Using your shield as an improvised weapon for a bonus action attack. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Captainpandabear Sep 11, 2015 22:18:35	Someone at my D&D table is trying to assert that, per the rules, one can take the Tavern Brawler feat and be proficient with anything improvised, and as such should be able to use the shield to bonus attack each round like a club, for 1d4+mod damage in addition to retaining the +2 ac bonus (the character has the Dual Wielder feat already). Now I shot that down, because I find it to be a dubious reading of the rules for a few reasons, but I'm wondering if anyone else out there thinks this is a fair reading of the RAW? My arguments against it were as follows: 1. I believe it's very clearly not the intent of the feat in question. 2. The exact wording of improvised weapons suggests it needs to be something 'held,' and I argue there is a distinction between "equipped" and "held." 3. It's unbalanced. What is the purpose of the polearm master feat or dual wielding, ever, if you can get the same effect while enjoying a +2 bonus to AC? Also, the feat in question boosts an ability score, making it even more broken in comparison to other, similar feats.
#2 iserith Sep 11, 2015 22:34:12	Two-weapon fighting (Basic Rules, page 74) allows a character to attack with a light weapon as a bonus action. You don't get to add your ability modifier to the damage unless, of course, you have the Two-Weapon Fighting style. A shield isn't a light weapon. However, an extra d4 damage - if it even hits - shouldn't be enough to break your game. So I'd just give it to the player. Using this tactic means the player's giving up a bonus action for an average of 2 extra damage. If I as DM were in competition with the player (we're not), I'd consider that to be a win for the DM in many cases. If it still doesn't sit right with you, consider ruling that the player can use this tactic, but that the character does not gain the benefit of the shield's bonus to AC until the start of his or her next turn.
(Reply to #2) Captainpandabear	iserith wrote:
#4 iserith Sep 11, 2015 22:52:04	It's still not a light weapon, so Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't apply. If you want to be a stickler on the rules (and why would you?) then your player's argument ends right there. I still don't think a d4 plus mod as a bonus action while retaining AC is going to be an issue for your game. But if you believe that your challenges cannot abide an extra 5 or 6 damage on average per round (if it hits) while retaining +2 AC at the cost of the player not using another bonus action (such as Second Wind or the grapple from Tavern Brawler), then you could tell the player no shield bonus to AC until the start of his or her character's next turn. Suggest taking Duel Wielder when it's time to get another ABI/Feat to keep the AC bonus while attacking with the shield as a bonus action.
#5 Captainpandabear Sep 11, 2015 23:12:52	iserith wrote:
#6 JackOfAllTirades Sep 11, 2015 23:31:34	I have to agree with iserith: I see nothing in the core rules that leads me to believe the character in question would still gain the +2 AC from the shield while using it as an improvised weapon. He needs to choose one or the other on his turn: +2 AC or an extra attack. If I've missed something, no doubt someone will point it out for me soon enough. Thanks in advance.
(Reply to #5) Macv12	Captainpandabear wrote:
(Reply to #7) Captainpandabear	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #6) FarBeyondC	JackOfAllTirades wrote:
#10 Psikerlord Sep 12, 2015 2:30:22	I agree with the OP that getting both the attack and the +2 AC is OP. I would allow using the shield to attack - but if used in that way, the PC does not get the +2 AC until the start of his next turn (he used his shield as a weapon this round, instead of a shield). So he can get that extra attack when he wants to finish an enemy, or whatever, but it causes him to have to make a choice round to round.... More offence or more defence?
#11 Granville7482 Sep 12, 2015 3:23:59	I miss the playtest Shield Feat, it pretty much allowed you to bash for 1d4 (I forget if mod ws added or not)as a bonus action while retaining your AC.
#12 jaelis Sep 12, 2015 5:18:36	Here's the twitter on it. My interpretation is that you can keep the +2 AC while you attack with a shield, but not the additional +1 AC from Dual Wielder. But he might mean that the feat doesn't let you TWF with improvised weapons, ,period. Q: Must I doff a shield to use it as an improvised weapon?" A: Nope. It's shield-bash time! Q: A shield as an improvised weapon with the Dual Wielding feat: Does the feat's +1 AC stack with the shield +2 AC that round? A: Dual Wielder is meant to work (RAI) with a melee weapon or an equivalent, not something like a shield.
#13 ArialBlack Sep 12, 2015 7:10:38	In order to TWF, you must first attack with a 'light' 'weapon' 'in one hand'. If you do, then you may attack with a 'different' 'light' 'weapon' 'in the other hand'. When you do, you do not add your Str/Dex bonus to damage with the bonus attack. The Dual Wielder feat does not allow you to add you Str/Dex bonus to damage. For that, you need the fighting style that con only be obtained from one level of fighter or two levels of ranger. The Dual Wielder feat allows you to ignore the 'light' part of 'light weapon'. But it does not allow you to ignore the 'weapon' part of light weapon. A shield is not a 'weapon', therefore it does not meet either the criteria for a Dual Wielder's first attack (which now must be an attack with a 'weapon' 'in one hand'), OR the criteria for the bonus TWF attack (which now must be a 'different' 'weapon' 'in the other hand'). Therefore, a shield may not be used for either attack in TWF, even if you have Dual Wielder, because a shield is not a weapon, Tavern Brawler does not turn an 'improvised weapon' into a 'weapon'; it just allows you to be proficient when attacking with an object that it not a weapon.
#14 JackOfAllTirades Sep 12, 2015 14:29:49	FarBeyondC wrote:
#15 Xeviat-DM Sep 12, 2015 14:52:02	Rather than looking at this mechanically, checking if the rules let this work, why not look at it for balance? The shield master feat lets you bonus action shove with your shield, and you retain your AC bonus; it also has some other benefits, meaning this bonus action shove is worth "half a feat". Normally, you can trade an attack for a shove. So a shove and an attack are somewhat equivalent. I'd allow it. They aren't going to get the grapple benefit from tavern brawler. Grapple can be traded for an attack. Go for it. They've taken a fighting style and two feats; it still isn't as much damage as polearm master (1d8+Str main attacks and 1d4+Str bonus action and +2 AC, or 1d10+Str main attacks and 1d4+Str bonus action and reach).
(Reply to #14) FarBeyondC	JackOfAllTirades wrote:
#17 jaelis Sep 12, 2015 19:31:55	ArialBlack wrote:
#18 Greenstone.Walker Sep 13, 2015 2:12:23	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #18) jaelis	Greenstone.Walker wrote:
#20 Greenstone.Walker Sep 13, 2015 17:51:27	jaelis wrote:
#21 jaelis Sep 13, 2015 19:11:51	Greenstone.Walker wrote:
#22 ArialBlack Sep 13, 2015 19:23:10	An 'improvised weapon' is a weapon in the same way that "fool's gold" is a kind of gold. I'm AFB right now, but I recall that the section in the 5E PHB defines 'improvised' weapon attacks as attacks with objects that are not designed to be weapons. If the wording is posted it would clarify the situation. It also tells you that 'weapons' are the things that are on the weapons table. Just because you can use an object to do the job of another object, doesn't mean that it is that object! If I shelter under a car to avoid getting soaked by the rain, that doesn't mean that cars are umbrellas, even if you improvise a car to do what the umbrella does. The game system has 'weapon attacks' and 'spell attacks', but 'weapon attacks' don't need to be executed with actual weapons (unarmed strike, natural weapons, improvised weapons all use the 'weapon attack' mechanic), and 'spell attacks' don't need to be executed with an actual spell; any mystic force-like energy that requires an attack roll uses the 'spell attack' mechanic, such as the attack from the Ring of the Ram. The game uses common language terms, but don't forget that the game also uses jargon; specific terms that have rules attached. 'Weapon' is such a term; it refers to an object that is designed to be a weapon. 'Light', as in 'light weapon', is also a game term. Its use in the TWF rules cannot be dismissed as 'common language' so that you can use, say, a rapier in TWF (without the feat) on the grounds that rapiers don't weigh much therefore they are 'light' in common language therefore you can TWF with two rapiers without the Dual Wielder feat. It is as wrong to ignore the 'weapon' part of the TWF rules as it is to ignore the 'light' part of those rules, or the 'in one hand' part or any part. I'm answering this question as if it was a rules question, not a 'good idea for a houserule' question. If it's the latter, houserule away to your heart's content and discuss game balance.
#23 Danny_Montanny Sep 14, 2015 4:13:50	Ummm... a sword is just like any other object until you pick it up and try to hurt somebody with it. A weapon is a weapon when you use it as a weapon. Improvised Weapons falls under the heading Weapons in the PHB, how does that make them not weapons? Because they're not on the list? Nowhere does it say, "these are the only weapons found in D&D." The rules make no such distinction between a weapon and a weapon.
#24 Rya.Reisender Sep 14, 2015 4:19:35	It is only overpowered if you rule that +1 AC form Dual Wielder stacks with +2 AC from shield. This is not intended (see SA clarification linked above). I see the +1 AC from Dual Wielder more like parrying an attack with your offhand weapon. This wouldn't stack with a shield, because the +2 AC already comes from using the shield to block to your best abilities. So I'd rule it's either: +1 AC when attacking with shield / +2 AC when not attacking with shield or +2 AC always
(Reply to #22) jaelis	ArialBlack wrote:
#26 FactOfFiction Sep 14, 2015 16:28:34	Dual Wielder gives you +1 AC and increases your offhand damage from 1d6 to 1d8. Taking ANOTHER half a feat which basically gives you another +1 AC and reduces your offhand damage from 1d8 to 1d4 certainly does not strike me as overpowered. There is a feat that allows you to use a 2 handed weapon and still make d4 offhand attack. It ALSO allows you to make free attacks against anything coming inside your reach. I don't see how taking one and a half feats in order to be able to fight with 1 handed weapon and a shield and still making d4 offhand attacks is OVERPOWEREDOMGIWOULDNOTALLOW IT. Even stacking the two AC benefits is probably ok, but I can see more conservative DMs not allowing it with some reason behind their decision. The push/shove from shield master is more or less equivalent to an off-hand attack and it costs you less than a feat (since it also have other benefits) and allows you to keep your bonus to AC.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Captainpandabear

Sep 11, 2015 22:18:35

Someone at my D&D table is trying to assert that, per the rules, one can take the Tavern Brawler feat and be proficient with anything improvised, and as such should be able to use the shield to bonus attack each round like a club, for 1d4+mod damage in addition to retaining the +2 ac bonus (the character has the Dual Wielder feat already).

Now I shot that down, because I find it to be a dubious reading of the rules for a few reasons, but I'm wondering if anyone else out there thinks this is a fair reading of the RAW?

My arguments against it were as follows:
1. I believe it's very clearly not the intent of the feat in question.
2. The exact wording of improvised weapons suggests it needs to be something 'held,' and I argue there is a distinction between "equipped" and "held."
3. It's unbalanced. What is the purpose of the polearm master feat or dual wielding, ever, if you can get the same effect while enjoying a +2 bonus to AC? Also, the feat in question boosts an ability score, making it even more broken in comparison to other, similar feats.

iserith

Sep 11, 2015 22:34:12

Two-weapon fighting (Basic Rules, page 74) allows a character to attack with a light weapon as a bonus action. You don't get to add your ability modifier to the damage unless, of course, you have the Two-Weapon Fighting style.

A shield isn't a light weapon. However, an extra d4 damage - if it even hits - shouldn't be enough to break your game. So I'd just give it to the player. Using this tactic means the player's giving up a bonus action for an average of 2 extra damage. If I as DM were in competition with the player (we're not), I'd consider that to be a win for the DM in many cases.

If it still doesn't sit right with you, consider ruling that the player can use this tactic, but that the character does not gain the benefit of the shield's bonus to AC until the start of his or her next turn.

(Reply to #2)

Captainpandabear

iserith wrote:

iserith

Sep 11, 2015 22:52:04

It's still not a light weapon, so Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't apply. If you want to be a stickler on the rules (and why would you?) then your player's argument ends right there.

I still don't think a d4 plus mod as a bonus action while retaining AC is going to be an issue for your game. But if you believe that your challenges cannot abide an extra 5 or 6 damage on average per round (if it hits) while retaining +2 AC at the cost of the player not using another bonus action (such as Second Wind or the grapple from Tavern Brawler), then you could tell the player no shield bonus to AC until the start of his or her character's next turn. Suggest taking Duel Wielder when it's time to get another ABI/Feat to keep the AC bonus while attacking with the shield as a bonus action.

Captainpandabear

Sep 11, 2015 23:12:52

iserith wrote:

JackOfAllTirades

Sep 11, 2015 23:31:34

I have to agree with iserith: I see nothing in the core rules that leads me to believe the character in question would still gain the +2 AC from the shield while using it as an improvised weapon. He needs to choose one or the other on his turn: +2 AC or an extra attack.

If I've missed something, no doubt someone will point it out for me soon enough. Thanks in advance.

(Reply to #5)

Macv12

Captainpandabear wrote:

(Reply to #7)

Captainpandabear

Macv12 wrote:

(Reply to #6)

FarBeyondC

JackOfAllTirades wrote:

#10

Psikerlord

Sep 12, 2015 2:30:22

I agree with the OP that getting both the attack and the +2 AC is OP.

I would allow using the shield to attack - but if used in that way, the PC does not get the +2 AC until the start of his next turn (he used his shield as a weapon this round, instead of a shield). So he can get that extra attack when he wants to finish an enemy, or whatever, but it causes him to have to make a choice round to round.... More offence or more defence?

#11

Granville7482

Sep 12, 2015 3:23:59

I miss the playtest Shield Feat, it pretty much allowed you to bash for 1d4 (I forget if mod ws added or not)as a bonus action while retaining your AC.

#12

jaelis

Sep 12, 2015 5:18:36

Here's the twitter on it. My interpretation is that you can keep the +2 AC while you attack with a shield, but not the additional +1 AC from Dual Wielder. But he might mean that the feat doesn't let you TWF with improvised weapons, ,period.

Q: Must I doff a shield to use it as an improvised weapon?"
A: Nope. It's shield-bash time!

Q: A shield as an improvised weapon with the Dual Wielding feat: Does the feat's +1 AC stack with the shield +2 AC that round?
A: Dual Wielder is meant to work (RAI) with a melee weapon or an equivalent, not something like a shield.

#13

ArialBlack

Sep 12, 2015 7:10:38

In order to TWF, you must first attack with a 'light' 'weapon' 'in one hand'. If you do, then you may attack with a 'different' 'light' 'weapon' 'in the other hand'. When you do, you do not add your Str/Dex bonus to damage with the bonus attack.

The Dual Wielder feat does not allow you to add you Str/Dex bonus to damage. For that, you need the fighting style that con only be obtained from one level of fighter or two levels of ranger.

The Dual Wielder feat allows you to ignore the 'light' part of 'light weapon'. But it does not allow you to ignore the 'weapon' part of light weapon.

A shield is not a 'weapon', therefore it does not meet either the criteria for a Dual Wielder's first attack (which now must be an attack with a 'weapon' 'in one hand'), OR the criteria for the bonus TWF attack (which now must be a 'different' 'weapon' 'in the other hand').

Therefore, a shield may not be used for either attack in TWF, even if you have Dual Wielder, because a shield is not a weapon, Tavern Brawler does not turn an 'improvised weapon' into a 'weapon'; it just allows you to be proficient when attacking with an object that it not a weapon.

#14

JackOfAllTirades

Sep 12, 2015 14:29:49

FarBeyondC wrote:

#15

Xeviat-DM

Sep 12, 2015 14:52:02

Rather than looking at this mechanically, checking if the rules let this work, why not look at it for balance? The shield master feat lets you bonus action shove with your shield, and you retain your AC bonus; it also has some other benefits, meaning this bonus action shove is worth "half a feat". Normally, you can trade an attack for a shove. So a shove and an attack are somewhat equivalent.

I'd allow it. They aren't going to get the grapple benefit from tavern brawler. Grapple can be traded for an attack. Go for it. They've taken a fighting style and two feats; it still isn't as much damage as polearm master (1d8+Str main attacks and 1d4+Str bonus action and +2 AC, or 1d10+Str main attacks and 1d4+Str bonus action and reach).

