Rules Q&A TWF w shield? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

PeteNutButter

2016-03-04, 10:27 PM

Can of worms, best leave it closed

At the end of arguing I'm sure we might agree that you can use Shield as an improvised weapon, that it provides +3 AC with Feat, and that it deals just as much damage as TWF with normal weapons.
This now means that TWF is 100% useless and outclassed, and potentially this becomes an OP build.

Well it's a mixed bag. For starters I am quoting official ruling so that's something. But as for balance, a normal TWF would be able to deal d8x2 instead of the d8 and d4.

It'd still be no contest to use the shield... until you consider magic weapons. I'm sure I won't find a shield with a bonus to attack and damage rolls, so it would scale poorly at higher lvls, like miserably.

Thematically there is nothing wrong with it. Historically shields were very much for bashing.

It's actually a flavor thing, also with precedent in game. I had a fighter in 3.5 that did this as well. With just a feat or two invested, you could pull this off.

Talamare

2016-03-04, 10:30 PM

Well it's a mixed bag. For starters I am quoting official ruling so that's something. But as for balance, a normal TWF would be able to deal d8x2 instead of the d8 and d4.

It'd still be no contest to use the shield... until you consider magic weapons. I'm sure I won't find a shield with a bonus to attack and damage rolls, so it would scale poorly at higher lvls, like miserably.

Thematically there is nothing wrong with it. Historically shields were very much for bashing.

It's actually a flavor thing, also with precedent in game. I had a fighter in 3.5 that did this as well. With just a feat or two invested, you could pull this off.

Shield Bash is already in the game as a Feat, and it's a pretty awesome Feat

Shield Spikes were originally in 5e, in the playtest
EVERYONE in the Playtest forums made TWF Shield Spike Builds
Any minor advantage in damage was considered irrelevant compared to the massive advantage in AC you get, especially in Bounded Accuracy System.

Arial Black

2016-03-04, 10:35 PM

PeteNutButter

2016-03-04, 10:37 PM

Shield Bash is already in the game as a Feat, and it's a pretty awesome Feat

Shield Spikes were originally in 5e, in the playtest
EVERYONE in the Playtest forums made TWF Shield Spike Builds
Any minor advantage in damage was considered irrelevant compared to the massive advantage in AC you get, especially in Bounded Accuracy System.

At higher lvls you are trading 2 damage on your mainhand(likely magical) for an offhand attack that uses your bonus action to deal a 1d4 nonmagical damage. That same bonus action could be used to knock them down with shield master, which would be much stronger, especially if you have teammates that can use that advantage.

I can see you being against it. I was asking if there is anything RAW against it. The Shield Master feat is nice, likely better, especially past the early lvls, but doesn't quite fit my desired flavor.

PeteNutButter

2016-03-04, 10:43 PM

You can attack with a shield as an improvised weapon, but you can't TWF with an improvised weapon, because those rules require you to attack with an actual weapon in order to gain a possible bonus action attack, and that bonus action TWF attack must be with an actual weapon.

Hmm so your argument is, to paraphrase, "Improvised weapons are not melee weapons." The Dual Wielder feat does specify melee weapon, so I can definitely see that being the case. Well ballz.

Arial Black

2016-03-04, 10:45 PM

Hmm so your argument is, to paraphrase, "Improvised weapons are not melee weapons." The Dual Wielder feat does specify melee weapon, so I can definitely see that being the case. Well ballz.

They aren't weapons at all! If they were, then they wouldn't be 'improvised weapons', just 'weapons'.

Malifice

2016-03-05, 01:28 AM

They aren't weapons at all! If they were, then they wouldn't be 'improvised weapons', just 'weapons'.

Lol. They appear in the weapons section of the PHB.

Are you trying to mount the argument that I can TWF with 2 daggers, but not with 2 knitting needles or 2 broken bottles? I can TWF with 2 clubs, but not with 2 carpentry hammers?

Tanarii

2016-03-05, 01:36 AM

Arial Black

2016-03-05, 01:39 AM

Lol. They appear in the weapons section of the PHB.

Are you trying to mount the argument that I can TWF with 2 daggers, but not with 2 knitting needles or 2 broken bottles? I can TWF with 2 clubs, but not with 2 carpentry hammers?

Only if the DM rules that they are the equivalent of actual weapons.

This is allowed in the section on improvised weapons, but it should be noted that it would be wrong to assume that this applies to every object used to hit something, only to the ones that the DM genuinely feels are so similar to actual weapons that it would be ridiculous not to.

JC himself noted that shields should not be treated as actual weapons, and it would be a strange and ill-advised DM that treated it as similar enough to count as one for TWF purposes. Doing so would make weapon+shield to be a strictly better TWF than using actual weapons.

If you want something like it, take the Shield Master feat.

Arial Black

2016-03-05, 01:44 AM

You also give up +2 or more to hit (depending on your normal proficiency bonus). That's another 10%+ loss in DPR.

Otoh, I can't see a reason for a S&B character not Use their bonus action to attack with their shield if they have it free to use. Unless you also have Duelist and it also negates your +2 damage on your main hand attack. Certainly Druids and Clerics should use it if they're in melee for some reason. Their attack with the shield might suck if their Str is low though. But hey, why not? It's free.

Which reminds me: we know for a fact that you may get the +2 damage bonus from the duelling style when equipped with weapon+shield, and we know for a fact that you can only get that +2 if you do not have a weapon in your off hand; you can only use one weapon. Therefore, the shield cannot be a weapon.

bid

2016-03-05, 01:47 AM

Otoh, I can't see a reason for a S&B character not Use their bonus action to attack with their shield if they have it free to use.
How do you get your bonus action? Not with TWF since shields aren't light weapons.

Malifice

2016-03-05, 01:53 AM

Only if the DM rules that they are the equivalent of actual weapons.

This is allowed in the section on improvised weapons, but it should be noted that it would be wrong to assume that this applies to every object used to hit something, only to the ones that the DM genuinely feels are so similar to actual weapons that it would be ridiculous not to.

JC himself noted that shields should not be treated as actual weapons, and it would be a strange and ill-advised DM that treated it as similar enough to count as one for TWF purposes. Doing so would make weapon+shield to be a strictly better TWF than using actual weapons.

If you want something like it, take the Shield Master feat.

No it wouldnt make it better. Shields are not light weapons, and the'yre improvised meaning (unless you have the DW feat) you cant TWF with one, and (unless you have Tavern Brawler) you arent proficient in them.

A 2 feat investment is massive in 5E. Thats (for example) GWM and PAM.

Im not seeing how it's in any way broken. Heck, its arguably suboptimal once you factor in oppportunity cost.

Fighter 1 wears plate takes (Defence F/S) GWM and PAM feats.

AC 19
Main hand 1d10+str (-5/+10 option)
Bonus action 1d4+str (-5+10 option)
Reaction attack + cleave

Fighter 2 in plate takes (TWF) and DW and TB feats.

AC 21
Main hand 1d8+str
Bonus action 1d4+str
Can fight unarmed or with improvised weapons and draw two light weapons at the same time. Gains +1 to Str or Con

Explain to me how fighter 2 is broken by comparison?

Which reminds me: we know for a fact that you may get the +2 damage bonus from the duelling style when equipped with weapon+shield, and we know for a fact that you can only get that +2 if you do not have a weapon in your off hand; you can only use one weapon. Therefore, the shield cannot be a weapon.

A shield is a weapon if you choose it to be (in which case you cant claim the +2 for dueling).

Talamare

2016-03-05, 01:55 AM

They aren't weapons at all! If they were, then they wouldn't be 'improvised weapons', just 'weapons'.

I want to lead this by stating, I'm against allowing this but...

Improvised Weapons are infact Weapons
and anyone who has learned Sword and Broad fighting styles would tell you that your Shield is one of your greatest Weapons
The Shield as a Weapon isn't something that is really debatable either.

Now, in the context of in game mechanics. They created a bit of a Paradox, you can gain Dueling bonus because it assumes that Shield's are not weapons, and You can use the Shield as a Weapon, thus it is a weapon. Technically both are true.

So it's one of those things in which you just don't try to reason, you just say no

djreynolds

2016-03-05, 02:03 AM

Just take shield master, and take proficiency in athletics. Heck I would even let a dexterity based character use in dexterity instead of strength in the contest. Easy, clean, done. Shield master, bonus action, and Mr Crawford has said the bonus action can come before the actual attack.

So advantage vs 1d4 plus +5, advantage wins. Also take level of rogue for expertise and few will beat your shove.

Arial Black

2016-03-05, 02:04 AM

I want to lead this by stating, I'm against allowing this but...

Improvised Weapons are infact Weapons
and anyone who has learned Sword and Broad fighting styles would tell you that your Shield is one of your greatest Weapons
The Shield as a Weapon isn't something that is really debatable either.

Now, in the context of in game mechanics. They created a bit of a Paradox, you can gain Dueling bonus because it assumes that Shield's are not weapons, and You can use the Shield as a Weapon, thus it is a weapon. Technically both are true.

So it's one of those things in which you just don't try to reason, you just say no

Not in 5E!

In 3.5E, shields are weapons; they are listed on the weapons table.

In 5E they are not weapons.

In this context, actual weapons are objects designed to be weapons, while improvised weapons are objects that are not designed to be weapons.

Shields are not quantum objects, where what they actually are changes because you choose to think of them differently.

