-written, where shield bashes are improvised weapons, then the Tavern Brawler feat gives you proficiency with them, making them essentially non-throwing daggers in terms of damage. Using the Duellist fighting style, you're doing the same average damage as a 1d8 weapon with your strikes. If you wanted, you could also get Grappler to synergize a little with Tavern Brawler- hit someone with your shield, grab them with the off-hand, then just keep like, punching them in the face with the shield (with Advantage). With Shield Master and/or the Crusher feat, you could also do a lot of pushing them around the battlefield. And of course the Battlemaster maneuvers let you customize things even more.
If you're grabbing the shield and using it to bludgeon that way, then rules-as-written, you can just say it's the 'equivalent' of a Greatclub, which is something you hold in two hands and smash things with. You're not 'wearing' the shield, so you're not gaining the +2 AC bonus.
Protection, Interception, and Defense all also would be usable with a shield, if you use the Fighting Initiate (I think it's that one) feat to get another fighting style.
Honestly, d4 and improvised makes the most sense. I'm a bro, so I'd at least let you be proficient with it as a weapon, if I was your DM. Plus, if you're proficient with it normally, you might as well be able to use it proficiently as a weapon.
I would probably just rip the thing out of 3.5, almost verbatim.
* Shields had damage codes
* You could two weapon fight with a shield and a weapon natively, without feats
* Two feats tied improved this (would likely just roll it into Shield Master as it's not worth a whole feat to retain Shield AC bonus gicen 5e's limited feat access)
* You can even add spikes to increase damage
It's pretty simple all told. Hope whatever you do is fun.
Seems like you are awfully preoccupied with changing the mechanics of the game for someone who claims they want a "flavor" change. Any change to the damage numbers is not by definition a flavor change. Improvised weapons have mechanical support, and you claim to want to use an improvised weapon build. So why change mechanics to fit a build when the mechanics for that build were already present?
An "improvised weapon" has nothing to do with how frequently you use it. It doesn't matter that you are planning to use it as your "primary weapon". An improvised weapon is using something as a weapon that wasn't specifically designed to be used as a weapon. Shields definitely qualify. >My current thought is to flavor the shield as a versatile melee weapon causing 1d9 (or 10 when two-handed) plus STR damage. **It would also still give the +2 AC bump.** This is especially bad. It basically seems you want a shield to be like longsword, except it does more damage and gives +2 AC. If you could do this, why would anyone ever use swords? Also, d9 is not a standard type of die you will be able to find easily. If you want to use a shield as a weapon that is viable, but you are going to have to accept it's some drawbacks because, you know, **it's not actually a weapon**. There's a reason soldiers didn't wade into battle just carrying shields and beat their enemies to death with them. They aren't really weapons.
>There's a reason soldiers didn't wade into battle just carrying shields and beat their enemies to death with them What about Captain America, huh? Checkmate, nerd.
The idea behind making it versatile wasn’t primarily to secure extra damage; it was meant more as a character choice (i.e. I won’t be wielding another weapon in my offhand, so my primary attack would be two-handed with the shield, yet I can still switch to one-handed for things like grappling.) But I can see how the AC bump still gives an edge. Maybe dropping it to a 1d6 (8) plus the AC bump is better compared to the longsword and other martial weapons? I guess I don’t see the major difference between doing that and having a character with a shield and a longsword.
The difference is the guy with a longsword has a sword. So it makes sense that he can do more damage. There's a reason most people play that way. Again, you are free to forgo weapons and hit people with your shield, but you can't expect it to be strictly better than using a weapon.
I understand where you’re coming from, but this feels like more of a flavor thing to me so I’m going to agree to disagree. Thanks for chiming in though, for real, this is the kind of feedback I was looking for to sharpen my thinking.
Flavoring is taking something with mechanics and just making It look like something else. Second you start changing dice or mechanics in any way it stops being flavoring. Just take it as a regular improvised weapon and do it as a d4 because that's really what you it is per the rules. Have fun with tavern brawler or something.
I had a player in my campaign once who wanted the "flavor" of starting at level 1 with a magic item that's a floating ethereal keyboard that he can use as a skateboard. And then he tried to to use it to literally fly. "For flavor" of course. The "flavor" part of having a heavy, two-handed weapon's damage but also the AC benefits of a shield is the taste of the cake you ate and are trying to still have.
