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

[Flamestrike]

Remember - the improvised weapon (shield) isn't a light weapon. So you either need to use a light weapon in the other hand or have the fighting style to pull this off.

A part of me is dying to do this build with a shield and shortsword just for the roman legionare vibe. Suboptimal but a lot of flavour.

I'm also trying to make it work on a Barbarian/fighter. Viking style shield fighter.

 

[ki11erDM]

First, wow this is the first thread I have seen in a long long time that reminds me of of the old 3.x days. Someone came to the boards with a interesting question and groups of people who feel the rules say different things discuss it civilly with rational arguments on ether side. That might have more to do with how cut and dry 4 was but, still keep up the good work!

Second, spending the most valuable resource in the game (feats/ability increases) to gain a marginal benefit is completely OK at my table. Spending two of those resources to get a decent benefit is still OK. The only character that would ever do this is a dynamic fighting-man, and that's fun. And when RAW and RAF point to the same conclusion then that's the right one.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

It is not because it is broken, that I wouldn't allow the AC bonuses to stack, it just doesn't make sense to me, that the shield would work as a defense while being used as a weapon.

It is the same with crossbow expert. I don't really care if it is OP to use two hand crossbows and being able to reload, I just think it is silly and don't allow it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It is not because it is broken, that I wouldn't allow the AC bonuses to stack, it just doesn't make sense to me, that the shield would work as a defense while being used as a weapon.

If the combat round were one second then I would agree. There is enough time in a round to justify getting in a shield bash while still using it for defense.

It is the same with crossbow expert. I don't really care if it is OP to use two hand crossbows and being able to reload, I just think it is silly and don't allow it.

Here I agree. Perhaps a thri-kreen could use this effectively.

 

[Jester David]

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.

Devil's advocating here:
Large shields are often as much strapped to the arm as held. Page 146 of the PHB has putting on or taking off a shield as an action, far more than unsheathing a weapon. It's not as simple as grabbing it with your hand.
And by the logic of "it's on your hand" I should be able to make an improvised weapon attack with a gauntlet, always doing more damage than a regular unarmed attack.
And there's still the question of whether it would still grant AC. The shield's in the complete wrong position to defend you, being pushed away from your body. And your weight would be set for pushing with the shield and not positioned to receive blows.

At the point where the guy who drafted the rules you're citing disagrees with you, I am gonna go with the guy who drafted those rules.

Crawford's special authority over the rules ended when it went on sale. His opinion currently benefit from his having a better understanding on the background of the rules - having had a hand in their development and seen how things work - but that advantage is quickly ending as more people play the game and discuss the game and break apart the game.
Soon, giving Jeremy Crawford's personal opinion weight would be like deferring to the DMing advice of, oh, say, James Wyatt. Mr. Wyatt worked on D&D but is now on the MtG team and might not necessarily have greater knowledge of a rule than you or I.
Quick responses to a question fired out on twitter are not an official FAQ, nor even actual Sage Advice content. And even if they were on the website, the Sage Advice articles make it pretty clear they do not overrule a DM.

 

[Jester David]

If the combat round were one second then I would agree. There is enough time in a round to justify getting in a shield bash while still using it for defense.

The fighter's turn isn't six seconds. The entire round is six seconds, and all attacks in that round happen during those six seconds.
In the shield bash scenario, the fighter is making two (or three) attacks and potentially defending himself against an attack or even two or three. All in those six seconds. That's not a lot of time to completely shift your footing and weight and move a heavy non-aerodynamic object into radically different positions. Especially when, arguably, the creature would be looking for its opening during those six seconds.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The fighter's turn isn't six seconds. The entire round is six seconds, and all attacks in that round happen during those six seconds.
In the shield bash scenario, the fighter is making two (or three) attacks and potentially defending himself against an attack or even two or three. All in those six seconds. That's not a lot of time to completely shift your footing and weight and move a heavy non-aerodynamic object into radically different positions. Especially when, arguably, the creature would be looking for its opening during those six seconds.

In actual combat you may be surprised at what can transpire in only a second or two. Its kind of funny that a shield bash in six seconds against an already engaged opponent would seem far fetched but an opportunity attack against someone BEHIND you who was withdrawing is accepted without blinking an eye. Wouldn't that open up a fighter much worse than a simple shield bash?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

You're agreeing with me re: shield strapped/looped on plus handle. Point is the hand connection making manoeuvres possible.
One sword cut takes 1-2 seconds, a bash (doing mouse damage, as it does) 1 second. 2 seconds including get it back on position as well. Then your opponent goes. As you move side to side, front to back, lunge, duck, etc.

 

[Paraxis]

An untrained child can rush forward 30' and stabilize the wounds of a dying man wearing plate armor with a healer's kit on his turn, without any need for ability checks or removal of armor.

Make that a 2nd level rogue and they can take the disengage action (using cunning action) move 30' through enemies and do the same thing with their action.

A high enough level fighter can attack 9 times with a polearm in one turn. Nine times swinging a 10' glavie around with accuracy and force, during a 6 second round.

Just saying the line between realism and heroic action is not just blurred it is not even there in D&D. I see no issue at all with allowing a shield to be used as an improvised weapon to attack and for the user to still reap all the benefits of the shield for defense

 

[Jester David]

An untrained child can rush forward 30' and stabilize the wounds of a dying man wearing plate armor with a healer's kit on his turn, without any need for ability checks or removal of armor.

Make that a 2nd level rogue and they can take the disengage action (using cunning action) move 30' through enemies and do the same thing with their action.

A high enough level fighter can attack 9 times with a polearm in one turn. Nine times swinging a 10' glavie around with accuracy and force, during a 6 second round.

Just saying the line between realism and heroic action is not just blurred it is not even there in D&D. I see no issue at all with allowing a shield to be used as an improvised weapon to attack and for the user to still reap all the benefits of the shield for defense

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?