D&D 5E Dual wielding and improvised weapons. Technically broken?

[S_Dalsgaard]

Seeing some of the posts here makes me think, that the way I imagine someone using a shield as an improvised weapon differs from how other people see it. When I imagine an attack with a shield, I see the wielder making a wild swing with it, which then makes him wide open for attacks. As someone described it, he saw it as more of a push (to get someone of a bridge, I think), in which case it makes sense to retain the bonus to AC, but in that case I wouldn't let it do any damage. I think that if you bash hard enough with a shield for it to count as an improvised weapon attack, you are leaving yourself more open to counter attacks in that round. This is of course IMHO and YMMV.

 

[DMCF]

I'd allow it. Keeping shield AC makes sense to me. If I bash someone with a massive shield they are going to have their angles taken away making the attack more difficult. Is it OP? There's enough sharp shooter / TWF arguments out there and this effectively makes styles other than TWF an "I Win" button for a lot of power gamers.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Watch a few episodes of Vikings and you'll quickly see how a shield can fluidly move between offense and defense.

For all the constant whining about GWM being too good compared to other fighting styles, it seems strange to have a buff to sword and board and people are looking for any excuse to shoot it down. But then again, v-tude has always been used as an excuse to prevent martials from having nice things...

 

[Sunseeker]

But should that do the unarmed strike damage in the weapon chart? Or would it deal improvised weapon damage if the person chinning was wearing a helmet or circlet?

If you are unarmed, it is an unarmed strike. Personally I don't care what part of their body a monk hits you with. As for everyone else, if the body part in question is unadorned, it is an unarmed strike, if it is not, it is an improvised weapon.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

As for everyone else, if the body part in question is unadorned, it is an unarmed strike, if it is not, it is an improvised weapon.

Would you allow a Wizard taking Dual Wielder feat and wearing a glove on their offhand to get +1 AC that stacks with Mage Armour and doesn't interfere with spellcasting?

Slightly related - How about the Wizard holding their arcane focus in their offhand?

Would you allow a Fighter taking the Dual Wielder feat and holding a beer mug or wine bottle in their offhand to get +1 AC? How about that same fighter with nothing in their offhand but wearing armoured gauntlets?

RAW, as I understand them, all of these situations would give the character the +1 AC. Nothing in the feat says that the character has to be proficient in the weapons, or even to actually attack with them. The +1 AC comes from just having something different in each hand (i.e. not a two-handed weapon).

After reading this thread, I'm now thinking the way to deal with this is to say that the Dual Wielder feat bonuses only apply if you are proficient with the weapons in both hands.

Want to be that Fighter with a wine bottle in the off hand? Take Tavern Brawler as well as Dual Wielder.

 

[Blue]

Proficiency is not, in any way I can think of, related to what can and cannot be used in general. It's just, generally speaking, about what bonus or penalty you get for using it. So I don't see it being a guideline for "you cannot use this thing as two different things". In addition, as I stated earlier, you can be proficient with the use of a holy symbol as a component for your spells, and with shields, and we know the rules let you use that shield with the holy symbol as both simultaneously. So the one example we have of two proficiencies for one item says you can do it. The only other one I can think of is an instrument as a spell component and as a tool to entertain simultaneously - two proficiencies, and again the rules let you do it.

You asked for something in the rules. The rules were silent both ways. I gave you why I thought that wielding an object as a Shield and object as a Weapon were different. It's at least something. You just sweeping it under the rug does not remove that.

If you can't find anything in the rules (again, besides silence) that does let you use the same object in two different ways that require two different proficiencies at the same time, then I'll consider the rules have spoken and you can't do it, regardless of your disbelief.

In other words, it's not strong but it's something - give me something at least as strong in the rules or give it up.

 

[Mistwell]

If you can't find anything in the rules (again, besides silence) that does let you use the same object in two different ways that require two different proficiencies at the same time, then I'll consider the rules have spoken and you can't do it, regardless of your disbelief.

I did that. Three different times. You ignored it. You need me to repeat it again?

 

[Sunseeker]

Would you allow a Wizard taking Dual Wielder feat and wearing a glove on their offhand to get +1 AC that stacks with Mage Armour and doesn't interfere with spellcasting?

Slightly related - How about the Wizard holding their arcane focus in their offhand?

Would you allow a Fighter taking the Dual Wielder feat and holding a beer mug or wine bottle in their offhand to get +1 AC? How about that same fighter with nothing in their offhand but wearing armoured gauntlets?

RAW, as I understand them, all of these situations would give the character the +1 AC. Nothing in the feat says that the character has to be proficient in the weapons, or even to actually attack with them. The +1 AC comes from just having something different in each hand (i.e. not a two-handed weapon).

After reading this thread, I'm now thinking the way to deal with this is to say that the Dual Wielder feat bonuses only apply if you are proficient with the weapons in both hands.

Want to be that Fighter with a wine bottle in the off hand? Take Tavern Brawler as well as Dual Wielder.

I'm going to reply generally that it is situational and without the player previously stating that they are using their glove as an improved weapon, I would probably not allow them to declare such an attack with it without pressing them to assert why it is a weapon now and wasn't 5 minutes ago.

Such in the case of the dual-shield-wielder, it is always their weapon and their shield, they are expressly using it as a weapon at all times, thus, it counts. If a player is rapidly switching into and out of something for mechanical benefits, I'm going to shut it down if it gets out of hand.

The big thing is for the most part there are much better ways to bump your AC and characters usually have better things to spend their feats on. I'd worry more about a wizard abusing Spell Sniper than Dual Wielder.

 

[Mistwell]

OK I got a response to my tweets to Crawford, and he said RAI the dual weapon feat is not intended to be used with a shield as an improvised weapon. Yes, a shield can be an improvised weapon, but no, the dual feat wasn't intended to work that way with a shield as an improvised weapon. I can get the actual quotes in a bit, but that's a fair summary of what he said.

 

[Sunseeker]

OK I got a response to my tweets to Crawford, and he said RAI the dual weapon feat is not intended to be used with a shield as an improvised weapon. Yes, a shield can be an improvised weapon, but no, the dual feat wasn't intended to work that way with a shield as an improvised weapon. I can get the actual quotes in a bit, but that's a fair summary of what he said.

Oh well, too late, it's too cool now.