D&D 5E Question about magical shields...

[Kithas]

Stop for a moment there. By that thought if I pick up Tavern Brawler it would negate the effect of the Dueling Fighting style. It will definately do so, when I use my shield for a bonus action attack on my turn while attacking with my sword primarily. But as long as I do not use my shield like that Dueling will still be applied (to my sword attacks). Now, when I use my shield as a weapon during my attack action while having my other hand free I do not see any reason why Dueling should not be granted.
Dueling needs a weapon. There are 3 categories at least, not two. Simple, martial and improvised.
I do not see any line in the paragraph, stating that improvised weapons do not count as weapons when used with spells/effects. Further I do not see, where this might be abusive.

Tavern brawler makes you proficient with improvised weapons, it does not alter how they are treated rules wise. Im not sure how you are using your shield to attack with a bonus action, two weapon fighting?
The reason that it becomes abusive is that with a longsword and a shield with the dual wielder feat you get a +1 to your ac and get an offhand attack, it becomes by far the best option in the book. It also allows for the silliness that is double shield wielding, +5 to your ac and the equivalent of dual wielding clubs? I hope you can see why this is an issue.

 

[the_move]

I was not only referring to Tavern Brawler, but the paragraph "Improvised Weapons". Shields were used offensively in a fight, and they can hurt, too! Shield Master does not cover that, since a shield bash proning someone would definately leave it's marks on him. A shield bash shoving someone might also leave him stumbling and off-balance for a brief moment, leaving him open for an attack (advantage). As a matter of fact this is how shields were used in a real fight, not only as a means to parry and cover.

That would also be stuff for an extra sub-class. A true sword-and-board fighter, gaining special maneuvers like the battle master, but tailor-made for his shield usage alongside a one-handed melee weapon.

However using two shields simultaneously is impracticable, as shields are heavy (in D&D they have the same weight as two-handers, so they can't be the size of a buckler either) and bulky. Complex maneuvers would therefore not be possible during fencing and it would slow you down massively. Otherwise people would have used that during medieval times. But crushing a shield on a proned enemy would not require that much finesse and would certainly be quite effective.

 

[Kithas]

I was not only referring to Tavern Brawler, but the paragraph "Improvised Weapons". Shields were used offensively in a fight, and they can hurt, too! Shield Master does not cover that, since a shield bash proning someone would definately leave it's marks on him. A shield bash shoving someone might also leave him stumbling and off-balance for a brief moment, leaving him open for an attack (advantage). As a matter of fact this is how shields were used in a real fight, not only as a means to parry and cover.

That would also be stuff for an extra sub-class. A true sword-and-board fighter, gaining special maneuvers like the battle master, but tailor-made for his shield usage alongside a one-handed melee weapon.

However using two shields simultaneously is impracticable, as shields are heavy (in D&D they have the same weight as two-handers, so they can't be the size of a buckler either) and bulky. Complex maneuvers would therefor not be possible during fencing and it would slow you down massively. Otherwise people would have used that during medieval times. But crushing a shield on a proned enemy would not require that much finesse and would certainly be quite effective.

The issue we are having is that you seem to have a thematic mechanically dependant concept that you are needing backup that it will work, I cant give you that. I agree that 5e shields are super limited and not super realistic, but this not being the homebrew forum the most I can tell you is 'talk to your dm'.

 

[Blue]

The reason that it becomes abusive is that with a longsword and a shield with the dual wielder feat you get a +1 to your ac and get an offhand attack, it becomes by far the best option in the book.

Let's break this down. Sword & shield with ...

No feats: +2 AC. Sword normal attack, shield 1d4 improvised weapon attack as bonus action without proficiency to hit or Str to damage.

(Here's the Sage advice that you can make an improvised attack and keep the +2 AC: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/17/shield-attack/)

Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder Feat: +3 AC. Sword normal attack, shield 1d4 improvised weapon attack as bonus action.

So spending the two feats gives you an extra +1 AC and your bonus action offhand d4 attack gets proficiency and Str to damage.


That's just about the same as Polearm Master and Medium Armor Mastery. Except you get more base damage from a polearm, 10' reach, and ability to make attacks of opportunity against anyone entering your each.

In other words, it's a bit weaker than what two feats would get you otherwise.

Sounds good to me.

 

[the_move]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/717564235916574720

@Blue
Sry, but I fail to see, how Dual Wielder and/or Tavern Brawler will give you a Str bonus to your shield damage while using sword and shield for attacking. Afaik only the TWF fighting style does that. What you do get is the proficiency bonus on attack rolls for your shield attacks (Tavern Brawler) and the allowance to use one-handed weapons that aren't light (Dual Wielder).

However this would make the sword-shield dual wield story even less desirable. While you have to invest into TWF to get your Str bonus with your off-hand attack, while the PAM can either up his damage (GWF) or his armor class (Defense) with his fighting style, provided he is a fighter/ranger/paladin, the latter having no access to TWF fighting style anyway.

 

[Kithas]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/717564235916574720

@Blue
Sry, but I fail to see, how Dual Wielder and/or Tavern Brawler will give you a Str bonus to your shield damage while using sword and shield for attacking. Afaik only the TWF fighting style does that. What you do get is the proficiency bonus on attack rolls for your shield attacks (Tavern Brawler) and the allowance to use one-handed weapons that aren't light (Dual Wielder).

However this would make the sword-shield dual wield story even less desirable. While you have to invest into TWF to get your Str bonus with your off-hand attack, while the PAM can either up his damage (GWF) or his armor class (Defense) with his fighting style, provided he is a fighter/ranger/paladin, the latter having no access to TWF fighting style anyway.

Rangers don't have access to gwf.
Aside from that I take issue with how mearls and crawford are treating improvised weapons. They are saying that they are a weapon when you want them to be(twf, dueling, booming blade) and not a weapon when you don't want them to be(Dueling, +2ac). Generally any rule that lets you have your cake and eat it too is not good balance wise, there is no cost to choosing it.
Here's the breakdown (level6 16 str)
Longsword and shield dueling fighting style
2*(1d8+5)=19
Polearm Master(gwf)
2*(1d10+3)+(1d4+3)=23.5
Dual wielding Longswords(twf)
3*(1d8+3)=22.5
Greatsword(gwf)
2*(2d6+3)=22
---
Longsword and Shield(twf)
2*(1d8+3)+(1d4+3)=20.5
Longsword and Shield(twf and Dueling)
2*(1d8+5)+(1d4+3)=24.5

Dual Shields(twf)
3*(1d4+3)=16.5
Dual Shields(Dueling)
2*(1d4+5)+(1d4+2)=19.5
Dual Shields(Dueling and twf)
3*(1d4+5)=22.5

As you can see because you get to choose when the shields count as weapons you can actually use two weapon fighting and Dueling. Obviously these were not intended to be used together but this interpretation allows for this. In the examples the twf version of the longsword/shield(with or without dueling) and the final 2 versions of double shield are easily on par if not higher(twf+dueling ls+shield was highest) in damage and much better in ac than any other option available. If I had to pick solely on the numbers and didn't know what weapons they were I would always pick the two clubs that give me a +5ac total and a free +1shield strapped to a club that only counts as a weapon when I want it to. Two feats is a very small price to pay for this kind of thing.

 

[the_move]

Yeah, Ranger has no access to, GWF,...but Defense.

Further you can't use TWF and Dueling in the same turn, since Dueling is negated by default as soon as you use an object held in your off-hand to attack. You can't attack and include the Dueling bonus to your attacks' damage rolls and then do a bonus action attack with your off-hand and switch to TWF, just as you please. And when you had already used Dueling with your main attack(s) a wary DM would just not allow you to do your off-hand attack. Working as intended.

Also, what is this about shields strapped on clubs? Since you can't even strap/place a tiny arcane focus on a weapon, how shall you strap a 6 pound shield on a 2 pound club. And a shield may deal a d4, as it is suggested in the Improvised Paragraph.

 

[Kithas]

Yeah, Ranger has no access to, GWF,...but Defense.

Further you can't use TWF and Dueling in the same turn, since Dueling is negated by default as soon as you use an object held in your off-hand to attack. You can't attack and include the Dueling bonus to your attacks' damage rolls and then do a bonus action attack with your off-hand and switch to TWF, just as you please. And when you had already used Dueling with your main attack(s) a wary DM would just not allow you to do your off-hand attack. Working as intended.

Also, what is this about shields strapped on clubs? Since you can't even strap/place a tiny arcane focus on a weapon, how shall you strap a 6 pound shield on a 2 pound club. And a shield may deal a d4, as it is suggested in the Improvised Paragraph.

I was comparing them to clubs since they both do 1d4 damage, sorry that wasn't clear.

The dueling fighting style;
"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 to damage rolls with that weapon."
So here's how that turn goes, two shields example;
Attack action, I use the shield in my right hand as an improvised weapon, the shield in my off hand isn't a weapon so I can use dueling. Bonus action since I attacked with a one handed melee weapon on my turn I can attack with another one, even if it's improvised, now. Since I'm not currently attacking with it the shield in my right hand isn't a weapon so I am wielding a one handed melee weapon and no other weapons, meeting the requirements for dueling.
I agree that this is clearly not what is intended and no dm in their right mind should allow this. In fact that is exactly what I am trying to point out. That willy nilly getting to decide when a shield is and is not a weapon is a terrible idea rules wise! However that is exactly what the sage advice from crawford and mike mearls tweets are implying.

Actually since as they put it an improvised weapon only becomes a weapon when you attack with it you can do this with literally anything you can hold in one hand. That isn't on the weapons list ofc.


What I would do for you if you were at my table, and honestly the only way I can conceive of a balanced version of this; Create a new item
Fighting Shield
light one-handed martial weapon
1d4 Bludgeoning damage
+1 ac

This means that it is always a weapon, inferior in defense to a normal shield, because you aren't using it solely for defense, and because fighting shields were generally smaller I consider it light. This creates a balanced and interesting option for beefy damage dealers in melee.

 

[Blue]

You're right, I conflated Dual Wielder and Two Weapon Fighting in my head.

But since my point was that it wasn't overpowered and this just makes it weaker, it makes my primary point even stronger as you point out.

 

[the_move]

@Kithas

Your explanation is missing something. When you use something as/like an improvised weapon, it becomes a weapon (to you). So you can't say you are dual wielding two shields as weapons and gaining the TWF benefit and be able to use BB/GFB, while simultaneously stating it is not a weapon in order to gain the benefit of the Dueling Fighting style on the same turn.

Same with sword and board. When you attacked with your sword and used the benefit of the Dueling fighting style, you can't simply switch within your turn and say: "The shield is now an improvised weapon and I attack with it as a bonus action and TWF."

So either you do your attacks with your sword only and benefit from Dueling, or you use both sword and shield as weapons and profit from Dual Wield and TWF. But not Dual Wield, TWF and Dueling all rolled into one.