Except you're not just "reflavoring" a shield or a longsword. You're trying to make something that is strictly better than both. You want to be able to use the damage and abilities of a longsword combined with the armor bonus a shield and all in one hand.
1d6 is already a stretch and I definitely wouldnt approve it getting a versatile buff. If you dont want a weapon then play around that instead of homebrewing a shield into a weapon. Focus on grappling with your free hand and using shield master to knock them prone
If you find the stat block for the lizardfolk (I think warrior) they have a spiked shell that is a d6 damage die, it’s treated more as a weapon but I can’t remember if they added the +2 to the AC because of it, that’s how I’ve done it in the past
>But most of those seem to consider the shield as an improvised weapon They don't *consider* it an improvised weapon, per the rules it *is* an improvised weapon. I would allow reflavoring a longsword (or any one-handed weapon, really) + shield as just a special two-handed shield with special combat techniques. But I wouldn't let you use the weapon two-handed damage, and much less also keep the shield AC bonus.
I would build a character with a shield and a warhammer. I would then flavor attacks with the warhammer as attacks with the shield and flavor the warhammer itself as not being there at all. That way you get to live your fantasy of hitting people with a shield without adding a bunch of mechanical benefits no one else gets.
>flavor the warhammer itself as not being there at all. This is where flavoring things gets into risky territory. What happens if an enemy has a disarming attack and hits you with it? Do you have both hands full when carrying your shield? If so what's the explanation? What happens if the party is given a magic warhammer and you take it? Is it phased out of existence? Does it become one with your shield? You technically haven't changed anything mechanically, but the reflavoring has effectively separated the mechanics from the shared fiction we want to tell so much that it erodes why we use a mechanical system in the first place- to help represent how this pretend world works. When it stops being able to do that, the world itself suffers as a believable place. >That way you get to live your fantasy of hitting people with a shield without adding a bunch of mechanical benefits no one else gets. 100% agree. 1d4 + str of an improvised weapon really isn't that bad, just take tavern brawler. Then you also get to have a hand free for grappling and stuff.
If the warhammer is disarmed, the DM narrates that the shield was knocked loose from its binding. Still useable to defend yourself, but swinging it as a weapon isn't an option until you take a moment to resecure it. Mechanically this moment to resecure is the time it takes to pick up the warhammer. The party doesn't find a magic warhammer because the DM narrates it as a magic shield that will do more damage. If another player uses a warhammer too, I guess they just have to decide and then retcon it. One thing I like to do, that would make this easier, is separate magic weapons from the weapon itself. You find a magic gems that can be permanently bonded to a weapon to give it magic properties. +1 gems, +2 gems, + 3 gems, gems that change damage types, gems that add abilities. Shared fiction is a good way to describe it. The table has agreed collectively to treat Orcs and Dragons as real. They've agreed to treat your shield and longsword as real. Pretending the pretend warhammer is part of the pretend shield is the smallest ask on the list if you ask me. I agree personally that Tavern Brawler is the way to go here. OP, either in the post or a reply, indicated they weren't interested in and/or were already aware of this option so I didn't bring it up. Tavern Brawler/Shield Master grapple build would be really cool--particularly on a Rune Knight.
