Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok I just started up DnD. I joined an existing group starting out at 5th level and I have a few questions to be sure I have all my bonuses and stuff down correctly.

1) I have a Longsword. I am Str18(so +4) and have a +3 Proficiency Bonus. That means I have a +7 to hit and do 1D8+7 damage with my Longsword(1D10 if used two handed). Likewise, I also have +7 to hit and do 1D6+7 damage with my Javelins, as I can use Strength instead of Dexterity when using Thrown weapons.

2) my fighting style is Dueling. Which means I gain +2 to damage with any one handed weapon as long as I don't have a second weapon(so with the above my damage would be 1D8+9). Does this apply if I am using a shield?

3) How does Double Attack and Action Surge interact? I normally get to make two melee attacks with my action. If I use Action Surge to gain another action, can I use the second action to attack again to make a total of 4 attacks?

So first off -- it's D&D. That ampersand is very important!

(1) looks fine (must rather than can use STR with Thrown Weapons IIRC, disregarding Finesse)

(2) I would not allow it well ... can you remind me, is there a clearly shield-focused fighting style?

(3) surge gives you another action; if double attack is normally an action (as opposed to an action in combination with a bonus action) then you can indeed surge to double attack twice

Heh, Fair enough on &.

I figured that logically I wouldn't get Dueling if I'm using a shield, but it does just say weapons and doesn't say shields count against it. I guess I'll have to ask my GM what his take is. Seems like RAW you would, but I don't metagame RPGs just because I can. Only when it makes sense for my character.

The wording Extra Attack is that when you use an Attack Action you attack twice. It doesn't use a bonus action or anything.

Let me think a bit more about the dueling thing ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So what is throwing me off is the name, which doesn't really evoke (in my imagination) the image of a warrior fighting with a shield. But names are not rules. Nor is there any rule which would count a shield as a weapon. So I reverse my earlier comment.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok I just started up DnD. I joined an existing group starting out at 5th level and I have a few questions to be sure I have all my bonuses and stuff down correctly.

1) I have a Longsword. I am Str18(so +4) and have a +3 Proficiency Bonus. That means I have a +7 to hit and do 1D8+7 damage with my Longsword(1D10 if used two handed). Likewise, I also have +7 to hit and do 1D6+7 damage with my Javelins, as I can use Strength instead of Dexterity when using Thrown weapons.

Proficiency only applies to your attack rolls. So you're rolling 1d8+4 for the longsword and 1d6+4 for the Javelin.

Ahhh, that makes more sense.

 Manchu wrote:
Let me think a bit more about the dueling thing ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So what is throwing me off is the name, which doesn't really evoke (in my imagination) the image of a warrior fighting with a shield. But names are not rules. Nor is there any rule which would count a shield as a weapon. So I reverse my earlier comment.

This actually gets you into very interesting territory if at any point the player asks: "What happens when I try bash them with my shield"?

If this is possible, then the shield is at minimum an improvised weapon and would seemingly violate the dueling clause.
If this is impossible, then shield isn't a weapon of any sort but run into the absurdity of it. "What happens when I hit someone in the face with my shield, as hard I can?" Are faces simply shield-proof?

If we do allow the shield bash, does it only count as weapon in the round it's used to bash?
If so it implies weapons are only weapons in the turn they're used to attack, which oddly makes dueling work while dual-wielding so long as the off-hand isn't used. (though this isn't terribly degenerate from a game play standpoint)
If not, then because the shield can be used as improvised weapon it must always be a weapon and therefore preclude dueling.

This is of course all over thinking it massively. I guess what I'm saying is that players should "Ask your GM" don't go looking to the internet for definitive answer. It's a vague enough part of the rules that it is best the person in charge actually provide the information.

Personally I have no problem with it and would certainly allow it, community consensus would peg it that way too. Still I think it's best to be wary of handing out definitive statements for these kind of things.

Any discussion of D&D assumes the standard "ask your DM" boilerplate. A more interesting question is whether the published rules cover everything (no) or are even meant to do so (no).

One of the most important roles of the DM is to curtail abusive legalistic arguments.

 Manchu wrote:


One of the most important roles of the DM is to curtail abusive legalistic arguments.

Ideally though they should spend as little time and energy on this as possible. Time spent outlining and justifying rulings is time not spent on more interesting and less frustrating things. In general providing a player with a firm "ruling" of your own can do one of two things:

A: Nothing ( in the case they ignore you, or in the case your ruling is what their GM would rule anyway)
B: Increase the chances of an argument (the player takes your ruling to the GM and it's in opposition to theirs).

In the first case nothing is gained over simply indicating that it's a GMs call, in the second case the situation is actively worse. If the context is a GM or group looking for help with forming a ruling sure that kind of input is useful. However when it's a single new player looking for clarification of a grey area there is no way giving input can help, it's either entirely neutral or some little bit harmful, better to avoid it at all.

Any reasonably capable DM understands that every ruling she makes is conditional upon the specific circumstances of the game as a matter of both narrative and play (i.e, what is fair and fun).

That isn't what's at issue ITT. Here, the question is about the published rules, the frame of reference against which a DM normally considers her rulings. Shields aren't normally weapons. Therefore, arming a PC with one does not mean that said PC must forgo the Dueling bonus.

A DM who rejects this baseline is making a houserule rather than a ruling. It's basic DM etiquette to (at least) talk over a houserule with the players before applying it.

Whether the shield bash situation requires a case-by-case ruling or its own overarching houserule is a matter of the group's taste. More traditional players who narratie what their PC are attempting will probably prefer the former. The board gamer type players who like to announce which rules they are invoking will probably prefer the latter.

There is a Fighter style that requires a shield: Protection. The wording of the Dueling style does not seem to prevent having a shield in the other hand as it only states that you may not have a weapon in your other hand; shields are listed with armor and not weapons so I do not believe they count as weapons. I think you would get the +2 AC for the shield but that is basically it.

There are no explicit rules for shield bashing that I know of in 5E and is between the player and the DM.

Protection is really neat. The double limitation of 5-foot range and once-per-turn may put people off but imposing disadvantage can be pretty powerful.

 Chongara wrote:

This actually gets you into very interesting territory if at any point the player asks: "What happens when I try bash them with my shield"?

This won't come up, because there's a specific Fighter fighting style for using shields offensively, which includes the move shield bash. I don't have the PHB available right now, so I can't check the exact names. But unless you have the specific fighting style, you're not able to shield bash. It would become an issue at a later level, however, if the fighter picked the shield fighting style as their second style, IF the shield had been classified as a weapon and not armor. Since the shield is classified as armor, the issue doesn't come up, because Duelist specifically states a second "weapon" as the exception. So rules as written does not exclude a fighter from using a sword and a shield with the Duelist fighting style (or even with both Duelist and shield specific style).

 SgtSixkilla wrote:
I don't have the PHB available right now, so I can't check the exact names.

I believe you are referring to the Shield Specialization feat which gives several buffs to using a shield including a kind of Shield Bash, but it doesn't make the shield a 'weapon'.

 SgtSixkilla wrote:
But unless you have the specific fighting style, you're not able to shield bash.

I don't think that is correct unless by "bash" you mean something more specific than hitting someone with your shield.

Perhaps the 'shove' bonus action?

If the PC has dual wielding specialty, it could attack with both shield as an improvised weapon, and regular weapon. Unless the DM decides it cannot be both weapon and armor at the same time-- a sensible decision, this could be a +3 AC bonus (+1 for off hand weapon due to the specialization and +2 for the shield.) I would say that the shield must be one or the other for that round, and give it the +1AC and the attack (d4 or d6 bludgeoning?) or give it the +2AC. PC gets to chose.

As far as the dueling specialty, the shield is armor unless the PC uses it otherwise.

Defense gives a +1 to AC regardless doesn't it? The Protection style just allows one to use their reaction to grant disadvantage when wielding a shield, the two weapon style just lets you use your modifier with the attack, and the feat doesn't get a bonus so not sure where the extra is coming +1 for a shield is from. As far as I can tell trying to do damage with a shield would just be an improvised attack as a bonus action, following the normal rules for improvised attacks, and use a bonus action to attempt. They would probably lose the +2 AC from the shield until the beginning of their next turn if they tried to use it as a weapon.

The Dual Wielder feat does give a +1 AC bonus is the PC has a melee weapon in each hand. And the PC can use weapons that are not 'light'. I was thinking that if the shield is both a weapon and armor, in the same round, the PC could claim the +2 for having a shield, and another +1 when it is also used as a weapon. Double-dipping as it were. Which is why I think the PC needs to pick one or the other.

Ah, I see. You think I meant the Two-Weapon Fighting Fighting Style that fighters can choose. And I called it a specialty, not a feat
That's what I get for playing a Wizard. This particular Fighting Style would be very useful when combined with the Dual Wielder feat though.

Shield's don't count as melee weapons so they wouldn't get the +1 for having a melee weapon in their off hand from the feat. One would have to house rule it to make it count.

When I looked up the improvised weapon rules I noticed something in the PHB about every weapon being classified as either melee or ranged. I would guess that improvised weapons are covered by that too. If you throw it, then it is a ranged weapon-- or a particularly dangerous frisbee if round, and if you attack in close combat with it, then it is a melee weapon. But it would be up to the DM to make the ruling.