the shield is being used as a weapon. You still benefit from dueling. - debunk.
* Sigred. Please also read above. The shield is being used as a weapon to shove.
No, it isn't. A Shield is not a weapon, nor is it being used as a weapon with the special Shove granted by the Shield Master feat. It is completely different from wielding an off-hand weapon. Shove is not a weapon attack.
There’s a big difference between “is not a weapon” and “CANNOT BE USED AS A WEAPON”
okay. Going off ^. Debunk. because as it stands.... you are focused on a shields one natural state- not a weapon. And not the states it can be- which it can in fact be used as a improvised weapon, which means it CAN be a weapon.
so, let’s go to the English present tense since can be a weapon is future tense.
i can present tense have something in my hand that is a weapon. But to the person I am attacking with it, it is not a weapon to them until they are attacked with it in the future tense.
^ that complicates things and takes away clarity. But doesn’t change the fact, that a object can simultaneously be both a weapon and not a weapon, in present tense.
^ obviously they aren’t going to write pedantic as heck rules to cover for that, because this falls under basic assumptions that everyone can generally agree upon.
^ this is also why, the arguing the language for present tense and all that is worthless. Because now it is implying an intention for all RAW to follow a 1st person focus. From only the users point of view.
*** i will use a hyperbole example here:
if I have a character that has dueling fighting style. And ONLY goes around attacking with improvised weapons. He still gets dueling. Why? By the way Jaysburn, Sigred, and a few others are arguing... there should never be a +2 damage for that character ever who only ever uses improvised weapons, because:
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.
because: “when you are wielding a melee weapon” he never has a melee weapon. Only improvised weapons.
unless legend has spread around the land of this character that only uses improvised weapons. No one would know that these random objects and such are weapons.
theres my hyperbole example to debunk half your arguments.
You could start using a shield at any point as an improvised weapon, true. I could see a high level fighter with three attacks per Attack action and the Dueling fighting style making a first attack with their sword (+2 damage), a second attack with an improvised shield attack (no Dueling bonus), and a third attack with their sword (+2 damage again, as they declare that they're "done" using the shield as an improvised weapon and are once again wielding it for defense). Or, a DM could rule that the shield is in "improvised weapon mode" until the start of their next turn and say that that second sword attack gets no +2 bonus, as there aren't really any written rules that I'm aware of guiding how to toggle an object back and forth between improvised weapon status.
But either way that improvised shield weapon won't have the light property, and really isn't relevant to the TWF discussion.
You can absolutely use a shield as an improvised weapon. During that improvised weapon attack, and I do mean only during that attack, it will count as an improvised weapon. Seeing as you can't make two attacks at exactly the same time, this doesn't matter at all. A sword, on the other hand, is always a weapon.
You can absolutely use a shield as an improvised weapon. During that improvised weapon attack, and I do mean only during that attack, it will count as an improvised weapon. Seeing as you can't make two attacks at exactly the same time, this doesn't matter at all. A sword, on the other hand, is always a weapon.
We are both in 100% agreement on this.
i would like to question you further. Is a sword still a weapon sheathed? Sling over your back? On a table? (I know I am asking really stupid examples in here too... this is partly cause of a DM debate abo it this still I have going on). sword is always a weapon. We both, and most people, can 100% agree on this.
You could start using a shield at any point as an improvised weapon, true. I could see a high level fighter with three attacks per Attack action and the Dueling fighting style making a first attack with their sword (+2 damage), a second attack with an improvised shield attack (no Dueling bonus), and a third attack with their sword (+2 damage again, as they declare that they're "done" using the shield as an improvised weapon and are once again wielding it for defense). Or, a DM could rule that the shield is in "improvised weapon mode" until the start of their next turn and say that that second sword attack gets no +2 bonus, as there aren't really any written rules that I'm aware of guiding how to toggle an object back and forth between improvised weapon status.
But either way that improvised shield weapon won't have the light property, and really isn't relevant to the TWF discussion.
Yes.
i am using the shield example as McGuffin, for improvised weapons in general and why they don’t have “light” property. Or for things sheathed that are always weapons but not always “wielded”
The shield was just my plot element to get everyone into the book, and from there we get on the same page.
dueling, two weapon fighting, and dual wielding, were all written at/around the same time- fact.
two weapon fighting and duel wielding are not written in the same usage of language; duel wielding requires two “wielded” weapons, two weapon fighting requires two weapons in the “holding” state. - fact
I'm sorry. All other bad examples aside, what "dual wielding" are you referring to? The dual wielder feat uses no such language.
