TWF with shield?

[Mr Adventurer]

I had an idea for a build and wanted to see if there was already discussion about it:

Making an attack to damage with a shield is an attack with an improvised weapon. So, combine Tavern Brawler for proficiency and Dual Wielder, so you can make a bonus action attack with your shield as a weapon, and also gain +1 AC.

What character would this work well with?

I thought Battlemaster would be best, since you can pick up the Fighting Style to add damage to the shield attack and it is also another potential way to trigger your manoeuvres.

Kind of a weird alternative to taking Shield Master that uses more resources but I think is probably more effective, since the BM manoeuvres are added on to a damaging attack (and are themselves boosted by the superiority die)?

You can always take Shield Master as well of course, which would allow you, should you lose your main weapon (maybe you just threw a javelin and haven't had time to draw a new weapon yet?), to go ham with your shield on someone's face using your normal attacks, and still use your bonus action to Shield Mastery push them over.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

It seems to work by RAW.
And I think the rule of cool also approve it.

But in the end you may find a DM who will think it is bad and won't allow this.

[Trandir]

Since Dueling fighting style gives you a +2 bonus to damage when using a shield and a weapon Dual Wielder shouldn't provide the extra +1 AC.

The rest works, you are investing 2 feats and a fighting style to:
Have your usual main weapon and attack with your off hand for 1d4+Str as a bonus action and still get the +2 to AC from a shield, or more if it's a magic shield.


Edit:
Battle master is always good and the fitgher's ASI will make this work sooner. You could also consider a barbarian dip since rage loves extra attacks for the static bonus to damage.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Since Dueling fighting style gives you a +2 bonus to damage when using a shield and a weapon Dual Wielder shouldn't provide the extra +1 AC.

The rest works, you are investing 2 feats and a fighting style to:
Have your usual main weapon and attack with your off hand for 1d4+Str as a bonus action and still get the +2 to AC from a shield.

I think he was talking about the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style and not dueling

[Trandir]

I think he was talking about the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style and not dueling

Mr Adventurer sure was.
But if Dueling doesn't consider the shield a weapon I don't see any reason why Dual Wielder should.

[Mr Adventurer]

My op set out why it should, so to say you can't see any reason seems unnecessarily obtuse.

I would say that an exception rule elsewhere is irrelevant.

The main issue is the DM agreeing to the shield as a one handed weapon.

And no, it's not optimised. I just thought it was a cool combo, and a way to juice up shield wielding without Protection fighting style or Shield Master.

[Hytheter]

I'm pretty sure improvised weapons don't qualify for two-weapon fighting even with the feat, because they don't actually count as weapons. I would probably allow it but it's not RAW-legal.

[Mr Adventurer]

Yeah, I think that's the main sticking point.

[Trandir]

My op set out why it should, so to say you can't see any reason seems unnecessarily obtuse.

I would say that an exception rule elsewhere is irrelevant.

The main issue is the DM agreeing to the shield as a one handed weapon.

And no, it's not optimised. I just thought it was a cool combo, and a way to juice up shield wielding without Protection fighting style or Shield Master.

Point is that a shield is classified as armor even when you use it as a weapon. Some DMs will refuse this to work on that fact.

Personally I would allow this since it's just slightly better than Defense style and PAM with spear and shield.

Now, assuming that everything has been apprived by the DM, things that can take advantage of this:

Barbarians with fighter dip or fighter with barbarian dip. Rage is a static bonus that gets applied to all Str based attacks, as such the more attacks you can make the better.

Ranger and Hexblades (they have to find the fighting style somewhere tho) can use hex or hunter's mark to increase the damage on every hit and again more hits more damage.

Paladins get damage through smites as more attacks means more chances to smite, also improved smite fetch an additional d8 damage to every hit so double win.

[Kane0]

Wouldn’t that be TSF then? Dual shielding?

[Mr Adventurer]

Personally I would allow this since it's just slightly better than Defense style and PAM with spear and shield.

Now, assuming that everything has been apprived by the DM, things that can take advantage of this:

Barbarians with fighter dip or fighter with barbarian dip. Rage is a static bonus that gets applied to all Str based attacks, as such the more attacks you can make the better.

Ranger and Hexblades (they have to find the fighting style somewhere tho) can use hex or hunter's mark to increase the damage on every hit and again more hits more damage.

Paladins get damage through smites as more attacks means more chances to smite, also improved smite fetch an additional d8 damage to every hit so double win.

I think it's worse than PAM and shield - the OA from PAM is significant.

Those are great combos though.

Magic Initiate can get you Hex or Hunter's Mark (in addition to the other, if you are already a Ranger or Warlock). That's another feat though.

Warlocks can get Eldritch Smite too.

Fighter 2/Barbarian 1/Paladin X? EDIT: can't cast spells or concentrate on them while raging though.


Wouldn’t that be TSF then? Dual shielding?

The intention is one shield and one regular weapon. The AC bonus from two shields wouldn't stack since they are the same source.

[Zhorn]

Hytheter's right in that improvised weapons are not classified as weapons outside of the attack being made with them, and as such are not valid for triggering Two-Weapon Fighting's bonus action attack, even with the Tavern Brawler and/or Dual Wielder feat(s).

You can still swap out your regular attacks in the Attack Action to give off the impression of dual wielding with the shield as the second weapon, but there's no RAW-legal support to get that bonus action attack. :smallfrown:

Being said, if it's a home game and not bound by AL rules, I think it should be fine as long as you have a feats and features that make it seem reasonable.
Just be wary of players trying to have their cake and eat it too, getting an ok on Two-Weapon Fighting with a shield as the second weapon and asking to cheese their way into Dueling Fighting Style at the same time.

[HiveStriker]

I had an idea for a build and wanted to see if there was already discussion about it:

Making an attack to damage with a shield is an attack with an improvised weapon. So, combine Tavern Brawler for proficiency and Dual Wielder, so you can make a bonus action attack with your shield as a weapon, and also gain +1 AC.

What character would this work well with?

I thought Battlemaster would be best, since you can pick up the Fighting Style to add damage to the shield attack and it is also another potential way to trigger your manoeuvres.

Kind of a weird alternative to taking Shield Master that uses more resources but I think is probably more effective, since the BM manoeuvres are added on to a damaging attack (and are themselves boosted by the superiority die)?

You can always take Shield Master as well of course, which would allow you, should you lose your main weapon (maybe you just threw a javelin and haven't had time to draw a new weapon yet?), to go ham with your shield on someone's face using your normal attacks, and still use your bonus action to Shield Mastery push them over.
Works by RAW since there actually exists a shield that is a "named weapon" (Spiked Shield) so a regular shield can be easily assimilated as a "real weapon" for the sake of dual wielding (actually I consider that dual wielding works with any weapon, even "improvised weapon", just adding that bit for people who would argue otherwise). Worst case, ask someone to craft you a Spiked shield (or learn how to do it yourself).

Best would be Barbarian because he's a STR based guy and you would add Rage bonus damage also on Shield. Plus it's fitting.
Equally best or possibly better depending on your style would indeed be Fighter because extra feats make it easier to get live early + fighting style.
Actually allows you to Shove and still get two (or more) attacks: use shield to Shove as first attack of Attack, then use weapon for all remaining ones including bonus action one. So no need for Shield Master (at least for that aspect).

EDIT: cannot find "Spiked Shield" anywhere in the few 5e sources I have access to, and yet I'm sure I've seen it. Did I dream (or mixed it up with 4E)? Or was it some UA?

[Trandir]

Works by RAW since there actually exists a shield that is a "named weapon" (Spiked Shield) so a regular shield can be easily assimilated as a "real weapon" for the sake of dual wielding (actually I consider that dual wielding works with any weapon, even "improvised weapon", just adding that bit for people who would argue otherwise). Worst case, ask someone to craft you a Spiked shield (or learn how to do it yourself).


