Or take Dual Wielder and choose to use the shield as an improvised weapon. (Your DM will probably rule that you lose the +2 AC -- you don't have a shield anymore -- but you will get +1 AC from Dual Wielder).
Two-Weapon Fighting requires weapons. Dual Wielder lets you use melee weapons that aren't light, but you still need a pair of melee weapons.
Now, use your shield to make a shove attack. Use your Bonus Action from Dual Wielder to attack with your weapon.
A shove doesn't involve any weapons/objects (unless of course a special rule like Shield Master says so), so even if your DM is extra generous and lets you engage in TWF with a shield, you still can't do this.
An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
[snip]
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object).
Shield in one hand plus longsword (or whatever) in the other hand equals two weapons.
The rules for a shove say nothing about a free hand (as opposed to grappling; which requires one). What makes you think a character can't use its shield to shove -- it's not called kick or headbutt -- it's either the shield or the longsword (or both).
The rules for a shove say nothing about a free hand (as opposed to grappling; which requires one). What makes you think a character can't use its shield to shove -- it's not called kick or headbutt -- it's either the shield or the longsword (or both).
I'm not saying you can't potentially shove someone with a shield, just like you could potentially trip someone with a spear, but the Shove rules don't mention a weapon at all. They don't require a free hand because you can just tackle or kick someone.
What I'm saying is that you're taking an awful lot of liberties if you unilaterally declare your shield to be a weapon and then, instead of making a weapon attack with it as outlined in the improvised weapon rules, you decide to reflavor the Shove action to incorporate your shield so you can try to meet the TWF requirements in a really roundabout way.
It's a very rules lawyer approach that ignores how those rules are intended to work and assumes the DM will go along with your interpretation of the Improvised Weapon and Shove rules.
I've looked at Shield Master for a long time, and read opinions from players, DMs, Crawford, and other sources. I believe the root problem with Shield Master is that it is simply trying to do too much with a single feat, so all of the things that it does do are done poorly.
Shield Master's description states clearly that the intended focus of the feat is for offensive purposes, yet two out of three of the features are defensive in nature. What we end up with is a feat where all of the features fall short of expectations for giving up an ASI or another feat.
I propose splitting the current Shield Master into two separate, focused feats: Shield Master & Shield Tactician
Shield Master
You are an expert at using shields for protection. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect.
If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.
Most people that are looking at the RAW Shield Master are going to want one of two things: the Shove or Evasion. If the player wants Evasion, then just give them Evasion, not a watered down version that only works in a narrow set of conditions AND requires your Reaction. You're spending an ASI for this; just give them Evasion!
Shield Tactician
You are an expert at using shields for offense. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
If you successfully Shove a creature as a part of taking the Attack action on your turn, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
Let the people whom want to Shove then Attack do exactly that. Forget shoving as a bonus action: people want to shove first, and that is in no way illogical, impossible, or imbalanced. Everyone can already use their action to shove, so the feat should be designed around what happens after the shove. Bonus action attack. This doesn't have to be complicated.
If the developer intent is not for the current Shield Master to center on using your shield to create additional offensive opportunities, I call BS. Offense means offense.
If the intent is truly to ONLY give the option of making a Shove as a bonus action (for utility, it's not nothing), then that's exactly what the description should say.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I believe the root problem with Shield Master is that it is simply trying to do too much with a single feat, so all of the things that it does do are done poorly.
Nah. The main defensive benefit (Evasion) is strong and the main offensive benefit (shove as a bonus action) is also strong. People are just mad because they want the Barbarian's Reckless Attack without the drawbacks instead of "just" helping out their friends.
Shield Master's description states clearly that the intended focus of the feat is for offensive purposes, yet two out of three of the features are defensive in nature.
The feat says you can use shields for offense as well as defense. That's not the same as saying you focus on offense. Also, for whatever it's worth the other defensive benefit is mostly dead weight anyways. I've got house rules for that but it's still a strong feat even without that benefit.
Forget shoving as a bonus action: people want to shove first, and that is in no way illogical, impossible, or imbalanced.
Not that D&D does a particularly good job of modeling weapon combat, but if you have a long pointy stick (e.g. spear, sword, whatever) and the enemy also has a long pointy stick, charging in shield-first in the hopes of bowling them over without getting stabbed is absurd. Trying it every couple of seconds even more so. The only time that'd make sense is if you're both decked out in full plate so trying to poke each other to death is largely pointless, and at that point you might as well just flip your sword around and try to bludgeon them to death. At least if you try the shove after attacking it's kind of implied you've already gotten past the enemy's pointy stick without dying.
