A player and I are debating a fighters ability to use the Dueling style while wielding a spiked shield. The rule states that dueling works while not wielding a weapon in off hand. A shield is ok in its self but the spiked shield has a damage stat so would that cancel the dueling damage on the main hand.
So if not, are you playing RAW or is a Spiked Shield a statted home brew item? If home brew or player a Lizardfolk then if it is classified as a weapon all the time. If RAW, if the player uses it as an improvised weapon in that round, no Duelist, if they do not use it as a weapon, Duelist applies. Player gets to choose to increased damage on a hit versus having another chance to hit.
rules as intended, my interpretation, if the player has all the benefits of wielding a weapon.... then they are wielding a weapon.
Consider a round where the player benefited from a spiked shield bonus action. The opponent then decides to use its movement and incurs an attack of opportunity. Does said AoO include the dueling bonus? Does that change if the player had not used the spiked shield? If the player had a dagger in both hands but elected not use the bonus action to attack with the "other weapon" would bend the rules?
sum up - spiked shields are wielded weapons for the purpose of dueling style benefits (IMO)
Either way it is homebrew. The lizardfolk monster has a spiked shield, but the playable race doesn't.
Since it is homebrew it is really up to DM. I would say since it is not that different than using a shield as an improvised weapon, they can't benefit from dueling and the shield damage on the same turn, but can benefit from dueling as long as the shield is only contributing AC (basically what pedroig said). This is not RAW, nor is it against the RAW, nothing in the rules addresses items that are weapons part of the time (like improvised weapons or staves).
It has been stated in SAC that using a shield as a weapon does not take away the AC bonus, so there is that...
I would rule that As Intended the spiked shield is intended to provide a damage dealing benefit to the off-hand and therefore the Duelist should not also be used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I would rule that As Intended the spiked shield is intended to provide a damage dealing benefit to the off-hand and therefore the Duelist should not also be used.
There is no RAI because there is no Spiked Shield in the rules. So however the Homebrew was designed becomes the As Intended
I would rule that As Intended the spiked shield is intended to provide a damage dealing benefit to the off-hand and therefore the Duelist should not also be used.
There is no RAI because there is no Spiked Shield in the rules. So however the Homebrew was designed becomes the As Intended
Well explain it to me ...
Is the intent of the Duelist to allow a one weapon dealing fighter have a benefit of +2 in AC?
Is the purpose of having a "spiked shield" to permit a character to have a bonus to AC AND potentially deal damage?
It seems to me there are rules being interpreted. Now it may be that the 'rules' for spiked shield are not written in a published text, but that doesn't mean to me there are no rules for how a player may use a spiked shield. It seems to me if there are no rules for a spiked shield, then there is no spiked shield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Is the intent of the Duelist to allow a one weapon dealing fighter have a benefit of +2 in AC?
No. The intent of duelist fighting style is to do 2 more damage with 1 handed weapons. What they do with the other hand is irrelevant (as long as it is not holding a weapon) be it used to hold a shield or cast spells.
Is the purpose of having a "spiked shield" to permit a character to have a bonus to AC AND potentially deal damage?
Presumably. It is homebrew so it depends on what the homebrew says it does.
It seems to me there are rules being interpreted. Now it may be that the 'rules' for spiked shield are not written in a published text, but that doesn't mean to me there are no rules for how a player may use a spiked shield. It seems to me if there are no rules for a spiked shield, then there is no spiked shield.
The only rules being interpreted are the fighting style. No rules for the homebrew spiked shield have been provided to be interpreted.
Simply put, if the spiked shield says it is a weapon with whatever properties (hopefully light if it is intended to make a 2WF BA attack) and does whatever damage, then it is a weapon and there is no duelist bonus. If the spiked shield simply says you can use your action or bonus action or whatever to attack for whatever damage, then it is not a weapon and duelist still applies to the main weapon.
But we don't know that. All we know is that the OP posted in the forum where we discuss official rules and asked a question that doesn't have an answer in the official rules and never provided any additional details.
I’m guessing that the DM has a houserule that effectively lets one “dual-wield” with the shield as an improvised weapon, and the shield has the spiked property which would allow it to deal piercing instead of bludgeoning? 🤷♂️
A player and I are debating a fighters ability to use the Dueling style while wielding a spiked shield. The rule states that dueling works while not wielding a weapon in off hand. A shield is ok in its self but the spiked shield has a damage stat so would that cancel the dueling damage on the main hand.
Is the player a Lizardfolk?
So if not, are you playing RAW or is a Spiked Shield a statted home brew item? If home brew or player a Lizardfolk then if it is classified as a weapon all the time. If RAW, if the player uses it as an improvised weapon in that round, no Duelist, if they do not use it as a weapon, Duelist applies. Player gets to choose to increased damage on a hit versus having another chance to hit.
rules as intended, my interpretation, if the player has all the benefits of wielding a weapon.... then they are wielding a weapon.
Consider a round where the player benefited from a spiked shield bonus action. The opponent then decides to use its movement and incurs an attack of opportunity. Does said AoO include the dueling bonus? Does that change if the player had not used the spiked shield? If the player had a dagger in both hands but elected not use the bonus action to attack with the "other weapon" would bend the rules?
sum up - spiked shields are wielded weapons for the purpose of dueling style benefits (IMO)
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Either way it is homebrew. The lizardfolk monster has a spiked shield, but the playable race doesn't.
Since it is homebrew it is really up to DM. I would say since it is not that different than using a shield as an improvised weapon, they can't benefit from dueling and the shield damage on the same turn, but can benefit from dueling as long as the shield is only contributing AC (basically what pedroig said). This is not RAW, nor is it against the RAW, nothing in the rules addresses items that are weapons part of the time (like improvised weapons or staves).
It has been stated in SAC that using a shield as a weapon does not take away the AC bonus, so there is that...
I would rule that As Intended the spiked shield is intended to provide a damage dealing benefit to the off-hand and therefore the Duelist should not also be used.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
There is no RAI because there is no Spiked Shield in the rules. So however the Homebrew was designed becomes the As Intended
I guess for me it would depend on if they use their bonus action for two-weapon fighting with the shield in that round.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well explain it to me ...
Is the intent of the Duelist to allow a one weapon dealing fighter have a benefit of +2 in AC?
Is the purpose of having a "spiked shield" to permit a character to have a bonus to AC AND potentially deal damage?
It seems to me there are rules being interpreted. Now it may be that the 'rules' for spiked shield are not written in a published text, but that doesn't mean to me there are no rules for how a player may use a spiked shield. It seems to me if there are no rules for a spiked shield, then there is no spiked shield.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Exactly
No. The intent of duelist fighting style is to do 2 more damage with 1 handed weapons. What they do with the other hand is irrelevant (as long as it is not holding a weapon) be it used to hold a shield or cast spells.
Presumably. It is homebrew so it depends on what the homebrew says it does.
The only rules being interpreted are the fighting style. No rules for the homebrew spiked shield have been provided to be interpreted.
Simply put, if the spiked shield says it is a weapon with whatever properties (hopefully light if it is intended to make a 2WF BA attack) and does whatever damage, then it is a weapon and there is no duelist bonus. If the spiked shield simply says you can use your action or bonus action or whatever to attack for whatever damage, then it is not a weapon and duelist still applies to the main weapon.
But we don't know that. All we know is that the OP posted in the forum where we discuss official rules and asked a question that doesn't have an answer in the official rules and never provided any additional details.
I’m guessing that the DM has a houserule that effectively lets one “dual-wield” with the shield as an improvised weapon, and the shield has the spiked property which would allow it to deal piercing instead of bludgeoning? 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting