D&D 5E How would you make a character who uses a shield like Captain America?

A fair point, but Bucky Barnes can do it, and I think he could have only learned how pre-mindwashing and robo arm installation.

And he doesn't have any powers.

jgsugden said:

Don't overthink it.

If the concept fits in the campaign, apply the least cumbersome whitewash on it and move forward.

If it were me, I'd just say that you treat the character like the shield is simultaneously a shield and spear at the same time. He uses it like a spear (d6 damage, 20/60 range, versatile (d8) for melee) and he has to have his other hand free to use it this way (d8 damage is fine when used in melee).

When you give him an enchanted shield (if you do), treat it as either one or two magic items. Either a defensive item, or an offensive weapon, or both - but only if you count it like two magic items the PCs found.

Click to expand...

I really like this idea best. It's not really much different that a shield and spear, but flavor-wise instead of describing him as a spear thrower, he's throwing his shield. Multiple attacks? The shield is ricocheting. And it returns to his hand always just in time to block the next attack. The only issue that might come up is with ammunition (javelins normally have a limited supply before you need to pick up thrown ones of just run out). But giving the player an unlimited supply is no more game breaking that mage type characters having cantrips at 1st level that can be used without need or worry for ammo.

Mouseferatu said:

It's not RAW, but as a DM, I'd do it this way:

The shield does 1d6 bludgeoning, as a melee or thrown weapon. Thrown, it has a range of 20/60. This makes it the equivalent of the best weapons with the thrown property.

During his turn, while attacking with the shield, the PC doesn't gain its bonus to AC. So if he draws any attacks of opportunity or some other form of reaction, he's more likely to get hit.

Where you're really going to run into problems is with multiple attacks. In melee, it makes sense, but thrown... I can't think of a way to justify the shield bouncing back fast enough for multiple throws. So I'd allow him to make multiple attacks (assuming he has them available), but only if they're against different creatures (to represent the shield ricocheting from one to another).

I wouldn't require a feat for this, because frankly, there's no mechanical benefit to it. (In fact, given the above restrictions, there are mechanical downsides.) It's just cool flavor.

You know what? I might be persuaded to make the shield d8 damage, just because there is no real advantage.

Click to expand...

This is essentially what I had a DM do for me, though I went Eldritch Knight to get Weapon Bond and bonus-action return my shield. The principle was almost identical though.

Mercule said:

Sure, druids can control the weather, but they don't use the wind to fly like Storm.

Click to expand...

Fly spell. Levitate. Aaroakroa.

Mercule said:

Warlocks have an unlimited eldritch blast, but they don't shoot it from their eyes like Cyclops.

Click to expand...

Why not? Where the blast comes from is pure flavor. Yes, they need that free hand for somatic components/arcane focus. But you could describe it as eyebolts as easily as you could say its a Predator's shoulder cannon. Makes no difference mechanically.

Mercule said:

Fighters get a lot of stat points as they advance, but they aren't going to have all 20s like Cap.

Click to expand...

Have you seen how many times they can up there stats? They can get close. But you are also comparing worlds where Gods walk the earth and the Tarrasque could pop up at anytime. No reason players can't strive towards these concepts and describe them in these ways.

Hawk Diesel said:

Fly spell. Levitate. Aaroakroa.

Why not? Where the blast comes from is pure flavor. Yes, they need that free hand for somatic components/arcane focus. But you could describe it as eyebolts as easily as you could say its a Predator's shoulder cannon. Makes no difference mechanically.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that varies based on what a person considers mechanics. I regard a functioning weather system and somewhat similar to realistically modeled airflow as a valuable and important game mechanic. Same for which body parts a person needs to blast stuff, and whether or not they can lose those body parts, and how they might lose or be impaired in those parts. I'm aware that not everyone expresses that opinion, but the choice not to have those mechanics determines whether those suggestions can be used for reskinning or not.

Have you seen how many times they can up there stats? They can get close. But you are also comparing worlds where Gods walk the earth and the Tarrasque could pop up at anytime. No reason players can't strive towards these concepts and describe them in these ways.

Click to expand...

Meh. Gods and Tarrasques are just as much fluff as superheroes, tooth fairies and hamsters that travel around in human butt cheeks. Wubba Lubba DubDub!

Determining which concepts are appropriate (or not) for a groups game is just as important as anything else. Not every concept can be supported at once without weird and downright silly stuff happening in the setting. For a good example, check out the Spiderman story where Parker makes a deal with the devil to undo his marriage because he can't handle great responsibility.

Hawk Diesel said:

Fly spell. Levitate. Aaroakroa.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they couldn't fly. I said (implicitly) they don't use the control weather spell to lift them into the air.

Why not? Where the blast comes from is pure flavor. Yes, they need that free hand for somatic components/arcane focus. But you could describe it as eyebolts as easily as you could say its a Predator's shoulder cannon. Makes no difference mechanically.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd say it's pure flavor; mechanics generally support or are informed by flavor. Even though it's primarily fluff/flavor, there are some oddities like the somatic components. That's one of the reasons why the "temporary" Warlord subforum exists. Some people have an easier time than others with that handwave.

Have you seen how many times they can up there stats? They can get close. But you are also comparing worlds where Gods walk the earth and the Tarrasque could pop up at anytime. No reason players can't strive towards these concepts and describe them in these ways.

Click to expand...

While becoming a god has (almost) always been conceptually present in D&D, it was generally viewed as either retirement or a transition to another style of play. It definitely isn't 1st level stuff.

