How exploitative is this? (dual wielder+shield)

[silveralen]

Basically I was looking for ways to expand the arsenal of options available to my shield using character, and I noticed a weird intersection of rules.

1. A shield gives you a +2 AC bonus when you wield it.

2. Dual Wield gives you a bonus to AC when wielding any two melee weapons, and allows these weapons to be any one handed weapons.

3. Any item can be wielded as an improvised weapon (including a shield), and is considered a one handed weapon typically.

4. Tavern brawler could let you gain prof with all improvised weapons.

So, it seems clear that, by the book, with the appropriate feats I can have a +3 AC from using a shield+weapon with dual wielder if use my shield to make an improvised weapon attack as a bonus action. Tavern brawler also guarantees I get prof on this as well, which makes it a better usage of my time.

The question is, is it balanced? I'm less sure of that, it seems slightly better than a different fighting style+shield master feat, but only slightly (and for certain characters) and it did require an extra feat to make it work well.

The main reason I'm looking at this is our campaign is quickly reaching the point where advantage is so easy to come by that abilities which offer it really aren't needed (shield master shove). This is mainly due to the new flanking/facing rules we plan to use from the DMG. Despite that I'd still like to stick with my shield.

I'm not super interested in RAI, if you have a solid reason it doesn't work RAW offer it up, but RAI is secondary to the actual balance of the tactic at our table.

[Scirocco]

Doesn't seem particularly unbalancing to me; you don't need to make the attack to get the bonus to AC and depending on your DM's reading an improvised weapon might already count as a weapon for the purposes of the Dual-Wield feat (see the improvised weapon entry). Either way, you're spending 1-2 feats for a +1 bonus to AC and not much else, so if anything it's a bit weak.

[RealCheese]

As a dm I would rule that in a turn where you have not attacked with the shield you would gain the shield ac bonus, in a turn where you have attacked with your shield you would gain the dual wield ac bonus. I would not let them stack.

[Justin Sane]

The Dex-based Dwarf Ranger in my group has been using this (since we converted our chars from PF, and handaxe + shield TWF was his thing, it seemed silly not to allow it). He has one more point of AC as my Mauling Paladin and deals comparable damage, although none of us has feats at this point.

Also,
Using a shield to make an improvised attack doesn't deprive you of the AC bonus. (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/shield-attack/)

[Eslin]

You can achieve the same thing by finding your local lizardfolk and looting his spiked shield, by the way.

[numerek]

You can achieve the same thing by finding your local lizardfolk and looting his spiked shield, by the way.

does the lizardfolk description say whether a spiked shield is a simple or martial weapon? If neither that tavern brawler would still be necessary to get proficiency with it as an improvised weapon.

[silveralen]

Well, I feel much better about asking our DM. Might even see if prof in shields can be used to bypass the need for brawler.


The Dex-based Dwarf Ranger in my group has been using this (since we converted our chars from PF, and handaxe + shield TWF was his thing, it seemed silly not to allow it). He has one more point of AC as my Mauling Paladin and deals comparable damage, although none of us has feats at this point.

Also,

Well, that's even better. That was one of the portions I was wondering about balance wise.


You can achieve the same thing by finding your local lizardfolk and looting his spiked shield, by the way.

Monster treasure doesn't typically happen at our table lately, so I'd need to ask, and I'd still probably need brawler or weapon master for prof with it if I had to guess. Or dual wielder.

[Safety Sword]

That's a mighty big investment to get +1 AC...and a pretty terrible improvised shield attack.

It would be DM dependent on whether you receive the shield bonus to AC when you're using it as a weapon, too. I could see reasons on both sides to either allow of disallow the bonus.

5E fallback: Ask your DM.

[Mechaviking]

That's a mighty big investment to get +1 AC...and a pretty terrible improvised shield attack.

It would be DM dependent on whether you receive the shield bonus to AC when you're using it as a weapon, too. I could see reasons on both sides to either allow of disallow the bonus.

5E fallback: Ask your DM.

http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/shield-attack/

But again

Ask your DM

[Callin]

As someone who is currently playing a Lizardfolk with a spiked shield and longsword with the DW feat. I dont find it over powered. Optimal.... yes. Very. I have comparable AC to Plate + Shield, im using 10+3 (natural)+4 (dex) for AC. Giving me a 20 ac. I am a Fighter 1 TW style Warlock 4 Tome. Once magic armor starts to come into play my AC will be tbe same while everyone elses will go up. Unless I get a magic Shield... seems doubtful. Full Plate +3 and a Shield +3 gives a 26 total. 3 more than I will get using my current set up. True I dont have disadvantage on Stealth or need the Str 15 req to keep my 30 speed.

For the price of a feat I find it acceptable. Specially since it does not kick in till 4 for anything other than a Human. Plus a d4 in damage (d6 if spiked) isnt going to break records with damage. Still comparable to a light weapon.

[Ziegander]

Now for some real shenanigans: Does wielding a shield as an improvised weapon conflict with the wording for the Dueling Fighting Style? In my opinion, it can't, because if it did, then a shield would always negate the Dueling Fighting Style, and we know it doesn't. So, listen, do some elaborate multiclassing to pick up the Defense, Dueling, and Two-Weapon Fighting Styles, grab Dual Wielder, and maybe even pick up proficiency in a Spiked Shield or in improvised weapons somehow in order to net +3 AC and 1d8+7 damage with a longsword/battleaxe alongside 1d4+5 damage with your shield as a bonus action. Worth it?

[Callin]

I wouldnt allow Duelist to work with a shield if you were using it as an improvised weapon. It definitely wont work with a Spiked Shield because it is in itself a weapon and a shield.

[Ziegander]

I wouldnt allow Duelist to work with a shield if you were using it as an improvised weapon. It definitely wont work with a Spiked Shield because it is in itself a weapon and a shield.

Keep in mind, the Dueling bonus wouldn't apply to the shield, because you definitely are wielding a weapon in the other hand.

If you don't allow Dueling to work with a shield when using it as an improvised weapon, then it would never work with a shield even if you aren't attacking with it, because with that logic you're defining a weapon as anything that could be used as a weapon.

[RealCheese]

Keep in mind, the Dueling bonus wouldn't apply to the shield, because you definitely are wielding a weapon in the other hand.

If you don't allow Dueling to work with a shield when using it as an improvised weapon, then it would never work with a shield even if you aren't attacking with it, because with that logic you're defining a weapon as anything that could be used as a weapon.

That's why it comes down to what are you doing with the shield this turn. At least if I am GM'ing the game.
Are you attacking with it? It's an improvised weapon and two weapon fighting bonuses you might have count, but you do not get shield AC.
Are you using it as a shield? You can get a Dueling bonus and you get shield AC.
I don't even care if it's overpowered or not, I care if what you are doing makes sense and I care if you are trying to have shenanigans as the ones you talked about.

[Safety Sword]

That's why it comes down to what are you doing with the shield this turn. At least if I am GM'ing the game.
Are you attacking with it? It's an improvised weapon and two weapon fighting bonuses you might have count, but you do not get shield AC.
Are you using it as a shield? You can get a Dueling bonus and you get shield AC.
I don't even care if it's overpowered or not, I care if what you are doing makes sense and I care if you are trying to have shenanigans as the ones you talked about.

Stop being sensible. That's not how munchkins would rule it and you know it. :tongue:

[Hytheter]

While I agree that using dueling in the same turn you shield bash seems abusive, I don't see any logical reason while shield bashing would make you lose your AC. I never thought that rule made sense in 3.5e and I don't think it makes sense now. Just because you hit with it doesn't mean it stops being a shield and in fact it probably covers the exact same parts of you that it did before.

[RealCheese]

While I agree that using dueling in the same turn you shield bash seems abusive, I don't see any logical reason while shield bashing would make you lose your AC. I never thought that rule made sense in 3.5e and I don't think it makes sense now. Just because you hit with it doesn't mean it stops being a shield and in fact it probably covers the exact same parts of you that it did before.

A shield isn't a static barrier, you move it around to deflect and block attacks during combat. It seems unreasonable to me that you should both be able to attack with it and still have it offer you the same level of protection that it does if it is devoted only to defending yourself.

[Easy_Lee]

A shield isn't a static barrier, you move it around to deflect and block attacks during combat. It seems unreasonable to me that you should both be able to attack with it and still have it offer you the same level of protection that it does if it is devoted only to defending yourself.

Shield bashing involves putting your shield between you and the opponent, then hitting them with it. That's why you don't lose your AC bonus; the shield is still between you and your opponent. And that's in a fight where you and the opponent attack at the exact same time, rather than attack-defend-attack as is often common.

If your idea of shield bashing is throwing your shield, then you might lose AC.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHRoO5F-4RM

[Hytheter]

And besides, shields are BIG. You don't really need to move them all that much to defend yourself. And it's not like after a shield bash you just hold your arm outstretched until your next turn. You pull it back ready to defend again.

Or do you think that you shouldn't be able to use the Parry Maneuver or Defensive Duelist feat after attacking?

[RealCheese]

Or do you think that you shouldn't be able to use the Parry Maneuver or Defensive Duelist feat after attacking?

Not comparable. You are suggesting that, completely without class features or feats, other than proficiency with a shield, if someone wields a shield they should gain their +2 AC bonus and be able to make an attack with their shield as if it was an improvised weapon, essentially giving them the same benefit as if they were wielding a dagger in that hand.

[Hytheter]

Not comparable. You are suggesting that, completely without class features or feats, other than proficiency with a shield, if someone wields a shield they should gain their +2 AC bonus and be able to make an attack with their shield as if it was an improvised weapon, essentially giving them the same benefit as if they were wielding a dagger in that hand.

Um no
a) You aren't proficient, so you don't get the +2 to +6 attack bonus without spending a feat
b) they aren't light, so you can't use them as an off hand weapon without spending a feat

[Mechaviking]

A shield isn't a static barrier, you move it around to deflect and block attacks during combat. It seems unreasonable to me that you should both be able to attack with it and still have it offer you the same level of protection that it does if it is devoted only to defending yourself.

Speaking as an actual sword/spearman who uses swords and one handed spears:

If you hit someone with your shield correctly(using the rim for instance) the shield is covering More area because it:

A: is farther away from you
B: In the opponents face so he can´t see a damn thing
C: This is a fantasy game with made up rules

What actually works historically and in real life has no bearing on the matter, rule balance does.

But then again if you want to punish a player for taking 2 feats and spending a bonus action to get an attack that does 1d4+5 and an extra +1 to ac feel free, it´s not like other people have unlimited hit points and a full spell progression or even the ability to pull down meteors from the sky to spread chaos and mayhem or even permanently mind control somebody to be their ally or even transform themselves(permanently) into superpowerful beings.

That being said a player doing this would be shoehorning himself into 1 role only not that there is anything wrong with that.

Also I heard of a game called riddle of steel has super realistic combat mechanics approved by a historical fighting reenactment society you can check that out. But if you can´t bother with this theres always GURPs.

Again: Your mileage may vary ask your dm if he thinks its cool. If he´s cool with it then you should be cool with it

[silveralen]

Not comparable. You are suggesting that, completely without class features or feats, other than proficiency with a shield, if someone wields a shield they should gain their +2 AC bonus and be able to make an attack with their shield as if it was an improvised weapon, essentially giving them the same benefit as if they were wielding a dagger in that hand.

Technically it'd be like wielding a dagger in that hand, but only if the class doesn't have prof with daggers, as you don't have prof with improvised weapons unless the DM says otherwise. Oh, and improvesied weaponsa ren't light weapons, so it doesn't work unless you have the dual wielder feat.

[Easy_Lee]

Not comparable. You are suggesting that, completely without class features or feats, other than proficiency with a shield, if someone wields a shield they should gain their +2 AC bonus and be able to make an attack with their shield as if it was an improvised weapon, essentially giving them the same benefit as if they were wielding a dagger in that hand.

A 1d4 weapon that may or may not add your proficiency bonus to its attack roll, at the DM's discretion. That said, let's play with this build.

Someone might conceivably take the dual wielder feat, defensive duelist (works with any finesse weapon, doesn't require dual wielding them), dual wielder, and play a champion fighter to get both TWF style and armored. Lets say this character uses a rapier, but swings it with strength (allowed), and wears full plate. So we're sitting on 22AC base, and can boost that by up to 6 by using our reaction.

How broken is 28 AC? Well, consider that this character can't output nearly as much damage as a great weapon fighter, can't do the polearm mastery business, and probably won't be able to take shield master (the real reason to use shields). He probably didn't get to pick up sentinel either. Also, consider how many resources you just sank to match the AC of a maxed-out barbarian with defensive duelist, rapier and shield.

This character is likely a mere annoyance for a boss mob, and will just be ignored. Similar characters existed in 3.5 (lots of multiclassing for amazing saves vs everything), but were unpopular for exactly that reason. Also, this character gets shut down by a single wisdom, charisma, or intellect save, because there's no way he was able to afford resilient for all of those.

An open hand monk at level 14+ using sanctuary is a more effective tank. Nothing shuts him down. So as long as you can find a narrow passage (like a doorway) your ranged companions are set. And, depending on the DM, an animated shield or similar may be completely viable on this guy.

[RealCheese]

I haven't said at any point that this is overpowered btw. That is not the reason that I would not allow it at my table.
Heck, the fact that it's really underpowered considering how much multiclassing and/or feat-wasting you have to do to make this viable is reason enough to not allow it.

[Hytheter]

Oh yeah an amusing point I forgot to bring up earlier:


4. Tavern brawler could let you gain prof with all improvised weapons.

Tavern Brawler also let's you use your shield to start a grapple and if that is in itself not hilarious enough to justify using I don't know what is.

It's also only a half feat, which is nice.

[Gwendol]

It's a cool combo, I would allow it.

[Knaight]

Stop being sensible. That's not how munchkins would rule it and you know it. :tongue:
It's not how I'd rule it either. A lot of the time more aggressive shield use actually protects you, because you can use it to actively tie up your opponent's weapon in some way. It's often way more effective to get it up in someone's face than to keep it back, from a defensive perspective.


A shield isn't a static barrier, you move it around to deflect and block attacks during combat. It seems unreasonable to me that you should both be able to attack with it and still have it offer you the same level of protection that it does if it is devoted only to defending yourself.
Sure, but a great deal of that is often fairly aggressive. What that looks like depends on the particulars of the shield, but if you take something akin to the more viking style round/oval shields (they were also used elsewhere, but by now vikings are what will bring them to mind for people) there can be a great deal of actively using the edge in a pretty offensive way.

To use a fairly recent example, I was doing some sparring recently, and using a shield and an ax. At one point I was sparring with someone, and ended up slamming the shield into them to get an arm on their chest, then getting the ax in. That was effectively blocking with a shield bash, and there was a pretty good chance that I'd have been the one hit if I hadn't done that.

On a completely different note, active use of the shield is also amazingly helpful for getting in strikes with whatever weapon you have in your other hand.

And besides, shields are BIG. You don't really need to move them all that much to defend yourself. And it's not like after a shield bash you just hold your arm outstretched until your next turn. You pull it back ready to defend again.

Shield sizes vary, but there's generally a great deal of movement with most shields, particularly in the context of small skirmishes. A phalanx or similar has more static shields, but if you look at

[Safety Sword]

Lots of stuff

D&D is not a combat simulation.

It likes to think it is, but a lot of things don't make sense. It's a set of rules to resolve the fighting that adventurers like to cause.

A properly used shield is one of the best weapons you could hope to have in a real "medieval combat" scenario.