I take more issue with the fact that the shove prone gimmick is silly. I'd argue the feat would've been better off dropping that altogether and giving you a chance to stun an enemy as a reaction if it misses you with a natural 1 or 2. Or some other big, dramatic benefit that doesn't involve trying to tackle the enemy every round.
I want to run the kind of game where the paladin can fire off a smite spell when striking an opponent with their shield. The kind of game where the half-orc villain can tear the heads off a pair of dead kobolds, and then dual wield them (although, each head can probably only survive one or two attacks which hit). The kind of game where the bard can strike an opponent with their rapier, and then whimsically strike the same (or another) opponent in the face with a bunch of flowers held in their other hand.
I don't want to run the kind of game where the players spend excessive time asking me, "If I welded a shortsword onto my shield would that be 'sufficiently like' a shortsword?" I'd rather them spend that time asking me, "Does the princess look pregnant?" or "What is the distance from me to the half-orc?" (you know; the one with a kobold head in each hand).
I don't want to run the kind of game where a PC (or NPC for that matter) can both attack with a shield and get +2 AC from that same shield.
I also don't want to run the kind of game where the Eldritch Knight can use their Weapon Bond feature to create a magical bond between themself and a chair leg.
What I'm saying is that you're taking an awful lot of liberties if you unilaterally declare your shield to be a weapon and then...
I did not unilaterally declare my shield to be a weapon. The players handbook says that it is an improvised weapon. So the question becomes, "Is an improvised weapon a weapon?" Here is where we disagree. As I interpret it, an improvised weapon is a weapon during the round it is used as weapon; allowing a paladin equipped with only a shield the ability to smite-spell and attack with it, but not providing +2 AC. Your interpretation allows the same paladin an attack with the shield (but no smite-spell) and the +2 AC. Both should make any player happy. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.
... you decide to reflavor the Shove action to incorporate your shield...
You are right. I did reflavor the Shove action to incorporate my shield. I understand your objections to this. I can certainly understand why a DM would disallow it. Once a PC (or NPC) has Extra Attack, it becomes moot anyway.
What I'm saying is that you're taking an awful lot of liberties if you unilaterally declare your shield to be a weapon and then, instead of making a weapon attack with it as outlined in the improvised weapon rules, you decide to reflavor the Shove action to incorporate your shield so you can try to meet the TWF requirements in a really roundabout way.
It's a very rules lawyer approach that ignores how those rules are intended to work and assumes the DM will go along with your interpretation of the Improvised Weapon and Shove rules.
Finally, a piece of advice, if I may. Not every player who approaches your table will have their own Player's Handbook, let alone be interested in interpreting the rules. If your advice to involved players includes phrases such as, "Awful lot of liberties," "Unilaterally declare," and, "Very rules lawyer approach," eventually you may find yourself at a table with only one Player's Handbook -- yours.
The kind of game where the half-orc villain can tear the heads off a pair of dead kobolds, and then dual wield them (although, each head can probably only survive one or two attacks which hit).
And FWIW, Crawford agrees that improvised weapons are officially 'weapons' during the action they are being used as weapons for (and then they go back to not being weapons after the action).
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.
And FWIW, Crawford agrees that improvised weapons are officially 'weapons' during the action they are being used as weapons for (and then they go back to not being weapons after the action).
The improvised weapon rules even lead with "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand."
So no, this definitely isn't intended. I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on his part, but even if you take that one Crawford tweet at face value and say "ok, the instant I swing this object, it's technically a weapon", a shield still isn't a melee weapon. That's a rules category, and making a melee or ranged attack with an object doesn't put it in that category. A dagger is still a melee weapon when you throw it and a crossbow is still a ranged weapon if you bludgeon someone with it.
Finally, a piece of advice, if I may. Not every player who approaches your table will have their own Player's Handbook, let alone be interested in interpreting the rules. If your advice to involved players includes phrases such as, "Awful lot of liberties," "Unilaterally declare," and, "Very rules lawyer approach," eventually you may find yourself at a table with only one Player's Handbook -- yours.
Let me return the favor. If you're going to give rules advice to random people on the internet and you don't personally know their DM, make sure it's unambiguously allowed by the rules or be up front about the fact that what you're suggesting is in a grey area. The DM has the final say when the rules are ambiguous so you don't want to pass off a questionable combo as a surefire thing.
I'm not nitpicking this to be a jerk or because I think Dual Wielder with a shield shouldn't be allowed. It's a pretty underwhelming combo and I don't care if people choose to house rule it, but what you suggested definitely requires bending the rules.
So no, this definitely isn't intended. I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on his part, but even if you take that one Crawford tweet at face value and say "ok, the instant I swing this object, it's technically a weapon", a shield still isn't a melee weapon. That's a rules category, and making a melee or ranged attack with an object doesn't put it in that category. A dagger is still a melee weapon when you throw it and a crossbow is still a ranged weapon if you bludgeon someone with it.
So no, this definitely isn't intended. I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on his part, but even if you take that one Crawford tweet at face value and say "ok, the instant I swing this object, it's technically a weapon", a shield still isn't a melee weapon. That's a rules category, and making a melee or ranged attack with an object doesn't put it in that category. A dagger is still a melee weapon when you throw it and a crossbow is still a ranged weapon if you bludgeon someone with it.
The Player's Handbook also states (p. 146)
Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.
So, if it's technically a weapon...
I'm not going to address your long series of links. Not because they don't support your position. Some of them do (and some of them are irrelevant). But rather because the body of Crawford's tweets can be contradictory. Honestly, sometimes it feels like he hasn't read the rules since he wrote them!
Let me return the favor. If you're going to give rules advice to random people on the internet and you don't personally know their DM, make sure it's unambiguously allowed by the rules or be up front about the fact that what you're suggesting is in a grey area. The DM has the final say when the rules are ambiguous so you don't want to pass off a questionable combo as a surefire thing.
I felt I had pointed out that the DM needed to rule on this. I will try to be more unambiguous in the future.
I'm not nitpicking this to be a jerk or because I think Dual Wielder with a shield shouldn't be allowed. It's a pretty underwhelming combo and I don't care if people choose to house rule it, but what you suggested definitely requires bending the rules.
So how do you deal with it at your table? A player whose character has just gained 4th level says to you, "I want to take a feat so that I can shove an opponent prone with my shield and then attack them (while prone) with my sword." (I don't think I've ever had a player put it in exactly those words, but that's what they're asking.) What do you say to them?
The Player's Handbook also states (p. 146): "Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance." So, if it's technically a weapon...
Nope. "If X then Y" being true doesn't imply that "If Y then X" is true. Clearly, "If an animal is a cat, it's a mammal" is true, but "If an animal is a mammal, it's a cat" isn't always true. The rules are saying "If an object is a melee weapon, you can use it to attack a target within 5 feet of you." The converse isn't necessarily true here either.
The Player's Handbook makes several exceptions to the rule you cited:
The rules for unarmed strikes let you make a melee weapon attack against a target within reach using your body (which is not a weapon).
The Thrown property lets you make a ranged attack with a melee weapon.
The Improvised Weapon rules let you make a ranged attack with a melee weapon that lacks the Thrown property.
The Improvised Weapon rules let you make a melee attack with a ranged weapon.
The Improvised Weapon rules lets you make melee or ranged attacks with non-weapon objects.
So clearly, the fact that you've got a weapon in your hand and you used it to attack someone within 5 feet of you doesn't imply you're holding a melee weapon.
I'm not going to address your long series of links. Not because they don't support your position. But rather because the body of Crawford's tweets can be contradictory. Honestly, sometimes it feels like he hasn't read the rules since he wrote them!
Out of hundreds of tweets, I can only recall a handful of times Jeremy's been flat out wrong, and he deletes those tweets (and posts new ones with corrections) when someone points them out. He pretty much always checks the books before answering questions, and has done so multiple times on camera.
In my games, I have decided that shields are not weapons of any kind, because weapons are something you carry, not something you wear.
A shield is like a gauntlet or a helm or a suit of armour or a pair of boots - it's worn. It takes time to don and doff. It can't be disarmed or stolen (generally).
If you want to hit someone with your shield, that's cool, make an unarmed attack. Same for headbutting or kicking or elbow striking. Same for goring or clawing or biting (with body parts usually described as "natural weapons").
Those hits involve making a "melee weapon attack" but they do not involve an "attack with a weapon" (a distinction that I wish the books were clearer about).
So, what is a weapon? It is something on the weapon tables (four of them - melee and ranged, simple and martial).
As an aside, if a carried item is not on one of the weapon tables and is not similar to something on the table, you can still attack with it (termed an "improvised weapon"). Like an unarmed attack, this is a "melee weapon attack" but is not an "attack with a weapon".
Answer: "Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table." (DMG p.235) "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, [...]. What you need are two things, the first being friends with whom you can share the game. [...] The second thing you need is a lively imagination [...]" (PH p.4)
Let's review:
We discussed the rules for improvised weapons and the shove action.
