Might even be easier rather than two weapon fighting... doing a bonus action “unarmed attack” for fighter, in combination with the dueling. To where first he does dueling attack. Then close fist punches with offhand.
Oh yeah. I also wanted to comment on this, and I don't think anyone else did.
You can't do this. An unarmed strike is not a light melee weapon. It is not even a weapon, let alone having any weapon properties.
Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks. Here's where the confusion comes in: your unarmed strike (fist, elbow, knee, butt, etc.) is not considered by the rules to be a weapon the way a longsword is a weapon. But the rules let you make unarmed weapon attacks anyway
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you strike with two free hands, the d6 becomes a d8. When you successfully start a grapple, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to the grappled creature. Until the grapple ends, you can also deal this damage to the creature whenever you hit it with a melee attack.
I said it would be easier. And is something that could be done with dueling. And I appear wrong.
so... you’re wrong unarmed isn’t a weapon. Per Jeremy Crawford no less.
and a very fundamental... but not a technical. And... not where they even say “probably ok...” about either...
just saying. I come with facts and sources and a bibliography to my statements and claims.
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, but they are not weapons. JC's tweet does not say otherwise (and neither does any rule you quoted here). It is also mentioned at least 3 times in the SAC. And the PHB was errata'd to make this as clear as possible (you mentioned sources):
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
Second emphasis mine.
It isn't personal, I'm just clearing up the rules.
You said “let alone any weapon properties.” Jeremy Crawford says otherwise. You are obviously misinterpreting where you were wrong. It’s cool that you dug your heels in. But in this endless Nonsense. Please. Feel free to take it to DM. I’m open to having rational debates in DM. You say you’re clearing up the rules. But you’re not.
you’re clearing up your interpretation of the rules. Also evidenced by your note “second emphasis mine”
clearing up the rules is stating the rule.
applying the rule. As written. To the topic the OP wanted RAW. Not aS your emphasis.
What you’re attempting to do, is hijack the thread away from OP’s Q. And he has still been reading this mind you. To what you want to talk about, rather than what he asked. This is not the first time I have seen you go off about what you want to talk about rather than an OPs question either.🤷🏼♂️
This has definitely blown up wayyyy more than I ever expected or intended.
RAI - I completely agree that it is not what was intended.
RAW - I just still don't see anything that has been provided, as being a hard "no, you cannot do this".
Ultimately, from what I have gathered out of the entirety of this discussion, is this... The rules are not written clearly enough to say with 100% certainty either way. So to me, that at the very least opens up the discussion to be had with the DM of the game.
If I were personally DMing, and it was brought to me, based on what I have read, I would allow it, so long as it is not being used for the purpose of abusing mechanics to maximize character efficiency. As I just don't see the hard writing saying you cannot do it.
I honestly never thought of "holding the handle of my sheathed shortsword" part. I will definitely be using that as flavor for the motions my character is doing.
And yeah, my DM already ok'd it, likely because he knows I'm not the type of person that is going to be abusing it.
But thank you for all of the responses. Just seeing how much this blew up makes me feel better to know I'm not the only one not entirely sure if RAW is clear on it
You’re welcome. I apologize for my part of the circus.
I hold a short sword in my hand, that is free of a sheath and scabbard, that is wielded that I swing at your head with my left hand.
at the same exact moment. My right hand, is holding the handle of a short sword. In its scabbard, sheathed along my back/hip/leg/whatever. This weapon still requires a free action to be unsheathed. It is not wielded. But it is held.
No, that second sword is not a "weapon that you're holding in one hand". "Holding in a hand" does not mean using your hand to touch (or even grasp) something which is in fact supported by some other object or person. The normal interpretation of "holding in your hand" involves actually carrying the thing - lifting it with your hand.
In your example you are holding/wielding only one sword.
I hold a short sword in my hand, that is free of a sheath and scabbard, that is wielded that I swing at your head with my left hand.
at the same exact moment. My right hand, is holding the handle of a short sword. In its scabbard, sheathed along my back/hip/leg/whatever. This weapon still requires a free action to be unsheathed. It is not wielded. But it is held.
No, that second sword is not a "weapon that you're holding in one hand". "Holding in a hand" does not mean using your hand to touch (or even grasp) something which is in fact supported by some other object or person. The normal interpretation of "holding in your hand" involves actually carrying the thing - lifting it with your hand.
In your example you are holding/wielding only one sword.
The OP ended this thread.
feel free to DM me, where something needs to involve the weight being lifted in your hand to be held. I await the PHB rule for that.
Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, but they are not weapons. JC's tweet does not say otherwise (and neither does any rule you quoted here). It is also mentioned at least 3 times in the SAC. And the PHB was errata'd to make this as clear as possible (you mentioned sources):
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons).
Second emphasis mine.
It isn't personal, I'm just clearing up the rules.
You said “let alone any weapon properties.” Jeremy Crawford says otherwise. You are obviously misinterpreting where you were wrong. It’s cool that you dug your heels in. But in this endless Nonsense. Please. Feel free to take it to DM. I’m open to having rational debates in DM. You say you’re clearing up the rules. But you’re not.
you’re clearing up your interpretation of the rules. Also evidenced by your note “second emphasis mine”
clearing up the rules is stating the rule.
applying the rule. As written. To the topic the OP wanted RAW. Not aS your emphasis.
What you’re attempting to do, is hijack the thread away from OP’s Q. And he has still been reading this mind you. To what you want to talk about, rather than what he asked. This is not the first time I have seen you go off about what you want to talk about rather than an OPs question either.🤷🏼♂️
Right. Unarmed strikes do not have weapon properties, and TWF requires the light weapon property. That is why I said that. You have not adequately pointed out where I was supposedly wrong.
I said "second emphasis mine" because the first bolding was made by the PHB.
You can clear up rules without quoting the rules every time. It helps sure, but it takes time and I try to read every rules question and respond if able.
I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, just correct an incorrect suggestion on it. But you are right, this has gotten off topic.
feel free to DM me, where something needs to involve the weight being lifted in your hand to be held. I await the PHB rule for that.
You don't await the PHB rule for that because you know full well that the rules don't waste their time defining normal words. The phrase "that you are holding in one hand" has a fairly simple meaning. I cannot hold an elephant in one hand, because I am not strong enough. If I grab an elephant's tail it does not become "an elephant that I am holding in one hand" - at best it is" an elephant I am holding on to".
The rules are supposed to be simple. I don't understand why you are trying to use bad semantics to remove all meaning from them. Dueling: wield one weapon. TWF: wield two weapons. Why are you trying to make it all nonsense?
feel free to DM me, where something needs to involve the weight being lifted in your hand to be held. I await the PHB rule for that.
You don't await the PHB rule for that because you know full well that the rules don't waste their time defining normal words. The phrase "that you are holding in one hand" has a fairly simple meaning. I cannot hold an elephant in one hand, because I am not strong enough. If I grab an elephant's tail it does not become "an elephant that I am holding in one hand" - at best it is" an elephant I am holding on to".
The rules are supposed to be simple. I don't understand why you are trying to use bad semantics to remove all meaning from them. Dueling: wield one weapon. TWF: wield two weapons. Why are you trying to make it all nonsense?
[REDACTED]
also- please read previous posts:
Here's what Two-Weapon Fighting says, for easy reference:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
Now, here's 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.
You've got to love inconsistent rules language and half written rules. It is how long discussions on whether you can benefit from the one weapon fighting style and still use a second weapon happen.
I already mentioned this in the first comment. The rules only vaguely say what they intend, but don't specifically prevent this unintended interaction. Both rulings are equally legitimate because the rules aren't clear.
So we should just stop discussing it. We will not get anywhere.
Nothing in that trigger checks for anything in your off hand. Instead, satisfying that trigger opens up a new bonus action you can use this round: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light weapon that you're holding in the other hand".
Both instances of holding are in the present tense; the rule assumes you're already holding two weapons and when you make that first attack, you qualify for the bonus action with the other. You can't just split the sentence in half and conclude that everything on the right side happens after everything on the left.
Inquisitive, I'm splitting the sentence in half because it has two halves, seperated by a comma. A "when you..." condition, which controls when the rule triggers and a "you can..." option becomes available. This is not a controversial way to read this sentence, 5E is full of them, and it is the normal way that sentence structure works in the English language.
Dude, no. Like I said earlier, those are not complete, independent clauses. They are a single sentence.
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand" is not a complete sentence. It is an introductory prepositional phrase. You cannot just stick a period at the end of it, and say that's all there is to it. Everything that follows the comma is applicable to the entire sentence. This is basic English.
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
This is one sentence.
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.
"When you take the Attack action... you can use a bonus action to attack with a different weapon that you're holding in the other hand." This is so very, very straightforward. If you're not holding the off-hand weapon whenyou take the action, you don't get the bonus action. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] One [fighting style] relies on you holding only one one-handed weapon, while the other relies on you holding two one-handed weapons at the same time. They don't work together, they can't work together, and even if the written rule was ambiguous (it's not,) the intent could not be more obvious.
I'm not condemning OP or his DM's choice to allow this; people can make or break whatever rules they want in their own games. But this is a rule being broken, as both RAW and RAI are crystal clear.
[REDACTED] II certainly understand your argument and can see it (that "holding" in the second half of the sentence is a present tense verb referring to the moment that the first Attack action is made, not the moment that the following Bonus action is made), though I don't agree with it (does that mean that you don't need to be holding the off hand weapon when you make the bonus attack up to six second later? Or is this second holding present tense for two discrete moments in time while the first holding is present tense only for one? And if so, why didn't they just word it the same as Dual Wielder, which is an example of them deftly writing the rule explicitly that you claim exists implicitly.).
I do want to comment on this: "does that mean that you don't need to be holding the off hand weapon when you make the bonus attack up to six second later?"
This is another place where they didn't [REDACTED] state rules [REDACTED]. If not for other rules, it certainly would seem that way, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, you can't make an attack with a weapon you're not holding, so no, it doesn't mean that. It doesn't need to state this in the Two-Weapon fighting rules, because it's already stated in the rules for attacking.
You are still under the illusion that both halves of the sentence are independent. They aren't. The first half does not contain an independent trigger, nor does the second half contain an independent effect. They are one continuous statement. The information being conveyed as the trigger and effect are not completely expressed until the entire sentence has been read. Reading it the way that you are is literally jumping to a conclusion.
If you are determined to keep viewing this as two separate things, ask yourself this:
When can you "use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand"?
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand".
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.
dueling, two weapon fighting, and dual wielding, were all written at/around the same time- fact.
they have explicit written definitions- 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
dueling requires one “wielded” weapon - fact.
dueling says nothing about other hand needs to be empty- fact
you can use a shield with dueling - fact.
You can hold weapons, without them being wielded- fact
so what makes it in the wielded state vs unwielded state? We can all agree a brandished and unsheathed weapon is clearly wielded. - fact
is a bow with no arrows a wielded weapon or held weapon? (No a bow isn’t a light weapon. The point here being. You can have a weapon held but not wielded. There’s just conditions that need to be met)
this is really simple. If they RAW didn’t want the interaction between dueling and two weapon fighting, then there would not be rules and mechanics in place that allow it to happen. [REDACTED]
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.
shield master feat.
you can still do shield master feat, shield attack- a shove— with dueling.
mechanically—— this is no different than doing TWF with dueling as long as the conditions are still being met. The difference being, a shove doesn’t cause damage, the TWF does.
but the result of a shove vs damage, has nothing to do with the language written for dueling or TWF.
I have now provided a 3rd very sound, fundamental, simple, plain English, way to show clear transparency in the rules. That just doesn’t seem to be read by people. Even though it is clearly spelled out.
"If they RAW didn’t want the interaction between dueling and two weapon fighting, then there would not be rules and mechanics in place that allow it to happen. " You mean like how one requires you to use only one one-handed weapon when you make your attack, and the other requires you to use two one-handed weapons at the same time when you make your attack? [REDACTED]
And what [REDACTED] argument are you trying to make with the shield master thing? Dueling doesn't say anything about making other attacks, it says you can't be wielding a second weapon. If you have Extra Attack you can still grapple/shove/punch/whatever with any of the attacks and still benefit from Dueling with another if you attack with the weapon. You can't benefit from dueling if you're using a second weapon, and you have to have a second weapon to get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action.
And what [REDACTED] argument are you trying to make with the shield master thing? Dueling doesn't say anything about making other attacks, it says you can't be wielding a second weapon. If you have Extra Attack you can still grapple/shove/punch/whatever with any of the attacks and still benefit from Dueling with another if you attack with the weapon. You can't benefit from dueling if you're using a second weapon, and you have to have a second weapon to get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action.
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.
** the shield becomes a weapon when you shove with it. It becomes an improvised weapon. Which is still a weapon. Which would violate dueling... but it does not violate dueling. And as an improvised weapon it would do 1d4 damage. There’s a reason even though shields are Very light. They are not classified as “light”. (Speculation: IE RAI here) this is most likely so that players cannot use their shield with dueling, and then use it with TWF, since the language would support that.
a shields don and doff time even (rai again) imply that it would be considered “light”.
further....
there is no “light property” for ANY improvised weapon... that also is intentional. See above for why shields aren’t light for TWF combined with Dueling.
mechanically—— this is no different than doing TWF with dueling as long as the conditions are still being met.
The conditions aren't being met. Dueling allows a shield because it is not a weapon. Dueling prohibits there being a second weapon. TWF requires two weapons. They are incompatible.
I have now provided a 3rd very sound, fundamental, simple, plain English, way to show clear transparency in the rules. That just doesn’t seem to be read by people. Even though it is clearly spelled out.
No, you have not.
A Shield is not a weapon. Period. It is not used as a weapon when you shove. If I shove a creature with my hand, by your logic, my hand is a weapon. My hand is definitively not a weapon in D&D5e. Your argument is bunk.
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.
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.
** the shield becomes a weapon when you shove with it. It becomes an improvised weapon. Which is still a weapon. Which would violate dueling... but it does not violate dueling. And as an improvised weapon it would do 1d4 damage. There’s a reason even though shields are Very light. They are not classified as “light”. (Speculation: IE RAI here) this is most likely so that players cannot use their shield with dueling, and then use it with TWF, since the language would support that.
No, it doesn't. Shove is not a weapon attack, and it's not an improvised weapon attack either. Even if the shield did temporarily become a weapon when you use the Shove action with it (it doesn't,) that wouldn't mean it's a weapon when you're making your actual attack with your weapon.
The feat Shield Master does not say that the shove granted by the feat is an attack, or that the shield becomes a weapon. I think that where McDonald is making that connection is because in Chapter 9 of the Basic Rules shoving is described as "Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack." The shove provided in Shield Master is different however, and doesn't use an Attack action, or describe itself as a special melee attack. I agree that that isn't really a very helpful analogy to use to the TWF/Dueling discussion.
You said “let alone any weapon properties.” Jeremy Crawford says otherwise. You are obviously misinterpreting where you were wrong. It’s cool that you dug your heels in. But in this endless Nonsense. Please. Feel free to take it to DM. I’m open to having rational debates in DM. You say you’re clearing up the rules. But you’re not.
you’re clearing up your interpretation of the rules. Also evidenced by your note “second emphasis mine”
clearing up the rules is stating the rule.
applying the rule. As written. To the topic the OP wanted RAW. Not aS your emphasis.
What you’re attempting to do, is hijack the thread away from OP’s Q. And he has still been reading this mind you. To what you want to talk about, rather than what he asked. This is not the first time I have seen you go off about what you want to talk about rather than an OPs question either.🤷🏼♂️
You’re welcome. I apologize for my part of the circus.
No, that second sword is not a "weapon that you're holding in one hand". "Holding in a hand" does not mean using your hand to touch (or even grasp) something which is in fact supported by some other object or person. The normal interpretation of "holding in your hand" involves actually carrying the thing - lifting it with your hand.
In your example you are holding/wielding only one sword.
The OP ended this thread.
feel free to DM me, where something needs to involve the weight being lifted in your hand to be held. I await the PHB rule for that.
Right. Unarmed strikes do not have weapon properties, and TWF requires the light weapon property. That is why I said that. You have not adequately pointed out where I was supposedly wrong.
I said "second emphasis mine" because the first bolding was made by the PHB.
You can clear up rules without quoting the rules every time. It helps sure, but it takes time and I try to read every rules question and respond if able.
I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, just correct an incorrect suggestion on it. But you are right, this has gotten off topic.
You don't await the PHB rule for that because you know full well that the rules don't waste their time defining normal words. The phrase "that you are holding in one hand" has a fairly simple meaning. I cannot hold an elephant in one hand, because I am not strong enough. If I grab an elephant's tail it does not become "an elephant that I am holding in one hand" - at best it is" an elephant I am holding on to".
The rules are supposed to be simple. I don't understand why you are trying to use bad semantics to remove all meaning from them. Dueling: wield one weapon. TWF: wield two weapons. Why are you trying to make it all nonsense?
[REDACTED]
also- please read previous posts:
Here's what Two-Weapon Fighting says, for easy reference:
Now, here's Dueling:
TWF does not say “wield two weapons”
again. DM me if you like.
You've got to love inconsistent rules language and half written rules. It is how long discussions on whether you can benefit from the one weapon fighting style and still use a second weapon happen.
I already mentioned this in the first comment. The rules only vaguely say what they intend, but don't specifically prevent this unintended interaction. Both rulings are equally legitimate because the rules aren't clear.
So we should just stop discussing it. We will not get anywhere.
Dude, no. Like I said earlier, those are not complete, independent clauses. They are a single sentence.
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand" is not a complete sentence. It is an introductory prepositional phrase. You cannot just stick a period at the end of it, and say that's all there is to it. Everything that follows the comma is applicable to the entire sentence. This is basic English.
This is one sentence.
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.
"When you take the Attack action... you can use a bonus action to attack with a different weapon that you're holding in the other hand." This is so very, very straightforward. If you're not holding the off-hand weapon when you take the action, you don't get the bonus action. [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] One [fighting style] relies on you holding only one one-handed weapon, while the other relies on you holding two one-handed weapons at the same time. They don't work together, they can't work together, and even if the written rule was ambiguous (it's not,) the intent could not be more obvious.
I'm not condemning OP or his DM's choice to allow this; people can make or break whatever rules they want in their own games. But this is a rule being broken, as both RAW and RAI are crystal clear.
[REDACTED] II certainly understand your argument and can see it (that "holding" in the second half of the sentence is a present tense verb referring to the moment that the first Attack action is made, not the moment that the following Bonus action is made), though I don't agree with it (does that mean that you don't need to be holding the off hand weapon when you make the bonus attack up to six second later? Or is this second holding present tense for two discrete moments in time while the first holding is present tense only for one? And if so, why didn't they just word it the same as Dual Wielder, which is an example of them deftly writing the rule explicitly that you claim exists implicitly.).
[REDACTED]
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
[REDACTED]
I do want to comment on this: "does that mean that you don't need to be holding the off hand weapon when you make the bonus attack up to six second later?"
This is another place where they didn't [REDACTED] state rules [REDACTED]. If not for other rules, it certainly would seem that way, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, you can't make an attack with a weapon you're not holding, so no, it doesn't mean that. It doesn't need to state this in the Two-Weapon fighting rules, because it's already stated in the rules for attacking.
[REDACTED]
You are still under the illusion that both halves of the sentence are independent. They aren't. The first half does not contain an independent trigger, nor does the second half contain an independent effect. They are one continuous statement. The information being conveyed as the trigger and effect are not completely expressed until the entire sentence has been read. Reading it the way that you are is literally jumping to a conclusion.
If you are determined to keep viewing this as two separate things, ask yourself this:
When can you "use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand"?
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand".
It's really that simple.
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.
[REDACTED]
dueling, two weapon fighting, and dual wielding, were all written at/around the same time- fact.
they have explicit written definitions- 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
dueling requires one “wielded” weapon - fact.
dueling says nothing about other hand needs to be empty- fact
you can use a shield with dueling - fact.
You can hold weapons, without them being wielded- fact
so what makes it in the wielded state vs unwielded state? We can all agree a brandished and unsheathed weapon is clearly wielded. - fact
is a bow with no arrows a wielded weapon or held weapon? (No a bow isn’t a light weapon. The point here being. You can have a weapon held but not wielded. There’s just conditions that need to be met)
this is really simple. If they RAW didn’t want the interaction between dueling and two weapon fighting, then there would not be rules and mechanics in place that allow it to happen.
[REDACTED]
Alright, [REDACTED]...
Shoving a Creature
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
The target must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Instead of making an attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you.
shield master feat.
you can still do shield master feat, shield attack- a shove— with dueling.
mechanically—— this is no different than doing TWF with dueling as long as the conditions are still being met. The difference being, a shove doesn’t cause damage, the TWF does.
but the result of a shove vs damage, has nothing to do with the language written for dueling or TWF.
I have now provided a 3rd very sound, fundamental, simple, plain English, way to show clear transparency in the rules. That just doesn’t seem to be read by people. Even though it is clearly spelled out.
[REDACTED]
"If they RAW didn’t want the interaction between dueling and two weapon fighting, then there would not be rules and mechanics in place that allow it to happen. "
You mean like how one requires you to use only one one-handed weapon when you make your attack, and the other requires you to use two one-handed weapons at the same time when you make your attack? [REDACTED]
And what [REDACTED] argument are you trying to make with the shield master thing? Dueling doesn't say anything about making other attacks, it says you can't be wielding a second weapon. If you have Extra Attack you can still grapple/shove/punch/whatever with any of the attacks and still benefit from Dueling with another if you attack with the weapon. You can't benefit from dueling if you're using a second weapon, and you have to have a second weapon to get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action.
[REDACTED]
And what [REDACTED] argument are you trying to make with the shield master thing? Dueling doesn't say anything about making other attacks, it says you can't be wielding a second weapon. If you have Extra Attack you can still grapple/shove/punch/whatever with any of the attacks and still benefit from Dueling with another if you attack with the weapon. You can't benefit from dueling if you're using a second weapon, and you have to have a second weapon to get the Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action.
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.
** the shield becomes a weapon when you shove with it. It becomes an improvised weapon. Which is still a weapon. Which would violate dueling... but it does not violate dueling. And as an improvised weapon it would do 1d4 damage. There’s a reason even though shields are Very light. They are not classified as “light”. (Speculation: IE RAI here) this is most likely so that players cannot use their shield with dueling, and then use it with TWF, since the language would support that.
onning and Doffing Armor
a shields don and doff time even (rai again) imply that it would be considered “light”.
further....
there is no “light property” for ANY improvised weapon... that also is intentional. See above for why shields aren’t light for TWF combined with Dueling.
Because a Shield isn't a weapon.
The conditions aren't being met. Dueling allows a shield because it is not a weapon. Dueling prohibits there being a second weapon. TWF requires two weapons. They are incompatible.
No, you have not.
A Shield is not a weapon. Period. It is not used as a weapon when you shove. If I shove a creature with my hand, by your logic, my hand is a weapon. My hand is definitively not a weapon in D&D5e. Your argument is bunk.
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.
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.
No, it doesn't. Shove is not a weapon attack, and it's not an improvised weapon attack either. Even if the shield did temporarily become a weapon when you use the Shove action with it (it doesn't,) that wouldn't mean it's a weapon when you're making your actual attack with your weapon.
[REDACTED]
The feat Shield Master does not say that the shove granted by the feat is an attack, or that the shield becomes a weapon. I think that where McDonald is making that connection is because in Chapter 9 of the Basic Rules shoving is described as "Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack." The shove provided in Shield Master is different however, and doesn't use an Attack action, or describe itself as a special melee attack. I agree that that isn't really a very helpful analogy to use to the TWF/Dueling discussion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.