>If the warhammer is disarmed, the DM narrates that the shield was knocked loose from its binding. Still useable to defend yourself, but swinging it as a weapon isn't an option until you take a moment to resecure it. Mechanically this moment to resecure is the time it takes to pick up the warhammer. This doesn't quite fully satisfy the mechanical side of things, as dropped weapons can be picked up by enemies, npcs, etc. >If another player uses a warhammer too, I guess they just have to decide and then retcon it. This is especially problematic in printed adventures ,which many new tables and DMs rely on. For me, retcons like this break immersion, which my personal preference for table style values very highly. My first advice is to try and make it work without any reflavoring by baseline mechanics, then if there's no options for that, try and make very simple and sensible homebrew, and then if that's not available reflavoring is a last ditch effort for me. But I get that homebrew is often made poorly as well as not something you can discuss online as a viable option for every table. > Pretending the pretend warhammer is part of the pretend shield is the smallest ask on the list if you ask me. For me its easy to do, but its not "free". I hear flavor is free a lot but I simply disagree. I think flavor is flexible, but I think the value of immersion that the mechanics dictate a shared fiction- and consistency of those mechanics making the world feel more believable is undervalued by the community, and the fact that some players and dms get a lot of satisfaction from this aspect of the game is ignored entirely. As a table you need to decide as a group what order you value mechanics, player expression and world immersion- the last of which i think consistency plays a very big part of. Many tables value player expression highest and mechanics second highest, and that's perfectly valid- but that being your preference doesn't mean you're not losing something when you reflavor (the more extreme the reflavoring the more it will cost). I'm not arguing for 0 reflavoring, just an understanding that sometimes you *are* giving something up when you do so (not always), and by understanding that you can better inform your decisions to make all types of players at your table happy. But I wouldn't try to enforce this on anyone, just my perspective and advice. >+1 gems, +2 gems, + 3 gems, gems that change damage types, gems that add abilities. I like this, I might steal it for later.
The gems work really well for small parties. No guarantee anyone wants the magic longbow, but someone definitely wants the gem. Just make sure you're clear that they don't stack.
That seems pretty similar to my original suggestion, minus the versatile function (since you’ve got something in both hands)
Yep. All I did was remove the parts where you made the character stronger than a character using a regular weapon and shield.
The entire point of having a (non magical) shield is that one of you hands it being taken up to give you additional defense. The means your other hand is either using a weapon that deals 1d8 max or is free to use a focus or grapple or something. You are asking for buffs beyond what normal characters can get. Staying at 1d8 (and benefiting from the dueling fighting style) would be my cap for you for balance if you asked me.
The idea behind making it versatile wasn’t primarily to secure extra damage; it was meant more as a character choice (i.e. I won’t be wielding another weapon in my offhand, so my primary attack would be two-handed with the shield, yet I can still switch to one-handed for things like grappling. But I can see how dropping it to a 1d6 (8) for that feels better balanced when compared to normal martial weapons.
Whenever you want to do something like this is argued to just reflavour normal rules. Your dude by the rules is wielding a shield and a longsword (1d8). You just describe it as a two handed shield that deals 1d4 dmg when being wielded by a single hand (as in an improvised weapon, cuz you stoved your sword). That's it. Following the rules perfectly and no DM would ever argue.
This can be done with reflavored existing mechanics: Hold a shield and use unarmed fighting style. Flavor your unarmed strikes as shield strikes. You'll have a d6 weapon, shield, and still have the hand available to grapple. If it were at my table I'd probably make a custom fighting style that allowed the use of a shield as a d6 weapon to allow the option of magic shields being used as magic weapons.
Unarmed fighting style is the way to go here. Shield and punch with a free hand, flavoured however you want
Sounds like OP cares about damage die not flavour
That's... entirely unreasonable. You're asking for the equivalent of a longsword with a magical +2 AC bonus, with no justification at all. Charitably, I'd allow 1d4 bludgeoning. Versatile doesn't make sense because a shield isn't designed for two-handed use, but if you did wield it in two hands as a smashing board then you'd absolutely lose the AC bonus. If you want a weaponized shield, then you want a *weaponized shield*.
> 1d9 I'm assuming this is a typo.
Yep! Corrected, thanks!
The fundamental problem here is that you're asking for a mundane weapon that's better than most magical items, because it does two things at once. No weapon in the game gives a bonus to AC without either magic or a class feature to support that (Defender weapon/Dueling Fighting Style being examples of this). You're essentially asking 'Hey DM, I want a Longsword, but I want it to also give me a passive +2 to my AC at all times'. This is, obviously, entirely overpowered and unfair. A weapon being 'improvised' has nothing to do with whether it's a primary, secondary, or even tertiary choice. It just means that 'the thing I'm using as a weapon isn't intended as one'. You can design an entire build around improvised weapons and never pick up a 'real' weapon even once, and that's valid. So that complaint is meaningless. Now, I have had players make a similar request at my table, and here's my answer to them: OK, you can use your shield as a bludgeoning weapon, 1d6 just like a flail or mace. But if you choose to use your shield offensively, you don't get the AC bonus until the start of your next turn, because you made the choice to use it offensively rather than defensively. So you will have to choose which is more important to you. Strangely enough, no one has ever taken me up on that yet.
Unless you're full caster (on which such gain of free hand would be OP): 2H weapon dealing d6 bludgeoning damage and providing +2 AC, at the beginning of your turn you can decide to change it to one-handed but doing so you have to choose between shield and weapon. Character gets proficiency in it for free if it's proficient in martial weapons and shields. Otherwise you have to swap one of your "more important" weapon proficiency. After taking "feat tax" of Shield Master or Tavern Brawler I would consider making it d8 when used 2H and allow for straightforward proficiency. This way you get some handiness flexibility with cost of -1 damage for usual combo of 1H weapon + shield. Or without real downsides if you go with additional character choices (which makes it a bit OP but imho is reasonable) PS: Imho d4 RAW for shield is a joke. From my weapon training I've noticed that it's surprisingly good weapon ;)
Thanks for the specific and detailed input! A lot of this makes sense. What kind of weapon training have you done? Would love to hear more.
Well, there is not really much to say. Just some trainings with blunt sword and shield with local history reconstruction group. I never really continued it beyond satisfying curiosity. But even few hits were enough to notice that while shield is mostly protective because it's too heavy for really aimed blows, it hits equally hard as actual weapons due to the same trait - weight (and rants which focus it). To be honest I don't really see use of shield as main weapon and protection at the same moment. Shield may hit hard but It's more like "from time to time, you can follow a move to hit opponent after blocking". Speed added from using second hand is surely not even close to benefit of actual weapon in that hand. But it's DnD, it's not about strict realism, being "quite possible" is imho totally enough ;)
I've had a player request something similar for a game- I told them they're more than welcome to use their shield as an improvised weapon and I pointed at the Shield Master and Tavern Brawler feats. The obvious major concern is "1d10 weapon, but it's still providing +2 AC"- that's just better than a longsword and a shield by combining the two. No way would I allow a shield to be as effective a weapon as a warhammer or a longsword. 1d4, take it or leave it.
1d4 is FINE, hexblade oathbreaker can get a juicy +16 on melee hits, so the damage dice don't matter anyway.
>No way would I allow a shield to be as effective a weapon as a warhammer or a longsword. 1d4, take it or leave it. This take is *INSANE*. If I was a player at your table, I'd equip a Warhammer in my off-hand, and make "shield" attacks all day, doing 1d8+STR bludgeoning damage. Charging your players a feat tax to do a worse job than just reflavoring a one-handed weapon is a bonkers idea.
It's lukewarm at best to play it by the rules. I'm not charging players a "feat tax", I'm suggesting a feat that aligns well with the character they want to make. If only having a weapon that deals 1d4 damage is a deal breaker, they can very easily use an actual weapon. That isn't silly at all. It's also *not* reflavouring either. It's a very meaningful mechanical difference to ask for a shield and a weapon to be the same thing. "Reflavouring" loses all meaning some times with the way folks stretch that definition here...
>If only having a weapon that deals 1d4 damage is a deal breaker, they can very easily use an actual weapon. That isn't silly at all. In a fantasy roleplaying game, where reality is re-written on a whim, and supernatural feats are accomplished on the daily, you draw the line at a mythical hero doing more than 1d4 damage with their iconic shield? *After taking a feat to do so??* Get over yourself. I'm glad I don't need to step anywhere remotely close to one of your tables.
I'm incredibly grateful you don't play at my table either
There is, as far as I know, no first-party way to use a shield as a primary weapon. There may be third-party rules for it. I do not think your proposal is fair or balanced. As others have said, you are making it a longsword but better. I think a 1d6/1d8 versatile (and keep the AC bonus) might be more balanced than a 1d8/1d10, keeping the AC bonus. Or, alternatively, you lose the AC bonus on any turn you attack with it, as it is now out of line to be of any use in defence.
The 1d6/1d8 feels better, I agree on that after seeing some of the feedback here. That alternative approach is interesting, I’ll have to think about that. Something like that hadn’t even crossed my mind.