I asked you what kind of game you wanted to run, suggested that we agree to disagree on our interpretations of the improvised weapon rules, and agreed you were right about the shove action. You responded by providing 9 links to tweets, in an attempt to convince me that you were right about the improvised weapon rules.
I stated that Crawford's tweets can be confusing (and that it sometimes feels like he hasn't read the rules recently), and asked you what you would tell a hypothetical player at your table. You responded by attempting to convince me that you were right, and that you could only recall a few times that Crawford has been wrong.
Question: what is the purpose of the rules?
Answer: The purpose of the rules is to assist the DM in running a game. I am guessing that your answer would be different.
I did not say that Crawford's tweets are wrong (since he is/was the official rules person, he should never be wrong!) I said that they can be contradictory. For a relevant example:
Even if these tweets weren't contradictory, how do they assist me in running the game? How does all of this assist me to adjudicate a tessen?
Question: what is the purpose of the rules?
If your answer is, "The purpose of the rules is so people can be right about them on the D&D Beyond forum," then they have achieved their aim. Our disagreement is not whether an improvised weapon is a weapon, nor whether the Player's Handbook contains an implied third class of weapon which is not a melee weapon, not a ranged weapon, and not mentioned anywhere.
Otherwise: What kind of game do you want to run? What would you tell that hypothetical player?
In my games, I have decided that shields are not weapons of any kind, because weapons are something you carry, not something you wear.
A shield is like a gauntlet or a helm or a suit of armour or a pair of boots - it's worn. It takes time to don and doff. It can't be disarmed or stolen (generally).
If you want to hit someone with your shield, that's cool, make an unarmed attack. Same for headbutting or kicking or elbow striking. Same for goring or clawing or biting (with body parts usually described as "natural weapons").
Those hits involve making a "melee weapon attack" but they do not involve an "attack with a weapon" (a distinction that I wish the books were clearer about).
So, what is a weapon? It is something on the weapon tables (four of them - melee and ranged, simple and martial).
As an aside, if a carried item is not on one of the weapon tables and is not similar to something on the table, you can still attack with it (termed an "improvised weapon"). Like an unarmed attack, this is a "melee weapon attack" but is not an "attack with a weapon".
Hi,
A few questions.
When hitting someone with the shield, does the shield still provide +2 AC? What kind of game do you want to run? What would you tell that hypothetical player?
A shove doesn't involve any weapons/objects (unless of course a special rule like Shield Master says so), so even if your DM is extra generous and lets you engage in TWF with a shield, you still can't do this.
I don't understand how you go from recognizing that shoving doesn't require a weapon or any anything else specific beyond the capacity to take the Attack action, to concluding that you therefore can't use your shield to shove. The same logic would allow you to conclude that you can't shove with a weapon, a shoulder, a kick, etc... If a character takes the Attack action, he can shove and use any reasonable means to do this, and using a shield actually seems like one of the most reasonable. The only ability that the Shield Master feat confers in this regard is to accomplish this using a bonus action.
I'm trying to think of other situations where a player might want to take a bonus action in the middle of an action. The examples I can think of are pretty irrelevant because the bonus action works just as well before or after the action.
Really? Fighter/rogue multiclass does their first attack then either uses the bonus action to disengage or dash, then does their second attack later against another target. There are tons of times when a bonus action might be used between attacks. Another example, a fighter/cleric attacks and kills the adjacent target, moves into range of a downed companion ~50' away, casts healing word, continues move and attacks another target which is out of range for healing word on the downed companion.
All of these are completely legitimate uses of bonus actions during a characters turn while in the middle of taking the attack action.
Is your interpretation that a character can't take bonus actions during the attack action? The rules don't say that anywhere. What the rules say specifically is:
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified" PHB 189
This means before, after or during any other action. (and before you say you can't break up actions ... keep in mind that it is perfectly legal for a caster to begin to cast a spell, an opponent counterspells, the original caster counterspells the counterspell as a reaction and then continues to finish casting their spell ... so even a cast a spell action can have other events occur during the action execution).
Finally, the rules on bonus action indicate that it can be done any time unless the rules granting the bonus action specify the timing. In the case of shield bash, RAW, the rules allow the shield bash IF the character has taken the attack action on that turn. Reading it literally, they can't shield bash UNTIL after they have taken the attack action which is the source of all these arguments.
Finally, taking the attack action requires making at least ONE attack. If the character hasn't made an attack then they haven't (yet) taken the attack action they are just planning to do so. Once a character has made an attack, then they have taken but not completed the attack action. Based on the RAW text, the character would now be allowed to make a shield bash since they have taken the attack action and as we have demonstrated above, bonus actions can be taken at any time in the turn including during separate attacks of the attack action.
