"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"?
The problem is that a shield is explicitly wielded, not worn, so is there a difference between 'wield as a shield' and 'wield as an improvised weapon'?
Yes, I think there is. The shield rules very much read as though shields are meant to be "worn" not "wielded" (you "don" and "doff" them as with armor; they're probably meant to give you penalties for "If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with..." but RAW do not). But the editing didn't keep the language tight enough, so we're left with "wield" meaning either different things for weapons and shields, or "wield" meaning something that is indistinguishable from "hold." I dunno man, I usually just treat "wield" as "held in a way that has a combat signifigance" in my own games.
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand.
If an improvised weapon is always a weapon, then you are never without your weapon, so there are no improvised weapons because you can never be without your weapons. I'm bored with the systematic misinterpretation of obvious sentences.
so .... if shields are improvised weapons, and adding their ac modifier if not used, dual wielding shields, while having the "Dual Wielder" feat would give me ac bonus of + 5 to AC .... not to shabby :-)
And.... that is why worn shields are not weapons of any kind in my game.
Thanks all for contributing to my question. Outside of the table-chasing conversation concerning the finer points: I now have a more solid concept in my head. Going to review the conditions for the various rules surrounding shield use; but I think I'll be going with an unarmed strike option (Same damage roll and modifiers). With Shieldmaster having the ability to take shield bashing to a much more effective level. *Note. This question arose while playing the Phandelver Basic ruleset. - I allowed a "Skyrim-style" shield bash. Which had the normal unarmed strike rolls/modifiers; but I also allowed for a stun to occur on a 19-20 (Due to the fighter being a Champion).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
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 DM'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.
Since an improvised weapon might be 'similar to an actual weapon', it therefore is not an actual weapon.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
Since an object being wielded 'bears no resemblance to a weapon', it's not a weapon. Also note there are rules for improvised thrown weapons.
How much easier our life would be if they had just stated clearly 'an improvised weapon is not a weapon.' and saved us all from overly zealous rules lawyers. The intent of the improvised weapon rules is to make it simple to handle situations where a PC uses something unusual as if it was a weapon. It is not intended to allow a PC to run around beating goblins to death with a herring.
As for the two-weapon fighting and dueling use, there's nothing wrong switching as long as they are separate actions. So if you have two attacks per action, there is no opportunity to switch during that action between attacks.
Shrug, the simplest reading is that the thing with “weapon” in its name that is listed in the “Weapons” section and is used in the same way as every other weapon is indeed a weapon. If y’all want to bend over backwards to convince yourselves otherwise, again with no real payoff other than crapping on a Fighters fighting styles, then bizarre as I may find it, I guess we have to chalk this one up as “disputed.” Smh
I'm not capping any fighter's style, just objecting to a fighter having a table leg in their second hand that switches between being an object and a weapon between attacks. Yet somehow a dagger held in that hand can't do the same.
I'm not capping any fighter's style, just objecting to a fighter having a table leg in their second hand that switches between being an object and a weapon between attacks. Yet somehow a dagger held in that hand can't do the same.
There's a part of me that thinks dueling style should just preclude holding anything in the off hand; the base effect of dueling (+2 damage) is objectively better than great weapon fighting (+0.8 on a d10 weapon, +0.83 on a d12, +1.33 on a 2d6; doubled on a crit), though it's not good enough to make single weapon without anything in the off hand competitive so I'm not convinced.
I'm not capping any fighter's style, just objecting to a fighter having a table leg in their second hand that switches between being an object and a weapon between attacks. Yet somehow a dagger held in that hand can't do the same.
There's a part of me that thinks dueling style should just preclude holding anything in the off hand; the base effect of dueling (+2 damage) is objectively better than great weapon fighting (+0.8 on a d10 weapon, +0.83 on a d12, +1.33 on a 2d6; doubled on a crit), though it's not good enough to make single weapon without anything in the off hand competitive so I'm not convinced.
Honestly, TWF + Dueling works fine. The PC has to do their action attack one-handed, draw their second weapon, find a way to do a second attack action (e.g. action surge), and then get the bonus attack action with the off-hand. I don't see a problem with that. Where things get wonky is if they take the optional feat Dual Wielder which removes the light weapon restriction from TWF and brings in the possibility of using improvised weapons and this whole discussion of when is a weapon a weapon.
I'm currently not allowing feats in my games because it leads to this type exploit seeking by players. It's ok to do some cool things, but if a fighter was doing this every combat it will get tiresome very quickly.
Shrug, the simplest reading is that the thing with “weapon” in its name that is listed in the “Weapons” section and is used in the same way as every other weapon is indeed a weapon. If y’all want to bend over backwards to convince yourselves otherwise, again with no real payoff other than crapping on a Fighters fighting styles, then bizarre as I may find it, I guess we have to chalk this one up as “disputed.” Smh
Sure, and chill touch is a melee spell attack that does cold damage. If you're just going to look at a title and ignore the text then we're still in the realm of deliberate misinterpretation.
Honestly, TWF + Dueling works fine. The PC has to do their an action attack one-handed, draw their second weapon, find a way to do a second attack action (e.g. action surge), and then get the bonus attack action with the off-hand.
At which point the second attack action doesn't get the benefits from dueling style, and that's still a once per combat trick. You sort of need feats to make two weapon fighting competitive after tier 1 (polearm mastery is, however, kind of broken).
A character with two fighting styles (Two Weapon Fighting fighting style, Duelist fighting style), two attacks per attack action, Dual Wielder, and two swords has no problems showing the benefit of it. A Fighter 1/Ranger 5 (or Fighter 5/Ranger 2, Fighter 5/Paladin 2, etc.) is more than capable of using both fighting styles within the same round, every round. I mean Two Weapon Fighting fighting style isn't even really necessary I guess, that just lets you add +str on the bonus attack, so skip that and any martial character can do it at 5.
Starting with one sword in one hand, the other one sheathed:
Attack Action, first attack: attack for 1d8+str, apply the +2 duelist
free interaction, draw second sword in offhand
Attack Action, second attack: attack for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
Bonus Action: attack with offhand for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
free interaction, sheathe second sword
(Or, if we're accepting that Improvised Weapons are weapons... starting with sword in one hand, a shield on the other)
Attack Action, first attack: attack for 1d8+str, apply the +2 duelist
Attack Action, second attack: impovised shield bash for 1d4+Str, no proficiency bonus, no duelist bonus
Bonus Action: Attack with sword for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus (i guess you could argue you get your +2 bonus back immediately after the shield bash ends, but I personally feel like imp. weapon shield bashes should toggle them as a weapon for the rest of your round while they remain in your hand)
Is this "broken" or something worth panicking over enabling using a shield? Not really, seems to be working as intended if you ask me. A sword-and-shield character can't do this with an improvised weapon shield attack without taking the Dual Wielder feat, which isn't a feat that provides a lot of other obvious value to them and doesn't come with a half-stat bump, and the shield attack they're unlocking is not proficient unless they also take Tavern Brawler, and they don't get strength on the Bonus Action attack unless they also have Two Weapon Fighting fighting style (which either requires multiclassing to get a second, or is a 10th-level feature of one of the subclasses), so there's already plenty of opportunity cost in utilizing this stupid trick.
I should remember the first rule of posting a question: Make sure you have your alchemy, carpentry, smithing, and mining kits all in your bag. lol The continued discussion is providing good information on PHB delving. I have to say, that after being away from the game (Except in passing. Like every time I move, or look through my packed possessions and go through my ancient AD&D books plus Campaign notes) for 40 years: The amount of information involved in full-blown 5e campaign rules was initially daunting; but I'm starting to get more...confident. ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
A character with two fighting styles (Two Weapon Fighting fighting style, Duelist fighting style), two attacks per attack action, Dual Wielder, and two swords has no problems showing the benefit of it. A Fighter 1/Ranger 5 (or Fighter 5/Ranger 2, Fighter 5/Paladin 2, etc.) is more than capable of using both fighting styles within the same round, every round. I mean Two Weapon Fighting fighting style isn't even really necessary I guess, that just lets you add +str on the bonus attack, so skip that and any martial character can do it at 4.
Starting with one sword in one hand, the other one sheathed:
Attack Action, first attack: attack for 1d8+str, apply the +2 duelist
free interaction, draw second sword in offhand
Attack Action, second attack: attack for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
Bonus Action: attack with offhand for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
free interaction, sheathe second sword
Unclear if you are allowed to use two weapon fighting, it depends on whether you must have the weapon drawn at the time you take the attack action (the rules.. fail to clarify). In any case, my comments about two weapon fighting style are not comparing it to using dueling style with one weapon, it's comparing it to great weapon fighting. The basic problem is:
Assume B is your damage bonus (ability bonus plus magic weapon plus other source of +damage).
For every main weapon attack, the great weapon fighter (8.33+B per attack) pulls ahead of the two weapon fighter (3.5+B) by 4.83.
For every offhand attack, the two weapon fighter pulls ahead by 3.5+B.
If you are getting one off hand attack per main weapon attack, B only needs to be 1.33 to pull ahead.
If you are getting two off hand attacks per three main weapon attacks, B needs to be 3.5 to pull ahead.
If you are getting one off hand attack per two main weapon attacks, B needs to be 5.17
If you are getting one off hand attack per three main weapon attacks, B needs to be 10.5
In tier 1, between needing to draw weapons, bonus actions, and opportunity attacks, the ratio of main weapon attacks to off hand attacks is generally between 1:1 and 3:2 and B is 3 or sometimes 4, so two weapon fighting and great weapon fighting are pretty comparable, usually favoring two weapon fighting. In tier 2, between the extra main weapon attack per round and more things that consume bonus actions, the ratio tends to be between 2:1 and 3:1, and B rarely gets above about 6 (20 Str, +1 weapon), so great weapon fighting is usually better than two weapon fighting.
Feats change this, though it becomes hard to analyze because great weapon mastery is extremely variable in value depending on the scenario.
Starting with one sword in one hand, the other one sheathed:
Attack Action, first attack: attack for 1d8+str, apply the +2 duelist
free interaction, draw second sword in offhand
Attack Action, second attack: attack for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
Bonus Action: attack with offhand for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
free interaction, sheathe second sword
Yep, that all looks good. I had assumed that free interactions happen before or after the action, but it looks like they can happen during the action as well.
How does the player get a second free interaction in step 5? The rules seem to say it's per turn, and each one after the first needs an action.
As for the shield bash, I also don't see a problem with it. Frankly if the player has invested in TWF+Dueling+Dual Wielding and and wants to forgo the TWF+Dual Wield synergies of +1 AC and higher damage weapons in both hands, then go right ahead. It's not the greatest choice as you point out.
Don't get me wrong, I like the math approach, but...
8.33 = what damage die? A d12's average damage is 6.5, 2d6's is 7, and a d10 is 5.5. Are you doing something to reflect rerolling 1's and 2's but keeping a rerolled 1 or 2? By my math that only makes a d12 worth 6.9, 2d6... uhhh my head hurts, but I doubt it would rocket up to 8.33.
3.5 = a d6 (so, shortsword). 4.5 for a d8 should be considered, since you're comparing a build that is likely to have Dual Wielder if that's what it's being built for
B is pretty much never going to be less than 2, because people don't make attacks with a stat they suck at. 3-5 is a realistic baseline for B without counting magic. The only other static modifiers that are really worth planning for are the Dueling fighting style and Barbarian rage, which work so differently that I'm not sure how to figure for them (Dueling will only apply to mainhand B's and only if at least one other mainhand B is made without it, while Rage can apply to all B's, but...). Other static modifiers can exist (lategame warlock invocation, an oathbreaker paladin lategame ability), but are so rare to not be worth really talking about. But additional damage die or effects on a hit are myriad, and probably beyond the ability of this math to quantify unless you did some sort of broad analysis of how many on-hit-dice are likely to be tacked onto a hit at the different tiers (sounds exhausting).
How the heck would you ever get two off-hand attacks per three main weapon attacks? The only ability that provides two attacks with a bonus action is a Monk's flurry of blows, and that isn't really relevant in the TWF vs 2H discussion you're plotting out.
The fighter is the only martial character whose attacks-per-main-action scale up beyond 2, so it isn't really right to talk about that changing with tier, unless this is a discussion that's only meant to be useful for Fighters.Even then, the ratio goes 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, and finally 4:1 at 20th, so I don't understand what these weird 3:2 are meant to be.
You aren't trying to weight in making more attacks vs. fewer attacks as effective average damage (to reflect possibility of a crit or a miss), because again, phoooooommmm my head would explode if I even tried that. Just pointing it out, lots of low damage attacks may do higher damage than single big hit/miss swings, even before considering multiple attacks' ability to apply more B's.
Okay, all of that aside... Lets talk fighters, and use 3 for B (just a regular old starting 16/17 Strength like most folks will have), going up to 4 at level 4 and 5 at level 6-8ish. We'll use a Greataxe with GWF style (6.9) versus Shortswords with TWF style (3.5 each) to keep it feat-free and easy peasy.
At level 1, Greataxe does 6.9+3=9.9. Shortswords do (3.5+3)x2=13. TWF wins.
At level 5, Greataxe does (6.9+4)x2=21.8. Shortswords do (3.5+4)x3=22.5. TWF wins.
At level 11, Greataxe does (6.9+5)x3=35.7. Shortswords do (3.5+5)x4=34. GWF wins.
At level 20, Greataxe does (6.9+5)x4=47.6. Shortswords do (3.5+5)x5=42.5. GWF wins.
If the TWF picks up a second fighting style and can splash duelist in there, they'd add another 2-4 damage for cheesing that like I described, but it will probably lock them out of having 4 attacks at 20 (unless it was Champion, in which case, all of this math doesn't work anyway because the Champion is crit fishing and will want TWF even more). But that's nothing in the face of the GWM guy taking Great Weapon Master, which does tons of damage to certain enemies with AC ranges in a certain ratio, and nothing otherwise. But but the TWF guy could be using 4.5's for longswords with Dual Wielder, so....
TLDR: Math like this is too complex with too many variables to do anyone much good.
Starting with one sword in one hand, the other one sheathed:
Attack Action, first attack: attack for 1d8+str, apply the +2 duelist
free interaction, draw second sword in offhand
Attack Action, second attack: attack for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
Bonus Action: attack with offhand for 1d8+str, no duelist bonus
free interaction, sheathe second sword
Yep, that all looks good. I had assumed that free interactions happen before or after the action, but it looks like they can happen during the action as well.
How does the player get a second free interaction in step 5? The rules seem to say it's per turn, and each one after the first needs an action.
As for the shield bash, I also don't see a problem with it. Frankly if the player has invested in TWF+Dueling+Dual Wielding and and wants to forgo the TWF+Dual Wield synergies of +1 AC and higher damage weapons in both hands, then go right ahead. It's not the greatest choice as you point out.
That's the Dual Wielder feat at work giving you two interactions per round, which is why there's a feat tax for trying this. I guess you do it without, but its takes more mental bookeeping:
The problem is that a shield is explicitly wielded, not worn, so is there a difference between 'wield as a shield' and 'wield as an improvised weapon'?
Yes, I think there is. The shield rules very much read as though shields are meant to be "worn" not "wielded" (you "don" and "doff" them as with armor; they're probably meant to give you penalties for "If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with..." but RAW do not). But the editing didn't keep the language tight enough, so we're left with "wield" meaning either different things for weapons and shields, or "wield" meaning something that is indistinguishable from "hold." I dunno man, I usually just treat "wield" as "held in a way that has a combat signifigance" in my own games.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"An improvised weapon is always a weapon," glaring at a chair in the corner. Dumb conversation, anyway.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If an improvised weapon is always a weapon, then you are never without your weapon, so there are no improvised weapons because you can never be without your weapons. I'm bored with the systematic misinterpretation of obvious sentences.
And.... that is why worn shields are not weapons of any kind in my game.
Thanks all for contributing to my question.
Outside of the table-chasing conversation concerning the finer points: I now have a more solid concept in my head.
Going to review the conditions for the various rules surrounding shield use; but I think I'll be going with an unarmed strike option (Same damage roll and modifiers).
With Shieldmaster having the ability to take shield bashing to a much more effective level.
*Note. This question arose while playing the Phandelver Basic ruleset. - I allowed a "Skyrim-style" shield bash. Which had the normal unarmed strike rolls/modifiers; but I also allowed for a stun to occur on a 19-20 (Due to the fighter being a Champion).
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
I'll keep this debate going a bit longer.
PHB
Since an improvised weapon might be 'similar to an actual weapon', it therefore is not an actual weapon.
Since an object being wielded 'bears no resemblance to a weapon', it's not a weapon. Also note there are rules for improvised thrown weapons.
How much easier our life would be if they had just stated clearly 'an improvised weapon is not a weapon.' and saved us all from overly zealous rules lawyers. The intent of the improvised weapon rules is to make it simple to handle situations where a PC uses something unusual as if it was a weapon. It is not intended to allow a PC to run around beating goblins to death with a herring.
As for the two-weapon fighting and dueling use, there's nothing wrong switching as long as they are separate actions. So if you have two attacks per action, there is no opportunity to switch during that action between attacks.
Shrug, the simplest reading is that the thing with “weapon” in its name that is listed in the “Weapons” section and is used in the same way as every other weapon is indeed a weapon. If y’all want to bend over backwards to convince yourselves otherwise, again with no real payoff other than crapping on a Fighters fighting styles, then bizarre as I may find it, I guess we have to chalk this one up as “disputed.” Smh
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not capping any fighter's style, just objecting to a fighter having a table leg in their second hand that switches between being an object and a weapon between attacks. Yet somehow a dagger held in that hand can't do the same.
There's a part of me that thinks dueling style should just preclude holding anything in the off hand; the base effect of dueling (+2 damage) is objectively better than great weapon fighting (+0.8 on a d10 weapon, +0.83 on a d12, +1.33 on a 2d6; doubled on a crit), though it's not good enough to make single weapon without anything in the off hand competitive so I'm not convinced.
Honestly, TWF + Dueling works fine. The PC has to do their action attack one-handed, draw their second weapon, find a way to do a second attack action (e.g. action surge), and then get the bonus attack action with the off-hand. I don't see a problem with that. Where things get wonky is if they take the optional feat Dual Wielder which removes the light weapon restriction from TWF and brings in the possibility of using improvised weapons and this whole discussion of when is a weapon a weapon.
I'm currently not allowing feats in my games because it leads to this type exploit seeking by players. It's ok to do some cool things, but if a fighter was doing this every combat it will get tiresome very quickly.
Sure, and chill touch is a melee spell attack that does cold damage. If you're just going to look at a title and ignore the text then we're still in the realm of deliberate misinterpretation.
At which point the second attack action doesn't get the benefits from dueling style, and that's still a once per combat trick. You sort of need feats to make two weapon fighting competitive after tier 1 (polearm mastery is, however, kind of broken).
A character with two fighting styles (Two Weapon Fighting fighting style, Duelist fighting style), two attacks per attack action, Dual Wielder, and two swords has no problems showing the benefit of it. A Fighter 1/Ranger 5 (or Fighter 5/Ranger 2, Fighter 5/Paladin 2, etc.) is more than capable of using both fighting styles within the same round, every round. I mean Two Weapon Fighting fighting style isn't even really necessary I guess, that just lets you add +str on the bonus attack, so skip that and any martial character can do it at 5.
Starting with one sword in one hand, the other one sheathed:
(Or, if we're accepting that Improvised Weapons are weapons... starting with sword in one hand, a shield on the other)
Is this "broken" or something worth panicking over enabling using a shield? Not really, seems to be working as intended if you ask me. A sword-and-shield character can't do this with an improvised weapon shield attack without taking the Dual Wielder feat, which isn't a feat that provides a lot of other obvious value to them and doesn't come with a half-stat bump, and the shield attack they're unlocking is not proficient unless they also take Tavern Brawler, and they don't get strength on the Bonus Action attack unless they also have Two Weapon Fighting fighting style (which either requires multiclassing to get a second, or is a 10th-level feature of one of the subclasses), so there's already plenty of opportunity cost in utilizing this stupid trick.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I should remember the first rule of posting a question:
Make sure you have your alchemy, carpentry, smithing, and mining kits all in your bag. lol
The continued discussion is providing good information on PHB delving.
I have to say, that after being away from the game (Except in passing. Like every time I move, or look through my packed possessions and go through my ancient AD&D books plus Campaign notes) for 40 years: The amount of information involved in full-blown 5e campaign rules was initially daunting; but I'm starting to get more...confident. ;)
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
Unclear if you are allowed to use two weapon fighting, it depends on whether you must have the weapon drawn at the time you take the attack action (the rules.. fail to clarify). In any case, my comments about two weapon fighting style are not comparing it to using dueling style with one weapon, it's comparing it to great weapon fighting. The basic problem is:
In tier 1, between needing to draw weapons, bonus actions, and opportunity attacks, the ratio of main weapon attacks to off hand attacks is generally between 1:1 and 3:2 and B is 3 or sometimes 4, so two weapon fighting and great weapon fighting are pretty comparable, usually favoring two weapon fighting. In tier 2, between the extra main weapon attack per round and more things that consume bonus actions, the ratio tends to be between 2:1 and 3:1, and B rarely gets above about 6 (20 Str, +1 weapon), so great weapon fighting is usually better than two weapon fighting.
Feats change this, though it becomes hard to analyze because great weapon mastery is extremely variable in value depending on the scenario.
Yep, that all looks good. I had assumed that free interactions happen before or after the action, but it looks like they can happen during the action as well.
How does the player get a second free interaction in step 5? The rules seem to say it's per turn, and each one after the first needs an action.
As for the shield bash, I also don't see a problem with it. Frankly if the player has invested in TWF+Dueling+Dual Wielding and and wants to forgo the TWF+Dual Wield synergies of +1 AC and higher damage weapons in both hands, then go right ahead. It's not the greatest choice as you point out.
Don't get me wrong, I like the math approach, but...
Okay, all of that aside... Lets talk fighters, and use 3 for B (just a regular old starting 16/17 Strength like most folks will have), going up to 4 at level 4 and 5 at level 6-8ish. We'll use a Greataxe with GWF style (6.9) versus Shortswords with TWF style (3.5 each) to keep it feat-free and easy peasy.
If the TWF picks up a second fighting style and can splash duelist in there, they'd add another 2-4 damage for cheesing that like I described, but it will probably lock them out of having 4 attacks at 20 (unless it was Champion, in which case, all of this math doesn't work anyway because the Champion is crit fishing and will want TWF even more). But that's nothing in the face of the GWM guy taking Great Weapon Master, which does tons of damage to certain enemies with AC ranges in a certain ratio, and nothing otherwise. But but the TWF guy could be using 4.5's for longswords with Dual Wielder, so....
TLDR: Math like this is too complex with too many variables to do anyone much good.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's the Dual Wielder feat at work giving you two interactions per round, which is why there's a feat tax for trying this. I guess you do it without, but its takes more mental bookeeping:
Round 1: Attack1+Duelist, draw sword, Attack2 w/out, Bonus w/out.
Round 2: Attack1 w/out, Bonus w/out, sheathe sword, Attack2+Duelist.
Still doable, just annoying. But you absolutely need it to do it with a shield, since a shield isn't a "light" weapon.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.