Tanarii

2016-03-05, 02:23 AM

Shields are not quantum objects, where what they actually are changes because you choose to think of them differently.I'm introducing Shroedinger's Sheild in my campaign now. :smallamused:

Arkhios

2016-03-05, 02:33 AM

Tavern Brawler feat makes you proficient with ANY improvised weapon regardless of any resemblances, along with increasing your unarmed damage to 1d4 and allowing the use of bonus action to grapple. (and +1 to str or con, which might be tempting)

It's up to DM whether an improvised weapon is light or heavy or whatever. A shield (as an improvised weapon) most likely isn't in light weapon category, but if you have Dual Wielder feat, you could easily attack with your shield. With or without proficiency.

It's debatable, but to me it seems that while Improvised weapons indeed are weapons they do not fall in either categories of melee or ranged weapons exclusively. Therefore a shield wouldn't qualify for Dual Wielder's +1 to AC, imho.

Gnomes2169

2016-03-05, 03:37 AM

They aren't weapons at all! If they were, then they wouldn't be 'improvised weapons', just 'weapons'.

By this logic, adding any modifier tag in front of "weapons" makes them not weapons... So simple weapons, martial weapons, natural weapons and magical weapons wouldn't count as weapons. And I do believe that rules out every weapon in the game... Except maybe exotic weapons, which aren't too much of a thing in 5e beyond finding a raygun.

Alternately, we can be less anal with our analysis of what is or isn't a weapon, and just consider anything that makes a weapon attack, besides unarmed strikes (note how they are not called weapons in any way) which are explicitly called out as never being weapons as of the errata, a weapon. It makes sense rules wise, mechanically, with fluff, etc, etc.

However, one thing that wasn't mentioned yet is that both the Dual Weilder and the Tavern Brawler feats are required for the combo to work, or at least work efficiently. Dual weilder is required for to to work at all, since shields definitely will not have the light quality (unlike something like a table leg), so you need to be able to ignore that requirement to two-weapon fight at all.

After that, you need to pick up tavern brawler if you want that granted attack to in any way be viable, since no one starts with proficiency in improvised weapons, meaning you won't add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls without the feat. As well, tavern brawler sets the minimum damage die you roll to 1d4+str, which means that no matter what your DM thinks a shield basing someone should deal (some might rule it a d10+str, others just 1+str), you are assured to deal at least a d4.

So basically, the player will be paying 2 feats and a fighting style to be less powerful offensively than a Duelist with the Shield Master feat, but who still has more attacks and gets slightly higher AC. The only classes that can reliably pull this combo off are the Fighter and a str based melee ranger (shields are not finesse weapons) who have extra ASI's over other martial counterparts (being mainly SAD, for the most part), and it takes quite a few level's worth of investment to get that marginal payoff... So honestly, I can't really find much to worry about with the combo.

Cazero

2016-03-05, 04:29 AM

Just say no to dialetheism. (http://chaospet.com/263-dialetheistic-dealer/)
Your shield can't be a weapon and not be a weapon at the same time. That would make them strictly superior to other TWF options. So you need some consistent rules that tells you how it work.
You can do something simple, like your shield not being a shield (not providing +2 AC) if you used it as an improvised weapon this turn, and not being a weapon (not qualifying for TWF bonuses) if you didn't. Then feats about shields have a point : they allow you to use your shield offensively as a shield and not lose the AC (but still not qualifying for TWF), plus some action economy breaking. Knocking someone prone with a shield bash is a normal use of a physical contest and anyone can do it, doing it as a bonus action without losing the shield AC requires the feat.

Talamare

2016-03-05, 04:32 AM

However, one thing that wasn't mentioned yet is that both the Dual Weilder and the Tavern Brawler feats are required for the combo to work, or at least work efficiently. Dual weilder is required for to to work at all, since shields definitely will not have the light quality (unlike something like a table leg), so you need to be able to ignore that requirement to two-weapon fight at all.

After that, you need to pick up tavern brawler if you want that granted attack to in any way be viable, since no one starts with proficiency in improvised weapons, meaning you won't add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls without the feat. As well, tavern brawler sets the minimum damage die you roll to 1d4+str, which means that no matter what your DM thinks a shield basing someone should deal (some might rule it a d10+str, others just 1+str), you are assured to deal at least a d4.

So basically, the player will be paying 2 feats and a fighting style to be less powerful offensively than a Duelist with the Shield Master feat, but who still has more attacks and gets slightly higher AC. The only classes that can reliably pull this combo off are the Fighter and a str based melee ranger (shields are not finesse weapons) who have extra ASI's over other martial counterparts (being mainly SAD, for the most part), and it takes quite a few level's worth of investment to get that marginal payoff... So honestly, I can't really find much to worry about with the combo.

Actually, Tavern Brawler isn't really needed and its the most questionable

Improvised Weapon rules state that everything always deals at least 1d4
As well they state that if you're proficient with any similar weapon, you're proficient in the improvised weapon

Again, questionable~ I'm not going to really argue it since I don't think this SHOULD be legal. Even if technically by RAW and a lot of discussion people agree that it is.

greenstone

2016-03-05, 04:34 AM

I've avoided opening this can of worms by ruling that shields are not weapons. They are armour - something you wear. It keeps it simple.

You can't specifically attack with a shield, but if you want to describe an unarmed attack as a shield bash, that's fine.

D&D 5E combat is relatively simple. No hit locations, no called shots, no piecemeal armour. If you want that complexity then another game system might be better.

ShikomeKidoMi

2016-03-05, 05:30 AM

By this logic, adding any modifier tag in front of "weapons" makes them not weapons... So simple weapons, martial weapons, natural weapons and magical weapons wouldn't count as weapons. And I do believe that rules out every weapon in the game... Except maybe exotic weapons, which aren't too much of a thing in 5e beyond finding a raygun.
Regardless of my support for his stance (personally, I'd just rule you can't get the shield bonus on rounds you attack with it, not that you can't use it for Two Weapon Fighting), you are attacking a strawman here.

Improvised weapons are explicitly things not designed to be weapons, unlike 'simple weapons', 'martial weapons', et al. The argument about that specific case is for a reason and you're being fallacious in pretending that it would apply to every other category equally.

Spectre9000

2016-03-05, 06:48 AM

Improvised Weapons are crude implements that you aren't proficient with. If an Improvised Weapon is similar to a weapon you are proficient with, you can finagle your proficiency bonus in. Improvised Weapons, as crude implements, also deal generally less damage (1D4).

Can a shield be an Improvised Weapon? Absolute, as any object can also be one. Does a Shield resemble any particular non-crude weapon? I can't think of one, so I'm going to say no, which means you don't get proficiency with it. The exception to this is if you take the Tavern Brawler Feat, you become proficient in using Improvised Weapons as a proficient weapon.

Do you lose any bonuses an Improvised Weapon grants you when using it as such? No where does it say that anything happens to the Improvised Weapon, and that it doesn't continue serving whatever purpose it was previously. For example, you grab your Holy Symbol of Tempus from around your neck, and shove it in someone's eye socket. Let's say it had an enchantment granted by Tempus himself that increases your health or some such. Whilst using it as an Improvised Weapon, you don't lose that benefit, so why would you lose any benefit your shield grants you? You would still gain the +2 AC and any other benefits.

Is a shield a light, medium, or heavy Improvised Weapon? Note, there are no rules for assigning weapon properties I've seen so all of this is DM rule. First off, since it has to be specified whether a weapons is Light or Heavy, let's define those.

Besides the benefits granted in the description of a Light Weapon, what constitutes it? If you look at the Weapons Chart, the heaviest Light Weapon is 3 lbs (Scimitar). However, a Rapier is 2lbs and isn't light, so there must be more to it. We can look at little deeper, using common knowledge about the various weapons to know that Rapiers are larger, though very light weapons. Therefore, a Light Weapon in D&D terms must be a weapon no heavier than 3 lbs and no larger than a scimitar/shortsword/sickle. Therefore, this excludes a Shield as a Light Weapon.

Now, as to Heavy Weapons, all of them require two-hands. Outside of that, 6lbs seems to be the lightest Heavy Weapon, but you can't use this as a guideline as a Great Club isn't a Heavy Weapon as it's 10lbs. This makes defining a Heavy Weapon a bit challenging, but at least we have one criteria; that it's used two-handed. This excludes the Shield as a Heavy Weapon.

Based on all this, I think we can define a Shield as a Medium Weapon, or simply a weapon without the Light or Heavy modifiers, which is what "Medium" has come to mean. Therefore, to use it with TWF you would need the Dual Wielder Feat, which would grant you all its bonuses including the +1 AC.

Now, as to whether or not the Dueling Fighting Style applies. RAW I can find no where that it says it applies whilst using a shield, though certainly it has come out in Sage Advice that it is RAI that a shield still allows for the bonus of the Dueling Fighting Style. I believe this has come about as people have overlooked the possibility of a Shield as an Improvised Weapon. By RAW, you can wield two weapons, but not be able to use TWF, which allows you to have a Shield, which is an Improvised Weapon, without the Light property, that also has defensive capabilities. Following this, a Shield, being an Improvised Weapon, would not grant you the bonus from the Dueling Fighting Style. There might be contradictions to this with other objects elsewhere, but I think this whole thing is due to a large oversight on WotC's part.

TL;DR: A Shield is a Defensive object that is, like all objects, an Improvised Weapon. It has niether the Light nor Heavy properties, and therefore requires the Dual Wielder Feat to use with TWF. Furthermore, using a shield, by RAW, does not allow the bonus from the Dueling Fighting Style as it is a Weapon, though an Improvised one, and would mean you have a Weapon in both hands, which violates the condition for using DFS. The only way you'd gain the bonus from DFS is from using only a Shield, and no other weapon, in which case it would deal 1D4+2+Str, which averages out to a 1D8+Str.

PeteNutButter

2016-03-05, 09:08 AM

Spectre9000

2016-03-05, 10:25 AM

Slipperychicken

2016-03-05, 11:28 AM

If shields are weapons, then wouldn't shield proficiency make you proficient in attacks using the shield?

charcoalninja

2016-03-05, 12:06 PM

Which is a good thing since currently shield proficiency doesn't do anything.

cobaltstarfire

2016-03-05, 12:25 PM

My DM ruled that you can use a shield as a weapon, but you lose the shields AC bonus during that turn. I would assume that you would lose your dueling bonus as well if you had one.

So TWF with a shield wouldn't let you TWF with the extra shield bonus, even if you had the feat.

Course that's strictly just my DM, but I think it's a pretty sound ruling.

Millstone85

2016-03-05, 01:24 PM

Which is a good thing since currently shield proficiency doesn't do anything.It does the same thing as any other armor proficiency. It lets you increase your AC without getting disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and losing the ability to cast spells.

Saggo

2016-03-05, 01:34 PM

Which is a good thing since currently shield proficiency doesn't do anything.

Sure it does, Shields are armor. Use a shield if you're not proficient and you get disadvantage with any Strength or Dexterity check, save, or attack and can't cast spells.

RickAllison

2016-03-05, 01:36 PM

It does the same thing as any other armor proficiency. It lets you increase your AC without getting disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and losing the ability to cast spells.

Indeed. Lack of proficiency is why none of my PCs have ever actually picked one up :smallsmile:

PeteNutButter

2016-03-05, 02:18 PM

Ok so there are a few things we know for certain. First that shields are not specified as light weapons so to make this work the character would need the dual wielder feat. Second is that this:

My DM ruled that you can use a shield as a weapon, but you lose the shields AC bonus during that turn. I would assume that you would lose your dueling bonus as well if you had one.
So TWF with a shield wouldn't let you TWF with the extra shield bonus, even if you had the feat.
Course that's strictly just my DM, but I think it's a pretty sound ruling.

...is contrary to the official ruling, which I posted in the OP. The RAW debate is whether you can TWF with a shield via Dual Wielder, which says you may if you are holding a one handed melee weapon in each hand. To remain within the official rules, the only thing a DM could rule against this is that even though I want to use my shield as a weapon, it still isn't a weapon. It's very counterintuitive, but I've seen plenty of nonsense rulings done in favor of perceived balance.

So that brings us to the balance discussion: 1) Is this overpowered? 2) Would this devalue or replace TWF as we know it?

I think a lot of people have already answered question 1 with a resounding NO. It pales in comparison to GWM damage, has only slight advantage on damage over duelist, has heavy investment in feats, and costs a bonus action.

As for question 2. Possibly. The problem here is that TWF is already the worst fighting style. This trick still requires feat investment, and carries a tiny decrease in damage compared to regular TWF. Honestly I think if someone wants to TWF or wants to TWF w a shield, either would be more of a flavor choice than optimization, due to the inherit weaknesses of both.

As a history/flavor note Rome conquered the known world using effectively shield bashing with the boss on their scutum, their gladius shortswords, and pila javalins. :smallbiggrin:

Markoff Chainey

2016-03-05, 02:26 PM

I want to add a funny thought that popped into my mind while reading through here...

A minotaur from Unearthed Arcana has horns, is proficient with them and can use them to attack with 1d10... he also holds a mace in one hand and a shield in the other - and has the TWF style and Dual Wielder Feat.

Now, what happens? Can he attack with his horns and the mace as a bonus action while the shield provides an AC bonus?

PeteNutButter

2016-03-05, 02:30 PM

RickAllison

2016-03-05, 03:21 PM

Dual Wielder specifies, one handed melee weapons. Horns would be a natural attack, so it wouldn't work.

This is why monks get that unarmed attack as part of martial arts, because they can't use unarmed strikes (which are the default "natural" weapon) for TWF either, right?

Millstone85

2016-03-05, 04:16 PM

unarmed strikes (which are the default "natural" weapon)I hadn't thought about that but the spell alter self seems to agree. When you take the option "natural weapons" and it makes you grow claws, horns or whatever, that improves your unarmed strikes.

Talamare

2016-03-05, 05:32 PM

Ok so there are a few things we know for certain. First that shields are not specified as light weapons so to make this work the character would need the dual wielder feat. Second is that this:

...is contrary to the official ruling, which I posted in the OP. The RAW debate is whether you can TWF with a shield via Dual Wielder, which says you may if you are holding a one handed melee weapon in each hand. To remain within the official rules, the only thing a DM could rule against this is that even though I want to use my shield as a weapon, it still isn't a weapon. It's very counterintuitive, but I've seen plenty of nonsense rulings done in favor of perceived balance.

So that brings us to the balance discussion: 1) Is this overpowered? 2) Would this devalue or replace TWF as we know it?

I think a lot of people have already answered question 1 with a resounding NO. It pales in comparison to GWM damage, has only slight advantage on damage over duelist, has heavy investment in feats, and costs a bonus action.

As for question 2. Possibly. The problem here is that TWF is already the worst fighting style. This trick still requires feat investment, and carries a tiny decrease in damage compared to regular TWF. Honestly I think if someone wants to TWF or wants to TWF w a shield, either would be more of a flavor choice than optimization, due to the inherit weaknesses of both.

As a history/flavor note Rome conquered the known world using effectively shield bashing with the boss on their scutum, their gladius shortswords, and pila javalins. :smallbiggrin:

1 - Not 'resounding', I, and more than a few others state that it will be
Especially since it's not Feat intensive, all you need is TWF. Tavern Brawler isn't needed.

and again, this was was the style that was heavily abused for optimization

Final Hyena

2016-03-05, 06:12 PM

If we look at the feat for a moment;
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

If we take the assumption that you can duel wield with a shield, then this feat would mean you can freely draw/sheath your shield as your free item manipulation. This of course goes against the idea that shields are an action to don. That is why I believe it to be not possible via RAW.

To hop on the improvised weapons aren't weapons bandwagon. If they were than you couldn't use a sword and shield and benefit from the Fighting Style dueling.

PeteNutButter

2016-03-05, 06:14 PM

1 - Not 'resounding', I, and more than a few others state that it will be
Especially since it's not Feat intensive, all you need is TWF. Tavern Brawler isn't needed.
and again, this was was the style that was heavily abused for optimization

Abused during play test because it's good at lvl 1 with variant human. It falls off hard at higher lvls, especially after lvl 5 when the GWM/archers will be putting out massive amounts of damage. And once you get to the point where all monsters have resistance to nonmagical weapons it becomes nearly useless. Dealing 1/2 of 1d4+str is nothing compared to a free shove from shield master.

Spectre9000

2016-03-05, 06:43 PM

Final Hyena

2016-03-05, 06:57 PM

Specific beats general, and specific rules state that a Shield specifically requires one action to equip. That shouldn't change.

A specific rule is something that breaks the general rules, If shield donning is a specific rule what is the general rule it's changing?

Spectre9000

2016-03-05, 07:06 PM

A specific rule is something that breaks the general rules, If shield donning is a specific rule what is the general rule it's changing?

It's overriding the rule of being able to use an object, in this case equip a weapon, albeit improvised, using a free action. Shield specifically take 1 Action to equip, rather than 1 free action as equipping anything other than armor does.

PeteNutButter

2016-03-05, 07:23 PM

Also, yes, by RAW you shouldn't be able to gain the benefit from Dueling Fighting Style whilst holding a sword and shield.

I'd argue that a shield can be wielded either as a pure defensive item or as both. Like a versatile weapon can be wielded as either a one handed or two handed. One option doesn't preclude the other from happening, but of course a person using a shield as a weapon also wouldn't benefit from duelist at least for that round.

Compare it to a character that uses his attacks with his mainhand using duelist then draws a dagger and does his bonus action attack (possibly a throw) with offhand... My point is there are other complex dynamic styles in the RAW. The TWF shield fighter would probably never be able to benefit from duelist, another possible drawback to the shield TWF.

Final Hyena

2016-03-05, 08:11 PM

Also, yes, by RAW you shouldn't be able to gain the benefit from Dueling Fighting Style whilst holding a sword and shield.

https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/02/dueling-with-shield/

It seems the rules have reached a point between the shield not being a weapon and at the same time being an improvised weapon.
Unless there is an errata about shields when used to deal damage it is up to the DM to rule.

Serket

2016-03-05, 09:45 PM

So that brings us to the balance discussion: 1) Is this overpowered? 2) Would this devalue or replace TWF as we know it?

It might actually help TWFers, though not necessarily in a good way. If TWFers have the TWFing feat and the GM says a shield counts as a weapon, then they can switch between TWF and shield styles and gain their +1 feat AC either way. So their feat is now more useful and switching to shield as a defensive option is now better.
Of course, that doesn't really help with the idea that this makes actually TWFing less attractive.

It pales in comparison to GWM damage, has only slight advantage on damage over duelist, has heavy investment in feats, and costs a bonus action.

That duellist thing though - there are two problems. The first is that allowing the TWF-shield thing invalidates the duelling fighting style by making the duellists shield a weapon. The second is that the duellist + shield approach is down 1-2 AC compared with the TWF-but-actually-shielding approach. One AC from the TWF feat and the possible other from fighting style. Lets say you didn't really want to TWF, but you did want all the AC in the world. So you take a shield, the defence style, and eventually the TWF feat. Now you've got +2 AC over the duellist, though you're a bit down on damage (you've got a bad bonus action attack set against the bonus duellist damage). Note, you haven't spent the feat on tavern brawler to get here. Is this worth considering as a bad unintended consequence?

Malifice

2016-03-05, 10:16 PM

1 - Not 'resounding', I, and more than a few others state that it will be
Especially since it's not Feat intensive, all you need is TWF. Tavern Brawler isn't needed.

and again, this was was the style that was heavily abused for optimization

You need tavern brawler for proficiency in improvised weapons (the shield).

You need the DW feat to be able to TWF with a shield as its not a light melee weapon.

You need the TWF fighting style if you want to deal +Str damage with the off hand attack.

And as for anyone disallowing TWF with improvised weapons due to some tortured rule interpretation, both myself and Jackie Chan do NOT want to play at your table.

It is NOT OP compared with any other option. Its arguably suboptimal.

As to whether it devalues TWF, a TWF doesnt need Taven Brawler so can instead bump Dex by 2. At the same stage of their careers, the TWF (2 rapiers) guy is 1 point behind in AC, deals 1 point more damage with his off hand and main hand attacks, is +1 better to hit with the main and off hand attacks, +1 to initiative, dex saves and dex skills better off, deals 1d8 with the off hand instead of 1d4 but is worse with unarmed fighting and lacks skill with improvised weapons.

Arial Black

2016-03-05, 11:16 PM

You need the DW feat to be able to TWF with a shield as its not a light melee weapon.

In order to TWF, the object you use to attack must be both 'light' AND a 'weapon'.

The DW feat takes away the requirement for the object to be 'light', but does not take away the requirement for it to be a 'weapon'.

Also, being able (through the Tavern Brawler feat) to add your proficiency bonus to 'weapon attacks' with improvised weapons does not turn improvised weapons into actual weapons.

PeteNutButter

2016-03-05, 11:36 PM

You need tavern brawler for proficiency in improvised weapons (the shield).

You need the DW feat to be able to TWF with a shield as its not a light melee weapon.

You need the TWF fighting style if you want to deal +Str damage with the off hand attack.

And as for anyone disallowing TWF with improvised weapons due to some tortured rule interpretation, both myself and Jackie Chan do NOT want to play at your table.

It is NOT OP compared with any other option. Its arguably suboptimal.
As to whether it devalues TWF, a TWF doesnt need Taven Brawler so can instead bump Dex by 2. At the same stage of their careers, the TWF (2 rapiers) guy is 1 point behind in AC, deals 1 point more damage with his off hand and main hand attacks, is +1 better to hit with the main and off hand attacks, +1 to initiative, dex saves and dex skills better off, deals 1d8 with the off hand instead of 1d4 but is worse with unarmed fighting and lacks skill with improvised weapons.

Literally LOLed at the Jackie Chan comment. +1 Internets to you.

Malifice

2016-03-06, 12:07 AM

In order to TWF, the object you use to attack must be both 'light' AND a 'weapon'.

The DW feat takes away the requirement for the object to be 'light', but does not take away the requirement for it to be a 'weapon'.

Also, being able (through the Tavern Brawler feat) to add your proficiency bonus to 'weapon attacks' with improvised weapons does not turn improvised weapons into actual weapons.

Says your tortured plain english interpretation.

An improvised weapon is a weapon. Says so right on the tin. The instant you decide to use a carpentry hammer as a weapon, it becomes one. Same deal with a broken bottle. Or a knitting needle.

If in your campaign you want to make the ruling that an improvised weapon is not a weapon, go for it. But that is only one possible (tortured) interpretation of many, it detracts from the fun of the game for zero mechanical reason (what do you mean I cant TWF with 2 bits of chain?) and is inconsistent (I can TWF with two daggers, but not with two broken bottles?)

Tanarii

2016-03-06, 01:40 AM

Specific beats general, and specific rules state that a Shield specifically requires one action to equip. That shouldn't change.Back to front specific beats general claim. Shield taking an action to equip/unequip is the general rule.

Otoh I think treating a shield as a 'weapon' is nonsense. Even improvised. But if it's RAI, per this SA, then it's a weapon, and any specific rules that modify how weapons work apply, and override more general rules. For example, a specific rule about how you draw weapons (such as DW Feat's) beats out the more general rule for how you draw said item, be it the weapons general rule or the shields general rule.

Also, yes, by RAW you shouldn't be able to gain the benefit from Dueling Fighting Style whilst holding a sword and shield.
I wish that was true, but unfortunately it's not. RAW there's no reason in the wording of Dueling FS to think its true. And RAI sage advice has clarified its possible to use S&B & Dueling together.

Talamare

2016-03-06, 01:59 AM

You need tavern brawler for proficiency in improvised weapons (the shield).
You do NOT need Tavern Brawler to get proficiency in improvised weapons
The Improvised Weapons rules says it

bid

2016-03-06, 02:05 AM

I wish that was true, but unfortunately it's not. RAW there's no reason in the wording of Dueling FS to think its true. And RAI sage advice has clarified its possible to use S&B & Dueling together.
So an improvised weapon is only a weapon while you use it to attack, in the same way that a 2-handed weapon only requires one hand while holding it.

bid

2016-03-06, 02:07 AM

You do NOT need Tavern Brawler to get proficiency in improvised weapons
The Improvised Weapons rules says it
At the DM's option, if it is similar to a normal weapon. Otherwise you do need TB.

Tanarii

2016-03-06, 02:10 AM

So an improvised weapon is only a weapon while you use it to attack, in the same way that a 2-handed weapon only requires one hand while holding it.Ah. I was actually responding to Dueling working with a Shield if it wasn't a weapon. Wasn't even thinking about the ramifications of the Shield being a weapon for TWF and using Dueling at the same time. Shield only being a weapon while you attack would work except your attack with both weapons at the same time. That means it'd negate dueling while you attacked TWF anyway, if you also attacked with the shield.

I hate the no object interaction for switching between 'holding' and able to wield for 2H weapons. IMO the rule *should* be: if you're using it 2h, it should take an object interaction to switch between 'holding' and back to able to wield. For balance, and consistency.

RickAllison

2016-03-06, 02:21 AM

At the DM's option, if it is similar to a normal weapon. Otherwise you do need TB.

So attacking someone with a pool cue would be just fine (as a quarterstaff), while killing with a teacup requires TB?

Gnomes2169

2016-03-06, 05:28 AM

So attacking someone with a pool cue would be just fine (as a quarterstaff), while killing with a teacup requires TB?

I'd call a pool cue more of a club than a quarter staff, but yes. That is exactly how it would work. A teacup has no similarity to a weapon, and using it to murder someone would require being Jackie Chan's greatest apprentice specialized training or otherwise to actually be effective. Heck, without TB I wouldn't think that a teacup would do more than 1+str damage, given it's a... You know... Tea cup.

Basically, think of how the improvised weapon in question would be used to actually deal damage to a creature. If it requires strange movements or different techniques that a trained warrior would need to be specially trained in, or find ridiculous or even pointless (like with a tea cup), then it is an improvised weapon that does not get proficiency. Hitting people with a ladder is different than hitting them with a great club, and all that.

Using a shield as a weapon falls into this category, as doing so requires specialized training in offensive techniques. Anyone can just stand there and hold a block of wood or metal in front of them to keep metal objects and teeth from being inserted into their body, actually swinging the block attached firmly to your arm that restricts your movement, line of sight and that is actually quite heavy back in an effective enough way to cause damage is a different beast entirely. Hence requiring Tabern Brawler to use it in a proper manner. It's quite different from punching, swinging a club or using a set of brass knuckles, so no weapon proficiency really covers using your shield as a weapon.

Arkhios

2016-03-06, 06:13 AM

You do NOT need Tavern Brawler to get proficiency in improvised weapons
The Improvised Weapons rules says it

Partly correct. You don't need Tavern Brawler to get proficiency in improvised weapons that already resemble an actual weapon (such as a pool cue = sturdy stick = club). Anything other, such as a shield, needs TB for proficiency ...unless you can give us an example of a weapon that appears and functions like a shield.

Millstone85

2016-03-06, 08:16 AM

Do you know what this thread reminds me of?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OydCKdKlbM

PeteNutButter

2016-03-06, 09:26 AM

Using a shield as a weapon falls into this category, as doing so requires specialized training in offensive techniques. Anyone can just stand there and hold a block of wood or metal in front of them to keep metal objects and teeth from being inserted into their body, actually swinging the block attached firmly to your arm that restricts your movement, line of sight and that is actually quite heavy back in an effective enough way to cause damage is a different beast entirely. Hence requiring Tabern Brawler to use it in a proper manner. It's quite different from punching, swinging a club or using a set of brass knuckles, so no weapon proficiency really covers using your shield as a weapon.

I think we need to nip this idea in the butt. Using a shield to bash is not some gaming cheesy mechanic. I'm not trying dual wield lances here.

Attacking with your shield is historically and essential part of what a shield could and would be used for it. As I pointed out earlier Roman Legions were trained to bash with their shield and then stab for the enemy gut, like a one-two combo. Rules as makes sense, anyone proficient in shields, would be proficient in attacking with it.

