I'm really not trying to get sucked into an antagonistic back and forth here, I'm sorry that I used flippant language earlier.
There's a difference between using section titles to impart rules that directly contradict the wording found below them (such as the notorious question of whether you can use a spell focus to replace the S component of a spell that doesn't have have an M component), and accepting that the section titles provide context for how to understand what's written below them. I fully acknowledge that what is reasonable and plain to one reader may not be reasonable and plain to another, but looking at the "Weapons" section in Chapter 5, which describes several different types of weapons, and coming across a section that describes a class of objects that are called "weapons," are used to make weapon attacks, and which perform the functions of weapons, and then arguing that they aren't weapons....
It's not that I don't see your point about them being contrasted with "actual weapons," I just think that 1) that's the only textual support for your side, 2) "actual weapons" isn't a term with significance since there are no abilities or rules anywhere that limit themselves to "actual weapons" only, and 3) your interpretation of that one sentence is in made in conflict with the whole rest of that section and the placement of that section which describes them being weapons.
It's a RAI judgment call, many tables will make it differently. But there is no clear written RAW language which tells you "an improvised weapon doesn't satisfy "weapon" requirements in abilities" or "using your shield as an improvised weapon turns off your +2 AC shield bonus," and I don't believe that a DM should go reading between the lines to find ways to tell players "no you can't do that"... especially when there's no real balance concerns to allowing the more permissive reading. Yes, the rules generally only let you do what they say you can do, but the rules DO explicitly tell us that:
"Wielding a shield increases your armor class by 2"
"Any object you can wield in one or two hands" can be used as an improvised weapon
So "I want to attack with my shield and keep my +2 AC Bonus" really doesn't seem to me to be presenting any cracks for a DM to squeeze a "no" into, unless they explicitly want to houserule in a way that nerfs their player's choices.
So "I want to attack with my shield and keep my +2 AC Bonus" really doesn't seem to me to be presenting any cracks for a DM to squeeze a "no" into, unless they explicitly want to houserule in a way that nerfs their player's choices.
If an improvised weapon is a weapon, this severely nerfs the dueling fighting style, because it means any object (including a shield) held in your off hand that could theoretically be used for an improvised weapon attack means you cannot use dueling. It seems to be the generally held opinion that it is possible to use dueling fighting style with a shield (and the High Elf Fighter sample character does so).
Dueling fighting style is probably the only place in the rulebook that if they were to have used or meant "actual weapon," that's where it would be. It's pretty clear that RAI, Duelist fighting style is intended to be used by sword n' board characters as well as by characters that use a weapon with nothing in the off hand. Trying to navigate that, plus give full faith and credit to improvised weapons (i.e., any wieldable object) being weapons, results in some fuzzy hand waiving.
Is an object, including a shield, only an Improvised Weapon while being wielded with that intent? In other words, is a Shield a weapon while you bash with it, but then not a weapon for the rest of your turn? I think yes, but that doesn't feel very clean at all, and it seems awful complex for an unwritten rule!
Is Dueling just missing language, which says "When you are wielding a melee simple or martial weapon in one hand and no other simple or martial weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."?
If an object, including a shield, is NEVER a weapon, then why are they called improvised weapons? Why not instead have a section that described making "improvised attacks" with objects or your environment, dealing 1d4 damage with no proficiency? Or, treating improvised attacks the same as unarmed attacks, a flat 1 damage? Or, just not having an improvised attack section at all?
Tighter language was needed, but not delivered. No matter where you draw the line, it feels uncomfortable. I draw the line in a way that gives the player the full benefit of the best possible interpretation.
All weapons are classified as melee or ranged according to the definition of weapons. Dueling specifically requires "wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons..." That means that holding a ranged weapon wouldn't count.
Where are improvised weapons classified as melee? It seems to me that they aren't. If all weapons are classified, and something isn't classified... seems straightforward.
Yes, every weapon is "melee" or "ranged." How do we find out whether any given weapon is classified as one or the other?
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.
Nothing suggests that the definition of "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon" is derived from the table of "most common" weapons, rather than from this simple and straightforward test.
Improvised weapons are used to make melee attacks, or are thrown with a range of 20/60. So if you're swinging one in melee, it's a melee improvised weapon. If you're throwing it, it's a ranged improvised weapon.
Yes, every weapon is "melee" or "ranged." How do we find out whether any given weapon is classified as one or the other?
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.
Nothing suggests that the definition of "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon" is derived from the table of "most common" weapons, rather than from this simple and straightforward test.
Nothing suggest that you quoted the definition either, just a description of how each works. But we know that the weapons in the tables are each classified. The table might not be the definition of the classification, but it does meet the function of classification.
Improvised weapons are used to make melee attacks, or are thrown with a range of 20/60. So if you're swinging one in melee, it's a melee improvised weapon. If you're throwing it, it's a ranged improvised weapon.
But a ranged weapon can be used to make an improvised melee attack. Does that mean that it isn't a ranged weapon anymore because it is an improvised melee weapon?
So you can't ever qualify for dueling anyway, because melee weapons are improved ranged weapons? And the same with improvised ranged light weapons and two weapon fighting?
Is an object, including a shield, only an Improvised Weapon while being wielded with that intent? In other words, is a Shield a weapon while you bash with it, but then not a weapon for the rest of your turn? I think yes, but that doesn't feel very clean at all, and it seems awful complex for an unwritten rule!
I think, yes, an improvised weapon is only a weapon at the point you use it to make an attack (unless it happens to be weapon for other reasons), at which point it is whatever type of weapon that matches the attack you are making.
Thus, a longbow is normally a martial ranged weapon, but if you hit someone with it, it temporarily changes its type to improvised melee weapon, but it reverts to its normal type when the attack finishes.
No, because again, I'm begrudgingly comfortable with improvised weapons only being improvised weapons while being used as improvised weapons, and at all other times, being whatever object they normally are. It sucks, but it's really not all THAT different from arbitrarily deciding whether you're "wielding" or "holding" a conventional weapon: Monks don't lose their Martial Arts features just because they pick up their ally's dropped greatsword, but if they take a swing with it, they do for some span of time.... the rest of their turn? The entire round? Until they drop it again? Just while that attack is being made? Absent any guidance, I go with the last option, which is least punitive to the player: just while that attack is being made.
Improvised Weapons are the same, they are weapons just while the attack is being made.
Improvised Weapons are the same, they are weapons just while the attack is being made.
Which prevents making an off hand attack with a shield (because it is not a weapon at the time you attack with your main hand weapon, and thus the trigger for two weapon fighting does not apply), though it might work if you were using your action to attack with your shield (though that means your main weapon suffers from off hand weapon penalties, and also doesn't benefit from dueling style).
That is a good technical argument. I would be inclined to agree that to use a Shield IW attack in a TWF rotation, you'd need to lead with the Shield being part of the Attack action.
However, given that lizardfolk are allowed to use combos such as 'bite/shield' (and add proficiency bonus to both), which no combination of feats will allow with TWF, but cannot use the same weapon twice (so they don't just have extra attack), they clearly have a unique power.
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.
As someone who has spent far too long studying medieval combat forms and tactics (both recreationally and scholastically), I can tell you that a shield is a versatile object capable of being both a defensive implement and a weapon, and switch between the two with relative ease.
For purposes of terminology however, a shield is... Held. Because shield's have a handle that allows the bearer to secure and control the angle via wrist positioning. Donned. Because it takes 3-5 seconds to secure the strap, preventing it from being able to be knocked away with a jarring hit. Worn. Because it takes another 3-5 seconds to undo the strap, allowing it to be released.
One thing that bothers me in 5e is the simplicity of the shield. I think that's a major failing point. From light bucklers, to round shields, to spiked shields, to tower shields - they all serve different purposes and give different capabilities. For example, one could argue that a Tower Shield should bestow either additional AC, or provide AC bonuses with up to 2 additional adjacent Tower Shields. A buckler is a light shield that it expressly worn and not wielded, leaving a 2nd hand free for use while reducing the defensive benefit. A traditional 5lb - 6lb shield with metal spikes on the fore and lower sides could be used as a piercing weapon offhanded.
The easiest solution I've come across in fixing this, rather than remedying the issue via mechanics, is to just create items.
Shield Buckler is "wondrous item" worn on one arm of choice, and provides a +1 bonus to AC so long as the bearer isn't wielding a shield. (Thus leaving the off-hand free to dual wield without restriction)
Spiked Shield is a lighter shield that provides +1 AC, and is treated as a light weapon requiring martial proficiency to use for purposes of dual wielding, dealing 1d6 piercing damage. (In the hands of a "Dual Wielder" it adds that +1 AC from the feat, because it's treated as a light weapon, to make it as good as a normal shield and still gets the dual-wielding benefit) Tower Shield is a heavy shield that provides +3 AC, reduces movement by 5-feet, and provides half cover against ranged attacks. It requires 2 rounds to don/doff.
Much easier than having the argument over and over again as to why or why not my players can't use a shield the way they want in a way that makes mechanical sense, but is vague in the RAW.
The historical "held vs worn" shield debate is not something I would hinge this rule on. At the end of the day, what's important is the 5E rule system, not a realistic simulation of historical shields, which has never in any edition of D&D been particularly relevant.
But, that being said! I like your new shield items, to give more granularity to shield use. Could debate the balance one way or the other, but it's a good approach for a DM interested in opening those options up to their players, rather than worrying about whether strangers on the internet agree about the RAW of shield use.
Making a buckler leave your hand entirely free makes it just a free +1 AC. To make it a real choice, I'd probably say something like
Small Shields: small shields only grant +1 AC (instead of +2) and are half weight, but gain one of the following benefits
Can be readied with a Use Object action (to draw it), instead of requiring a Don action.
Allows using your off hand for simple actions. If the action requires a check or attack, you have disadvantage, and you may not use it for somatic components.
Counts as a weapon. It is considered a 1d4 Simple Light weapon, or if spiked, a 1d6 Martial Light weapon.
All of these options seem 'good enough to consider but not an automatic choice', which is a good place for new options.
The easiest solution I've come across in fixing this, rather than remedying the issue via mechanics, is to just create items.
Shield Buckler is "wondrous item" worn on one arm of choice, and provides a +1 bonus to AC so long as the bearer isn't wielding a shield. (Thus leaving the off-hand free to dual wield without restriction)
Spiked Shield is a lighter shield that provides +1 AC, and is treated as a light weapon requiring martial proficiency to use for purposes of dual wielding, dealing 1d6 piercing damage. (In the hands of a "Dual Wielder" it adds that +1 AC from the feat, because it's treated as a light weapon, to make it as good as a normal shield and still gets the dual-wielding benefit) Tower Shield is a heavy shield that provides +3 AC, reduces movement by 5-feet, and provides half cover against ranged attacks. It requires 2 rounds to don/doff.
Much easier than having the argument over and over again as to why or why not my players can't use a shield the way they want in a way that makes mechanical sense, but is vague in the RAW.
Earlier versions of D&D had the wide range of shield types available. You could simply pull in those rules if you want a range of shields in your campaigns.
But a ranged weapon can be used to make an improvised melee attack. Does that mean that it isn't a ranged weapon anymore because it is an improvised melee weapon?
This is correct as intended. In fact, a ranged weapon used in this way loses its other weapon properties as well. Therefore, a heavy crossbow loses the heavy property when used for melee and is incompatible with Great Weapon Master's second bullet point. And likewise, proficiency with a longsword will not make it compatible with the sharpshooter feat if you throw it. After weighing in on this some time ago and thinking about it quite a bit, I feel that the intention is for a shield not to be compatible with the dual wielder feat unless the DM rules that it resembles a melee weapon in function and form based on how the character is using it. It's a subjective decision backed explicitly by the written rules, so your results will vary.
But a ranged weapon can be used to make an improvised melee attack. Does that mean that it isn't a ranged weapon anymore because it is an improvised melee weapon?
This is correct as intended. In fact, a ranged weapon used in this way loses its other weapon properties as well. Therefore, a heavy crossbow loses the heavy property when used for melee and is incompatible with Great Weapon Master's second bullet point. And likewise, proficiency with a longsword will not make it compatible with the sharpshooter feat if you throw it. After weighing in on this some time ago and thinking about it quite a bit, I feel that the intention is for a shield not to be compatible with the dual wielder feat unless the DM rules that it resembles a melee weapon in function and form based on how the character is using it. It's a subjective decision backed explicitly by the written rules, so your results will vary.
I'm not sure they really lose their weapon properties, vs. just changing their damage dice and losing your proficiency bonus. It may be intended, but the GWM-Tavern Brawler Kensai is a legit RAW build in my eyes.
And section titles don't describe rules, its the rules inside that do. Nice disingenuous reading!
I'm really not trying to get sucked into an antagonistic back and forth here, I'm sorry that I used flippant language earlier.
There's a difference between using section titles to impart rules that directly contradict the wording found below them (such as the notorious question of whether you can use a spell focus to replace the S component of a spell that doesn't have have an M component), and accepting that the section titles provide context for how to understand what's written below them. I fully acknowledge that what is reasonable and plain to one reader may not be reasonable and plain to another, but looking at the "Weapons" section in Chapter 5, which describes several different types of weapons, and coming across a section that describes a class of objects that are called "weapons," are used to make weapon attacks, and which perform the functions of weapons, and then arguing that they aren't weapons....
It's not that I don't see your point about them being contrasted with "actual weapons," I just think that 1) that's the only textual support for your side, 2) "actual weapons" isn't a term with significance since there are no abilities or rules anywhere that limit themselves to "actual weapons" only, and 3) your interpretation of that one sentence is in made in conflict with the whole rest of that section and the placement of that section which describes them being weapons.
It's a RAI judgment call, many tables will make it differently. But there is no clear written RAW language which tells you "an improvised weapon doesn't satisfy "weapon" requirements in abilities" or "using your shield as an improvised weapon turns off your +2 AC shield bonus," and I don't believe that a DM should go reading between the lines to find ways to tell players "no you can't do that"... especially when there's no real balance concerns to allowing the more permissive reading. Yes, the rules generally only let you do what they say you can do, but the rules DO explicitly tell us that:
So "I want to attack with my shield and keep my +2 AC Bonus" really doesn't seem to me to be presenting any cracks for a DM to squeeze a "no" into, unless they explicitly want to houserule in a way that nerfs their player's choices.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If an improvised weapon is a weapon, this severely nerfs the dueling fighting style, because it means any object (including a shield) held in your off hand that could theoretically be used for an improvised weapon attack means you cannot use dueling. It seems to be the generally held opinion that it is possible to use dueling fighting style with a shield (and the High Elf Fighter sample character does so).
Dueling fighting style is probably the only place in the rulebook that if they were to have used or meant "actual weapon," that's where it would be. It's pretty clear that RAI, Duelist fighting style is intended to be used by sword n' board characters as well as by characters that use a weapon with nothing in the off hand. Trying to navigate that, plus give full faith and credit to improvised weapons (i.e., any wieldable object) being weapons, results in some fuzzy hand waiving.
Tighter language was needed, but not delivered. No matter where you draw the line, it feels uncomfortable. I draw the line in a way that gives the player the full benefit of the best possible interpretation.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
All weapons are classified as melee or ranged according to the definition of weapons. Dueling specifically requires "wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons..." That means that holding a ranged weapon wouldn't count.
Where are improvised weapons classified as melee? It seems to me that they aren't. If all weapons are classified, and something isn't classified... seems straightforward.
Yes, every weapon is "melee" or "ranged." How do we find out whether any given weapon is classified as one or the other?
Nothing suggests that the definition of "melee weapon" or "ranged weapon" is derived from the table of "most common" weapons, rather than from this simple and straightforward test.
Improvised weapons are used to make melee attacks, or are thrown with a range of 20/60. So if you're swinging one in melee, it's a melee improvised weapon. If you're throwing it, it's a ranged improvised weapon.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nothing suggest that you quoted the definition either, just a description of how each works. But we know that the weapons in the tables are each classified. The table might not be the definition of the classification, but it does meet the function of classification.
But a ranged weapon can be used to make an improvised melee attack. Does that mean that it isn't a ranged weapon anymore because it is an improvised melee weapon?
Yup :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So you can't ever qualify for dueling anyway, because melee weapons are improved ranged weapons? And the same with improvised ranged light weapons and two weapon fighting?
I think, yes, an improvised weapon is only a weapon at the point you use it to make an attack (unless it happens to be weapon for other reasons), at which point it is whatever type of weapon that matches the attack you are making.
Thus, a longbow is normally a martial ranged weapon, but if you hit someone with it, it temporarily changes its type to improvised melee weapon, but it reverts to its normal type when the attack finishes.
No, because again, I'm begrudgingly comfortable with improvised weapons only being improvised weapons while being used as improvised weapons, and at all other times, being whatever object they normally are. It sucks, but it's really not all THAT different from arbitrarily deciding whether you're "wielding" or "holding" a conventional weapon: Monks don't lose their Martial Arts features just because they pick up their ally's dropped greatsword, but if they take a swing with it, they do for some span of time.... the rest of their turn? The entire round? Until they drop it again? Just while that attack is being made? Absent any guidance, I go with the last option, which is least punitive to the player: just while that attack is being made.
Improvised Weapons are the same, they are weapons just while the attack is being made.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Which prevents making an off hand attack with a shield (because it is not a weapon at the time you attack with your main hand weapon, and thus the trigger for two weapon fighting does not apply), though it might work if you were using your action to attack with your shield (though that means your main weapon suffers from off hand weapon penalties, and also doesn't benefit from dueling style).
That is a good technical argument. I would be inclined to agree that to use a Shield IW attack in a TWF rotation, you'd need to lead with the Shield being part of the Attack action.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
However, given that lizardfolk are allowed to use combos such as 'bite/shield' (and add proficiency bonus to both), which no combination of feats will allow with TWF, but cannot use the same weapon twice (so they don't just have extra attack), they clearly have a unique power.
As someone who has spent far too long studying medieval combat forms and tactics (both recreationally and scholastically), I can tell you that a shield is a versatile object capable of being both a defensive implement and a weapon, and switch between the two with relative ease.
For purposes of terminology however, a shield is...
Held. Because shield's have a handle that allows the bearer to secure and control the angle via wrist positioning.
Donned. Because it takes 3-5 seconds to secure the strap, preventing it from being able to be knocked away with a jarring hit.
Worn. Because it takes another 3-5 seconds to undo the strap, allowing it to be released.
One thing that bothers me in 5e is the simplicity of the shield. I think that's a major failing point. From light bucklers, to round shields, to spiked shields, to tower shields - they all serve different purposes and give different capabilities. For example, one could argue that a Tower Shield should bestow either additional AC, or provide AC bonuses with up to 2 additional adjacent Tower Shields. A buckler is a light shield that it expressly worn and not wielded, leaving a 2nd hand free for use while reducing the defensive benefit. A traditional 5lb - 6lb shield with metal spikes on the fore and lower sides could be used as a piercing weapon offhanded.
The easiest solution I've come across in fixing this, rather than remedying the issue via mechanics, is to just create items.
Shield Buckler is "wondrous item" worn on one arm of choice, and provides a +1 bonus to AC so long as the bearer isn't wielding a shield. (Thus leaving the off-hand free to dual wield without restriction)
Spiked Shield is a lighter shield that provides +1 AC, and is treated as a light weapon requiring martial proficiency to use for purposes of dual wielding, dealing 1d6 piercing damage. (In the hands of a "Dual Wielder" it adds that +1 AC from the feat, because it's treated as a light weapon, to make it as good as a normal shield and still gets the dual-wielding benefit)
Tower Shield is a heavy shield that provides +3 AC, reduces movement by 5-feet, and provides half cover against ranged attacks. It requires 2 rounds to don/doff.
Much easier than having the argument over and over again as to why or why not my players can't use a shield the way they want in a way that makes mechanical sense, but is vague in the RAW.
The historical "held vs worn" shield debate is not something I would hinge this rule on. At the end of the day, what's important is the 5E rule system, not a realistic simulation of historical shields, which has never in any edition of D&D been particularly relevant.
But, that being said! I like your new shield items, to give more granularity to shield use. Could debate the balance one way or the other, but it's a good approach for a DM interested in opening those options up to their players, rather than worrying about whether strangers on the internet agree about the RAW of shield use.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Making a buckler leave your hand entirely free makes it just a free +1 AC. To make it a real choice, I'd probably say something like
All of these options seem 'good enough to consider but not an automatic choice', which is a good place for new options.
Earlier versions of D&D had the wide range of shield types available. You could simply pull in those rules if you want a range of shields in your campaigns.
This is correct as intended. In fact, a ranged weapon used in this way loses its other weapon properties as well. Therefore, a heavy crossbow loses the heavy property when used for melee and is incompatible with Great Weapon Master's second bullet point. And likewise, proficiency with a longsword will not make it compatible with the sharpshooter feat if you throw it. After weighing in on this some time ago and thinking about it quite a bit, I feel that the intention is for a shield not to be compatible with the dual wielder feat unless the DM rules that it resembles a melee weapon in function and form based on how the character is using it. It's a subjective decision backed explicitly by the written rules, so your results will vary.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm not sure they really lose their weapon properties, vs. just changing their damage dice and losing your proficiency bonus. It may be intended, but the GWM-Tavern Brawler Kensai is a legit RAW build in my eyes.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.