D&D 5E Shield Saltiness

[Oofta]

Bonus action shields?

Doesnt that let Great weapon guys whip out a shield every second round?

Round 1: [attack action with great sword] and then equip shield as a bonus action (for +2 AC)
Round 2: bonus action stow the shield and then [attack action with the great sword]
Round 3: GOTO 1

etc

Personally, I trust my players not to abuse rules. If you don't just say rule that it can't be done if you are wielding a two-handed weapon.

 

[Umbran]

but walking around with a shield equipped could be considered akin to the folks peacefully walking around with assault rifles to intimidate.

I think walking around with a sword is like walking around with an assault rifle - both the sword and assault rifle are deadly. The shield... not so much.

Walking around with a shield on says, "I expect to be attacked right now." And folks looking at you will be like, "...Why?..."

Mind you, this is a D&D module we are talking about - are we discussing nice, peaceful lands with little or no physical conflict, or a place where monsters are walking around just outside of town? The group I'm in has recently set up shop in a village just on the border of a place called, "the Mere of Dead Men," out of which zombies sometimes wander... and do so more often of late. And just a couple weeks ago, some shmuck tried to summon a water elemental to bust up the town. Nobody is begrudging the party walk around armed and ready.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Except no-one actually does that.

Like, you might find the odd weirdo in the rear echelon that never takes off his plate carrier and helmet for the months after a mortar attack, but they're the exception.

Player characters are exceptional.

Maybe it's unrealistic to wear armor around all day every day, but the game is rife with unrealism. If there is a purely mechanical/balance argument for wanting to prevent shield-users from having their shield in the first round of combat when in urban areas then I'd love to hear it, and I would find that kind of argument persuasive.

I strongly suspect the rule is intended to make it difficult to switch between weapon sets, not to apply a penalty to some characters in some situations.

But it seems to me that some are drawing an arbitrary line of realism in the sand. If a DM is going to rule that armor and shields can't be worn around town, then any weapon (possibly excluding those that can be sheathed on one's belt) should likewise be banned.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Hi guys,

Our sword and board Paladin in our Curse of Strahd campaign who is usually easy-going is feeling targeted by our DM because of the rule that equipping a shield requires an action and our DM says carrying a shield in town is considered a hostile act and not done in civilized society. I was wondering if any groups have experience with house ruling that equipping a shield only requires a free action or a bonus action, maybe with a stipulation that the other hand can't have anything but a single handed weapon to avoid two-handed weapon abuse. I assume that this won't break game balance but I wanted to see if anyone has experience with it?

We also have a GWM barbarian in the party that is doing about 25 hp in damage per hit with his great axe which probably adds more salt to our Pally's wounds.

First, the bolded statement on your DM's view is pretty much crap IMO. Second, Barovia is hardly the model for "civilized society."

Also, unless combat is happening a lot in town, what does it matter? He has to be able to carry his shield (on his back, fine) and if he thinks a fight is about to start, he can always tell the DM he is equipping his shield before the battle even starts. shrug

FWIW, we allow PC with Protective Fighting Style or Shield Mastery to equip a shield as a bonus action.

 

[jgsugden]

I handled this issue by creating a common magic item in my campaign world that is pretty common. They've actually been in my campaign world since the 80s, although the mechanics have been updated.

Favors of the Crowd (Wondrous Item, Common)

Favors of the Crowd are a pair of decorative silk ribbons. When both are tied to separate weapons (or shields), and if either of the weapons is being wielded (or has been donned in the case of a shield), the wielder may use a bonus action to summon the other item to their other hand if it is within 30' of the wielder (in the case of the shield, this dons the shield.)

These may be used on non-weapon items, such as tools, as well, but that is considered a disrespectful act.

Favors of the Crowd are historically given as prizes at tournaments, either by wealthy nobleman showing their support for a contestant, or as the main prize for smaller tournaments. As this is a practice going back thousands of years, these are commonplace.

 

[Iry]

I handwave it just because martials already have so many handicaps, being forced to disarmor and disarm on the regular is pretty brutal. Dressing up for a formal affair, or trying to appear peaceful to a group of suspicious people? Sure. But I let them wander around town in armor and shield on the regular.

 

[Flamestrike]

Personally, I trust my players not to abuse rules. If you don't just say rule that it can't be done if you are wielding a two-handed weapon.

I can stow (or draw) the weapon as part of the attack action used to attack with it.

And its not abusing the rules. The intent of the rule is to allow quick donning and doffing of shields, which is exactly what I'm doing.

 

[Flamestrike]

Player characters are exceptional.

Maybe it's unrealistic to wear armor around all day every day, but the game is rife with unrealism. If there is a purely mechanical/balance argument for wanting to prevent shield-users from having their shield in the first round of combat when in urban areas then I'd love to hear it, and I would find that kind of argument persuasive.

I strongly suspect the rule is intended to make it difficult to switch between weapon sets, not to apply a penalty to some characters in some situations.

But it seems to me that some are drawing an arbitrary line of realism in the sand. If a DM is going to rule that armor and shields can't be worn around town, then any weapon (possibly excluding those that can be sheathed on one's belt) should likewise be banned.

It is unrealistic and I'd never do it as a PC. It's tantamount to bag-o-rats or spamming Guidance before every skill check (as if your PC knows when an ally is about to make a skill check) or any other stupid gamist rubbish.

I likely wouldn't DM a player who did any of the above either. I hate that kind of reasoning nearly as much as I hate Players trying to weasel out of alignment violations.

And I wouldnt rule 'you cant wear armor around town'. I'd likely just have NPCs harass the heck out of the PC until they stopped. Impose disadvantage on Charisma checks (barring initimidate checks) is a start. Have NPC vendors refuse to serve them. Have them hassled by Cops and detained overnight on suspicion of troublemaking. And so forth.

And there is no mechanical balance argument. In 99 percent of cases the shield using PC is in a likely encounter area (i.e. a dungeon, a gloomy ruin or forest, the underdark etc etc) and will have their shield out, and weapon in hand.

Sometimes they wont. Sometimes the Wizard wont have Mage armor cast either. It's no big deal.

 

[Undrave]

The thing that throws me off about this is the reason people don't walk around with shields equipped in Strahd is because they don't own shields. If they did, they would equip them all the time. Because it's not safe. Almost nothing and no place is safe in that adventure. Any day which doesn't end with you being bitten by a vampire, chewed on by a werewolf, assaulted by an intelligent plant or your spouse or children dragged off by Gods know what is a good day in that adventure.

Personally, if I were DMing it I would not have the guards harass you much for equipping a shield. At least, they shouldn't be harassing you more or less than they otherwise would for being strangers in town. Heck a bunch of those towns have no guards anymore. They were all eaten. Or worse.

What the meatball said. It's Barovia! You can't lower your guard in that adventure, especially if you're the Radiant Damage guy! The party needs you.

Strapped on their back, or something like that, I assume. That's what I do in my campaigns.

Like those guys going to Walmart with an assault rifle on their back?

 

[Flamestrike]

Like those guys going to Walmart with an assault rifle on their back?

Barovia, Arkansas, whatever. They're all pretty much the same place.