(Reply to #14)

FarBeyondC

JackOfAllTirades wrote:

#17

jaelis

Sep 12, 2015 19:31:55

ArialBlack wrote:

#18

Greenstone.Walker

Sep 13, 2015 2:12:23

jaelis wrote:

(Reply to #18)

jaelis

Greenstone.Walker wrote:

#20

Greenstone.Walker

Sep 13, 2015 17:51:27

jaelis wrote:

#21

jaelis

Sep 13, 2015 19:11:51

Greenstone.Walker wrote:

#22

ArialBlack

Sep 13, 2015 19:23:10

An 'improvised weapon' is a weapon in the same way that "fool's gold" is a kind of gold.

I'm AFB right now, but I recall that the section in the 5E PHB defines 'improvised' weapon attacks as attacks with objects that are not designed to be weapons. If the wording is posted it would clarify the situation.

It also tells you that 'weapons' are the things that are on the weapons table.

Just because you can use an object to do the job of another object, doesn't mean that it is that object!

If I shelter under a car to avoid getting soaked by the rain, that doesn't mean that cars are umbrellas, even if you improvise a car to do what the umbrella does.

The game system has 'weapon attacks' and 'spell attacks', but 'weapon attacks' don't need to be executed with actual weapons (unarmed strike, natural weapons, improvised weapons all use the 'weapon attack' mechanic), and 'spell attacks' don't need to be executed with an actual spell; any mystic force-like energy that requires an attack roll uses the 'spell attack' mechanic, such as the attack from the Ring of the Ram.

The game uses common language terms, but don't forget that the game also uses jargon; specific terms that have rules attached. 'Weapon' is such a term; it refers to an object that is designed to be a weapon.

'Light', as in 'light weapon', is also a game term. Its use in the TWF rules cannot be dismissed as 'common language' so that you can use, say, a rapier in TWF (without the feat) on the grounds that rapiers don't weigh much therefore they are 'light' in common language therefore you can TWF with two rapiers without the Dual Wielder feat.

It is as wrong to ignore the 'weapon' part of the TWF rules as it is to ignore the 'light' part of those rules, or the 'in one hand' part or any part.

I'm answering this question as if it was a rules question, not a 'good idea for a houserule' question. If it's the latter, houserule away to your heart's content and discuss game balance.

#23

Danny_Montanny

Sep 14, 2015 4:13:50

Ummm... a sword is just like any other object until you pick it up and try to hurt somebody with it. A weapon is a weapon when you use it as a weapon.

Improvised Weapons falls under the heading Weapons in the PHB, how does that make them not weapons? Because they're not on the list? Nowhere does it say, "these are the only weapons found in D&D." The rules make no such distinction between a weapon and a weapon.

#24

Rya.Reisender

Sep 14, 2015 4:19:35

It is only overpowered if you rule that +1 AC form Dual Wielder stacks with +2 AC from shield. This is not intended (see SA clarification linked above). I see the +1 AC from Dual Wielder more like parrying an attack with your offhand weapon. This wouldn't stack with a shield, because the +2 AC already comes from using the shield to block to your best abilities.

So I'd rule it's either:

+1 AC when attacking with shield / +2 AC when not attacking with shield

+2 AC always

(Reply to #22)

jaelis

ArialBlack wrote:

#26

FactOfFiction

Sep 14, 2015 16:28:34

Dual Wielder gives you +1 AC and increases your offhand damage from 1d6 to 1d8. Taking ANOTHER half a feat which basically gives you another +1 AC and reduces your offhand damage from 1d8 to 1d4 certainly does not strike me as overpowered.

There is a feat that allows you to use a 2 handed weapon and still make d4 offhand attack. It ALSO allows you to make free attacks against anything coming inside your reach. I don't see how taking one and a half feats in order to be able to fight with 1 handed weapon and a shield and still making d4 offhand attacks is OVERPOWEREDOMGIWOULDNOTALLOW IT. Even stacking the two AC benefits is probably ok, but I can see more conservative DMs not allowing it with some reason behind their decision.

The push/shove from shield master is more or less equivalent to an off-hand attack and it costs you less than a feat (since it also have other benefits) and allows you to keep your bonus to AC.