Can You Dual Wield Shields? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Yunru Sep 25, 2014 7:34:41	I know the answer for weapons: not unless one of the has the Light property (or you have the Dual Wielder feat), but Shields aren't weapons. Furthermore, would the two +2s stack?
#2 mellored Sep 25, 2014 7:58:20	You can hold 2 shields but..... Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.
#3 MrCustomer Sep 25, 2014 8:38:36	Dual wielding 2 shields always sounds like it should double one's AC, but a shield isn't something that just sits there. Instead a shield is used to move in front of an attack. Ie someone swings a sword at you, and you move the shield to block the sword. 2 shields wouldn't do any good because you can only move one shield in front of the attack at a time, making the second shield redundant, if you wanted to make a system where two shields were benificial, you would first have to make shields in general less benificial, such as a shield only giving protection from 2 arcs at a time, (left and front arc) leaving the left and read arcs undefended. The second shield would only give protection to the right and rear arcs. In the current system a shield gives 360 degree protection already which is why a second shield gives no benifit, so basically the only way to make the system realistically reflect wielding two shields is to make shields less effective in general. The game uses a simplified system as such additional rules (having to decide what attacks and arcs to use the shield on) add needless complexity to a fight.
#4 mellored Sep 25, 2014 8:40:34	Ehh... I would houserule +1 AC for a second shield.
#5 Sorxores Sep 25, 2014 8:55:43	would 2 shield give half cover? since you create a barrier covering effectively half your body? so additional +2AC and +2 Dex save? lol
#6 JohnnyBlaise Sep 25, 2014 9:42:54	So if you have Dual Wielder, you can legitimately say that any held object is an improvised weapon, so you are now weilding two improvised weapons. - Feat benefit: You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand. - Sheild benefit: +2. - Fighter style: Armored +1 - Be a dex based human variant and have a +3 from dex. - Take medium armor master: wear half plate armor. 15 base. Total: 22 AC (by level 4). Improvised weapons suck though, so you might want to be either a Ranger, Paladn or a ClericMC, for better damage output (cleric can use the holy symbol on the shield as a divine focus, so your spell casting is not hindered other than being a level off, Rangers get do more damage with offhand attack, Paladin can both cast as a cleric and pump thier damage with smites etc). And in the rare instance of a hit, you can Sheild of Faith that up to 24 with the cleric option. Silly really, but pretty amazing defense.
#7 mellored Sep 25, 2014 10:03:21	Tavern brawler gives you proficency in improvised weapons. 1d4+Str isn't too bad.
#8 Bloodscythe Sep 25, 2014 10:47:52	A shield by definition isn't a weapon, nor is it an improvised weapon. If you choose to attack with it, by making it an improvised weapon, it is no longer a shield since it's now a weapon. So you can either benefit from +2 AC your turn by using your shield as a shield OR you can attack with an improvised weapon you're holding (that just happens to be your shield that you're now using incorrectly in terms of shield usage.) Even the shield master feat which lets you "attack" with your shield doesn't actually deal damage. It just lets you shove. So yes, you can hold two shields. You can only benefit from one. Yes you can strike with a shield, but by doing so, you're improvising a weapon out of it, and no longer holding it as a shield. You're holding it as a weapon. From a real world standpoint, this would likely mean you're swinging it outward to strike with the side of the shield, but that turns the shield up and out, exposing your body. Of course, RAW doesn't say you lose the AC bonus if using a shield as an improvised weapon, but considering the shield master feat doesn't even let you deal damage while benefiting from a shield, I don't see how you can normally.
#9 Thank_Dog Sep 25, 2014 12:03:04	Video of [HD] Epic Facepalm
#10 Trance-Zg Sep 25, 2014 13:02:35	If variant rule is written for flanking, as in +2 or what ever, I would say that having two shields negate flanking but that is all.
#11 BoldItalic Sep 25, 2014 16:09:43	Houserule #394/a/3 You can wield as many shields as you have left arms.
(Reply to #11) OoftaMeg	BoldItalic wrote:
#13 FluffyBunbunKittens Sep 26, 2014 2:16:58	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #13) Bloodscythe	FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
(Reply to #14) JohnnyBlaise	Bloodscythe wrote:
#16 Ganymede425 Sep 29, 2014 18:35:54	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#17 FluffyBunbunKittens Sep 30, 2014 0:15:26	Bloodscythe wrote:
#18 Aetherer Sep 30, 2014 3:45:36	Unless a shield counts as a weapon in any of the rules, I cannot see any usefull way to use 2 at once. A shield blocks attacks in a similar way to a parry, and needs to be actively brought into the path of an attack. Using 2 shields to do this will mean one shield gets in the way of the other. Blocking two attackers is not much different to one, and the rules don't seem to care where the attacks are coming from. You've still got to focus on that attack and move the shield (either one) into the weapon's path. So, 2 shields is no better than 1, and using one as a weapon doesn't make much sense (unless it is spiked or something). No additional AC, and the only bonuses would be as a weapon-and-shield would give.
(Reply to #17) MrCustomer	FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
#20 RCanine Sep 30, 2014 7:40:20	FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
(Reply to #20) JohnnyBlaise	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #15) Bloodscythe	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
(Reply to #17) Bloodscythe	FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
#24 Yunru Sep 30, 2014 10:26:24	When do you ever need to simultaneously attack AND defend with a shield? Someone (on the side you're attacking) with Sentinel or Protection fighting style are the only cases I can think of.
#25 Nachturnus Sep 30, 2014 10:42:15	Bloodscythe wrote:
#26 Ganymede425 Sep 30, 2014 10:59:54	Nachturnus wrote:
#27 Yunru Sep 30, 2014 11:04:41	Ganymede425 wrote:
#28 Nachturnus Sep 30, 2014 11:11:55	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #25) Bloodscythe	Nachturnus wrote:
#30 Coredump00 Sep 30, 2014 11:45:21	So I will strap the shield to my arm; leaving my hand free... it is now 'weilded' and and I can use a greatsword. Or pehaps I will choose to 'wield' it on my back, or perhaps a small one on my shin.... Or I will put both rapiers in one hand, usine TWF, and my sheild in the other hand...
#31 Nachturnus Sep 30, 2014 12:30:25	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #31) Coredump00	Nachturnus wrote:
#33 Nachturnus Sep 30, 2014 15:05:38	The relevant entries are on pages 144 and 147. 'PHB' wrote:
(Reply to #31) Bloodscythe	Nachturnus wrote:
(Reply to #33) Coredump00	Nachturnus wrote:
#36 Nachturnus Sep 30, 2014 18:38:42	Turns out, I was unable to find a definition fo wielding in PHB, so, my bad. That being said, my previous statement regarding shields still applies, as I exemplified in the next post up, if you saw. Both rules require that you 'wield in one hand,' meaning that, regardless of what wielding means, if you're doing it to a shield, in one hand, you can both gain the bonus and make improvised attacks with it. I refered to it as super-simple stuff because it is. It is what it is, namely, it's what's written in the book. You can cry foul all you like, but this is a rules forum where we discuss the rules as they are, and people's personal houserules. We're here to answer questions about how the rules work, not about how you wish they did, or how you think they were intended to. I'm sorry you took offense. As for your Battleaxe example, that's something a DM could allow a player to do, yes. That would be a DM call however, just as the rule says, making it a houserule. If a DM really wanted to let his player use his battleaxe as a shield and a one-handed weapon, he could do it regardless of what the rules say, the fact that the rules empower the DM to make that kind of choice is pointless. Your point about losing the AC bonus when using shields as improvised weapons is unfounded. Nowhere does it state that an improvised weapon stops being whatever it was when you chose to use it as an improvised weapon. The dead goblin you're bashing people with is still a dead goblin, just as much as the shield (that you must wield in one hand as per p. 144) remains a shield while you're bashing people with it. You're still wielding it in one hand (as per both rules segments) and thus you are meeting the prerequesites and features of both rules, thus allowing to be both an improvised weapon, and a shield. Rules apply until negated, and since neither rule negates the other, both rules apply. As for all of your examples Coredump: No. They aren't even worth addressing. All of those examples either violate extant rules (two two-handers) or are based upon speculation with no rules backing, and thus are not 'RAW games' to use your phrasing. They're someone grasping at straws and constructing strawmans in an attempt to shoot down a point they cannot otherwise combat.
(Reply to #36) Bloodscythe	Nachturnus wrote:
(Reply to #36) Coredump00	Nachturnus wrote:
#39 RCanine Oct 01, 2014 1:19:24	JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#40 RCanine Oct 01, 2014 1:34:34	Nachturnus wrote:
(Reply to #9) MykeSchultz	Thank_Dog wrote:
(Reply to #8) FrogReaver	Bloodscythe wrote:
#43 Yunru Oct 01, 2014 3:06:56	FrogReaver wrote:
#44 Captain_Kobold Oct 01, 2014 4:21:57	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #42) Bloodscythe	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #43) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
#47 Yunru Oct 01, 2014 5:51:23	Bloodscythe wrote:
#48 Nachturnus Oct 01, 2014 5:58:22	Coredump00 wrote:
#49 Yunru Oct 01, 2014 6:17:27	I mean if you want to play the munchkin fallacy game to try and disprove Nach's arguement I pose to you this equally stupid Munchkin Fallacy: Nothing in the rules say you only have four limbs. I could claim I'm a mutant with 6 limbs, two legs and four arms. I can now wield a shiled, a one-handed weapon and a two-handed weapon. Or even two two-handed weapons. Which poses this question: Can you quad-wield shields?
#50 Nachturnus Oct 01, 2014 6:26:13	DELETED Your face when you try to edit a post and accidentally click 'Quote'
#51 JohnnyBlaise Oct 01, 2014 8:33:08	Duelist style is a VERY different argument. The creators explicitly say its supposed to work with sword and board. But they totally forgot about improvised and natural weapons. Its a terribly worded feature. I tend to think that the point is just that you get the bonus when you aren't engaging in two weapon fighting or using a two-handed weapon. But as I said, badly worded.
(Reply to #47) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #49) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
#54 Yunru Oct 01, 2014 9:46:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #54) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
#56 Yunru Oct 01, 2014 10:35:20	Because a shield is a shield? And if a unwieldy foam training shield can hurt, a shaped metal shield can be lethal? Duh. Your argument makes no sense, not mine.
#57 Nachturnus Oct 01, 2014 11:10:43	This is inane. Stop it. It has nothing to do with rules, or even the rules question positied here. Shields are very dangerous, and certainly do more damage than punching someone does (which is what all improvised weapons do.) If anyone has anything relevant to add to the conversation about dual-wielding shields, please chime in. If there's going to be more pointless bickering about whether or not a shield can hurt someone (which the rules, logic, and real-life all agree: they certainly can,) please refrain.
(Reply to #57) Bloodscythe	Nachturnus wrote:
(Reply to #40) Coredump00	RCanine wrote:
(Reply to #48) Coredump00	Nachturnus wrote:
#61 Nachturnus Oct 01, 2014 14:08:03	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #56) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
#63 Yunru Oct 01, 2014 15:27:09	A shield is also a slab of metal/wood. Slamming that into someone's face is definitely an improvised weapon. It doesn't suddenly stop being a shield: anything that hits it isn't hitting you.
#64 Vaughnu Oct 01, 2014 15:41:56	Many great points made on this thread but a couple of things I have not seen that I might want to point out. Anything that simulates real life such as combat simulators (D&D for one) will always have real life situations that break the rules of the simulator. In Real life I can kill you with a single swing of my shortsword but in D&D that is next to impossible with higher level characters. If I hit you with Alchemist fire in real life you will probably take damage for longer than 12 seconds.... Bonuses such as to AC do not stack if they are from the same source. Mage armor doesn't stack with physical armor (both grant AC). Shield bonus cannot stack with another shield bonus. This has been true since 1st eddition and I do not recall at any point this being changed. I know there are exception to that circumstance bonuses stacked in 3 and 3.5. Therefore Dual Weilding Shield in any way shape or form will not grant 2 bonuses, you only get one. If you want specifics on shield as a weapon vs shield as a shield. Back in 3.0 there was an item in Oriental Adventures called a ??? that specifically permitted you to maintain your shield bonus while using it as a weapon. If it is a weapon then it is a weapon, if it is a shield it is a shield. The same way that if you pick up a chair and use it as a weapon no one can use it as a chair, or if you sit on it, no one can use it as a weapon until either 1. you get up or 2. they pull it out from under you. If you use an ITEM as a weapon then it is a weapon. It is still a chair, shield, or broccili sprig but it COUNTS (is considered and therefore treated) as a Weapon when used as such, or COUNTS as a shield if used as such. It is also possible to improvise a shield and the exact makeup of the item determins (according to your DM) if you get a cover (Oaken Table), concealment (a foam Rugby practice shield) or AC/shield (Wenches Serving platter) bonus. Before I get flamed about the serving platter thing, modern platters are much thinner, lighter and less resiliant to damage then the ones from the middle ages. A chair, small bench, or halfling could be used as an improvised shield or weapon. I, as a DM would require any person that could use a shield as a weapon to declare at the begining of each turn that for this round the item is a _________. If it is a shield they cannot attack with it. If it is a weapon they don't get the bonus to AC. If they want to fight and argue about it, let them DM; then use the rule against them to the absolute most agravating and rediculous method possible, say human fighter monk with grapple, improvised weapon and throw anything feats so that you can grapple your opponent, use their shield bonus while pummeling other opponents with them (after all you are wielding them with their shield so you should get their bonus...) then throw them at a fleeing enemy as a trip attack. OO Dual weild enemys and get their ARMOR bonuse because you are using them as shields! I would also like to point out that in 5th you can only do a given action 1 time in the round (with specific exceptions). Therefore you could change the use of a shield from weapon to shield or shield to weapon 1 time per turn no matter how quickly you could do it (in the event that they don't make declarations at the begining of thier turn). Just my 2 cents.... Vaughnu
#65 Vaughnu Oct 01, 2014 15:43:15	Yunru wrote:
#66 jonathonhawke Oct 01, 2014 16:36:12	Vaughnu wrote:
#67 RCanine Oct 01, 2014 20:25:16	Coredump00 wrote:
#68 Captain_Kobold Oct 02, 2014 2:58:58	Do you lose the shield's AC bonus when you use it to make shove attacks or only for hitpoint-damaging attacks? Just to correct a misapprehension; shields are generally held out towards your opponent in order to intercept her strikes and block off lines of attack. Holding one close to your body makes it much harder to move it effectively, and also tends to tangle your weapon. This isn't to say that making an attack with a shield won't bring it out of line defensively and give your opponent an opening. Many things will, including responding to opponent's strikes and feints. YMMV.
(Reply to #68) Bloodscythe	Captain_Kobold wrote:
(Reply to #63) Bloodscythe	Yunru wrote:
#71 FluffyBunbunKittens Oct 02, 2014 5:03:56	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #71) Bloodscythe	FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
#73 Bloodscythe Oct 02, 2014 18:50:09	After further review of the source material, The shove bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat doesn't cause a loss of your AC bonus because it doesn't require an attack roll, and therefore, isn't an attack. A shove, as detailed in the book, may cause you to lose your AC bonus... it's debatable, for the following reasons: 1) shove doesn't require a shield. 2) even if wielding a shield, you can shove without using the shield as part of the shove since a shield is not required. 3) the shove action is a special melee attack that doesn't actually use an attack roll. It is effectively an opposed ability check. In other words, shove... don't shove with your shield. Since you don't have to specifically use your shield to shove, don't. If you're not using your shield to make an attack, there's no debate whether or not you lose the AC bonus. Humorously, the book explicitly states at the top of page 194 that if there's any question whether something counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, it is an attack. If the opposite is true, then you're not making an attack roll, then it is not an attack. And yet, we have Grapple and Shove on page 195 being defined as an attack that uses an opposed ability check. But then, when your only options in combat are Attack, Dash, Dodge, Disengage, Cast a Spell, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, and Use An Object, which one of these best fits grapple and shove. By lack of a better option, they have to be categorized as an attack.
#74 jonathonhawke Oct 02, 2014 23:47:11	Back to the OP: the short answer is yes, you can wear two shields. The AC bonus does not stack. You can use one shield to defend yourself, and the other as an improvised weapon to attack. You can decide each round which is which.
#75 Pelican12 Oct 03, 2014 14:00:10	How did I miss this gem of a thread. The real question should be how do hand crossbows impact wearing two shields ;)
#76 jonathonhawke Oct 03, 2014 21:07:40	Pelican12 wrote:
#77 FrogReaver Oct 03, 2014 23:03:40	I just would never count an improvised melee weapon as the same mechanical thing as a weapon listed on the weapons chart. No two weapon fighting with an improvised shield weapon because in my ruling it wouldn't be a weapon as defined by the game and thus the dual weapon feat wouldn't apply to an improvised shield weapon. It would simply always be an "improvised weapon". In my ruling a "weapon" and an "improvised weapon" would be two different mechanical classes.
#78 Plaguescarred1 Oct 04, 2014 7:40:38	IMO a shield is not similar in shape and weight to any actual weapon on the weapon table (large one-handed 6 lb shape) to be treated as such and its at DM's option wether proficiency bonus apply or not. Since a character can only benefit from one shield at a time, using a second shield would make poor weapon choice (1d4 damage, no prof) this even if one take the Tavern Brawler feat to get his proficiency bonus. A dagger would still be a better weapon choice with or without the feat so i wonder what benefit one would have to wield a second shield as opposed to an actual weapon instead? Improvised Weapons: In many cases, 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.
(Reply to #4) CriticalBastard	mellored wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Yunru