There isn't such an item. In 5e shields (at least in official published material) received no support to being used as weapons.

In 3.5 I remember being a lot of weaponized shields.

[JackPhoenix]

EDIT: cannot find "Spiked Shield" anywhere in the few 5e sources I have access to, and yet I'm sure I've seen it. Did I dream (or mixed it up with 4E)? Or was it some UA?

The only spiked shield is NPC attack option, not an item.

[opaopajr]

It seems to work by RAW.
And I think the rule of cool also approve it.

But in the end you may find a DM who will think it is bad and won't allow this.

TWF Style, Tavern Brawler Feat, and Dual Wielder Feat all to get 1d4+STR bonus action with +1 AC atop +2 AC from shield? ... Still needs a shield that can also qualify as a weapon for Dual Wielder, but that's a campaign gear thing. Shield bosses and spiked bosses were very much a real thing. I'd allow it, because it is such marginal returns for two feats and a fighting style. :smalltongue:

I would drop the Dual Wielder feat need, and probably read the TWF bonus action rule a bit looser (not a strict reading of "light melee weapon"), but that's another house campaign discussion. :smallsmile:

[da newt]

SCAG has the Dwarf Battle Rager - it's not a shield attack, but a bonus attack with spiked armor for d4+st that can be combined with a shield and any weapon.

Maybe you can convince your DM to allow you to play a lizard folk and grab the spiked shield attack from the DMG.

[CheddarChampion]

I think this is one of those cases where you might be better off trying to work out a homebrew feat.

TWF requirements: 1 feat, a fighting style
TWF benefits: 1d8 bonus action damage, +1 AC

TWFwS requirements: 2 feats, a fighting style
TWFwS benefits: 1d4 bonus action damage, +3 AC

Being behind by one feat sets your Str mod back by 1, so normal TWF has a further +1 to hit and to damage over TWFwS.

[NaughtyTiger]

My op set out why it should, so to say you can't see any reason seems unnecessarily obtuse.

Trandir presented an argument that your interpretation was not supported by RAW: namely that if dueling fighting style says a shield isn't a weapon (even with tavern brawler), then it shouldn't also count as a weapon for TWF.

Valid argument. rather than challenge the argument, you decided to insult him as being unnecessarily obtuse.
Moreover, you put words in his mouth, he did not say he "can't see any reason" oops, he did...

[Trandir]

Trandir presented an argument that your interpretation was not supported by RAW: namely that if dueling fighting style says a shield isn't a weapon (even with tavern brawler), then it shouldn't also count as a weapon for TWF.

Valid argument. rather than challenge the argument, you decided to insult him as being unnecessarily obtuse.
Moreover, you put words in his mouth, he did not say he "can't see any reason" oops, he did...

While this is certanly appreciated I don't think that Mr Adventurer meant to insult anyone. Also I did say that.

Upon further investigation I discovered that improvised weapons are not considered weapons in the same way as unarmed strikes aren't weapons but both can perform weapon attacks.
Not that any of that matters since this is clearly meant in a scenario where a DM, either for homebrew or for a fun one-shot/campaign, allow this.

Anyway I don't feel right if I just post here rules when the OP doesn't want to know that so here is some other ideas for the build:

Duegar and Eldritch Knight, and if UA is allowd also Rune Knight or the Brute, are good ways to add even more damage in the form of either d4 or d6/8 with every attack. You have to maintain concantration if you use the spell but a melee fighter shouldn't have many problems with that.

[Damon_Tor]

The primary argument against this is this: "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." (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)

This is based on the way the Improvised rules are written: "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."