NotActuallyTim said:

Actually, I think that varies based on what a person considers mechanics. I regard a functioning weather system and somewhat similar to realistically modeled airflow as a valuable and important game mechanic. Same for which body parts a person needs to blast stuff, and whether or not they can lose those body parts, and how they might lose or be impaired in those parts. I'm aware that not everyone expresses that opinion, but the choice not to have those mechanics determines whether those suggestions can be used for reskinning or not.

Click to expand...

How does it make a difference if a person describes their fly spell/levitate spell/Aarakroa wings differently? Whether it's magically bending the normal laws of gravity versus having such fine control over the wind and air that they create buoyancy and propulsion versus sprouting wings on their backs versus manifesting some kind jetpak, the effect is the same. They can fly. We aren't granting them control over all the weather using that ability, but we are granting them a specific sphere of influence within the capabilities of the mechanical effect/outcome. So yea, I think reskinning fly to say your are controlling your local (as in around your body) weather finely enough to provide flight is valid. It doesn't break the rules or provide uses not given by the specific abilities.

NotActuallyTim said:

Meh. Gods and Tarrasques are just as much fluff as superheroes, tooth fairies and hamsters that travel around in human butt cheeks. Wubba Lubba DubDub!

Click to expand...

Don't really know what you're getting at here. But my point here is that it seems like we're splitting hairs on what you can or cannot do in a realm of fantasy.

NotActuallyTim said:

Determining which concepts are appropriate (or not) for a groups game is just as important as anything else. Not every concept can be supported at once without weird and downright silly stuff happening in the setting. For a good example, check out the Spiderman story where Parker makes a deal with the devil to undo his marriage because he can't handle great responsibility.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that some concepts might not fit a particular gaming group, which is why session 0 is important for any group to create the foundation for the style of play and what kind of game is going to be run/played/enjoyed. But this is seriously getting off target from the OP's question. She did not ask whether she should or shouldn't allow this in her game. She asked how, based on 5e rules, she might fairly implement a character that can use a shield in a manner similar to Captain America. She did not suggest allowing a Captain America stand in for a player, or ask if such a character would be congruent to the theme/play-style of an established game.

EDIT: [MENTION=5100]Mercule[/MENTION] Sorry, I read that as that druids can control the weather, but not fly like Storm. Not as they can cast control weather, but not use it to fly (a point in which I do agree. A player shouldn't cast that spell and expect to be able to fly). As to the issues with flavor vs. mechanics, I guess my DM style is to let fun concepts to inform rulings, rather that for the mechanics and RAW stand too greatly in the way. As long as it doesn't break the game or unbalance the party, I'm generally ok with it. But I'm a relatively new poster, so I'm not familiar with the Warlord section.

Mercule said:

While becoming a god has (almost) always been conceptually present in D&D, it was generally viewed as either retirement or a transition to another style of play. It definitely isn't 1st level stuff.

Click to expand...

Very true, and another point where we agree. But the OP isn't asking for Captain America at first level. She's asking how to get an effect that allows her to have a character use a shield in a similar way as Captain America.

Hawk Diesel said:

I agree with you that some concepts might not fit a particular gaming group, which is why session 0 is important for any group to create the foundation for the style of play and what kind of game is going to be run/played/enjoyed. But this is seriously getting off target from the OP's question. He did not ask whether he should or shouldn't allow this in his game. He asked how, based on 5e rules, he might fairly implement a character that can use a shield in a manner similar to Captain America. He did not suggest allowing a Captain America stand in for a player, or ask if such a character would be congruent to the theme/play-style of an established game.

Click to expand...

I'm a she, but, yes, that's precisely what I was asking.

Ach! My apologies! I should have paid more attention to your name. ^_^ Also, I guess that says something about my perceptions of peers on this site. I will try to be more careful in my assumptions.

Hawk Diesel said:

How does it make a difference if a person describes their fly spell/levitate spell/Aarakroa wings differently? Whether it's magically bending the normal laws of gravity versus having such fine control over the wind and air that they create buoyancy and propulsion versus sprouting wings on their backs versus manifesting some kind jetpak, the effect is the same. They can fly. We aren't granting them control over all the weather using that ability, but we are granting them a specific sphere of influence within the capabilities of the mechanical effect/outcome. So yea, I think reskinning fly to say your are controlling your local (as in around your body) weather finely enough to provide flight is valid. It doesn't break the rules or provide uses not given by the specific abilities.

Click to expand...

Bending gravity works in a vacuum, that's why. In addition, it alters spacetime, resulting in a relative time based on the amount of force gravity exerts on mass. Wings can be cut off, whereas the Storm Sorceror's ability to affect winds is not, as far as I know, something that can be cut out with a sword. As far as I'm concerned, by implementing reskinning as a mechanic, you lose access to having mechanics that accurately model physics, anatomy and in some cases even the magic of the settings that people are playing in.

I agree with you that some concepts might not fit a particular gaming group, which is why session 0 is important for any group to create the foundation for the style of play and what kind of game is going to be run/played/enjoyed. But this is seriously getting off target from the OP's question. He did not ask whether he should or shouldn't allow this in his game. He asked how, based on 5e rules, he might fairly implement a character that can use a shield in a manner similar to Captain America. He did not suggest allowing a Captain America stand in for a player, or ask if such a character would be congruent to the theme/play-style of an established game.

Click to expand...

And here I thought we were talking about reskinning things by deliberately ignoring potential differences between them to suit our purposes, and what actually gets sacrificed as a direct result of that. Whatever, you want to me shut up, I'll shut up.