I was just thinking (dangerous thing to do, I know) and I came up with a scenario.
If I make a human fighter with the Tavern Brawler feat, I could take Duelist and still gain the +2 damage to my attacks, even though, in theory, I am 'wielding' an improvised weapon in the form of a shield. So, what determines when that shield is considered an improvised weapon or not an improvised weapon?
When you're using it as a weapon. Otherwise, anything at all could be counted as a weapon and prevent Duelist from working.
Some might rule that you lose your AC bonus and Duelist for the rest of the turn whenever you attack with the shield, but that sounds like boring bookkeeping to me. I'd just let the bonus apply to all attacks with your main weapon. It would be somewhat rare that you attack with both your shield and main weapon, in that order, in the same round, so this shouldn't be too controversial.
More meandering commentary:
To me, the intent of Duelist is to give a bonus that applies to non-two-handed and non-Two-Weapon-Fighting characters. Since your shield actually does less damage than your main-hand weapon when you attack with it, and you can't make that attack as a bonus action or something alongside your main hand, you're not getting any extra advantage from applying Duelist, compared to someone who just uses their longsword to attack every time (except the bonus grapple from the feat).
I might even let it apply to attacks with the shield, despite the presence of the main weapon. Besides, you could always use your longsword as an improvised weapon (hit with the pommel or something) and get the grapple, while still applying Duelist because you only have a shield in the other hand. There's no difference at all between the two improvised attacks, so there's no exploit issue. So, simple ruling: Duelist works with any one-handed non-Light weapon, until I come across a situation that allows a real exploit.
While some DMs say you lose your shield bonus to AC when making an improvised attack, nothing in the rules actually support this (making it a house rule).
On any turn that you make an improvised weapon attack with your shield - you lose your +2 damage bonus from Duelist. You retain it on any turn in which you choose not to make such an attack, or choose to use the benefit of the shield master feat.
Undrhil wrote:
i'm using a sheild as an improvised weapon, even though i never use it as a weapon, i label it that way so i can use it as a bonded weapon with my Eldritch Knight
I was thinking about this, and if you are currently wielding a shield as a weapon you are not wielding it as a shield. I would rule that you get the AC benefit from a shield only while you are wielding it as a shield. This also prevents someone from taking dual weapon fighting and getting a +3 bonus to AC (they would still get the normal +1 to AC from the feat).
So ... before you do this ask your DM. I don't think the rules are particularly clear on this.
The other question is, how much damage does it do? Can you put spikes on a shield to make it piercing? I would say yes to both ... and that it would do either 1d6 bludgeoning or piercing depending on the spikes.
Definitely would allow them as improvised weapons, and wouldn't bother with AC penalty myself.
In the earlier editions of the playtest shields were in both armour and weapon tables.
In the August 2012, October 2012, November 2012 playtests they were a martial weapon that did D6 bludgeoning damage.
In the December playtest it was phrased: "If you are proficient with a shield, you can use it to make a melee attack that deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage."
In the March 2013 Playtest the shield is gone but the spiked shield is added as a martial weapon:
Spiked Shield: 8 gp, 1d6 piercing damage, 5 lb, Light, special
A spiked shield counts as a shield, granting the shield’s normal +2 bonus to AC
... Which is a bit odd because the normal shield costs 10gp and is also 5lb...
I think it's a bit of a shame it didn't make the final cut.
Not sure about shields being Light Weapons, as this allows two weapon fighting where there was no two weapon fighting before.
But certainly happy for them to be a martial weapon that does D4 bludgeoning damage.
Doing D6 damage might make the mace obselete but if they're martial weapons, then most Clerics and Druids would still not be able to use them offensively.
i asked a similar question a few months ago in the Q&A and this was all i got:
mellored wrote:
I'm of the camp that if you're attacking with your shield, you are not using it as a shield. You aren't "wielding a shield", you're wielding a weapon, so you lose the AC bonus it normally provides.
Scenarios involving the Dueling style (assume that holding a shield also means the player donned it):
A character is holding a sword and a shield, using only the sword to attack: +2 damage from dueling, +2 AC from shield.
A character is holding a sword and a shield, using only the shield to attack: +2 damage with the improvised weapon; the shield being an improvised weapon.
A character is holding a sword and a shield, using both to attack: no bonuses.
A character is holding an object and a shield, using only the object to attack: +2 damage with the improvised weapon, +2 AC from shield.
A character is holding an object and a shield, using only the shield to attack: +2 damage with the improvised weapon; the shield being an improvised weapon.
A character is holding an object and a shield, using both to attack: no bonuses.
A character attacks with a thrown weapon, draws a melee weapon, and uses the melee weapon to attack: No bonus on the thrown attack, +2 damage from dueling on the melee attack.
A character attacks with a melee weapon, stows or drops the weapon, draws another weapon and make a ranged attack: +2 damage from dueling on melee attack, no bonus on the thrown attack.
A character attacks with a melee weapon, stows or drops the weapon, draws another weapon and makes a melee attack: +2 damage from dueling on both melee attacks.
A character is holding two weapons (sword and dagger), using only the sword to attack: +2 damage from dueling.
A character is holding two weapons (sword and dagger), using only the dagger to attack: +2 damage from dueling.
A character is holding two weapons (sword and dagger), using both to attack: no bonus.
A character is only holding a shield, using the shield to attack: +2 damage with the improvised weapon, no AC bonus since the shield isn't being used as a shield.
I differentiate between holding and wielding weapons. Holding a weapon and using a weapon are distinctly different things at my table. It allows for more diversity and the above rulings. It also allows a monk to pick up a weapon and not lose access to martial arts. I think the idea that a monk can't punch and kick just because they pick up an enemy's weapon to keep them from getting it would be absurd.
Basically, everywhere in the ruleset where it says "wield", I apply the definition of [hold and use].
I believe:
Observation:. An improvised weapon weapon isn't listed on the weapon chart.
Ruling: Since an improvised weapon isn't listed on the weapon chart it doesn't count as a weapon.
Observation:. Dueling fighting style requires you to be wielding a melee weapon and no other weapons.
Ruling: If a character is only wielding an improvised weapon he will not get the dueling +2 bonus because it isn't listed on the weapon chart. If a character is wielding a one handed weapon and an improvised weapon he will still qualify for the dueling +2 bonus with his one handed weapon attacks since an improvised weapon doesn't count as a weapon.
Observation:. The Dual Wielder feat specifies that you can use two-weapon fighting even when the 1 handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
Ruling: Since an improvised weapon doesn't count as a weapon then the Dual Wielder feat doesn't give any benefit to using a one handed weapon and an improvised weapon. The Dual Wielder feat requires a separate weapon which is a requirement that an improvised weapon doesn't fulfill. This means a one handed weapon and an improvised weapon would not give +1 AC and it would not give give the ability to bonus action attack and you would not be able to draw both the weapon and the improvised weapon at the same time.
FrogReaver wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
There are some published statistics for shield damage.
For spiked shields, see p. 204 of the MM. Spiked shield bash does 1d6+STR piercing damage.
For a regular shield, see p. 187 of the MM. Shield bash does 1d4+STR bludgeoning damage.
You don't wield a shield, you wear it. That's why it takes an action to don and doff it.
You cannot use something you're wearing as an improvised weapon. You can doff the shield, but then you lose the AC bonus.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
DM_HEEGZ wrote:
I don't see why you wouldn't. My goblins shield bash sometimes if they get disarmed. I tend to add features to most of my monsters though.
It's really easy to remember!
DM_HEEGZ wrote:
Personally speaking, I wouldn't even consider Shields as improvised weapons. If you're proficient in the use of the shield, you are proficient in the use of the shield. I'd just give it a 1d4 bludgeoning or slashing damage(depending on the shield) and be done with it. No denying your shield bonus to AC, no rolling at disadvantage, nothing, just regular two-weapon fighting.
DM_HEEGZ wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
If you hit someone with a shield, such as swinging the lip of it at them, why would it no longer provide an AC bonus? You're still wearing the shield, you still have it in one hand, you just basically use it to either flat bash someone or use the lip with a hooked swing. This is a legitimate way of attacking with a shield in real life. Since it's on your off-hand, assuming you're carrying a weapon, it will only do 1d4 improvised damage, sans strength, unless you're a Barbarian in rage. That's hardly gamebreaking. If you have been disarmed of your primary weapon, then the shield does 1d4 + Strength damage. You would only have proficiency if you had proficiency with improvised weapons (although I would DEFINITELY houserule that Fighters can use shields as martial weapons, thus adding proficiency to hit).
