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

[Jester David]

The words "then you are not using it as a shield" are an assumption, therefore to rule as such, you would effectively be houseruling.

It's not a house rule, it's a ruling, and just as valid as "you can use a shield as an improvised weapon".

It's perfectly valid to rule that if you're using a shield as an improvised weapon you're not using it as a shield; the shield is out of position and held differently and the weight of your body is positioned differently.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's not a house rule, it's a ruling, and just as valid as "you can use a shield as an improvised weapon".

It's perfectly valid to rule that if you're using a shield as an improvised weapon you're not using it as a shield; the shield is out of position and held differently and the weight of your body is positioned differently.

This rule is written in the books where?

 

[Jester David]

In fact, based on the rules, a commoner could make two thrown weapon attacks in a round and could continue to do so if he could only draw them quickly enough say via the use of the above feat if he were a human variant commoner.Even if a group of commoners didn't have this feat available, let's say they're rather savvy and resourseful. They find out their village is being attacked by orcs in the next few hours. Their hunters set out hunting traps and cover them in leaves. Hunters remain close by hidden on rooftops or in trees with bows at the ready. Other townsfolk mostly arm themselves with clubs and sickles but some might have a couple of javelins on them. Additionally, some have decided to cut up and weight some fishing nets to use at the start of combat. Some have grabbed flasks of oil in their offhand and some might be holding torches. Let's nickname these clever peons the netters, oilers and the burners.

If they are lucky enough to have initiative or smart and brave enough to prepare a reaction, a netter might get to act against a charging Orc first. If their net hits, suddenly they and every other commoner has advantage on their attacks against the Orc until it can break free. The oilers will get to roll with advantage to strike with their weapons and to hit with their flask and the burners will get advantage to all of their attacks. If everything followed in that order, the above mentioned commoners with base stats 10 would likely do 8 to 14 damage (2 sickle attacks + 1 torch attack + 5 fire damage). Add to this that the Orc has disadvantage to hit unless it breaks free (costing an action and either DC10 strength check or a dc10 attack at disadvantage, requiring 5 damage to be dealt to the net) and depending on initiative order, they may get another round of attacks.

The catch with these is that, as NPCs, a commoner and hunter would not gain ability score boosts and thus not gain feats. And because NPCs use the monster rules, they wouldn't be designed similarly and thus would not use the human alternate rules.

But it's your game. If running a campaign and you want commoners versus orcs in a city siege you're totally allowed to have them go all Seven Samurai and use dirty tricks to kill an orc warband.

 

[Jester David]

This rule is written in the books where?

Player's Handbook, page 6:

"Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting..."​

And the Dungeon Master's Guide page 5, the introduction to Part 3.

There's no hard rule that a shield can be used as an improvised weapon, that you do not need to remove the shield from your arm, or that you can continue to use the shield as a shield while doing the above. RAW, while a shield is strapped to your wrist, you're not wielding it in one or two hands, the requirement of an improvised weapon on page 147 of the PHB. So it needs to be in your hands. Allowing it to be used while still strapped to your arm and out of your hands is a DM call.
In an unofficial response (on Twitter), one of the designers gave their opinion that you can use a shield as an improvised weapon and that you do not need to remove the shield to do so. They didn't weigh in on if it still functions as a shield. However, a Twitter response is not an actual rule, and even if it made it into a Sage Advice article on the website, that wouldn't overrule a DM.

Now, is it a broken combination? Not really, even if you allow the shield to still be used as a shield. It's a minor increase to Damage Per Round (<2 DPR since it's less accurate) and increases AC by 1. However, in place of taking the feat, the human could have taken a stat boost to Str or Dex, increasing damage by 1 and accuracy by 5% (15% more accurate with primary attacks compared to the shield) OR increased AC by 1 and Dexterity saves and skill checks. So it's arguably comparable. I'd be willing to allow it as a DM.

 

[jadrax]

Kill Lizardfolk, Loot Spiked Shields, open bigger can of worms... ;o)

 

[indemnity]

Kill Lizardfolk, Loot Spiked Shields, open bigger can of worms... ;o)

Sadly, this only slightly improves shield bash damage by an average of 1 (spiked shield is 1d6 vs 1d4).

Much better to take the feat Shield Master and use your bonus action to shove enemies prone, or increase your attack stat for the better to-hit/damage.
Advantage >> small damage from shield bash.

 

[Sezarious]

Player's Handbook, page 6:

"Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting..."​

And the Dungeon Master's Guide page 5, the introduction to Part 3.

There's no hard rule that a shield can be used as an improvised weapon, that you do not need to remove the shield from your arm, or that you can continue to use the shield as a shield while doing the above. RAW, while a shield is strapped to your wrist, you're not wielding it in one or two hands, the requirement of an improvised weapon on page 147 of the PHB. So it needs to be in your hands. Allowing it to be used while still strapped to your arm and out of your hands is a DM call.
In an unofficial response (on Twitter), one of the designers gave their opinion that you can use a shield as an improvised weapon and that you do not need to remove the shield to do so. They didn't weigh in on if it still functions as a shield. However, a Twitter response is not an actual rule, and even if it made it into a Sage Advice article on the website, that wouldn't overrule a DM.

Now, is it a broken combination? Not really, even if you allow the shield to still be used as a shield. It's a minor increase to Damage Per Round (<2 DPR since it's less accurate) and increases AC by 1. However, in place of taking the feat, the human could have taken a stat boost to Str or Dex, increasing damage by 1 and accuracy by 5% (15% more accurate with primary attacks compared to the shield) OR increased AC by 1 and Dexterity saves and skill checks. So it's arguably comparable. I'd be willing to allow it as a DM.

I liked your points and I agree with you I have used the wrong terminology when I have referred to a ruling as a 'house rule', in effect trivialising the term. Sorry about that.

The fact that a shield is strapped to your arm and not in your hands is a great point and I think legitimately invalidates my theory, unless as you say a DM ruling considers it's being strapped to your arm as held. The only thought I would add if I were a player who wanted to convince a DM to make such a ruling is that aside from the older editions humble bucklerbucklers, which were smaller and strapped and locked onto your arm, freeing your hand, a shield's leather straps would bind your arm to it, but also finish with a leather handle for your hand so you could better grip and manoeuvre the shield.

I'm not saying that what I just mentioned validates that a shield is held according to the rules, just that this might add sway to the DMs ruling.

I've really enjoyed this discussion everyone. Thanks for critiquing my theory.

 

[Sezarious]

I would allow all AC to stack as a nod to the amount of damage the player is giving up in order to do this. You're doing 1d4+mod damage, which means you're going to be looking at maybe 6 damage per hit in exchange for being quite possibly the most unhittable thing on the battlefield (at low levels at least). I'm also imagining the player using one of these shields Captain America style. Combine this with Eldritch Knight with a weapon bond with your shields so that you could have them immediately return to you after throwing. It eats your bonus action, but bypasses the donning/doffing time, and makes for epic visuals.

I love that idea. There are going to be times when the character will be out of melee range, do why not throw your shield only to have it come whizzing back! Does adamantine bypass DR in this edition? I don't have my DMG on me at the moment and haven't read up on all the specific details such as that. If it does and you threw your shield as your primary weapon for the round, you could also do some nice things with objects with hardness. Passing an enemy ballista as you're escaping the castle? Hit it with your adamantine shield! See a chandelier hanging above your enemies? Hit the chain with your adamantine shield! Looking to remove the diving wall between your kitchen and dining rooms for a greater feeling of space? Adamantine shield! Buy one today!

 

[Jester David]

I liked your points and I agree with you I have used the wrong terminology when I have referred to a ruling as a 'house rule', in effect trivialising the term. Sorry about that.

The fact that a shield is strapped to your arm and not in your hands is a great point and I think legitimately invalidates my theory, unless as you say a DM ruling considers it's being strapped to your arm as held. The only thought I would add if I were a player who wanted to convince a DM to make such a ruling is that aside from the older editions humble bucklerbucklers, which were smaller and strapped and locked onto your arm, freeing your hand, a shield's leather straps would bind your arm to it, but also finish with a leather handle for your hand so you could better grip and manoeuvre the shield.

I'm not saying that what I just mentioned validates that a shield is held according to the rules, just that this might add sway to the DMs ruling.

I've really enjoyed this discussion everyone. Thanks for critiquing my theory.

(I may be writing up a homebrew "shield basher" feat as we speak, in part because of this thread.)

I love that idea. There are going to be times when the character will be out of melee range, do why not throw your shield only to have it come whizzing back! Does adamantine bypass DR in this edition? I don't have my DMG on me at the moment and haven't read up on all the specific details such as that. If it does and you threw your shield as your primary weapon for the round, you could also do some nice things with objects with hardness. Passing an enemy ballista as you're escaping the castle? Hit it with your adamantine shield! See a chandelier hanging above your enemies? Hit the chain with your adamantine shield! Looking to remove the diving wall between your kitchen and dining rooms for a greater feeling of space? Adamantine shield! Buy one today!

There are currently no rules for adamantine weapons in 5e.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

A shield is attached via depending on the model, a forearm strap and a handle or secondary strap of some sort, or just the 'handle'. It is most definitely in your hand though, otherwise you would have very limited control over it (even as a purely defensive item).
Also, a shield can bash you coming straight on at you, thus in no way negating it's ability to be in the way and thus help your ac. A shield bash isn't necessarily a swinging bash but can easily be a frontal shove.