RAW an improvised weapon is not a weapon - that's the whole point. RAI Weapon Bond is meant to bring you your arms, not any random object that's useful for you to teleport around and heavy enough to bludgeon an enemy with. RAF a shield is still a tool for hand-to-hand combat and it doesn't break anything to allow it to be bonded. Ask your DM nicely and hopefully they'll be reasonable about it. Chicken Champ does bring up a good point about the action required to "equip" the shield though, so ask about that as well.
That said, I've always seen bonding a one-handed sword as a bit of a waste. Half the point of a sword is that it's much easier to carry than a battlefield weapon, so it's a great backup or self-defense option. Maybe consider bonding a two-handed weapon for emergencies. But if you're sure you want to go sword and shield only, don't let me stop you. Just something to consider.
Classes are well balanced in 5th edition and there's only a few exceptionally underwhelming subclasses, so you don't have to worry much about what's strong or not. The main thing to remember about Eldritch Knights is that you'll never compete with a wizard on spell damage but there's plenty of spells that will make you a better fighter (e.g. Shield, Absorb Elements, Shadow Blade, Warding Wind.) The somatic component issue isn't a big deal even without War Caster since you can always sheathe your weapon for a round if you need to cast a spell, or even drop it if you really have to.
It was more just a rules technicality question that I had considered - this will be the first game in 5th ed I'm playing in, so I want something simple but with 'flair' and an EK covers that, but I saw the thing about bonding up to two weapons and wondered if it could be interpreted to cover a non-standard weapon. If I were trying to totally munchkin the ability, I would be looking for the largest, two handed storm giant/titan sized weapons I could possibly find, and would bond 2 of them. Not for actual combat, but as instant, improvised cover or door/hallway blockers. And I would expect even a reasonable GM would not allow a 'bonded shield' to appear already equipped.
As far as the 'class balance' issue, I'm not even going down that rabbit hole. That's been an argument people have been having since I started playing 40 some odd years ago. I don't really care if a class is 'balanced' or not, as long as I'm having fun playing it. My most enjoyable character ever was a monk in 3.0 - it was a fun campaign, a good DM, and I had a blast.
Because I am a Captain America fan, I've ruled in my game that a Kensei Monk can make a shield their Kensai weapon. I've also ruled that bashing someone with a shield does 1D4+ Str damage or 1D6+Str damage if they have the Shield Master Feat.
I'd like to see a character with 2 levels of Artificer who makes a Shield that can be thrown for 1D6 damage and has the Returning Weapon Infusion.
I home-brewed a magic shield that did 1d8 slashing damage with the thrown property that magically returned to your hand when it washed for a ranged weapon attack. Thad a plus 1 to ac attack and damage roles. My parties fighter loved it and I have included it in multiple campaigns since.
the law of the item is that there was once a human hero tasked to defend the princes as she was being sent across the continent for an arranged marriage. The man would one day have to fight an evil organisation and in order to save the world he crashed his wagon into some ice and the shield was retrieved by a different organisation. I think it is an exceptionally brilliant and original story.
I home-brewed a magic shield that did 1d8 slashing damage with the thrown property that magically returned to your hand when it washed for a ranged weapon attack. Thad a plus 1 to ac attack and damage roles. My parties fighter loved it and I have included it in multiple campaigns since.
RAW a shield require 1 action to doff before you can even throw it, do you houserule that too?
if you have already donned the shield then you can attack with it freely but if you wish to attack with it you must first spend an action to don the shield if you haven't done so already.
if you have already donned the shield then you can attack with it freely but if you wish to attack with it you must first spend an action to don the shield if you haven't done so already.
Right, but if you don a shield how are can you throw it while it's attached to your arm and hand without first using an action to doff it?
if you have already donned the shield then you can attack with it freely but if you wish to attack with it you must first spend an action to don the shield if you haven't done so already.
Right, but if you don a shield how are can you throw it while it's attached to your arm and hand without first using an action to doff it?
Sounds pretty simple to homebrew:
As an action, you may make a ranged weapon attack (range 30 feet) with the shield. The shield's straps magically disappear when thrown this way. The shield deals 1d8 damage on a hit. Hit or miss, the shield then returns to you and reattaches to your arm, and the straps reform.
if you have already donned the shield then you can attack with it freely but if you wish to attack with it you must first spend an action to don the shield if you haven't done so already.
Right, but if you don a shield how are can you throw it while it's attached to your arm and hand without first using an action to doff it?
Sounds pretty simple to homebrew:
As an action, you may make a ranged weapon attack (range 30 feet) with the shield. The shield's straps magically disappear when thrown this way. The shield deals 1d8 damage on a hit. Hit or miss, the shield then returns to you and reattaches to your arm, and the straps reform.
