Wait wait wait. A live body is not an object (even though it is still a distinct thing) but an object that is completely distinct from "an actual weapon" is a weapon? That is a double standard in your interpretation chicanery.
Hey, I'm all for giving game terms the full weight of their meaning, when those meanings are provided by rule text. "Creatures" and "Objects" are two distinct terms, and its arguable whether "Objects" are a larger term that includes "Creatures" or if they're really alternative tags. Really warrants its own thread, there have been several on it in the past, I'm not gonna write an off the cuff dissertation on it.
"Weapons" and "Objects" are also meaningful terms, please don't take anything I wrote to mean that I don't care about that. It's just, we have a section which (I feel) explicitly tells us that "Objects" may be wielded as "Weapons," and I don't see any reason to doubt that it meant what it said or insert unwritten language to walk that proposition back.
Does the above rulling mean that hitting someone with a glove (by punching them) does 1d4+STR damage?
I worry that this is a slippery slope that ends up with unarmed strikes always doing 1d4, not 1.
The proposition that you might deal 1d4+Str instead of 1+Str when you punch while wearing a gauntlet, but as a tradeoff be attacking without proficiency, is not something that would worry me especially.
Does the above rulling mean that hitting someone with a glove (by punching them) does 1d4+STR damage?
I worry that this is a slippery slope that ends up with unarmed strikes always doing 1d4, not 1.
The proposition that you might deal 1d4+Str instead of 1+Str when you punch while wearing a gauntlet, but as a tradeoff be attacking without proficiency, is not something that would worry me especially.
It's most certainly within raw to declare that you attack with them as improvised weapons. At least, I can't find text preventing this specifically.
But I also don't see this as a problem. Melee combat classes have better options trough attacks with actual weapons. Or the class itself already gives unarmed attacks an increased unarmed weapon die. On top of that if you use Tavern Brawler for improvised weapon proficiency your unarmed attack already becomes 1d4 with proficiency.
For casters it's even less of an issue. The amount of times you'll be melee is low. But in the case it happens you would be using your action to do 1d4+x, instead of casting a cantrip or spell that would do way more then that.
I think all arguments kinda go out the window once your party member encounters a Lizardfolk with a Spiked Shield and uses it the exact same way they do, as a +2 AC Shield that also deals 1d6 piercing damage when used as part of an attack. Sure, one would get no Strength bonus applied to it on the attack when used as a bonus action, but it's right there in print and should be usable by anyone with a Martial proficiency.
As for a regular shield, I agree with the idea of 1d4 damage as an improvised weapon.
I think all arguments kinda go out the window once your party member encounters a Lizardfolk with a Spiked Shield and uses it the exact same way they do, as a +2 AC Shield that also deals 1d6 piercing damage when used as part of an attack. Sure, one would get no Strength bonus applied to it on the attack when used as a bonus action, but it's right there in print and should be usable by anyone with a Martial proficiency.
As for a regular shield, I agree with the idea of 1d4 damage as an improvised weapon.
Monsters often have attacks that don't exactly track the action economy or other rules that players abide by... but yes, I do think its thematically persuasive that sword n' board monsters like Lizardfolk don't seem to have a problem using their shields as off hand bash attacks while keeping the AC bonus, so clutching our pearls over players doing the same seems a little disingenuous. :)
I think all arguments kinda go out the window once your party member encounters a Lizardfolk with a Spiked Shield and uses it the exact same way they do, as a +2 AC Shield that also deals 1d6 piercing damage when used as part of an attack. Sure, one would get no Strength bonus applied to it on the attack when used as a bonus action, but it's right there in print and should be usable by anyone with a Martial proficiency.
As for a regular shield, I agree with the idea of 1d4 damage as an improvised weapon.
Monsters often have attacks that don't exactly track the action economy or other rules that players abide by... but yes, I do think its thematically persuasive that sword n' board monsters like Lizardfolk don't seem to have a problem using their shields as off hand bash attacks while keeping the AC bonus, so clutching our pearls over players doing the same seems a little disingenuous. :)
Of course, they might have a special ability that lets them do so. Being able to use a bonus action for a 1d4+strength attack is certainly a strong feat, but it's not entirely out of line. For comparison at level 1 variant human fighter
Dual Wielder, Two-Weapon Fighting Style: attack +5/2d8+6 (15), AC 17.
Of course, they might have a special ability that lets them do so. Being able to use a bonus action for a 1d4+strength attack is certainly a strong feat, but it's not entirely out of line. For comparison at level 1 variant human fighter
Dual Wielder, Two-Weapon Fighting Style: attack +5/2d8+6 (15), AC 17.
Theoretical Feat, Dueling Fighting Style: attack +5/1d8+1d4+8 (15), AC 18.
A +5 to hit 2d8+6 is a very different thing than two seperate +5 1d8+3 attacks. And that third bullet... I'm just not really tracking what you're trying to shorthand there.
A Lizardfolk (standard skilled fighter of its race) routinely uses its turn to do a +4 1d6+2 (club/bite/javelin) followed by a +4 1d6+2 shield attack, while keeping the +2 AC shield bonus. Average damage of 11, if both attacks land.
Any old level 1 player character with a 16+ strength can do a +5 1d8+3 (martial melee weapon) OR a +3 1d4+3 shield attack, not both (because the Shield isn't a light weapon, and not eligible for basic TWF).
A specialized level 1 player character with fighting styles and/or feats has some slightly better math available.
A character with Duelist fighting style can make the martial weapon attack with an extra +2 damage bonus
A character with Dual Wielder can do both attacks in one turn, but the shield doesn't receive a +3 strength damage bonus without TWF fighting style too.
A character with Tavern Brawler can do that shield attack as +5 to hit.
A Tier 1 character with Tavern Brawler AND Dual Wielder AND TWF fighting style AND Duelist fighting style is a pretty specialized build... we're talking a MC Fighter/Ranger/Paladin of some sort, variant human... and what math have they unlocked for this super heavy investment?
+5 1d8+5 martial weapon, followed by a bonus action +5 1d4+3 shield. Average damage of 15, if both attacks land.
That is.... banal. Unremarkable. Hardly worth getting fussed up about, and not much better than the bog-standard Lizardfolk is doing without batting an eye. Not really much better than Dual Wielder with two martial weapons would be doing (+5 1d8+3 twice, average damage 15, +1 AC) for significantly lower feat and MC investment.
If you envy the lizardfolk, go Path of the Battlerager barbarian and there's your spiky bonus action attack. If you just want every Joe and Jane Adventurer to be able to do it, that's your prerogative but let's not pretend it's not a houserule.
How is it a houserule to use two weapon fighting? It’s literally printed on every dndbeyond character sheet? Lol
Two-weapon fighting, even with Dual Wielder, requires holding in your hands two one-handed melee weapons. If you’re holding a shield, you’re not wearing it. The houserule lies in breaking the TWF requirements to be satisfied by a worn shield.
A +5 to hit 2d8+6 is a very different thing than two seperate +5 1d8+3 attacks. And that third bullet... I'm just not really tracking what you're trying to shorthand there.
Either one is an average of 9 damage vs AC 14, it's just more consistent when it's two attacks. The second bullet is "what if a feat let you attack with your shield while still retaining its AC bonus".
There's no question that lizardfolk have the ability to do that, but plenty of NPC abilities are either unavailable to PCs, or only available with specific feats, classes, or subclasses.
Two-weapon fighting, even with Dual Wielder, requires holding in your hands two one-handed melee weapons. If you’re holding a shield, you’re not wearing it. The houserule lies in breaking the TWF requirements to be satisfied by a worn shield.
As mentioned earlier, the PHB uses inconsistent language about how shields are used, but it is not clear to me that a Shield-as-shield is not held in the way a weapon is:
Shields. A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand.Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. You can benefit from only one shield at a time.
There are judgment calls a DM can make, but shields are not described in a way that mandates that each and every one of them involves some sort of worn apparatus. The closest the PHB gets to saying that you wear a shield is that you "don" a shield, which involves "put[ting] it on". "Worn" is never used once, so it's funny that that's what you'd hang your ruling on.
Getting Into and Out of Armor
The time it takes to don or doff a type of armor or a shield is shown in the Donning and Doffing Armor table.
Don. This is the time it takes to put on the item. You benefit from it's AC only if you take the full time to don it.
Either one is an average of 9 damage vs AC 14, it's just more consistent when it's two attacks. The second bullet is "what if a feat let you attack with your shield while still retaining its AC bonus".
There's no question that lizardfolk have the ability to do that, but plenty of NPC abilities are either unavailable to PCs, or only available with specific feats, classes, or subclasses.
There's no language anywhere in the PHB which suggests that you lose your +2 AC shield bonus when you attack with your shield as an improvised weapon (either on its own, or as part of a two weapon fighting bonus attack). No reason to houserule a feat to "let you" do something that already appears to be entirely legal.
Two-weapon fighting, even with Dual Wielder, requires holding in your hands two one-handed melee weapons. If you’re holding a shield, you’re not wearing it. The houserule lies in breaking the TWF requirements to be satisfied by a worn shield.
There are judgment calls a DM can make, but shields are not described in a way that mandates that each and every one of them involves some sort of worn apparatus. The closest the PHB gets to saying that you wear a shield is that you "don" a shield, which involves "put[ting] it on". "Worn" is never used once, so it's funny that that's what you'd hang your ruling on.
Your problem is that you think I'm hanging my ruling on specific terminology, which I'm not. I'm not using "worn" as a technical game term, I'm using it in its plain sense to describe what a thing is when it's been "donned" in such a way that it required your entire action to do. If I'm hanging my ruling on anything other than common sense, it's that if you can wear a shield by "holding" it, it shouldn't take an action. The fact that it does take an action is more than sufficient description that wearing them as armor requires something different from "holding." You can hold a shield, and I would absolutely allow a player to make a TWF attack with such a held shield as an improvised weapon, but it does not require an action to hold a shield, so if you're holding one, you haven't donned it. Now, are you holding a shield if you're gripping some handle and also it's strapped to your arm, like you would a Greek hoplon? I'd say no, but maybe someone else wouldn't. Maybe that's the argument you should have gone with instead of going after word choice with regard to a game that notoriously rarely actually uses specific technical language.
If you want to make silly semantic arguments, the least you could do is explain how you think "worn" is meaningfully different from "donned," whereupon I'm reasonably certain I could quite sincerely say "yeah, but what you mean by 'donned' is what I mean by 'worn,'" because, and have I got news for you, that's how language works, which is why hanging rulings on at best subtle and at worst imagined distinctions between words that are, in common parlance, used interchangeably is always a losing strategy.
There's no language anywhere in the PHB which suggests that you lose your +2 AC shield bonus when you attack with your shield as an improvised weapon (either on its own, or as part of a two weapon fighting bonus attack). No reason to houserule a feat to "let you" do something that already appears to be entirely legal.
The latter case doesn't exist; an improvised weapon is not in fact a "one-handed melee weapon" so dual wielder doesn't let you use two weapon fighting with it.
An improvised weapon is in fact a "one-handed melee weapon", because it is 1) a weapon, 2) which is used in melee, and 3) held in one hand. No definition of "one-handed melee weapon" is provided elsewhere in the PHB which would suggest it means anything other than that common sense meaning.
Saga, I'm all for your "plain sense" explanation... except that you're putting all this stock into your "plain sense" interpretation about how a Shield is held/worn, but using that interpretation to provide a technical excuse for why you shouldn't be able to bash someone with a shield as easily as you can stab them with a dagger. Your "plain sense" seems to me to ebb and flow to meet your intended outcome, not just be a commitment to the plainest and most straightforward ruling.
An improvised weapon is in fact not an actual weapon. That is right in the rule text ("Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon..." & "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon..." {note, generally a shield bears no resemblance to a weapon}). Whether you think a feature requires an actual weapon is up to you. I tend to think that game features that are about weapon use intend use with actual weapons.
And around and around we go! Improvised Weapons are a type of weapon that is introduced in Chapter 5 under weapons subheading, "weapons" is right in the name, the way that they are used in all ways relies upon and references the normal rules for weapons, none of the systems you're telling me imrovised weapons are ineligible for ask for an "actual weapon" rather than a "weapon", blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I guess everyone has a different starting point for what "plain language" means, but I will never understand the perspective that an "___ weapon" is not a type of "weapon."
Hey, I'm all for giving game terms the full weight of their meaning, when those meanings are provided by rule text. "Creatures" and "Objects" are two distinct terms, and its arguable whether "Objects" are a larger term that includes "Creatures" or if they're really alternative tags. Really warrants its own thread, there have been several on it in the past, I'm not gonna write an off the cuff dissertation on it.
"Weapons" and "Objects" are also meaningful terms, please don't take anything I wrote to mean that I don't care about that. It's just, we have a section which (I feel) explicitly tells us that "Objects" may be wielded as "Weapons," and I don't see any reason to doubt that it meant what it said or insert unwritten language to walk that proposition back.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The proposition that you might deal 1d4+Str instead of 1+Str when you punch while wearing a gauntlet, but as a tradeoff be attacking without proficiency, is not something that would worry me especially.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's most certainly within raw to declare that you attack with them as improvised weapons. At least, I can't find text preventing this specifically.
But I also don't see this as a problem. Melee combat classes have better options trough attacks with actual weapons. Or the class itself already gives unarmed attacks an increased unarmed weapon die. On top of that if you use Tavern Brawler for improvised weapon proficiency your unarmed attack already becomes 1d4 with proficiency.
For casters it's even less of an issue. The amount of times you'll be melee is low. But in the case it happens you would be using your action to do 1d4+x, instead of casting a cantrip or spell that would do way more then that.
I think all arguments kinda go out the window once your party member encounters a Lizardfolk with a Spiked Shield and uses it the exact same way they do, as a +2 AC Shield that also deals 1d6 piercing damage when used as part of an attack. Sure, one would get no Strength bonus applied to it on the attack when used as a bonus action, but it's right there in print and should be usable by anyone with a Martial proficiency.
As for a regular shield, I agree with the idea of 1d4 damage as an improvised weapon.
Monsters often have attacks that don't exactly track the action economy or other rules that players abide by... but yes, I do think its thematically persuasive that sword n' board monsters like Lizardfolk don't seem to have a problem using their shields as off hand bash attacks while keeping the AC bonus, so clutching our pearls over players doing the same seems a little disingenuous. :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Of course, they might have a special ability that lets them do so. Being able to use a bonus action for a 1d4+strength attack is certainly a strong feat, but it's not entirely out of line. For comparison at level 1 variant human fighter
A +5 to hit 2d8+6 is a very different thing than two seperate +5 1d8+3 attacks. And that third bullet... I'm just not really tracking what you're trying to shorthand there.
A Lizardfolk (standard skilled fighter of its race) routinely uses its turn to do a +4 1d6+2 (club/bite/javelin) followed by a +4 1d6+2 shield attack, while keeping the +2 AC shield bonus. Average damage of 11, if both attacks land.
Any old level 1 player character with a 16+ strength can do a +5 1d8+3 (martial melee weapon) OR a +3 1d4+3 shield attack, not both (because the Shield isn't a light weapon, and not eligible for basic TWF).
A specialized level 1 player character with fighting styles and/or feats has some slightly better math available.
A Tier 1 character with Tavern Brawler AND Dual Wielder AND TWF fighting style AND Duelist fighting style is a pretty specialized build... we're talking a MC Fighter/Ranger/Paladin of some sort, variant human... and what math have they unlocked for this super heavy investment?
+5 1d8+5 martial weapon, followed by a bonus action +5 1d4+3 shield. Average damage of 15, if both attacks land.
That is.... banal. Unremarkable. Hardly worth getting fussed up about, and not much better than the bog-standard Lizardfolk is doing without batting an eye. Not really much better than Dual Wielder with two martial weapons would be doing (+5 1d8+3 twice, average damage 15, +1 AC) for significantly lower feat and MC investment.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you envy the lizardfolk, go Path of the Battlerager barbarian and there's your spiky bonus action attack. If you just want every Joe and Jane Adventurer to be able to do it, that's your prerogative but let's not pretend it's not a houserule.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
How is it a houserule to use two weapon fighting? It’s literally printed on every dndbeyond character sheet? Lol
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Two-weapon fighting, even with Dual Wielder, requires holding in your hands two one-handed melee weapons. If you’re holding a shield, you’re not wearing it. The houserule lies in breaking the TWF requirements to be satisfied by a worn shield.
Either one is an average of 9 damage vs AC 14, it's just more consistent when it's two attacks. The second bullet is "what if a feat let you attack with your shield while still retaining its AC bonus".
There's no question that lizardfolk have the ability to do that, but plenty of NPC abilities are either unavailable to PCs, or only available with specific feats, classes, or subclasses.
As mentioned earlier, the PHB uses inconsistent language about how shields are used, but it is not clear to me that a Shield-as-shield is not held in the way a weapon is:
There are judgment calls a DM can make, but shields are not described in a way that mandates that each and every one of them involves some sort of worn apparatus. The closest the PHB gets to saying that you wear a shield is that you "don" a shield, which involves "put[ting] it on". "Worn" is never used once, so it's funny that that's what you'd hang your ruling on.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There's no language anywhere in the PHB which suggests that you lose your +2 AC shield bonus when you attack with your shield as an improvised weapon (either on its own, or as part of a two weapon fighting bonus attack). No reason to houserule a feat to "let you" do something that already appears to be entirely legal.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Your problem is that you think I'm hanging my ruling on specific terminology, which I'm not. I'm not using "worn" as a technical game term, I'm using it in its plain sense to describe what a thing is when it's been "donned" in such a way that it required your entire action to do. If I'm hanging my ruling on anything other than common sense, it's that if you can wear a shield by "holding" it, it shouldn't take an action. The fact that it does take an action is more than sufficient description that wearing them as armor requires something different from "holding." You can hold a shield, and I would absolutely allow a player to make a TWF attack with such a held shield as an improvised weapon, but it does not require an action to hold a shield, so if you're holding one, you haven't donned it. Now, are you holding a shield if you're gripping some handle and also it's strapped to your arm, like you would a Greek hoplon? I'd say no, but maybe someone else wouldn't. Maybe that's the argument you should have gone with instead of going after word choice with regard to a game that notoriously rarely actually uses specific technical language.
If you want to make silly semantic arguments, the least you could do is explain how you think "worn" is meaningfully different from "donned," whereupon I'm reasonably certain I could quite sincerely say "yeah, but what you mean by 'donned' is what I mean by 'worn,'" because, and have I got news for you, that's how language works, which is why hanging rulings on at best subtle and at worst imagined distinctions between words that are, in common parlance, used interchangeably is always a losing strategy.
The latter case doesn't exist; an improvised weapon is not in fact a "one-handed melee weapon" so dual wielder doesn't let you use two weapon fighting with it.
An improvised weapon is in fact a "one-handed melee weapon", because it is 1) a weapon, 2) which is used in melee, and 3) held in one hand. No definition of "one-handed melee weapon" is provided elsewhere in the PHB which would suggest it means anything other than that common sense meaning.
Saga, I'm all for your "plain sense" explanation... except that you're putting all this stock into your "plain sense" interpretation about how a Shield is held/worn, but using that interpretation to provide a technical excuse for why you shouldn't be able to bash someone with a shield as easily as you can stab them with a dagger. Your "plain sense" seems to me to ebb and flow to meet your intended outcome, not just be a commitment to the plainest and most straightforward ruling.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
An improvised weapon is in fact not an actual weapon. That is right in the rule text ("Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon..." & "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon..." {note, generally a shield bears no resemblance to a weapon}). Whether you think a feature requires an actual weapon is up to you. I tend to think that game features that are about weapon use intend use with actual weapons.
And around and around we go! Improvised Weapons are a type of weapon that is introduced in Chapter 5 under weapons subheading, "weapons" is right in the name, the way that they are used in all ways relies upon and references the normal rules for weapons, none of the systems you're telling me imrovised weapons are ineligible for ask for an "actual weapon" rather than a "weapon", blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I guess everyone has a different starting point for what "plain language" means, but I will never understand the perspective that an "___ weapon" is not a type of "weapon."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And around the world we go. "not weapons" are weapons. it says so in the name. Stop.
"Not weapons" are not a type of weapon that the PHB provides rules and language for use in combat. Nice disingenuous hypothetical!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.