Sep 25, 2014 7:34:41

I know the answer for weapons: not unless one of the has the Light property (or you have the Dual Wielder feat), but Shields aren't weapons. Furthermore, would the two +2s stack?

mellored

Sep 25, 2014 7:58:20

You can hold 2 shields but.....

Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.

MrCustomer

Sep 25, 2014 8:38:36

Dual wielding 2 shields always sounds like it should double one's AC, but a shield isn't something that just sits there. Instead a shield is used to move in front of an attack. Ie someone swings a sword at you, and you move the shield to block the sword. 2 shields wouldn't do any good because you can only move one shield in front of the attack at a time, making the second shield redundant,

if you wanted to make a system where two shields were benificial, you would first have to make shields in general less benificial, such as a shield only giving protection from 2 arcs at a time, (left and front arc) leaving the left and read arcs undefended. The second shield would only give protection to the right and rear arcs. In the current system a shield gives 360 degree protection already which is why a second shield gives no benifit, so basically the only way to make the system realistically reflect wielding two shields is to make shields less effective in general.

The game uses a simplified system as such additional rules (having to decide what attacks and arcs to use the shield on) add needless complexity to a fight.

mellored

Sep 25, 2014 8:40:34

Ehh...

I would houserule +1 AC for a second shield.

Sorxores

Sep 25, 2014 8:55:43

would 2 shield give half cover? since you create a barrier covering effectively half your body? so additional +2AC and +2 Dex save? lol

JohnnyBlaise

Sep 25, 2014 9:42:54

So if you have Dual Wielder, you can legitimately say that any held object is an improvised weapon, so you are now weilding two improvised weapons.

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

- Sheild benefit: +2.

- Fighter style: Armored +1

- Be a dex based human variant and have a +3 from dex.

- Take medium armor master: wear half plate armor. 15 base.

Total: 22 AC (by level 4).

Improvised weapons suck though, so you might want to be either a Ranger, Paladn or a ClericMC, for better damage output (cleric can use the holy symbol on the shield as a divine focus, so your spell casting is not hindered other than being a level off, Rangers get do more damage with offhand attack, Paladin can both cast as a cleric and pump thier damage with smites etc). And in the rare instance of a hit, you can Sheild of Faith that up to 24 with the cleric option. Silly really, but pretty amazing defense.

mellored

Sep 25, 2014 10:03:21

Tavern brawler gives you proficency in improvised weapons.

1d4+Str isn't too bad.

Bloodscythe

Sep 25, 2014 10:47:52

A shield by definition isn't a weapon, nor is it an improvised weapon. If you choose to attack with it, by making it an improvised weapon, it is no longer a shield since it's now a weapon. So you can either benefit from +2 AC your turn by using your shield as a shield OR you can attack with an improvised weapon you're holding (that just happens to be your shield that you're now using incorrectly in terms of shield usage.)

Even the shield master feat which lets you "attack" with your shield doesn't actually deal damage. It just lets you shove.

So yes, you can hold two shields. You can only benefit from one.

Yes you can strike with a shield, but by doing so, you're improvising a weapon out of it, and no longer holding it as a shield. You're holding it as a weapon. From a real world standpoint, this would likely mean you're swinging it outward to strike with the side of the shield, but that turns the shield up and out, exposing your body.

Of course, RAW doesn't say you lose the AC bonus if using a shield as an improvised weapon, but considering the shield master feat doesn't even let you deal damage while benefiting from a shield, I don't see how you can normally.

Thank_Dog

Sep 25, 2014 12:03:04

#10

Trance-Zg

Sep 25, 2014 13:02:35

If variant rule is written for flanking, as in +2 or what ever, I would say that having two shields negate flanking but that is all.

#11

BoldItalic

Sep 25, 2014 16:09:43

Houserule #394/a/3

You can wield as many shields as you have left arms.

(Reply to #11)

OoftaMeg

BoldItalic wrote:

#13

FluffyBunbunKittens

Sep 26, 2014 2:16:58

Bloodscythe wrote:

(Reply to #13)

Bloodscythe

FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:

(Reply to #14)

JohnnyBlaise

Bloodscythe wrote:

#16

Ganymede425

Sep 29, 2014 18:35:54

JohnnyBlaise wrote:

#17

FluffyBunbunKittens

Sep 30, 2014 0:15:26

Bloodscythe wrote:

#18

Aetherer

Sep 30, 2014 3:45:36

Unless a shield counts as a weapon in any of the rules, I cannot see any usefull way to use 2 at once.

A shield blocks attacks in a similar way to a parry, and needs to be actively brought into the path of an attack. Using 2 shields to do this will mean one shield gets in the way of the other. Blocking two attackers is not much different to one, and the rules don't seem to care where the attacks are coming from. You've still got to focus on that attack and move the shield (either one) into the weapon's path.

So, 2 shields is no better than 1, and using one as a weapon doesn't make much sense (unless it is spiked or something).

No additional AC, and the only bonuses would be as a weapon-and-shield would give.