Anyway, its a popular topic to argue since folks built characters around the idea of bonus action bashing first and then using all their attacks at advantage against a prone adjacent melee target. No one likes to see a character nerfed and admittedly, only allowing the shield bash after all attacks have been taken makes it much less useful.
In my games, I have decided that shields are not weapons of any kind, because weapons are something you carry, not something you wear.
A shield is like a gauntlet or a helm or a suit of armour or a pair of boots - it's worn. It takes time to don and doff. It can't be disarmed or stolen (generally).
If you want to hit someone with your shield, that's cool, make an unarmed attack. Same for headbutting or kicking or elbow striking. Same for goring or clawing or biting (with body parts usually described as "natural weapons").
Those hits involve making a "melee weapon attack" but they do not involve an "attack with a weapon" (a distinction that I wish the books were clearer about).
So, what is a weapon? It is something on the weapon tables (four of them - melee and ranged, simple and martial).
As an aside, if a carried item is not on one of the weapon tables and is not similar to something on the table, you can still attack with it (termed an "improvised weapon"). Like an unarmed attack, this is a "melee weapon attack" but is not an "attack with a weapon".
Not to stir anything up, just curious--what category do you put a cestus in?
JC's 2nd ruling is mistaken. It is a bit inexcusable for him to contradict a previous ruling while fully admitting that his ruling goes against the intent of the ability. Ignore his tweet, his 1st ruling is more accurate.
RAW feat text:
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
JC's first clarification:
As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.
Bonus Action RAW:
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during Your Turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take Actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action.
This ruling is clear, follows RAW, and makes sense. If you take the Attack Action, you can then immediately use the bonus action, interrupting the attack action resolution, because by RAW you choose when. This does, of course, mean that you are 100% locked into using that attack action, regardless of what the outcome of the bonus action is.
For JC's 2nd tweet to make any sense whatsoever the Shield Master feat would have to specify the timing, as per the Bonus Action rules, but it does not. As it does not specify the timing, you choose it.
Any other ruling is against RAI, against RAW, and unnecessarily restrictive on the shield warrior concept. JC makes mistakes sometimes. This is one of them.
David42, you quoted a post I made last year. I don't even remember what I was thinking about when I posted that so I can't really respond in a meaningful way. But as far as I'm concerned, it's a settled issue. Either you follow Jeremy's (most recent) ruling and the shove has to come after the attack action has been at least partially started, or else you ignore his ruling and do whatever you want because RAW is ambiguous. I'm not really interested in dissecting the situation beyond those two options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two-Weapon Fighting requires weapons. Dual Wielder lets you use melee weapons that aren't light, but you still need a pair of melee weapons.
A shove doesn't involve any weapons/objects (unless of course a special rule like Shield Master says so), so even if your DM is extra generous and lets you engage in TWF with a shield, you still can't do this.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Use the shield as an improvised weapon.
Shield in one hand plus longsword (or whatever) in the other hand equals two weapons.
The rules for a shove say nothing about a free hand (as opposed to grappling; which requires one). What makes you think a character can't use its shield to shove -- it's not called kick or headbutt -- it's either the shield or the longsword (or both).
An object that's not a weapon still isn't a weapon even if you decide to improvise with it unless the DM tells you that chair leg is sufficiently like a club to really count as a club. You (as the player) don't get to decide that any random object is a weapon.
I'm not saying you can't potentially shove someone with a shield, just like you could potentially trip someone with a spear, but the Shove rules don't mention a weapon at all. They don't require a free hand because you can just tackle or kick someone.
What I'm saying is that you're taking an awful lot of liberties if you unilaterally declare your shield to be a weapon and then, instead of making a weapon attack with it as outlined in the improvised weapon rules, you decide to reflavor the Shove action to incorporate your shield so you can try to meet the TWF requirements in a really roundabout way.
It's a very rules lawyer approach that ignores how those rules are intended to work and assumes the DM will go along with your interpretation of the Improvised Weapon and Shove rules.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I've looked at Shield Master for a long time, and read opinions from players, DMs, Crawford, and other sources. I believe the root problem with Shield Master is that it is simply trying to do too much with a single feat, so all of the things that it does do are done poorly.
Shield Master's description states clearly that the intended focus of the feat is for offensive purposes, yet two out of three of the features are defensive in nature. What we end up with is a feat where all of the features fall short of expectations for giving up an ASI or another feat.
I propose splitting the current Shield Master into two separate, focused feats: Shield Master & Shield Tactician
Most people that are looking at the RAW Shield Master are going to want one of two things: the Shove or Evasion. If the player wants Evasion, then just give them Evasion, not a watered down version that only works in a narrow set of conditions AND requires your Reaction. You're spending an ASI for this; just give them Evasion!
Let the people whom want to Shove then Attack do exactly that. Forget shoving as a bonus action: people want to shove first, and that is in no way illogical, impossible, or imbalanced. Everyone can already use their action to shove, so the feat should be designed around what happens after the shove. Bonus action attack. This doesn't have to be complicated.
If the developer intent is not for the current Shield Master to center on using your shield to create additional offensive opportunities, I call BS. Offense means offense.
If the intent is truly to ONLY give the option of making a Shove as a bonus action (for utility, it's not nothing), then that's exactly what the description should say.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Nah. The main defensive benefit (Evasion) is strong and the main offensive benefit (shove as a bonus action) is also strong. People are just mad because they want the Barbarian's Reckless Attack without the drawbacks instead of "just" helping out their friends.
The feat says you can use shields for offense as well as defense. That's not the same as saying you focus on offense. Also, for whatever it's worth the other defensive benefit is mostly dead weight anyways. I've got house rules for that but it's still a strong feat even without that benefit.
Not that D&D does a particularly good job of modeling weapon combat, but if you have a long pointy stick (e.g. spear, sword, whatever) and the enemy also has a long pointy stick, charging in shield-first in the hopes of bowling them over without getting stabbed is absurd. Trying it every couple of seconds even more so. The only time that'd make sense is if you're both decked out in full plate so trying to poke each other to death is largely pointless, and at that point you might as well just flip your sword around and try to bludgeon them to death. At least if you try the shove after attacking it's kind of implied you've already gotten past the enemy's pointy stick without dying.
I take more issue with the fact that the shove prone gimmick is silly. I'd argue the feat would've been better off dropping that altogether and giving you a chance to stun an enemy as a reaction if it misses you with a natural 1 or 2. Or some other big, dramatic benefit that doesn't involve trying to tackle the enemy every round.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
What kind of game do you want to run?
I did not unilaterally declare my shield to be a weapon. The players handbook says that it is an improvised weapon. So the question becomes, "Is an improvised weapon a weapon?" Here is where we disagree. As I interpret it, an improvised weapon is a weapon during the round it is used as weapon; allowing a paladin equipped with only a shield the ability to smite-spell and attack with it, but not providing +2 AC. Your interpretation allows the same paladin an attack with the shield (but no smite-spell) and the +2 AC. Both should make any player happy. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.
You are right. I did reflavor the Shove action to incorporate my shield. I understand your objections to this. I can certainly understand why a DM would disallow it. Once a PC (or NPC) has Extra Attack, it becomes moot anyway.
Finally, a piece of advice, if I may. Not every player who approaches your table will have their own Player's Handbook, let alone be interested in interpreting the rules. If your advice to involved players includes phrases such as, "Awful lot of liberties," "Unilaterally declare," and, "Very rules lawyer approach," eventually you may find yourself at a table with only one Player's Handbook -- yours.
Hey--severed heads can be deadly.
And FWIW, Crawford agrees that improvised weapons are officially 'weapons' during the action they are being used as weapons for (and then they go back to not being weapons after the action).
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I'll boil it down for you. When we wrote the "Player's Handbook," we meant the weapons on the weapon table when we wrote "weapon," unless we said otherwise. But you break nothing in the game if you let natural weapons go along for the ride.
Weapon Bond works with a bona fide weapon ("Behold, my sword!"), not an improvised weapon ("Look, a stool!").
You can make a weapon attack with all sorts of things: vases, chairs, frying pans, dusty tomes, trophies, hand mirrors, etc. Objects that aren’t normally considered weapons can be treated as such at the DM’s discretion, as explained in the improvised weapon rule.
Dual Wielder works with melee weapons. The game doesn't classify a shield as a melee weapon.
Dual Wielder is meant to work (RAI) with a melee weapon or an equivalent, not something like a shield.
Yes, a shield, like many things, can be used as an improvised weapon. This has no bearing on the design intent of Dual Wielder.
Curious whether something is a melee weapon or a ranged weapon? Take a look at the Weapons table in the "Player's Handbook" (p. 149). The table organizes the weapons into melee and ranged categories.
An improvised weapon belongs to none of the game's weapon categories, unless the DM decides otherwise. For more information on the DM's role, see "Improvised Weapons" (PH, 147).
The act of throwing a melee weapon doesn't transform it into a ranged weapon. Melee and ranged are categories of weapons in the rules. Similarly, whacking someone with a longbow doesn't transform it into a melee weapon.
The improvised weapon rules even lead with "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand."
So no, this definitely isn't intended. I think that was an unfortunate choice of words on his part, but even if you take that one Crawford tweet at face value and say "ok, the instant I swing this object, it's technically a weapon", a shield still isn't a melee weapon. That's a rules category, and making a melee or ranged attack with an object doesn't put it in that category. A dagger is still a melee weapon when you throw it and a crossbow is still a ranged weapon if you bludgeon someone with it.
Let me return the favor. If you're going to give rules advice to random people on the internet and you don't personally know their DM, make sure it's unambiguously allowed by the rules or be up front about the fact that what you're suggesting is in a grey area. The DM has the final say when the rules are ambiguous so you don't want to pass off a questionable combo as a surefire thing.
I'm not nitpicking this to be a jerk or because I think Dual Wielder with a shield shouldn't be allowed. It's a pretty underwhelming combo and I don't care if people choose to house rule it, but what you suggested definitely requires bending the rules.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That is a very good point.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
The Player's Handbook also states (p. 146)
I felt I had pointed out that the DM needed to rule on this. I will try to be more unambiguous in the future.
So how do you deal with it at your table? A player whose character has just gained 4th level says to you, "I want to take a feat so that I can shove an opponent prone with my shield and then attack them (while prone) with my sword." (I don't think I've ever had a player put it in exactly those words, but that's what they're asking.) What do you say to them?
Nope. "If X then Y" being true doesn't imply that "If Y then X" is true. Clearly, "If an animal is a cat, it's a mammal" is true, but "If an animal is a mammal, it's a cat" isn't always true. The rules are saying "If an object is a melee weapon, you can use it to attack a target within 5 feet of you." The converse isn't necessarily true here either.
The Player's Handbook makes several exceptions to the rule you cited:
So clearly, the fact that you've got a weapon in your hand and you used it to attack someone within 5 feet of you doesn't imply you're holding a melee weapon.
Out of hundreds of tweets, I can only recall a handful of times Jeremy's been flat out wrong, and he deletes those tweets (and posts new ones with corrections) when someone points them out. He pretty much always checks the books before answering questions, and has done so multiple times on camera.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
In my games, I have decided that shields are not weapons of any kind, because weapons are something you carry, not something you wear.
A shield is like a gauntlet or a helm or a suit of armour or a pair of boots - it's worn. It takes time to don and doff. It can't be disarmed or stolen (generally).
If you want to hit someone with your shield, that's cool, make an unarmed attack. Same for headbutting or kicking or elbow striking. Same for goring or clawing or biting (with body parts usually described as "natural weapons").
Those hits involve making a "melee weapon attack" but they do not involve an "attack with a weapon" (a distinction that I wish the books were clearer about).
So, what is a weapon? It is something on the weapon tables (four of them - melee and ranged, simple and martial).
As an aside, if a carried item is not on one of the weapon tables and is not similar to something on the table, you can still attack with it (termed an "improvised weapon"). Like an unarmed attack, this is a "melee weapon attack" but is not an "attack with a weapon".
Question: what is the purpose of the rules?
Answer: "Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table." (DMG p.235) "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, [...]. What you need are two things, the first being friends with whom you can share the game. [...] The second thing you need is a lively imagination [...]" (PH p.4)
Let's review:
We discussed the rules for improvised weapons and the shove action.
I asked you what kind of game you wanted to run, suggested that we agree to disagree on our interpretations of the improvised weapon rules, and agreed you were right about the shove action. You responded by providing 9 links to tweets, in an attempt to convince me that you were right about the improvised weapon rules.
I stated that Crawford's tweets can be confusing (and that it sometimes feels like he hasn't read the rules recently), and asked you what you would tell a hypothetical player at your table. You responded by attempting to convince me that you were right, and that you could only recall a few times that Crawford has been wrong.
Question: what is the purpose of the rules?
Answer: The purpose of the rules is to assist the DM in running a game. I am guessing that your answer would be different.
I did not say that Crawford's tweets are wrong (since he is/was the official rules person, he should never be wrong!) I said that they can be contradictory. For a relevant example:
Crawford: Unless the rules explicitly expand, narrow, or completely redefine a word, that word retains the meaning it has in idiomatic English.
A dictionary: weapon /ˈwɛp(ə)n/ noun a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage
Crawford: [...] When we wrote the "Player's Handbook," we meant the weapons on the weapon table when we wrote "weapon," unless we said otherwise. [...]