Good description. it really makes it way ore simple to explain to players. thank you
They appear under the "Weapons" heading in Chapter 5
Bonus: all of the examples of Improvised Weapons that we're provided are improvised melee weapons, which might be the only type of Improvised Weapon?
"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."
The Improvised Weapons listed (broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, dead goblin, ranged weapon used to make a melee attack, thrown melee weapon) are all examples of melee weapons.
An Improvised Weapon is Wielded
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands."
"Wield" isn't explicitly defined anywhere as a base term, but I can't find an example of it being used anywhere in a way that would exclude Improvised Weapons or treat them differently than any other "weapons"?
Dueling applies to a (1) wielded (2) melee (3) weapon
"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."
Improvised weapons are weapons, see above
Improvised weapons are wielded, see above
Notwithstanding your sincerely held beliefs, I fail to see any written language that creates a "fact of the game" that contradicts any of the above. There is no "must" to be found that holding objects is different from wielding them. For JC fans, he unfortunately has been characteristically cagey whenever someone tries to get him to define "wield" (can't find the link to the tweet, but he says something like "wield means what it commonly means.")
Shield Bashing is a real thing. I don't want to sound like a rules lawyer, but shield proficiency doesn't explicitly state only as a defensive device. I would make a player have 2 weapon fighting (not a light weapon), make it a d4 +str bonus action and remove the benefit of "Dueling" damage bonus if you attacked with it. If you are stingy, make them have tavern brawler as well. Also, there are clear examples of shields being weapons in the rules. Lizard men have spikes shields that do d6 plus str. Implying a Lizard can shield bash but humans can't is a stretch.
Also, Lizard men don't loose ac bonus when they bash.
My rule for this is the shields use an unarmed hit to see if you get to do damage aka bashing, then damage is unarmed dmg+str+ac of shield+proficiency if they have it, swords and shields where used as weapons in real life so they are in my fantasy campaigns too, but they get to do either or til they get shield mastery then I count it as duel wielding.
Shield can 100% be used as a weapon and still be used as armor. Check out this brutal shield bashing attack. Definitely is used as a weapon and more than just an unarmed strike. I would rule it as either improvised or even as a club which you can be proficient in with shield proficiency. https://youtu.be/VlCQ2pBob5Q?t=49
I found this topic through a google search, just to see some different takes, but it's interesting the amount of people against using the dual wielding feat and TWF fighter feature together, as that is a sizable investment, for a class that gets *almost* the same benefit "just" using a two handed weapon with defense fighter feature.
You gain an extra AC point, and do comparable damage, both before the 3rd tier, and after. And it only cost you a whole feat to slightly edge out a two handed weapon for the first ten levels. That fighter using a great-sword, also still has the same feat selection open that the two-weapon fighter spent available, to be used on whatever they like.
I do however agree with the RAI that duelist is only usable with an open hand, or an object that is not being used as a weapon. That hand is the "open" fencing hand, though for fantastical flavour, I would absolutely allow a fighter to hold a wine glass (that isn't being used as a weapon) like a boss
I'd say you either use it as a shield or as an improvised weapon, but not both at the same time.
With the thought being that, in order to strike efficiently with the shield, you'd be required to shift the way you're holding it.
Also because mechanically there are a bunch of features that make distinctions between holding a weapon and not holding a weapon while still allowing a shield.
That being said, the rules for 2024 give you 2 key things that would still make this work somewhat.
When you make an attack action, as part of that action, you can either equip or unequip a weapon.
So I'd say that, you treat the Shield as an Improvised Weapon, or as a Shield, but not both at the same time. Meaning while its an Improvised Weapon it does not provide you with +2 AC, and while it's a Shield it cannot be used to attack.
On your turn you would make your attack action, as part of that action shifting the shield's position to "equip" it as an improvised weapon. Then when your turn is done, you use your free object interaction to adjust your grip on your shield to return it to being a Shield and providing AC.
What the Shield's stats are as a weapon would be up to the DM I suppose. It's not as crude as hitting someone with a rock, but its still not really similar to any other weapon in the list. So I'd probably treat it as a 1d4 Bludgeoning damage.
I'd say you either use it as a shield or as an improvised weapon, but not both at the same time.
With the thought being that, in order to strike efficiently with the shield, you'd be required to shift the way you're holding it.
Also because mechanically there are a bunch of features that make distinctions between holding a weapon and not holding a weapon while still allowing a shield.
That being said, the rules for 2024 give you 2 key things that would still make this work somewhat.
When you make an attack action, as part of that action, you can either equip or unequip a weapon.