(Reply to #17)

MrCustomer

FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:

#20

RCanine

Sep 30, 2014 7:40:20

FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:

(Reply to #20)

JohnnyBlaise

RCanine wrote:

(Reply to #15)

Bloodscythe

JohnnyBlaise wrote:

(Reply to #17)

Bloodscythe

FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:

#24

Yunru

Sep 30, 2014 10:26:24

When do you ever need to simultaneously attack AND defend with a shield?

Someone (on the side you're attacking) with Sentinel or Protection fighting style are the only cases I can think of.

#25

Nachturnus

Sep 30, 2014 10:42:15

Bloodscythe wrote:

#26

Ganymede425

Sep 30, 2014 10:59:54

Nachturnus wrote:

#27

Yunru

Sep 30, 2014 11:04:41

Ganymede425 wrote:

#28

Nachturnus

Sep 30, 2014 11:11:55

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #25)

Bloodscythe

Nachturnus wrote:

#30

Coredump00

Sep 30, 2014 11:45:21

So I will strap the shield to my arm; leaving my hand free... it is now 'weilded' and and I can use a greatsword.

Or pehaps I will choose to 'wield' it on my back, or perhaps a small one on my shin....

Or I will put both rapiers in one hand, usine TWF, and my sheild in the other hand...

#31

Nachturnus

Sep 30, 2014 12:30:25

Bloodscythe wrote:

(Reply to #31)

Coredump00

Nachturnus wrote:

#33

Nachturnus

Sep 30, 2014 15:05:38

The relevant entries are on pages 144 and 147.

'PHB' wrote:

(Reply to #31)

Bloodscythe

Nachturnus wrote:

(Reply to #33)

Coredump00

Nachturnus wrote:

#36

Nachturnus

Sep 30, 2014 18:38:42

Turns out, I was unable to find a definition fo wielding in PHB, so, my bad. That being said, my previous statement regarding shields still applies, as I exemplified in the next post up, if you saw. Both rules require that you 'wield in one hand,' meaning that, regardless of what wielding means, if you're doing it to a shield, in one hand, you can both gain the bonus and make improvised attacks with it.

I refered to it as super-simple stuff because it is. It is what it is, namely, it's what's written in the book. You can cry foul all you like, but this is a rules forum where we discuss the rules as they are, and people's personal houserules. We're here to answer questions about how the rules work, not about how you wish they did, or how you think they were intended to. I'm sorry you took offense.

As for your Battleaxe example, that's something a DM could allow a player to do, yes. That would be a DM call however, just as the rule says, making it a houserule. If a DM really wanted to let his player use his battleaxe as a shield and a one-handed weapon, he could do it regardless of what the rules say, the fact that the rules empower the DM to make that kind of choice is pointless.

Your point about losing the AC bonus when using shields as improvised weapons is unfounded. Nowhere does it state that an improvised weapon stops being whatever it was when you chose to use it as an improvised weapon. The dead goblin you're bashing people with is still a dead goblin, just as much as the shield (that you must wield in one hand as per p. 144) remains a shield while you're bashing people with it. You're still wielding it in one hand (as per both rules segments) and thus you are meeting the prerequesites and features of both rules, thus allowing to be both an improvised weapon, and a shield. Rules apply until negated, and since neither rule negates the other, both rules apply.

As for all of your examples Coredump: No. They aren't even worth addressing. All of those examples either violate extant rules (two two-handers) or are based upon speculation with no rules backing, and thus are not 'RAW games' to use your phrasing. They're someone grasping at straws and constructing strawmans in an attempt to shoot down a point they cannot otherwise combat.

(Reply to #36)

Bloodscythe

Nachturnus wrote:

(Reply to #36)

Coredump00

Nachturnus wrote:

#39

RCanine

Oct 01, 2014 1:19:24

JohnnyBlaise wrote:

#40

RCanine

Oct 01, 2014 1:34:34

Nachturnus wrote:

(Reply to #9)

MykeSchultz

Thank_Dog wrote:

(Reply to #8)

FrogReaver

Bloodscythe wrote:

#43

Yunru

Oct 01, 2014 3:06:56

FrogReaver wrote:

#44

Captain_Kobold

Oct 01, 2014 4:21:57

RCanine wrote:

(Reply to #42)

Bloodscythe

FrogReaver wrote:

(Reply to #43)

Bloodscythe

Yunru wrote:

#47

Yunru

Oct 01, 2014 5:51:23

Bloodscythe wrote:

#48

Nachturnus

Oct 01, 2014 5:58:22

Coredump00 wrote:

#49

Yunru

Oct 01, 2014 6:17:27

I mean if you want to play the munchkin fallacy game to try and disprove Nach's arguement I pose to you this equally stupid Munchkin Fallacy:

Nothing in the rules say you only have four limbs. I could claim I'm a mutant with 6 limbs, two legs and four arms. I can now wield a shiled, a one-handed weapon and a two-handed weapon. Or even two two-handed weapons. Which poses this question: Can you quad-wield shields?

#50

Nachturnus

Oct 01, 2014 6:26:13

*DELETED*

Your face when you try to edit a post and accidentally click 'Quote'

#51

JohnnyBlaise

Oct 01, 2014 8:33:08

Duelist style is a VERY different argument. The creators explicitly say its supposed to work with sword and board. But they totally forgot about improvised and natural weapons. Its a terribly worded feature. I tend to think that the point is just that you get the bonus when you aren't engaging in two weapon fighting or using a two-handed weapon. But as I said, badly worded.

(Reply to #47)

Bloodscythe

Yunru wrote:

(Reply to #49)

Bloodscythe

Yunru wrote:

#54

Yunru

Oct 01, 2014 9:46:13

Bloodscythe wrote:

(Reply to #54)

Bloodscythe

Yunru wrote:

#56

Yunru

Oct 01, 2014 10:35:20

Because a shield is a shield? And if a unwieldy foam training shield can hurt, a shaped metal shield can be lethal? Duh. Your argument makes no sense, not mine.

#57

Nachturnus

Oct 01, 2014 11:10:43

This is inane. Stop it. It has nothing to do with rules, or even the rules question positied here.

Shields are very dangerous, and certainly do more damage than punching someone does (which is what all improvised weapons do.)

If anyone has anything relevant to add to the conversation about dual-wielding shields, please chime in. If there's going to be more pointless bickering about whether or not a shield can hurt someone (which the rules, logic, and real-life all agree: they certainly can,) please refrain.

(Reply to #57)

Bloodscythe

Nachturnus wrote:

(Reply to #40)

Coredump00

RCanine wrote:

(Reply to #48)

Coredump00

Nachturnus wrote:

#61

Nachturnus

Oct 01, 2014 14:08:03

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #56)

Bloodscythe

Yunru wrote:

#63

Yunru

Oct 01, 2014 15:27:09

A shield is also a slab of metal/wood. Slamming that into someone's face is definitely an improvised weapon. It doesn't suddenly stop being a shield: anything that hits it isn't hitting you.

#64

Vaughnu

Oct 01, 2014 15:41:56

Many great points made on this thread but a couple of things I have not seen that I might want to point out.

Anything that simulates real life such as combat simulators (D&D for one) will always have real life situations that break the rules of the simulator. In Real life I can kill you with a single swing of my shortsword but in D&D that is next to impossible with higher level characters. If I hit you with Alchemist fire in real life you will probably take damage for longer than 12 seconds....

Bonuses such as to AC do not stack if they are from the same source. Mage armor doesn't stack with physical armor (both grant AC). Shield bonus cannot stack with another shield bonus. This has been true since 1st eddition and I do not recall at any point this being changed. I know there are exception to that circumstance bonuses stacked in 3 and 3.5.

Therefore Dual Weilding Shield in any way shape or form will not grant 2 bonuses, you only get one.

If you want specifics on shield as a weapon vs shield as a shield. Back in 3.0 there was an item in Oriental Adventures called a ??? that specifically permitted you to maintain your shield bonus while using it as a weapon.
If it is a weapon then it is a weapon, if it is a shield it is a shield. The same way that if you pick up a chair and use it as a weapon no one can use it as a chair, or if you sit on it, no one can use it as a weapon until either 1. you get up or 2. they pull it out from under you. If you use an ITEM as a weapon then it is a weapon. It is still a chair, shield, or broccili sprig but it COUNTS (is considered and therefore treated) as a Weapon when used as such, or COUNTS as a shield if used as such.

It is also possible to improvise a shield and the exact makeup of the item determins (according to your DM) if you get a cover (Oaken Table), concealment (a foam Rugby practice shield) or AC/shield (Wenches Serving platter) bonus. Before I get flamed about the serving platter thing, modern platters are much thinner, lighter and less resiliant to damage then the ones from the middle ages.

A chair, small bench, or halfling could be used as an improvised shield or weapon.

I, as a DM would require any person that could use a shield as a weapon to declare at the begining of each turn that for this round the item is a _________. If it is a shield they cannot attack with it. If it is a weapon they don't get the bonus to AC. If they want to fight and argue about it, let them DM; then use the rule against them to the absolute most agravating and rediculous method possible, say human fighter monk with grapple, improvised weapon and throw anything feats so that you can grapple your opponent, use their shield bonus while pummeling other opponents with them (after all you are wielding them with their shield so you should get their bonus...) then throw them at a fleeing enemy as a trip attack. OO Dual weild enemys and get their ARMOR bonuse because you are using them as shields!

I would also like to point out that in 5th you can only do a given action 1 time in the round (with specific exceptions). Therefore you could change the use of a shield from weapon to shield or shield to weapon 1 time per turn no matter how quickly you could do it (in the event that they don't make declarations at the begining of thier turn).

Just my 2 cents....

Vaughnu

#65

Vaughnu

Oct 01, 2014 15:43:15

Yunru wrote:

#66

jonathonhawke

Oct 01, 2014 16:36:12

Vaughnu wrote:

#67

RCanine

Oct 01, 2014 20:25:16

Coredump00 wrote:

#68

Captain_Kobold

Oct 02, 2014 2:58:58

Do you lose the shield's AC bonus when you use it to make shove attacks or only for hitpoint-damaging attacks?

Just to correct a misapprehension; shields are generally held out towards your opponent in order to intercept her strikes and block off lines of attack. Holding one close to your body makes it much harder to move it effectively, and also tends to tangle your weapon.

This isn't to say that making an attack with a shield won't bring it out of line defensively and give your opponent an opening. Many things will, including responding to opponent's strikes and feints.

YMMV.

(Reply to #68)

Bloodscythe

Captain_Kobold wrote:

(Reply to #63)

Bloodscythe

Yunru wrote:

#71

FluffyBunbunKittens

Oct 02, 2014 5:03:56

Bloodscythe wrote:

(Reply to #71)

Bloodscythe

FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:

#73

Bloodscythe

Oct 02, 2014 18:50:09

After further review of the source material, The shove bonus action provided by the Shield Master feat doesn't cause a loss of your AC bonus because it doesn't require an attack roll, and therefore, isn't an attack.

A shove, as detailed in the book, may cause you to lose your AC bonus... it's debatable, for the following reasons:

1) shove doesn't require a shield.

2) even if wielding a shield, you can shove without using the shield as part of the shove since a shield is not required.

3) the shove action is a special melee attack that doesn't actually use an attack roll. It is effectively an opposed ability check.

In other words, shove... don't shove with your shield. Since you don't have to specifically use your shield to shove, don't. If you're not using your shield to make an attack, there's no debate whether or not you lose the AC bonus.

Humorously, the book explicitly states at the top of page 194 that if there's any question whether something counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, it is an attack. If the opposite is true, then you're not making an attack roll, then it is not an attack. And yet, we have Grapple and Shove on page 195 being defined as an attack that uses an opposed ability check.

But then, when your only options in combat are Attack, Dash, Dodge, Disengage, Cast a Spell, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, and Use An Object, which one of these best fits grapple and shove. By lack of a better option, they have to be categorized as an attack.

#74

jonathonhawke

Oct 02, 2014 23:47:11

Back to the OP: the short answer is yes, you can wear two shields. The AC bonus does not stack.

You can use one shield to defend yourself, and the other as an improvised weapon to attack.

You can decide each round which is which.

#75

Pelican12

Oct 03, 2014 14:00:10

How did I miss this gem of a thread. The real question should be how do hand crossbows impact wearing two shields ;)

#76

jonathonhawke

Oct 03, 2014 21:07:40

Pelican12 wrote:

#77

FrogReaver

Oct 03, 2014 23:03:40

I just would never count an improvised melee weapon as the same mechanical thing as a weapon listed on the weapons chart. No two weapon fighting with an improvised shield weapon because in my ruling it wouldn't be a weapon as defined by the game and thus the dual weapon feat wouldn't apply to an improvised shield weapon. It would simply always be an "improvised weapon". In my ruling a "weapon" and an "improvised weapon" would be two different mechanical classes.

#78

Plaguescarred1

Oct 04, 2014 7:40:38

IMO a shield is not similar in shape and weight to any actual weapon on the weapon table (large one-handed 6 lb shape) to be treated as such and its at DM's option wether proficiency bonus apply or not. Since a character can only benefit from one shield at a time, using a second shield would make poor weapon choice (1d4 damage, no prof) this even if one take the Tavern Brawler feat to get his proficiency bonus. A dagger would still be a better weapon choice with or without the feat so i wonder what benefit one would have to wield a second shield as opposed to an actual weapon instead?

Improvised Weapons: In many cases, 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.

(Reply to #4)

CriticalBastard

mellored wrote: