D&D 5E is a Fighter/cleric etc less powerful using a shield

[WarpedAcorn]

For the fighting styles, look at it from à single class perspective. Only the champion ever gets two. Multiclass is supposed to be an option. So without mc you only get one style. Is it the RAI that you should only use one style at a time? I do believe so. Can you know more than one style? Sure you can and that is a great thing. That enables you to adapt much more to different combat situations. Juste like many martial artists practice different styles like jujitsu, kung-fu, aïkido, karate, and judo to name but a few. Do they use more than one style? Of course they do. But not at the same time. They choose from moment to moment which style is the best at that moment and use it. In game turn, it means that they change style from round to round.

The power of choosing between styles is already strong enough. Please do not stack them. Neither of our position is quite as RAW as I would like, but I do believe that mine is as RAI as possible. I might be wrong, I was not on the design team.

The underlined part is wholely incorrect. Martial Arts styles do not have on and off switches, and when you begin learning more than one they all start blending into one. For instance, I practiced Goju Ryu Karate for over a decade and then began learning others styles such as Jujitsu, Judo, Wrestling, and Kung Fu. Just looking at my neutral fighting stance notes the combination of these different styles, my front knee is turned in slightly to help protect from lower body attacks (Kung Fu), while my hands are up in more a traditional boxing guard (Karate), and my overall stance is lower to keep my center of gravity closer to the ground (Wrestling).

Similarly, a D&D character who has multiple fighting styles should be able to blend them all as needed. A Dual Wield Fighting Style combined with a Defensive Fighting Style don't negate each other, they add to each other. The blades now weave in a defensive pattern inbetween attacks, like in the Game of Thrones episode with Arthur Dayne.

 

[Istbor]

According to Jeremy Crawford, "@mackenzie884 An improvised weapon is, indeed, a weapon, but only the moment it's used as such. A chair/shield/etc isn't a weapon otherwise."

But he also say, "@YetiMoose Dual Wielder is meant to work (RAI) with a melee weapon or an equivalent, not something like a shield."


So...confused? 0.o

To further complicate things, taking Shield out of the equation, would you rule that you can't dual wield improvised weapons? Like if you snapped a pool cue in half and now had a piece in each hand, could you not dual wield those sticks? If the answer is "yes, you can dual wield those", then you should be able to dual wield attack with a Shield as an improvised weapon.

Mechanically, look at popular film. The fight between Hector and Achilles in Troy shows Achilles using his Shield offensively with strikes. In the Deadliest Warrior TV series it also shows how deadly a shield strike with a Spartan Shield is. So dealing damage with a Shield seems like something that should be legit.

It is confusing, but I think the RAI was to defeat, in part that 1 extra AC while dual wielding a shield and longsword. It sucks, I agree. In real life a shield is more versatile than a defensive tool. Shield master tries to approach that but keeps damage out of the equation. There had been a feat in the later playtests allowing shields to deal damage, but testing must have proved through that it was either not favorable or too many people thought it was overly powerful.

If a player was dead set on something like this, I would allow it. Who am I to stand between them and their fun?

 

[WarpedAcorn]

It is confusing, but I think the RAI was to defeat, in part that 1 extra AC while dual wielding a shield and longsword. It sucks, I agree. In real life a shield is more versatile than a defensive tool. Shield master tries to approach that but keeps damage out of the equation. There had been a feat in the later playtests allowing shields to deal damage, but testing must have proved through that it was either not favorable or too many people thought it was overly powerful.

If a player was dead set on something like this, I would allow it. Who am I to stand between them and their fun?

That's kind of where I stand. Its basically adding a 1d4 or 1d6 + STR which, ultimately, isn't going to make or break anything. And at the cost of 2 Feats and a Fighting Style to get, I think its more flavor than Meta-PowerGamey.

And arguably, depending on your party, simply having Shield Mastery and knocking enemies prone is more powerful.

 

[Helldritch]

Ok, let's have some fun with a real example of where it could lead us to.
Meet Oswald, a 10th level champion with 2 levels of paladin.
Fighting styles: defense, dueling and two weapon fighting.
Feats: shield master (taken as human), tavern brawler and dual wielder).
Oswald owns a +1 plate, +1 shield.
His armor class is now 24. He can raise it to 26 with shield of faith.
He does not have lost in attack numbers, nor did he lost a iota in defense capability. Give him an amulet of protection or a ring and he becomes close to an AC of 28 at the cost of a single 1st level spell. Add in a protection spell from the cleric and a haste spell and our little Oswald is almost impossible to hit for creatures of his level.

The +1 plate might be hard to come by but not the shield. LMoP even have gauntlets of ogre's strength to make sure that Oswald dont lose much on dmg output.
Is it an extreeme case? I don't think so. 3 to 5 magic items at this level is not that rare in campaings.

With that in mind, I really think that the RAI is that fighting styles don't stack and that I am right about shield. But it's your game too. You can do whatever you want with it.

As WarpedAcorn pointed out, the tweet from Crawford tends to prove my point (at least where RAI is concerned ).

 

[Istbor]

Ok, let's have some fun with a real example of where it could lead us to.
Meet Oswald, a 10th level champion with 2 levels of paladin.
Fighting styles: defense, dueling and two weapon fighting.
Feats: shield master (taken as human), tavern brawler and dual wielder).
Oswald owns a +1 plate, +1 shield.
His armor class is now 24. He can raise it to 26 with shield of faith.
He does not have lost in attack numbers, nor did he lost a iota in defense capability. Give him an amulet of protection or a ring and he becomes close to an AC of 28 at the cost of a single 1st level spell. Add in a protection spell from the cleric and a haste spell and our little Oswald is almost impossible to hit for creatures of his level.

The +1 plate might be hard to come by but not the shield. LMoP even have gauntlets of ogre's strength to make sure that Oswald dont lose much on dmg output.
Is it an extreeme case? I don't think so. 3 to 5 magic items at this level is not that rare in campaings.

With that in mind, I really think that the RAI is that fighting styles don't stack and that I am right about shield. But it's your game too. You can do whatever you want with it.

As WarpedAcorn pointed out, the tweet from Crawford tends to prove my point (at least where RAI is concerned ).

You are asking for trouble if you are giving out +1 plate, shield, and an amulet which all go to the same character. For your table, perhaps that is not extreme, but for mine, it would be.

Aside from that, he is paying the costs in feats to be specialized it a shield and one handed weapon. Oswald should be plenty good at fighting in that narrow of a style. Put him up against magic users that can bypass AC, anything that can attack at range or fly, and he is going to have a harder time and the fact that he paid those costs to specialize will show through.

Omitting the large amount of simple +1 magic items you gave him, I have no problem with the example.

 

[Helldritch]

The +1 shield and ring are not that hard to get. Having three magic items of a protection nature isn't that hard with the current treasure tables. Even without magic our paladin will achieve AC 22 at level 4 if he goes with paladin 2 , fighter 4. Not optimal damage wise but still very efficient defensively. I can see him rising to 25 with the help of the cleric and sacred shield and he would share dmg with the cleric. 25 AC at level 6 becomes quit hard to counter. My example was a bit exteme I do admit. But even without magic it can get out of hand very fast.
That is why I kept saying that the intent is not to have all these stack together.

 

[Lanliss]

Wait, are you arguing that an improvised weapon is not a weapon?

Oh yeah, that hasn't happened yet, thanks to the rollback. Is it possible to continue beating a dead horse that hasn't started being beaten yet?

 

[Istbor]

The +1 shield and ring are not that hard to get. Having three magic items of a protection nature isn't that hard with the current treasure tables. Even without magic our paladin will achieve AC 22 at level 4 if he goes with paladin 2 , fighter 4. Not optimal damage wise but still very efficient defensively. I can see him rising to 25 with the help of the cleric and sacred shield and he would share dmg with the cleric. 25 AC at level 6 becomes quit hard to counter. My example was a bit exteme I do admit. But even without magic it can get out of hand very fast.
That is why I kept saying that the intent is not to have all these stack together.

Right, RAI. I think that is why the shield was singled out in that tweet that was shared up thread. To prevent that extra AC from two weapon fighting from stacking with an improvised weapon (shield) that is actually more intended in this game, as a defensive tool.

I just find that very dull, that you can bash someone in the face with a shield, send them flying back or to their back, but it somehow doesn't cause any dmg.

I could even see toning it down and saying, no you can't make a (1d4+str) roll but instead add your str as damage for the shove or knockdown. You are still causing a little bit of damage, but no so much so as you make it the 'ultimate' build.

It was said before too. Being too hard to hit can cause problems for the rest of your party. If the enemy is smart they will otherwise keep you busy while they kill off your support first.

 

[Helldritch]

Double post. Plz delete.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The +1 shield and ring are not that hard to get. Having three magic items of a protection nature isn't that hard with the current treasure tables. .

Um....yeah it is. By using the tables, you'd only get magical treasure for the hoard, and not individual treasure. For creatures up to CR 4, you have to roll higher than an 85 just to get to the table with a +1 shield, or higher than a 98 to get to the table with a ring of protection. And then if you do make that roll, you only have a 2% chance of a shield+1. And a 1% chance of a ring of protection. For creatures from CR 5 to 10, you have to roll between an 81 and 98 to get a chance to roll on either table for a shield+1 or ring of protection.

No, mathematically, you have a very small chance of getting those items once, let alone three of them for the same PC, especially by the time that PC reaches level 6. I haven't run the numbers, but I'm betting they are incredibly small. Like winning the lottery chances.