Dual Wielding = Shield Master Lite???

[MadBear]

So if you assume that a shield can be used as an improvised weapon (makes sense to me, but a case can be made that disagrees), then it follows that if you take the Dual Wielding feat you can:

1. AC = 10+ armor bonus + shield bonus + 1 Dual Wield feat
2. Use your bonus action to make a 1d4 attack with disadvantage (because it's an improvised weapon)
3. Even better, you can use it to push/knock prone an enemy (albeit with disadvantage)

To top it off, if have an odd strength score, you can take Tavern Brawler, and now the attacks are made without disadvantage, making it function almost identically to Shield master.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So if you assume that a shield can be used as an improvised weapon (makes sense to me, but a case can be made that disagrees), then it follows that if you take the Dual Wielding feat you can:

1. AC = 10+ armor bonus + shield bonus + 1 Dual Wield feat
2. Use your bonus action to make a 1d4 attack with disadvantage (because it's an improvised weapon)
3. Even better, you can use it to push/knock prone an enemy (albeit with disadvantage)

To top it off, if have an odd strength score, you can take Tavern Brawler, and now the attacks are made without disadvantage, making it function almost identically to Shield master.

Ok, a lot to unpack here.

1: Attacks don't have disadvantage for non-peoficiency or for being off hand.

2: Tavern brawler lets you use improvised weapons witb proficiency. Has nothing to do with advantage or disadvantage.

3: Ask your DM if you will get the AC bonus when you dual wield with a shield. Some will say no.

4: Shove action doesn't have diadvantage like that. Also, shove replaces an attack in the attack action not the bonus action attack. Get shield master feat.

[Griswold]

1. AC = 10+ armor bonus + shield bonus + 1 Dual Wield feat
2. Use your bonus action to make a 1d4 attack with disadvantage (because it's an improvised weapon)
3. Even better, you can use it to push/knock prone an enemy (albeit with disadvantage)


The problem with your analysis is that shields aren't one-handed melee weapons. They're improvised weapons. So you can't dual wield with them, and so you can't get the bonuses.

(As an aside, you don't get disadvantage when you attack with an improvised weapon. You just don't get to add your proficiency bonus, because no class gives proficiency in "improvised weapons")

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The problem with your analysis is that shields aren't one-handed melee weapons. They're improvised weapons. So you can't dual wield with them, and so you can't get the bonuses.

(As an aside, you don't get disadvantage when you attack with an improvised weapon. You just don't get to add your proficiency bonus, because no class gives proficiency in "improvised weapons")

Improvised weapons are still weapons.

[Greywander]

Honestly, if someone went to the effort to get the requisite feats to make this work, I'd let them. It's not really that strong, and requires a pretty deep investment. I don't really see a problem with wacky, unoptimized builds. Where problems begin is when someone finds a way to get a substantial bonus for minimal investment, and this ain't that.

To make this work, you need:

Dual Wielder, so you can dual wield shields and get that +1 AC.
Tavern Brawler, so you can add your proficiency bonus when you attack with improvised weapons. Can't grapple because hands are full.
Optionally Shield Master, for bonus action shove. Probably get either this or TWF style, but not both.
Optionally TWF style, so you can add your STR mod to the damage of the bonus action attack (if you don't shove).
Donning or doffing a shield also requires an action, so you can't just drop it to free up a hand (for items or spells), nor can you re-equip it using an item interaction.
Your damage die is stuck at a d4, rather than the d8 you'd expect from an average one-handed martial weapon.

[Misterwhisper]

Improvised weapons are still weapons.

No, they are items that are only weapons in the instant you attack and nothing more.

Being proficient with them even with tavern brawler does not make them weapons either it just lets you add proficiency when attacking.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No, they are items that are only weapons in the instant you attack and nothing more.

Being proficient with them even with tavern brawler does not make them weapons either it just lets you add proficiency when attacking.

As soon as you use it as a weapon it qualifies for anything that needs a weapon.

So, if you use a chair as a weapon, it's a weapon.

So, if you want to dual wield a shield, with the dual wielder feat, you can as you are using the shield as a weapon (and it is a weapon when you do as such).

Improvised weapons are weapons.


Edit

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666693440600600576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-3827139892913516451.ampproject.net%2F1908222134250 %2Fframe.html

So while you aren't using it as a weapon, the shield is a shield, but during the brief time you use it as an improvised weapon... It's a weapon.

