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

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford A shield as an improvised weapon with the Dual Wielding feat: Does the feat's +1 AC stack with the shield +2 AC that round?
[MENTION=13310]Yeti[/MENTION]Moose Dual Wielder is meant to work (RAI) with a melee weapon or an equivalent, not something like a shield.
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford Um, you're the one who previously Tweeted that a shield can be used as an Improvised Weapon! How's that not a melee weapon?
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford To clarify, around Feb 15 Q: "Must I doff a shield to use it as an improvised weapon? A: "Nope. It's shield-bash time!"
[MENTION=13310]Yeti[/MENTION]Moose Yes, a shield, like many things, can be used as an improvised weapon. This has no bearing on the design intent of Dual Wielder.
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford OK Thank you for the clarification!

 

[Jester David]

[MENTION=4036]JeremyECrawford[/MENTION] A shield as an improvised weapon with the Dual Wielding feat: Does the feat's +1 AC stack with the shield +2 AC that round?

[MENTION=13310]YetiMoose[/MENTION] Dual Wielder is meant to work (RAI) with a melee weapon or an equivalent, not something like a shield.

[MENTION=4036]JeremyECrawford[/MENTION] Um, you're the one who previously Tweeted that a shield can be used as an Improvised Weapon! How's that not a melee weapon?
[MENTION=4036]JeremyECrawford[/MENTION] To clarify, around Feb 15 Q: "Must I doff a shield to use it as an improvised weapon? A: "Nope. It's shield-bash time!"

[MENTION=13310]YetiMoose[/MENTION] Yes, a shield, like many things, can be used as an improvised weapon. This has no bearing on the design intent of Dual Wielder.

[MENTION=4036]JeremyECrawford[/MENTION] OK Thank you for the clarification!

Which, ironically, isn't an answer to the question. All we know the design intent didn't include improvised weapons or shields.

However, if it were a "yes", he'd probably have just said "yes". So it's either a "no" or a "we're rethinking improvised weapons and Dual Wielding". Which might mean he's rethinking his previous tweet or the issue is being considered for lengthier discussion on a Sage Advice article.

 

[Jester David]

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.

But what's "unadorned"? Would a gauntlet count? A crown? A really big ring?
Really, why would anyone not wear a gauntlet if it doubled your damage when unarmed? It's not like there's a non-proficiency penalty or handicap for wizards, or even a cost associated. For a wizard it's just as good as using a dagger, only their hands are free for somatic and material components.

 

[Sezarious]

Wow! This thread has taken off! Behold the chaos Mwahaha! Just to add, gauntlets were once a weapon in previous editions I can't remember the damage they did. You're right. It's broken. A mage could wear thick leather gloves with studs over the knuckles and, according to the rules could do d4 damage without proficiency.

My question regarding the shield is, if you guys are so harsh about subtracting an AC bonus from the shield with this combination, then what about the shield mastery feat?

A shove attack is a TYPE of attack with your shield that doesn't do a bit of damage, but INSTEAD knocks the opponent over. Now fair enough, the '1d4 damage' shield bash may be imagined as a 'wild swing' by those who would deduct AC, but then shouldn't a shove attack, strong enough to knock your opponent to the ground be pretty fierce too?

RAW rules it's all there. A shield is both according to the RAW. It's strapped to your arm with a handle to hold so you can better manoeuvre it, so it is in your hand.

The reason this conflict has occurred, is because several chunks of rules were broad enough, that the shield fell pretty clearly under each category. They could have simply added under the dual wielding feat 'a shield can not benefit from this', but why would they spell this out? Because whilst a shield is not a weapon (unless you make shove attacks with it), it is technically an improvised weapon.

Maybe in improvised weapons where they say "any object", they should have added "except a shield". They did not. Yes it might be broken, and I'll tell you why, because in 5e, an additional +1 to AC that a tank manages to munchkin is much better than a +1 in an addition in 3.5. Magic weapons and armor are much more difficult to obtain, and player and creatures "to hit" bonuses don't increase in level the way they used to. A level 20 fighter's to 'proficiency bonus' equivalent on their first attack was +20 in 3.5. What is it now? +6 at that level. In 3.5, what's an AC of even say 30 to a 3.5 lv 20 fighter? Probably a d20 roll of under 10 with ability mods and magic weapons would hit..

