Spiked shield or general attacking with a shield using the dual wielder.

[Balor777]

Whats your opinion on this guys?
Can you attack with a shield?
Only lizardfolks can attack with spiked shield they carry for 1d6 +2 from strength.

Can a PC with the dual wielder use the shield to attack yet retain to AC of the shield?
Since shield is non light you should have at least the feat as a requirement.
Also since you actualy get +1 to AC while using the off hand weapon you should be able to retain the +2 AC from the shield.
On the other hand while doing this you would not get the +1 AC bonus from the feat cause this feat shouldnt make you better at using shield as a defence better
than the average user.

To sum it up its like trading D8 weapon for a D6 weapon +1 to AC.
2 longswords = 2d8+1 to AC
longsword +spiked shield= 1d8 +1d6 +2 AC.
The problem now is Duelist style. You are prohibited to get +2 to the attack rolls because your use 2 weapons at this time.


What do you guys think?

EDIT:
So far the suggestions are:
1)Allow proficienesy as it is a martial weapon D6 damage, but remove the +1AC from the dual wielder feat while retaining the +2AC from the shield.
You loose the +2 to the attack roll(from duelist style) since you wield and use 2 weapons.
2)Shield is improvised weapon dealing D4 damage.You dont have proficiecy with it (unless TavBr feat.).You retain the +1AC from the dual wielder feat allong with the
+2 AC from shield.
You loose the +2 to the attack roll since you wield and use 2 weapons.
3)Your attack deals 1d4 plus your strength modifier in damage.You dont have proficiensy with it probaly retaining both shield and feat AC bonuses.
You loose the +2 to the attack roll since you wield and use 2 weapons.Instead ranger/fighter gets the two weapon fighting style.

[Kryx]

Using a shield to make an improvised attack doesn't deprive you of the AC bonus.

This is answered decently by the sage advice above, though it does not address the whole issue. I'll leave that up to others.

[Justin Sane]

It's exactly what the Ranger in my party has been doing, just with TWS instead of Dueling (because let's face it, if the shield is considered a weapon, you don't meet the requirements for it). It hasn't broken anything so far.

[Balor777]

It's exactly what the Ranger in my party has been doing, just with TWS instead of Dueling (because let's face it, if the shield is considered a weapon, you don't meet the requirements for it). It hasn't broken anything so far.

Oh thank you for this.

This is answered decently by the sage advice above, though it does not address the whole issue. I'll leave that up to others.
Your ranger deals d6 weapon die?
He has the dual wielder feat right?

[Kane0]

Instead of the dual wielder feat i'd actually recommend the shield mastery feat. As part of shield mastery you get to shove as a bonus action, if you were to get a spiked shield you may be able to convince your dm to allow an attack in its place, pethaps for 1d4 +str damage.

[Ziegander]

If you disallow the +2 damage bonus from Dueling because of improvising a shield as a weapon, then Dueling simply doesn't function ever, because even an empty hand can be used to make an unarmed strike for 1 damage, thus, you are always carrying an off-hand "weapon." Dual Wielder + Duelist + Shield allows you to get +3 AC, +2 to damage with your main hand, and a bonus action 1d4 damage attack; however that bonus action attack does nto get your proficiency bonus to the attack roll because it is an improvised weapon and it doesn't get your ability modifier to the damage roll because you're not using the TWF fighting style.

Really, Dueling is maybe slightly better than the TWF style unless you can add your proficiency bonus to the shield attack, in which case the TWF style is always better. Now, if you are somehow able to take both fighting styles and can add proficiency to the shield attack, then you've got a really solid fighting style going.

[MeeposFire]

Dont forget tavern brawler so you get your proficiency bonus to attack with the shield.

[Ziegander]

After le maths, I've concluded that even with both the Dueling and TWF styles, proficiency in shields as weapons, and a spiked shield, you still lose the damage race to a Great Weapon Master w/a Greatsword by about 2 points per round vs average AC. You can have as much as 3 higher AC, and that can often prevent you from being dealt more than 2 points of damage per round, so it might still be an attractive trade-off, but it requires a large investment.

Conclusion: Great Weapon Master really is just that amazing.

[Malifice]

After le maths, I've concluded that even with both the Dueling and TWF styles, proficiency in shields as weapons, and a spiked shield, you still lose the damage race to a Great Weapon Master w/a Greatsword by about 2 points per round vs average AC. You can have as much as 3 higher AC, and that can often prevent you from being dealt more than 2 points of damage per round, so it might still be an attractive trade-off, but it requires a large investment.

Conclusion: Great Weapon Master really is just that amazing.

Dueling precludes using a weapon in the other hand. Including improvised weapons. I would disallow the dueling bonus on any attacks in a round where a PC used a shield as an improvised weapon, or disallow the shield to be used as an improvised weapon if the damage bonus is claimed before the shield attack.

To counter RAW, I've done this:

Grappler (errata)

• You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
• You may attempt to escape a grapple as a bonus action on your turn.
• You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends. At your option the creature you restrain may be prohibited from speaking while the pin is maintained.
• You can grapple a creature up to two size categories larger than you, however such a creature gains advantage on strength (athletics) checks to resist your grapple.
• When you strike a creature with an unarmed attack on your turn, you can attempt to grapple that creature as a bonus action on your turn.


Melee brawler (Tavern Brawler errata)

• Increase your Strength or Constitution by 1 to a maximum of 20
• You are proficient with unarmed strikes and improvised weapons
• Your unarmed strikes deal 1d4 damage
• When you take the attack action, you may make an unarmed strike or attack with an improvised weapon (including the pommel of your weapon or your shield) as a bonus action on your turn. Your attack deals 1d4 plus your strength modifier in damage.

[Callin]

I played a Longsword/Spiked Shield using Lizardfolk Fighter 2/Warlock 5 with Dual Wielder and kept the +1 to AC for a +3 in total. Yes when using a shield offensively I have found through practice that it DOES increase your defense. You are more active with it and me personally more intune with shield location.

Sorry off track for a sec. Getting the +3 to AC didnt break anything. I had a 20 AC (we play with high stats) and I still got dropped like a sack of bricks one time when I jumped in the middle of some Cult of the Dragon Guys haha. So its not the end all be all to let it work the way the rules would have it work.

The character is dead btw. Charmed by a Vamp and turned.

[Malifice]

Charmed by a Vamp and turned.

Now he swings both ways.

[Balor777]

If you disallow the +2 damage bonus from Dueling because of improvising a shield as a weapon, then Dueling simply doesn't function ever, because even an empty hand can be used to make an unarmed strike for 1 damage, thus, you are always carrying an off-hand "weapon." Dual Wielder + Duelist + Shield allows you to get +3 AC, +2 to damage with your main hand, and a bonus action 1d4 damage attack; however that bonus action attack does nto get your proficiency bonus to the attack roll because it is an improvised weapon and it doesn't get your ability modifier to the damage roll because you're not using the TWF fighting style.

Really, Dueling is maybe slightly better than the TWF style unless you can add your proficiency bonus to the shield attack, in which case the TWF style is always better. Now, if you are somehow able to take both fighting styles and can add proficiency to the shield attack, then you've got a really solid fighting style going.

The golden rule i follow with homebrewed rules is that"If you make something new it should not be better maqthematicaly from the existing rules.
You are proposing that someone with dual wielder feat will have to choose from 1d8 vs 1d4 +2AC without proficiensy when attacking with it.
Its not bad at all.
The question lies now at what kind of weapon is the shield/spiked shield.
There are 3 kind of weapon in the 5E normal - martial - improvised.
In my opinion a spiked shield should not be improvised but martial weapon, because it was designed for this.To attack with it.Back in 3rd/3.5 shield was dealing D6 damage.
If we allow the proficiensy bonus to the attack roll for +AC total with the feat then even most enemies would use it cause it would be a very powerfull choice.
thats why i would allow proficiensy bonus.
That why we have forums to trade opinions.
So far the suggestions are:
1)Allow proficienesy as it is a martial weapon D6 damage, but remove the +1AC from the dual wielder feat while retaining the +2AC from the shield.
You loose the +2 to the attack roll since you wield and use 2 weapons.
2)Shield is improvised weapon dealing D4 damage.You dont have proficiecy with it (unless TavBr feat.).You retain the +1AC from the dual wielder feat allong with the
+2 AC from shield.
You loose the +2 to the attack roll since you wield and use 2 weapons.
3)Your attack deals 1d4 plus your strength modifier in damage.You dont have proficiensy with it probaly retaining both shield and feat AC bonuses.
You loose the +2 to the attack roll since you wield and use 2 weapons.Instead ranger/fighter gets the two weapon fighting style.

[Justin Sane]

The question lies now at what kind of weapon is the shield/spiked shield.
There are 3 kind of weapon in the 5E normal - martial - improvised.In my group, normal shields are simple weapons (1d4 bashing), spiked shields are martial weapons (1d6 piercing), as long as you're proficient with shields as armor, too (as per Sage Advice, you don't lose the AC bonus from the shield, even when attacking with it). Dual-Wielder is still needed, because neither are Light Weapons, but considering how much the axe + shield imagery is integral to the Ranger's character (we considered house-ruling so his char could do it, rules be damned), he's just using it for the +1 AC.

[Balor777]

In my group, normal shields are simple weapons (1d4 bashing), spiked shields are martial weapons (1d6 piercing), as long as you're proficient with shields as armor, too (as per Sage Advice, you don't lose the AC bonus from the shield, even when attacking with it). Dual-Wielder is still needed, because neither are Light Weapons, but considering how much the axe + shield imagery is integral to the Ranger's character (we considered house-ruling so his char could do it, rules be damned), he's just using it for the +1 AC.

In my mind the +3AC final bonus is too much.Why?Lets see.
Just math.Base is the average joe with 2 short swords(2x1d6)
Dual wielder feat learned
makes the 2x1d6 to 2x1d8+1AC.Just by using 2 d8 weapons a classic TWF.
So its a)+2damage+1AC simplyfied the classic bonuses you get when you learnth the feat.

If you use the spiked shield as D6,
then it goes from 2x1d6 to 1d6+1d8+3AC or sipmly: b)+1damage+3AC with proficiensy to attack rolls
You see if we take into account duelist style gives+2 to damage but Defence style gives 1AC, 1 point in AC is better ,if not double, of 1 point in damage.
The only way b) to be balanced is to either remove 1 point of AC from the feat OR make the shield improvised weapon to loose the proficiensy to attack rolls.
for: c) +1 damage +2 AC with prficiensy to attack rolls with the shield

OR d) make the spiked shield martial weapon but with 1d4 as damage.
for it to be 1d4+1d8 damage same with 1d6+1d6 as base 2shortswords,BUT to get +2 and +1AC bonuses.
In this case you exchange the 2 damage bonus, , you could get from the feat, for 2AC.
finaly for d)+0 damage +3 AC



SUMMARY the balanced choises :
a)Base TWF with the Dual wielder feat: + 2 damage +1 AC
b) +1 damage +3AC without proficiensy
c) +1 damage +2AC with proficiensy.<- This is the most balanced imo.
d) +0 damage +3AC with proficiensy.

[jazzymantis]

To sum it up its like trading D8 weapon for a D6 weapon +1 to AC.
2 longswords = 2d8+1 to AC
longsword +spiked shield= 1d8 +1d6 +2 AC.
The problem now is Duelist style. You are prohibited to get +2 to the attack rolls because your use 2 weapons at this time.

snip





[B]1)Allow proficiency as it is a martial weapon D6 damage, but remove the +1AC from the dual wielder feat while retaining the +2AC from the shield.
You loose the +2 to the attack roll(from duelist style) since you wield and use 2 weapons.


This is exactly how I am going to run it in my game.

[jazzymantis]

I might actually allow this with either the shield master feat, or the dual wielder feat.
That is 1d6 bonus attack + 2AC flat bonus not stacking.

[burninatortrog]

This thread has me thinking:

Suppose a fighter has the Dueling style and is holding two shortswords. Would it be legal to give her the benefit of the Dueling style during rounds in which she doesn't use her bonus action attack?

[Balor777]

This thread has me thinking:

Suppose a fighter has the Dueling style and is holding two shortswords. Would it be legal to give her the benefit of the Dueling style during rounds in which she doesn't use her bonus action attack?
Yes i would allow it.

[MeeposFire]

This thread has me thinking:

Suppose a fighter has the Dueling style and is holding two shortswords. Would it be legal to give her the benefit of the Dueling style during rounds in which she doesn't use her bonus action attack?

Technically probably not but that may not really be fair. If you are not going to use the bonus action attack you may as well give them the bonus. However the question would be raised about why you are holding that other weapon if you are not going to attack with it? It could be that the weapon has a better enchantment than a shield but then you may get some saying you are getting an unfair benefit but I still think it would be reasonable to give the duelist benefit to you if you do not use that second weapon in your attacks.

[Vogonjeltz]

This thread has me thinking:

Suppose a fighter has the Dueling style and is holding two shortswords. Would it be legal to give her the benefit of the Dueling style during rounds in which she doesn't use her bonus action attack?

Based on the wording of the Dueling fighting style, no. It says the bonus applies when no other weapons are wielded, not when no other weapons are used.