All items have types. Weapons are either simple or martial melee or ranged weapons. A Shortsword is a Martial Melee Weapon. A Dagger is a Simple Melee Weapon. A Shield's type is just "Shield," funnily enough. Nobody needs to "agree" on this, it's just how it is. You can see these types by following those links. These item types don't change no matter the circumstance.
dueling, two weapon fighting, and dual wielding, were all written at/around the same time- fact.
two weapon fighting and duel wielding are not written in the same usage of language; duel wielding requires two “wielded” weapons, two weapon fighting requires two weapons in the “holding” state. - fact
I'm sorry. All other bad examples aside, what "dual wielding" are you referring to? The dual wielder feat uses no such language.
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
“wielding A separate melee weapon in each hand”
it uses the language, it just uses a different context. But the language is in place.
point 2 there. It mentions two weapon and specifically says wielding... which is not specifically said in TWF.
the difference in language between TWF and Dual Wielder feat in those scenarios is what causes all the confusion as they both use different language from a RAW standpoint.
again. No one is arguing that RAI... this entire debate shouldn’t happen. But RAW... that’s a different story.
Improvised weapons are always subject to DM approval anyway, but here we go:
A Shield bears no resemblance to a standard weapon, so you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning with no proficiency bonus to your attack roll. Even if it did, it's 6 lbs, so there's no way in hell that it would have the Light property. Congratulations, you can't use it with TWF, and you're not dueling anymore either.
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.
Let's please remember to be civil with one another while having discussions about our jointly beloved hobby. Making your own arguments and sharing your own opinions is great, but casting aspersions on the opinions of others is less so.
Additionally, making commentary on another user's personal character, or evaluations of another user are not related to the topic, and are not appropriate. If you feel you may be reaching those points of discussion, we would recommend moving along from this thread.
I see. So you're saying, wielding a sword and wielding a shield, and you have the Dual Wielder feat (to remove light requirement) and Dueling fighting style.
You make a first attack with your sword, and receive a +2 bonus from Dueling.
Can you now make a bonus offhand attack with an improvised weapon (shield) since "light" is no longer a requirement?
If not because the shield "isn't a weapon" yet, let's say you have at least two attack per attack action. Your first attack is the sword (+2 damage bonus from dueling), second is an improvised shield bash (no dueling bonus). Now that you've transformed the shield into an improvised weapon, can you now make a Bonus action offhand attack with the sword using TWF?
If not because the shield "isn't a weapon" yet, let's say you have at least two attack per attack action. Your first attack is the sword (+2 damage bonus from dueling), second is an improvised shield bash (no dueling bonus). Now that you've transformed the shield into an improvised weapon, can you now make a Bonus action offhand attack with the sword using TWF?
You can use an item to make an improvised weapon attack. It doesn't continue being an improvised weapon once that attack is over. It's still just its base item type.
I see. So you're saying, wielding a sword and wielding a shield, and you have the Dual Wielder feat (to remove light requirement) and Dueling fighting style.
You make a first attack with your sword, and receive a +2 bonus from Dueling.
Can you now make a bonus offhand attack with an improvised weapon (shield) since "light" is no longer a requirement?
If not because the shield "isn't a weapon" yet, let's say you have at least two attack per attack action. Your first attack is the sword (+2 damage bonus from dueling), second is an improvised shield bash (no dueling bonus). Now that you've transformed the shield into an improvised weapon, can you now make a Bonus action offhand attack with the sword using TWF?
Is that where you're going with it?
That is something, and not the only example that’s been provided, completely doable, by the rules, fits conditions, etc. to prove a RAW basis for the entire RAW “is this allowed” argument. Yes.
*where as, the arguments for RAW is this allowed. No. Have all been RAI based arguments, and not RAW based. [REDACTED]
the fact still remains- this is RAW. Maybe it wasn’t RAI. Maybe you don’t allow it RAF. But RAW, mechanically it’s there and doable. And until they specifically address/correct the RAW with an errata or anything else to say otherwise. The RAW does not change. A lot of these arguments keep trying to change the RAW to fit RAI.
