5e Can you use a shield to bash as an improvised weapon?

[wilhelmdubdub]

I thought of a fighter build with two weapon fighting style, long sword and shield taking Dual wielder and tavern brawler. Would you allow use of your shield as an improvised weapon?

[Necroticplague]

Honestly, I'm not really sure you could call that improvised. I mean, far back as armies have been using shield large-scale, they've been using them to hit people in the face, you'd think most shields would have that in mind when they were made. Heck, it's arguably less of an improvised weapon than a lot of polearms, which basically boiled down to 'we managed to add a spike or two to something we use to pick fruit', and calling it good enough.

[Traab]

Honestly, I'm not really sure you could call that improvised. I mean, far back as armies have been using shield large-scale, they've been using them to hit people in the face, you'd think most shields would have that in mind when they were made. Heck, it's arguably less of an improvised weapon than a lot of polearms, which basically boiled down to 'we managed to add a spike or two to something we use to pick fruit', and calling it good enough.

Dont forget stuff like the targe which were literally designed to be used as a weapon. Big ole spike in the center means its stabby stab time. Shield, its not just for bashing anymore.

[Rysto]

It sounds like you're talking about 5e. If I were DM'ing, I'd never allow it. Not due to realism concerns but due to how badly unbalanced it would be. PAM is bad enough. This would be the equivalent of PAM with +2 AC and the superior dueling fighting style, and the only tradeoff would be less reach. If you want to bash people with your shield, take Shield Master.

[Joe the Rat]

1) Welcome!
2) There's a separate subforum for 5e
3) The argument generally works around whether or not you should get the standard shield AC bonus when bashing, but you should not stack the shield AC bonus and the Dual Wielding AC bonus.
What I would do: Improvised weapon, 1d4 bludgeoning, no properties so it requires Dual Wielder. My inclination is to leave you at the +2AC for shield.

[wilhelmdubdub]

Would you all allow strength bonus to attack and damage, how about battemaster maneuvers? Is an improvised weapon its own weapon type or would it be considered an attack with a melee weapon?

[wilhelmdubdub]

Dont forget stuff like the targe which were literally designed to be used as a weapon. Big ole spike in the center means its stabby stab time. Shield, its not just for bashing anymore.

How about the dwarven buckler-axe from 3.5 days?

[Joe the Rat]

Would you all allow strength bonus to attack and damage, how about battemaster maneuvers? Is an improvised weapon its own weapon type or would it be considered an attack with a melee weapon?
Attribute bonuses are always applied*, it's the proficiency bonus to-hit that requires, er, proficiency. Strength Bonus to damage is applied in this case due to taking Two-weapon fighting style.
Battle Master maneuvers apply to whatever weapon attack type they specify. Technically they don't even require proficiency in whatever you are using.
Yes to both. Don't get hung up on the idea of key words.

(And now a Tavern Brawler Battle Master is stuck in my head)


How about the dwarven buckler-axe from 3.5 days?
You are looking for a new item. Ask your DM.

[Inevitability]

How about the dwarven buckler-axe from 3.5 days?

Ah, 3.5 and your tendency to randomly stick weapon parts on armor, mundane gear, or other weapons, how I miss you.

[Arial Black]

In 3E, shields were (also) weapons.

In 5E, shields are not weapons.

If you want to attack someone with an object that is not a weapon, then the Improvised Weapon rules apply. Note that using a *not weapon* to attack does not mean that this object is an actual weapon! It remains a...toaster, or tankard or...shield, and these objects remain *not weapons*.

While you can certainly take advantage of the Improvised Weapon rules to attack with a shield, what you are doing is attacking with a *not weapon*, and that matters for TWF.

You see, TWF requires that the initial attack, the attack that generates the possible bonus action attack, be made with a *weapon*. Specifically, a *light* *melee* *weapon* *held in one hand*.

The TWF bonus action attack must also be made with a *weapon*. Specifically, a *light* *melee* *weapon* *held in the other hand*.

All of these criteria must be met. Some of these criteria can be ignored if, and only if, another rule says you can ignore that specific requirement. You can use a *weapon* with the *thrown* quality to make either of the attacks, because the TWF rule says so!

If you have the Dual Wielder feat, this allows you to ignore the requirement that the weapon must be *light*. However, this feat does not allow you to ignore the requirement that the attack be made with a *weapon*.

No matter how you use it, a shield remains a *not weapon*, thus cannot be used whenever the rules require a *weapon*, without a written exception that specifically allows it.

[smcmike]

Arian Black is right in terms of RAW. You are definitely in "talk to your DM" territory. Personally, with a double feat tax, I'd allow it, particularly since it would often be worse that just using shield master to knock someone over.

[Vogonjeltz]

Honestly, I'm not really sure you could call that improvised. I mean, far back as armies have been using shield large-scale, they've been using them to hit people in the face, you'd think most shields would have that in mind when they were made. Heck, it's arguably less of an improvised weapon than a lot of polearms, which basically boiled down to 'we managed to add a spike or two to something we use to pick fruit', and calling it good enough.

Within the context of the game rules, shields are not weapons (for both 3.5 and 5th) so using one as a weapon is indeed an improvised weapon.

so for the Original posters questions, yes the dual wielded and tavern brawler feat would be useful.

[beargryllz]

It's a cool idea, but you can skip TWF and tavern brawler if you want to optimize this.

The feat you want is shield master. Note that you also want the dueling class feature because that adds a ton of damage. Shield master allows you to knock somebody flat on their ass with a bonus action and then attack them 1-4 times *with advantage* while they're squirming around on the ground. The advantage VS prone opponents clause is what makes this build very powerful. A fighter with shield master will usually win the check to knock an enemy over and you can often pull it off even against large-sized enemies. You can even get really fancy and theatrical with it and knock an orc off a sheer cliff or send some punk mugger through a window. At worst, you invested your bonus action on a save-or-suck check and just attack them normally like you were going to anyway. You'll just knock them over next round because you're a fighter and can repeat this trick while taking a beating and beating the pulp out of them.

That is how you bash with a shield

[Chaosvii7]

It sounds like you're talking about 5e. If I were DM'ing, I'd never allow it. Not due to realism concerns but due to how badly unbalanced it would be. PAM is bad enough. This would be the equivalent of PAM with +2 AC and the superior dueling fighting style, and the only tradeoff would be less reach. If you want to bash people with your shield, take Shield Master.

You may have not considered that if you're using a shield as a weapon then you're not using it as a shield. Typically if I want to shield bash my DM will let me with the understanding that I lose the AC bonus until the start of my next turn for it.

Honestly I thought that was a rule in 5e already, but I guess it isn't. Even so, it's how I've played it for years so it makes the most sense to balance the bonuses of the shield out with the measly 1d4 damage with no proficiency bonus to hit.

[Corran]

.....
If you have the Dual Wielder feat, this allows you to ignore the requirement that the weapon must be *light*. However, this feat does not allow you to ignore the requirement that the attack be made with a *weapon*.

No matter how you use it, a shield remains a *not weapon*, thus cannot be used whenever the rules require a *weapon*, without a written exception that specifically allows it.
I think that by strict RAW this is correct.
However, I think it is logical to extend the weapon requirement of TWF to improvised weapons as well. You see, by strict RAW one would not be able to attack both with, say, a dagger and a broken bottle, each held in a different hand, and that feels a bit silly. So maybe it makes sense to consider the ''weapon'' requirement to enxtend to improvised weapons too, at least as far as TWF is concerned.

With that in mind, I also think tha dual wielder would be necessary, as I have a hard time imagining a +2 shield as a light ''weapon''.