In 5th edition an AC of 30 is going to take a lv 20 fighter with (str +5 prof +6) a 19+ to hit! 16+ With a +3 weapon.

That's why people are against it, if it doesn't unbalance the game, it may not be the only loophole. What if it didn't stop there? Others have in fact pointed out other loopholes already (mages wearing heavy gloves to always be wearing improvised weapons). Where will it end.

My original question was never about what your ruling would be as a DM, though I will mention, I think with these situations it is important to make rulings. My question was purely, according to RAW, is this how it works?

We all can see the mechanics indicate the theory can work, but should we allow this at our own table? We can all argue with each other until we are out of breath, but at the end of the day, we all know what we found here, we all had our own ideas and we always will. Great discussion everyone!

 

[Sunseeker]

But what's "unadorned"? Would a gauntlet count? A crown? A really big ring?

Sure. You ever been hit by a guy with a really big metal ring? Hurts way worse than a regular hand.

Really, why would anyone not wear a gauntlet if it doubled your damage when unarmed? It's not like there's a non-proficiency penalty or handicap for wizards, or even a cost associated. For a wizard it's just as good as using a dagger, only their hands are free for somatic and material components.

I don't have a real problem with it. I doubt a wizard is going to have much of a strength bonus so even if he's doing 1d4 that's going to average out for him hitting for 2 points of damage. Plus, that wizard is sacrificing spellcasting for punching. Mechanically the choices he's making are horrible but if he is having fun, I don't mind.

 

[Blue]

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

I'm sorry you feel I ignored it. I saw you with a holy symbol on a shield and a shield, but much like a torch the holy symbol does not need to be wielded in any particular way to be used, just have the spellcasting focus in hand.

I saw with instrument playing and attacking and same with thieves' tools, but I didn't see any rules support, just an assertion you can do it.

I saw you quote JC about the shield bash, which is what is being debated here so if that was considered canon there wouldn't be a thread. Anyway, even that did not detail that that it could be both at the same time for +3 AC (shield for +2 AC AND off-hand weapon for +1 AC).

So if you don't mind, I would like you to put up rules support again and sorry if I missed any.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Sure. You ever been hit by a guy with a really big metal ring? Hurts way worse than a regular hand.

It doesn't really. That is why things like brass knuckles exist.

 

[Sunseeker]

It doesn't really. That is why things like brass knuckles exist.

Wait wait, you're telling me a series of interlocking rings hurts more than a single ring? Well, mathemtically yes, 4 rings hurts more than 1 ring.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm sorry you feel I ignored it. I saw you with a holy symbol on a shield and a shield, but much like a torch the holy symbol does not need to be wielded in any particular way to be used, just have the spellcasting focus in hand.

I saw with instrument playing and attacking and same with thieves' tools, but I didn't see any rules support, just an assertion you can do it.

I saw you quote JC about the shield bash, which is what is being debated here so if that was considered canon there wouldn't be a thread. Anyway, even that did not detail that that it could be both at the same time for +3 AC (shield for +2 AC AND off-hand weapon for +1 AC).

So if you don't mind, I would like you to put up rules support again and sorry if I missed any.

In other words, you have a personal response to everything I cited, so it doesn't count? You asked for some rules that support my position, and I gave them to you. Not sure why you think you don't wield your holy symbol? But, now that Crawford's answered I am fine with his answer.

 

[Jester David]

Sure. You ever been hit by a guy with a really big metal ring? Hurts way worse than a regular hand.

Thankfully, no, I've never been punched by a big ring. I've taken some good beatings, but they were ringless.
But would it hurt as much as a kite shield to the face? Or the leg of a chair? (i.e. other examples of an improvised weapon.) Or a dagger? (i.e. a weapon that deals simmilar damage.)

I don't have a real problem with it. I doubt a wizard is going to have much of a strength bonus so even if he's doing 1d4 that's going to average out for him hitting for 2 points of damage. Plus, that wizard is sacrificing spellcasting for punching. Mechanically the choices he's making are horrible but if he is having fun, I don't mind.

Well, the wizard is always considered armed then, and able to make Opportunity Attacks and the like.

But it also really takes something away from the monk. One of the monk's big class features is that they can punch people for 1d4. You're pretty much just giving that to everyone, which makes the monk feel far less special. It's a little like allowing everyone to deal an extra 2 damage on melee attacks whenever they're really, really pissed off.