[Greywander]

So while you aren't using it as a weapon, the shield is a shield, but during the brief time you use it as an improvised weapon... It's a weapon.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you're saying it can be either a shield or a weapon, but not both at the same time. Ergo, when you get attacked, you can only get either shield AC or Dual Wielder AC, but not both at the same time. Kind of moot, though, because the shield only counts as a weapon while you are attacking with it, based on what you've said here.

As I said in my post, I'd be fine with this build. But your own argument is working against your point.

Edit: I'd say the difference would be one of intention. Holding something in your hand does not mean you are wielding a weapon. But if you adopt a fighting stance and ready a swing with that item, then you're wielding a weapon. Basically, it's a question of whether or not you are prepared to defend yourself using that item. If you smack someone with a cane, that's a weapon, but if you're just walking down the street, that same cane is not a weapon.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I understand what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you're saying it can be either a shield or a weapon, but not both at the same time. Ergo, when you get attacked, you can only get either shield AC or Dual Wielder AC, but not both at the same time. Kind of moot, though, because the shield only counts as a weapon while you are attacking with it, based on what you've said here.

As I said in my post, I'd be fine with this build. But your own argument is working against your point.

My own argument is from JC, take it up with the creator.

It's not an either/or situation. The item is usable as a wepaon because its an improvised weapon. As soon as you use it as an improvised weapon... It's a weapon.

Yeah a baseball bat is a tool/toy but as soon as you swing it at someone's head it's a weapon.

Anything that calls for a weapon attack works with improvised weapons, because you're using the improvised weapon as a weapon.

You don't lose the AC bonus from a shield because when you get attacked, you aren't using it as a weapon, it's back to being just a shield. It's not like you are leaving your shield over extended after you attack and waiting for an enemy to attack you.

[Greywander]

Reread the part of your post that I quoted, and pretend it's someone arguing that this shouldn't work. Again, I get what you're going for, but what you said could easily be interpreted as saying that it can't work as both a weapon and a shield at that same time, or that it only counts as a weapon while attacking with it.

As I said in the edit of my last post, I think it comes down to intention. If someone attacks you while you're double-chugging beer, it would be a hard sell that you should get the AC bonus because you're "dual-wielding beer mugs". But if you pick up a beer mug with the intention of hitting someone with it, then it becomes a weapon, beyond any doubt. With weapons and shields it's a bit easier, as those are really only used to defend yourself.

I think part of it also comes down to the character itself. If you're playing someone who normally fights using two shields, then I'd give you the bonus all the time, since that's how they're used to fighting. But I'd be more leery of giving you the bonus any time you just happen to be holding something in each hand. But for a character whose whole shtick was fighting with every random item they could find, I'd be more lenient about letting them get the bonus.

[Misterwhisper]

As soon as you use it as a weapon it qualifies for anything that needs a weapon.

So, if you use a chair as a weapon, it's a weapon.

So, if you want to dual wield a shield, with the dual wielder feat, you can as you are using the shield as a weapon (and it is a weapon when you do as such).

Improvised weapons are weapons.


Edit

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/666693440600600576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5E tweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-3827139892913516451.ampproject.net%2F1908222134250 %2Fframe.html

So while you aren't using it as a weapon, the shield is a shield, but during the brief time you use it as an improvised weapon... It's a weapon.

That would only happen for the instant you are using to it attack and is gone as soon as the attack is over.

So for the instant you attack you can qualify for Dual Wielder but not when not attacking.

So if you have a longsword and shield you are not wielding two one handed weapons. You are wielding a weapon and a shield so you can’t then qualify for twf.

You are not wielding 2 weapons when being attacked you are using a weapon and a shield, so no +1 ac.

You also can’t draw the shield as it takes an action to don one and it is not a weapon if you are not attacking.

It is not a weapon just because you wield it only when you are in the process of attacking with it.

[greenstone]

So if you assume that a shield can be used as an improvised weapon
A very, very big assumption.:smallbiggrin:

In my game, using a shield as an improvised weapon requires you to be holding it, not wearing it. It also requires two hands, because shields are big.

Things you wear (shield, helm, gauntlets, boots, etc) are not weapons.

Assuming all of that, an improvised weapon is not a melee weapon or a ranged weapon. Why not? Because it isn't on any of the weapon tables. Any feature that says something like "attack with a weapon" does not apply to beer mugs.

In this case, two-weapon fighting requires a "light melee weapon" (or non-light, for the feat) which means "something on one of the melee weapon tables". Not a shield. Or a gauntlet, boot, pauldron or helm.

[MadBear]

1. Oops, mistake on what not being proficient does. For some reason I thought it made you have disadvantage, not that you don't get proficiency. Doesn't really affect the overall point though (just insert proficiency instead of disadvantage/advantage)

2. If an improvised weapon doesn't count as being a weapon, that's a failure on the rules design. The word weapon is literally part of "improvised weapon".

[JackPhoenix]

3. Even better, you can use it to push/knock prone an enemy (albeit with disadvantage)

Ignoring everything else, you can't. TWF allows you to make an attack as BA, nothing else. You can't replace that attack with grapple or shove (replacing attacks with shove/grapple attempts specifically require Attack action)

[MadBear]

Ignoring everything else, you can't. TWF allows you to make an attack as BA, nothing else. You can't replace that attack with grapple or shove (replacing attacks with shove/grapple attempts specifically require Attack action)

Ah. That is fair. I missed that particular clause.

[Arkhios]

2. If an improvised weapon doesn't count as being a weapon, that's a failure on the rules design. The word weapon is literally part of "improvised weapon".

It's not a design failure. It's very intentional.

These two things are "absolute terms"

"weapon"

"improvised weapon"
In other words, it's not intended to be read as "improvised"+"weapon"

"weapon" and "improvised weapon" are different from each other, and follow different rules, even though they do overlap at certain situations, just like "melee weapon" and "ranged weapon", or "simple weapon" and "martial weapon".

[Greywander]

Ignoring everything else, you can't. TWF allows you to make an attack as BA, nothing else. You can't replace that attack with grapple or shove (replacing attacks with shove/grapple attempts specifically require Attack action)
Suddenly, the thread title makes sense. This is exactly why I listed Shield Master as an optional feat for this type of build; because you can't BA shove without it. As I mentioned, the Tavern Brawler BA grapple won't work because your hands are already full. This just leaves punching stuff with your shield as a BA (since you are dual wielding). Being able to shove as a BA might also be nice, but you can just use your normal Attack action to shove, then BA attack. Works better with the TWF style and Tavern Brawler for better damage and hit chance.

[Fnissalot]

An improvised weapon is a weapon when using it to do a ranged or melee weapon attack but it is never a melee weapon or a ranged weapon.

Melee weapon != Melee weapon attack

The only part of the dual wielding feat that could affect shields as a improvised weapon is the third part. You can draw or stow it and another weapon when you would only be able to do one. The shield is when drawn not donned, so you do not get the AC bonus unless you spend an action donning it.

[GlenSmash!]

If a player wants to take Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler I'd let those work together for bonus action shield attacks at 1d4+Strength damage.

That takes 2 feats to pull off and I wouldn't rate it higher than GWM+PAM or Sentinel+PAM and certainly not above SS+CBE.

They could also Shield Attack as part of the attack action and if they hit, grapple as a bonus action per Tavern Brawler. But shoving as a bonus action would require Shield Master.

[Misterwhisper]

If a player wants to take Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler I'd let those work together for bonus action shield attacks at 1d4+Strength damage.

That takes 2 feats to pull off and I wouldn't rate it higher than GWM+PAM or Sentinel+PAM and certainly not above SS+CBE.

They could also Shield Attack as part of the attack action and if they hit, grapple as a bonus action per Tavern Brawler. But shoving as a bonus action would require Shield Master.

Not being as good as broken combat feats is not justification for something being able to work.

It also gives 3 ac while still two weapon fighting.

So you could use, twf, protection, defense, and possibly dueling style all at once.

No.

[GlenSmash!]

Not being as good as broken combat feats is not justification for something being able to work.
I don't think those are broken combat feats. Spells outstrip them in power and versatility anyway. Most feats should have been about that good in the first place.


It also gives 3 ac while still two weapon fighting.

3 AC doesn't bother me either. An artificer making an Enhanced Defense shield accomplishes the same thing and at level 12+ can beat it plus getting nice bonus action use from spells, class features, and pet options. Bladesinging is higher AC and can still TWF, not that you'd want to as there are much better uses for bonus actions on a Wizard anyway.


So you could use, twf, protection, defense, and possibly dueling style all at once.

To get twf, protection, defense, and dueling is flat out not that scary. Protection is mediocre use of a Reaction for one thing. TWF is equaled or surpassed by a number of spells and class features. Also if a player is using a weapon as a shield and has a weapon in their other hand they are disqualified from Dueling fighting style damage IMHO.

Even if it were a scary combo it would take 10+ Champion or Brute with 2+ Ranger and 2+ Paladin or one of those weird bards that get fighting styles to pull it off. At 14+ levels I am still more worried about single classed Wizards and Moon Druids than that kind of multiclass combo.

I could see it being a problem if another player at the table wanted to play a more traditional TWF character. Watching it be outstripped would be a problem. I think it's more of a problem with TWF than with this specific combo and I would prefer to bring that basic TWF character up because that would also put them at the level of pretty much every other character in my game.

I'd probably come up with a pair of Enchanted weapons that when used together could make that TWF feel unique, powerful, and useful.

A Brute could make the most of it. That might give be some pause.

It's all academic to me anyway. My players can barely be bothered to crack open a PHB much less plan far enough ahead to use any kind of feat combo.

[No brains]

It boils my boogers that shields aren't considered weapons even with historical examples, the art in the PHB showing it used as a weapon, and monsters using shields as weapons. Reality and the game agree. A shield is a cromulent attack-tool.

I can sort of understand it from a deeply gamist perspective:
"A shield would probably hit like a club, so lets have it use a d4 as damage. Defending with the shield at the same time as attacking with it seems hard, so lets sacrifice one's proficiency bonus as a compromise. If a shield doesn't count as a weapon, dueling is a more viable fighting style. Huh, looking at that all together, maybe the rules would work easiest if shields weren't weapons."

I think this feat combo is decent. Maybe requires a little polish, but worth considering. It's not as abusively broken as "Great-Tavern-Shooter" clubbing people with a longbow for +20 damage. It's at least within a stone's throw of sanity.

[Misterwhisper]

It boils my boogers that shields aren't considered weapons even with historical examples, the art in the PHB showing it used as a weapon, and monsters using shields as weapons. Reality and the game agree. A shield is a cromulent attack-tool.

I can sort of understand it from a deeply gamist perspective:
"A shield would probably hit like a club, so lets have it use a d4 as damage. Defending with the shield at the same time as attacking with it seems hard, so lets sacrifice one's proficiency bonus as a compromise. If a shield doesn't count as a weapon, dueling is a more viable fighting style. Huh, looking at that all together, maybe the rules would work easiest if shields weren't weapons."

I think this feat combo is decent. Maybe requires a little polish, but worth considering. It's not as abusively broken as "Great-Tavern-Shooter" clubbing people with a longbow for +20 damage. It's at least within a stone's throw of sanity.


I just made a different feat for it.

Shield Bash.
Prerequisite: proficiency with a shield.

For you a shield is considered a simple weapon as well as armor.
+1 to str or dex.
Shield: 1d6 versatile 1d8 bashing damage.
After you have taken the attack action to attack with a melee weapon you may use a bonus action to attack with your shield.
You may enchant your shield as both a weapon and a piece of armor but they are enchanted separately.

[Stone-Ears]

I just made a different feat for it.

Shield Bash.
Prerequisite: proficiency with a shield.

For you a shield is considered a simple weapon as well as armor.
+1 to str or dex.
Shield: 1d6 versatile 1d8 bashing damage.
After you have taken the attack action to attack with a melee weapon you may use a bonus action to attack with your shield.
You may enchant your shield as both a weapon and a piece of armor but they are enchanted separately.

1d6(1d8) seems a little high to me. Were you using the quarterstaff as an example?

Also versatility seems arguable as well.

Overall, I'd say this feat would probably need some rebalancing. I don't know the rules for enchantments but having multiple enchantments on a weapon/armor seems broken

[Misterwhisper]

1d6(1d8) seems a little high to me. Were you using the quarterstaff as an example?

Also versatility seems arguable as well.

Overall, I'd say this feat would probably need some rebalancing. I don't know the rules for enchantments but having multiple enchantments on a weapon/armor seems broken

The enchantment was just saying you can enchant it as a +1 weapon and as a +1 shield but they have to be bought separately.

1d6 seems reasonable, about like a mace.
Versatile is for if people want to fight with just a shield or if they want to club someone with both hands.

[noob]

It's not a design failure. It's very intentional.

These two things are "absolute terms"

"weapon"

"improvised weapon"
In other words, it's not intended to be read as "improvised"+"weapon"

"weapon" and "improvised weapon" are different from each other, and follow different rules, even though they do overlap at certain situations, just like "melee weapon" and "ranged weapon", or "simple weapon" and"martial weapon".

so essentially 5E is even more filled with arbitrary and hard to understand rules than 99% of the rpgs(the only rpgs that match are dnd 3.5, 3e and pf)

[NNescio]

so essentially 5E is even more filled with arbitrary and hard to understand rules than 99% of the rpgs(the only rpgs that match are dnd 3.5, 3e and pf)

Don't forget shields that count as armor sometimes (e.g. for armor proficiency and donning/doffing) but sometimes they don't (for Mage Armor). And the convoluted meaning of "target" that sometimes can refer to (implicitly instead of stated explicitly) the target of a creature, the target of a spell, or the target of an effect.

Though to be fair, I don't think 5e DnD is that bad. GURPS, White Wolf games, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer (and its RPG spinoffs), et al. also have their moments. And Paranoia, but for that one arbitrary and hard-to-understand rules is definitely an intended feature.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

so essentially 5E is even more filled with arbitrary and hard to understand rules than 99% of the rpgs(the only rpgs that match are dnd 3.5, 3e and pf)

I have to say that is easier for me to understand 3.5e rules.
5e take great importance in making the rules not follow a pattern and have no set terms.

I never saw a group in real life that didn't curse the bad way the rules written in 5e(at least the game is fun).

[Stone-Ears]

so essentially 5E is even more filled with arbitrary and hard to understand rules than 99% of the rpgs(the only rpgs that match are dnd 3.5, 3e and pf)

I would say it only appears that way because of the debates on the forum. In reality, the DM has the final power and the rules in 5e are made purposely ambiguous so the DM can rule how he/she wants to according to what makes sense to them.

[noob]

I would say it only appears that way because of the debates on the forum. In reality, the DM has the final power and the rules in 5e are made purposely ambiguous so the DM can rule how he/she wants to according to what makes sense to them.

That does not makes the rules simpler to understand(ambiguity is not simplicity)
Which is why 5e can have roughly the same complexity as more clunky dnds: ambiguity is not the same kind of complexity as volume but still is complexity.
Making a dnd that both allows to be played in whichever way the dm wants and still have rules is hard and I think dnd 5e did not do that badly since the player base is quite significant(for a dnd)

[Arkhios]

so essentially 5E is even more filled with arbitrary and hard to understand rules than 99% of the rpgs(the only rpgs that match are dnd 3.5, 3e and pf)

That's a long leap to claim that the whole edition is "more filled with arbitrary and hard to understand rules than 99% of the rpgs" only because Improvised Weapons rule is a mess.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that the Improvised Weapons rule is difficult to understand as written. But to say that the whole edition is filled with arbitrary rules and is difficult to understand based on one small part of the rules is more than a bit of a stretch.


A friend of mine proposed that just remove the middle paragraph from the Improvised Weapons rule, and suddenly the whole rule makes more sense, and is simple, effective, and easy to use.



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.

[noob]

That's a long leap to claim that the whole edition is "more filled with arbitrary and hard to understand rules than 99% of the rpgs" only because Improvised Weapons rule is a mess.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that the Improvised Weapons rule is difficult to understand as written. But to say that the whole edition is filled with arbitrary rules and is difficult to understand based on one small part of the rules is more than a bit of a stretch.


A friend of mine proposed that just remove the middle paragraph from the Improvised Weapons rule, and suddenly the whole rule makes more sense, and is simple, effective, and easy to use.

There is many other threads about hard to understand rules and ambiguities.(like is channeling possible when you are using something that prevents casting if you started channeling the spell before)

[NNescio]

There is many other threads about hard to understand rules and ambiguities.(like is channeling possible when you are using something that prevents casting if you started channeling the spell before)

Wait, what?

If you're referring to concentration, then it's abundantly clear; concentrating and casting are two different things — effects that block casting don't necessarily block concentration, and vice versa.

If you're raging though, you can't neither cast nor concentrate (on a preexisting spell), because the rage feature explicitly says it blocks both.

Edit:




A friend of mine proposed that just remove the middle paragraph from the Improvised Weapons rule, and suddenly the whole rule makes more sense, and is simple, effective, and easy to use.