So I'd say that, you treat the Shield as an Improvised Weapon, or as a Shield, but not both at the same time. Meaning while its an Improvised Weapon it does not provide you with +2 AC, and while it's a Shield it cannot be used to attack.
On your turn you would make your attack action, as part of that action shifting the shield's position to "equip" it as an improvised weapon. Then when your turn is done, you use your free object interaction to adjust your grip on your shield to return it to being a Shield and providing AC.
What the Shield's stats are as a weapon would be up to the DM I suppose. It's not as crude as hitting someone with a rock, but its still not really similar to any other weapon in the list. So I'd probably treat it as a 1d4 Bludgeoning damage.
The 2024 Armor table says: Shield (Utilize Action to Don or Doff)
I'd say you either use it as a shield or as an improvised weapon, but not both at the same time.
With the thought being that, in order to strike efficiently with the shield, you'd be required to shift the way you're holding it.
Also because mechanically there are a bunch of features that make distinctions between holding a weapon and not holding a weapon while still allowing a shield.
That being said, the rules for 2024 give you 2 key things that would still make this work somewhat.
When you make an attack action, as part of that action, you can either equip or unequip a weapon.
So I'd say that, you treat the Shield as an Improvised Weapon, or as a Shield, but not both at the same time. Meaning while its an Improvised Weapon it does not provide you with +2 AC, and while it's a Shield it cannot be used to attack.
On your turn you would make your attack action, as part of that action shifting the shield's position to "equip" it as an improvised weapon. Then when your turn is done, you use your free object interaction to adjust your grip on your shield to return it to being a Shield and providing AC.
What the Shield's stats are as a weapon would be up to the DM I suppose. It's not as crude as hitting someone with a rock, but its still not really similar to any other weapon in the list. So I'd probably treat it as a 1d4 Bludgeoning damage.
The 2024 Armor table says: Shield (Utilize Action to Don or Doff)
Yeah but don and doff are for unpacking the armor and equipping. In this case it's already equipped. You're just changing its position.
I cant really justify it taking more time to adjust your grip on a shield vs opening or close a door.
RAW an improvised weapon is not a weapon - that's the whole point. RAI Weapon Bond is meant to bring you your arms, not any random object that's useful for you to teleport around and heavy enough to bludgeon an enemy with. RAF a shield is still a tool for hand-to-hand combat and it doesn't break anything to allow it to be bonded. Ask your DM nicely and hopefully they'll be reasonable about it. Chicken Champ does bring up a good point about the action required to "equip" the shield though, so ask about that as well.
That said, I've always seen bonding a one-handed sword as a bit of a waste. Half the point of a sword is that it's much easier to carry than a battlefield weapon, so it's a great backup or self-defense option. Maybe consider bonding a two-handed weapon for emergencies. But if you're sure you want to go sword and shield only, don't let me stop you. Just something to consider.
Classes are well balanced in 5th edition and there's only a few exceptionally underwhelming subclasses, so you don't have to worry much about what's strong or not. The main thing to remember about Eldritch Knights is that you'll never compete with a wizard on spell damage but there's plenty of spells that will make you a better fighter (e.g. Shield, Absorb Elements, Shadow Blade, Warding Wind.) The somatic component issue isn't a big deal even without War Caster since you can always sheathe your weapon for a round if you need to cast a spell, or even drop it if you really have to.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It was more just a rules technicality question that I had considered - this will be the first game in 5th ed I'm playing in, so I want something simple but with 'flair' and an EK covers that, but I saw the thing about bonding up to two weapons and wondered if it could be interpreted to cover a non-standard weapon. If I were trying to totally munchkin the ability, I would be looking for the largest, two handed storm giant/titan sized weapons I could possibly find, and would bond 2 of them. Not for actual combat, but as instant, improvised cover or door/hallway blockers. And I would expect even a reasonable GM would not allow a 'bonded shield' to appear already equipped.
As far as the 'class balance' issue, I'm not even going down that rabbit hole. That's been an argument people have been having since I started playing 40 some odd years ago. I don't really care if a class is 'balanced' or not, as long as I'm having fun playing it. My most enjoyable character ever was a monk in 3.0 - it was a fun campaign, a good DM, and I had a blast.
Because I am a Captain America fan, I've ruled in my game that a Kensei Monk can make a shield their Kensai weapon. I've also ruled that bashing someone with a shield does 1D4+ Str damage or 1D6+Str damage if they have the Shield Master Feat.
I'd like to see a character with 2 levels of Artificer who makes a Shield that can be thrown for 1D6 damage and has the Returning Weapon Infusion.
I home-brewed a magic shield that did 1d8 slashing damage with the thrown property that magically returned to your hand when it washed for a ranged weapon attack. Thad a plus 1 to ac attack and damage roles. My parties fighter loved it and I have included it in multiple campaigns since.
the law of the item is that there was once a human hero tasked to defend the princes as she was being sent across the continent for an arranged marriage. The man would one day have to fight an evil organisation and in order to save the world he crashed his wagon into some ice and the shield was retrieved by a different organisation. I think it is an exceptionally brilliant and original story.
RAW a shield require 1 action to doff before you can even throw it, do you houserule that too?
if you have already donned the shield then you can attack with it freely but if you wish to attack with it you must first spend an action to don the shield if you haven't done so already.
Right, but if you don a shield how are can you throw it while it's attached to your arm and hand without first using an action to doff it?
Sounds pretty simple to homebrew:
I guess the shield training feat never made it out of UA?
You’ve trained in the effective use of shields. You gain the following benefits:
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Good description. it really makes it way ore simple to explain to players. thank you
This
https://www.sbnation.com/2016/8/30/12712808/medieval-fighting-russia-shield-ko-wtf
Shield Bashing is a real thing. I don't want to sound like a rules lawyer, but shield proficiency doesn't explicitly state only as a defensive device. I would make a player have 2 weapon fighting (not a light weapon), make it a d4 +str bonus action and remove the benefit of "Dueling" damage bonus if you attacked with it. If you are stingy, make them have tavern brawler as well. Also, there are clear examples of shields being weapons in the rules. Lizard men have spikes shields that do d6 plus str. Implying a Lizard can shield bash but humans can't is a stretch.
Also, Lizard men don't loose ac bonus when they bash.
My rule for this is the shields use an unarmed hit to see if you get to do damage aka bashing, then damage is unarmed dmg+str+ac of shield+proficiency if they have it, swords and shields where used as weapons in real life so they are in my fantasy campaigns too, but they get to do either or til they get shield mastery then I count it as duel wielding.
Shield can 100% be used as a weapon and still be used as armor. Check out this brutal shield bashing attack. Definitely is used as a weapon and more than just an unarmed strike. I would rule it as either improvised or even as a club which you can be proficient in with shield proficiency.
https://youtu.be/VlCQ2pBob5Q?t=49
I found this topic through a google search, just to see some different takes, but it's interesting the amount of people against using the dual wielding feat and TWF fighter feature together, as that is a sizable investment, for a class that gets *almost* the same benefit "just" using a two handed weapon with defense fighter feature.
You gain an extra AC point, and do comparable damage, both before the 3rd tier, and after. And it only cost you a whole feat to slightly edge out a two handed weapon for the first ten levels. That fighter using a great-sword, also still has the same feat selection open that the two-weapon fighter spent available, to be used on whatever they like.
I do however agree with the RAI that duelist is only usable with an open hand, or an object that is not being used as a weapon. That hand is the "open" fencing hand, though for fantastical flavour, I would absolutely allow a fighter to hold a wine glass (that isn't being used as a weapon) like a boss
Why is there no way to "up vote" this post?
Fine use of logic, reason, and reading comprehension!
🤌🏼
I'd say you either use it as a shield or as an improvised weapon, but not both at the same time.
With the thought being that, in order to strike efficiently with the shield, you'd be required to shift the way you're holding it.
Also because mechanically there are a bunch of features that make distinctions between holding a weapon and not holding a weapon while still allowing a shield.
That being said, the rules for 2024 give you 2 key things that would still make this work somewhat.
#1. Time-Limited Object Interactions
In combat you are allowed 1 free object interaction per turn.
#2. Equipping and Unequipping Weapons
When you make an attack action, as part of that action, you can either equip or unequip a weapon.
So I'd say that, you treat the Shield as an Improvised Weapon, or as a Shield, but not both at the same time. Meaning while its an Improvised Weapon it does not provide you with +2 AC, and while it's a Shield it cannot be used to attack.
On your turn you would make your attack action, as part of that action shifting the shield's position to "equip" it as an improvised weapon. Then when your turn is done, you use your free object interaction to adjust your grip on your shield to return it to being a Shield and providing AC.
What the Shield's stats are as a weapon would be up to the DM I suppose. It's not as crude as hitting someone with a rock, but its still not really similar to any other weapon in the list. So I'd probably treat it as a 1d4 Bludgeoning damage.
The 2024 Armor table says: Shield (Utilize Action to Don or Doff)
Yeah but don and doff are for unpacking the armor and equipping. In this case it's already equipped. You're just changing its position.
I cant really justify it taking more time to adjust your grip on a shield vs opening or close a door.
I'd say take more time than that, since it's strapped to your arm. It also took an action in 2014.
Suggested in this answer from the SAC too: