Treantmonk evaluates feat

[Snowbluff]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsXSmxXE82s&list=WL&index=2

Highlight for me is that he points out you can use Dual Wielder to shield bash for a d4 and smite that way. However, you'll probably need tavern brawler to be proficient. Still, i think it's a good tradeoff for some more AC, especially if you have a good magic shield (+2-5 ac is a lot of AC!).

[Misterwhisper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsXSmxXE82s&list=WL&index=2

Highlight for me is that he points out you can use Dual Wielder to shield bash for a d4 and smite that way. However, you'll probably need tavern brawler to be proficient. Still, i think it's a good tradeoff for some more AC, especially if you have a good magic shield (+2-5 ac is a lot of AC!).

Dual wielder does not work with a shield:

A shield is only an improvised weapon when you make an attack with it, so you do not get the +1 AC from the feat
You can not "draw" it because you doff shields as an action so that part of the feat does not work.
You can also not attack with it because it is not a "one handed melee weapon" it is not a weapon at all until you attack with it, even then it is not a "melee weapon"

[MaxWilson]

I'm less interested in ratings than in discussion, so I'll just point out two uses for feats that Treantmonk missed:

(1) Skulker lets you hide when lightly obscured. Darkvision makes darkness light obscurement instead of heavy. If you have the Skulker feat, you can therefore hide from any monster relying on darkvision, anywhere it's dark. This is even more defensively powerful than Gloomstalker because you cannot usually be targeted, even at disadvantage.

For example, a 4th level Skulker Goblin Moon Druid can cast Pass Without Trace and then scout ahead in the Underdark, and now if he meets, say, a Troll and a Chuul, he can shapeshift into Brown Bear form and kill both monsters single-handedly just by Hiding (at +14) after every attack sequence he makes, and then finishing off the Troll with Primal Savagery once it hits 0 HP.

It's niche because it relies on lots of darkness, and it doesn't work against blindsight/truesight, but it was weird to me that Treantmonk completely skipped over that aspect of the feat because it's arguably better than either "not revealed when you miss on a ranged weapon attack" or "Perception not hampered by dim light".

(2) Alert feat: Treantmonk spent little time on the "unseen attackers don't gain advantage against you," which is a shame because it is likewise a very strong component.

Say you're a Shadow Monk or an Eldritch Knight. You'd like to become a better tank. Shadow Monks only get specific spells, and EKs only get mostly abjuration/evocation spells, so it's not easy to pick up spells like Blur. You do have easy access to the Darkness spell, but it gives no net benefits when you use it because "disadvantage against unseen targets" is cancelled out by "advantage to unseen attackers." But if you take Alert, not only do you get benefits to initiative and against surprise, but now your Darkness spell is also effectively a super-long-duration Blur spell. That's great!

I had a monk in one campaign who was blind (as part of her character concept) but used Alert + Darkness to turn that weakness into a strength.

If you have something that actually blocks vision, like Fog Cloud, it can work even against truesight/devil's sight (though probably not tremorsense). The default Darkness version obviously does not work against truesight/devil's sight though.

[Specter]

I'm less interested in ratings than in discussion, so I'll just point out two uses for feats that Treantmonk missed:

(1) Skulker lets you hide when lightly obscured. Darkvision makes darkness light obscurement instead of heavy. If you have the Skulker feat, you can therefore hide from any monster relying on darkvision, anywhere it's dark. This is even more defensively powerful than Gloomstalker because you cannot usually be targeted, even at disadvantage.

For example, a 4th level Skulker Goblin Moon Druid can cast Pass Without Trace and then scout ahead in the Underdark, and now if he meets, say, a Troll and a Chuul, he can shapeshift into Brown Bear form and kill both monsters single-handedly just by Hiding (at +14) after every attack sequence he makes, and then finishing off the Troll with Primal Savagery once it hits 0 HP.

It's niche because it relies on lots of darkness, and it doesn't work against blindsight/truesight, but it was weird to me that Treantmonk completely skipped over that aspect of the feat because it's arguably better than either "not revealed when you miss on a ranged weapon attack" or "Perception not hampered by dim light".

(2) Alert feat: Treantmonk spent little time on the "unseen attackers don't gain advantage against you," which is a shame because it is likewise a very strong component.

Say you're a Shadow Monk or an Eldritch Knight. You'd like to become a better tank. Shadow Monks only get specific spells, and EKs only get mostly abjuration/evocation spells, so it's not easy to pick up spells like Blur. You do have easy access to the Darkness spell, but it gives no net benefits when you use it because "disadvantage against unseen targets" is cancelled out by "advantage to unseen attackers." But if you take Alert, not only do you get benefits to initiative and against surprise, but now your Darkness spell is also effectively a super-long-duration Blur spell. That's great!

I had a monk in one campaign who was blind (as part of her character concept) but used Alert + Darkness to turn that weakness into a strength.

If you have something that actually blocks vision, like Fog Cloud, it can work even against truesight/devil's sight (though probably not tremorsense). The default Darkness version obviously does not work against truesight/devil's sight though.

Real talk.

[Snowbluff]

Dual wielder does not work with a shield:

A shield is only an improvised weapon when you make an attack with it, so you do not get the +1 AC from the feat
You can not "draw" it because you doff shields as an action so that part of the feat does not work.
You can also not attack with it because it is not a "one handed melee weapon" it is not a weapon at all until you attack with it, even then it is not a "melee weapon"

You're absolutely wrong. :3


Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. It's a weapon. Well, we knew that already. That's what the "weapon" in "improvised weapon" means.

But let's go with what JC says, you're still wrong. I'm going to enjoy this, because I've already discussed it with very talented people.


Shield is a weapon, it takes one hand.

You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
Oof, there we go.

So, it's only a weapon when we attack with it, right?
Well, what happens when you attack with a one handed melee weapon with the dual wielder feat with a weapon in your other hand?


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.

Oh, you may make an attack as a bonus action with another weapon.

So, attack with a shield, it's a weapon when you're attacking.
Triggers TWF, get the bonus action attack.

Further more TWF doesn't action doesn't say you can't use the same weapon in your action attack, and Extra attack doesn't have any stipulations you have to attack with the same weapon, so you can also attack with the sword in the action as well.

2 Sword attacks, one shield.

[MaxWilson]

So, it's only a weapon when we attack with it, right?
Well, what happens when you attack with a one handed melee weapon with the dual wielder feat with a weapon in your other hand?

...

2 Sword attacks, one shield.

Shield bashing should work, but the relevance of "only a weapon when you attack with it" is so no one tries to claim an extra +1 to AC from Dual Wielder. It's obviously not the intent of Dual Wielder.

[JellyPooga]

I was surprised to see Skulker on the "worst" list. For any character that wants to make a career of being stealthy, it's practically a requirement; in large part because if you want to be stealthy, you need as little light as possible on your person, preferably none. That means having Darkvision. Darkvision gives you a -5 penalty to Perception in the dark (...before anyone denies this, I'll advise you to check your facts...) and if you're being stealthy, the last thing you want is a penalty to seeing things because largely speaking, if you don't notice what your being stealthy to (e.g. a guard or trap), then you aren't being stealthy at all. If you're not inclined to take Darkvision, then Skulker also makes Dancing Lights an amazingly useful cantrip compared to Light; it has a malleable AoE (a 10x80ft line anywhere within 120ft is far more useful than a 40ft radius, not to mention other configurations) and only emits dim light, which is far less noticeable than a great big area of bright light and isn't a problem for a Skulker. In addition, within the AoE of Dancing Lights, not only can a Skulker Hide where another could not, but any onlooker (without Darkvision) takes -5 to their Perception check to see them; double trouble! For a game that largely takes place in dark places like dungeons (it's in the name of the game!), a Feat that will get used every time it's dark is hardly situational, infrequent or niche.

If Sentinel is one of the best feats because it's essential for any kind of lock-down build, then Skulker must (by comparison) also be one of the best feats because it enables any kind of stealth build to actually function; only a handful (at best) of other abilities come close. Unless, of course, the GM is the kind to ignore the penalties for dim light, assumes Darkvision gives you perfect night-vision or otherwise doesn't play by the rules...but then those games can't be used for any kind of comparison because, simply put, they're being played incorrectly (RAW).

[Misterwhisper]

You're absolutely wrong. :3

It's a weapon.

But let's go with what JC says, you're still wrong. I'm going to enjoy this, because I've already discussed it with very talented people.


Shield is a weapon, it takes one hand.

Oof, there we go.

So, it's only a weapon when we attack with it, right?
Well, what happens when you attack with a one handed melee weapon with the dual wielder feat with a weapon in your other hand?



Oh, you may make an attack as a bonus action with another weapon.

So, attack with a shield, it's a weapon when you're attacking.
Triggers TWF, get the bonus action attack.

Further more TWF doesn't action doesn't say you can't use the same weapon in your action attack, and Extra attack doesn't have any stipulations you have to attack with the same weapon, so you can also attack with the sword in the action as well.

2 Sword attacks, one shield.

Simple as this:

TWF states that - When you make an attack with a light melee weapon, or if you have dual wielder it does not have to be light, you may make another attack with another weapon as a bonus action.

With sword and shield you are not wielding a 2 weapons, you are wielding a weapon and a shield.
An improvised weapon is ONLY a WEAPON when you attack with it, not before.
So when you attack with your main hand, you can not make a bonus attack with a shield because it is not a weapon unless you attack, not if you just CAN attack with it.

So, no you can't attack with a shield as a TWF weapon.


Same as yesterday, before people get snarky and try to get all high and mighty telling me I am wrong, make sure you are actually correct first.

[Snowbluff]

Simple as this:

TWF states that - When you make an attack with a light weapon, or if you have dual wielder it does not have to be light, you may make another attack with another weapon as a bonus action.

With sword and shield you are not wielding a 2 weapons, you are wielding a weapon and a shield.
An improvised weapon is ONLY a WEAPON when you attack with it, not before.
So when you attack with your main hand, you can not make a bonus attack with a shield because it is not a weapon unless you attack, not if you just CAN attack with it.

So, no you can't attack with a shield as a TWF weapon.

:smallsigh:
I think you missed the point.


An improvised weapon is ONLY a WEAPON when you attack with it, not before.
I attack with my shield.
It's a weapon now.

So when you attack with your main hand, you can not make a bonus attack with a shield because it is not a weapon unless you attack, not if you just CAN attack with it.
It's a weapon when I'm attacking.
I'm wielding 2 weapons and I'm making an attack with one of them.
TWF triggers.
I attack with my sword, the other weapon as a bonus action.


Shield bashing should work, but the relevance of "only a weapon when you attack with it" is so no one tries to claim an extra +1 to AC from Dual Wielder. It's obviously not the intent of Dual Wielder.

I agree, the other parts wouldn't apply if we assume improvised weapons aren't weapons. We'll call them improvised rudisplorks as along as we're making up terms for words, JC. An improvised rudisplork is only a weapon when you're attack, so if someone tries to shoot you while you're shooting something, let's it's like a standoff and he readied an action if you tried something funny, you have the +1 AC against that attack maybe.

I think it's a feat or 2 and some damage for more AC because it's a shield, not because it's qualifying for the other parts.

[Misterwhisper]

:smallsigh:
I think you missed the point.


I attack with my shield.
It's a weapon now.

It's a weapon when I'm attacking.
I'm wielding 2 weapons and I'm making an attack with one of them.
TWF triggers.
I attack with my sword, the other weapon as a bonus action.



I agree, the other parts wouldn't apply if we assume improvised weapons aren't weapons. We'll call them improvised rudisplorks as along as we're making up terms for words, JC. An improvised rudisplork is only a weapon when you're attack, so if someone tries to shoot you while you're shooting something, let's it's like a standoff and he readied an action if you tried something funny, you have the +1 AC against that attack maybe.

I think it's a feat or 2 and some damage for more AC because it's a shield, not because it's qualifying for the other parts.

TWF specifies you must attack with a "melee weapon", you haven't, you have attacked with an improvised weapon.

[MaxWilson]

I agree, the other parts wouldn't apply if we assume improvised weapons aren't weapons. We'll call them improvised rudisplorks as along as we're making up terms for words, JC. An improvised rudisplork is only a weapon when you're attack, so if someone tries to shoot you while you're shooting something, let's it's like a standoff and he readied an action if you tried something funny, you have the +1 AC against that attack maybe.

I think it's a feat or 2 and some damage for more AC because it's a shield, not because it's qualifying for the other parts.

I don't understand your rudisplork argument, so let me put this in other terms: "If Dual Wielder were supposed to give you +1 to AC when you're using a weapon + shield, it would have said so, and would probably have a different name."

[Genoin]

Every weapon is either classified as melee or ranged, being improvised does not change that.

[Misterwhisper]

Every weapon is either classified as melee or ranged, being improvised does not change that.

Yes, every "WEAPON" is either melee or ranged.
An improvised weapon is only an object until you attack with it, then it simply becomes an improvised weapon, not an improvised melee weapon or improvised ranged weapon.

As a matter of fact Improvised "melee" or "ranged" weapons do not exist at all.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You're absolutely wrong. :3

Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.
It's a weapon. Well, we knew that already. That's what the "weapon" in "improvised weapon" means.

But let's go with what JC says, you're still wrong. I'm going to enjoy this, because I've already discussed it with very talented people.
The condescension you're putting out is off putting. You cut the context of this line out of the rules to make your point.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
A shield doesn't bear any similarities to a weapon available on the equipment table. Your DM can allow you to treat it as a weapon, which is within his right, but there's no support by RAW for this.

Your argument depends on whether a DM has individually ruled that a shield constitutes as a weapon after you invest in the tavern brawler feat. There isn't support by RAW for this argument.

[Snowbluff]

The condescension you're putting out is off putting. You cut the context of this line out of the rules to make your point.

A shield doesn't bear any similarities to a weapon available on the equipment table. Your DM can allow you to treat it as a weapon, which is within his right, but there's no support by RAW for this.

Your argument depends on whether a DM has individually ruled that a shield constitutes as a weapon after you invest in the tavern brawler feat. There isn't support by RAW for this argument.

Here's some context. JC says it's a weapon when it's used as one. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/a-shield-isnt-a-weapon/)

Which is why that other guy is wrong. It is a weapon when JC says so.

[Misterwhisper]

Here's some context. JC says it's a weapon when it's used as one. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/a-shield-isnt-a-weapon/)

Which is why that other guy is wrong. It is a weapon when JC says so.

Yes, it is a weapon when you attack with it.

It is not one while you hold it, it is also not a "melee weapon." which is what is required for TWF.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, it is a weapon when you attack with it.

It is not one while you hold it, it is also not a "melee weapon." which is what is required for TWF.

I think you have persuaded me on this point: Dual Wielder probably does not allow you to shield bash.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Here's some context. JC says it's a weapon when it's used as one. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/a-shield-isnt-a-weapon/)

Which is why that other guy is wrong. It is a weapon when JC says so.

You're again ignoring the context, to top it off even, JC seemed to be just as confused as we are about what feature is letting you use any sort of bonus action attack with the shield.

Q: So now I can have Duelist +2 dmg, Shield +2 AC, AND a second IW attack? Yes/no?
JC:In this scenario, how are you getting a second attack with the shield?
Q:The shield is an IW off-hand. Attack #1 longsword, bonus action attack #2 with shield. In attack #1, Duelist is satisfied?
During my Longsword attack, is the Duelist condition satisfied? Then I make an off-hand IW attack on my bonus with shield.
JC: I'll ask my question differently: what game feature is letting you attack with the shield as a bonus action?

He determined that it would count as an improvised weapon. No one is arguing that, because put simply any object can be used as an improvised weapon as long as it follows the rules for one. Being considered an improvised weapon does not make you a melee weapon for the features that ask for one, unless the object you're using bears enough resemblance to one that your DM allows it. A shield does not, it is always an improvised weapon rather than a melee weapon by RAW. They are distinctly different.

[Snowbluff]

Yes, it is a weapon when you attack with it.

It is not one while you hold it, it is also not a "melee weapon." which is what is required for TWF.

Well, melee weapons are defined in real life as weapons used in close combat. You could make the leap that in DND that something that isn't expressly called as such isn't one in a table, but that's a stretch in terms of the language.

I wouldn't argue that someone beating one with a table leg isn't using using a melee weapon to beat him.

So now that we can TWF sword and board what to do with it.
You're again ignoring the context, to top it off even, JC seemed to be just as confused as we are about what feature is letting you use any sort of bonus action attack with the shield.


He determined that it would count as an improvised weapon. No one is arguing that, because put simply any object can be used as an improvised weapon as long as it follows the rules for one. Being considered an improvised weapon does not make you a melee weapon for the features that ask for one, unless the object you're using bears enough resemblance to one that your DM allows it. A shield does not, it is always an improvised weapon rather than a melee weapon by RAW. They are distinctly different.
I mean you're talking about people pulling quote outs of context, something I do to make it easier reading, but when I give you the full context you pull only one part out of context and ignore the only one that was pertinent.

An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise.

[KorvinStarmast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsXSmxXE82s&list=WL&index=2 For once, I had the time to watch from start to beginning. I usually don't. I prefer his written summaries.

Looking forward to his take on Trickery Clerics next week, to see how it compares to the discussion had on GiTP recently.

I am a big fan of the Alert feat.
And Lucky.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, melee weapons are defined in real life as weapons used in close combat. You could make the leap that in DND that something that isn't expressly called as such isn't one in a table, but that's a stretch in terms of the language.

I wouldn't argue that someone beating one with a table leg isn't using using a melee weapon to beat him.

So now that we can TWF sword and board what to do with it.
We don't care what real life defines a melee weapon as, we care about what the game terms define it as, because this is a game. A shield does not meet any description of being considered a melee weapon as far as the rules are concerned.

Now that I know your reasoning exists outside of the RAW, I can be just as dismissive to your points as you seem to be to ours.


I mean you're talking about people pulling quote outs of context, something I do to make it easier reading, but when I give you the full context you pull only one part out of context and ignore the only one that was pertinent.
This is a flat out lie, I cut the quote for the sake of easy reading but I didn't cut out the context. I presented the context in short form right after the quotation, whereas you completely cut it out with no reference to its source.

[Snowbluff]

For once, I had the time to watch from start to beginning. I usually don't. I prefer his written summaries.

Looking forward to his take on Trickery Clerics next week, to see how it compares to the discussion had on GiTP recently.
Well, I can imagine how this goes.

"and it uses your concentration and you get advantage to make what? an attack with poison damage, which you should know is one of the most commonly resisted damage types in the game."


We don't care what real life defines a melee weapon as, we care about what the game terms define it as, because this is a game. A shield does not meet any description of being considered a melee weapon as far as the rules are concerned.

Now that I know your reasoning exists outside of the RAW, I can be just as dismissive to your points as you seem to be to ours.

Provide the in game definition of melee weapon. Provide evidence to your claim. Show us in rules text what the game defines what a melee weapon is, like how it defines attack or improvised weapon. I'll wait, because I can't find it myself.

Wait I'm wrong.


The Weapons table shows the most Common Weapons used in the fantasy gaming worlds, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to Attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to Attack a target at a distance.

A melee weapon is something used to attack something within 5 feet of you.
Every weapon is either melee or ranged.
Shield is a weapon when being used to attack.

"when used as an improvised weapon"
It is used to attack within 5 feet of you.
Ergo it must be a melee wepaon.

[Zuras]

Well, melee weapons are defined in real life as weapons used in close combat. You could make the leap that in DND that something that isn't expressly called as such isn't one in a table, but that's a stretch in terms of the language.

I wouldn't argue that someone beating one with a table leg isn't using using a melee weapon to beat him.

So now that we can TWF sword and board what to do with it.
I mean you're talking about people pulling quote outs of context, something I do to make it easier reading, but when I give you the full context you pull only one part out of context and ignore the only one that was pertinent.


It’s one of those annoying semantic knots that 5e ties itself into when trying to stick with natural language, but a “Melee Weapon” refers to a Weapon on the PHB Weapon table listed under melee weapons.

A chair leg is not a Melee Weapon in this sense, it is an improvised weapon used to make a Melee Weapon Attack.

This distinction has caused many headaches in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

[KorvinStarmast]

A melee weapon is something used to attack something within 5 feet of you.
Every weapon is either melee or ranged.
Shield is a weapon when being used to attack.
It is used to attack within 5 feet of you.
Ergo it must be a melee weapon.
Except that it is listed in the armor table. I think you need to squeeze in "when used as an improvised weapon" into your reasoning chain (and yes, I was following the back and forth regarding the shield attack ...)

[Snowbluff]

It’s one of those annoying semantic knots that 5e ties itself into when trying to stick with natural language, but a “Melee Weapon” refers to a Weapon on the PHB Weapon table listed under melee weapons.

A chair leg is not a Melee Weapon in this sense, it is an improvised weapon used to make a Melee Weapon Attack.

This distinction has caused many headaches in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

I clinched it above, It's in the rules for weapon in PHB 146.


Except that it is listed in the armor table. I think you need to squeeze in "when used as an improvised weapon" into your reasoning chain (and yes, I was following the back and forth regarding the shield attack ...)

Whoever said armor can't be used as a weapon. :smallwink:
You're right I'll make the correction because that's what dictates the shiled is being used as a weapon.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Provide the in game definition of melee weapon. Provide evidence to your claim. Show us in rules text what the game defines what a melee weapon is, like how it defines attack or improvised weapon. I'll wait, because I can't find it myself.
The game rules,broadly, do follow the definition that you put forth.

Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.

However in the context of this debate, TWF requires that both weapons are considered melee weapons.

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.
An improvised weapon isn't considered a weapon except when you are attacking with it

JC: An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise.
no one is arguing this fact. You can't attack with your shield as a bonus action with TWF because it isn't considered a weapon while you are attacking with your main hand weapon.

[Misterwhisper]

The game rules,broadly, do follow the definition that you put forth.


However in the context of this debate, TWF requires that both weapons are considered melee weapons.

An improvised weapon isn't considered a weapon except when you are attacking with it

no one is arguing this fact. You can't attack with your shield as a bonus action with TWF because it isn't considered a weapon while you are attacking with your main hand weapon.

To add, you can attack with it as your main weapon, but is not a "melee weapon" it is only a "weapon" so it can't trigger TWF that way either.

[Snowbluff]

To add, you can attack with it as your main weapon, but is not a "melee weapon" it is only a "weapon" so it can't trigger TWF that way either.

See my above argument and read page 146 in the PHB. All weapons are either melee or ranged weapons. Melee weapons are the ones used to attack within 5 feet of you. I kinda ninjaed you there.

Do you have any other complaints, because what you've given me so far has been good. We can make this rock solid if we nitpick it more.

[MaxWilson]

I am a big fan of the Alert feat.
And Lucky.

I like Lucky, but I'm shocked that it was rated #1 in Treantmonk's video. It's broad, but the ceiling on its power is rather low.

I suspect Treantmonk is evaluating feats from the perspective of "which feat is most broadly-useful to an arbitrarily-chosen character," which yields a very different perspective from "which feats have the biggest impact on your potential power if you know how to use them?" For example, I really like the Mobile feat: it can be used to mitigate MADness for heavy armor wearers, increase Booming Blade damage, trivialize many combats (even moreso on difficult terrain), and increase melee efficiency (get into engagement range quicker, more easily switch targets as the situation develops). I like Polearm Master because it can be used to increase damage and can also be used similarly to Mobile by giving you an extra opportunity to Push enemies prone or away. I like Sentinel because it's useful for protecting others and also for protecting yourself (e.g. enables you to Dodge while still remaining a threat even if enemies Disengage away).

Lucky is... good, but never great. Its greatest impact comes in campaigns with lots of swingy die rolls, where you're warding off beholder Disintegration rays and negating crits from Nightwalkers and stuff, and if a die roll is ever the difference between life and death, that's not a good position to be in. Lucky works best as insurance against unlikely possibilities that you hope never occur--I've seen PCs who barely ever touched their Lucky dice, because smart play (or a too-easy DM? it's hard to know for sure) prevented them from ever landing in water hot enough that Lucky was worth spending.

[Misterwhisper]

See my above argument and read page 146 in the PHB. All weapons are either melee or ranged weapons. Melee weapons are the ones used to attack within 5 feet of you. I kinda ninjaed you there.

Do you have any other complaints, because what you've given me so far has been good. We can make this rock solid if we nitpick it more.

All weapon on the list are either melee or ranged.
Everything else is improvised, thus why improvised weapons are not melee or ranged, only improvised.

This is why when you try to bash someone with a crossbow you are not making a melee weapon attack, you are just making an attack.
An improvised weapon does not count as either ranged or melee.

If I have archery style and club you with a Longbow I do not get my +2 to hit because I am no longer using a "ranged weapon" I am now using an improvised weapon, also I can't use GWM because despite a longbow having the "heavy" trait it does not have it anymore when used as an improvised weapons.

Improvised weapons have no traits at all: not melee, not ranged, not light, not versatile, nothing.

They are simple improvised weapons, nothing more.

[Snowbluff]

Well you're going to have to provide a citation. Page 146 of the PHB clearly sides with me. Weapons have a defined category based on how you use them, and improvised weapons ARE weapons when you are attacking with them, which means they have a category.

Some more JC (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/18/does-using-an-improvised-weapon-in-certain-ways-impart-properties-to-it/). Unless a rule says so, the weapon has no properties. Fortunately, the rules say they must have a category because all weapons do.

I've been scouring the rulings and this is very much not intended, but that doesn't make it not RAW. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/04/20/dual-wielder-and-shield/)

[Misterwhisper]

Well you're going to have to provide a citation. Page 146 of the PHB clearly sides with me. Weapons have a defined category based on how you use them, and improvised weapons ARE weapons when you are attacking with them, which means they have a category.

No, the PHB does not side with you.

Please point out anywhere where it says that an improvised weapon is a "melee weapon"

All weapons on the list of weapons must be either melee or ranged.

An improvised weapon is its own category, an improvised weapon is an improvised weapon, not melee and not ranged.

I will go ahead and tell you it doesn't, say what you think anywhere.

I specifically argued with JC about this for 3 days about the fact that I should be able to use GWM with an improvised melee attack with a longbow, because it is a melee attack with a weapon with the heavy trait.

Needless to say, it does not make it a melee weapon, it is still just an improvised weapon.

[Snowbluff]

No, the PHB does not side with you.

Please point out anywhere where it says that an improvised weapon is a "melee weapon"

All weapons on the list of weapons must be either melee or ranged.

An improvised weapon is its own category, an improvised weapon is an improvised weapon, not melee and not ranged.

I will go ahead and tell you it doesn't, say what you think anywhere.

I specifically argued with JC about this for 3 days about the fact that I should be able to use GWM with an improvised melee attack with a longbow, because it is a melee attack with a weapon with the heavy trait.

Needless to say, it does not make it a melee weapon, it is still just an improvised weapon.

Citation please. We need to have the source to contradict the statement "all weapons are either ranged or melee." You've even taken a step back, because we know it's not just a improvised "weapon" but a weapon.

Also, I think your problem is easy. I read the tweet about this a while. The improvised weapon has no traits (ie, reach, heavy), so it can't be heavy. When you make an attack with it, it is a traitless weapon of the category based on how it's used.

[Misterwhisper]

Citation please. We need to have the source to contradict the statement "all weapons are either ranged or melee." You've even taken a step back, because we know it's not just a improvised "weapon" but a weapon.

Also, I think your problem is easy. I read the tweet about this a while. The improvised weapon has no traits (ie, reach, heavy), so it can't be heavy. When you make an attack with it, it is a traitless weapon of the category based on how it's used.

The idea that all weapons are either melee or ranged is a designation for specific weapons listed in the charts of the book.

It is not a designation for all items and attacks, that is why unarmed strike is not a melee weapon.

Improvised weapons are the specific exception to the general rule.

[Snowbluff]

The idea that all weapons are either melee or ranged is a designation for specific weapons listed in the charts of the book.

It is not a designation for all items and attacks, that is why unarmed strike is not a melee weapon.

Improvised weapons are the specific exception to the general rule.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

And the improvised weapon rules make no such distinction.

[Genoin]

The PHB says ALL weapons are melee weapons or ranged weapons. It does not limit itself to the listed weapons. Every weapon, regular or improvised, is melee or ranged. Citation has already been provided to confirm this. If you want to dispute it at this point, you need a direct citation that says improvised weapons are NOT melee or ranged.

[dejarnjc]

Any kind soul want to break the video down into text? I really hate watching videos on subjects where I feel text is much more effective medium.

[JackPhoenix]

This is why when you try to bash someone with a crossbow you are not making a melee weapon attack, you are just making an attack.

Um... nope. You're making melee weapon attack (because it's not a spell nor ranged attack), but you're not making an attack with melee weapon.


We need to have the source to contradict the statement "all weapons are either ranged or melee." You've even taken a step back, because we know it's not just a improvised "weapon" but a weapon.

Natural weapons aren't melee or ranged weapons either. They are their own category, but not mentioned in the PHB.

[Misterwhisper]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/18/can-improvised-weapons-qualify-as-one-handed-weapons-for-the-purposes-of-the-dual-wielder-feat/

Also:

An improvised weapon belongs to none of the game's weapon categories, unless the DM decides otherwise. For more information on the DM's role, see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147). #DnD
Michel Indeherberge
@MichelIDH
Replying to @JeremyECrawford
What about improvised weapons?

I will even add:

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
Improvised weapons are indeed in a category (English). They are not in one of the game’s weapon categories, however, unless the DM says they are (rule).

[ChiefBigFeather]

Darkvision gives you a -5 penalty to Perception in the dark

Where can I find this ruling? The only thing I can find in the rules is that dark vision treats darkness as dimly lit, explicitly as lightly obscured (though without color vision). This should mean disadvantage shouldn't it?

[MaxWilson]

Where can I find this ruling? The only thing I can find in the rules is that dark vision treats darkness as dimly lit, explicitly as lightly obscured (though without color vision). This should mean disadvantage shouldn't it?

Yes. Disadvantage translates to -5 to your passive ability check score (only). Stealth is normally opposed by passive perception. On an active ability check, such as a monster taking the Search action to spot hidden threats, it would just be disadvantage instead of -5.

[Snowbluff]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/18/can-improvised-weapons-qualify-as-one-handed-weapons-for-the-purposes-of-the-dual-wielder-feat/

Also:

An improvised weapon belongs to none of the game's weapon categories, unless the DM decides otherwise. For more information on the DM's role, see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147). #DnD
Michel Indeherberge
@MichelIDH
Replying to @JeremyECrawford
What about improvised weapons?

I will even add:

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
Improvised weapons are indeed in a category (English). They are not in one of the game’s weapon categories, however, unless the DM says they are (rule).
It's says it's not "intended to," making this RAI. Also, since the rules clearly state the contrary to the rules text it doesn't hold water in RAW if it's RAI.

[Misterwhisper]

It's says it's not "intended to," making this RAI. Also, since the rules clearly state the contrary to the rules text it doesn't hold water in RAW if it's RAI.

The rules clearly state that TWF has to be done with "MELEE WEAPONS"
The head designer of the entire system has specifically said that, "Improvised weapons do not belong to any category."
So a shield, used as an improvised weapon is NOT A MELEE WEAPON.
You CAN NOT two weapon fight with a shield, unless the DM rules that he wants it to work otherwise.
JC has said that Dual Wielder the feat is not intended to give the +1 AC when using a shield, but the DM can rule otherwise.

You wanted citation, I gave it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's says it's not "intended to," making this RAI. Also, since the rules clearly state the contrary to the rules text it doesn't hold water in RAW if it's RAI.

And the RAW is that they are outside of the category of melee weapons, since they are defined specifically as "improvised weapons".

And once again, we you're ignoring context in this case.

By RAW a shield is not considered an improvised weapon unless you are attacking with it. Dual Wielder requires you to be wielding weapons (plural) for it's benefits. You're only wielding one weapon no matter how you choose to interpret improvised weapons. This is of course barring the exception that your DM can allow an improvised weapon that is similar enough to an existing weapon to function as one, which is what JC says in this tweet.

And since improvised weapons lack the light property, requiring you to use Dual Wielder for TWF (which again, requires you to be wielding multiple weapons) you can't use them for TWF to begin with.

[Foxhound438]

Dual wielder does not work with a shield:

A shield is only an improvised weapon when you make an attack with it, so you do not get the +1 AC from the feat
You can not "draw" it because you doff shields as an action so that part of the feat does not work.
You can also not attack with it because it is not a "one handed melee weapon" it is not a weapon at all until you attack with it, even then it is not a "melee weapon"

I think you have persuaded me on this point: Dual Wielder probably does not allow you to shield bash.

My initial reaction to him talking about a shield in 2wf was one of disgust, but then I remembered that I'm a fan, advocate of, and once a user of the one-handed quarterstaff helicopter spin style. If you think about it, it's really way less outrageous to allow than one-handed polearm master (which gets to add a better modifier to damage thanks to dueling fighting style), and the game designers apparently didn't think that was so bad that it needed to be patched out in the same errata that was on PAM, so it's probably fine.

That said, it's kind of funny if a dual wielder is better at bashing with a shield than a master of shields is.



Looking forward to his take on Trickery Clerics next week, to see how it compares to the discussion had on GiTP recently.

I also look forward to this, mostly because I'm positive that it will take a divine intervention of a good argument to convince me that it's really "the best". I love clerics and think the base class already takes you to a great place in terms of power, but I would really need to see this to believe that it's better than light clerics short rest AOE damage with fireballs in the spell list, or grave's option to neutralize crits.

[Snowbluff]

The rules clearly state that TWF has to be done with "MELEE WEAPONS"
The head designer of the entire system has specifically said that, "Improvised weapons do not belong to any category."
So a shield, used as an improvised weapon is NOT A MELEE WEAPON.
You CAN NOT two weapon fight with a shield, unless the DM rules that he wants it to work otherwise.
JC has said that Dual Wielder the feat is not intended to give the +1 AC when using a shield, but the DM can rule otherwise.

You wanted citation, I gave it.
He also wrote that all weapons have X traits and he's directly contradicting himself, and he doesn't correct this mistake in the errata as far as I can tell.
More likely he forgot.

And the RAW is that they are outside of the category of melee weapons, since they are defined specifically as "improvised weapons".

And once again, we you're ignoring context in this case.

By RAW a shield is not considered an improvised weapon unless you are attacking with it. Dual Wielder requires you to be wielding weapons (plural) for it's benefits. You're only wielding one weapon no matter how you choose to interpret improvised weapons. This is of course barring the exception that your DM can allow an improvised weapon that is similar enough to an existing weapon to function as one, which is what JC says in this tweet.

And since improvised weapons lack the light property, requiring you to use Dual Wielder for TWF (which again, requires you to be wielding multiple weapons) you can't use them for TWF to begin with.

Well, to wit.
Shield is not a weapon.
Improvised Weapon (Shield) ISN'T A WEAPON (plain english) if an only if you say JC says so.
-> So it's a weapon when attacking.
-> So when you're attacking it's the second weapon you're holding.

[Pleh]

I do find it rather preposterous that, for example, a barbarian can't rip a pair of table legs (or any other kind of legs) and use Dual Wielder just because they are "improvised weapons" and not "melee weapons" when RAW also explicitly says that Table Legs are approximately Clubs.

It just kind of breaks disbelief that you can't dual wield improvised weapons.

I mean, are we going to say you can't use Dual Wielder with Unarmed Strikes? Like, I can see the legal argument (UAS is listed on the Melee Weapon table, but you don't exactly wield your hands in... your hands), but it just seems so unfun and unnecessary.

I feel like I'd rule it at my table this way: if you use Dual Wielder to shield bash, you lose the shield's AC bonus until the start of your next turn and instead get the +1 AC from Dual Wielder. Effectively, you are treating it as a weapon instead of a shield for this round.

[MaxWilson]

I do find it rather preposterous that, for example, a barbarian can't rip a pair of table legs (or any other kind of legs) and use Dual Wielder just because they are "improvised weapons" and not "melee weapons" when RAW also explicitly says that Table Legs are approximately Clubs.

I don't think anyone is making this argument here. But there are people here who would argue that you can't dual-wield something that doesn't approximate a weapon on the melee weapons table, e.g. you can't dual-wield chairs.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well, to wit.
Shield is not a weapon.
Improvised Weapon (Shield) ISN'T A WEAPON (plain english) if an only if you say JC says so.
-> So it's a weapon when attacking.
-> So when you're attacking it's the second weapon you're holding.
That's the problem, since it doesn't qualify as a weapon unless you're attacking with it (RAW and RAI, once again no one is arguing this) it doesn't qualify as wielding a weapon for Dual Wielder (Unless your DM rules that it can be used this way, which again is within their right). Since it doesn't qualify as wielding a weapon for Dual Wielder, it doesn't qualify for TWF even without Dual Wielder because it lacks the light property.

It needs Dual Wielder to be used with TWF, but it doesn't meet the criteria for being considered a weapon in the context that Dual Wielder requires. Dual Wielder asks that you are wielding multiple weapons, you are not wielding multiple weapons. This is RAW.


I do find it rather preposterous that, for example, a barbarian can't rip a pair of table legs (or any other kind of legs) and use Dual Wielder just because they are "improvised weapons" and not "melee weapons" when RAW also explicitly says that Table Legs are approximately Clubs.

It just kind of breaks disbelief that you can't dual wield improvised weapons.

I mean, are we going to say you can't use Dual Wielder with Unarmed Strikes? Like, I can see the legal argument (UAS is listed on the Melee Weapon table, but you don't exactly wield your hands in... your hands), but it just seems so unfun and unnecessary.

I feel like I'd rule it at my table this way: if you use Dual Wielder to shield bash, you lose the shield's AC bonus until the start of your next turn and instead get the +1 AC from Dual Wielder. Effectively, you are treating it as a weapon instead of a shield for this round.
On the first point, it's up to your DM's discretion in the first place that a table leg would be a suitable replacement for a club. On the Unarmed Strikes part, they were errata'd off the weapon table for a reason. And finally on the third point, even though that seems like a fine ruling, it goes against the RAW of Improvised Weapon rules.

My argument isn't that you shouldn't treat them as weapons, it's within your right to do so, my argument is that if you do RAW doesn't support this for Shields since they bear no resemblance to a weapon. Do what you want at your table.

[Snowbluff]

I do find it rather preposterous that, for example, a barbarian can't rip a pair of table legs (or any other kind of legs) and use Dual Wielder just because they are "improvised weapons" and not "melee weapons" when RAW also explicitly says that Table Legs are approximately Clubs.

It just kind of breaks disbelief that you can't dual wield improvised weapons.

I mean, are we going to say you can't use Dual Wielder with Unarmed Strikes? Like, I can see the legal argument (UAS is listed on the Melee Weapon table, but you don't exactly wield your hands in... your hands), but it just seems so unfun and unnecessary. I agree it's pretty obnoxious. It's rather circuitous when you throw JC in the mix. Otherwise they're just weapons.

Unarmed Strikes were REMOVED from the weapon table which just bewilders me.


That's the problem, since it doesn't qualify as a weapon unless you're attacking with it (RAW and RAI, once again no one is arguing this) it doesn't qualify as wielding a weapon for Dual Wielder (Unless your DM rules that it can be used this way, which again is within their right). Since it doesn't qualify as wielding a weapon for Dual Wielder, it doesn't qualify for TWF even without Dual Wielder because it lacks the light property.

It needs Dual Wielder to be used with TWF, but it doesn't meet the criteria for being considered a weapon in the context that Dual Wielder requires. Dual Wielder asks that you are wielding multiple weapons, you are not wielding multiple weapons. This is RAW.


When you are attacking, it's a weapon, full stop. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666693440600600576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E666693440600600576&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F1 1%2F18%2Fa-shield-isnt-a-weapon%2F)
Since you're attacking the TWF rule is checked.
Since it's a weapon, because you are attacking, you are holding 2 weapons (sans light from Dual Wielder, during this instance there are 2 weapons) when you check TWF.

TWF isn't a state it's a triggered effected.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Since you're attacking the TWF rule is checked.
Since it's a weapon, because you are attacking, you are holding 2 weapons when you check TWF.

TWF isn't a state it's a triggered effected.
However the prerequisite for the benefits of Dual Wielder is that you are wielding multiple weapons, which is a state.

Also... once again, you are ignoring the context. It's only a weapon while attacking, a shield is explicitly not a weapon otherwise. It says as much in the tweet you linked.

[Misterwhisper]

When you are attacking, it's a weapon, full stop. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666693440600600576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E666693440600600576&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2015%2F1 1%2F18%2Fa-shield-isnt-a-weapon%2F)
Since you're attacking the TWF rule is checked.
Since it's a weapon, because you are attacking, you are holding 2 weapons when you check TWF.

TWF isn't a state it's a triggered effected.

Yes, when you attack it is a weapon. Nobody has said otherwise.
It is not a melee weapon though, as has been stated and quoted from multiple places.

Twf says “melee weapon” not “weapon”

You attack with your sword/axe/dagger/whatever.
You want to twf.
Check, have you made an attack with a melee weapon?
Yes.
You may now make an attack with a bonus action with another melee weapon.
Check, do you have another melee weapon?
No, you have an object that could be used to make an improvised weapon attack.
It is not a weapon until you attack, AND even if you could it is not a melee weapon even then.

The reverse also applies if you attack first with the shield as an improvised weapon.
Check, did you make an attack with a “melee weapon”
No, you made an attack with an improvised weapon.
No TWF attack.

[Snowbluff]

It's plainly a melee weapon. The tweet doesn't produce actionable information to contradict this.
That is to say, one place that's wrong and plainly ignores the text of the rules.
IE he forgot what the rules were.
If the rulings contradict the book, it's not a rule. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etwe etembed%7Ctwterm%5E894971396018667520&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2017%2F0 9%2F06%2Fdoes-something-become-raw-simply-because-you-say-it-on-twitter%2F)


However the prerequisite for the benefits of Dual Wielder is that you are wielding multiple weapons, which is a state.

Also... once again, you are ignoring the context. It's only a weapon while attacking, a shield is explicitly not a weapon otherwise. It says as much in the tweet you linked.

The state is present during the trigger, ergo the trigger occurs.

So if you're attacking it's a weapon.

So the state when attacking is you have two weapons.

This is when TWF is checked.

I'm not skipping the context, I'm stating it plainly. I said it was a weapon when attacking for the sake of the argument.
You're being misleading when you say otherwise.

[JackPhoenix]

I mean, are we going to say you can't use Dual Wielder with Unarmed Strikes? Like, I can see the legal argument (UAS is listed on the Melee Weapon table, but you don't exactly wield your hands in... your hands), but it just seems so unfun and unnecessary.

You can't use TWF with unarmed strikes, as they are not melee weapons, and not in the weapon table since the very first PHB errata.


However the prerequisite for the benefits of Dual Wielder is that you are wielding multiple weapons, which is a state.

Also... once again, you are ignoring the context. It's only a weapon while attacking, a shield is explicitly not a weapon otherwise. It says as much in the tweet you linked.

You can throw your weapon away and it still qualifies you for TWF bonus attack.

However, improvised weapon is still not a melee weapon, so it doesn't qualify for TWF. You can't dual wield ranged weapons either. Or natural weapons.

[RedMage125]

I don't usually play shield-using melee characters, and I almost never use dual wielders, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. That is, I have no personal investiture whatsoever, and am therefore fairly objective here. Also, I'm a pretty big stickler for RAW for forum discussions, as many of you know. Not that I think RAW is somehow the "right" way to play (because I believe this gam thrives on house rules), but for the purposes of Rule Discussions on the forums, only RAW can be accepted as "true", because we all have access to the same printed rules sources.

5th edition has complicated this at times, because of the designers' emphasis on "rulings not rules". So, sometimes RAW leaves us with little gaps of "it depends on your DM, but here is a logically coherent ruling on the matter".

That said, having reviewed what both sides of this argument are saying, I am inclined to agree with Snowbluff. What Pleh just said pertains a lot to the "rulings" of this, as well (especially in regards to the AC bonus from the shield, because I was thinking the exact same thing in those regards). But I'm actually pretty convinced by Snowbluff's argument alone.

Here's the logic flow of how this adds up:
Is a shield a weapon? No.
Can a shield be used to make a "shield bash"? Yes, it becomes an Improvised Weapon.
Is an Improvised Weapon a "weapon"? This seems to be the bone of contention. But I find it pedantic and absurd to say "no"*. If some Improvised Weapons are similar enough to weapons to benefit from Proficiency** (table leg = club, broken bottle = dagger, for example), then it's fair to say that they are "weapons". One is STILL making a "melee attack" with something that has "weapon" in the name, right? Ergo, melee weapon. "Melee Attack" IS language that is used (PHB, 148), and it is an Improvised Weapon.
Has the character used the Attack action to make a melee attack with a weapon? Yes. Therefore, TWF (and Dual Wielder, since the Shield is not "light") bonus action becomes available.

And I agree with Pleh, that the character would lose the +2 AC bonus from the shield until the start of their next turn, and instead gain the +1 from Dual Wielder, because at that time, your off-hand is holding an "improvised weapon" and not a "shield".***

Mind you, I DO acknowledge that there is some ambiguity in the RAW here. Namely the phrase "similar to an actual weapon, and can be treated as such". Language like "can be", without a specific set of criteria is poison for RAW-nitpicking, Grammar Nazi, Anal Retentive discussions about distinctions like this one. Which is why I bring up the point about "rules vis rulings". I think the rules are clear enough to make a ruling, but I can see why some people would argue to the contrary.

*And yet, that is the core of many RAW discussions. Even though it makes sense, we adhere to the -sometimes admittedly asinine- distinctions of the text. Still, I think in this instance there's more to it than that.
**It should be noted that a shield bears ZERO resemblance to any other kind of weapon, and a character making a shield bash would certainly not be getting their proficiency bonus to the attack if I was their DM. MAYBE if they also had the Shield Master feat, but I acknowledge that such would be a ruling on my part, and not actual RAW.
***So, philosophically, I guess the answer to "when is a shield not a shield?" is "when it's an improvised weapon". Lol.

[Xetheral]

However the prerequisite for the benefits of Dual Wielder is that you are wielding multiple weapons, which is a state.

Dual Wielder states: "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light." In other words, the feat modifies TWF. It doesn't have a state prerequisite of its own.

As I interpret the rules, a character with DW can attack with a shield as an improvised weapon while wielding a different one-handed weapon in their other hand. During the attack, the character is wielding two weapons that (thanks to DW) qualify for TWF. They thus qualify to make an attack with the one-handed weapon as a bonus action. If they have Extra Attack they can make follow-up attacks with either the shield (as an improvised weapon) or the one-handed weapon.

Neither "Melee" nor "One-Handed" are on the list of "Weapon Properties", so I treat them as descriptive rather than technical terms. A shield used in one hand as an improvised weapon easily falls into the ambit of both words.

[JackPhoenix]

One is STILL making a "melee attack" with something that has "weapon" in the name, right? Ergo, melee weapon. "Melee Attack" IS language that is used (PHB, 148), and it is an Improvised Weapon.

You can make melee attacks (using improvised weapon rules) with ranged weapons. That doesn't magically turn them into melee weapons, though.

[JellyPooga]

Where can I find this ruling? The only thing I can find in the rules is that dark vision treats darkness as dimly lit, explicitly as lightly obscured (though without color vision). This should mean disadvantage shouldn't it?

Sorry, my mistake; I forgot to mention that I was referring to Passive Perception. As you say, it's Disadvantage for regular Perception checks. I make such frequent use of Passive Perception that I tend to think of it as the default and only use rolling for exceptional cases; for most Perception checks, using Passive seems more natural, easier and better for story telling (I've had too many experiences of Players getting paranoid after rolling low on asked for Perception checks that it defeats the purpose of having anything hidden).

[sophontteks]

I don't usually play shield-using melee characters, and I almost never use dual wielders, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. That is, I have no personal investiture whatsoever, and am therefore fairly objective here. Also, I'm a pretty big stickler for RAW for forum discussions, as many of you know. Not that I think RAW is somehow the "right" way to play (because I believe this gam thrives on house rules), but for the purposes of Rule Discussions on the forums, only RAW can be accepted as "true", because we all have access to the same printed rules sources.

5th edition has complicated this at times, because of the designers' emphasis on "rulings not rules". So, sometimes RAW leaves us with little gaps of "it depends on your DM, but here is a logically coherent ruling on the matter".

That said, having reviewed what both sides of this argument are saying, I am inclined to agree with Snowbluff. What Pleh just said pertains a lot to the "rulings" of this, as well (especially in regards to the AC bonus from the shield, because I was thinking the exact same thing in those regards). But I'm actually pretty convinced by Snowbluff's argument alone.

Here's the logic flow of how this adds up:
Is a shield a weapon? No.
Can a shield be used to make a "shield bash"? Yes, it becomes an Improvised Weapon.
Is an Improvised Weapon a "weapon"? This seems to be the bone of contention. But I find it pedantic and absurd to say "no"*. If some Improvised Weapons are similar enough to weapons to benefit from Proficiency** (table leg = club, broken bottle = dagger, for example), then it's fair to say that they are "weapons". One is STILL making a "melee attack" with something that has "weapon" in the name, right? Ergo, melee weapon. "Melee Attack" IS language that is used (PHB, 148), and it is an Improvised Weapon.
Has the character used the Attack action to make a melee attack with a weapon? Yes. Therefore, TWF (and Dual Wielder, since the Shield is not "light") bonus action becomes available.

And I agree with Pleh, that the character would lose the +2 AC bonus from the shield until the start of their next turn, and instead gain the +1 from Dual Wielder, because at that time, your off-hand is holding an "improvised weapon" and not a "shield".***

Mind you, I DO acknowledge that there is some ambiguity in the RAW here. Namely the phrase "similar to an actual weapon, and can be treated as such". Language like "can be", without a specific set of criteria is poison for RAW-nitpicking, Grammar Nazi, Anal Retentive discussions about distinctions like this one. Which is why I bring up the point about "rules vis rulings". I think the rules are clear enough to make a ruling, but I can see why some people would argue to the contrary.

*And yet, that is the core of many RAW discussions. Even though it makes sense, we adhere to the -sometimes admittedly asinine- distinctions of the text. Still, I think in this instance there's more to it than that.
**It should be noted that a shield bears ZERO resemblance to any other kind of weapon, and a character making a shield bash would certainly not be getting their proficiency bonus to the attack if I was their DM. MAYBE if they also had the Shield Master feat, but I acknowledge that such would be a ruling on my part, and not actual RAW.
***So, philosophically, I guess the answer to "when is a shield not a shield?" is "when it's an improvised weapon". Lol.
Improvised weapons are only weapons while you are attacking, not for the turn. A shield is always a shield. The rules are clear enough that you can't change an object into a weapon just because you attacked with it.

This is important because tavern brawlers actually can attack with their shield and doing so doesn't suddenly make the AC bonus vanish. That would be terrible!

Why would a tavern brawler attack with his shield?
Because he wants to grapple with his other hand.

[Misterwhisper]

I don't usually play shield-using melee characters, and I almost never use dual wielders, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. That is, I have no personal investiture whatsoever, and am therefore fairly objective here. Also, I'm a pretty big stickler for RAW for forum discussions, as many of you know. Not that I think RAW is somehow the "right" way to play (because I believe this gam thrives on house rules), but for the purposes of Rule Discussions on the forums, only RAW can be accepted as "true", because we all have access to the same printed rules sources.

5th edition has complicated this at times, because of the designers' emphasis on "rulings not rules". So, sometimes RAW leaves us with little gaps of "it depends on your DM, but here is a logically coherent ruling on the matter".

That said, having reviewed what both sides of this argument are saying, I am inclined to agree with Snowbluff. What Pleh just said pertains a lot to the "rulings" of this, as well (especially in regards to the AC bonus from the shield, because I was thinking the exact same thing in those regards). But I'm actually pretty convinced by Snowbluff's argument alone.

Here's the logic flow of how this adds up:
Is a shield a weapon? No.
Can a shield be used to make a "shield bash"? Yes, it becomes an Improvised Weapon.
Is an Improvised Weapon a "weapon"? This seems to be the bone of contention. But I find it pedantic and absurd to say "no"*. If some Improvised Weapons are similar enough to weapons to benefit from Proficiency** (table leg = club, broken bottle = dagger, for example), then it's fair to say that they are "weapons". One is STILL making a "melee attack" with something that has "weapon" in the name, right? Ergo, melee weapon. "Melee Attack" IS language that is used (PHB, 148), and it is an Improvised Weapon.
Has the character used the Attack action to make a melee attack with a weapon? Yes. Therefore, TWF (and Dual Wielder, since the Shield is not "light") bonus action becomes available.

And I agree with Pleh, that the character would lose the +2 AC bonus from the shield until the start of their next turn, and instead gain the +1 from Dual Wielder, because at that time, your off-hand is holding an "improvised weapon" and not a "shield".***

Mind you, I DO acknowledge that there is some ambiguity in the RAW here. Namely the phrase "similar to an actual weapon, and can be treated as such". Language like "can be", without a specific set of criteria is poison for RAW-nitpicking, Grammar Nazi, Anal Retentive discussions about distinctions like this one. Which is why I bring up the point about "rules vis rulings". I think the rules are clear enough to make a ruling, but I can see why some people would argue to the contrary.

*And yet, that is the core of many RAW discussions. Even though it makes sense, we adhere to the -sometimes admittedly asinine- distinctions of the text. Still, I think in this instance there's more to it than that.
**It should be noted that a shield bears ZERO resemblance to any other kind of weapon, and a character making a shield bash would certainly not be getting their proficiency bonus to the attack if I was their DM. MAYBE if they also had the Shield Master feat, but I acknowledge that such would be a ruling on my part, and not actual RAW.
***So, philosophically, I guess the answer to "when is a shield not a shield?" is "when it's an improvised weapon". Lol.

If an improvised weapon is a weapon or not has never been th point of contention.

An improvised weapon is a weapon when it is used, everyone agrees with that.

However it is NOT a “melee weapon”
This is not RAI, JC has stated, I have linked, and quoted twice where it was posted.

An improvised weapon is neither melee or ranged, it has no distinctions other than improvised weapon.

To TWF, you have to attack with a Melee Weapon.
A shield, even if improvised, even with dual wielder, is not a “melee weapon”

[Snowbluff]

However it is NOT a “melee weapon”
This is not RAI, JC has stated, I have linked, and quoted twice where it was posted.


This is invalid. JC is not RAW. He provides clarifications. If it contradicts with the rules we can't accept it. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/06/does-something-become-raw-simply-because-you-say-it-on-twitter/)

[RedMage125]

My argument isn't that you shouldn't treat them as weapons, it's within your right to do so, my argument is that if you do RAW doesn't support this for Shields since they bear no resemblance to a weapon. Do what you want at your table.

So...just to clarify, if someone was wielding a table leg and a dagger, do you see THAT as valid for TWF by RAW? Just to clarify your stance.


However the prerequisite for the benefits of Dual Wielder is that you are wielding multiple weapons, which is a state.

Also... once again, you are ignoring the context. It's only a weapon while attacking, a shield is explicitly not a weapon otherwise. It says as much in the tweet you linked.

Where I think you have gone off the rail, here, is that you're not putting those two together. or, you are somehow equating the "state" as something that is defined at the start of the character's turn, and somehow immutable.

Look, start of the round:
Is the character wielding two weapons? Quite clearly, no. She is wielding a sword and a shield.

The character attacks with a "shield bash", using the shield as a Improvised Weapon to make a Melee Attack. Now the character is wielding a sword in one hand, and an Improvised Weapon in the other. To wit, the character is now in the state prescribed by Dual Wielder. So she gets the +1 bonus to AC, but should lose the +2 bonus to AC from the shield, as it is now an Improvised Weapon. As you pointed out, the shield does NOT resemble any other weapon, which only means no proficiency bonus to that attack. No different than a character using an Improvised Weapon that most closesly resembled a weapon she was not proficient in.

So, basically once you attack with it, it becomes an Improvised Weapon, and no longer a "shield". Incidentally, this would also disqualify this character from benefitting from the Dueling Fighting Style for damage with the sword, as the shield is now a "weapon".

Make sense?

By the way, this is a REALLY inferior option. For all the things that one gives up to make this happen, it would seem more efficient to use Dueling Style to get more damage with the sword and keep the net "+1" to AC that one would lose doing this option, OR just get a proper second weapon that does more damage, and is actually proficient in.

Yes, when you attack it is a weapon. Nobody has said otherwise.
It is not a melee weapon though, as has been stated and quoted from multiple places.

Twf says “melee weapon” not “weapon”

You attack with your sword/axe/dagger/whatever.
You want to twf.
Check, have you made an attack with a melee weapon?
Yes.
You may now make an attack with a bonus action with another melee weapon.
Check, do you have another melee weapon?
No, you have an object that could be used to make an improvised weapon attack.
It is not a weapon until you attack, AND even if you could it is not a melee weapon even then.

The reverse also applies if you attack first with the shield as an improvised weapon.
Check, did you make an attack with a “melee weapon”
No, you made an attack with an improvised weapon.
No TWF attack.

Wait...are you assuming that only the weapons that appear on the table under the heading "melee weapon" can count as a "melee weapon" by RAW?

That's silly. PHB, pg 146 says that "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D...Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you.". That's the RAW definition of a "melee weapon". The table is only showing more common weapons.

You acknowledged that an "Improvised Weapon" is a "weapon". Well, any "weapon", used to attack a target within 5 feet is a "melee weapon", by the definition of the RAW. Exception is SPECIFIC (and Specific>General) for using a Ranged Weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a melee attack. Need proof? A Dart does the same damage in melee as it does when thrown, and it is listed as a "Ranged Weapon", rather than a "melee weapon with Thrown property" like javelins, light hammers, etc.

[Misterwhisper]

This is invalid. JC is not RAW. He provides clarifications. If it contradicts with the rules we can't accept it. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etwe etembed%7Ctwterm%5E894971396018667520&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sageadvice.eu%2F2017%2F0 9%2F06%2Fdoes-something-become-raw-simply-because-you-say-it-on-twitter%2F)

It doesn’t contradict the rules because nowhere has it ever said that improvised weapons are melee weapons.

Only you have said that.

You are wrong, in print, in sage advice, and straight from the head designer.

If you continue to argue about it I will flag you for trolling.

[sophontteks]

So...just to clarify, if someone was wielding a table leg and a dagger, do you see THAT as valid for TWF by RAW? Just to clarify your stance.



Where I think you have gone off the rail, here, is that you're not putting those two together. or, you are somehow equating the "state" as something that is defined at the start of the character's turn, and somehow immutable.

Look, start of the round:
Is the character wielding two weapons? Quite clearly, no. She is wielding a sword and a shield.

The character attacks with a "shield bash", using the shield as a Improvised Weapon to make a Melee Attack. Now the character is wielding a sword in one hand, and an Improvised Weapon in the other. To wit, the character is now in the state prescribed by Dual Wielder. So she gets the +1 bonus to AC, but should lose the +2 bonus to AC from the shield, as it is now an Improvised Weapon. As you pointed out, the shield does NOT resemble any other weapon, which only means no proficiency bonus to that attack. No different than a character using an Improvised Weapon that most closesly resembled a weapon she was not proficient in.

So, basically once you attack with it, it becomes an Improvised Weapon, and no longer a "shield". Incidentally, this would also disqualify this character from benefitting from the Dueling Fighting Style for damage with the sword, as the shield is now a "weapon".

Make sense?

By the way, this is a REALLY inferior option. For all the things that one gives up to make this happen, it would seem more efficient to use Dueling Style to get more damage with the sword and keep the net "+1" to AC that one would lose doing this option, OR just get a proper second weapon that does more damage, and is actually proficient in.


Wait...are you assuming that only the weapons that appear on the table under the heading "melee weapon" can count as a "melee weapon" by RAW?

That's silly. PHB, pg 146 says that "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D...Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you.". That's the RAW definition of a "melee weapon". The table is only showing more common weapons.

You acknowledged that an "Improvised Weapon" is a "weapon". Well, any "weapon", used to attack a target within 5 feet is a "melee weapon", by the definition of the RAW. Exception is SPECIFIC (and Specific>General) for using a Ranged Weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a melee attack. Need proof? A Dart does the same damage in melee as it does when thrown, and it is listed as a "Ranged Weapon", rather than a "melee weapon with Thrown property" like javelins, light hammers, etc.

The shield is only a weapon during your attack. Not for the turn. There is no losing and gaining of AC. Straight up dual wield feat does not work with improvised weapons. The rules are very specific here and its done to prevent abuse where players are using effects that require weapons on things that arent weapons.

Any weapon used within 5 feet is making a "melee weapon attack." They are not transformed into melee weapons. A bow is always a ranged weapon. A dagger is always a melee weapon. You are confusing types of attacks with object types.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You can throw your weapon away and it still qualifies you for TWF bonus attack.
As far as TWF goes, it gives specific permission to thrown weapons to be used in this way. If you mean using a free action to drop a weapon and still qualify, it depends entirely on the context of the situation and when you actually drop the weapon.

Dual Wielder states: "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light." In other words, the feat modifies TWF. It doesn't have a state prerequisite of its own.
To benefit from that, you have to be wielding weapons (plural). A shield is not a weapon.


As I interpret the rules, a character with DW can attack with a shield as an improvised weapon while wielding a different one-handed weapon in their other hand. During the attack, the character is wielding two weapons that (thanks to DW) qualify for TWF. They thus qualify to make an attack with the one-handed weapon as a bonus action. If they have Extra Attack they can make follow-up attacks with either the shield (as an improvised weapon) or the one-handed weapon.

Neither "Melee" nor "One-Handed" are on the list of "Weapon Properties", so I treat them as descriptive rather than technical terms. A shield used in one hand as an improvised weapon easily falls into the ambit of both words.

Melee and One-Handed are both technical terms, if a weapon doesn't have the two handed property then it's a one handed weapon. I suppose you could argue otherwise, but then you're going to have people wielding far more weapons than they have hands for. You need Dual Wielder to even consider TWF with improvised weapons as they are not "light". You're not wielding two weapons, even if you choose to use it as an improvised weapon, you're wielding an object and a weapon.

[Xetheral]

As far as TWF goes, it gives specific permission to thrown weapons to be used in this way. If you mean using a free action to drop a weapon and still qualify, it depends entirely on the context of the situation and when you actually drop the weapon.

To benefit from that, you have to be wielding weapons (plural). A shield is not a weapon.



Since improvised weapons don't have weapon properties. Melee and One-Handed are both technical terms, if a weapon doesn't have the two handed property then it's a one handed weapon. I suppose you could argue otherwise, but then you're going to have people wielding far more weapons than they have hands for. You need Dual Wielder to even consider TWF with improvised weapons as they are not "light". You're not wielding two weapons, even if you choose to use it as an improvised weapon, you're wielding an object and a weapon.

"Melee" and "One-handed" are not on the list of Weapon Properties. Improvised weapons can thus be melee and/or one-handed.

And as you attack with shield it is an improvised weapon. Thus, while you attack with the shield, you are wielding two weapons, yes? Why doesn't that qualify you to then make a bonus action attack with (e.g.) a longsword (assuming you have DW)?

[Misterwhisper]

"Melee" and "One-handed" are not on the list of Weapon Properties. Improvised weapons can thus be melee and/or one-handed.

And as you attack with shield it is an improvised weapon. Thus, while you attack with the shield, you are wielding two weapons, yes? Why doesn't that qualify you to then make a bonus action attack with (e.g.) a longsword (assuming you have DW)?

Melee is a weapon quality.

That is why they are listed as melee and ranged weapons.

Improvised do not have a category as I linked strate from Jeremy Crawford.

Also, a weapon that is not two handed is one handed.

[Snowbluff]

You are wrong, in print, in sage advice, and straight from the head designer.


In print, I'm right. All weapons are melee or ranged. Plain English.

JC's tweet is negated by not being in lne with the text (straight contradiction). He provides clarifications. When the shield is a weapon is a good example of a clarifaction.

JC is the only one who gives rules. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/04/when-it-comes-to-rules-only-jeremy-crawford-tweets-are-official/)

[Misterwhisper]

In print, I'm right. All weapons are melee or ranged. Plain English.

JC's tweet is negated by not being RAW. He provides clarifications. When the shield is a weapon is a good example of a clarifaction.

JC is the only one who gives rules. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/04/when-it-comes-to-rules-only-jeremy-crawford-tweets-are-official/)

That is for weapons, they are all melee or ranger.

Objects are used as improvised weapons.

It is not a rule change, or anything.

You are wrong.

Also flagging you for trolling, and will do it every time you bring this up.

[ProsecutorGodot]

"Melee" and "One-handed" are not on the list of Weapon Properties. Improvised weapons can thus be melee and/or one-handed.

And as you attack with shield it is an improvised weapon. Thus, while you attack with the shield, you are wielding two weapons, yes? Why doesn't that qualify you to then make a bonus action attack with (e.g.) a longsword (assuming you have DW)?

Melee is not a property, but a term used to describe weapons that attack targets within 5 feet. One Handed is not a property because listing each weapon that doesn't have the Two Handed property as One Handed is redundant, and confusing in the case of Versatile weapons.

No, you're not wielding two weapons. You're wielding a weapon and an object. A Shield is only treated as a weapon in the instant that you attack using it as an improvised weapon, for all intents and purposes otherwise it is considered an object.

Even in the improvised weapon description, it doesn't say "this weapon deals 1d4" it says "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)."

In print, I'm right. All weapons are melee or ranged. Plain English.
Once again you ignore the context of that line.

The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.
Every weapon on the table is classified as Melee or Ranged, Improvised Weapons are not on the table.


JC is the only one who gives rules. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/01/04/when-it-comes-to-rules-only-jeremy-crawford-tweets-are-official/)

No, JC doesn't decide the RAW.

[Misterwhisper]

Melee is not a property, but a term used to describe weapons that attack targets within 5 feet. One Handed is not a property because listing each weapon that doesn't have the Two Handed property as One Handed is redundant, and confusing in the case of Versatile weapons.

No, you're not wielding two weapons. You're wielding a weapon and an object. A Shield is only treated as a weapon in the instant that you attack using it as an improvised weapon, for all intents and purposes otherwise it is considered an object.

Even in the improvised weapon description, it doesn't say "this weapon deals 1d4" it says "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)."

Once again you ignore the context of that line.

Every weapon on the table is classified as Melee or Ranged, Improvised Weapons are not on the table.


No, JC doesn't decide the RAW.

Just ignore him and flag him like I do.

Even when shown strait from JC that he is wrong, his stance is only JC says what’s right.

That is trolling, flag him and move on.

[sophontteks]

Melee is not a property, but a term used to describe weapons that attack targets within 5 feet. One Handed is not a property because listing each weapon that doesn't have the Two Handed property as One Handed is redundant, and confusing in the case of Versatile weapons.

Wait wait wait. Your post is a bit contradictory here.

Melee IS a classification. That's why they bothered classifying every weapon as either ranged or melee.
Melee is also used to describe weapon attacks.

Make no mistake. A bow is NEVER a melee weapon no matter what range you use it at, or how you use it. If you swing your bow at someone it is a melee weapon attack, but the bow is and always will be a ranged weapon.

EDIT: I can see how using the word property can be deceptive. All weapons are classified as being either ranged or melee.

Just to support whispers and you on the final point.
From Improvised weapons:
"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. "
There is nothing about changing the object you are using into a melee or a ranged weapon. You are simply improvising a weapon to make a ranged or melee attack. If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, its still a ranged weapon.

There are abilities in the game which check if the player is holding, or using a ranged or melee weapon, and improvising any object does not change the objects properties to for-fill this requirement, ever.

[DivisibleByZero]

Do people still care what Treatmonk thinks?
If they ever did?

[Snowbluff]

No, JC doesn't decide the RAW.

Mike's tweet isn't official so this is true, JC isn't RAW. XD

[Xetheral]

Melee is a weapon quality.

That is why they are listed as melee and ranged weapons.

Improvised do not have a category as I linked strate from Jeremy Crawford.

Also, a weapon that is not two handed is one handed.

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that the tweet says they don't have "Weapon Properties". Weapon Properties are explicitly defined on a list on PHB 146, a list on which neither "melee" nor "one-handed" appear. Ergo, an improvised weapon can be melee and/or one-handed without contradicting the tweet.

(And as Snowbluff as pointed out repeatedly, according to other text on PHB 146, "every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged". Ergo, all improvised weapons must be either melee or ranged.)


Melee is not a property, but a term used to describe weapons that attack targets within 5 feet. One Handed is not a property because listing each weapon that doesn't have the Two Handed property as One Handed is redundant, and confusing in the case of Versatile weapons.

No, you're not wielding two weapons. You're wielding a weapon and an object. A Shield is only treated as a weapon in the instant that you attack using it as an improvised weapon, for all intents and purposes otherwise it is considered an object.

Let's go through this step by step, shall we? After being modified by dual-wielder, the TWF rules on PHB 195 read: "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." So far so good?

A character has a shield in one hand and a longsword in the other. The character declares the Attack action and makes an attack with the shield as a Improvised Weapon. The question is, does this meet the requirements to make a bonus action attack with the sword? Let's find out:

Did the character take the Attack action and make an attack with the shield? Yes.
Is the shield a weapon when taking the Attack action and attacking with it? Yes, by tweet.
Is the shield a melee weapon when taking the Attack action and attacking with it? Yes, because by PHB 146, every weapon is melee or ranged and it's definitely not ranged.
Is the shield held in one hand when taking the Attack action and attacking with it? Yes.
The chracter meets all the TWF (as modified by DW) requirements, so the character is eligible to make an immediate bonus action attack with the sword held in the other hand. Sure, the shield stops being a weapon immediately thereafter, but it was a weapon "When you take the Attack action and attack..." (emphasis added) and that's all that TWF requires.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wait wait wait. Your post is a bit contradictory here.

Melee IS a classification. That's why they bothered classifying every weapon as either ranged or melee.
Melee is also used to describe weapon attacks.

Make no mistake. A bow is NEVER a melee weapon no matter what range you use it at, or how you use it. If you swing your bow at someone it is a melee weapon attack, but the bow is and always will be a ranged weapon.

EDIT: I can see how using the word property can be deceptive. All weapons are classified as being either ranged or melee.
Those classifications apply to "all weapons" in reference to those found on the equipment table, Improvised Weapons are a separate type of weapon.

Thank you for clearing things up though, I can see how my word choice might have left some confusion.

[Kane0]

Do people still care what Treatmonk thinks?
If they ever did?

This thread has been thoroughly sidetracked, but I do enjoy his content. Its also very handy as a jumping off point for homebrew tweaks.

[sophontteks]

(And as Snowbluff as pointed out repeatedly, according to other text on PHB 146, "every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged". Ergo, all improvised weapons must be either melee or ranged.)