If not because the shield "isn't a weapon" yet, let's say you have at least two attack per attack action. Your first attack is the sword (+2 damage bonus from dueling), second is an improvised shield bash (no dueling bonus). Now that you've transformed the shield into an improvised weapon, can you now make a Bonus action offhand attack with the sword using TWF?
You can use an item to make an improvised weapon attack. It doesn't continue being an improvised weapon once that attack is over. It's still just its base item type.
There are no rules stating that. If it was that way, it would be the opposite; the rules would say that making an improvised weapon attack with an object turns it into a weapon. They don't.
Technically it may be more accurate to say that all objects are always improvised weapons, but that doesn't make them count as actual weapons.
There is NO rule controlling whether weapons are always improvised weapons or only improvised weapons for the duration of the attack or for the entire round in which they are used as such, as far as I am aware. Any of those rules are certainly reasonable, but I think it’s a stretch to claim than one of them is somehow clearly implied in the rules text.
But I’m on my phone, could be there’s some language that rips it one way I’m not recalling... if so, feel free to quote it.
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. 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.
I think that "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands" is the closest we'll get, but it certainly seems to indicate that... well, any object you can wield in one or two hands is an improvised weapon.
But that doesn't give them the classification of being "melee weapons," which everything that's being debated (Dueling, Dual Wielder, Two-Weapon Fighting) require them to be. Only items with the type "simple melee weapon" or "martial melee weapon" count for these.
Edit: I guess "Dueling" just says "no other weapons," so I do now see why that one could be up in the air about whether you can use a Shield with it or not. But sage advice has clarified that, so at least there's that.
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. 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.
I think that "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands" is the closest we'll get, but it certainly seems to indicate that... well, any object you can wield in one or two hands is an improvised weapon.
But that doesn't give them the classification of being "melee weapons," which everything that's being debated (Dueling, Dual Wielder, Two-Weapon Fighting) require them to be. Only items with the type "simple melee weapon" or "martial melee weapon" count for these.
“Only items with the type”
that last segment. first, where does dueling or TWF say the weapons must be simple or martial?
Second: where does melee weapon define as only simple or martial, and not include unarmed strikes, natural weapons like a tabaxi claws, or improvised weapons?
third: it doesn’t take away that classification either..
“Often, 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 GM’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.”
CAN BE TREATED AS SUCH. So they then, per RAW, therefore, get treated as the similar martial, or similar simple weapon.
that last segment. first, where does dueling or TWF say the weapons must be simple or martial?
They don't. I just mean all actual weapons that are physical objects are either simple or martial. By "Only items with the type "simple melee weapon" or "martial melee weapon" count for these," I meant count towards the fighting styles/bonus action and feat; not the only thing that counts as melee weapons. This is because...
Second: where does melee weapon define as only simple or martial, and not include unarmed strikes, natural weapons like a tabaxi claws, or improvised weapons?
Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are totally melee weapon attacks. But I can hardly see how you can go about holding (or wielding, whatever) an unarmed strike, which is what all these things require.
And finally
third: it doesn’t take away that classification either..
“Often, 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 GM’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.”
CAN BE TREATED AS SUCH. So they then, per RAW, therefore, get treated as the similar martial, or similar simple weapon.
Yes, if it is very much like an actual weapon, it can be treated as such. If you grab a table leg, it is now a club, and you should rule it as one. A shield is not like any actual weapon.
All I'm saying is you can either say that objects only count as Improvised Weapons during the attack you make with them, or they always count as them but they also don't count as weapons, at least as far as abilities and whatnot are concerned. This clearly isn't written with absolute certainty in the rules (thus why I'm saying all this,) but the intent is clear and there is a Sage Advice saying you can use the Dueling style while you have a shield equipped in your offhand, so... yeah. That's all.
that last segment. first, where does dueling or TWF say the weapons must be simple or martial?
They don't. I just mean all actual weapons that are physical objects are either simple or martial. By "Only items with the type "simple melee weapon" or "martial melee weapon" count for these," I meant count towards the fighting styles/bonus action and feat; not the only thing that counts as melee weapons. This is because...
Second: where does melee weapon define as only simple or martial, and not include unarmed strikes, natural weapons like a tabaxi claws, or improvised weapons?
Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are totally melee weapon attacks. But I can hardly see how you can go about holding (or wielding, whatever) an unarmed strike, which is what all these things require.
All I'm saying is you can either say that objects only count as Improvised Weapons during the attack you make with them, or they always count as them but they also don't count as weapons, at least as far as abilities and whatnot are concerned. This clearly isn't written with absolute certainty in the rules (thus why I'm saying all this,) but the intent is clear and there is a Sage Advice saying you can use the Dueling style while you have a shield equipped in your offhand, so... yeah. That's all.
Agreed.
the Intent.. yeah.
the Raw... a different thing...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There’s a big difference between “is not a weapon” and “CANNOT BE USED AS A WEAPON”
okay. Going off ^. Debunk.
because as it stands.... you are focused on a shields one natural state- not a weapon. And not the states it can be- which it can in fact be used as a improvised weapon, which means it CAN be a weapon.
so, let’s go to the English present tense since can be a weapon is future tense.
i can present tense have something in my hand that is a weapon. But to the person I am attacking with it, it is not a weapon to them until they are attacked with it in the future tense.
^ that complicates things and takes away clarity. But doesn’t change the fact, that a object can simultaneously be both a weapon and not a weapon, in present tense.
^ obviously they aren’t going to write pedantic as heck rules to cover for that, because this falls under basic assumptions that everyone can generally agree upon.
^ this is also why, the arguing the language for present tense and all that is worthless. Because now it is implying an intention for all RAW to follow a 1st person focus. From only the users point of view.
***
i will use a hyperbole example here:
if I have a character that has dueling fighting style. And ONLY goes around attacking with improvised weapons. He still gets dueling. Why? By the way Jaysburn, Sigred, and a few others are arguing... there should never be a +2 damage for that character ever who only ever uses improvised weapons, because:
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.
because: “when you are wielding a melee weapon” he never has a melee weapon. Only improvised weapons.
unless legend has spread around the land of this character that only uses improvised weapons. No one would know that these random objects and such are weapons.
theres my hyperbole example to debunk half your arguments.
You could start using a shield at any point as an improvised weapon, true. I could see a high level fighter with three attacks per Attack action and the Dueling fighting style making a first attack with their sword (+2 damage), a second attack with an improvised shield attack (no Dueling bonus), and a third attack with their sword (+2 damage again, as they declare that they're "done" using the shield as an improvised weapon and are once again wielding it for defense). Or, a DM could rule that the shield is in "improvised weapon mode" until the start of their next turn and say that that second sword attack gets no +2 bonus, as there aren't really any written rules that I'm aware of guiding how to toggle an object back and forth between improvised weapon status.
But either way that improvised shield weapon won't have the light property, and really isn't relevant to the TWF discussion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You can absolutely use a shield as an improvised weapon. During that improvised weapon attack, and I do mean only during that attack, it will count as an improvised weapon. Seeing as you can't make two attacks at exactly the same time, this doesn't matter at all. A sword, on the other hand, is always a weapon.
We are both in 100% agreement on this.
i would like to question you further. Is a sword still a weapon sheathed? Sling over your back? On a table? (I know I am asking really stupid examples in here too... this is partly cause of a DM debate abo it this still I have going on).
sword is always a weapon. We both, and most people, can 100% agree on this.
so... where’s the hold up on holding vs wielding?
Yes.
i am using the shield example as McGuffin, for improvised weapons in general and why they don’t have “light” property. Or for things sheathed that are always weapons but not always “wielded”
The shield was just my plot element to get everyone into the book, and from there we get on the same page.
that’s where I was going the whole time
** also to clarify up dueling.
I'm sorry. All other bad examples aside, what "dual wielding" are you referring to? The dual wielder feat uses no such language.
All items have types. Weapons are either simple or martial melee or ranged weapons. A Shortsword is a Martial Melee Weapon. A Dagger is a Simple Melee Weapon. A Shield's type is just "Shield," funnily enough. Nobody needs to "agree" on this, it's just how it is. You can see these types by following those links. These item types don't change no matter the circumstance.
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
“wielding A separate melee weapon in each hand”
it uses the language, it just uses a different context. But the language is in place.
point 2 there. It mentions two weapon and specifically says wielding... which is not specifically said in TWF.
the difference in language between TWF and Dual Wielder feat in those scenarios is what causes all the confusion as they both use different language from a RAW standpoint.
again. No one is arguing that RAI... this entire debate shouldn’t happen. But RAW... that’s a different story.
Improvised weapons are always subject to DM approval anyway, but here we go:
A Shield bears no resemblance to a standard weapon, so you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning with no proficiency bonus to your attack roll. Even if it did, it's 6 lbs, so there's no way in hell that it would have the Light property. Congratulations, you can't use it with TWF, and you're not dueling anymore either.
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.
Hello everyone!
Let's please remember to be civil with one another while having discussions about our jointly beloved hobby. Making your own arguments and sharing your own opinions is great, but casting aspersions on the opinions of others is less so.
Additionally, making commentary on another user's personal character, or evaluations of another user are not related to the topic, and are not appropriate. If you feel you may be reaching those points of discussion, we would recommend moving along from this thread.
Thank you very much!
I see. So you're saying, wielding a sword and wielding a shield, and you have the Dual Wielder feat (to remove light requirement) and Dueling fighting style.
Is that where you're going with it?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You can use an item to make an improvised weapon attack. It doesn't continue being an improvised weapon once that attack is over. It's still just its base item type.
That is something, and not the only example that’s been provided, completely doable, by the rules, fits conditions, etc. to prove a RAW basis for the entire RAW “is this allowed” argument. Yes.
*where as, the arguments for RAW is this allowed. No. Have all been RAI based arguments, and not RAW based. [REDACTED]
the fact still remains- this is RAW. Maybe it wasn’t RAI. Maybe you don’t allow it RAF. But RAW, mechanically it’s there and doable. And until they specifically address/correct the RAW with an errata or anything else to say otherwise. The RAW does not change. A lot of these arguments keep trying to change the RAW to fit RAI.
Source?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There are no rules stating that. If it was that way, it would be the opposite; the rules would say that making an improvised weapon attack with an object turns it into a weapon. They don't.
Technically it may be more accurate to say that all objects are always improvised weapons, but that doesn't make them count as actual weapons.
There is NO rule controlling whether weapons are always improvised weapons or only improvised weapons for the duration of the attack or for the entire round in which they are used as such, as far as I am aware. Any of those rules are certainly reasonable, but I think it’s a stretch to claim than one of them is somehow clearly implied in the rules text.
But I’m on my phone, could be there’s some language that rips it one way I’m not recalling... if so, feel free to quote it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The closest thing would be this:
I think that "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands" is the closest we'll get, but it certainly seems to indicate that... well, any object you can wield in one or two hands is an improvised weapon.
But that doesn't give them the classification of being "melee weapons," which everything that's being debated (
Dueling, Dual Wielder, Two-Weapon Fighting) require them to be. Only items with the type "simple melee weapon" or "martial melee weapon" count for these.Edit: I guess "Dueling" just says "no other weapons," so I do now see why that one could be up in the air about whether you can use a Shield with it or not. But sage advice has clarified that, so at least there's that.
“Only items with the type”
that last segment. first, where does dueling or TWF say the weapons must be simple or martial?
Second: where does melee weapon define as only simple or martial, and not include unarmed strikes, natural weapons like a tabaxi claws, or improvised weapons?
third: it doesn’t take away that classification either..
“Often, 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 GM’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.”
CAN BE TREATED AS SUCH. So they then, per RAW, therefore, get treated as the similar martial, or similar simple weapon.
They don't. I just mean all actual weapons that are physical objects are either simple or martial. By "Only items with the type "simple melee weapon" or "martial melee weapon" count for these," I meant count towards the fighting styles/bonus action and feat; not the only thing that counts as melee weapons. This is because...
Unarmed strikes and natural weapons are totally melee weapon attacks. But I can hardly see how you can go about holding (or wielding, whatever) an unarmed strike, which is what all these things require.
And finally
Yes, if it is very much like an actual weapon, it can be treated as such. If you grab a table leg, it is now a club, and you should rule it as one. A shield is not like any actual weapon.
All I'm saying is you can either say that objects only count as Improvised Weapons during the attack you make with them, or they always count as them but they also don't count as weapons, at least as far as abilities and whatnot are concerned. This clearly isn't written with absolute certainty in the rules (thus why I'm saying all this,) but the intent is clear and there is a Sage Advice saying you can use the Dueling style while you have a shield equipped in your offhand, so... yeah. That's all.
Agreed.
the Intent.. yeah.
the Raw... a different thing...