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

[Greenstone.Walker]

How about this idea?

A shield is not a weapon (improvised or otherwise). It is armour. No different to a helm or an gauntlet or a greave. Your helm is not an improvised weapon, so neither is your shield.

Because it is not a weapon, you can't attack with it. However, we might model smacking a foe with your shield by ruling that armour increases the damage done by an Unarmed attack. That way, hitting someone with a shield is mechanically the same as kicking them with armoured boots or punching them with gauntlets or head butting them with a heavy helm.

A shield does, however, take up a hand. This means that hand is not available for somatic casting (for which Holy Symbols and the War Caster feat are specific excecptions). That hand is not available for two-handed weapons or other activities requiring two hands (rowing a boat, for example).

The shield hand is not wielding a weapon, so Duelling style applies and Two-Weapon Fighting (and DUal Wielding feat) does not.

I also posted this on the Wizards community site. It will be interesting to get feedback from both places.

 

[Melfast]

One oddity in this to me

I understand the mechanical argument that the rules may allow the +1 to stack with the shield bonus of +2, and the point that for the investment of two feats and additional +1 to AC and a d4 improvised attack may not be out of line; but it feels odd that my defense is lower if I only use my shield to defend myself than if I break out if my defense to attack with the shield.

Somehow, it feels like my defense should not be worse if I just defend. (Yes, you can make the argument that the extra aggression of the shield attack at the right time could produce an additional defense bonus by throwing off the opponent, etc but I always have assumed that shield users are already using their shields to push and nudge their opponents, just that the effect of that is already cooked into the shield AC benefit.)

The good arguments to allow it have begun to sway me, though.

Usually I am less concerned mechanical balance and more concerned with allowing a fun concept, I'm just still a little concerned that it may cross into the other two weapon style too much while getting a better AC bonus.

I've got to ponder more. Getting an answer back from Jeremy may be the tie breaker.

Melfast

 

[Mistwell]

How about this idea?

A shield is not a weapon (improvised or otherwise). It is armour. No different to a helm or an gauntlet or a greave. Your helm is not an improvised weapon, so neither is your shield.

Because it is not a weapon, you can't attack with it.

Those are all improvised weapons. "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin." You can wield all of those objects you mentioned in one or two hands. In fact, most are like a frying pan. Is there really doubt you can take off your helmet and swing it at someone's head and do damage with it? It's obviously an improvised weapon.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Is there really doubt you can take off your helmet and swing it at someone's head and do damage with it? It's obviously an improvised weapon.

I think you have missed my point a little. I mean while you are wearing the item. Your boot, while it is on your foot, is not an improvised weapon when you kick someone. Neither is your helm, while you are wearing it. Neither are your gloves or gauntlets when you punch someone.

Or are they? Do you rule that a worn boot is an improvised weapon? How about a glove or gauntlet?

If the answer to that last question is "yes" then do you make characters take their gloves off before they can get the Duelling style bonus?

My point is that if you treat worn items as weapons then it leads to some strange rulings. Like a character with the Dual Wielder feat getting +1 AC just for wearing gloves. Like a character using their free object interaction to stow their shield then using their Bonus Action to cast a spell (since one hand is now free) then using their Action to attack with the shield, drawing it as part of the action.

Rather than add rules to the game to cover these hybrid items, I'm throwing out an idea that will remove rules and hopefully make things simpler.

I'm also worried that if we rule that a shield is a weapon then Dual Wielder becomes a "must-have" feat for all sword & board fighters (much like Crossbow Expert for spellcasters).

 

[jadrax]

Or are they? Do you rule that a worn boot is an improvised weapon? How about a glove or gauntlet?

Personally, if someone was kicking with a pair of plate boots on, or headbutting with a helm, or even punching with gauntlets or heavy gloves; I would 100% treat them as improvised weapons.

I can not see what else you sensibly could do.

 

[Mercule]

Personally, if someone was kicking with a pair of plate boots on, or headbutting with a helm, or even punching with gauntlets or heavy gloves; I would 100% treat them as improvised weapons.

I can not see what else you sensibly could do.

Agreed. It's fairly explicit that "unarmed" strikes are not part of the normal battery of proficiencies.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally, if someone was kicking with a pair of plate boots on, or headbutting with a helm, or even punching with gauntlets or heavy gloves; I would 100% treat them as improvised weapons.

I can not see what else you sensibly could do.

Yup, if someone was say, tied up and wanted to headbutt their opponent, if the opponent was close enough I'd certainly let them make such an attack.

 

[Jester David]

Yup, if someone was say, tied up and wanted to headbutt their opponent, if the opponent was close enough I'd certainly let them make such an attack.

But should that do the unarmed strike damage in the weapon chart? Or would it deal improvised weapon damage if the person chinning was wearing a helmet or circlet?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I reckon a helmet would count as improvised weapon damage. Have to be a hell of a pointy or spiked circlet though! Not enough weight behind it otherwise.

 

[Mistwell]

I think you have missed my point a little. I mean while you are wearing the item. Your boot, while it is on your foot, is not an improvised weapon when you kick someone. Neither is your helm, while you are wearing it. Neither are your gloves or gauntlets when you punch someone.

Right. To be an improvised weapon it must be in at least one hand. That's in the rules. But your shield is in your hand. So that's not really an apt comparison. Anything you can hold in your hand and which isn't something like a feather can likely be an improvised weapon, and I don't think anyone is really questioning that a shield can be an improvised weapon. The only question is, can it function as a shield that same round - and I just see nothing in the rules, the game balance, the fluff, reality, or cinema that suggests it should not. I don't think it's "unfair" to rule otherwise, I just see a lot of reasons to rule the way I'd rule.