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

[ExploderWizard]

How about the fighter with the feat who doesn't attack with his shield, but has the feat so they still get a +1 to AC for having a "weapon" in their off hand?

If someone wants to burn a feat and then NOT get all the benefits it provides, I won't stop them.

 

[Mistwell]

Crawford's special authority over the rules ended when it went on sale.

I didn't say anything about some special authority, I said at the point where the guy who drafted the rules disagrees, I am going to go with the guy who drafted those rules. His having drafted those rules didn't go away once they were published. You don't have to accept his opinion, but I am free to and will do just that. The guy was asking for opinions, and I gave mine - go with what the guy who drafted the rules says, over some anoymous guy on the internet responding on a message board. You're free to use another method.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

How about the fighter with the feat who doesn't attack with his shield, but has the feat so they still get a +1 to AC for having a "weapon" in their off hand?

That makes a ton of sense, as he's learned to better coordinate two actions at once and has learned to use his offhand more effectively.

I see no issue with letting them bash for d4 AND get a +3 total bonus for the shield if they want to blow a couple of feats on it. It's not like they're going to touch the GWM guys or sharpshooters on damage.

 

[Paraxis]

How about the fighter with the feat who doesn't attack with his shield, but has the feat so they still get a +1 to AC for having a "weapon" in their off hand?

Interesting question, is an improvised weapon still a weapon if it is not being used?

I would say yes it is, once you take the dual wielder feat, holding anything in your off hand gives you a +1 to AC, because the item can be used as a weapon for a bonus action off hand attack. It shouldn't matter if the item is a torch, lantern, bottle, or shield. The fact the shield already gives you a +2 bonus to AC is great though.

Since unarmed strikes are weapon attacks and are listed as such in the weapon chart, I would even say holding nothing at all should give you an AC bonus of +1 if you have the dual wielder feat.

 

[Jester David]

That makes a ton of sense, as he's learned to better coordinate two actions at once and has learned to use his offhand more effectively.


I see no issue with letting them bash for d4 AND get a +3 total bonus for the shield if they want to blow a couple of feats on it. It's not like they're going to touch the GWM guys or sharpshooters on damage.

It'd be one feat. Which, curiously, makes it a good tanking feat.

Interesting question, is an improvised weapon still a weapon if it is not being used?

I would say yes it is, once you take the dual wielder feat, holding anything in your off hand gives you a +1 to AC, because the item can be used as a weapon for a bonus action off hand attack. It shouldn't matter if the item is a torch, lantern, bottle, or shield. The fact the shield already gives you a +2 bonus to AC is great though.

Since unarmed strikes are weapon attacks and are listed as such in the weapon chart, I would even say holding nothing at all should give you an AC bonus of +1 if you have the dual wielder feat.

This ruling would certainly make it a must-have feat. +1 AC is always good, especially if it stacks with everything.

 

[Paraxis]

This ruling would certainly make it a must-have feat. +1 AC is always good, especially if it stacks with everything.

Must have, I doubt it.

I mean the cost of getting a feat is not getting a +2 to an ability score or another feat.

So if dexterity based fighter it would be better to get a bonus to dexterity until you had a 20. Then once you have a 20 dexterity you have to decide if you want this feat or something else like Mobile.

+1 AC if not using a two handed weapon
+ability score modifier to damage on a single bonus action attack each round
Ability to use d8 damage weapons in both hands

That is a good feat but not a must have, especially if you are not holding a d8 weapon in your off hand.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

For the AC alone, yeah. I thought you'd need another feat to not have disadvantage on the improvised shield bash. However +1 AC for a feat honestly seems on the weak side as opposed to a "must have". Toughness (or whatever it's called now) also increases your ability to "tank" by giving you an extra 2HP/level, so static increases to better fill a role aren't off the table for feats, even if they are a bit on the boring side.

 

[Jester David]

Must have, I doubt it.

I mean the cost of getting a feat is not getting a +2 to an ability score or another feat.

So if dexterity based fighter it would be better to get a bonus to dexterity until you had a 20. Then once you have a 20 dexterity you have to decide if you want this feat or something else like Mobile.

+1 AC if not using a two handed weapon
+ability score modifier to damage on a single bonus action attack each round
Ability to use d8 damage weapons in both hands

That is a good feat but not a must have, especially if you are not holding a d8 weapon in your off hand.

If you're a Dexterity based fighter, yeah, the Dex 20 is preferable. If you're a Dex dump stat fighter in heavy armour (where Dex doesn't add to AC) or medium armour wearer with a Dex of 14 then this feat is one of the few ways (short of magic) to boost your AC. A variant human with the feat, chain mail, and a shield has AC 19 at level 1. If they go the armour weapon style feat (for fighter) they're AC 20.

For the AC alone, yeah. I thought you'd need another feat to not have disadvantage on the improvised shield bash.

You just lose proficiency. Which hurts at high levels, but is only a -2 at 1st level.

However +1 AC for a feat honestly seems on the weak side as opposed to a "must have". Toughness (or whatever it's called now) also increases your ability to "tank" by giving you an extra 2HP/level, so static increases to better fill a role aren't off the table for feats, even if they are a bit on the boring side.

2hp/level is nice but an extra point of AC reduces all damage by reducing the number of times you're hit by 5%.

 

[Sunseeker]

You just lose proficiency. Which hurts at high levels, but is only a -2 at 1st level.

But can be undone with the Tavern Brawler feat, which would provide proficiency with improved weapons. Variant Human could have this by level 4, which makes it fairly impressive.

 

[Jaron Mortimer]

Interesting question, is an improvised weapon still a weapon if it is not being used?

I would say yes it is, once you take the dual wielder feat, holding anything in your off hand gives you a +1 to AC, because the item can be used as a weapon for a bonus action off hand attack. It shouldn't matter if the item is a torch, lantern, bottle, or shield. The fact the shield already gives you a +2 bonus to AC is great though.

Since unarmed strikes are weapon attacks and are listed as such in the weapon chart, I would even say holding nothing at all should give you an AC bonus of +1 if you have the dual wielder feat.

So, Here's ANOTHER interesting thing to think about: Let's give this whole mess to a Champion who then also takes the Dueling fighting style, which has already been stated numerous times to work with a shield in the off hand. Well, the Shield is being used as an improvised weapon, so that wouldn't stack, but it's not ACTUALLY a weapon, so it WOULD stack, but then the shield wouldn't get the bonus AC from dual-wielding, but then we just said that he WOULD get the bonus.

Basically, if you throw in dueling, you're now doing 1d8+7+1d4+7 damage, with a shield in one hand and a weapon in the other.

You know what ELSE does this? A Polearm Master with a quarterstaff. Two feats, two fighting styles, and some wonky DM rulings just to match up to one dumb combo.