Crawford again: 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.
Even if these tweets weren't contradictory, how do they assist me in running the game? How does all of this assist me to adjudicate a tessen?
Question: what is the purpose of the rules?
If your answer is, "The purpose of the rules is so people can be right about them on the D&D Beyond forum," then they have achieved their aim. Our disagreement is not whether an improvised weapon is a weapon, nor whether the Player's Handbook contains an implied third class of weapon which is not a melee weapon, not a ranged weapon, and not mentioned anywhere.
Otherwise: What kind of game do you want to run? What would you tell that hypothetical player?
Hi,
A few questions.
When hitting someone with the shield, does the shield still provide +2 AC? What kind of game do you want to run? What would you tell that hypothetical player?
My DM ruled this:
Wearing the shield? Unarmed strike.
Not wearing it? Improvised weapon.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
I don't understand how you go from recognizing that shoving doesn't require a weapon or any anything else specific beyond the capacity to take the Attack action, to concluding that you therefore can't use your shield to shove. The same logic would allow you to conclude that you can't shove with a weapon, a shoulder, a kick, etc... If a character takes the Attack action, he can shove and use any reasonable means to do this, and using a shield actually seems like one of the most reasonable. The only ability that the Shield Master feat confers in this regard is to accomplish this using a bonus action.
Really? Fighter/rogue multiclass does their first attack then either uses the bonus action to disengage or dash, then does their second attack later against another target. There are tons of times when a bonus action might be used between attacks. Another example, a fighter/cleric attacks and kills the adjacent target, moves into range of a downed companion ~50' away, casts healing word, continues move and attacks another target which is out of range for healing word on the downed companion.
All of these are completely legitimate uses of bonus actions during a characters turn while in the middle of taking the attack action.
Is your interpretation that a character can't take bonus actions during the attack action? The rules don't say that anywhere. What the rules say specifically is:
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified" PHB 189
This means before, after or during any other action. (and before you say you can't break up actions ... keep in mind that it is perfectly legal for a caster to begin to cast a spell, an opponent counterspells, the original caster counterspells the counterspell as a reaction and then continues to finish casting their spell ... so even a cast a spell action can have other events occur during the action execution).
Finally, the rules on bonus action indicate that it can be done any time unless the rules granting the bonus action specify the timing. In the case of shield bash, RAW, the rules allow the shield bash IF the character has taken the attack action on that turn. Reading it literally, they can't shield bash UNTIL after they have taken the attack action which is the source of all these arguments.
Finally, taking the attack action requires making at least ONE attack. If the character hasn't made an attack then they haven't (yet) taken the attack action they are just planning to do so. Once a character has made an attack, then they have taken but not completed the attack action. Based on the RAW text, the character would now be allowed to make a shield bash since they have taken the attack action and as we have demonstrated above, bonus actions can be taken at any time in the turn including during separate attacks of the attack action.
Anyway, its a popular topic to argue since folks built characters around the idea of bonus action bashing first and then using all their attacks at advantage against a prone adjacent melee target. No one likes to see a character nerfed and admittedly, only allowing the shield bash after all attacks have been taken makes it much less useful.
Not to stir anything up, just curious--what category do you put a cestus in?
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
JC's 2nd ruling is mistaken. It is a bit inexcusable for him to contradict a previous ruling while fully admitting that his ruling goes against the intent of the ability. Ignore his tweet, his 1st ruling is more accurate.
RAW feat text:
JC's first clarification:
Bonus Action RAW:
This ruling is clear, follows RAW, and makes sense. If you take the Attack Action, you can then immediately use the bonus action, interrupting the attack action resolution, because by RAW you choose when. This does, of course, mean that you are 100% locked into using that attack action, regardless of what the outcome of the bonus action is.
For JC's 2nd tweet to make any sense whatsoever the Shield Master feat would have to specify the timing, as per the Bonus Action rules, but it does not. As it does not specify the timing, you choose it.
Any other ruling is against RAI, against RAW, and unnecessarily restrictive on the shield warrior concept. JC makes mistakes sometimes. This is one of them.
I got quotes!
David42, you quoted a post I made last year. I don't even remember what I was thinking about when I posted that so I can't really respond in a meaningful way. But as far as I'm concerned, it's a settled issue. Either you follow Jeremy's (most recent) ruling and the shove has to come after the attack action has been at least partially started, or else you ignore his ruling and do whatever you want because RAW is ambiguous. I'm not really interested in dissecting the situation beyond those two options.
"Not all those who wander are lost"