The middle paragraph is sorta important because it provides a way of figuring out the stats of an improvised weapon (i.e. copy the statblock from an actual weapon, if appropriate). It also grants the DM the (RAW, instead of an ad-hoc ruling that the DM might be unsure of) option of counting the improvised weapon as the actual weapon it resembles (at least for the purposes of the attack, RAW is ambiguous whether it also counts outside the attack), granting effective proficiency in the improvised weapon (which may not be the same as actual proficiency) in the process.

[stoutstien]

Wait, what?

If you're referring to concentration, then it's abundantly clear; concentrating and casting are two different things — effects that block casting don't necessarily block concentration, and vice versa.

If you're raging though, you can't neither cast nor concentrate (on a preexisting spell), because the rage feature explicitly says it blocks both.

I think the usual example is starting to casting a spell as a ritual casting a spell with a long cast time then pass through an anti-magic Field. Does it reset the casting, fail the casting, or as long as you are not in the field at the end does it do nothing.

[NNescio]

I think the usual example is starting to casting a spell as a ritual casting a spell with a long cast time then pass through an anti-magic Field. Does it reset the casting, fail the casting, or as long as you are not in the field at the end does it do nothing.

Oh.

Well...



Longer Casting Times

Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see “Concentration” below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over.


(underlined mine)


A 10-foot-radius invisible sphere of antimagic surrounds you. This area is divorced from the magical energy that suffuses the multiverse. Within the sphere, spells can't be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic items become mundane. (...)

(underlined mine)

So, let's say you're casting a spell with a long (>1 action) casting time. If you walk into an AMF during one of those turns, you can no longer use your action "casting the spell". Therefore you can no longer maintain concentration (because maintaining concentration is contingent on "casting the spell", i.e. "while doing so") , so "the spell fails", and "you must start over".

That said, you can always move out of the AMF to continue "casting the spell". The AMF itself doesn't interrupt the spell — it only prevents you from taking an action to continue "casting the spell". Not being able to take this action is what that actually breaks the spell and forces you to restart. You can circumvent this by moving out of the AMF before continuing.

That said, I suppose one can interpret "be cast" in an overly literal, "perfective" manner (a 'complete' action, one viewed as a whole, as opposed to "imperfective", that is, an 'ongoing' action, or one viewed with interior composition), due to the presence of the verb-to-be ("spells can't be cast", as opposed to "casting spells is prohibited" or "a creature cannot cast spells while inside..."). So, going with this interpretation, "casting" a spell is allowed, you are just not allowed to finish casting it (cause the spell to "be cast"). But this is (IMHO) a really tortured interpretation, and English doesn't distinguish between perfective and imperfective anyway (compared to a lot of other languages that has baked-in grammar distinguishing between the two). Also I have a feeling that this interpretation is against RAI, and might have other unintended consequences for other rules text that are written in the passive voice (verb-to-be + past participle).

[Arkhios]

The middle paragraph is sorta important because it provides a way of figuring out the stats of an improvised weapon (i.e. copy the statblock from an actual weapon, if appropriate). It also grants the DM the (RAW, instead of an ad-hoc ruling that the DM might be unsure of) option of counting the improvised weapon as the actual weapon it resembles (at least for the purposes of the attack, RAW is ambiguous whether it also counts outside the attack), granting effective proficiency in the improvised weapon (which may not be the same as actual proficiency) in the process.

Ok, I agree with that, somewhat. However, excluding the middle paragraph would still make the rule much more simple than it is. Granted, it's also a bit more restrictive in return.

Then again, it would add more incentive to take the Tavern Brawler feat in case you really want to be better with using improvised weapons.

In a way, removing the paragraph would make the feat somewhat better than before.

[NNescio]

Ok, I agree with that, somewhat. However, excluding the middle paragraph would still make the rule much more simple than it is. Granted, it's also a bit more restrictive in return.

Then again, it would add more incentive to take the Tavern Brawler feat in case you really want to be better with using improvised weapons.

In a way, removing the paragraph would make the feat somewhat better than before.

Oh, I agree. On both counts (being simpler and buffing Tavern Brawler). Just take a look at the sheer amount of parenthetical text I needed to clarify its meaning.

(Though strictly speaking the paragraph isn't that complicated by itself. The complexity is mostly just because of trying to read it in a way that aligns with RAI-as-said-by-Crawford. [i.e. counts as a weapon only at the moment you're attacking with it.]

Me, I like Eldritch Knights Weapon Bonding to dead bodies just for the black comedy value (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?594196-Wielding-halflings-gnomes-goblins).)