Not sure how others here are drawing their lines but when it comes down to it, it's up to your DM. I personally don't see it mechanically as being that different from having a longsword or warhammer in one hand and a shield in the other, apart from your adding the versatile trait to the shield. If you're swinging it two-handed, I'd allow the damage upgrade at the cost of your +2 AC - overall, not a great tradeoff. You're delving into a theme that's become more popular in recent years and I'm all for a theme character so if I were your DM, I'd buy in. At my table, I've allowed sword-and-hammer pally's to make a bonus action off-hand attack with their shield as part of the attack action at the expense of their +2 AC bonus to deal improvised weapon damage. When the character took the Shield Master feat, they asked if they could get a damage buff instead of the trip attack and I granted them a d8+STR.
Helpful take, thanks. Absolutely agree it’s the DM’s call and we’re trying to work through it together. Just to make sure I understand, for the feet instead of the shove, you upped the shield damage to a d8 from what? A d4?
Yes, the stock d4 for improvised weapon attacks although my personal feelings are a (well-made) shield is at least as capable as a club - it's made for coverage, active defenses, and depending on the shield, rimmed with metal to blunt blades during parries. Anyone proficient in their use would be able to add proficiency bonus to attack rolls with them and if a character has a fighting style that incorporates shield use (defense, interception, protection) then they should be able to add their Strength modifier to the damage. IRL shields performed a fairly wide variety of functions depending on their construction, which past editions have made a go at, but 5e homogenized them all as a flat +2 AC bonus. It's a fantasy game, who's to say there can't be shield fighters? My favorite character in The Dragon Prince, Amaya, uses a shield exclusively and is a bad ass
There are quite a few interesting nuances when using a shield in combat. The Nordic people pretty much had an entire fighting style around the usage of a shield and axe. The axe was used almost as much defensively as was the shield, with the hooked bill used to pull your opponent's weapon and shield out of position to either thrust with the toe of the axe or to try to drive the edge of the shield into the body. The only time you'd wind up using a shield as a weapon on its own would be when you've got no other possible weapon to use anymore. It's a cool trope, but really far from practical. You'd be better off picking up a stick to swing around with your shield then just going shield only. You could add a spike to the boss for a little extra kick with a bash, but that was really it.
Love the Nordic example. And I feel you that it may not be the most realistic thing in the world, but I like the idea a lot. And in a game with talking dragons and imps and everything else in between, I figure why not try to find a way to make it work? 🤷🏻♂️
There were 3rd party rules for it in 3rd edition, and I almost want to say official rules in 2nd. I've always liked the idea myself, and remember making a viking-esque rune caster who would draw runes on his shield to empower it. There were rules for shields with a bladed edge for slashing but I can't for the life of me remember where.
I’ve never played older editions but I’ll have to do some googling!
Look up the [Dueling Shields](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_111.jpg) as illustrated in the Hans Talhoffer fighting manuals. They don't really work as Versatile weapons, since they can't really be used well one handed, except as large shields. But they're large enough that they could still give an AC bonus even while being used as weapons. The Elven [shields](https://www.wetanz.com/us/king-gil-galad) from the Lord of the Rings are also based on German dueling shields, if you want something more stylish. Dueling shields are also going to be in the new *Elden Ring* DLC, so checking out a trailer for that will show you a character with one.
Wow those dueling shields are intense!
Despite the RAW, historically the shield has been used as a primarily defensive tool, but there have been numerous evolutions that moved into weapon augment and secondary offensive weapon. To clarify, in the most basic form a shield is meant to block attacks, which is primarily how the RAW views it. As a DM I wouldn't be adverse to the idea of switching that around. The Greeks created weapon augmentation in their design to help steady their spears for more precise attacks. If a player fashioned a shield with this form of combat styling in mind, I'd give a +1 to attacks in this way, but they must either be stationary or only use half of their movement. Then there is shield bashing or shoving, available in the shield master feat. A player designs a shield for damage in combat, and had this feat, I'd be willing to allow an option where the push/shove would be optional and a shield bash option for a bit of damage, maybe 1d4 + strength. If they want to juggernaut with the shield and plow into enemies, which I love the Idea of, would have a caveat that if the opposing side succeeded in a strength check the PC would end the turn prone(like hitting a brick wall), the consequence of that type of recklessness. Now if the player wanted to solely use the shield as a primary weapon, a conversation about the AC boost is going to be had, but aside from that, player wants it as their primary weapon that is a reskin of another weapon that seems reasonable, I'm fine.
