D&D 5E Dual Wielder with Shield (and Shield Mastery)

[Kobold Stew]

Following that thought process wouldn't you lose the shield bonus to AC when you use the bonus action to shove?

No, because the shove isn't an attack.

 

[Andor]

No, because the shove isn't an attack.

Shoving a Creature
Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

Except in the rules, where it is.

For that matter the rules for shields say:

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.

Wielding a shield increases your AC by 2. It says nothing about how you weild it. Ergo wielding it as an improvised weapon is still wielding it, and you still get +2 AC.

If you don't think it's realistic to hit someone with a shield and still gain a defensive benefit, talk to your friendly neighborhood SCA heavy weapons fighters. They'll be happy to tell you all about punch blocking.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Except in the rules, where it is.

Fair enough -- I misspoke: In the context of the shield mastery feat, which we are discussing, the shove isn't an attack that is associated with the player's action; it is the bonus action that arises because of another attack.

For that matter the rules for shields say:

Wielding a shield increases your AC by 2. It says nothing about how you weild it. Ergo wielding it as an improvised weapon is still wielding it, and you still get +2 AC.

We disagree about the intent of the rules; that's fine. Play what you like.

But your syllogism here is flawed, because your conclusion does not follow from the minor premise. It is not the case that as a result of a a silence in the rules, your position must be the intended one.

If you don't think it's realistic to hit someone with a shield and still gain a defensive benefit, talk to your friendly neighborhood SCA heavy weapons fighters. They'll be happy to tell you all about punch blocking.

Don't need to. This isn't the argument anyone is making, so far as I can see. Realism or verisimilitude isn't the question, nor, if we were honest, is it ever in D&D combat. If it were, I would let your SCA straw man go against my club-wielding or dagger-wielding straw man and we'd see who did the most damage to the other.

 

[Tony Semana]

Two-Weapon Fighting ... The melee weapon that you get as your bonus action must be a light melee weapon.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style ... you get your bonus damage

At this point with out Feats

You can attack with your shield as an improvised weapon (not loose your AC bonus) for a 1D4+Str damage with no proficiency bonus (and proficiency bonus if the DM says ok) and make a bonus attack with a light weapon with your ability modifier (if you have that fighting style)

You cannot make a improvised weapon (shield) attack as a bonus attack because it is not a light weapon.

I wouldn't allow the bonus attack with a light weapon. The Two-Weapon Fighting description before the paraphrased entry is

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can...

So, since the first attack is the shield - not a light melee weapon - it doesn't meet the qualifier.

 

[Andor]

Fair enough -- I misspoke: In the context of the shield mastery feat, which we are discussing, the shove isn't an attack that is associated with the player's action; it is the bonus action that arises because of another attack.

How does that matter? A shove is an attack action. Whether that attack action is taken as a regular action or bonus action should be immaterial to the idea that attacking with a shield on your turn deprives you of the defensive benefit of that shield until your next turn.

But your syllogism here is flawed, because your conclusion does not follow from the minor premise. It is not the case that as a result of a a silence in the rules, your position must be the intended one.

The rules quite clearly allow the use of the shield as an improvised weapon. There is nothing anywhere in the rules to suggest that using an item in this way voids its original function. Not in the improvised weapon section, not in the shield section, not in the combat section. It is not a grey area.

Taking away the shield bonus to AC is a house rule, and furthermore one that opens a can of worms. If the Fighter cannot use his shield in his own defense does that mean he also cannot use it defend another with the protection fighting style? Can he use it defensively against a spell using the Shield Mastery feat? If so why? If he does does he regain the AC benefit of his shield since he is clearly now employing it as a shield? Does that make the rule: "Using a shield to make an attack on your turn as an action, but not as a bonus action (unless that bonus action attack deals damage) removes the shield bonus to armour until the start of your next turn or until you use the shield in a defensive reaction, whichever comes first." And if so can he also spend his free "futz with an object once per round" to restore the shield to it's defensive glory?

It's fine as a house rule, but you should not pretend there is the slightest scrap of evidence that the rules provide for, or even hint at the intent of reducing the utility of a shield or any other improvised weapon when it's employed as such.

Don't need to. This isn't the argument anyone is making, so far as I can see. Realism or verisimilitude isn't the question, nor, if we were honest, is it ever in D&D combat. If it were, I would let your SCA straw man go against my club-wielding or dagger-wielding straw man and we'd see who did the most damage to the other.

At least half the arguments against the use of the shield this way have been couched in terms of verisimilitude, it is hardly a strawman to address those arguments on their own basis.

Is your own position then that spending two feats to deal an extra 1d4+str damage a round is so overpowering that it must be payed for with a loss of AC on the grounds of maintaining game balance?

 

[I'm A Banana]

The rule of cool trumps all (barring game warping effects). I once had a main villain of a campaign use two interlocking bladed punch shields as his weapons. I did not let the rules muddle a cool concept, resulting in an iconic bad guy who still stands vividly the imaginations of our whole gaming group. Don't sweat the small stuff. 2 feats and sacrificing d size to add to AC should keep things balanced.

In other words, it's not the size of your d, it's how you use it?

I've heard that from some ladies. I've also heard that d size is important, but it's not going to determine how an encounter goes all by itself.

Either way, anecdotal evidence supports that this is A-OK!

 

[Kobold Stew]

It's fine as a house rule, but you should not pretend there is the slightest scrap of evidence that the rules provide for, or even hint at the intent of reducing the utility of a shield or any other improvised weapon when it's employed as such.

And you should not pretend there is the slightest scrap of evidence that the rules provide for, or even hint at the intent of maintaining the utility of a shield when it is also used as an improvised weapon.

That was, indeed, the OP's question. By itself, it is not an argument.

Is your own position then that spending two feats to deal an extra 1d4+str damage a round is so overpowering that it must be payed for with a loss of AC on the grounds of maintaining game balance?

It's my position that we haven't seen the DMG, and so (e.g.) we have no idea what the magic items or variant combat rules will be, and insisting on specific readings of edge-case situations is where the strain is most likely to be felt. The problem will only exacerbate as more books are published.

I suggest the two feats are not meant to synergize, in the same way that heavy weapons and the shield feat are not meant to synergize. I don't know what the larger consequences will be, and neither I expect does anyone not under an NDA. I've been told in the MM there is at least one spiked shield though, which already creaks around the edges of your 1d4.

My reading (which has developed from useful ideas in this thread) is that by taking both feats, the player in any round has a choice:

a. regular attack(s), any 1-handed melee weapon, and +2 AC, and a shove (shield master, using a bonus action).
b. regular attack(s), any 1-handed melee weapon, and a 1d4 attack, with +1 AC (dual wielder, using a bonus action).

Most of the time, a is going to be preferable. For a twf, however, the dual wielder feat rocks and is a no-brainer. Different characters use different abilities.

 

[Wrathamon]

I wouldn't allow the bonus attack with a light weapon. The Two-Weapon Fighting description before the paraphrased entry is



So, since the first attack is the shield - not a light melee weapon - it doesn't meet the qualifier.

You are correct, both weapons have to be light. You need the feat to do it.