While we are at it, shield bashing is historically WAY MORE COMMON THAN TWF. TWF has historically only really been used as a dueling technique, such as the rapier dagger combo. Even the samurai which everyone loves to say used TWF, actually were more horseback archers than anything else when it came to military combat. Additinally, when engaging in melee, the katana is a 2handed weapon.

Me wanting to shield bash is more common historically (and thus more practical) than the supposed TWF that it could possibly devalue. It's just smart. You hit your foe with the shield, it still covers most of your body, your able to put all your weight into it like a linebacker, and they can't really defend against it besides dodging or bracing against it with their own shield.

Zalabim

2016-03-06, 09:49 AM

PeteNutButter

2016-03-06, 11:03 AM

You can do that. Everyone can do that. Shield Masters can do it even better than everyone else. It's called shoving.

Yes that is a way to do it, and it is likely better. Knocking a guy on his rump, just doesn't really embody the ferocity of bashing him in the face dealing actual damage. You can call it a flavor preference.

Tanarii

2016-03-06, 12:18 PM

I think we need to nip this idea in the butt.

o_O

... bud?

RickAllison

2016-03-06, 12:48 PM

o_O

... bud?

Nope :smallwink:

Serket

2016-03-06, 06:44 PM

Attacking with your shield is historically and essential part of what a shield could and would be used for it.

So one of the things about history is that unless a game is supposed to be historical in some way, it's not particularly useful as a reference.

And one of the things about real-life fighting techniques is that, unless a game system is supposed to work like real life, they're not really relevant. A quick examination of the 5e rules reveals that, just like every other version of D&D, it's not even remotely about realism.

Now, that's not to say that I disagree with the idea of using a shield as an improvised weapon in 5e. But, I do wish you'd keep your arguments on a level relating to the game, rather than saying "because history" or "because realism", because neither of those things applies to this game.

Gnomes2169

2016-03-06, 07:50 PM

I think we need to nip this idea in the butt. Using a shield to bash is not some gaming cheesy mechanic. I'm not trying dual wield lances here.

Attacking with your shield is historically and essential part of what a shield could and would be used for it. As I pointed out earlier Roman Legions were trained to bash with their shield and then stab for the enemy gut, like a one-two combo. Rules as makes sense, anyone proficient in shields, would be proficient in attacking with it.

While we are at it, shield bashing is historically WAY MORE COMMON THAN TWF. TWF has historically only really been used as a dueling technique, such as the rapier dagger combo. Even the samurai which everyone loves to say used TWF, actually were more horseback archers than anything else when it came to military combat. Additinally, when engaging in melee, the katana is a 2handed weapon.

Me wanting to shield bash is more common historically (and thus more practical) than the supposed TWF that it could possibly devalue. It's just smart. You hit your foe with the shield, it still covers most of your body, your able to put all your weight into it like a linebacker, and they can't really defend against it besides dodging or bracing against it with their own shield.

See, I actually agree with you, and I do think that shields should have just been on the weapons table (with only +1 AC instead)*... but in game terms, a shield is not a weapon, and does not resemble any sort of weapon with its fighting style. So RAW, Tavern Brawler is required.

That said, ruling RAH (rules as historical) or RAF that shield prof gives you proficiency on attack rolls with shields is understandable... But given the emphasis on RAW in this forum, it isn't an argument that everyone will accept out of hand, and using it as your only argument won't convince too many people.

*With this change, dueling fighting style would be changed to "on your turn, choose a one handed weapon you are weildinh and proficient with. Increase the damage you deal with this weapon by 2." Gives a duelist the ability to do things like use a parrying dagger (a rather common dueling fighting technique), and gets rid of a lot of the confusion with wether or not a shield cancel out your dueling bonus.

PeteNutButter

2016-03-06, 11:41 PM

See, I actually agree with you, and I do think that shields should have just been on the weapons table (with only +1 AC instead)*... but in game terms, a shield is not a weapon, and does not resemble any sort of weapon with its fighting style. So RAW, Tavern Brawler is required.
That said, ruling RAH (rules as historical) or RAF that shield prof gives you proficiency on attack rolls with shields is understandable... But given the emphasis on RAW in this forum, it isn't an argument that everyone will accept out of hand, and using it as your only argument won't convince too many people.
*With this change, dueling fighting style would be changed to "on your turn, choose a one handed weapon you are weildinh and proficient with. Increase the damage you deal with this weapon by 2." Gives a duelist the ability to do things like use a parrying dagger (a rather common dueling fighting technique), and gets rid of a lot of the confusion with wether or not a shield cancel out your dueling bonus.

I understand realism of little importance, I only brought it up to counter this argument:

Using a shield as a weapon falls into this category, as doing so requires specialized training in offensive techniques. Anyone can just stand there and hold a block of wood or metal in front of them to keep metal objects and teeth from being inserted into their body, actually swinging the block attached firmly to your arm that restricts your movement, line of sight and that is actually quite heavy back in an effective enough way to cause damage is a different beast entirely. Hence requiring Tabern Brawler to use it in a proper manner. It's quite different from punching, swinging a club or using a set of brass knuckles, so no weapon proficiency really covers using your shield as a weapon.

My main argument was founded on RAW after I saw the February Rules Answers.

As for the dueling style, I don't think it's a big deal. I mean you in theory could have any item in your offhand and use duelist style, picture a bard with an instrument and a sword or a wizard with an orb and a sword, etc. At any point a character could use those items as improvised weapons, and in theory if they had DW feat could do so via TWF. This would likely end poorly for items not built for banging against things, but its possible.

Simple ruling would be you don't get the +2 duelist damage if you are using or intend to use the offhand item as a weapon. Or if you use the dueling style you are prohibited from TWF for that round, but that could run into builds that like to throw things with offhand attacks.

Gnomes2169

2016-03-07, 01:17 AM

Just as a note, actually attacking with a shield is something that was specifically taught to any soldiers that used them in that manner. It wasn't intrinsically used as part of having a shield (peasant militia armed with spears and shields basically just held shields in front of them, but still recieved training in marching in formation, holding shields properly and how to stab/ retract with their spears). Italian duelists specifically trained with how to use their bucklers offensively as well, and there are quite a few other examples I'm sure I could pull up if I thought about it long enough, but I think that I've made my point.

Using a shield as a bashing weapon isn't easy, it's something that you have to be taught. Otherwise, it's mostly ineffective and leaves you more open than you otherwise would be. Using a shield defensively? That's quite a lot simpler. And I suppose D&D characters with shield prof. just don't get trained beyond that, but apparently people that get in a lot of bar fights do. I don't know. RAW and flavor are pretty divorced usually.

Tanarii

2016-03-07, 02:25 AM

And I suppose D&D characters with shield prof. just don't get trained beyond that, but apparently people that get in a lot of bar fights do. I don't know. RAW and flavor are pretty divorced usually.Training in how to use your shield skillfully in combat would be represented by the shield Master Feat. Training in how to use your shield as an improvised weapon in an unintended fashion would be TB.

Gnomes2169

2016-03-07, 02:35 AM

Training in how to use your shield skillfully in combat would be represented by the shield Master Feat. Training in how to use your shield as an improvised weapon in an unintended fashion would be TB.

This also works. And also leads to yet another discussion between the alcoholic, pants-less barbarian and the professional soldier; How is a shield properly used? Invariably, a tavern brawl breaks out as they try to prove their point. :smallbiggrin:

PoeticDwarf

2016-03-07, 05:48 AM

McNinja

2016-03-07, 07:19 AM

I'd say the combo works - it's a large investment for anyone other than a variant human Fighter, who could have this done by 4th level. At that point, nerfing the combo is moot. I agree that it can be done RAW.

ImSAMazing

2016-03-07, 09:27 AM

I'd have said it gives +3AC but shields then just deal 1+str and some special warshields maybe 1d4. Not an OP combo or build. +2AC and -2/3.5 dmg is strong but not too strong

Rules for improvised weapons say that they deal at least 1d4 damage.

Gnomes2169

2016-03-07, 05:54 PM

Rules for improvised weapons say that they deal at least 1d4 damage.

Though the DMG does have a section for adjucating damage based on the size of a creature/ object, which could easily be extended to, say, the tiny-sized improvised weapon of a (to use an earlier example) tea cup. A shield -heavy, durable and made of metal bits and solid wood - should logically do a bit more than a fragile, tiny and light tea cup (at least, without the tavern brawler feat). Not that 1d4 is much larger than 1, but still, a sizable enough difference that just makes sense.

Of course that is houseruling, so not exactly a RAW thing. Just the way I would run a character throwing their tea cup at a dastardly villain while they discussed the party's "surrender." (If the PC didn't have tavern brawler, at least)

Serket

2016-03-07, 06:42 PM

Using a shield as a bashing weapon isn't easy, it's something that you have to be taught.

That really depends on the shield.

A buckler's a small thing - some are a little more than a foot (30cm) across, most are less. It's a piece of metal on a handle. Smacking someone in the face with it is really very easy both in terms of technique and strength, and is a generally fine move that I recommend in the unlikely instance that it ever comes up for you.

A high-imperial roman shield is a big curvy bit of plywood, with a metal boss and handle in the centre. It's not strapped to your arm, it has a handle that runs perpendicular to the line of the shield so as you hold the shield normally your palm is pointing more or less downward. This is weird when skirmishing, but allows you to brace against the shield more easily for when you want to shove or brace for impact. Smacking someone with the shield boss isn't an especially difficult technique, but the timing and strength required are not trivial. While spread out in a more skirmish order, smacking someone with the lower edge is also possible and in some ways a fine idea, and also not especially complicated, though it will reduce your defence somewhat since you'll be holding the shield lying along your own arm (and you won't be able to defend your head as easily as normal).