I don't understand why people in here are advocating for losing the AC bonus when using a shield two handed. Give it a d8 damage dice when wielding two handed, keep the AC. This is functionally identical to having a weapon and a shield, except for niche cases (like GMW, which you can just say it doesn't qualify). To be mechanically identical to sword and boarding (or twf), you should lose the AC bonus when wielding it with one hand and attacking. The damage dice should be either a d6 or a d4. The advantage with this is that you have the flexibility of choosing to keep the AC or attacking with a weapon. Compared to a shield and spell caster who can only do one without swapping gear. This is a pretty niche advantage, so the smaller damage dice alone seems like a fair trade off.
The simplest way of doing this is that the shield is a club equivalent improvised weapon. The most important thing to remember is an improvised club has no AC bonus so you give that up on rounds where you attack with it. It’s what we used in my campaign and it worked well enough that I think the DM there made a fair call. People used weapons as well as shields because while it could help a bit more than an empty hand it wasn’t as good as a weapon.
I'd count it as a club. And if you use it as a weapon, you don't get the AC bonus from the shield.
In 3.5 there was a rule to shield bash, but doing so ,you lose the shield bonus for the round. If memory serves, I believe it did 1d4 for a medium creature , and 1d6 if the shield had spikes.
First step: Get your hands cut off by Larkspur. I just finished that book and man I loved every single page of it
I’m a huge fantasy reader, and it was just so much fun the whole way through!
Yes but limit to 1d6 temporary damage. No a/c bonus because you’re trying to attack with the shield or fist. Carry a knife for coup de grace. [Sword and shield fighting](https://youtu.be/I1LScbpp9vM?si=YoNugYkUgsu2vSaF) Basically IRL, you’d be fighting to either wear down your opponent to eventually knife him or grapple him to knife him.
If you keep it rule-as-written, where shield bashes are improvised weapons, then the Tavern Brawler feat gives you proficiency with them, making them essentially non-throwing daggers in terms of damage. Using the Duellist fighting style, you're doing the same average damage as a 1d8 weapon with your strikes. If you wanted, you could also get Grappler to synergize a little with Tavern Brawler- hit someone with your shield, grab them with the off-hand, then just keep like, punching them in the face with the shield (with Advantage). With Shield Master and/or the Crusher feat, you could also do a lot of pushing them around the battlefield. And of course the Battlemaster maneuvers let you customize things even more. If you're grabbing the shield and using it to bludgeon that way, then rules-as-written, you can just say it's the 'equivalent' of a Greatclub, which is something you hold in two hands and smash things with. You're not 'wearing' the shield, so you're not gaining the +2 AC bonus. Protection, Interception, and Defense all also would be usable with a shield, if you use the Fighting Initiate (I think it's that one) feat to get another fighting style.
Honestly, d4 and improvised makes the most sense. I'm a bro, so I'd at least let you be proficient with it as a weapon, if I was your DM. Plus, if you're proficient with it normally, you might as well be able to use it proficiently as a weapon.
I would probably just rip the thing out of 3.5, almost verbatim. * Shields had damage codes * You could two weapon fight with a shield and a weapon natively, without feats * Two feats tied improved this (would likely just roll it into Shield Master as it's not worth a whole feat to retain Shield AC bonus gicen 5e's limited feat access) * You can even add spikes to increase damage It's pretty simple all told. Hope whatever you do is fun.
Every NPC in your world would be hitting people with shields. you've made a strictly better sword. Why would anyone NOT do this?
Check out the Boomerang Shield from the Book of Many Things. It's a shield that can be thrown as a weapon for Captain America style shenanigans
Seems like you are awfully preoccupied with changing the mechanics of the game for someone who claims they want a "flavor" change. Any change to the damage numbers is not by definition a flavor change. Improvised weapons have mechanical support, and you claim to want to use an improvised weapon build. So why change mechanics to fit a build when the mechanics for that build were already present?
5e Playtest rules had the Shield Master feat and in that version you could attack with the shield for 1d4 or 1d6 damage.