Yeah, that's a bit of a simplification. Forgive them for trying to simplify the difference between melee and ranged so poorly given that you can make ranged attacks with thrown melee weapons, attack beyond 5 feet with reach melee weapons, and you can make ranged attacks within 5 feet with your bow.

This description is describing the weapons in the weapons table. Improvised weapons have their own section used to describe how they work. They intentionally left out any mention of the improvised weapon being classified as a melee weapon or a ranged weapon.

[RedMage125]

You can make melee attacks (using improvised weapon rules) with ranged weapons. That doesn't magically turn them into melee weapons, though.

Using Improvised Weapon Rules for that ONLY applies to Ranged Weapons with the Ammunition property. (PHB pg 147-148).

See: Dart.


Improvised weapons are only weapons while you are attacking, not for the turn. A shield is always a shield. The rules are clear enough that you can't change an object into a weapon just because you attacked with it.
Citation, please.

Because attacking with something makes it an Improvised Weapon, ergo, a "weapon". Using the rules to benefit from this being considered a "weapon" means you are wielding an Improvised Weapon in your off-hand, and not a "shield", as you can only have one or the other in your hand at a time.


This is important because tavern brawlers actually can attack with their shield and doing so doesn't suddenly make the AC bonus vanish. That would be terrible!

Why would a tavern brawler attack with his shield?
Because he wants to grapple with his other hand.
Citation please, again, for the same reason as above.


If an improvised weapon is a weapon or not has never been th point of contention.

An improvised weapon is a weapon when it is used, everyone agrees with that.

However it is NOT a “melee weapon”
This is not RAI, JC has stated, I have linked, and quoted twice where it was posted.

An improvised weapon is neither melee or ranged, it has no distinctions other than improvised weapon.

To TWF, you have to attack with a Melee Weapon.
A shield, even if improvised, even with dual wielder, is not a “melee weapon”
I know you posted this while I was typing my previous response, but I will reiterate my point.

Are you assuming that only the weapons that appear on the table under the heading "melee weapon" can count as a "melee weapon" by RAW?

That's silly. PHB, pg 146 says that "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D...Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you.". That's the RAW definition of a "melee weapon". The table is only showing more common weapons.

You acknowledged that an "Improvised Weapon" is a "weapon". Well, any "weapon", used to attack a target within 5 feet is a "melee weapon", by the definition of the RAW. Exception is SPECIFIC (and Specific>General) for using a Ranged Weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a melee attack. Need proof? A Dart does the same damage in melee as it does when thrown, and it is listed as a "Ranged Weapon", rather than a "melee weapon with Thrown property" like javelins, light hammers, etc.

The core of your disagreement with Snowbluff seems to stem from your assertion that what is printed as the definition of "melee weapon" on page 146 of the PHB is somehow "not" the definition, but that only weapons listed on the table under the heading of "melee weapon" count as "melee weapons".


It doesn’t contradict the rules because nowhere has it ever said that improvised weapons are melee weapons.

Only you have said that.

You are wrong, in print, in sage advice, and straight from the head designer.

If you continue to argue about it I will flag you for trolling.
Then you would be incorrectly reporting Snowbluff.

What Snowbluff is saying is that the definition on page 146 IS the definition of "melee weapon" by the RAW, and therefore, Sage Advice does NOT contradict printed rules. And Snowbluff is correct here. By the parameters of a RAW discussion, only what is written is true. Sage Advice can NEVER overwrite RAW, until such time as those rulings in SA are put into errata. As this has not been input into errata, the RAW stands as the more correct version.

At least for purposes of discussion on the forum. Run your own game however you like.


The shield is only a weapon during your attack. Not for the turn. There is no losing and gaining of AC. Straight up dual wield feat does not work with improvised weapons. The rules are very specific here and its done to prevent abuse where players are using effects that require weapons on things that arent weapons.

Any weapon used within 5 feet is making a "melee weapon attack." They are not transformed into melee weapons. A bow is always a ranged weapon. A dagger is always a melee weapon. You are confusing types of attacks with object types.

Negative. I am using the definition of "melee weapon" on page 146 of the PHB. When you use something to make an attack on a creature within 5 feet, it is a "melee weapon". The Specific Rules for use of a Ranged Weapon with the Ammunition property is covered under the rules for that property.

The rules are very specific and clear here. A shield is carried in one hand. When used as an Improvised Weapon to make a melee attack, it is a "weapon" (and a melee one, at that, albeit not one that anyone would be "proficient" in except Tavern Brawlers). If you have a "weapon" in that hand, you cannot also benefit from a "shield" carried in the same hand. ESPECIALLY since one is now insisting on using rules for TWF. Although, since we are assuming the use of the Dual Wielder feat, that means a net loss of only 1 point of AC.

Again, this strikes me as an inferior option, albeit RAW-legal.


As far as TWF goes, it gives specific permission to thrown weapons to be used in this way. If you mean using a free action to drop a weapon and still qualify, it depends entirely on the context of the situation and when you actually drop the weapon.

To benefit from that, you have to be wielding weapons (plural). A shield is not a weapon.
But once one attacks with the shield as an Improvised Weapon, it becomes one, agreed?


Since improvised weapons don't have weapon properties. Melee and One-Handed are both technical terms, if a weapon doesn't have the two handed property then it's a one handed weapon. I suppose you could argue otherwise, but then you're going to have people wielding far more weapons than they have hands for.

Error. Facts not in evidence. An Improvised Weapon is still a "weapon". "Melee weapon" is defined by the RAW as a weapon that is "used to attack a target within 5 feet of you". So the Shield-as-Improvised-Weapon meets the definition. And "one-handed" is distinctly LACKING from any kind of list of properties, and is not a technical term with mechanical weight, except, as you pointed out, in the absence of the property "two-handed". As Improvised Weapons, by their very nature, lack distinct weapon properties such as "heavy" "versatile", or "two-handed", we are left with the distinction that it CAN, in fact, be wielded in one hand, thus qualifying as a "one handed weapon" by the same criteria that a Flail does.


You need Dual Wielder to even consider TWF with improvised weapons as they are not "light". You're not wielding two weapons, even if you choose to use it as an improvised weapon, you're wielding an object and a weapon.
...
We HAVE been discussing Dual Wielder. This whole time. A shield is certainly not "light".


Melee is a weapon quality.
Provide the definition for it, then. If it is a specific weapon quality, and a term with mechanical weight, how is it quantified?

Because the only definition I see in the PHB is the one on page 146. By which definition, Improvised Weapons used in melee are "melee weapons".


That is why they are listed as melee and ranged weapons.

That table only shows the MOST COMMON weapons used in D&D. That does not preclude other things called "weapons" from existing.


Improvised do not have a category as I linked strate from Jeremy Crawford.

Also, a weapon that is not two handed is one handed.
What you seem to be failing to understand here, and what SNowbluff is trying to point out to you is that Sage Advice is not "rules".

When you have a discussion on the forum, only what is WRITTEN in the actual RULES (to include errata) can be considered "true" or "factual". This is because all DM fiat, house rules, and such are impossible to account for in a Rules Discussion. No matter how inane or silly those rules maybe (like how in 3.5e, one could "heal" a person at negative hit points by drowning them, which would reset their hp to -1).

Sage Advice, while useful at times, is just that. ADVICE. Snowbluff has the right of it here by technicality, because JC's tweets do not have the authority to override what is written in the text. And in this case, a melee weapon is defined on page 146 of the PHB. NOTHING says that an Improvised Weapon somehow is an exception to this. YOUR insistence that only the weapons listed on that one table count as "melee weapons" for mechanical purposes, is intentionally, willfully, ignoring the printed text of the PHB.


That is for weapons, they are all melee or ranger.

Objects are used as improvised weapons.

It is not a rule change, or anything.
And Improivised Weapons are still "weapons". Weapons which meet the criteria for "melee weapon".


You are wrong.

Also flagging you for trolling, and will do it every time you bring this up.
Snowbluff is not "trolling" by the Forum Rules. All (s)he is saying is that JC Tweets do not equal RAW, and therefore cannot be said to "override" them. Ergo, if JC tweet and written rule contradict, written rule wins.

Melee is not a property, but a term used to describe weapons that attack targets within 5 feet. One Handed is not a property because listing each weapon that doesn't have the Two Handed property as One Handed is redundant, and confusing in the case of Versatile weapons.

No, you're not wielding two weapons. You're wielding a weapon and an object. A Shield is only treated as a weapon in the instant that you attack using it as an improvised weapon, for all intents and purposes otherwise it is considered an object.
Full stop.

As soon as you attack with it, it IS a weapon now, right? An Improvised one. Ergo, valid for TWF (assuming DW).


Even in the improvised weapon description, it doesn't say "this weapon deals 1d4" it says "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object)."

Once again you ignore the context of that line.

Every weapon on the table is classified as Melee or Ranged, Improvised Weapons are not on the table.

Actually, I think you are adding context which doe snot exist. That line you quoted says that the table lists the most common weapons in D&D. It then goes on to define "melee weapon" and "ranged weapon", but DOES NOT SAY "every weapon on the table", as you claim.



Wait wait wait. Your post is a bit contradictory here.

Melee IS a classification. That's why they bothered classifying every weapon as either ranged or melee.
Melee is also used to describe weapon attacks.

Make no mistake. A bow is NEVER a melee weapon no matter what range you use it at, or how you use it. If you swing your bow at someone it is a melee weapon attack, but the bow is and always will be a ranged weapon.

EDIT: I can see how using the word property can be deceptive. All weapons are classified as being either ranged or melee.

Bit of a nitpick here (and absolutely an anal-retentive technicality on my part), but swinging a bow at someone IS using a melee weapon, as it is defined by the RAW. Due to a bow having the Ammunition property, one must treat this as an Improvised Weapon (and therefore a melee weapon, like a club). But the Dart is LISTED as a Ranged Weapon, but does not have the Improvised Weapon property, and is therefore the only ranged weapon that would NOT use Improvised Weapon rules, and therefore, the only one that is still considered a "ranged weapon", as you said.

Which I find kind of ironic. Because the Improvised Weapon is a melee weapon, because it can only be defined by the way it is used. Meanwhile, the one ACTUAL ranged weapon which could actually be suitable for melee remains a ranged weapon.

[ad_hoc]

Here's a good rule of thumb: If you're trying to abuse the rules; don't.

The simplest way to explain it I think is: Attacking with a fist is a melee weapon attack. That doesn't mean fists are melee weapons when used to make melee weapon attacks. Improvised weapons are used to make melee weapon attacks. That doesn't mean they are melee weapons when used to make melee weapon attacks.



Do people still care what Treatmonk thinks?
If they ever did?

It's one of those things. Just because people put out content doesn't mean they're right.

[Xetheral]

Yeah, that's a bit of a simplification. Forgive them for trying to simplify the difference between melee and ranged so poorly given that you can make ranged attacks with thrown melee weapons, attack beyond 5 feet with reach melee weapons, and you can make ranged attacks within 5 feet with your bow.

This description is describing the weapons in the weapons table. Improvised weapons have their own section used to describe how they work. They intentionally left out any mention of the improvised weapon being classified as a melee weapon or a ranged weapon.

I apparently read the paragraph differently than you do. It explicitly says "every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged" and it says so in the main entry to the "Weapons" section. The rules for Improvised Weapons are in a subheading under Weapon Properties which is itself a subheading of the same Weapons section--Improvised Weapons aren't in their own section at all.

*Could* it instead mean "every weapon (on the weapons table) is classified as either melee or ranged". Sure, it could. But I don't consider that the best interpretation because (1) the previous sentence strongly implied that the weapons table is not an exclusive list of weapons, and (2) the idea of having a weapon that can't be classified as either melee or ranged is, in my opinion, silly.

[BarneyBent]

Seems to me pretty simple that an improvised weapon you use to smash an enemy within 5 feet is a melee weapon, and it breaks nothing to rule as such. The other benefits of dual wielder wouldn’t come into play though, as it’s only an improvised weapon when you’re taking the attack action, you won’t be proficient in it, and you lose the dueling bonus. Seems a terrible use of a feat, two if you want proficiency.

More interesting to me is he ignored the second point of Crossbow Expert, which removes disadvantage on ALL ranged attacks when an enemy is within 5 feet. That is useful for a number of builds, not least Warlocks spamming EB. Suddenly your Hexblade Warlock doesn’t need a weapon at all - take EB into melee and take Chain or Tome Pact without compromising your melee damage output. Oh, and don’t forget you now have a free hand for all somatic and spell components so feel free to wield a shield without worrying.

Even if you never touch a crossbow in your life, Crossbow Expert is worth it for some builds, and arguably required to optimise Hexblades (some would argue AEB spamming Hexblade wielding an Arcane focus and Shield, with Chain or Tome Pact, is strictly superior to a Blade Pact Hexblade with either both hands full or 2 less AC). Maybe niche, but maybe not so overrated as the video suggests.

It also allows you to take your crossbows into melee of course, which when combined with the other features gives you some very cool options. Not the best but I feel like it is an important and VERSATILE feature that TM missed.

[RedMage125]

Xetheral, +1 to everything you've said.

I tend to be overly verbose.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Using Improvised Weapon Rules for that ONLY applies to Ranged Weapons with the Ammunition property. (PHB pg 147-148).

See: Dart.
Citation, please. I'll quote the entirety of the improvised weapon rules and you tell me where it says that.

Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
While you're at it tell me how an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon (a shield) is treated as a weapon for a period longer than the moment you make an attack with it.

[Xetheral]

While you're at it tell me how an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon (a shield) is treated as a weapon for a period longer than the moment you make an attack with it.

It doesn't need to be. So long as it's a melee weapon "When you take the Attack action and make an attack..." (emphasis added) that's good enough to meet the TWF requirements (PHB 195) to make a bonus action attack with a weapon in the other hand.

[RedMage125]

Citation, please. I'll quote the entirety of the improvised weapon rules and you tell me where it says that.
EDIT: It's funny that you even SAY "citation please", when I actually provided the citation in the text you quoted. Look at your post. YOU QUOTED MY CITATION.

But here you go anyway. Player's Handbook, page 147. "If you are using a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon."

Ergo, ranged weapons that do NOT have the Ammunition Property do NOT use Improvised Weapons rules. Which is only the dart.

*Hands Xetheral a microphone* I believe you dropped this.

[ProsecutorGodot]

EDIT: It's funny that you even SAY "citation please", when I actually provided the citation in the text you quoted. Look at your post. YOU QUOTED MY CITATION.

But here you go anyway. Player's Handbook, page 147. "If you are using a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon."

Ergo, ranged weapons that do NOT have the Ammunition Property do NOT use Improvised Weapons rules. Which is only the dart.

*Hands Xetheral a microphone* I believe you dropped this.

That's a rule tied specifically to weapons that have the ammunition property, otherwise the ammunition property itself would require for them to expend ammunition to make a melee attack. That would defeat the whole purpose of having to resort to using your bow as a fighting stick.

You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition.
You want to reference the improvised weapon rules for the general rules, where ranged weapons (full stop) used as melee weapons would be classified as improvised weapons.

Please do not cut the context out of the discussion to prove your point, you look foolish.

[Foxhound438]

Do people still care what Treatmonk thinks?
If they ever did?

they seem to be focused on something else at the moment...

If you're asking if I care about what he thinks in terms of agreeing or not, I was largely agreeing with his overall opinions on spells through the third level stuff, but going much past that I can't say there was a lot of common ground. In any case, he's entitled to his own opinions, and it's good discussion anyways. This time his opinion on crossbow expert was laughable, but a lot of the rest was pretty on point.

[Connington]

Nice to see Ritual Caster getting some love. Personally, I love using magic to solve out of combat problems - either directly (Comprehend Languages reveals meaning of ancient runes, exactly like it's meant to) or with some cleverness (Speak with Animals can surprise a DM, and is high on the short list of reasons to pick the Bard or Druid ritual list). Ritual Caster is the kind of massive out-of-combat utility boost that makes playing a meatshield fun for me. And it's some great instant flavor, both in and out of character. Trust me, the other players will remember how your barbarian was the party's de-facto wizard.

Note well the stat requirements: Int or Wis 13. You can use Wis 13 to qualify for the Wizard spell list, which is great since Intelligence got shafted so hard in 5e. And since ritual spells never (almost never?) call for spell attacks or saving throws, your low casting modifier literally doesn't matter. It's less great for characters that choose the Bard or Warlock ritual list, but I'm not sure why you would do that to yourself unless you were very dedicated to story over mechanical excellence anyways.

[AHF]

I enjoyed the video. Thought he missed the mark on crossbow expert removing disadvantage from close ranged attacks with spells and ranged weapons. That is a primary feature of the feat. Can’t ignore that.

Appreciate Treatmonk taking the time to make these and initiate what is usually good discussion. (This shield as twf discussion reminds me a lot of the “GWM can be used with a longbow since it is a heavy weapon when the longbow is used to make a melee attack and you can then get the archery +2 bonus because you are using a longbow, it’s totally raw” discussion.” Boring for anyone who wants to discuss the game.)

[Snowbluff]

I think Crossbow Master is a good feat for some builds.

Ritual Caster is a pleasant surprise. Anyone have a guide to ritual casting?

[Xihirli]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471722-Know-Your-Rites-A-Guide-to-Ritual-Casting-%28Oraibi%29

Edit: It's pretty old, hasn't been updated in awhile.

[Foxhound438]

Nice to see Ritual Caster getting some love. Personally, I love using magic to solve out of combat problems - either directly (Comprehend Languages reveals meaning of ancient runes, exactly like it's meant to) or with some cleverness (Speak with Animals can surprise a DM, and is high on the short list of reasons to pick the Bard or Druid ritual list). Ritual Caster is the kind of massive out-of-combat utility boost that makes playing a meatshield fun for me. And it's some great instant flavor, both in and out of character. Trust me, the other players will remember how your barbarian was the party's de-facto wizard.

Note well the stat requirements: Int or Wis 13. You can use Wis 13 to qualify for the Wizard spell list, which is great since Intelligence got shafted so hard in 5e. And since ritual spells never (almost never?) call for spell attacks or saving throws, your low casting modifier literally doesn't matter. It's less great for characters that choose the Bard or Warlock ritual list, but I'm not sure why you would do that to yourself unless you were very dedicated to story over mechanical excellence anyways.

I recently did a character that was a ... "Wizard", in that he walked around with a big staff and wore the goofy robe and pointy hat. Build was a bunch of monk levels and ritual caster, started out the game by showing some rit casted spells before we got to the fighty bits, then flew across the map spinning like a tornado as soon as enemies showed up. I hadn't told the other players what I had built, just the DM, so it was a pretty surprising thing to everyone else.

[Corran]

What an awful waste of a thread.
Yeah, I am not even going to contribute to the discussion I would like to see. After reading through most of this, I am just going to express my frustration and get out.

[ImproperJustice]

What an awful waste of a thread.
Yeah, I am not even going to contribute to the discussion I would like to see. After reading through most of this, I am just going to express my frustration and get out.

Kinda the same here.
People threatening to flag people over a disagreement?
Yeesh.
I was curious what Treantmonk’s ratings were. I only agree with about 60% of what he posts, but it is a good conversation starter.

Maybe the whole TWF / Shield thing can be migrated to it’s own thread?

[Foxhound438]

Kinda the same here.
People threatening to flag people over a disagreement?
Yeesh.
I was curious what Treantmonk’s ratings were. I only agree with about 60% of what he posts, but it is a good conversation starter.

Maybe the whole TWF / Shield thing can be migrated to it’s own thread?

that would be nice, but this has probably gone on far enough that the de-trained rails are already poisoned... It might be worth making a new thread about feat rankings to have that discussion on its own at this point.

[MaxWilson]

that would be nice, but this has probably gone on far enough that the de-trained rails are already poisoned... It might be worth making a new thread about feat rankings to have that discussion on its own at this point.

Here you go: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?575169-Treantmonk-s-opinion-on-feats&p=23541421#post23541421

[Zalabim]

As always, I'm late to the party, but I bring the best gifts. Ok, alchemist's fire and acid flasks may not be the best gifts, but they can certainly liven up a party. When you use one of these items, you make a ranged attack, treating the item as an improvised weapon. Not an improvised ranged weapon. Just an improvised weapon. Because improvised weapons are not melee weapons or ranged weapons. If they were, they wouldn't have to be improvised, because they'd already be weapons.


See my above argument and read page 146 in the PHB. All weapons are either melee or ranged weapons. Melee weapons are the ones used to attack within 5 feet of you. I kinda ninjaed you there.

Do you have any other complaints, because what you've given me so far has been good. We can make this rock solid if we nitpick it more.
That doesn't mean that weapons used to attack within 5 feet of you are melee weapons though. It's a description, not a definition. Consider that there are plenty of circumstances that break that description, it can't be a rule. The book never calls an improvised weapon a melee weapon or a ranged weapon. It's always just an improvised weapon.

EDIT: It's funny that you even SAY "citation please", when I actually provided the citation in the text you quoted. Look at your post. YOU QUOTED MY CITATION.

But here you go anyway. Player's Handbook, page 147. "If you are using a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon."

Ergo, ranged weapons that do NOT have the Ammunition Property do NOT use Improvised Weapons rules. Which is only the dart.

*Hands Xetheral a microphone* I believe you dropped this.
That's because of the rules for proficiency, and the rules for improvised weapons are only loosely related. See, a character proficient with a longbow adds their proficiency bonus when attacking with a longbow. However, if you use your longbow to make a melee attack, you treat it as an improvised weapon. Not a longbow, so you don't get proficiency that way. Subsequently, stabbing someone with a dart would apparently be a melee attack with a dart, so most every character would still be proficient. It still uses the rule in improvised weapons that melee attacks with ranged weapons deal 1d4 damage, which is no change in this case. In any case, ammunition makes the longbow an improvised weapon for melee attacks, not an improvised melee weapon. Funny thing to leave out. Another funny thing is that since the longbow is treated as an improvised weapon for this, it doesn't have to follow the rule of dealing 1d4 damage for being a ranged weapon. It is not a ranged weapon for the attack, so the DM is free to treat it as similar to another weapon and run it accordingly.

Oh, and the net is also a thrown ranged weapon. It's not just the dart. Either way, ammunition ranged weapons must be improvised weapons when used for melee attacks, but that doesn't mean that thrown ranged weapons must work perfectly for melee attacks. That part is just not covered by the rules, so it's only implied. Putting aside whether or not these weapons are improvised weapons for melee attacks, the improvised weapons rules do cover that they deal 1d4 damage in such a circumstance, so they do use the improvised weapon rules in some way.

That's a rule tied specifically to weapons that have the ammunition property, otherwise the ammunition property itself would require for them to expend ammunition to make a melee attack. That would defeat the whole purpose of having to resort to using your bow as a fighting stick.
Ok, yeah, that too. But also like I said above.


You want to reference the improvised weapon rules for the general rules, where ranged weapons (full stop) used as melee weapons would be classified as improvised weapons.
I'm not sure this is the case though. I'm pretty sure that part of the improvised weapons rules just changes the damage, not the kind of object those things are. So a fighter that throws a longsword is still attacking with a longsword, adds their proficiency bonus to the attack, but uses their dexterity and 1d4 for the weapon's damage.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm not sure this is the case though. I'm pretty sure that part of the improvised weapons rules just changes the damage, not the kind of object those things are. So a fighter that throws a longsword is still attacking with a longsword, adds their proficiency bonus to the attack, but uses their dexterity and 1d4 for the weapon's damage.

Nope. He's either using it as a longsword, with proficiency, damage and properties of a longsword, or he's using it as an improvised weapon, with no proficiency (outside Tavern Brawler), 1d4 (or whatever the GM decides) damage and no weapon properties. Same with ranged weapons in melee. It's specifically called out as using the improvised weapon rules because standard rules concerning the weapon in question no longer apply if it's not used as intended.

It works both ways: once the GM decides that the table leg is similar enough to a club, it's a club for all intents and purposes that require it to be a club (i.e. simple melee weapon).

[Snowbluff]

People threatening to flag people over a disagreement?
Yeesh.
https://78.media.tumblr.com/0fee34890c672e91f27f01f4e230cd4c/tumblr_inline_o9fcxes42u1tufz9p_540.gif
It was just one person.

For the record, there is a rule against vigilante modding. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?f=30&a=1)


As always, I'm late to the party, but I bring the best gifts. Ok, alchemist's fire and acid flasks may not be the best gifts, but they can certainly liven up a party. When you use one of these items, you make a ranged attack, treating the item as an improvised weapon. Not an improvised ranged weapon. Just an improvised weapon. Because improvised weapons are not melee weapons or ranged weapons. If they were, they wouldn't have to be improvised, because they'd already be weapons.


That doesn't mean that weapons used to attack within 5 feet of you are melee weapons though. It's a description, not a definition. Consider that there are plenty of circumstances that break that description, it can't be a rule. The book never calls an improvised weapon a melee weapon or a ranged weapon. It's always just an improvised weapon.

That's because of the rules for proficiency, and the rules for improvised weapons are only loosely related. See, a character proficient with a longbow adds their proficiency bonus when attacking with a longbow. However, if you use your longbow to make a melee attack, you treat it as an improvised weapon. Not a longbow, so you don't get proficiency that way. Subsequently, stabbing someone with a dart would apparently be a melee attack with a dart, so most every character would still be proficient. It still uses the rule in improvised weapons that melee attacks with ranged weapons deal 1d4 damage, which is no change in this case. In any case, ammunition makes the longbow an improvised weapon for melee attacks, not an improvised melee weapon. Funny thing to leave out. Another funny thing is that since the longbow is treated as an improvised weapon for this, it doesn't have to follow the rule of dealing 1d4 damage for being a ranged weapon. It is not a ranged weapon for the attack, so the DM is free to treat it as similar to another weapon and run it accordingly.


Okay.
So.
They're weapons. Either you read the book and say weapons are weapons, or you use JC's clarification and they're weapons when you attack.
Every weapon is either ranged or melee.
How do you determine which one it is, because you have 2 option. :smalltongue:

[Zalabim]

Okay.
So.
They're weapons. Either you read the book and say weapons are weapons, or you use JC's clarification and they're weapons when you attack.
Every weapon is either ranged or melee.
How do you determine which one it is, because you have 2 option. :smalltongue:
That picture. Wow. Ok. Then you don't acknowledge my message at all. Just repeat your false choice. I can tell you're really taking this seriously and not just trolling.

Is it listed on the table of common weapons? Then the paragraph isn't talking about it.
It's an improvised weapon, which is a term the book uses in multiple places without ever calling them melee or ranged weapons. Because they aren't.

[Snowbluff]

That picture. Wow. Ok. Then you don't acknowledge my message at all. Just repeat your false choice. I can tell you're really taking this seriously and not just trolling.

Is it listed on the table of common weapons? Then the paragraph isn't talking about it.
It's an improvised weapon, which is a term the book uses in multiple places without ever calling them melee or ranged weapons. Because they aren't.

You're going to have to prove that they aren't
1) Weapons despite being called improvised weapons.
2) Not weapons as per JC's clarification.

Just because the book doesn't state it directly, doesn't mean the definition of melee weapon doesn't apply to them. Since it's a defined term now, that's where we are.

[Jerrykhor]

Just to add on to the argument of a shield not being considered a weapon.

1. It is widely understood that the Dueling fighting style works with a shield in the other hand because it is not a weapon.

2. To know if something is a weapon or not, look at the Weapons table. If its not there, its not a weapon. Doesn't mean you can't add homebrew weapons, but the shield was purposely left out of the table because it is not a weapon.

3. An improvised weapon is still not a weapon. A weapon is a tool that is designed with very specific combat capabilities, which in most cases mean to hurt, maim or mortally wound living creatures. Just because you get creative and use something as a weapon, does not make it a weapon. There is no such thing as 'when you attack with it then its a weapon'. It either is, or isn't a weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

3. An improvised weapon is still not a weapon. A weapon is a tool that is designed with very specific combat capabilities, which in most cases mean to hurt, maim or mortally wound living creatures. Just because you get creative and use something as a weapon, does not make it a weapon. There is no such thing as 'when you attack with it then its a weapon'. It either is, or isn't a weapon.

Not true. Improvised weapon count as weapon when you attack with it, and ONLY in that instance (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/a-shield-isnt-a-weapon/). In fact, the link is very relevant to the current discussion.

It doesn't, however, count as melee or ranged weapon, which means it can't trigger TWF bonus action attack even if you ignore wording about wielding a (melee) weapon because of that single instant.

[Pleh]

Is it listed on the table of common weapons? Then the paragraph isn't talking about it.
It's an improvised weapon, which is a term the book uses in multiple places without ever calling them melee or ranged weapons. Because they aren't.

This is one thing that never really felt addressed in counter arguments. The "table of weapons" is introduced and explained with language clearly intended to not be all inclusive.

I really don't see the logic in saying, "it must be on the table to be a melee weapon" when the rules clearly intend allowances for additions to the table.

It may be always at DM discretion, but that doesn't feel like a very onerous burden in a game like 5e. So what?

"It's not RAW" just doesn't have the same teeth in 5e as it did in previous editions. 5e has some places where there are hard stops, but this feels more like one of the "modular" gray areas that was always intended to be a case by case thing.

The more I look at the rules, the more I feel you NEED Dual Wielder to shield bash with the off hand (it isn't Light enough to zip around with a bonus action, so Dual Wielder lets you ignore size for TWF). The Table Leg vs Chair thing isn't really a fair comparison as an entire chair would surely be an improvised Two Handed weapon. That is to say, there are reasons other than the improvised nature of the weapon that Dual Wielder and TWF wouldn't make sense. If the Barbarian had some ability to wield Two Handed weapons in a single hand AND Dual Wielder, I don't see why they can't TWF with chairs (it's far from optimal or OP). This is just saying the same dude that can dual wield greatswords can do the same thing with chairs, which makes sense.

Bottom line, it feels like the rational response is, "ask your DM" not, "it's not RAW, so shut up."

[Jerrykhor]

Not true. Improvised weapon count as weapon when you attack with it, and ONLY in that instance (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/a-shield-isnt-a-weapon/). In fact, the link is very relevant to the current discussion.

It doesn't, however, count as melee or ranged weapon, which means it can't trigger TWF bonus action attack even if you ignore wording about wielding a (melee) weapon because of that single instant.

But the end result of our argument is the same, is it not? That one cannot shield bash with bonus action (have to take the attack action instead) even with the Dual Wielder feat?

[Zalabim]

You're going to have to prove that they aren't
1) Weapons despite being called improvised weapons.
2) Not weapons as per JC's clarification.

Just because the book doesn't state it directly, doesn't mean the definition of melee weapon doesn't apply to them. Since it's a defined term now, that's where we are.
The what now? There's no definition of melee weapons in the book that applies to improvised weapons. Prove that there is. I already addressed the paragraph on page 146. The line "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged," is referring to the table. The description "A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you," is just a description. It isn't even always accurate, and it isn't reversible to make it so that using a weapon to attack a target within 5 feet of you makes that weapon a melee weapon. For example, when making a ranged weapon attack against a target within 5 feet of you. So prove that an improvised weapon is a melee weapon. Or a ranged weapon. The book has multiple opportunities to say so, and never does.

This is one thing that never really felt addressed in counter arguments. The "table of weapons" is introduced and explained with language clearly intended to not be all inclusive.

I really don't see the logic in saying, "it must be on the table to be a melee weapon" when the rules clearly intend allowances for additions to the table.

It may be always at DM discretion, but that doesn't feel like a very onerous burden in a game like 5e. So what?

"It's not RAW" just doesn't have the same teeth in 5e as it did in previous editions. 5e has some places where there are hard stops, but this feels more like one of the "modular" gray areas that was always intended to be a case by case thing.

The more I look at the rules, the more I feel you NEED Dual Wielder to shield bash with the off hand (it isn't Light enough to zip around with a bonus action, so Dual Wielder lets you ignore size for TWF). The Table Leg vs Chair thing isn't really a fair comparison as an entire chair would surely be an improvised Two Handed weapon. That is to say, there are reasons other than the improvised nature of the weapon that Dual Wielder and TWF wouldn't make sense. If the Barbarian had some ability to wield Two Handed weapons in a single hand AND Dual Wielder, I don't see why they can't TWF with chairs (it's far from optimal or OP). This is just saying the same dude that can dual wield greatswords can do the same thing with chairs, which makes sense.

Bottom line, it feels like the rational response is, "ask your DM" not, "it's not RAW, so shut up."
A DM could add anything they want as a weapon, that's true. Adding the shield item as a weapon would cause some knock on problems though. The "It's not RAW, shut up" response only comes up in response to "It is RAW, so not only do you not have to ask your DM, you should bludgeon your DM with the book if they don't agree." You have my permission to get forceful with arguing for allowing an attack ala TWF with dual wielder and one or more improvised weapons, but not because it is RAW. I give my permission as long as it doesn't break the game and looks like fun.

[Pleh]

A DM could add anything they want as a weapon, that's true. Adding the shield item as a weapon would cause some knock on problems though. The "It's not RAW, shut up" response only comes up in response to "It is RAW, so not only do you not have to ask your DM, you should bludgeon your DM with the book if they don't agree." You have my permission to get forceful with arguing for allowing an attack ala TWF with dual wielder and one or more improvised weapons, but not because it is RAW. I give my permission as long as it doesn't break the game and looks like fun.

Ah. See, I wouldn't ever bother bludgeoning a DM over RAW anyway, because the DM also has the authority to Remove items from the weapon table ("in this world, Martial Weapons are far too advanced for modern tech").

I would use RAW to persuade a DM, but past that, play the game or walk. No point fighting a DM over anything.

[RedMage125]

That's a rule tied specifically to weapons that have the ammunition property, otherwise the ammunition property itself would require for them to expend ammunition to make a melee attack. That would defeat the whole purpose of having to resort to using your bow as a fighting stick.

You want to reference the improvised weapon rules for the general rules, where ranged weapons (full stop) used as melee weapons would be classified as improvised weapons.

Please do not cut the context out of the discussion to prove your point, you look foolish.

I think you're confused about who looks foolish here, at least to the more experienced posters who understand what RAW means.

Enlighten me then.

Post the rule, printed in the PHB, that says that ALL ranged weapons, when used as melee weapons, use the Improvised Weapons rules. If it really is a rule, and I was taking something out of context, then you have access to that EXACT rule in print. Because such a rule would mean that making a melee attack with a dart is also an "improvised weapon", and a character proficient with darts would not get proficiency bonus added to the attack.

If you do not, then I am right, and you're digging yourself in deeper, trying to call me names.

[KorvinStarmast]

Do people still care what Treatmonk thinks?
If they ever did? His wizard guide is decent. his take on feats ... about on par with various discussions on GiTP. His videos on spells were too long; I'd rather see a written summary.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'll check out his views on feats for sure once the transcript arrives.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think you're confused about who looks foolish here, at least to the more experienced posters who understand what RAW means.

Enlighten me then.

Post the rule, printed in the PHB, that says that ALL ranged weapons, when used as melee weapons, use the Improvised Weapons rules. If it really is a rule, and I was taking something out of context, then you have access to that EXACT rule in print. Because such a rule would mean that making a melee attack with a dart is also an "improvised weapon", and a character proficient with darts would not get proficiency bonus added to the attack.

If you do not, then I am right, and you're digging yourself in deeper, trying to call me names.
I've already quoted the entirety of the improvised weapon rules directly to you.

Citation, please. I'll quote the entirety of the improvised weapon rules and you tell me where it says that.

Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
While you're at it tell me how an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon (a shield) is treated as a weapon for a period longer than the moment you make an attack with it.
So for the second time, you're making a fool of yourself, ignoring context to prove your point.

[RedMage125]

I can admit when I missed something. Fair enough. I was reading that as using Improvised Ranged Weapons.

However, this whole point is tangential to the issue about using a shield. Which I still don't understand your objection to, because the entire basis for your argument is that an Improvised Weapon is somehow a quantum "third category" of weapon that is neither "melee" nor "ranged", and the sole basis for your argument is that there is no listing for Improvised Weapon on the table.

You believe this in spite of the fact that the RAW says that "every weapon is either melee or ranged" and also says that the table is only listing the "most common weapons used in D&D worlds".

In order for you to be correct, that table (and presumably other tables like it, like the ones for firearms in the DMG), would have ot be the only means of ever defining something, ANYTHING as a "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon". Is that what you're saying? Because by that logic, Thri Kreen Gythka and Chatkcha are not weapons, either then? Or a Kuo-toa pincer staff?

Do other weapons exist or not?

Also, you have contradicted yourself by acknowledging that the shield is a weapon "for the attack". Because by being a weapon even if only for a moment, the character has performed the qualifying action for TWF (assuming they have DW). The RAW say every weapon is either melee or ranged. They do NOT say "only weapons listed on this table are categorized as melee or ranged weapons", which is what they would need to say for your and whisper's point to hold any water.

[Misterwhisper]

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/18/can-improvised-weapons-qualify-as-one-handed-weapons-for-the-purposes-of-the-dual-wielder-feat/

Also:

An improvised weapon belongs to none of the game's weapon categories, unless the DM decides otherwise. For more information on the DM's role, see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147). #DnD
Michel Indeherberge
@MichelIDH
Replying to @JeremyECrawford
What about improvised weapons?

I will even add:

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
Improvised weapons are indeed in a category (English). They are not in one of the game’s weapon categories, however, unless the DM says they are (rule).


I can admit when I missed something. Fair enough. I was reading that as using Improvised Ranged Weapons.

However, this whole point is tangential to the issue about using a shield. Which I still don't understand your objection to, because the entire basis for your argument is that an Improvised Weapon is somehow a quantum "third category" of weapon that is neither "melee" nor "ranged", and the sole basis for your argument is that there is no listing for Improvised Weapon on the table.

You believe this in spite of the fact that the RAW says that "every weapon is either melee or ranged" and also says that the table is only listing the "most common weapons used in D&D worlds".

In order for you to be correct, that table (and presumably other tables like it, like the ones for firearms in the DMG), would have ot be the only means of ever defining something, ANYTHING as a "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon". Is that what you're saying? Because by that logic, Thri Kreen Gythka and Chatkcha are not weapons, either then? Or a Kuo-toa pincer staff?

Do other weapons exist or not?

Also, you have contradicted yourself by acknowledging that the shield is a weapon "for the attack". Because by being a weapon even if only for a moment, the character has performed the qualifying action for TWF (assuming they have DW). The RAW say every weapon is either melee or ranged. They do NOT say "only weapons listed on this table are categorized as melee or ranged weapons", which is what they would need to say for your and whisper's point to hold any water.

I literally posted a link and a quote where JC himself has said that they are not melee weapons.

23540322]https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/18/can-improvised-weapons-qualify-as-one-handed-weapons-for-the-purposes-of-the-dual-wielder-feat/

Also:

An improvised weapon belongs to none of the game's weapon categories, unless the DM decides otherwise. For more information on the DM's role, see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147). #DnD
Michel Indeherberge
@MichelIDH
Replying to @JeremyECrawford
What about improvised weapons?

I will even add:

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
Improvised weapons are indeed in a category (English). They are not in one of the game’s weapon categories, however, unless the DM says they are (rule).[/QUOTE]

To twf you have to use a melee weapon.

Improvised weapons are not melee weapons.

Straight from the designer of the game.

He even calls it a rule in his tweet.

[RedMage125]

I literally posted a link and a quote where JC himself has said that they are not melee weapons.

23540322]https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/18/can-improvised-weapons-qualify-as-one-handed-weapons-for-the-purposes-of-the-dual-wielder-feat/

Also:

An improvised weapon belongs to none of the game's weapon categories, unless the DM decides otherwise. For more information on the DM's role, see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147). #DnD
Michel Indeherberge
@MichelIDH
Replying to @JeremyECrawford
What about improvised weapons?

I will even add:

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
Improvised weapons are indeed in a category (English). They are not in one of the game’s weapon categories, however, unless the DM says they are (rule).

To twf you have to use a melee weapon.

Improvised weapons are not melee weapons.

Straight from the designer of the game.

He even calls it a rule in his tweet.[/QUOTE]

And what you are not acknowledging (and the core of your disagreements with Snowbluff), is that Sage Advice does not equal RULES.

You make a strong case for RAI (rules as intended).

But Sage Advice, and tweets from the designers, do not have the weight of RAW (rules as written), unless errata comes out to incorporate them.

And in a forum discussion, only what is RAW can be considered "true" or "fact".

What you do not have is a source that carries the same weight as the RAW to support your point.

So, again, what Snowbluff and I have been saying...is that by the RAW, this is allowed. Because you have nothing in RULES to support your claim that Improvised Weapons used in melee are not "melee weapons"

[Misterwhisper]

To twf you have to use a melee weapon.

Improvised weapons are not melee weapons.

Straight from the designer of the game.

He even calls it a rule in his tweet.

And what you are not acknowledging (and the core of your disagreements with Snowbluff), is that Sage Advice does not equal RULES.

You make a strong case for RAI (rules as intended).

But Sage Advice, and tweets from the designers, do not have the weight of RAW (rules as written), unless errata comes out to incorporate them.

And in a forum discussion, only what is RAW can be considered "true" or "fact".

What you do not have is a source that carries the same weight as the RAW to support your point.

So, again, what Snowbluff and I have been saying...is that by the RAW, this is allowed. Because you have nothing in RULES to support your claim that Improvised Weapons used in melee are not "melee weapons"[/QUOTE]


The head designer even called it a rule, he used the word rule in the tweet it is not a rules change it is not even a ruling it is a clarification.

The reason improvised weapon has its own heading is because you are using something that is not built to be a melee or ranged weapon as one so it is a weapon when you hit with it, it just becomes a weapon.

If I club someone with my longbow it does not make it a melee weapon, it also is no longer a ranged weapon, it is an improvised weapon.

You have been pointed out by the head designer of the game that you are wrong.

There is now rai issue because it says right in black and white what it is, and even clarified and confirmed by the head game designer and the final word on all rules.

[AHF]

This thread has been ruined by people who can’t take an esoteric argument into a thread of its own. Thanks for the derail from all of us interesting in the actual topic of the thread.

[Misterwhisper]

This thread has been ruined by people who can’t take an esoteric argument into a thread of its own. Thanks for the derail from all of us interesting in the actual topic of the thread.

Then go to the other thread about his feat evaluation instead of derailing more with complaining.

[RedMage125]

The head designer even called it a rule, he used the word rule in the tweet it is not a rules change it is not even a ruling it is a clarification.

The reason improvised weapon has its own heading is because you are using something that is not built to be a melee or ranged weapon as one so it is a weapon when you hit with it, it just becomes a weapon.

If I club someone with my longbow it does not make it a melee weapon, it also is no longer a ranged weapon, it is an improvised weapon.

You have been pointed out by the head designer of the game that you are wrong.

There is now rai issue because it says right in black and white what it is, and even clarified and confirmed by the head game designer and the final word on all rules.

The point. You missed it.

The head designer's tweets are not rules. They have never been rules. The Rules As Written are Rules. Full Stop.

All Snowbluff and I have been saying is that the RAW, as they are written right now, with errata, do not preclude this.

If your sole argument about why this is "not RAW legal" requires that one accept a source that is not RAW to have the same weight as RAW, then you have objectively failed to make a compelling case.

You are asking me to CARE what JC's tweets say. And I do not. Neither, apparently, does Snowbluff. YOU care, and bully for you. But in a discussion about RAW, only what is written in the official rules is Fact.

You are so wrapped up in this, that you falsely reported another user for "trolling" because they didn't agree with you.

[Misterwhisper]

The point. You missed it.

The head designer's tweets are not rules. They have never been rules. The Rules As Written are Rules. Full Stop.

All Snowbluff and I have been saying is that the RAW, as they are written right now, with errata, do not preclude this.

If your sole argument about why this is "not RAW legal" requires that one accept a source that is not RAW to have the same weight as RAW, then you have objectively failed to make a compelling case.

You are asking me to CARE what JC's tweets say. And I do not. Neither, apparently, does Snowbluff. YOU care, and bully for you. But in a discussion about RAW, only what is written in the official rules is Fact.

You are so wrapped up in this, that you falsely reported another user for "trolling" because they didn't agree with you.

Actually I reported both of you because you are saying that the rule in the book is wrong. Then when clarified, not ruled by the head designer you still say it is wrong.

Arguing with printed and clarified word of the book even when provide. By the head designer is the definition of trolling.

He did not make a rule he clarified what the rule already is.

Weapons have categories: melee and ranged.

Improvised are items used to attack and are items until you attack the they become a weapon, not a melee weapon. They are their own thing, thus why they have their own heading after the weapon descriptions.

I will continue to report you and him every time until a mod comes in and does something.

[RedMage125]

Actually I reported both of you because you are saying that the rule in the book is wrong. Then when clarified, not ruled by the head designer you still say it is wrong.

Arguing with printed and clarified word of the book even when provide. By the head designer is the definition of trolling.

He did not make a rule he clarified what the rule already is.

Weapons have categories: melee and ranged.

Improvised are items used to attack and are items until you attack the they become a weapon, not a melee weapon. They are their own thing, thus why they have their own heading after the weapon descriptions.

I will continue to report you and him every time until a mod comes in and does something.

Neither one of us ever said that the book is wrong. We have both cited the book several times as being the only legitimate source for rules.

So you are either misinterpreting what we've said, or are intentionally lying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

And "arguing that the tweets of the head designer do not constitute rules" is not "the definition of trolling". Maybe you need to review the forum rules if you doubt that. The link should be at the top of your page.

On topic: nowhere in the book does it say that an improvised weapon "is not a melee weapon". A tweet said that. But it isn't in the RAW.

Yes, a shield is an object (technically a piece of armor, by the RAW), until such time as it is used as an Improvised Weapon. Then it is a weapon. But the RAW say that "every weapon" is either melee or ranged.

So all we are left with, in the rules, is the definition of melee weapon on page 146 of the PHB, which a shield used as Improvised Weapon meets the criteria of.

Ergo, it is a melee weapon.

Your claim that "the rules" say that "melee weapon" only applies to the weapons on the table is provably false.

Set aside your ego for a moment, and understand that we do not accept tweets from ANYONE as having the same authority as RAW. Only RAW and errata do. And until you can parse an argument that does NOT require accepting "designer tweets" as "fact", you will never convince anyone that your stance "is RAW".

Can you prove your stance without tweets from designers? Using only the rules?

Edit: precedent for using armor items as a weapon include Battlerager Barbarian path, and Monster Manual Lizardfolk. Just for starters.

[Misterwhisper]

Neither one of us ever said that the book is wrong. We have both cited the book several times as being the only legitimate source for rules.

So you are either misinterpreting what we've said, or are intentionally lying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

And "arguing that the tweets of the head designer do not constitute rules" is not "the definition of trolling". Maybe you need to review the forum rules if you doubt that. The link should be at the top of your page.

On topic: nowhere in the book does it say that an improvised weapon "is not a melee weapon". A tweet said that. But it isn't in the RAW.

Yes, a shield is an object (technically a piece of armor, by the RAW), until such time as it is used as an Improvised Weapon. Then it is a weapon. But the RAW say that "every weapon" is either melee or ranged.

So all we are left with, in the rules, is the definition of melee weapon on page 146 of the PHB, which a shield used as Improvised Weapon meets the criteria of.

Ergo, it is a melee weapon.

Your claim that "the rules" say that "melee weapon" only applies to the weapons on the table is provably false.

Set aside your ego for a moment, and understand that we do not accept tweets from ANYONE as having the same authority as RAW. Only RAW and errata do. And until you can parse an argument that does NOT require accepting "designer tweets" as "fact", you will never convince anyone that your stance "is RAW".

Can you prove your stance without tweets from designers? Using only the rules?

Yes I can.

It says that below is a list of common weapons. The. It says that all of them are either melee or ranged.

Thus no weapon is both a melee and a ranged weapon.

Then they describe the various weapon traits and abilities.


Then, in a completely different heading it says what happens when use an object to attack with. They are improvised weapons.

Thus why they have their one second describing how they work.

What JC did is clarify, he did not change a single word or rule in the book so it does not need errata, because he did not change anything.

For your argument to work it would have to say, in the improvised weapons section, that they are melee weapons. It does not say that.

No, you can’t go back up to an entirely different section and use what it says about a chart to call it one. Improvised weapons would be listed in the weapon section under melee weapons as being a 1d4 weapon if it did.

Point out where, in print, it says the sentence. “There are considered melee weapons.” Or “improvised weapons are ranged weapons.”

It isn’t there, because they are neither of those.

[Misterwhisper]

Neither one of us ever said that the book is wrong. We have both cited the book several times as being the only legitimate source for rules.

So you are either misinterpreting what we've said, or are intentionally lying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

And "arguing that the tweets of the head designer do not constitute rules" is not "the definition of trolling". Maybe you need to review the forum rules if you doubt that. The link should be at the top of your page.

On topic: nowhere in the book does it say that an improvised weapon "is not a melee weapon". A tweet said that. But it isn't in the RAW.

Yes, a shield is an object (technically a piece of armor, by the RAW), until such time as it is used as an Improvised Weapon. Then it is a weapon. But the RAW say that "every weapon" is either melee or ranged.

So all we are left with, in the rules, is the definition of melee weapon on page 146 of the PHB, which a shield used as Improvised Weapon meets the criteria of.

Ergo, it is a melee weapon.

Your claim that "the rules" say that "melee weapon" only applies to the weapons on the table is provably false.

Set aside your ego for a moment, and understand that we do not accept tweets from ANYONE as having the same authority as RAW. Only RAW and errata do. And until you can parse an argument that does NOT require accepting "designer tweets" as "fact", you will never convince anyone that your stance "is RAW".

Can you prove your stance without tweets from designers? Using only the rules?

Edit: precedent for using armor items as a weapon include Battlerager Barbarian path, and Monster Manual Lizardfolk. Just for starters.

Monsters do not follow pc rules, what they do does not matter.

Battlerager has a specific rule and a specific item to override general.

Same as the normal rule is one stat to ac, but spellsinger can use a class ability to add 2 stars.

Specific overides general.

[Snowbluff]

Edit: precedent for using armor items as a weapon include Battlerager Barbarian path, and Monster Manual Lizardfolk. Just for starters.

This actually lets us use a shield as a weapon too. Since there's a weapon that is like the one we're improvising with, we can count it as that weapon, which is a melee one handed weapon. Here's a cookie (::)

https://media.giphy.com/media/sBs1ITniVp7tm/giphy.gif



Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus. Using an improvised weapon that resembles no such thing can be used as a 1d4 weapon is actually the exception.

[RedMage125]

Yes I can.

It says that below is a list of common weapons. The. It says that all of them are either melee or ranged.

Thus no weapon is both a melee and a ranged weapon.

Then they describe the various weapon traits and abilities.


Then, in a completely different heading it says what happens when use an object to attack with. They are improvised weapons.

Thus why they have their one second describing how they work.

What JC did is clarify, he did not change a single word or rule in the book so it does not need errata, because he did not change anything.

For your argument to work it would have to say, in the improvised weapons section, that they are melee weapons. It does not say that.

No, you can’t go back up to an entirely different section and use what it says about a chart to call it one. Improvised weapons would be listed in the weapon section under melee weapons as being a 1d4 weapon if it did.

Point out where, in print, it says the sentence. “There are considered melee weapons.” Or “improvised weapons are ranged weapons.”

It isn’t there, because they are neither of those.

You are incorrect in your first paragraph, and it is something I have been specifically addressing and asking you about to clarify, which you have not responded to until now. Several times I have asked if you believed that the definition of "melee weapon" ONLY applies to the ones on the table.

That is, that the paragraph you are referencing does not say "all of these weapons are classified as either melee or ranged". It says "every weapon". This has been, I think, a crucial distinction in the way you are reading the text.

Since it does not specify that "only" weapons on the table are categorized as "melee or ranged", it applies to ALL of them.

An Improvised Weapon IS a "weapon" when used for an attack. Even you have acknowledged this.

It meets the definition of "melee weapon" and does not meet the definition of "ranged weapon". But it MUST be one or the other. Ergo, melee weapon.

By the way, if we were, hypothetically, to assume that your reading is correct, then thri-keen gythka and chatkcha are not "weapons", nor is a Kuo-tea pincer staff a "melee weapon", by your definition. These weapons do not appear on that table, nor on the similar table for firearms in the DMG.

So, I ask again. Are you saying that there cannot be something that is a "melee weapon", that does not appear on that table?

[RedMage125]

This actually lets us use a shield as a weapon too. Since there's a weapon that is like the one we're improvising with, we can count it as that weapon, which is a melee one handed weapon. Here's a cookie.

We need to acknowledge the caveat that the character is not PROFICIENT with said shield weapon.

I was simply pointing out that "armor objects" have been considered "melee weapons" canonically.

[Misterwhisper]

You are incorrect in your first paragraph, and it is something I have been specifically addressing and asking you about to clarify, which you have not responded to until now. Several times I have asked if you believed that the definition of "melee weapon" ONLY applies to the ones on the table.

That is, that the paragraph you are referencing does not say "all of these weapons are classified as either melee or ranged". It says "every weapon". This has been, I think, a crucial distinction in the way you are reading the text.

Since it does specify that "only" weapons on the table are categorized as "melee or ranged", it applies to ALL of them.

An Improvised Weapon IS a "weapon" when used for an attack. Even you have acknowledged this.

It meets the definition of "melee weapon" and does not meet the definition of "ranged weapon". But it MUST be one or the other. Ergo, melee weapon.

By the way, if we were, hypothetically, to assume that your reading is correct, then thri-keen gythka and chatkcha are not "weapons", nor is a Kuo-tea pincer staff a "melee weapon", by your definition. These weapons do not appear on that table, nor on the similar table for firearms in the DMG.

So, I ask again. Are you saying that there cannot be something that is a "melee weapon", that does not appear on that table?

Yes I am saying that nothing is considered a melee weapon if it is not on that table unless one of these things has happened.

1. You have refluffed a non-listed weapon to be a weapon on the list as mentioned in the monk weapons. Ie a nunchuck is a club, a katana is a longsword or whatever.

2. Your dm allows you to use something that is close enough to being a weapon to count as one. This is a little fuzzier. A table leg is close enough to a club to be one if you are proficient with clubs. I could see a 10 foot pole being close enough to a quarterstaff to be one for proficiency. A shiv is close enough to a dagger. Most of it is up to the dm.

3. Your dm wants to use some different rule of how it would work. Which is fine. I have seen many dms allow a weapon with the thrown property to be considered a ranged weapon if thrown even though they aren’t.

[ad_hoc]

"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon"

Improvised weapons are not actual weapons.

[RedMage125]

Yes I am saying that nothing is considered a melee weapon if it is not on that table unless one of these things has happened.

1. You have refluffed a non-listed weapon to be a weapon on the list as mentioned in the monk weapons. Ie a nunchuck is a club, a katana is a longsword or whatever.

2. Your dm allows you to use something that is close enough to being a weapon to count as one. This is a little fuzzier. A table leg is close enough to a club to be one if you are proficient with clubs. I could see a 10 foot pole being close enough to a quarterstaff to be one for proficiency. A shiv is close enough to a dagger. Most of it is up to the dm.

3. Your dm wants to use some different rule of how it would work. Which is fine. I have seen many dms allow a weapon with the thrown property to be considered a ranged weapon if thrown even though they aren’t.

Then you need to acknowledge that your reading is just YOUR READING, but that the text says "every weapon", and many of us interpret that to mean "every weapon", and that us refusing to cater to YOUR preferred caveats is not "trolling".

For my part, when text says "every" or "all", I interpret that literally.

Also, is a kuo-toa pincer staff a "melee weapon" to you?

[Snowbluff]

We need to acknowledge the caveat that the character is not PROFICIENT with said shield weapon.

I was simply pointing out that "armor objects" have been considered "melee weapons" canonically.

Yes you still need tavern brawler. Even if it wasn’t an improvised weapon anymore, no one is proficient in spiked shields as far as I can tell.


"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon"

Improvised weapons are not actual weapons.

Something that improvised weapons and actual weapons have in common is that we call both of them weapons. :3

The point of the statement is that if an improvised weapon is like an actual one, you treat it as such. IE it counts as that weapon. So if you have a club like stick it’s a club. Wear a shield and it’s like a spiked shield (maybe drive some nails through it if someone gets picky).

[RedMage125]

Yes you still need tavern brawler. Even if it wasn’t an improvised weapon anymore, no one is proficient in spiked shields as far as I can tell.



Something that improvised weapons and actual weapons have in common is that we call both of them weapons. :3


Two feats to do this, I don't feel like it's worth it. Better, in my opinion, to use an off hand weapon, only lose 1 point of AC.

Also, my ruling, if I was the DM, I would say that since the character is benefitting from it being considered a "weapon", the shield would only grant the +1 to AC from DW, and not the +2 from the shield. It may seem harsh, but I think to do otherwise is to be trying to benefit from the same object in 2 ways that are incompatible with each other.

[Kane0]

... Nobody has brought up the Lizardfolk Spiked Shield until now?

[ProsecutorGodot]

... Nobody has brought up the Lizardfolk Spiked Shield until now?

Getting proficiency with the Spiked Shield would be the issue, seeing as it's not just a shield but also a weapon. It would totally work though.

[Misterwhisper]

... Nobody has brought up the Lizardfolk Spiked Shield until now?

Because it doesn’t matter.

Your dm could consider a shield close enough to a lizardfolk spiked shield to be one.

However you still can’t use it because it is just an item in a monster stat block.

Tavern brawler only lets you use proficiency bonus when attacking with improvised weapons.

Weapon master only allows proficiency with simple or martial weapons, which a lizardfolk spiked shield is not because it is simply an attack listed in a monster entry, not a weapon on any list anywhere.

Also it is listed as a melee weapon attack option not listed as a weapon itself.

Pre errata you might could argue weapon master could get it, but not any more.

[Kane0]

This has got to be the semantics argument highlight of this year...

[Misterwhisper]

This has got to be the semantics argument highlight of this year...

Semantics are the nature of the game, just look at all the screwed up things with melee weapon melee weapon attacks, ranged weapon, and ranged weapon attacks.


This game is in dire need of a revised and updated phb with better wording and all the errata added.

[dejarnjc]

This game is in dire need of a revised and updated phb with better wording and all the errata added.

It'd be nice to have but the game is definitely not in dire need of such a thing. Most of the dumb stuff like this that people spend hours arguing about on forums can be quickly decided on by individual DMs with minimal effect on actual gameplay experience. The core structure of the rules is solid and generally consistent and that's what's important.

[Snowbluff]

Two feats to do this, I don't feel like it's worth it. Better, in my opinion, to use an off hand weapon, only lose 1 point of AC.

Also, my ruling, if I was the DM, I would say that since the character is benefitting from it being considered a "weapon", the shield would only grant the +1 to AC from DW, and not the +2 from the shield. It may seem harsh, but I think to do otherwise is to be trying to benefit from the same object in 2 ways that are incompatible with each other.

I think it's a more compelling option if you're using a magic shield. Having a +4 versus a +1 shield is a big deal.

But then there's Staff of Power which is better than any shield. XD




Tavern brawler only lets you use proficiency bonus when attacking with improvised weapons.

It's still an improvised weapon, jsut one being used a spiked shield. if you're not prof in it you're still valid for being prof with it through Tavern Brawler (but you can only be prof once).

[BarneyBent]

It’s amazing that this argument is still going.
5e design intent is a) common sense and b) DM rules.

So it is entirely reasonable that an improvised weapon counts as a melee weapon. But if a particular builds exploits that in a way that breaks game balance, the DM has the freedom to overrule if necessary.

That’s literally all you need. RAW does not make explicit whether an improvised weapon (shield or otherwise) works with either TWF or Smite because it’s up to the DM. Let the DM decide based on the campaign and build, and stop detailing the damn thread.

[RedMage125]

I think we got down to argument bedrock on that one.

Turns out, some people don't read the words "every weapon" to mean EVERY weapon. And they think those of us that do are somehow trying to twist the rules around.

And while it IS, ultimately, up to the DM, sometimes finding the little ways RAW functions is fun.

Misterwhispers, now that you understand that 1) Snowbluff and I were arguing RAW, so designer tweets are not valid input, and 2) using just the RAW, if you read PHB 146 "every weapon" to mean "EVERY weapon" and not "every weapon on the following table", that our logic is entirely coherent...are you at all going to address or retract your earlier behavior? Specifically the name calling, ad-hominem attacks, and the flase reporting? I think Snowbluff and I both deserve an apology for getting called "trolls" when you simply disagreed with us on how the sentence was read.

[Misterwhisper]

I think we got down to argument bedrock on that one.

Turns out, some people don't read the words "every weapon" to mean EVERY weapon. And they think those of us that do are somehow trying to twist the rules around.

And while it IS, ultimately, up to the DM, sometimes finding the little ways RAW functions is fun.

Misterwhispers, now that you understand that 1) Snowbluff and I were arguing RAW, so designer tweets are not valid input, and 2) using just the RAW, if you read PHB 146 "every weapon" to mean "EVERY weapon" and not "every weapon on the following table", that our logic is entirely coherent...are you at all going to address or retract your earlier behavior? Specifically the name calling, ad-hominem attacks, and the flase reporting? I think Snowbluff and I both deserve an apology for getting called "trolls" when you simply disagreed with us on how the sentence was read.

Argue all you want, you are still wrong even by raw. Feel free to report me for pointing out your trolling, I will continue to flag ever response you have that continues to argue a point confirmed to be wrong by Ray, by designer, and clarified with an official tweet.

[RedMage125]

Argue all you want, you are still wrong even by raw. Feel free to report me for pointing out your trolling, I will continue to flag ever response you have that continues to argue a point confirmed to be wrong by Ray, by designer, and clarified with an official tweet.

I think you need to review the Forum Rules for the definition of "trolling".

Neither Snowbluff nor myself have been doing any of that.

You also keep insisting that "official tweets" are a thing with any kind of weight vis a vis actual RULES. This is not the case. Sage Advice is just ADVICE. And it helps determine RAI (Rules As Intended), because it clarifies designer intent.

But the text says that "every weapon" is either melee or ranged. Improvised Weapons ARE weapons when used to attack. Ergo, even they must be melee or ranged for the purposes if the attack. At no point in the RAW does it say "only the specific examples listed on this table are properly called 'weapons'". And you somehow insist that a strict-RAW reading says that, with no citation to support it.

Face it, in a discussion where "designer tweets" are not a valid source for citation, you are incorrect.

[Misterwhisper]

I think you need to review the Forum Rules for the definition of "trolling".

Neither Snowbluff nor myself have been doing any of that.

You also keep insisting that "official tweets" are a thing with any kind of weight vis a vis actual RULES. This is not the case. Sage Advice is just ADVICE. And it helps determine RAI (Rules As Intended), because it clarifies designer intent.

But the text says that "every weapon" is either melee or ranged. Improvised Weapons ARE weapons when used to attack. Ergo, even they must be melee or ranged for the purposes if the attack. At no point in the RAW does it say "only the specific examples listed on this table are properly called 'weapons'". And you somehow insist that a strict-RAW reading says that, with no citation to support it.

Face it, in a discussion where "designer tweets" are not a valid source for citation, you are incorrect.

The text that says every weapon is in a paragraph talking about common weapons in the game described on the chart.

Improvised weapons are different and have their own section with their own rules.

Sage advice is just a website that collects tweets and puts them in one place it is not even run by wizards of the coast. The fact you are now trying to say that it is not official because it is listed on a website with “advice” in the title is sad. The comment is from Twitter, sage advice just collects them and keeps them in one searchable place.

Any tweet made by Jeremy carver is official as he is the head of the rules department and essentially the boss of dnd writing.

He has overrule and changed things said my mike mearls multiple times, because he is the final word on things.

People have been reprimanded for even commenting on some known banned poasters, given a warning saying someone did not read a post earlier in a thread, or even I have gotten a warning once for saying I did not understand what someone said because their English was bad.

What you are doing is trolling, but if they don’t want to consider it that I am more than happy for them to come in and say so.

I fully expect this thread to get locked, probably not wiped, just “locked for review”.

[RedMage125]

The text that says every weapon is in a paragraph talking about common weapons in the game described on the chart.

Improvised weapons are different and have their own section with their own rules.
It's under the initial heading titled only "Weapons", and starts off with the general rules that relate to ALL weapons, to INCLUDE mentioning a chart with the most common weapons.

Improvised Weapons are still "weapons" when used for an attack. You'd be hard pressed to insist by any logic, that if I struck someone with a crowbar that it wasn't a "melee weapon", and you have failed to furnish sufficient evidence that the RAW say otherwise. All you have is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the words "every weapon". The fact that you can't even acknowledge that the words SAY that, and the way Snowbluff and I read it is perfectly valid way to read those words, gives me the impression that you are not discussing anything in good faith here.



Sage advice is just a website that collects tweets and puts them in one place it is not even run by wizards of the coast. The fact you are now trying to say that it is not official because it is listed on a website with “advice” in the title is sad. The comment is from Twitter, sage advice just collects them and keeps them in one searchable place.
..."now trying to say"?

Try again. Look back, I've been dismissive of SA the whole thread. Except as a useful tool to determine RAI.



Any tweet made by Jeremy carver is official as he is the head of the rules department and essentially the boss of dnd writing.

He has overrule and changed things said my mike mearls multiple times, because he is the final word on things.
And what I am not getting through with you is the parameters of a RAW discussion. It doesn't matter how "official" they say it is. Until those changes are input into Errata, they are not RULES.

That is how RAW discussions work. Only what is IN the RAW are "rules". In previous editions (3.5e), Dragon Magazine said it was "100% official content". Means nothing in regards to a RAW discussion, because it was not a Rules Source. Sometimes RAW says things that seem to clearly oppose Designer Intent. It happens. In 3.5e you could drown someone at low negative hit points, which would reset their hp to -1. Don't believe me? Look up the RAW on drowning. Was "drown healing" designer intent? Almost certainly not. But is it RAW? Yes.

If you can't prove a point using ONLY what is written in the rules, and must rely on an outside source (no matter who it is), then your have not proven something "true by RAW".


People have been reprimanded for even commenting on some known banned poasters, given a warning saying someone did not read a post earlier in a thread, or even I have gotten a warning once for saying I did not understand what someone said because their English was bad.

What you are doing is trolling, but if they don’t want to consider it that I am more than happy for them to come in and say so.

I fully expect this thread to get locked, probably not wiped, just “locked for review”.

Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)

[Misterwhisper]

It's under the initial heading titled only "Weapons", and starts off with the general rules that relate to ALL weapons, to INCLUDE mentioning a chart with the most common weapons.

Improvised Weapons are still "weapons" when used for an attack. You'd be hard pressed to insist by any logic, that if I struck someone with a crowbar that it wasn't a "melee weapon", and you have failed to furnish sufficient evidence that the RAW say otherwise. All you have is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the words "every weapon". The fact that you can't even acknowledge that the words SAY that, and the way Snowbluff and I read it is perfectly valid way to read those words, gives me the impression that you are not discussing anything in good faith here.


..."now trying to say"?

Try again. Look back, I've been dismissive of SA the whole thread. Except as a useful tool to determine RAI.


And what I am not getting through with you is the parameters of a RAW discussion. It doesn't matter how "official" they say it is. Until those changes are input into Errata, they are not RULES.

That is how RAW discussions work. Only what is IN the RAW are "rules". In previous editions (3.5e), Dragon Magazine said it was "100% official content". Means nothing in regards to a RAW discussion, because it was not a Rules Source. Sometimes RAW says things that seem to clearly oppose Designer Intent. It happens. In 3.5e you could drown someone at low negative hit points, which would reset their hp to -1. Don't believe me? Look up the RAW on drowning. Was "drown healing" designer intent? Almost certainly not. But is it RAW? Yes.

If you can't prove a point using ONLY what is written in the rules, and must rely on an outside source (no matter who it is), then your have not proven something "true by RAW".


Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)



Even by raw and ignoring anything else you are wrong.

The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.

That is the paragraph straight from the book, it describes the chart of weapon.

Improvised weapons is a whole different section, giving their rules.

Also the weapon chart paragraph is general, specific beat general as in the thrown property.

According to the paragraph on the weapons chart, a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance, but that is overruled by the thrown property. Throwing a dagger is making an attack at a distance, but it is not a ranged weapon.

No accurate reading of the rules in any sort of fashion supports what you want to happen. At this point you are being intentionally ignorant and contradictory simply to prolong an arguement even you know you are wrong in.

That is the definition of trolling.

[Snowbluff]

Try again. Look back, I've been dismissive of SA the whole thread. Except as a useful tool to determine RAI.



I mean, I've said it before but JC is the only Tweets that matter by work of himself and Mearls, and he says he's not RAW, only clarifications. The clarifcation about weather or not an improvised weapon is an important one because it makes dueling still work with a shield.

That being said there are now three ways this is a weapon now.

As a generic improvised weapon. Weapons are weapons. All weapons are ranged or melee. (RAW)
As a weapon similiar to a spiked shield, a one handed melee weapon.
As a weapon when swung according the JC. All weapons are melee or ranged.

It's beginning to look ridiculous how many cases.

Given that the weapons chart is even said not to be exclusive, it's even more obnoxious this is still going on. Nothing in the paragraph says that only weapons in the chart are melee or ranged. There are other weapons in the game that are melee or ranged but aren't in the chart.

[JackPhoenix]

As a generic improvised weapon. Weapons are weapons. All weapons in the table at p. 149 in PHB are ranged or melee. (RAW)
As a weapon vaguely similiar in shape, but not in use to a spiked shield, an attack option from a monster statblock.
As a weapon when swung according the JC. All weapons in the table at p. 149 in PHB are melee or ranged.

Fixed that for you.

[RedMage125]

Even by raw and ignoring anything else you are wrong.

The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.

That is the paragraph straight from the book, it describes the chart of weapon.
Going just from the text of that paragraph, Snowbluff and I read it thus:

Here is a chart listing common weapons used.
Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. This is followed by both of those terms being defined.

The bolding is important. By saying it is listing the "most common" weapons, it means that the list is by no means comprehensive. Less common weapons, therefore, are implied to exist.

The section of classification of weapons is then a separate item in that paragraph. Because the table only shows the "most common" weapons, other weapons MUST, therefore, exist (case in point, the DMG has a weapons table for firearms and futuristic weapons that is similar to this chart, but those weapons are not on this chart). Those other weapons that exist are ALSO going to fall into the classification of either "melee" or "ranged". Thus, since that classification extends to apply to items outside the table, it must not only be discussing the table.

The fact is, the RAW does not say anything to the effect of "only items on this table can ever be called 'melee weapons' or 'ranged weapons'". You have no text to support your exclusion of classification in that regard. The text does say that "EVERY weapon" is thus classified.


Improvised weapons is a whole different section, giving their rules.
But they are still -in the instance of being used in an attack- a "weapon", and therefore subject to being classified as "melee" or "ranged"


Also the weapon chart paragraph is general, specific beat general as in the thrown property.

According to the paragraph on the weapons chart, a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance, but that is overruled by the thrown property. Throwing a dagger is making an attack at a distance, but it is not a ranged weapon.
I have not been disputing that. Yes, that Specific Rule overrides the general definition of "melee" and "ranged"


No accurate reading of the rules in any sort of fashion supports what you want to happen. At this point you are being intentionally ignorant and contradictory simply to prolong an arguement even you know you are wrong in.
That's not what I've been doing. I have showed you how the text supports exactly what I've been saying. The difference between us is, I can read what YOU are positing and say "I can see how/why you think that, but I disagree", without resorting to Ad Hominem attacks or name-calling. In fact, I asked several pages ago if you thought that the definition of "melee weapons" only applied to the ones on the chart, because I was actively trying to understand your point of view, to see where our disconnect was.

Snowbluff and I see the sentence that says "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged" to apply to EVERY weapon in the most literal sense. That means that Improvised Weapons are still "weapons", and thus categorized as such (obviously, Specific Beats General, and things like the Thrown property mean weapons do not change classification when used in another manner).

You can disagree with the way we read "every weapon", but that doesn't mean we are "reading them inaccurately". It just means that you believe that sentence only applies to the weapons on the chart, and we believe that "every weapon" means EVERY WEAPON in the most literal sense. And without actual RULES to specify one way or the other, neither one is somehow "incorrect".

5th edition favors "rulings > rules", and each DM will have to decide how they read that sentence. I have not told you that you are "wrong" in any kind of objective fashion. I have simply re-iterated MY point of view several times, because you keep giving me the perception that you got something different from what I was intending to convey. Personally, I believe your interpretation has some implications away from the specifics of the "dual wielding and shield bash" example, which is why I have been asking you questions.

For example: The Kuo-toa pincer staff. It is an object designed to be used as a weapon in melee. Obviously, no PC would be proficient in the thing. However, if one were to pick one up from a fallen kuo-toa and attempt to use it (no proficiency bonus, obviously), would you categorize it as a "melee weapon" or not?


That is the definition of trolling.

That is not the definition of trolling on these forums. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)


Fixed that for you.
The PHB doesn't actually add that specification that you indicate. You do not have-in print-those words. It's been a rather important distinction.

[Wilb]

As a generic improvised weapon. Weapons are weapons. All weapons in the table at p. 149 in PHB are ranged or melee. not (RAW)


Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

[Misterwhisper]

Going just from the text of that paragraph, Snowbluff and I read it thus:

Here is a chart listing common weapons used.
Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. This is followed by both of those terms being defined.

The bolding is important. By saying it is listing the "most common" weapons, it means that the list is by no means comprehensive. Less common weapons, therefore, are implied to exist.

The section of classification of weapons is then a separate item in that paragraph. Because the table only shows the "most common" weapons, other weapons MUST, therefore, exist (case in point, the DMG has a weapons table for firearms and futuristic weapons that is similar to this chart, but those weapons are not on this chart). Those other weapons that exist are ALSO going to fall into the classification of either "melee" or "ranged". Thus, since that classification extends to apply to items outside the table, it must not only be discussing the table.

The fact is, the RAW does not say anything to the effect of "only items on this table can ever be called 'melee weapons' or 'ranged weapons'". You have no text to support your exclusion of classification in that regard. The text does say that "EVERY weapon" is thus classified.

But they are still -in the instance of being used in an attack- a "weapon", and therefore subject to being classified as "melee" or "ranged"

I have not been disputing that. Yes, that Specific Rule overrides the general definition of "melee" and "ranged"

That's not what I've been doing. I have showed you how the text supports exactly what I've been saying. The difference between us is, I can read what YOU are positing and say "I can see how/why you think that, but I disagree", without resorting to Ad Hominem attacks or name-calling. In fact, I asked several pages ago if you thought that the definition of "melee weapons" only applied to the ones on the chart, because I was actively trying to understand your point of view, to see where our disconnect was.

Snowbluff and I see the sentence that says "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged" to apply to EVERY weapon in the most literal sense. That means that Improvised Weapons are still "weapons", and thus categorized as such (obviously, Specific Beats General, and things like the Thrown property mean weapons do not change classification when used in another manner).

You can disagree with the way we read "every weapon", but that doesn't mean we are "reading them inaccurately". It just means that you believe that sentence only applies to the weapons on the chart, and we believe that "every weapon" means EVERY WEAPON in the most literal sense. And without actual RULES to specify one way or the other, neither one is somehow "incorrect".

5th edition favors "rulings > rules", and each DM will have to decide how they read that sentence. I have not told you that you are "wrong" in any kind of objective fashion. I have simply re-iterated MY point of view several times, because you keep giving me the perception that you got something different from what I was intending to convey. Personally, I believe your interpretation has some implications away from the specifics of the "dual wielding and shield bash" example, which is why I have been asking you questions.

For example: The Kuo-toa pincer staff. It is an object designed to be used as a weapon in melee. Obviously, no PC would be proficient in the thing. However, if one were to pick one up from a fallen kuo-toa and attempt to use it (no proficiency bonus, obviously), would you categorize it as a "melee weapon" or not?


That is not the definition of trolling on these forums. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)


The PHB doesn't actually add that specification that you indicate. You do not have-in print-those words. It's been a rather important distinction.

On the pincher staff question.

If I was the dm it is my option to allow an object that is close enough to a weapon to count as one for proficiency.

If you picked up a pincher staff and wanted to attack with it, it is close enough to a quarterstaff in my opinion to count as one, so if you have proficiency in quarterstaff you gain proficiency in the attack and treat it as a quarterstaff.

This however does not allow you to still consider it a pincher staff and use it the way a kua toa does.

A shield however is nothing like any weapon listed in the phb.
Even if it is similar to a spiked shield, which it is, a spiked shield is not a weapon listed anywhere in any book as a weapon in 5e. It is only listed as an attack option of a monster in a monster manual.
Even if someone were to let you count a shield as a spiked shield it would not help you because you can’t be proficient in spiked shields unless the dm custom makes you one.

Personally I would love their to be a spiked shield in 5e, one of my favorite characters in 3.5 was a heavy spiked armor wearing fighter whose only weapon was a spiked shield with multiple feats and things to back it up. He was like an evil sadistic heavy armored captain America, he ended up being nicknamed “Captain Thay”

Sadly, by the rules in 5e, I can’t pull that off no matter how much I would love to bend the rules to do it.

Edit: I think at some point I accidentally called Jeremy Crawford Jeremy carver in here, oops.

[RedMage125]

You did not address the meat of the point about the disagreement. Nor about the accusations you have leveled.

That is, that just because other people read "every weapon" to mean LITERALLY EVERY WEAPON, and you do not, does not make us "trolling" you.

If you are acknowledging that this is simply a different, but still entirely valid way to read those same words in print, then say so. And then I think Snowbluff and I deserve an apology for the name-calling. Neither one of us has called you any names.


On the pincher staff question.

If I was the dm it is my option to allow an object that is close enough to a weapon to count as one for proficiency.

If you picked up a pincher staff and wanted to attack with it, it is close enough to a quarterstaff in my opinion to count as one, so if you have proficiency in quarterstaff you gain proficiency in the attack and treat it as a quarterstaff.

This however does not allow you to still consider it a pincher staff and use it the way a kua toa does.
This does not answer the question in the way I meant it, and perhaps it's because I was unclear. I will attempt to clarify. Although, as an aside, I don't see why you would disallow using it as a kuo-toa does, if the player forgoes his/her proficiency bonus to the attack (because he/she is obviously not proficient in using such a weapon in such a manner).

I was asking if such would count as a "melee weapon". In the same way that you don't consider other things "melee weapons". If a PC (who HAS the Dual Wielder feat) picks up a downed Kuo-toa's pincer staff, and swings it in one hand, like a quarterstaff, while wielding a dagger in his off-hand, do you consider that he has "made an attack with a one-handed melee weapon" (in such a way that would trigger TWF)? The Kuo-toa staff IS a thing that was designed with the intent of being a weapon, and is not a "non-weapon object" like a shield. Whether or not the PC is proficient in the pincer staff is not relevant to my question. Is it a "melee weapon"?


A shield however is nothing like any weapon listed in the phb.
The PHB says that it is only listing "the most common weapons". By implication, less common weapons exist.


Even if it is similar to a spiked shield, which it is, a spiked shield is not a weapon listed anywhere in any book as a weapon in 5e. It is only listed as an attack option of a monster in a monster manual.
Even if someone were to let you count a shield as a spiked shield it would not help you because you can’t be proficient in spiked shields unless the dm custom makes you one.
Snowbluff already acknowledged that a PC cannot be proficient in spiked shields. The point was that a shield used to bash someone is " similar to an actual weapon" using the spiked shield as the case in point of the actual weapon it is similar to. The character is STILL improvising (as opposed to actually USING a lizardfolk spiked shield, which would be an actual weapon with which he is just not proficient), and thus would need Tavern Brawler to be able to add his proficiency bonus.

But proficiency bonus wasn't the meat of the point. The meat of the point was that there exists an object, used as a piece of armor, that is designated as a "weapon", even if it is exotic vis a vis the PC's proficiencies.



Personally I would love their to be a spiked shield in 5e...
*snip*
Sadly, by the rules in 5e, I can’t pull that off no matter how much I would love to bend the rules to do it.

Well, you could always make a ruling as a DM. Personally, I would allow this, provided the player had Dual Wielder. It seems pretty straightforward as per the RAW, to me. I would require Tavern Brawler to add proficiency bonus to the attack with the shield, because it IS an Improvised Weapon. And my personal ruling would be that -because the character is using that shield to hit someone as an improvised weapon- the shield would not grant the +2 bonus to AC until the start of the PC's next round, but WOULD grant the +1 to AC from the DW feat. Also, I would rule that since he has an Improvised Weapon in his off-hand, his main hand weapon attack would not benefit from the Dueling Fighting Style that round, either. Clearly, if I was the DM, this whole thing would be an inferior option, but that's what I see as the most coherent ruling that is in keeping with RAW.

You know what? I'd also allow the proficiency bonus to the shield bash attack if the PC had the Shield Master feat, because the flavor text of that feat says "you use shields not just for protection, but also for offense". That's obviously a house rule.

I recognize that these would be rulings at my table, and am saying as such. I'm just sharing how I would adjudicate this combo.

[JackPhoenix]

The PHB doesn't actually add that specification that you indicate. You do not have-in print-those words. It's been a rather important distinction.

The PHB also doesn't say that, let's see...
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action.

Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice before a rest, but only once on the same turn.

...this ability requires 2 levels of fighter. It says "Starting at 2nd level". That means everyone can use Action Surge starting at 2nd level. Because the context apparently doesn't matter.
It's not talking about Fighter class ability just because it's under Fighter, just like that "every weapon" part isn't talking about the table on p. 149 just because it's in the paragraph talking about that table.


That is, that just because other people read "every weapon" to mean LITERALLY EVERY WEAPON, and you do not, does not make us "trolling" you.

That sentence (or rather the following one) is already wrong, though. There are melee weapons that can be used to attack target further away than 5' from you (thrown or reach weapons, let's ignore other abilities that can give you reach longer than 5' with standard weapons), and you can use ranged weapons to attack enemies next to you, either with disadvantage (barring CE) as ranged attack, or as melee attack, using the improvised weapon rules. If you aknowledge that not every melee weapon is used to attack target within 5' of you, you should also aknowledge that not every weapon is melee or ranged weapon. Exceptions exist, and improvised weapons are one of such exceptions.

[KorvinStarmast]

I will continue to report you and him every time until a mod comes in and does something. You avatar has not yet turned blue.
Getting proficiency with the Spiked Shield would be the issue, seeing as it's not just a shield but also a weapon. It would totally work though. For a non lizard person, might this be a place for the Weapons Master Feat? Honest question, and on topic. Feats.

Semantics are the nature of the game In a RAW discussion, yes.

It’s amazing that this argument is still going. 5e design intent is a) common sense and b) DM rules. Save Advice, in the sage advice compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf), are official rulings but AL has said no DM is bound by them; they are a resource. This adds a little confusion since D&D 5e general principle of "rulings > rules" still doesn't help us if those are official rulings but are not considered binding in official/public play. Confusion is a good rule? What's in your ruling? (Riff on a Capital One commercial ...)

You also keep insisting that "official tweets" are a thing with any kind of weight vis a vis actual RULES. This is not the case. Sage Advice is just ADVICE. And it helps determine RAI (Rules As Intended), because it clarifies designer intent.
Actually, the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) are official rulings, and address the trifecta of RAW, RAI, and RAF. I think you are trying to dismiss them a bit too readily. Rulings > rules. That's a core 5e principle. As DM, even in AL, you can choose to rule that they, or any one of them, don't apply at your table. (And please make sure that you are clear about it to your players).
The Sage Advice Compendium collects questions and answers about the rules of Dungeons & Dragons (fifth edition). These are the official rulings of Jeremy Crawford, the game’s lead rules developer. Emphasis mine.

But the text says that "every weapon" is either melee or ranged. Improvised Weapons ARE weapons when used to attack. Ergo, even they must be melee or ranged for the purposes of if the attack. At no point in the RAW does it say "only the specific examples listed on this table are properly called 'weapons'". And you somehow insist that a strict-RAW reading says that, with no citation to support it. I read it similarly: it is during the attack that the improvised weapon is treated as a weapon, but at no other time.

Face it, in a discussion where "designer tweets" are not a valid source for citation, you are incorrect. But the SA compendium is official. :smallwink: I feel that any tweet that has not been folded into the SA Compendium is JC trying to help a DM, or many DM's, in coming up with a ruling.
RAF rules.

[Misterwhisper]

You avatar has not yet turned blue. For a non lizard person, might this be a place for the Weapons Master Feat? Honest question, and on topic. Feats.
In a RAW discussion, yes.
Save Advice, in the sage advice compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf), are official rulings but AL has said no DM is bound by them; they are a resource. This adds a little confusion since D&D 5e general principle of "rulings > rules" still doesn't help us if those are official rulings but are not considered binding in official/public play. Confusion is a good rule? What's in your ruling? (Riff on a Capital One commercial ...)

Actually, the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) are official rulings, and address the trifecta of RAW, RAI, and RAF. I think you are trying to dismiss them a bit too readily. Rulings > rules. That's a core 5e principle. As DM, even in AL, you can choose to rule that they, or any one of them, don't apply at your table. (And please make sure that you are clear about it to your players). Emphasis mine.
I read it similarly: it is during the attack that the improvised weapon is treated as a weapon, but at no other time.
But the SA compendium is official. :smallwink: I feel that any tweet that has not been folded into the SA Compendium is JC trying to help a DM, or many DM's, in coming up with a ruling.
RAF rules.

On the lizard folk spiked shield, weapon master would not get it normally, the feat was erattaed to only be martial and simple weapons. Monster entry attack stats are. Either of those. However, a dm could easily allow it if they want.

On the blue avatar comment I did not say I was or imply that I am a mod I simply informed them that I will continue to flag them for trolling as long as they intentionally change what the rules state just to argue, that is trolling.

[KorvinStarmast]

On the blue avatar comment I did not say I was or imply that I am a mod I simply informed them that I will continue to flag them for trolling as long as they intentionally change what the rules state just to argue, that is trolling. Actually, I was being a little snarky, referring to "hold my breath until I turn blue" .... FWIW, I did not say "avatar text was blue" :smallbiggrin:
Sorry for the snark, I was being a smart alec.

[Misterwhisper]

Actually, I was being a little snarky, referring to "hold my breath until I turn blue" .... FWIW, I did not say "avatar text was blue" :smallbiggrin:
Sorry for the snark, I was being a smart alec.

Ah, I completely misunderstood what you meant because mods have a blue text on their avatar.

Snark is all cool, no problem there.

[AHF]

So I have a couple questions.

Question #1 - If a Shield Is a Weapon Then No Dueling Style Benefit for Sword and Shield Characters?

A shield either is or is not a weapon. It can't both be a weapon and not a weapon at the same time and this determination is made before a character decides to do something with the shield (if it is not a weapon when the character makes his main attack TWF never triggers).

This has a consequence in at least two ways:

(1) Two-weapon fighting - If it is a weapon and is a melee weapon, then it triggers the opportunity for a bonus action attack for those with tavern brawler / dual wield feats. This is determined before the PC has to make a choice whether to utilize the extra attack.

(2) Dueling fighting style - If it is a weapon, you cannot get the +2 bonus to your attack when you have a sword and board equipment.

Is it the position of the people who think that a shield triggers TWF because it is a 'weapon' that characters with Dueling are deprived of the +2 damage bonus? Or do they think the status of a shield as a weapon varies from round to round and it is determined before the PC actually acts but based on what the PC plans to do or some other method?

Question #2 - Definitive definition of a "melee weapon"

This is the key text:


The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the worlds of D&D, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess. Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.

Here those contending improvised weapons are either melee or ranged argue that the first sentence is irrelevant to the rest of the paragraph (i.e., the rest of the paragraph is not discussion of the items on the weapons table that is the focus of the first sentence). Therefore, RAW is that everything that can be used as a weapon is classified as either melee or ranged, including improvised weapons. Further the 5 feet definition defines melee versus ranged by RAW.

If this is the RAW definition, is every weapon that makes an attack against a target within 5 feet truly a melee weapon and everything else is ranged?

So an improvised weapon like a rake is a ranged weapon if the rake is 7 feet long? (Assume here that the DM does not conclude that a rake is so similar to any listed weapon that it can be treated as such).

An improvised weapon that fires a projectile is a melee weapon if used to attack a target within 5 feet? (Assume whatever improvised weapon is not so similar to any listed weapon that it can be treated as such).

Question #3 - Sharpshooter Applies to Improved Weapons, Right?

Let's assume that we are talking about thrown bottles from a bar at a target more than 5 feet away. That means all ranged improvised weapons qualify for the sharpshooter feat and +10 damage as long as you have tavern brawler, correct? The only qualification for Sharpshooter is that you be proficient with a ranged weapon. A tavern brawler is proficient with improvised weapons and every improvised weapon is either melee or ranged and thus a character gets the SS +10 damage every time it attacks a target more than 5 feet away with an improvised weapon, right?

This would also apply to the 7 foot rake correct? It is an improvised weapon and therefore must be ranged or melee. Since it attacks a target at a range >5 feet, it is ranged improvised weapon. Since a taverbrawler is proficient with said ranged weapon, he can apply SS to attacks using that weapon. Correct or am I missing something?

[RedMage125]

The PHB also doesn't say that, let's see...

...this ability requires 2 levels of fighter. It says "Starting at 2nd level". That means everyone can use Action Surge starting at 2nd level. Because the context apparently doesn't matter.
It's not talking about Fighter class ability just because it's under Fighter, just like that "every weapon" part isn't talking about the table on p. 149 just because it's in the paragraph talking about that table.

Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Your Fighter example is that. It doesn't help your point, nor does it relate to mine in any way.

I'm still discussing the context of definitions of WEAPONS. I also don't ignore all context of the mention of the table. My reasoning is that, since the table only lists common weapons (and "uncommon" weapons are therefore implied to exist), the definition of "melee" and "ranged" weapons are definitions that apply to EVERY weapon, to include the ones listed on the table, as they are no exception.



That sentence (or rather the following one) is already wrong, though. There are melee weapons that can be used to attack target further away than 5' from you (thrown or reach weapons, let's ignore other abilities that can give you reach longer than 5' with standard weapons), and you can use ranged weapons to attack enemies next to you, either with disadvantage (barring CE) as ranged attack, or as melee attack, using the improvised weapon rules. If you aknowledge that not every melee weapon is used to attack target within 5' of you, you should also aknowledge that not every weapon is melee or ranged weapon. Exceptions exist, and improvised weapons are one of such exceptions.
I've already discussed that since Specific Overrides General, and acknowledgement for weapons with the Thrown property has already been made. Obviously, Crossbow Expert is another Specific example that overrides this general rule.

So those weapons REMAIN "melee" or "ranged" weapons. A thrown dagger is still a ranged attack with melee weapon. Hitting someone with a crowbar is an Improvised Weapon. And since crowbar does not exist on the table, we refer to the definition of melee and ranged weapons on page 146 to determine which of those it is. What an Improvised Weapon is NOT is "simple" or "martial". THAT is the classification that Improvised sits in on its own.

Holy Cow, that may be the disconnect.

Some of you see 3 weapon categories as:
-Melee (simple or martial)
-Ranged (simple or martial)
-Improvised

Snowbluff and I see:
-Simple (melee or ranged)
-Martial (melee or ranged)
-Improvised (melee or ranged)

Because the rules say that ALL weapons must be either "melee" or "ranged", but actual categorization on a weapons table (such as the one in the PHB, or the one in the DMG pg 268 for firearms) is required to define a weapon as "Simple" or "Martial".

See, some classes are proficient in "all simple weapons" or "all simple and martial weapons", but never is a class given proficiency in "all melee" or "all ranged" weapons. And the Tavern Brawler feat gives a character of ANY class proficiency in "all Improvised weapons", with no specified caveat in regards to "melee" or "ranged". To Snowbluff and I, this is because all of them are ALREADY either "melee" or "ranged".

To my reading, I think I am correct, because it's nonsensical to say that something cannot be both "Improvised" and "melee". While it clearly IS true that "simple/martial" and "improvised" ARE meant to be mutually exclusive.


For a non lizard person, might this be a place for the Weapons Master Feat? Honest question, and on topic. Feats.
I'm actually thinking that Misterwhispers is in the right on this one. Given the errata, I think that the Lizardfolk spiked shield still is not defined as "simple" or "martial", and thus renders it ineligible for WM.


In a RAW discussion, yes.
Save Advice, in the sage advice compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf), are official rulings but AL has said no DM is bound by them; they are a resource. This adds a little confusion since D&D 5e general principle of "rulings > rules" still doesn't help us if those are official rulings but are not considered binding in official/public play. Confusion is a good rule? What's in your ruling? (Riff on a Capital One commercial ...)

Actually, the Sage Advice Compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf) are official rulings, and address the trifecta of RAW, RAI, and RAF. I think you are trying to dismiss them a bit too readily. Rulings > rules. That's a core 5e principle. As DM, even in AL, you can choose to rule that they, or any one of them, don't apply at your table. (And please make sure that you are clear about it to your players).
I heartily agree that Rulings > Rules. But, as you yourself said, "In a RAW discussion", semantics are important. And in a RAW discussion, one can acknowledge "rulings > rules" as far as actual PLAY, but for discussion purposes, one cannot appeal to "rulings", because they cannot be consistently applied. Only what is Rules is Fact. So RAW discussions exist in a sort of vacuum vis a vis actual play.

I, myself, use a few house rules. And I think everyone does in their home games.


I read it similarly: it is during the attack that the improvised weapon is treated as a weapon, but at no other time.
And the crux of the discussion was whether or not it is treated "as a melee weapon", which would trigger TWF rules (given the assumption of Dual Wielder, a sa shield is not "light")


But the SA compendium is official. :smallwink: I feel that any tweet that has not been folded into the SA Compendium is JC trying to help a DM, or many DM's, in coming up with a ruling.
RAF rules.
But even the SA Compendium, as you said, are RULINGS. I acknowledge that they are rulings, and I acknowledge that the designers can clarify RAI. But for a RAW discussion, only what is actually written as rules holds weight.


On the blue avatar comment I did not say I was or imply that I am a mod I simply informed them that I will continue to flag them for trolling as long as they intentionally change what the rules state just to argue, that is trolling.

I have demonstrated a number of times that I have not "changed what the rules state". At no point have I insisted that words exist which do not, nor have I insisted on omitting any words. I simply have a different understanding of the phrase "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged" than you do.

Continuing to claim that I have done so, especially in light of the fact that I have -3 times now- explicitly clarified that such was not the case, is intentionally misrepresenting what I have said.

You really should review the Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

I have been trying to stay at least SOMEWHAT on topic (given that this thread has become about a specific use of a feat that Treantmonk mentioned, as opposed to the summary of all of them). And I have been citing rules to do so.

[Snowbluff]

Save Advice, in the sage advice compendium (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf), are official rulings but AL has said no DM is bound by them; they are a resource. This adds a little confusion since D&D 5e general principle of "rulings > rules" still doesn't help us if those are official rulings but are not considered binding in official/public play. Confusion is a good rule? What's in your ruling? (Riff on a Capital One commercial ...) Good to know, I'm considering having my Paladin bard pick up a shield as a weapon.



So I have a couple questions.

Question #1 - If a Shield Is a Weapon Then No Dueling Style Benefit for Sword and Shield Characters?

A shield either is or is not a weapon. It can't both be a weapon and not a weapon at the same time and this determination is made before a character decides to do something with the shield (if it is not a weapon when the character makes his main attack TWF never triggers).

This has a consequence in at least two ways:

(1) Two-weapon fighting - If it is a weapon and is a melee weapon, then it triggers the opportunity for a bonus action attack for those with tavern brawler / dual wield feats. This is determined before the PC has to make a choice whether to utilize the extra attack.

(2) Dueling fighting style - If it is a weapon, you cannot get the +2 bonus to your attack when you have a sword and board equipment.

Is it the position of the people who think that a shield triggers TWF because it is a 'weapon' that characters with Dueling are deprived of the +2 damage bonus? Or do they think the status of a shield as a weapon varies from round to round and it is determined before the PC actually acts but based on what the PC plans to do or some other method?


I'd it's only a weapon when being used as such, as per the tweet. This is a clarification made to fix this discrepancy. That's what the tweets are good for when it pertains to RAW.

If I were to go with a strict RAW ruling sans clarification, improvised weapons are actually anything you're holding. Dueling is busted by this. I'm fine with that, who uses it anyway? RAF I think people who smack people with a shield, or people using one weapon as is would be good. The only niche hurt are sword and boards who are built for damage but not using TWF?

Question 2: A rake can't be used to hit 5 feet away even if it's 7 feet long UNLESS it's a reach weapon by being similiar to a polearm (YMMW, I might allow it in a game). Reach weapons are an exception to the rule on melee weapons, whose normal function is hitting at 5 feat.

Question 3: I'd say if you whap someone with a bow it's being used a improvised melee weapon. Weapons can either be melee or ranged, which implies to me it's not a ranged weapon at the time you use it as a melee one. Conversely a whipping a brick at someone is a ranged weapon, so you can sharpshoot with it IIRC.

[RedMage125]

So I have a couple questions.

Question #1 - If a Shield Is a Weapon Then No Dueling Style Benefit for Sword and Shield Characters?

A shield either is or is not a weapon. It can't both be a weapon and not a weapon at the same time and this determination is made before a character decides to do something with the shield (if it is not a weapon when the character makes his main attack TWF never triggers).

This has a consequence in at least two ways:

(1) Two-weapon fighting - If it is a weapon and is a melee weapon, then it triggers the opportunity for a bonus action attack for those with tavern brawler / dual wield feats. This is determined before the PC has to make a choice whether to utilize the extra attack.

(2) Dueling fighting style - If it is a weapon, you cannot get the +2 bonus to your attack when you have a sword and board equipment.

Is it the position of the people who think that a shield triggers TWF because it is a 'weapon' that characters with Dueling are deprived of the +2 damage bonus? Or do they think the status of a shield as a weapon varies from round to round and it is determined before the PC actually acts but based on what the PC plans to do or some other method?
This has been addressed. But there was a lot of pages to go through, so it's no surprise that it was overlooked.

Under Snowbluff's original example, we have a character with the Extra Attack feature and the Dual Wielder feat using a longsword in one hand and a shield in the other. The character would take the attack action, using the shield as an Improvised Weapon. He has now made an attack with a one-handed weapon, thus allowing him to use a bonus action to attack with the weapon in his other hand. Since Extra Attack does not specify that it must be with the same weapon (likely intentionally, so a character can throw multiple daggers or whatnot), he takes his second attack of the Attack Action with the sword. He now uses a Bonus Action to make an attack with the weapon in the hand opposite his initial, triggering attack (which is again, the sword).

The RAW on this specific instance are not exactly clear in regards to your question. But my ruling would be that yes, if he is using the shield as an improvised weapon and benefitting from TWF, then he cannot benefit from the Dueling style with his main hand attacks that round. If, next round, the PC opted not NOT attack with his shield, I would allow the Dueling Style bonus to resume.


Question #2 - Definitive definition of a "melee weapon"

This is the key text:



Here those contending improvised weapons are either melee or ranged argue that the first sentence is irrelevant to the rest of the paragraph (i.e., the rest of the paragraph is not discussion of the items on the weapons table that is the focus of the first sentence). Therefore, RAW is that everything that can be used as a weapon is classified as either melee or ranged, including improvised weapons. Further the 5 feet definition defines melee versus ranged by RAW.

If this is the RAW definition, is every weapon that makes an attack against a target within 5 feet truly a melee weapon and everything else is ranged?
As a general rule, yes. Specific > General caveats exist. Such as Thrown and Reach properties for example.


So an improvised weapon like a rake is a ranged weapon if the rake is 7 feet long? (Assume here that the DM does not conclude that a rake is so similar to any listed weapon that it can be treated as such).
Honestly, it sounds like a Reach weapon in that regard. But since Improvised Weapons do not have Weapon Properties, such as Reach, I think it could not be used to attack someone more than 5 feet away if you are using it to strike someone in melee. Furthermore, where would you be holding this rake if it is only 7 feet long and the target is 7 feet away?


An improvised weapon that fires a projectile is a melee weapon if used to attack a target within 5 feet? (Assume whatever improvised weapon is not so similar to any listed weapon that it can be treated as such).
RAW, as per the PHB page 195, hurling a projectile is a "ranged attack". And doing this would impose disadvantage as per "ranged attacks in close combat" on that same page.


Question #3 - Sharpshooter Applies to Improved Weapons, Right?

Let's assume that we are talking about thrown bottles from a bar at a target more than 5 feet away. That means all ranged improvised weapons qualify for the sharpshooter feat and +10 damage as long as you have tavern brawler, correct? The only qualification for Sharpshooter is that you be proficient with a ranged weapon. A tavern brawler is proficient with improvised weapons and every improvised weapon is either melee or ranged and thus a character gets the SS +10 damage every time it attacks a target more than 5 feet away with an improvised weapon, right?

This would also apply to the 7 foot rake correct? It is an improvised weapon and therefore must be ranged or melee. Since it attacks a target at a range >5 feet, it is ranged improvised weapon. Since a taverbrawler is proficient with said ranged weapon, he can apply SS to attacks using that weapon. Correct or am I missing something?
I covered the rake + reach thing, so no on that, but the thrown bottle and SS...
...
...
I believe you are correct. You have the dart as a designation of weapon that is "Ranged", but is thrown, and not an "Ammunition" type weapon, so clearly some thrown weapons can be considered "ranged weapons" as per the RAW. So there's a precedent. AND this is a character who has spent valuable ASI/feat resources on 2 feats (TB and SS) in order to do this AND they are taking an additional -5 on their attack roll. Looks like RAW says yes, someone with both of those feats can get the SS +10 damage on throwing ANYTHING.

Nice find.

[AHF]

When do you make the pc decide if the shield is a weapon or shield? I don’t understand the round to round swap between armor and weapon.

Seems like if it only becomes a weapon when used, it never triggers twf because holding a melee weapon in your off hand is a condition precedent to twf being an option. Therefore, you must be holding two weapons at the time you initiate the attack action - ie before you actually attack with it.

I do understand Snowbluff’s position that you can’t use dueling while holding a shield. I find it an absurd but logical outcome of this reading of the text where a shield qualifies as a melee weapon for twf. If it is a melee weapon, it opens up twf allowing it to be used to strike but disqualifying use of the Dueling style which all works together logically.

[RedMage125]

When do you make the pc decide if the shield is a weapon or shield? I don’t understand the round to round swap between armor and weapon.

Seems like if it only becomes a weapon when used, it never triggers twf because holding a melee weapon in your off hand is a condition precedent to twf being an option. Therefore, you must be holding two weapons at the time you initiate the attack action - ie before you actually attack with it.
This is also something we covered previously. TWF is not a "condition". If you START by using the shield as an improvised weapon, you are currently (at the moment of the attack), holding a weapon (a longsword) in your other hand, yes? Ergo, you have met the requirements to use a bonus action to attack with that weapon (the longsword) in this round.

Like I said, the RAW are not explicit in regards to "not considering the shield to be a shield anymore", that's just how I would rule it if I was the DM. But that's because I would deem it exploitative for a PC to benefit from twf and a fighting style that REQUIRES no weapon to be used in the off hand.

But since the shield is not a "weapon" until the PC attacks with it, I would say that at the start of the PC's turn, it once again becomes considered an armor item (unless in that round, they decide to shield both again). Again, that is my ruling on the matter.

Is that more clear?


I do understand Snowbluff’s position that you can’t use dueling while holding a shield. I find it an absurd but logical outcome of this reading of the text where a shield qualifies as a melee weapon for twf. If it is a melee weapon, it opens up twf allowing it to be used to strike but disqualifying use of the Dueling style which all works together logically.
Like we said, it is ONLY a weapon during the attack with it. I guess by a strict RAW reading, it goes back to being a shield (and granting the full +2 bonus to AC), but like I said, I would be a little harsher with my ruling.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm still discussing the context of definitions of WEAPONS. I also don't ignore all context of the mention of the table. My reasoning is that, since the table only lists common weapons (and "uncommon" weapons are therefore implied to exist), the definition of "melee" and "ranged" weapons are definitions that apply to EVERY weapon, to include the ones listed on the table, as they are no exception.

There are uncommon weapons... firearms in the PHB, yklwa in ToA, refluffed weapons mentioned in the DMG... but they are all specifically listed as melee or ranged weapons. If you find a shield or any other improvised weapon refered to as melee or ranged weapon anywhere (and not just normal weapon used the wrong way), you'll have something to base your argument on.


Some of you see 3 weapon categories as:

There are also natural weapons. By your logic, every natural weapon should be listed as "natural melee weapon". Yet if you look at the races that use natural weapons (tortles, lizardfolk, tabaxi) instead of just modifying unarmed attacks (aarakocra), none of them use the magical "melee weapon" term.

[Snowbluff]

There are uncommon weapons... firearms in the PHB, yklwa in ToA, refluffed weapons mentioned in the DMG... but they are all specifically listed as melee or ranged weapons. If you find a shield or any other improvised weapon refered to as melee or ranged weapon anywhere (and not just normal weapon used the wrong way), you'll have something to base your argument on.
*coughs*
(https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters:Lizardfolk#content)



There are also natural weapons. By your logic, every natural weapon should be listed as "natural melee weapon". Yet if you look at the races that use natural weapons (tortles, lizardfolk, tabaxi) instead of just modifying unarmed attacks (aarakocra), none of them use the magical "melee weapon" term.

It follows naturally that they are. They made not be called that, but that's what they are.

[UrielAwakened]

Yes, every "WEAPON" is either melee or ranged.
An improvised weapon is only an object until you attack with it, then it simply becomes an improvised weapon, not an improvised melee weapon or improvised ranged weapon.

As a matter of fact Improvised "melee" or "ranged" weapons do not exist at all.

That's not how this game works.

Literally every attack roll is categorized as one of four things: A melee weapon attack, a ranged weapon attack, a melee spell attack, or a ranged spell attack.

If you are making an attack roll you are making one of those four types of attacks, period.

Pick up a chair and attack with it, it's a melee weapon attack. Pick up a chair and throw it, it's a ranged weapon attack. Punching someone is a melee weapon attack despite your fist being a part of your body.

[JackPhoenix]

*coughs*
(https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters:Lizardfolk#content)

I don't see any weapon listed anywhere. I see monster attack options. Some of them are standard weapons, though.


It follows naturally that they are. They made not be called that, but that's what they are.

It follows that if they were melee weapons, they would be called as such.


That's not how this game works.

Literally every attack roll is categorized as one of four things: A melee weapon attack, a ranged weapon attack, a melee spell attack, or a ranged spell attack.

If you are making an attack roll you are making one of those four types of attacks, period.

Pick up a chair and attack with it, it's a melee weapon attack. Pick up a chair and throw it, it's a ranged weapon attack. Punching someone is a melee weapon attack despite your fist being a part of your body.

Nobody disputes that. However, we're not talking about melee/ranged ATTACKS, but melee/ranged WEAPONS. You can make ranged weapon (and spell, thanks, Magic Stone) attacks with ranged or melee (thrown or otherwise) weapons or melee weapon attacks with unarmed strikes (which specifically are NOT weapons) or ranged weapons.

[RedMage125]

There are uncommon weapons... firearms in the PHB, yklwa in ToA, refluffed weapons mentioned in the DMG... but they are all specifically listed as melee or ranged weapons. If you find a shield or any other improvised weapon refered to as melee or ranged weapon anywhere (and not just normal weapon used the wrong way), you'll have something to base your argument on.
Those are also listed as "Simple" or "Martial", are they not? Your example does not undercut anything I was saying. And again, I maintain that the PHB says that "EVERY weapon is classified as either melee or ranged."


There are also natural weapons. By your logic, every natural weapon should be listed as "natural melee weapon". Yet if you look at the races that use natural weapons (tortles, lizardfolk, tabaxi) instead of just modifying unarmed attacks (aarakocra), none of them use the magical "melee weapon" term.

If, as you claim, Improvised Weapons are neither "melee" nor "ranged", which stat modifier do you use to make an attack roll, then? Remember, if the RAW support your claim, you can find it in the book.

PHB pages 14 and 194 lists the rules for making an attack roll, and which modifiers to use. They say you use STR for a melee weapon attack, and DEX for a ranged weapon attack, and that the Thrown and Finesse properties break this general rule.

Since you're so insistent that Improvised Weapons are somehow "neither", which ability mod do you use to attack, hmm? Educate me. Use the RAW and find a citation that says so explicitly.

Contrariwise, if I am correct, (humor me a little with a hypothetical), then we have no such gap in the rules. If ALL weapons (simple, martial, improvised, and natural) are either "melee" or "ranged", then the rules are 100% clear on how to adjudicate this, and it is spelled out by accepting that the line in pg 146 of the PHB does, in fact, mean EVERY weapon, literally. Looking at it this way creates no inconsistencies in the RAW. So a Manticore's Tail Spikes are Natural Ranged Weapons (makes sense). A Lizardfolk's Bite is a Natural Melee Weapon (also consistent so far). Jury-rigging some kind of "brick launcher" is an Improvised Ranged Weapon, and thus uses DEX to attack (still makes sense). Smacking someone with a table leg is an Improvised Melee Weapon, and uses STR (still making sense).

So you have one way of looking at it, where suddenly, we have no actual RULES to determine which stat to use for an attack roll (only making assumptions).

Or the other way of looking at it, which covers that base quite neatly.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Since you're so insistent that Improvised Weapons are somehow "neither", which ability mod do you use to attack, hmm? Educate me. Use the RAW and find a citation that says so explicitly.


PHB Chapter 9: Combat, Making an Attack (Subsection, Attack Rolls)
Ability Modifier. The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.

Some spells also require an attack roll. The ability modifier used for a spell attack depends on the spellcasting ability of the spellcaster, as explained in chapter 10.

Weapon attacks do not require you to be using an actual weapon, as evidenced by unarmed strikes. Improvised weapons have no properties so they would defaultly use Strength for melee attacks, Dexterity for ranged attacks*
*unless you are throwing a melee weapon, in which case it uses strength even without the thrown property

Can't you try to make your point without throwing such condescending language into it?

EDIT: I'm more than a bit confused you're asking for the RAW when you quoted it yourself. Here's the rule in the PHB that differentiates unarmed strikes from weapons also, while still being labeled as a melee weapon attack:

PHB Chapter 9: Combat, Making an Attack (Subsection, Melee Attacks)
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.

[The Jack]

A monster's unusual weapon is not improvised unless it's too large or small for normal use. The shield will be the exception. There are no 'exotic' weapons in 5e, If you find a hook spear, pincer spear, boomerang, assault rifle or Ray gun, and your class happens to give you 'all simple and martial weapons', you can use the weapon (a bit of familiarization period for fluff would be good) unless its an improvised tool to the persons you took it from.
A competent GM will decide if the weapon's special properties are balanced enough for as-is use by the player, otherwise it's just a common weapon with a feature they don't use/awaiting a few level ups or a feat.

A shield...

[Snowbluff]

It follows that if they were melee weapons, they would be called as such.


Citation needed, but...


I don't see any weapon listed anywhere. I see monster attack options. Some of them are standard weapons, though. The spiked shield is a weapon and is called as such. :smalltongue:

[RedMage125]

It follows that if they were melee weapons, they would be called as such.
So...if we look at the Lizardfolk, the only one of those 3 examples to be presented both with Player Race Options and as an official printed stat block for a monster, we see that the Lizardfolk's Bite Attack IS INDEED called a "Melee Weapon Attack".

This is the only places where the rules on those things intersect. And you think this is somehow..."not the case"?


Nobody disputes that. However, we're not talking about melee/ranged ATTACKS, but melee/ranged WEAPONS. You can make ranged weapon (and spell, thanks, Magic Stone) attacks with ranged or melee (thrown or otherwise) weapons or melee weapon attacks with unarmed strikes (which specifically are NOT weapons) or ranged weapons.
Just to be clear, you are saying that using an improvised weapon, such as a table leg is "making a melee weapon attack" WITH A WEAPON*, but that weapon is not a "melee weapon"?

*To avoid being pedantic, we are acknowledging that Unarmed Strikes are a Specific Exception to the General Rule, as are weapons with certain properties, such as the Thrown, Reach, and Finesse properties. Unarmed Strikes allow one to make "weapon attacks" without a weapon. Thrown allows ranged attacks with melee weapons (without using Improvised Weapon rules). Finesse violates the "use STR for melee attacks" rule. And Reach is the exception to "melee attacks are attacks against a creature within 5 feet" rule.



Weapon attacks do not require you to be using an actual weapon, as evidenced by unarmed strikes. Improvised weapons have no properties so they would use Strength for both throwing and melee attacks.
That's actually the rules that I was quoting, thank you. And it does not answer the question, since those rules specify "melee weapon attacks", and JackPhoenix is insisting that Improvised Weapons are not "melee weapons". Unarmed Strikes are a Specific Exception to the general rule that explicitly states one may use one to make a "melee weapon attack" without a weapon. But an Improvised Weapon IS still a weapon. And using your logic puts you in the same conundrum as I have just asked JackPhoenix. That being, that you are claiming that you are making a "melee weapon attack" WITH A WEAPON, but that it is not a "melee weapon", and is also not one of the aforementioned specific exceptions (unarmed, thrown, reach, finesse).

So please, again, if Improvised Weapons are somehow "neither melee nor ranged", find me the RAW that says which stat modifier is added to the attack roll. Mind you, this RAW should not the general rule that covers "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon" attacks, because you are insisting that an Improvised Weapon is "neither".


Can't you try to make your point without throwing such condescending language into it?
Blue text is generally accepted as sarcasm. I'm sorry if you find such condescending. But mayhaps you should also caution your fellow posters on your side of the debate to not do the same, either. By this I mean things like "magical 'melee weapon' term", or "If you find...you'll have something to base your argument on". Both of which the poster I was replying to said in his comment I replied to. To compound that, such language was used to posit something that painted himself into a corner where the RAW are not consistent and do not make sense.

But to interject into something I said as a reply to someone else in the same tone he took with me, and take offense as if my tone was directed at you, seems a little silly, wot?

You have been entirely professional in your language Godot, I meant no disrespect. And I apologize if you have taken offense. Even though we disagree.

Actually, I'm curious, then where you stand on what I said about the distinction of Improvised being opposed to Simple/Martial, instead of opposed to Melee/Ranged? I think it makes more sense. Simple Weapons are ones most commoners can use, Martial ones require more training, and Improvised ones are things that are neither. That way the distinction is more clear, and you can still make the appellation of "melee/ranged" without getting into wonky, nonsensical statements of "melee weapon attack with a weapon, but the weapon isn't a melee weapon".

EDIT:


EDIT: I'm more than a bit confused you're asking for the RAW when you quoted it yourself. Here's the rule in the PHB that differentiates unarmed strikes from weapons also, while still being labeled as a melee weapon attack:

I was asking him for the RAW on Improvised Weapon attacks, which he (and you, and Misterwhisper) is insisting are not "melee" or "ranged" weapons. Unarmed Strikes are a Specific Exception covered in that they are "melee weapon attacks" without ANY kind of weapon. Nothing about listing them proves anything about making a "melee weapon attack" WITH A WEAPON that is somehow "not a melee weapon".

[Sudsboy]

Aragorn: "If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. You have my sword…
Legolas: …and you have my bow…
Gimli: …and my shield, but only if I attack with it first so that I can use my Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler feats to set my fighting state to that of using two weapons, you see, and then, because on page 146 of the Player's Handbook it says "every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged", assuming you ignore the previous sentence that provides context, I can ignore designer intent and several rulings against it to gain an unintended benefit!"

[ProsecutorGodot]

Blue text is generally accepted as sarcasm. I'm sorry if you find such condescending. But mayhaps you should also caution your fellow posters on your side of the debate to not do the same, either. By this I mean things like "magical 'melee weapon' term", or "If you find...you'll have something to base your argument on". Both of which the poster I was replying to said in his comment I replied to. To compound that, such language was used to posit something that painted himself into a corner where the RAW are not consistent and do not make sense.

But to interject into something I said as a reply to someone else in the same tone he took with me, and take offense as if my tone was directed at you, seems a little silly, wot?

You have been entirely professional in your language Godot, I meant no disrespect. And I apologize if you have taken offense. Even though we disagree.
Blue text being sarcasm doesn't excuse using it to imply a place of superiority. From the start of this thread both you and Snowbluff have been dismissive of any arguments to the contrary. You're not being so overtly offensive (or dismissive on that same note) about it like Snowbluff has been, but I feel like sarcasm is better left outside of a debate even if it wasn't intended to be harmful. I do believe that you're trying to argue from a point of good intentions and understanding but even obvious sarcasm can cloud that perception.

I'm sorry that it came out in response to your comment, rather than one of Snowbluff's ridiculously smug, unnecessary and unhelpful image posts.


Actually, I'm curious, then where you stand on what I said about the distinction of Improvised being opposed to Simple/Martial, instead of opposed to Melee/Ranged? I think it makes more sense. Simple Weapons are ones most commoners can use, Martial ones require more training, and Improvised ones are things that are neither. That way the distinction is more clear, and you can still make the appellation of "melee/ranged" without getting into wonky, nonsensical statements of "melee weapon attack with a weapon, but the weapon isn't a melee weapon".
My issue with this is that Simple/Martial and Melee/Ranged (in the way that your argument is formed) are mutually inclusive terms. If we decided to treat improvised weapons as a paralel to Simple and Martial then we'd have to append all of the necessary additions onto that, Melee and Ranged, Weapon Properties, Proficiencies and all of the other fiddly bits. It's a lot of complication to add to something that, in my opinion, reads pretty simply.

And just for the record, even though I disagree with how you're presenting the RAW argument that doesn't mean I wouldn't allow it to be played as such (within reason) at a table that I was running. I don't see much wrong with it past it being "against RAW" which shouldn't be the end all argument of what you allow at your table.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review. It's really best not to try to moderate each other. Just report what you think is problematic and keep the thread about whatever the thread is supposed to be about.