Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7513219" data-attributes="member: 6880599">Sure, I really don't care about the damage just the implication that you could impower the weapon as with Divine smite it was just easier to do demonstrate my points with Fighter Champion and Forge Domain Cleric as they together have an example of all the edge cases I could think of that would require interpretation of effects. I reduced the damage to 1d8 though I didn't take it way from all the attacks because the intent is to demonstrate the state of the shield as qualifying as a "weapon" to trigger the ability not really to show case the ability... but you are correct.See this is interesting in that a +1 Shield designates what type of enchantment it has "While holding this shield, you have a +1 bonus to AC". Blessing of the Forge provides +1 based on what is enchanted. I understand that the idea of it adding to the damage is strange but at the same time a 1d4+1 off hand weapon is not broken by any means and I don't think its necessarily against RAI so much as perhaps something they didn't consider and their for had no intent. Not being broken and not having a clear intent I think ether call is fine but I … being just personal opinion... want consistency on an over arching reason why. I think a valid approach (while certainly not the only approach) is to identify if and when it qualifies as a weapon when cast to when its used. I would say if your intent is to fight with it as primary goal of take the Dual Wielder for that specific propose (because by RAW and in real life with the exception of a buckler, shields are not light but commonly used as weapons) I think it is fair to say yes for your character your shield is a weapon at all times for such effect and that Blessing of the Forge being so very niche is perhaps the only one that will apply both AC and Damage is limited to 1 and as such I would fall the "rule of cool" an allow it.  ...but I understand if your ruling against it needs to be one or the other as an oddity but I also think that's why the "rule of cool" applies since it does not seem to me to qualify as "broken".At the moment I am considering the shield a weapon as long as the bearer has the Dual Wielder feat. I understand the view that the feat is usually used with out a shield and is compensating for lower defense but at the same time it usually used with two Mauls or two longswords and to be honest I think the +1 AC is an offset because you just took a feat to do something cool when really you could have to rapiers without the feat and do the same mechanic damage. The only weapon that does not have a 1d8 damage that this feat gives you access to is the Lance which is only not two handed restricted weapon when your mounted allowing you to use a shield or be silly with two lances on a horse. So considering the player took a feat for flavor and in this case to use the shield as a weapon that's pretty week for a feat, and as I am consider the shield now as a weapon , then its another not broken their for rule of cool niche. Does that mean they are now +2 AC above normal with a Forge Domain Cleric that has Duel Wielder feat for this purpose and is fighting with a 1d8 or 1d6 weapon and a 1d4+1 shield yes... but that's so niche I am in favor of the flavor and not conserved about the creep of AC.Sure, I explained above am wrong but my focus is on analyzing the interaction not the actual bonus to damage.Sure, but if you are "all in" to really fight using Duel Weider Feat, Tavern Brawler for to hit, and Damage from Two Weapon fighting your not getting Str+Pof to hit 1d4+Str that's quite the investment for not so much return. This is not an optimal build its a flavor build and with GM permission you can even say a fighter is proficient with the Shield as an improvised weapon without needing tavern brawler. These are brought up to show possible player investment into the flavor of this build which invokes bit of leniency in the interaction of the connecting abilities that see your not granting. Which is fine. I just fell like a non-broken. RAW or RAI don't are not really clear here so I feel like their is room to go either way.I am looking at the Shield used with Duel wilder feat defined as weapon excluding Dueling Fighting style by RAW. However if we define that improvised weapons are only weapon during the attacks that means a bottle in the hand is just a bottle but when you hit someone with it you can use divine smite. In that case I would allow dueling as RAW since the bottle is not a weapon when not in use. As far as RAI … I think the Dueling fighting is intended as a damage buff for your 1d4/6/8 weapons favoring additional strikes. I do think using getting another strike with your shield covers that so I would want to lean away from it but if I were to change stance to except improvised weapons as only weapons in combat I don't know that it takes away from the "Princess Bride feel" but I would also point out that sword and Board Duels Viking style with 3 shields are also a thing. To me dueling is about engaging in a one on one fight and has many variations. It just seems to me that its restriction to one weapon in one hand shows that it is style incentive/mechanical off set. It does clarify your position and help me to consider point and other views so I can grow my view point and know how to deal with it if it comes up in a game.Right now I am thinking - if you have the Duel wielder Feat and your fighting sword and board, the shield counts as a weapon. - If you don't have the Duel wielder feat you simply have not trained to use a shield as an improves weapon with your off hand. Its too heavy and unwieldy without practice and trying would not likely be effective and would open you up for attacks. Since a shield is defensive option that is against the intuitive mentality of taking using it up and is something you need to learn to over come. When you train to duel wield it changes that mentally from a shield is for defense and weapon offense, to both are offense and Defense...which explains the +1 AC bonus from the feat simple being more efficient incombat.I do HEMA so I am aware that is not entirely accurate IRL since you never consider your weapon just offense since you start off leaning guards, parries, and lines usually with a longsword as both your weapon and your shield. Then when you pick up a shield you learn quickly about creating a line and attacking the enemy weapon with your shield to isolate and block the weapon opening an attack or bashing them with the shield for the same reason … but for D&D it works for me.I will keep an eye out I have some wiggle room here but when we started I had no idea what I though so even writing it all out helped then talking about it has helped more... Perhaps I can refine the idea a bit more.</blockquote>

Verification