I would say that, if you use the shield as a bonus attack weapon, then it counts as a weapon for that turn, meaning you don't get the benefit of Duelist till the beginning of your next turn. You would never use the shield as an improvised weapon unless you were disarmed. But a shield should definitely do 1d4 damage, since I would rather be hit by a mailed fist than clobbered by the lip of a metal-banded shield.
Also, pretty much any tool can be used as an improvised weapon. A boat oar, a smithing hammer, a chair, etc. As DM, I would say that the chair counts as 1d4 for the first hit, and then it breaks. Other weapons might also break, especially if you roll a 1 on the D20. It doesn't NOT count as an improvised weapon just because you don't see it on a table.
shield is not listed on the wrapn table.. Therefore it is not a weapon even if you use it as an improvised weapon
Undrhil wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Talreign wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
I think it's a pretty reasonable RAW interpretation that you have to unstrap (doff) your shield from your arm to effectively whack someone over the head with it, but I'd be okay with someone with dual wield feat forfeiting the AC bonus for a turn to bonk someone. The 'no downside free bonus attack' thing is just good ole fashioned DM rolling tho.
It seems as though wield a weapon or wield a shield just means use a weapon or use a shield, but sounds better (despite confusion).
mrpopstar wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Bait-hammer wrote:
Bait-hammer wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Or you could just spend the same action you would spend to attack with any other off-hand weapon, and attack with a shield that's firmly strapped in your hand. Like most every people bearing a shield would do.
Neither costing you any AC, nor costing you profficiency (unless you aren't trained in the use of shields), nor requiring extra actions to overcomplicate something that should be as simple as throwing a punch with your offhand.
Vahnyu wrote:
Ask the spartans?
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
he reasoning is that instead of focusing on using the shield (as a shield), to deflect attacks and intercept weapons, you are instead focused on lashing out with the shield (as a weapon) to strike your opponent. While the shield is being occupied as a weapon, being directed at your opponent's weak points, it can't simultaneously be occupied as a shield readied to intercept threats.
Even if you think the shield can do both simultaneously, should the shield function both as a weapon and as a shield simultaneously from a gameplay standpoint?
Why would you attack with your shield, anyway?
Outside two-weapon fighting, I can only think of a couple of cases, and they appear to be edge-cases. First, if you have a weapon and shield and are disarmed, and you don't have another weapon, then you might choose to bash with the shield. Second, if you have a sword and shield and are fighting a creature resistant or immune to slashing but not to bludgeoning.
As far as two-weapon fighting goes, I can definately see the value there, combining the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and the Tavern Brawler feat. You now attack using the shield with proficiency, possibly while retaining the +2 AC (would depend on DM's ruling). Very nice. On the other hand, this takes two feats. You could have used those two feats to get +4 DEX, which also gives you +2 AC. Or +4 CON which gives you more HP, to offset the lack of +2 AC.
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Talreign wrote:
That was one of those "generic we" comments. Some people are saying that you wouldn't get an AC bonus... but why? The shield is still on you. You just hit someone with it. You can still just as easily block now.
Undrhil wrote:
Talreign wrote:
Talreign wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
neilselden wrote:
Hibiki54 wrote:
Eggnogfool wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
After my 2 hours of searching, here's a personal opinion of what it would be,
''Dueling: 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.'' if you have a long sword and a shield (shield is improvised weapon) you don't get the +2 bonus to damage roll. And, if you take the feat : ''Dual Wielder: You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.'' you don't get the bonus to AC because the shield is not a melee weapon, its an improvised weapon. And if you hit with your shield, you don't lose your bonus to AC because rules said: '' Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.'' as if you hit or not with it. And I don't think a shield is a light weapon when it has the same weight as a greatsword.
But maybe not 
RCanine wrote:
I don't know if you guys saw but Jeremy Crawford answered a tweet today;
@dpnorton Must I doff a shield to use it as an improvised weapon?
@JeremyECrawford Nope. It's shield-bash time!
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
mrpopstar wrote: