I'm about to start a home campaign and I thought I'd pick 2 game elements (for now) that there is debate about, but in which I do not have much of a preference one way or the other about.
The first pertains to the Dueling Fighter Style and if I should allow it to be used with a shield.
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.
Barring optical illusions, I think it is quite clear that one can use a shield in conjunction with it, for a shield is not a weapon (but then again, I think there is a feat you can take and make it a weapon).
By RAI, I derno. I think trying to discern RAI is often highly subjective. Often the realm of psychics.
That said, the dnd community seems somewhat split on this on the RAI. For example, my Encounters DM doesn't allow it.
I don't know quite where I stand. But I have no problem with the concept of allowing a duelist to use a shield (But I'm also a man of consensus, so if enough people have a problem with it, my concept can change). My DM brought up the Three Musketeers as an argument against the duelist being allowed to use a shield. Take that for what its worth. But, personally, I didn't find her argument persuasive.
If I allow it though, it seems by what I have read on here, it makes GWF even more of a problematic option (unless you allow the rerolls on all damage dice and not just the weapon's damage dice. My second question also pertains to this). Thus, making it even less of a viable option for my players.
If I don't allow it, I derno the math, but +2 doesn't seem like much compared to why not just choose dual-wielder style? You lose out on the AC either way.
I'm leaning towards allowing it, because I'm more of a RAW kind-of-guy; and as far as the RAI, it seems to be an open question (I though for sure it would be officially clarified by now. Maybe it has. But I go through this forum with finely toothed comb, and find nothing but debate and RAW concerning this matter.
My second question is; should I let the damage rerolls for GWF to apply to all damage rolls, like for smites and stuff. Although that idea bugs me, GWF seems a bit weak. But I am not a math guy, so.
Your feeback and opinions will be greatly appreciated. But, please, no "don't worry about it." I am asking this question for a reason. I'm looking for answers, not non answers. Thanks.
Rapier+buckler is totally a "duelist" thing to do. A shield is more than a huge plate of metal on your arm. It fits perfectly flavor- and balance-wise (otherwise one-handing has no other boosts).
For GWF I wouldn't apply the bonus to extras, aside from criticals, because it doesn't make sense. Hunter's Mark, Warlock's Curse, poison, etc. have no reason do to more damage because of the way you swing the sword or whatever. Great weapons are already capable of awesome damage, I really don't think they need that boost. I haven't run a detailed analysis comparing feat choices, class choices, etc. with different weapons, but I don't think you need that for your damage output. That said, I don't think it will overly hinder the game one way or the other, so I'd be inclined to go with whatever the player felt okay with, as long as they didn't then go super exploity with it.
I would permit both. The Duelist is clearly the style for a 1 handed style of fighting, ie. sword and board. Plus 2 to damage is still balanced by the fact you have to hit your foe.
The second one is a bit more problematic, but we will be allowing rerolling of all low die if someone takes the feat (so far no one has).
I think duelling is a tough one.
Rules-lawyer-wise, a shield is armor and not a weapon so you can use one.
Flavor-wise, I don't think its a strech to assume that the reason it says "no other weapons" is because the duelling ability requires the added mobility of not having to wield a second weapon, so having a big ol' kite shield strapped to your arm seems to totally go against the intention of the rule.
A buckler does fit both the flavor and the rules, so as a compromise you could create one and let them use that: it weighs less than a regular shield and gives +1 AC.
Jousting and knights with kite shields both have the flavor of a duel to me, along with the aforementioned rapier/buckler combo. Note that the lance is one handed and usable with a shield while mounted for jousting/dueling purposes. I feel the intention of the Dueling fighting style is to buff one handed weapons, as the other options are two weapons, two handed weapons, and long range weapons. Whether the off hand is carrying a shield or torch is irrelevant, although a second weapon would matter, as the description specifically prohibits exactly this situation only.
[edit]
Dueling working with a shield confirmed by the Devs:
http://dmdavid.com/tag/9-more-fifth-edition-dd-rules-questions-answered-by-the-designers/
Oh yeah, lances too. Also a great reason to allow it. Makes the lance an attractive weapon.
I'm curious, what was this Three Musketeers argument the DM used? I'm guessing something like "these specific characters had no shields, ergo it's impossible to duel with a shield in one hand." I've been subjected to similar arguments concerning Polearm Master and such. Image-search "historical sword dueling" and you'll get several results on real-world duelists using small shields, as well as historical manuals detailing sword-and-shield dueling techniques. That's just a starting point. Sounds like another case of the DM making armchair judgments about the "realism" of various martial arts while knowing nothing about what they're talking about. :/ And of course, they always keep their mouth shut when it concerns magic classes, because hey, it's magic, who am I to put limits on it?
I don't think that referencing The Three Musketeers is particularly proof regarding Duellist feat. How do you thing "swashbuckling" became a word? And, as others have pointed out, not all duelling was renaissance "swords or pistols" style. Shields are fine by both RAW and developer statement.
Regarding the GWF and rerolling dice, RAW is fairly clear. Its a damage die for an attack you make. Not weapon damage die. Any damage die from the attack, would seem to be included, whether weapon, crit, smite, hunter's mark etc.
Of course its always a DM's perogative to houserule. If he decides he wants the rules to work a particular way, they work the way he says.
Both are correct, both RAW and apparently RAI.
If you want there to be a benefit for a free hand (besides the obvious ability to carry something or cast spells), then you can rule the Duelist requires no weapon or shield. You should clarify to your players that you are doing this and why. Personally, I don't find it necessasary, as characters often struggle for a free hand as it is.
If you think that GWF shouldn't work for non-weapon dice, you can choose to make that the case. However, you will severely limit the usefulness of it, and certain classes (such as Paladins) will likely shy away from it in favor of other fighting styles.
There is no "RAI" debate regarding Duelist style. The makers of this edition of D&D specifically stated that it was created with Sword and Board fighters in mind.
myke, looks like you got your answers. as a huge fan of the three musketeers, i should point out the period of the musketeers saga is set in a post-D&D tech level by a few centuries. anyone offering that argument needs to have it shut down and hard: it's anachronnistic.