Is PAM & Defence equivalent to Dual Wielder & Two Weapon Fighting?

[f5anor]

Hi playgrounders,

PAM is a very popular feat that secures access to a reliable bonus action attack. Defense is also a very popular style which helps raise the all important AC. Spear and shield is a great combination which gives access to PAM while holding a shield for the extra +2 AC. This dream combination makes it quite unattractive to go for different options (not considering GWM here).

I believe that Dual Wielder & Two Weapon Fighting style with longsword and shield could be an almost equivalent combination that could be viable.

Polearm Master & Defense style with Spear & Shield
AC +3
Bonus Attack, and Opportunity Attack on Engage
The damage by a PAM bonus attack is 1d4

Dual Wielder & Two Weapon Fighting style with Longsword & Shield
AC +3, (+1 from Dual Wielder)
Bonus Attack from Dual Wielder with ability modifier from Two Weapon Fighting
The damage by an improvised weapon (shield) is 1d4

The issue here of course is weather the shield as an improvised weapon also counts as a melee weapon.

According to JC:
Jeremy Crawford@JeremyECrawford
@mackenzie884 A shield certainly isn't a weapon, but like many things, it can be used as an improvised weapon.

Jeremy Crawford@JeremyECrawford
@mackenzie884 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.

Dual Wielder says:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.

In summary a shield can count as a weapon (as per JC), it is obviously one-handed since it is strapped on one hand, and it is a melee weapon, since of course you do not perform ranged attacks with it. Finally Dual Wielder allows you to attack with one-handed weapons even if they are not specifically light.

Of could PAM still has an edge on account of the attack of opportunity it enables.

What do you think?

[diplomancer]

I'd say it can be used, but it's strictly worse, quite appart from the reaction attack, as you can't add your proficiency bonus to the shield attack without adding yet one more feat (Tavern Brawler).

[f5anor]

I'd say it can be used, but it's strictly worse, quite appart from the reaction attack, as you can't add your proficiency bonus to the shield attack without adding yet one more feat (Tavern Brawler).

Two-Weapon Fighting PHBp72
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

You can add ability modifiers based on Two-weapon fighting.

[Xetheral]

I'd let it work (although you wouldn't get your proficiency to attack with the shield, since you're not proficient), but not everyone would.

Some argue that the rule in the PHB that says that all weapons are either Melee or Ranged only applies to the weapons listed on the table, and therefore that an improvised weapon when used to attack is neither Melee nor Ranged. For those who subscribe to that interpretation a Shield would be a one-handed weapon when you attack with it, but it would not be a one-handed melee weapon as required by Dual Wielder.

Edit:


Two-Weapon Fighting PHBp72
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

You can add ability modifiers based on Two-weapon fighting.

Yes, the style lets you add your ability modifier to damage, but you're still not proficient with improvised weapons (unless you take the Tavern Brawler feat) so you don't get to add your proficiency modifier to attack.

[f5anor]

I'd let it work (although you wouldn't get your proficiency to attack with the shield, since you're not proficient), but not everyone would.


I'd say it can be used, but it's strictly worse, quite appart from the reaction attack, as you can't add your proficiency bonus to the shield attack without adding yet one more feat (Tavern Brawler).

Got it. Tavern Brawler of course would be needed as well to get ability bonuses.

[LudicSavant]

"Re: Is PAM & Defence equivalent to Dual Wielder & Two Weapon Fighting?"

I'd say not really. IMHO, the best dual wielders are generally the ones that don't take Dual Wielder or Two Weapon Fighting, but instead take advantage of the fact that they get (and synergize with) a bonus action attack without investing a feat and fighting style. They can then use those resources for completely different Nice Things like, say, the Inspiring Leader feat or the Blind-Fighting style.

Basically, TWF is the low-investment way to get a bonus action attack. Which may seem kind of weird, since people often think of two weapon fighting as a rare, distinctive, specialist's art that requires investment in specialized training. But alas, 5e isn't really set up to match such expectations. You start with the best aspect of TWF for free (the ability to make a bonus action attack in the first place), and then taking Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon-Fighting is often just a way to get subpar returns on the "feat" and "fighting style" resources.

Throwing in Tavern Brawler on top of Dual Wielder would probably serve mostly to put you another step down the subpar feat investment hole.

[f5anor]

IMHO, the best dual wielders are generally the ones that don't take Dual Wielder or Two Weapon Fighting, but instead take advantage of the fact that they get (and synergize with) a bonus action attack without investing a feat and fighting style.

I guess you refer to features such as EK War Magic. Are there many more that could be used to generate free bonus attacks?



Throwing in Tavern Brawler on top of Dual Wielder would probably serve mostly to put you another step down the subpar feat investment hole.

Agreed, one feat to secure reliable bonus action attacks is more than enough, especially it it also gives a good chance to secure attacks of opportunity. More than one is too big an investment.

[LudicSavant]

I guess you refer to features such as EK War Magic. Are there many more that could be used to generate free bonus attacks?

No, I literally mean just pick up a second weapon and start swinging. You don't need a feat or anything to get a bonus action attack with two weapons.

A Paladin with Inspiring Leader or Fey-Touched or whatever can get a bonus action smite with two weapons just as easily as a Paladin with Dual-Wielder.

[f5anor]

No, I literally mean just pick up a second weapon and start swinging. You don't need a feat or anything to get a bonus action attack with two weapons.

Got it. The issue is that this way you also loose the extra AC. The +2 AC from a shield is pretty sweet in 5e bounded accuracy, and Dual Wielder even gives a +1 on top.

The above two combinations give you a +3 AC. Vanilla bonus action two weapon fighting gives you max +1 if you take Defence style.

[LudicSavant]

Vanilla bonus action two weapon fighting gives you max +1 if you take Defence style.

And two extra feats.

[sithlordnergal]

Hmmm, while that is a neat idea for a build, I'd say its strictly worse for a few reasons:

1) PAM allows you to use Spears and Quarterstaffs as your polearm. There are a plethora of Quarterstaffs that make for some amazing magical melee weapons. Heck, take a single level of Sorcerer, Wizard, or Warlock and you now have access to the very best staffs the game has to offer. There are staffs that do everything from increase your AC, like the Staff of Defense, to dealing bonus damage, like the Staff of Withering, to granting spells or damage resistances, like the Staff of Fire or Frost. You can gain the benefits of all those staffs, while also retaining the benefit of attacking via PAM.


2) You need Tavern Brawler in order to properly use your shield as a second weapon. Because its an Improvised weapon, you do not get to add your Proficiency Bonus to your attack roll, unless you have the Tavern Brawler feat. Meaning you could be losing out anywhere from +2 to +6 to your attack rolls, depending on your level. That's a pretty big loss in a game where a +1 to hit can make a fairly large difference.


3) Going back to PAM and the Quarterstaff, you can get Shillelagh from a few different places now. While it won't effect the d4 damage from PAM, it will make your main strikes into a d8 instead of a d6, and you'll get to decide between using Strength or a casting stat for your melee attacks. Its pretty handy for turning something like a Ranger into a SAD melee combatant.


4) Final downside of this build vs. PAM. If you find a +x shield, you sadly don't get that +x to attack and damage rolls. The +x to AC only affects your AC, and nothing else. Not a huge blow to be honest, but still a con.

[f5anor]

And two extra feats.

Correct, if you count Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler. Overall this seems suboptimal indeed. I guess you could skip Tavern Brawler, but then you could just as well go for PAM.

But how about PAM? Do you consider this one feat to secure a bonus action attack and a good chance for an attack of opportunity also too expensive?

[LudicSavant]

But how about PAM? Do you consider this one feat to secure a bonus action attack and a good chance for an attack of opportunity also too expensive?

I do not consider PAM too expensive for a reaction, bonus action, shield, and doing it all with a single weapon (which is better than doing it with two weapons, because it synergizes with more buffs).

[Greywander]

Usually I'd be pretty permissive with what counts as a weapon. If you want to dual-wield two improvised weapons, more power to you. But I do think I have to draw the line at shields. Not because it's an improvised weapon, but because it's a shield. I think the reason the feat gives you an AC bump is because it can't be done with shields. AC bumps are hard to come by, and while it might not be worth a feat, this would allow any sword'n'board user to get an AC bump by picking up this feat, not to mention a BA shield attack (if they have an unspent BA).

To be honest, I'm not sure what the RAW is on this. If dual-wielding works at all with improvised weapons, then I don't really see why it wouldn't work with shields. Perhaps this is an oversight that no one thought of when writing the rules, because the shield isn't a weapon and you'd never think to use TWF with a shield. But perhaps the feat allows it.

[f5anor]

Polearm Master & Defense style with Spear & Shield
AC +3
Bonus Attack, and Opportunity Attack on Engage
The damage by a PAM bonus attack is 1d4

Dual Wielder & Two Weapon Fighting style with Longsword & Shield
AC +3, (+1 from Dual Wielder)
Bonus Attack from Dual Wielder with ability modifier from Two Weapon Fighting
The damage by an improvised weapon (shield) is 1d4


Indeed Dual Wielder & Two Weapon Fighting style with Longsword & Shield is inferior to PAM with Spear and Shield, because in order to get ability modifiers, you also need to get Tavern Brawler, and as LudicSavant correctly pointed out this is too great an investment in feats.

However, this discussion opened up an new option for me. What if you do not go for an equivalent setup as with PAM, but rather try to maximize AC?

Dual Wielder & Defense style with Longsword & Shield
AC +4, (+1 from Dual Wielder, +1 from Defense)
Bonus Attack with Shield from Dual Wielder without ability modifiers
The damage by an improvised weapon (shield) is 1d4

This combo will do 5 less damage than PAM with Spear and Shield, and misses out on the AOO, but gives +1AC, which for a tank could be arguably more valuable?

With plate this build could go to 22 AC without magic and still keep the bonus action attack.

[DarknessEternal]

Pros: definitely worth it.
Cons: improvised shield will never be a magical attack.

Weirdness: Duelist definitely works when using a one handed weapon+shield even though you're intending to use the shield as a weapon.

[Psyren]

Usually I'd be pretty permissive with what counts as a weapon. If you want to dual-wield two improvised weapons, more power to you. But I do think I have to draw the line at shields. Not because it's an improvised weapon, but because it's a shield. I think the reason the feat gives you an AC bump is because it can't be done with shields. AC bumps are hard to come by, and while it might not be worth a feat, this would allow any sword'n'board user to get an AC bump by picking up this feat, not to mention a BA shield attack (if they have an unspent BA).

To be honest, I'm not sure what the RAW is on this. If dual-wielding works at all with improvised weapons, then I don't really see why it wouldn't work with shields. Perhaps this is an oversight that no one thought of when writing the rules, because the shield isn't a weapon and you'd never think to use TWF with a shield. But perhaps the feat allows it.

Per Sage Advice at least, shields can be attacked with, and you don't lose their AC bonus for doing so:


Q: If you attack with a shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?
A: Attacking with a shield doesn’t deprive you of the shield’s bonus to AC.

The ruling implies that they are improvised weapons however, so the feat investment will be pretty heavy as noted upthread.

[f5anor]

The ruling implies that they are improvised weapons however, so the feat investment will be pretty heavy as noted upthread.

This is however only true if you aim to get the ability damage bonus. If you do not select Tavern Brawler, you can get away with a single feat (Dual Wielder).

Its debatable still of course, if this is a worthwhile investment, but this build can for sure give you a higher AC than straight PAM, and actually one more attack able to shove.

[diplomancer]

This is however only true if you aim to get the ability damage bonus. If you do not select Tavern Brawler, you can get away with a single feat (Dual Wielder).

Its debatable still of course, if this is a worthwhile investment, but this build can for sure give you a higher AC than straight PAM, and actually one more attack able to shove.

It's not the ability bonus to damage that you lose without Tavern Brawler; it's the proficiency bonus to-hit. Which means you spent a feat for +1AC and, probably, less than 1 DPR (in fact, before you get to Str 20, you're getting LESS DPR than just raising your Str. That's pretty bad).

[stoutstien]

It's not the ability bonus to damage that you lose without Tavern Brawler; it's the proficiency bonus to-hit. Which means you spent a feat for +1AC and, probably, less than 1 DPR (in fact, before you get to Str 20, you're getting LESS DPR than just raising your Str. That's pretty bad).

Which is one of the issues with the twf feat. It's worse if you are dex focused. If you aren't grabbing it at lv 1 then it's almost always less effective then the ASI spent on your attack/damage ability.

[Quietus]

Got it. The issue is that this way you also loose the extra AC. The +2 AC from a shield is pretty sweet in 5e bounded accuracy, and Dual Wielder even gives a +1 on top.

The above two combinations give you a +3 AC. Vanilla bonus action two weapon fighting gives you max +1 if you take Defence style.

Others have covered the rest of the points quite well, but I want to say, Dual Wielder would not give you the +1 AC while wielding a shield.


You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.


According to JC:
Jeremy Crawford@JeremyECrawford
@mackenzie884 A shield certainly isn't a weapon, but like many things, it can be used as an improvised weapon.

Jeremy Crawford@JeremyECrawford
@mackenzie884 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.

In the specific moment of the off-hand attack being made, you would get the +1 AC. As soon as the attack has completed, hit or miss, the shield stops being considered a weapon, and the +1 AC from Dual Wielder "turns off".

[HPisBS]

The obvious solution is to have your Artificer make some shields that are designed for striking (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdJlIlalxAI&t=384s). And then dual wield those.


(Most relevant bit at 8:20)

[Gurgeh]

Its debatable still of course, if this is a worthwhile investment, but this build can for sure give you a higher AC than straight PAM, and actually one more attack able to shove
The only way TWF gets more shove-capable attacks than PAM is if your tables rules that PAM is entirely incompatible with shoving (which... yes, that's how I'd rule PAM, but you seem to be assuming that it doesn't work that way).

TWF requires you to attack with a melee weapon, which is means you must devote at least one attack from the attack action to doing damage. As with PAM (and every bonus action attack that doesn't explicitly allow shoving), the bonus action attack cannot shove.

So without extra attack, you must choose between shoving and having a bonus action attack - it is not possible to have both. With extra attack, you can shove no more than once if you want to have a bonus action attack.

[BerzerkerUnit]

+3 ac from shield/spears that do +4 when thrown.

Pure fighter of choice gets the extra feat, start human or custom lineage.

Start with Dualwielder feat and twf style so your spear shield combo works out of the gate. You’re only taking a -2 to attacks with the shield. But get the bonus AC.

Level 4 take tavernbrawler since ACs are getting higher.

L6 Dueling fighting style.

L8 Thrown Style.

L12+ bump stats as desired.

I run with a fairly consistent “investments do not compete” ruling practice.
Some examples: Dueling can be used with a shield, a shield can be used as a weapon, using the shield as a weapon does not void the dueling style bonus.

You can dual wield hand axes, if you throw a hand axe during your attack action, you can throw the other as a bonus ala TWF even tho once you let go of the first axe you no longer qualify for the bonus action attack under TWF rules.

Bonus actions can explicitly be taken at any time during your turn. Movement occurs throughout the turn, you can therefore declare your attack action, move to engage before attacking then move away after the attack and make an Extra Attack at another target. So you can declare your attack, trigger your Shield Master feat, shove with your bonus action, then take your attacks. Same for TWF attacks and other conditional bonus actions.

[DarknessEternal]

In the specific moment of the off-hand attack being made, you would get the +1 AC. As soon as the attack has completed, hit or miss, the shield stops being considered a weapon, and the +1 AC from Dual Wielder "turns off".

Well, that kills it then. Too resource intensive for no enough positive.

[Witty Username]

I would point out that PAM pairs well with both great weapon master and sentinel, which tend to be part of the draw. (Sentinel for me personally because I like having control options on basically any character).