I agree it's not explicit enough, but it's possible to read this to mean that an improvised weapon is only treated as a weapon for the purposes of making an Attack with it, and for no other purpose. And based on Crawford's statement and others, that interpretation is RAI. Under that understanding, not only does the shield fail to give you Dual Wielder's +1 AC bonus, but it (and any other improvised weapon) actually cannot be used for two-weapon fighting either, because two-weapon fighting triggers the moment you attack with one weapon and is contingent upon the existence of a second, but at the time you attack with your primary weapon, your shield is not considered a weapon because you are not attacking with it. However, it should be possible to use the shield as the primary weapon and a proper weapon to make the bonus action attack.

All that said, I would allow it. It costs two feats, it isn't game breaking.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

So dual Wielder seems to need you use one handed melee weapons. I am sure you use a shield with one hand and that an improvised weapon is a weapon


Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

Anyway, the style only need you to engage in two weapon fighting, nothing more.


Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

That is the attack text.

The feat remove the need for the weapon to be light.

An improvised weapon that isn't resemble a weapon look to have no tags from the text about improvised weapons. Luckily we removed the need for it to be light with the feat.


Because two weapon fighting is a kind of attack you only need the shield to be a weapon when attacking so you are good for the bonus action attack.

I can see arguments about the +1 to AC but if you use something as a weapon, why will it stop being a weapon? Combat happened in the same time, you attack as you being attacked so it look to me like the +1 AC should also work.

I will happily argue nicely with anyone who want to argue with mw about it.

[Randomthom]

Tricky one, I'd rule that a shield gives you the +2 AC but if, on your turn, you attack with it as a bonus action then you'd get the +1, not the +2 until the start of your next turn as you've used it as a weapon, not a shield.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Tricky one, I'd rule that a shield gives you the +2 AC but if, on your turn, you attack with it as a bonus action then you'd get the +1, not the +2 until the start of your next turn as you've used it as a weapon, not a shield.

I will like to know why the shield will stop being a shield when you attack with it.

[stoutstien]

I will like to know why the shield will stop being a shield when you attack with it.

Shield bashing hard enough to cause damage usually includes overextending your position or to cause more damage shield are usually made in a way that the edges are what you hit with.
Was a common move with bucklers and other small(er) shields.

I would say it's a pretty balanced ruling.

[ThePolarBear]

The feat remove the need for the weapon to be light.

An improvised weapon that isn't resemble a weapon look to have no tags from the text about improvised weapons. Luckily we removed the need for it to be light with the feat.

Leaving aside the current discussion about whether or not it is possible at a table there's still one thing missing. For the exact same reason why you can't use two-weapon fighting with hand crossbows or with fists you would still be unable to: the "weapons" needed are still "melee" weapons, and improvised weapons aren't either melee or ranged.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Shield bashing hard enough to cause damage usually includes overextending your position or to cause more damage shield are usually made in a way that the edges are what you hit with.
Was a common move with bucklers and other small(er) shields.

I would say it's a pretty balanced ruling.

I didn't say that I agree or not.
I just want to know the reasoning behind it.

And about overextending, it is not something you do, moat of the time you just reposition yourself or move your waist.
A small movement with the waist can generate a lot of strength and provide reach for a trained fighter. I assume that the guy who specialise with two weapon fighting with a shield will be a trained fighter.


Leaving aside the current discussion about whether or not it is possible at a table there's still one thing missing. For the exact same reason why you can't use two-weapon fighting with hand crossbows or with fists you would still be unable to: the "weapons" needed are still "melee" weapons, and improvised weapons aren't either melee or ranged.

That is a good point, but I think that it is wrong.


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.



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.
It looks to me like the default of improvised weapons is attacking in melee range, most of the time 5 feet with make them melee weapons.

The other option it throwing it.

It is open for interpretation. As I begin told the rules in 5e is badly written and not clear in purpose. It look like it to me.

As it stands it looks like there is only room for not agreeing as the rules aren't clear enough.

[Mr Adventurer]

Using the proposition in the OP, there's also an interesting edge case where DW lets you ready both a weapon and a shield-as-weapon in the same Use an Object, but you still need to spend a whole action to actually don the shield for the AC bonus. Presumably this is some Captain America style edge-wielding :smallbiggrin:.

[stoutstien]

I didn't say that I agree or not.
I just want to know the reasoning behind it.

And about overextending, it is not something you do, moat of the time you just reposition yourself or move your waist.
A small movement with the waist can generate a lot of strength and provide reach for a trained fighter. I assume that the guy who specialise with two weapon fighting with a shield will be a trained fighter.

To generate damage on par with a dagger (1D4) we are looking at more than a simple hip punch with The energy being spread out over a large area. Which leaves using the edge or throwing a large portion of your body into the movement. Think a jab vs a overhand punch.

[ThePolarBear]

It looks to me like the default of improvised weapons is attacking in melee range, most of the time 5 feet with make them melee weapons.

The default of improvised weapons is to attack, be it in melee or at range, when you have no weapon at hand. You want to use "something" to damage "something", how is inconsequential given that the two options are equally valid and could have been swapped in order of appearance in the rules with no difference.

Furthermore attacking something in melee as "the default" doesn't mean that you are using a melee weapon (fists) and throwing something doesn't make what you are throwing a melee or a ranged weapon (ex. axes and darts).

Attacking with something that is a weapon (be it ranged or melee) in a way that is not meant to still doesn't change what what you are using is (a bow is still a ranged weapon and a longsword is still a melee one) and still follows the rules for improvised weapons.

There's no ground to decide one option over the other if one option has to be chosen. However there's also no reason to think that one of the two options has to be chosen at all. In fact doing so is assuming that something that isn't in the rules was meant to be in the rules.


It is open for interpretation. As I begin told the rules in 5e is badly written and not clear in purpose.

Only if you assume that what is written is not all that there is. As it is, improvised weapons are not ranged or melee weapons. Those are not weapons at all to begin with and only considered as such when used to make an attack, just like the fists of a monk are not weapons at all, are not magical, but are considered to be as such for the purpose of bypassing resistance.

Rules are not meant to encompass all situations, true. Improvised weapons rules are for when there is no weapon availlable. This should be the base of discussion when the question "are improvised weapons weapons?" is made to begin with. Then a distinction is made: things that resemble weapons and things that do not resemble a weapon at all.

So, when you are attacking with an improvised weapon that doesn't resemble a weapon at all, is that a melee weapon? That would kind of defeat the point of "something that doesn't resemble a weapon at all" to begin with, right? I would say that those are used as weapons. But are not melee weapons (or ranged) at all.


As it stands it looks like there is only room for not agreeing as the rules aren't clear enough.

We can agree to disagree.

[NaughtyTiger]

T As it is, improvised weapons are not ranged or melee weapons. Those are not weapons at all to begin with and only considered as such when used to make an attack,

Do we agree that improvised weapons are weapons when making an attack?


Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged.

The DM rules whether the improvised weapon would be a melee or ranged weapon when making an attack.

[ThePolarBear]

Do we agree that improvised weapons are weapons when making an attack?

No, we don't:


Only if you assume that what is written is not all that there is. As it is, improvised weapons are not ranged or melee weapons. Those are not weapons at all to begin with and only considered as such when used to make an attack, just like the fists of a monk are not weapons at all, are not magical, but are considered to be as such for the purpose of bypassing resistance.

Furthermore the "improvised weapons are weapons" relies on a ruling by JC. The very same person that rules that natural weapons are not weapons. Yet in the official Sage Advice Compendium we have that melee weapon attack is synonimous of "attack with a melee weapon". Natural Weapons are not weapons, yet they would be.
Fists are not melee weapons, yet they would be.

And this is not berating JC, mind you. It's just to offer a different perspective on what he might have meant.


The DM rules whether the improvised weapon would be a melee or ranged weapon when making an attack.

Or we apply the rule of "specific > general", and we have that fists make melee weapon attacks even if they aren't weapons, as unarmed strikes do, and we apply the same reasoning on the line you quoted to the context of the book. Weapons in the section "Weapons" of the PHB relies on the common use of the word "weapon" indicating a manufactured tool in that context, and "every" means "all those listed here" following "The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in lhe worlds of D&D".

An "uncommon" weapon not listed there might be both melee AND ranged, neither, whatever.

The result is that "improvised weapons" not needing to be either melee or ranged would work.

And as i first put it:


Leaving aside the current discussion about whether or not it is possible at a table

I'm explicitly avoiding such an approach as part of the discussion. Not because i don't agree with it as a general or i wouldn't allow bonus action attack with a shield and a weapon because reasons. It's just that it doesn't bring the discussion anywhere that it hasn't already been brought before since it doesn't need "reasons". It is also possible for the DM to rule that the improvised weapon is neither, a flying fish, and magical regardless.

[Hytheter]

So dual Wielder seems to need you use one handed melee weapons. I am sure you use a shield with one hand and that an improvised weapon is a weapon

If improvised weapons counted as weapons then you would never be able to use Duelling fighting style while holding a shield, or anything else for that matter. If it doesn't count as a weapon for duelling then it shouldn't count as a weapon for TWF.

[opaopajr]

If improvised weapons counted as weapons then you would never be able to use Duelling fighting style while holding a shield, or anything else for that matter. If it doesn't count as a weapon for duelling then it shouldn't count as a weapon for TWF.

Or... what if using your shield as an improvised weapon just turns off access to your Dueling Style?

/Jackie Chan has a headache image :smalleek:

[Arkhios]

I had an idea for a build and wanted to see if there was already discussion about it:

Making an attack to damage with a shield is an attack with an improvised weapon. So, combine Tavern Brawler for proficiency and Dual Wielder, so you can make a bonus action attack with your shield as a weapon, and also gain +1 AC.

What character would this work well with?

I thought Battlemaster would be best, since you can pick up the Fighting Style to add damage to the shield attack and it is also another potential way to trigger your manoeuvres.

Kind of a weird alternative to taking Shield Master that uses more resources but I think is probably more effective, since the BM manoeuvres are added on to a damaging attack (and are themselves boosted by the superiority die)?

You can always take Shield Master as well of course, which would allow you, should you lose your main weapon (maybe you just threw a javelin and haven't had time to draw a new weapon yet?), to go ham with your shield on someone's face using your normal attacks, and still use your bonus action to Shield Mastery push them over.

Paladin works surprisingly well, because shield qualifies for spellcasting focus (holy symbol), and several other abilities still work despite shield not being an actual weapon (Divine Favor only requires a weapon attack; not an attack with a weapon; same as Divine Smite).

I may be slighty biased, because I had a character exactly like that, until I decided that a paladin dual wielder with two one-handed weapons was much more awesome than a weapon and a shield as "weapon", even though he has slightly lower AC now. My DM was okay with stacking all of shield's +2, Fighting Style (Defense) +1, and Dual Wielder's +1 to AC together (which may be slightly questionable ruling, but it seemed as RAW, so it flew in our table. Might want to ask your DM their perspective on this, before you settle on any build, as I believe not all DM's will allow this)


Or... what if using your shield as an improvised weapon just turns off access to your Dueling Style?

/Jackie Chan has a headache image :smalleek:

The thing is, an improvised weapon is not a weapon by default. Both Melee and Ranged weapons are listed as weapons, but Improvised Weapons fall into their own category, and don't count as weapons, except when the rule specifically says so (if the object resembles a weapon that has rules statistics, then it can use those rules; otherwise, it's not a weapon. A shield doesn't resemble any kind of weapon, thus it doesn't use statistics for a weapon).

Dueling Fighting Style literally says: "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

"a/an" determinant refers to a noun (weapon). Improvised and Ranged are both adjectives that merely further describe the noun's nature. Technically melee is a noun, but in this context it can be used as an adjective, because it's used in descriptive manner, and, to lesser extent, because the word melee originates from the word medley (which itself is now considered archaic adjective)

[opaopajr]

/blue text: "So... you're saying they are Schrodinger Shields?" :smalleek:

[Arkhios]

/blue text: "So... you're saying they are Schrodinger Shields?" :smalleek:

No, because a shield is still a shield, regardless of how you use it. Using a shield as an improvised weapon doesn't suddenly mean it ceases to be a shield. Crawford has stated that even when you use the shield for Shield Master or any other activity, the +2 AC remains. Thus, shield remains a shield. If it wouldn't remain a shield, then we would be talking about Schrödinger's Shields. Sarcasm aside.

[NaughtyTiger]

Do we agree that improvised weapons are weapons when making an attack?
No, we don't:

The thing is, an improvised weapon is not a weapon by default.

then that is the crux of the disagreement.
the weapons table is not the complete set of weapons.
I don't see a definition of a weapon in PHB, so I don't see a definition that says "improvised weapon is not a weapon"
Additionally, "Improvised Weapons" explicitly weapons what an IW is; nothing in the definitiona says "when making an attack"
Finally, if IW are neither melee nor ranged, which attribute (Str, Wis, Dex) do you use for damage and toHit?


Furthermore the "improvised weapons are weapons" relies on a ruling by JC.

nope JC is not required. my interpretation of "improvised weapons are weapons" comes from the word weapons in improvised weapons. It also comes from "improvised weapons" is a section under "weapons". Unarmed attacks are not discussed in this section as weapons anymore.


Weapons in the section "Weapons" of the PHB relies on the common use of the word "weapon" indicating a manufactured tool in that context
I disagree with "manufactured tool" being part of the common definition of weapon.

[PhantomSoul]

then that is the crux of the disagreement.
the weapons table is not the complete set of weapons.
I don't see a definition of a weapon in PHB, so I don't see a definition that says "improvised weapon is not a weapon"

nope JC is not required. my interpretation of "improvised weapons are weapons" comes from the word weapons in improvised weapons. It also comes from "improvised weapons" is a section under "weapons". Unarmed attacks are not discussed in this section as weapons.

To be fair, cf. "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon"... So "improvised weapon" could be for making "melee weapon attacks" and not "attacks with a (melee) weapon".

Of course, it's just the endless "weapon is a technical term and a normal words and they didn't define things fully for many game terms nor do they make a clear in-text distinction between game terms and normal words"

[NaughtyTiger]

To be fair, cf. "melee weapon attack" and "attack with a melee weapon"... So "improvised weapon" could be for making "melee weapon attacks" and not "attacks with a (melee) weapon".

nothing fair about that. that is just a declaration. because all weapons are either ranged or melee, the DM rules whether the table leg is a melee or ranged weapon once the PC decides she is gonna use it as a weapon.


Of course, it's just the endless "weapon is a technical term and a normal words and they didn't define things fully for many game terms nor do they make a clear in-text distinction between game terms and normal words"

if it is a technical term, point to where it is defined.

[Randomthom]

A lot of the conversation here is about RAW which I'll be honest, I don't give two hoots about.

I don't play adventurer's league, I don't play with rules lawyers and my players trust me as a GM to be fair & consistent. I make a ruling and I move on.

I'm not going to argue the RAW argument, I'll leave that to those who care.

My ruling suggestion was that the shield gives +2 AC unless used to make an attack in which case it gives no AC bonus until the start of your next turn. Dual-Wielder feat gives +1 AC when fighting with two weapons so while you wouldn't get the +2 shield bonus, you WOULD get the +1 Dual-Wielder bonus after making an attack with the shield.

I'd also add that using the shield master bonus action shove would retain the shield bonus to AC.

There is logic behind my thinking, mostly down to the fact that the action to shove someone keeps the shield in front of you whereas the action to attack to cause damage either means a backhand swing that leaves your body open or a side-of-shield jab which reduces the profile of your shield defensively.