D&D 5E Using a shield as an 'improvised weapon' while retaining the AC bonus

[Dausuul]

So Jeremy Crawford saying that you can't use shields (as improvised weapons) in TWF doesn't influence your opinion?

I hadn't read that far when I posted.

That said, as far as I'm concerned, Jeremy Crawford is another DM offering suggestions on how to interpret the rules in the book. He's good at what he does, and I do give his suggestions extra weight because a) he has exceptionally deep knowledge of the ruleset and b) they are the basis on which WotC will write new material in the future. But I don't view his rulings as extensions of the actual written rules. I feel I owe my players a heads-up and an opportunity to air their views before I make a house rule contradicting the book; I don't feel the same way about Crawford's rulings. If you come into my campaign expecting to be able to use the Lucky feat to turn disadvantage into super-advantage, that's your problem.

In this particular scenario, Crawford pretty much had to rule as he did. To do otherwise would mean committing WotC to supporting shield-bashing-dual-wielding fighter builds. However, I am not WotC. If a player came to me wanting to try such a build, I would be open to allowing it, though I would need to spend a little time thinking through the implications.

 

[Kithas]

Yes. Even PCs can shield bash using the rules for improvised weapons.

But neither does so by using the TWF rules, because those rules require actual weapons, not improvised weapons; objects designed to be weapons, as opposed to objects not designed to be weapons.

that's because npc's dont need 2 weapon fighting or extra attack, they use multiattack;
per example the Gladiator (p.346 MM)
Multiattack the gladiator makes three melee attacks or two ranged attacks.
spear etc normal spear stuff +7 to hit
Shield Bash Melee Weapon Attack; +7 to hit, reach 5'. one creature. Hit 2d4+4. If the target is Medium or smaller creature, it must succeed on a DC15 Strength save or be knocked Prone.

To be clear that level of power on an attack is silly and Id never give it to a pc but it does exist on npcs

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Ok here is how it works by RAW.

Shield:

• +2 AC: Attacking with a shield will not remove this bonus by RAW
• Improvised Weapon: 1d4+STR damage, No proficiency to Attack unless you have the Tavern Brawler feat as shields are not like any weapon on the weapon list.
• TWF: You cannot TWF using a shield unless you have the Dual Wielder Feat, as Shields are not a light weapon.
• Dueling: If you attack with a weapon and your shield (as an improvised weapon), you lose the benefit of your Dueling FS. If however, you are armed with a Shield and a free hand, your Improvised Weapon (Shield) deals 1d4+2+STR (as it would gain the benefits of dueling).

Ignoring Mr. Crawford's elucidation of RAI for a moment, I think it's important to see how this stacks up against the Dual-Wielder feat using two normal weapons. If dual-wielding sword and shield beats dual-wielding two swords, I'd definitely go with the RAI and not allow it. If, on the other hand, it is at least slightly inferior to two weapons, I'd consider it.

So compared to dual-wielding two longswords or rapiers, here is what dual-wielding sword and shield gives you:

+2 AC
-2 Damage
-2 to -6 to attack

If your shield is magical that would add even more to AC. If the off-hand weapon were magical that would add more to damage and attack lost.

It's a tough call to me. AC is pretty darn valuable in 5e. And with magic in the mix, it just gets better and better. At higher levels that proficiency bonus and damage look like they might make it superior, but that only applies to a single attack, whereas AC applies to every attack against you.

I'm probably going with Mr. Crawford on this one. A character can shield bash, but not as part of two weapon fighting, so it would require the Extra Attack feature (just like there is nothing stopping a fighter from using Extra Attack to attack once with a weapon in each hand rather than twice with the same weapon). There isn't really much reason to do that, however, unless you realize something you are fighting is resistant to the damage type of your primary weapon but not to bludgeoning.

 

[Arial Black]

Ignoring Mr. Crawford's elucidation of RAI for a moment, I think it's important to see how this stacks up against the Dual-Wielder feat using two normal weapons. If dual-wielding sword and shield beats dual-wielding two swords, I'd definitely go with the RAI and not allow it. If, on the other hand, it is at least slightly inferior to two weapons, I'd consider it.

So compared to dual-wielding two longswords or rapiers, here is what dual-wielding sword and shield gives you:

+2 AC
-2 Damage
-2 to -6 to attack

If your shield is magical that would add even more to AC. If the off-hand weapon were magical that would add more to damage and attack lost.

It's a tough call to me. AC is pretty darn valuable in 5e. And with magic in the mix, it just gets better and better. At higher levels that proficiency bonus and damage look like they might make it superior, but that only applies to a single attack, whereas AC applies to every attack against you.

I'm probably going with Mr. Crawford on this one. A character can shield bash, but not as part of two weapon fighting, so it would require the Extra Attack feature (just like there is nothing stopping a fighter from using Extra Attack to attack once with a weapon in each hand rather than twice with the same weapon). There isn't really much reason to do that, however, unless you realize something you are fighting is resistant to the damage type of your primary weapon but not to bludgeoning.

Good post. Here are a couple of other things to consider:-

The Tavern Brawler feat takes away the '-2 to -6 to attack'.

If you can choose the shield to be a (weapon) for the purposes of TWF, and also choose the shield to be a (not weapon) for the purposes of the Dueling fighting style (and we know that this is the case since you CAN use a shield with Dueling style), it must be noted that there is no rule limiting how often you can switch designations like this.

Although the shield can only be EITHER a (weapon) OR a (not weapon) at any given instant, it's no problem to make the shield a (not weapon) when you attack with your sword (to get the +2 Dueling bonus) and then in the same round make the shield a (weapon) so that you can use it to execute the bonus action attack generated by your first attack.

If you allow shields to actually be (weapons) just because there is a rule which allows you to attack with (not weapons), then the results of comparing sword & board versus two swords in TWF with Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler (and Dueling) is:-

S&B = +2 to +5 AC (even without the +1 to AC from Dual Wielder), d8 + d4 +2 = 9 damage
Twin Swords = +1 to AC, 2d8 = 9 damage.

The same damage, +1 to +4 better AC. This cannot be intended.

The solution is simply to enforce the rules. The improvised weapons rule allows you to attack with a (not weapon) without turning it into a (weapon). When the rules say (weapon), they mean it(!). TWF requires (weapons). Problem solved.

If you want to shield bash, you can do so. But not using TWF.

 

[Nicholai Bush]

IMHO:
A shield can be used as an improvised weapon, in which case it is wielded, not worn.

In main hand, improvised weapon, (prof? + str), no AC benefit. Can wear a shield in off hand.

In off hand, a shield does not have the "light" property, so in order to effectively dual wield would require the Dual Wielding feat.
Since the Dual Wielding Feat is required, and the shield is wielded, not worn, +1 AC. Two Weapon Fighting is required for Str bonus to damage.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Allowing worn items to be used as weapons gets complicated. If you allow a worn shield to be a weapon, what about a gauntlet? An armoured boot? A pauldron? If I can bash someone with a shield then I can headbutt them with a helm or backhand them with a gauntlet. A heavy ring makes a punch more effective, so can I use my +1 ring as an improvised weapon?

Does this mean that two-weapon fighting works with a weapon in one hand and a gauntlet on the other? Does it mean that duelling fighting style can never be used with any worn armour?

In my games, I've gone for the simple ruling that shields are worn items and worn items are not weapons. If you want to bash someone with a shield then make an unarmed attack.

 

[jaelis]

Allowing worn items to be used as weapons gets complicated. If you allow a worn shield to be a weapon, what about a gauntlet? An armoured boot? A pauldron? If I can bash someone with a shield then I can headbutt them with a helm or backhand them with a gauntlet. A heavy ring makes a punch more effective, so can I use my +1 ring as an improvised weapon?

Most of what you describe sounds like an unarmed strike to me.

Does this mean that two-weapon fighting works with a weapon in one hand and a gauntlet on the other? Does it mean that duelling fighting style can never be used with any worn armour?

Again, unarmed strikes. As for duelling style, you simply have to interpret that an improvised weapon is not a weapon. Which sounds weird, but it's the only interpretation that makes any sense.

But mainly, this is an old thread, and for anyone concerned about "official" interpretations we now have a proper Sage Advice response.

If you attack with a shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?
Attacking with a shield doesn’t deprive you of the bonus to AC.

 

[Horwath]

Here is a feat for it,

Sword and board: requires proficiency with shields.
Gain +1 str or con.

When you take Attack action with one handed melee weapon, you can make one melee attack with your shield a a bonus action. You are proficient with this attack. Use str for attack and damage bonus. Attack deals 1d4 blunt damage or 1d4 piercing if its a spiked shield.
Use shield magic bonus to AC as bonus to attack and damage.


Sent from my HummerLE using EN World mobile app

 

[Flamestrike]

Here is a feat for it,

Sword and board: requires proficiency with shields.
Gain +1 str or con.

When you take Attack action with one handed melee weapon, you can make one melee attack with your shield a a bonus action. You are proficient with this attack. Use str for attack and damage bonus. Attack deals 1d4 blunt damage or 1d4 piercing if its a spiked shield.
Use shield magic bonus to AC as bonus to attack and damage.


Sent from my HummerLE using EN World mobile app

I honestly think the shield master feet should've just granted that shield bash discussed above, instead of knocking people prone.

My sword and board paladin can't justify getting shield master because is worthless to me. He wouldn't stab a prone opponent.

In my games I change the shield bash to doing d4 damage instead of knocking people prone.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Most of what you describe sounds like an unarmed strike to me.

That's my point. We don't need any rules for "shields as improvised weapons". Just make an unarmed attack (if you want to damage your target) or a shove (if you want to move your target).

If you want shields to do more damage, then introduce a rule, "While wielding a shield, your unarmed strikes do 1d4+STR damage."