A shield design so common that it doesn't even narrow down to a single period is to make a round flat surface with a circular hole in the centre, and then cover that hole with a raised metal boss that has a handle in it. The diameter is usually in the region of three feet (that's 90cm if you're metric). Often the surface is covered with leather and often the rim is reinforced with metal. These shields are handy because there's no right way or wrong way up to hold them so you can switch between vertical handle skirmish style and horizontal handle shoving and rim-punching style pretty easily. It's fun! Compared with the big roman one, though, there's a significant reduction in coverage of your lead leg, so you get hit there a lot more. Punch-wise it's basically the same as the roman.

The greek hoplite shield is a large round saucer thing that straps to the arm. You could try and hit someone with it, but that's really not what it's good for. It's strapped on, so your range of movement is really limited and you don't have a good punching option.

The ancient greek Rhyton shield is a gigantic figure eight thing. You could pick it up in two hands and swing it like you would a table? Or you could hide behind it and roll stealth. :smallsmile: Seriously though, it seems to have been worn strapped onto your back while you fight with a long spear in your hands. So that's cool. You're not going to hit someone with it, though.

Clearly, there have been a lot of different definitions of "shield". So if you really want to examine things from a context of realism and history (and I don't recommend it, because this game pays no particular attention to either), then your first job is to work out what kind of shield D&D "shields" are.

5th ed has a few defined properties for a shield: One, they grant +2 AC, so they're bigger than bucklers. Two, they're in the armour box, not the weapons box, so they're bigger than bucklers. Three, they weigh 6lb, so they're significantly bigger than bucklers. Four, they can be donned or doffed as an action. So you're not strapping them on, because straps means buckles or ties and neither of those is six seconds.

I'd suggest then that the writers were thinking of a roman shield or a classic round shield. So it's got a punch grip and is pretty heavy. If you're going to talk realism, work from there.

Tanarii

2016-03-07, 06:55 PM

A shield design so common that it doesn't even narrow down to a single period is to make a round flat surface with a circular hole in the centre, and then cover that hole with a raised metal boss that has a handle in it. The diameter is usually in the region of three feet (that's 90cm if you're metric). Often the surface is covered with leather and often the rim is reinforced with metal. These shields are handy because there's no right way or wrong way up to hold them so you can switch between vertical handle skirmish style and horizontal handle shoving and rim-punching style pretty easily. It's fun! Compared with the big roman one, though, there's a significant reduction in coverage of your lead leg, so you get hit there a lot more. Punch-wise it's basically the same as the roman.For some reason, I've always seen those depicted as having a strap you insert your arm into on one side of center, and a handle on the other side of center. In Fantasy RPGs I mean. Never a handle on the opposite side of the boss/center.

Ditto for Kite shields, arm strap off-center, handle off-center. Although the angle for those is variable. ie the arm appear to go straight across usually. Again, Fantasy RPG depictions.

Serket

2016-03-08, 10:55 AM

For some reason, I've always seen those depicted as having a strap you insert your arm into on one side of center, and a handle on the other side of center. In Fantasy RPGs I mean. Never a handle on the opposite side of the boss/center.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest this is because most fantasy artists don't understand weapons, armour, or fighting. :smallsmile: Also boobs, but that's a different topic.

From a fighting perspective, there are relatively few advantages to strapping the shield on - leaving your hand free seems to be the main (possibly only) one. It really restricts what you can do with it, and it means it offer significantly less protection, because you can't move it around as much. :smallfrown:

Ditto for Kite shields, arm strap off-center, handle off-center. Although the angle for those is variable. ie the arm appear to go straight across usually. Again, Fantasy RPG depictions.

The heater (small, pointed bottom shield) seems (from medieval illustrations) to have been strapped, but that's because it's for cavalry use and leaves the hand free to hold reins. You can't defend your legs with it, basically at all. :smallfrown: I hate using them.

Kite shields were strapped. Why, I don't know, though again it seems to be riding and reins. A friend of mine modified one by adding a boss and horizontal punch grip, and he said that made it a lot handier (he was fighting on foot).

Tanarii

2016-03-08, 01:45 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest this is because most fantasy artists don't understand weapons, armour, or fighting. :smallsmile: Also boobs, but that's a different topic.:smallbiggrin:

But yes, that's what I was assuming too, after reading your post about a center handhold that's one piece with the boss. So thanks, I learned something ... *checks post datestamp* ... uh, yesterday. :)

What's interesting is the strap & handhold combo. If you have the handhold off-center, you'd certainly need a strap further up the arm. Otherwise the balance would be completely off.

PoeticDwarf

2016-03-09, 12:57 PM

Rules for improvised weapons say that they deal at least 1d4 damage.
I know, but RAW is meant to be changed. The reason I say "I would"

greenstone

2016-03-09, 03:54 PM

Rules for improvised weapons say that they deal at least 1d4 damage.

They might do less. A mug might do 1, a clay vase might do 1d2, a fish might do 1d3 (and be used in a shove aside attack to knock someone into the water).

Arkhios

2016-03-11, 02:56 AM

Kite shields were strapped. Why, I don't know, though again it seems to be riding and reins. A friend of mine modified one by adding a boss and horizontal punch grip, and he said that made it a lot handier (he was fighting on foot).

I'm by no means an expert but I'd imagine the kite being strapped stems from the very same reason as for heater. Given the kite's shape, it would provide a little more protection for your feet, too, while still being able to hold the reins.
I can imagine hating the use of a kite, mainly because it's shape means it's always off-balance in weight, and thus it would be very clumsy shield to be used for more than just blocking attacks.

They might do less. A mug might do 1, a clay vase might do 1d2, a fish might do 1d3 (and be used in a shove aside attack to knock someone into the water).

I've been in an understanding that the "no-dice" such as 1d2 and 1d3 have been deliberately avoided in the 5th edition system, and thus I wouldn't honestly use them even on houserule basis. When an item might have dealt 1d2 damage once, I would have it deal 1 instead. When an item might have dealt 1d3, it wouldn't be too far off with 1d4. (I mean, really, that's just on average ~1 point more or less). I know there have been made dice with 2 or 3 facets, but you can't really assume that everyone had them. I know I don't. Nor won't.

RickAllison

2016-03-11, 03:12 AM

I'm by no means an expert but I'd imagine the kite being strapped stems from the very same reason as for heater. Given the kite's shape, it would provide a little more protection for your feet, too, while still being able to hold the reins.
I can imagine hating the use of a kite, mainly because it's shape means it's always off-balance in weight, and thus it would be very clumsy shield to be used for more than just blocking attacks.

I've been in an understanding that the "no-dice" such as 1d2 and 1d3 have been deliberately avoided in the 5th edition system, and thus I wouldn't honestly use them even on houserule basis. When an item might have dealt 1d2 damage once, I would have it deal 1 instead. When an item might have dealt 1d3, it wouldn't be too far off with 1d4. (I mean, really, that's just on average ~1 point more or less). I know there have been made dice with 2 or 3 facets, but you can't really assume that everyone had them. I know I don't. Nor won't.

Indeed. 5e has tried to keep everything restricted to the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20. An additional odd dice interaction (that luckily cannot come up with RAW) I've noticed is upgrading a d12. By the standard dice system, it would become a d20, but a more reasonable upgrade that doesn't use odd dice would be 2d8. Having common dice makes things easy, but it can make for odd interactions.

djreynolds

2016-03-11, 05:54 AM

IMO opinion, it was done on purpose. It was not an over sight, they must have foreseen the question of retaining the shield's AC and said forget it. You can still select shield master and those benefits far outweigh anything 1d4+5 is going to give, except the paladin's improved divine smite.

It is just easier to use shield master and allow your player if he is dexterity based to use athletics with dexterity when he shoves. Otherwise its awesome for strength based guys and no hogwash about keeping the shield's AC.

The 5E makers I'm sure questioned this, and this was an easier way out instead of making possibly 4 or 5 rules to cover all the ins and outs.

Serket

2016-03-11, 02:47 PM

I'm by no means an expert but I'd imagine the kite being strapped stems from the very same reason as for heater. Given the kite's shape, it would provide a little more protection for your feet, too, while still being able to hold the reins.

Yeah, the usual theory is that the heater evolved from the kits as serious leg protection became more common (and hence the shield no longer needed to defend the leg while riding).

Unlike rpgs of all stripes, IRL superior armour tends to lead to less shields. :smallsmile:

I can imagine hating the use of a kite, mainly because it's shape means it's always off-balance in weight, and thus it would be very clumsy shield to be used for more than just blocking attacks.

I can imagine it being a pain on foot. I really really hate strap-on shields. :smallfrown: But, my friend who added a punch grip said that just using that, and ignoring the straps, it was pretty good, mostly because he could defend his lead leg.
I don't think it'd be particularly good as an improv weapon though.

What's interesting is the strap & handhold combo. If you have the handhold off-center, you'd certainly need a strap further up the arm. Otherwise the balance would be completely off.

I don't know if it's ever been a thing, IRL, but larpers frequently have shields with strap-and-handle, positioning the handle and strap point evenly about the centre. The strap here is usually loose enough that they can slide their arm through it without undoing it. Sometimes the "strap" is replaced with a solid thing. The tragic thing is, though, I've never got a good answer as to why it's done or why it's supposed to be good. The best was the rather "gamey" answer that disarm calls make you drop the shield, but if it's strapped on you can immediately catch it. No physics-based practical answer emerged. :smallannoyed:

I've also seen a tiny duelling shield used in re-enactment training sessions, that worked the same way. But I don't know if it was historically authentic. And for people wearing plate armour, I really don't see the point. A buckler isn't particularly more defensively useful than a mitten gauntlet, and the forearm shield didn't seem to have any real advantage over solid vambraces and a mitten gauntlet.

Talanos

2016-06-11, 04:58 AM

My group just got into a huge discussion about Shield Bash for damage and two-weapon fighting. So, forgive me for throwing more fuel on the fire.

It started with this discovery from the Monster Manual NPC section under the Gladiator entry:

GLADIATOR
Brute. A melee weapon deals one extra die of its damage when the gladiator hits with it (included in the attack).

Shield Bash. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 9 (2d4+4) bludgeoning damage. If the target is a Medium or smaller creature, it must succeed on a DC 15 Strength saving throw or be knocked prone.

So...if it's available to an NPC, shouldn't there be a rule for the PCs?

I've proposed the following to my group:

If proficient, you may consider a Shield a One-handed weapon. As an Attack action, you may make a Shield Bash. This attack deals 1d4+STR damage. Any rule relating to weapons applies to the Shield when used in this way.

This then lets you add-on to the base rule with fighting styles and feats and eliminates the problem with Duelist (use the shield to bash, no damage bonus. Don't bash, keep damage bonus).

Arkhios

2016-06-11, 05:56 AM

I've proposed the following to my group:

If proficient, you may consider a Shield a One-handed weapon. As an Attack action, you may make a Shield Bash. This attack deals 1d4+STR damage. Any rule relating to weapons applies to the Shield when used in this way.

This then lets you add-on to the base rule with fighting styles and feats and eliminates the problem with Duelist (use the shield to bash, no damage bonus. Don't bash, keep damage bonus).

One of the biggest (and best) changes in 5e is that absolutely everyone can attempt to do everything. Proficient or not. The real question is whether I add my proficiency bonus to the roll or not. Everyone can attack with a shield. Without proficiency they just do it with d20+their attack modifier.

It's a bit redundant to make a houserule when the written rules already support the idea that an improvised weapon can be treated in all respects as a weapon regardless if they resembled a real weapon or not.

I just recently made a character who employs a shield as the off-hand weapon. My DM ruled that if I'm willing to take a Feat (remember, feats are a much more valuable resource than before) to support a suboptimal fighting technique and used a shield, I would indeed get to add Dual Wielder's AC bonus in addition to the shield's AC bonus, resulting as +3 total.
By rule of omission, if no rule states that attacking with a shield would drop the AC bonus, then it doesn't, feats or no feats.

DracoKnight

2016-06-11, 06:25 AM

Made this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?490995-Martial-Archetype-Shieldbasher-PEACH) subclass based off of the sheer hilarious enjoyment I got out of visualizing the concepts discussed in this thread. :smallbiggrin:

Talanos

2016-06-11, 06:34 AM

Arkhios

2016-06-11, 06:58 AM

The "problem" about categorizing is that a shield doesn't have weapon-like stats. The second best thing by RAW is to treat it as an improvised weapon.

Now, I find it completely reasonable if a DM allowed players with proficiency with shields to apply proficiency bonus to their attack rolls, but that's only half of the issue. Where would you find the damage die for shields if they're not categorized as Improvised Weapons? Not from PH that's for sure.

R.Shackleford

2016-06-11, 11:11 AM

Thanks for the discussion guys but since I play AL it has to be clearly allowed in RAW or some DM will hose me out of it. (Even as mentioned that it isn't really that strong.)

Since the Dual Wielder feat says you can TWF while holding one handed melee weapons in both hands, it's too easy for a DM to say no, even if I always attack w the shield, as shields are not listed as one handed melee weapons.

This makes me giggle, the idea that an AL DM is following RAW.

DMs at AL don't have to follow RAW, they can make decisions at the table where they see it being gray. Even if the rules say "x" a DM can rule it as "y" and there is no repercussions.

Anyways...

The core ideology of 5e, which 5e doesn't really follow, is to keep away from fiddly rules and to use basic English.

Using this ideology, improvised weapons are weapons, as it says in their title of "improvised weapons".

To use a shield with Dual Wielding you must have the Two Weapon Fighting feat.

Shields aren't light, at least not the ones you typically see in the PHB art, so I think 1d6 or 1d8 is a good base damage and not 1d4. You can really mess someone up with a shield.

You don't lose your AC bonus, shield master doesn't make you lose your AC bonus. Though losing it *might* be a bit more balanced but out of the 7 defenses AC is the least of your worries (saves has some very nasty/debilitating effects). You could say that the AC bonus from feats don't stack with the shield bonus but that's a bit fiddly.

TWF w/Shield

* +3 AC
* No prof to attack on shield attack unless prof with impro vised weapons
* 1d8 + str damage (bonus action)

Strong? Meh. OP? No.

AC and HP damage are the simplest part of 5e to negate/mitigate.

Keep this character at range and they suck, hit them with spells and they suck, make it where they need to climb and they suck (can't climb as well with a shield in their hand), disarm the weapon and they suck.

(suck as in they do worse not as in they are omg worse things ever).

Jarlhen

2016-06-11, 11:49 AM

Wouldn't you have to grab tavern brawler to be proficient in addition to dual wielding? So two feats?

Arkhios

2016-06-11, 02:47 PM

Wouldn't you have to grab tavern brawler to be proficient in addition to dual wielding? So two feats?

Technically, you don't absolutely need Tavern Brawler to be able to attack with a shield. Being non-proficient doesn't mean you can't attack with the shield (or any other Improvised Weapon for that matter). You just don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll.
Dual Wielder however would be necessary for you to be able to do that, because as stated before, shield is not a light weapon (the fact that they don't have any of the weapon traits and that you need one hand to effectively use a shield suggest it would be a one-handed weapon, nothing more, or less)

RickAllison

2016-06-11, 09:06 PM

Right, good point about proficient vs. not.

What I don't like about categorizing a shield as an improvised weapon, is we're then requiring a feat chain (Tavern Brawler plus Dual Wielder) to do something. From the UA Feat article, we know that they have avoided this in the game design.

In my opinion, a shied is designed for combat. It shouldn't fall into the same category as an improvised weapon. But, that's been hashed out already on this thread.

There is a difference between being destined for combat and being designed for that specific use. A sword is normally held with te pointy end towards the opponent, but some styles with larger swords would hold it the other way to use it as a mace without being armed with a true bludgeoning weapon. A spear can be whirled around like an off-balance quarterstaff. A bow can be used to club someone. These weapons were not designed for this use, however, and so are clunkier at that job.

A greatsword used for bludgeoning like that would (to me) be a great-club or maybe a mace, but lacking proficiency unless they had improvised weapons proficiency, and same for the other unconventional uses.

... And now I love the idea of a character who is well-trained at fighting, but not with using weapons, but he wants to! So he takes Tavern Brawler and goes out there wielding weapons all wrong, picking them up from enemies and using them unconventionally. That could be very fun...

R.Shackleford

2016-06-11, 09:17 PM

So at about 37 seconds this dude uses his shield to throat punch a guy...

If a real, slightly crazy, man can twf with a shield and sword then a fantasy character should be able to.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QvNzQ1fWURE

Another attack at 53 seconds.

Edit

TIL: Russians have an entire sport of fighting in armor + shield + sword. A common tactic that is used is to sweep with the sword at a guy's legs while punchingbhim in the face with your shield.

Start this at 1330 and watch from there
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tyz1eJoSeIY

I was unaware that this league existed.

RickAllison

2016-06-11, 09:27 PM

Arial Black

2016-06-11, 11:01 PM

An 'improvised weapon' is a weapon (on the grounds that it includes the word 'weapon') as much as a 'non-smoker' is a smoker (on the grounds that it includes the word 'smoker').

You don't require a 'proper' weapon to attack using the attack action, but you do need a proper, honest-to-goodness actual 'weapon' in order to use the TWF rules.

If you have the Extra Attack feature, shield bash with one of those attacks using the improvised weapon rules. But TWF is out of bounds because you need an actual weapon to generate that bonus action attack, and that bonus attack must be made with an actual weapon.

bid

2016-06-11, 11:37 PM

You don't require a 'proper' weapon to attack using the attack action, but you do need a proper, honest-to-goodness actual 'weapon' in order to use the TWF rules.
I dunno, that table leg is good enough to be a club. Or did you mean improvised weapons too dissimilar?

Arkhios

2016-06-12, 02:39 AM

An 'improvised weapon' is a weapon (on the grounds that it includes the word 'weapon') as much as a 'non-smoker' is a smoker (on the grounds that it includes the word 'smoker').

So... since I'm a non-smoker and I tend to avoid places where people smoke, I am still a smoker? Gotcha...

Malifice

2016-06-12, 05:01 AM

Technically, you don't absolutely need Tavern Brawler to be able to attack with a shield. Being non-proficient doesn't mean you can't attack with the shield (or any other Improvised Weapon for that matter). You just don't get to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll.
Dual Wielder however would be necessary for you to be able to do that, because as stated before, shield is not a light weapon (the fact that they don't have any of the weapon traits and that you need one hand to effectively use a shield suggest it would be a one-handed weapon, nothing more, or less)

Your DM could say a shield is light. He can rule an improvised rebar to be heavy, or an improvised broken bottle to be finesse.

I rule shields are improvised 1d4 [light] weapons.

R.Shackleford

2016-06-12, 08:47 AM

Someone took the Tavern Brawler feat :P

TWF + Tavern Bralwer + Heaping cocktail of testosterone and vodka*

*not to stereotype, it could have also been a bourbon, scotch, or pure moolnshine.

So... since I'm a non-smoker and I tend to avoid places where people smoke, I am still a smoker? Gotcha...

I just want to point out how backwards and atagonistic this is.

Your smoker status has the "non" in front of it to show that you specifically aren't a smoker.

Improvised doesn't say "improvised non-weapon" you are specifically picking and choosing your words and phrases that aren't there and antagonizing someone with phrasing that isn't there.

No one said improvised "non-weapon" and improvised isn't a negative to the word weapon.

Improvised, for weapons, is when you use something that wasn't intentially meant to be used to kill someone or something. Than you use it to kill someone or something.

With your example it would be like if you picked up some tobacco but didn't have enough to roll a cigarette. You Also don't have any rolling paper. So you get a piece of notebook paper and add some other stuff to the tobacco to make a cigarette. It won't work as well, or at all, but you are just improvising your cigarette.

Your example of being a non-smoker would be more along the lines of you never using weapons or shields at all.

Tanarii

2016-06-12, 09:09 AM

and improvised isn't a negative to the word weapon.
It isn't? It means something which is not thing thing, which is trying to be used as the thing.

Sounds like a negative to the word it's being applied to to me.

R.Shackleford

2016-06-12, 09:17 AM

It isn't? It means something which is not thing thing, which is trying to be used as the thing.

Sounds like a negative to the word it's being applied to to me.

No.

It isn't saying that it isn't a weapon. It is saying that it wasn't intended to be a weapon.

Anything is a weapon, you just have to try. But the primary focus of a chair is to sit on, doesn't mean that with some trying and might I can't beat someone over the head with the chair (making it a weapon).

If I go hit someone with a folding chair or bar stool will I get arrested for assault with a weapon? I think the answer is yes. The judge/jury is going to laugh if I try to say the chair isn't a weapon and wasn't used as a weapon.

Non is being a negative qualifier and Improvised is about original intent of the word it is connacted to. Two very different things.

Tanarii

2016-06-12, 09:24 AM

Non is being a negative qualifier and Improvised is about original intent of the word it is connacted to. Two very different things.Sure. The difference is one is not, and the other is not, but is being repurposed. It's still a negative word, in terms of telling you what the original is. 'Improvised' tells you it isn't originally the thing. That's a negative.

Otoh I do get your point. It also strongly implies that negative was a past situation. That it wasn't the thing. But it is now.

Arkhios

2016-06-12, 09:34 AM

A stone the size of a melon is not inherently a weapon, it's just a stone. However, you can still deal remarkable damage if you hit someone with it. By definition a weapon is a tool that can deliver possibly fatal injuries. It doesn't matter whether it was designed as a weapon. Distinction between actual weapons and improvised weapons is exactly in the proficiency; have you been trained in such use or not? Everyone can swing a sword, everyone can strike with a stone. The more training you have, the more accurately you can hit.

Same applies to shields.

R.Shackleford

2016-06-12, 09:35 AM

Sure. The difference is one is not, and the other is not, but is being repurposed. It's still a negative word, in terms of telling you what the original is. 'Improvised' tells you it isn't originally the thing. That's a negative.

Otoh I do get your point. It also strongly implies that negative was a past situation. That it wasn't the thing. But it is now.

Not really...

An improvised weapon (chair) was always a weapon. It just wasn't used as a weapon or intended to be used as a weapon.

Imrovised talks more about the potential of an item, not the yes/no of an item whereas the descriptor "non" only speaks of the yes/no.

A bar stool (or any object) was/is always a weapon, it just may not be used as one until someone decided to try it out. Less yes/no and more "with the right attitude and motivation".

bid

2016-06-12, 12:01 PM

Sure. The difference is one is not, and the other is not, but is being repurposed.
An improved sketch is not a sketch, gotcha!

Arial Black

2016-06-12, 03:50 PM

What an object actually is, and how you use an object, are different things.

Without exception, the objects on the 'Weapons Table' are objects designed to be weapons. They have advantages in combat over random objects you might pick up and use to belt people upside the head.

In the game system, a 'weapon attack' doesn't require an actual weapon; an object designed to be a weapon. You can make a 'weapon attack' with a weapon or a non-weapon.

Non-weapons include unarmed attacks, improvised weapons, the natural weapons of creatures (such as claws and teeth), even the tail spikes of a manticore. However, because none of those things are actual weapons they do not benefit from rules that target a weapon or apply to weapons; such as the magic weapon spell, fighting styles like GWF or Dueling.

You can certainly use your attacks (none, one or all) to execute a 'weapon attack' with a non-weapon, so you could 'shield bash' that way.

But you cannot use your shield bash to generate an extra bonus action attack via the TWF rules, because those rules require an object designed to be a weapon. Similarly, if you legitimately generated such a bonus action by using a weapon, then that bonus action attack could not be an improvised shield bash because the TWF rules require that bonus attack to be with an actual weapon.

Arkhios

2016-06-12, 04:40 PM

You can certainly use your attacks (none, one or all) to execute a 'weapon attack' with a non-weapon, so you could 'shield bash' that way.

But you cannot use your shield bash to generate an extra bonus action attack via the TWF rules, because those rules require an object designed to be a weapon. Similarly, if you legitimately generated such a bonus action by using a weapon, then that bonus action attack could not be an improvised shield bash because the TWF rules require that bonus attack to be with an actual weapon.

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

DUAL WIELDER
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

That's all there is to the matter of two-weapon fighting. Nowhere does the rules say the weapon in off-hand must be an actual weapon. Just "a different melee weapon". An improvised weapon (such as shield) is as much a melee weapon as a sword is.

Arial Black

2016-06-12, 11:12 PM

That's all there is to the matter of two-weapon fighting. Nowhere does the rules say the weapon in off-hand must be an actual weapon. Just "a different melee weapon". An improvised weapon (such as shield) is as much a melee weapon as a sword is.

What do you mean, 'nowhere'? You just quoted it!

When it says 'weapon', it means it!

Arkhios

2016-06-12, 11:29 PM

What do you mean, 'nowhere'? You just quoted it!

When it says 'weapon', it means it!

Fine, I'm done arguing about this with you. You clearly have made up your mind about what counts as a weapon in regards to an attack and what doesn't. I suppose next time I'm handling a bottle upside down and attack with it I'll call it a 'melee ? attack' instead of, you know, 'melee weapon attack'.

By your logic, how do you explain that monsters have their natural attacks written as 'melee weapon attacks' while "clearly" their natural weapons are just improvised weapons, hmm?

...yeah, I'll just keep trusting my own interpretation, which, btw is the same as our DM's interpretation (and I believe of many more). Whatever you 'think' has no sway in each of our own tables.

Tanarii

2016-06-12, 11:39 PM

Arkhios

2016-06-12, 11:45 PM

All this senseless arguing is just splitting hairs. Deliberate attempt to complicate simple rules.

R.Shackleford

2016-06-13, 12:44 AM

I thought sage advice had clarified that "melee weapon attack" and "making an attack with a melee weapon" are not the same thing? And that creatures attacks are the former, but not the latter?

Note: That's not the same thing as saying that improvised melee weapons are not melee weapons, which is what Arial Black is arguing.

I think we all know that when it comes to determining what a weapon is or isn't... Or what a weapon attack is or isn't... Jeremy Crawford is not the best place to turn to.

Typically going to sage advice can help, but they really screwed up with this section of the rules when it could have been much easier and simpler.

Malifice

2016-06-13, 02:41 AM

But you cannot use your shield bash to generate an extra bonus action attack via the TWF rules, because those rules require an object designed to be a weapon.

No, they dont. Any 'weapon' will do, whether improvised or otherwsie. It better be light or you need a feat however.

Zalabim

2016-06-13, 03:18 AM

*not to stereotype, it could have also been a bourbon, scotch, or pure moolnshine.

I expected one beer. I want one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.

Anything is a weapon, you just have to try. But the primary focus of a chair is to sit on, doesn't mean that with some trying and might I can't beat someone over the head with the chair (making it a weapon).

An improvised weapon (chair) was always a weapon. It just wasn't used as a weapon or intended to be used as a weapon.

Imrovised talks more about the potential of an item, not the yes/no of an item whereas the descriptor "non" only speaks of the yes/no.

A bar stool (or any object) was/is always a weapon, it just may not be used as one until someone decided to try it out. Less yes/no and more "with the right attitude and motivation".

Since the dueling fighting style is intended to work with sword and shield, we know that the shield is intended to not categorically be a weapon. It would also be odd if monks cannot use martial arts while holding a lantern, because a lantern is not a monk weapon. This would explain why the king's audience chamber is so barren though. Only the the king and his most trusted guards are allowed to have weapons in his presence. The king's banquets are messy affairs.

The question is whether an improvised weapon counts as a melee weapon when you use it to make an attack. I think that's up to the DM's determination of how much it resembles a weapon. It is clear, by the rules, that improvised weapons are not always weapons.

No, they dont. Any 'weapon' will do, whether improvised or otherwsie. It better be light or you need a feat however.

Any 'melee' weapon. You can't use TWF with weapons that aren't melee weapons.