D&D (2024) Maybe this is a bit late, but let's talk about Rogue's Niche, and What Rogue Should Be.

[James Gasik]

Heck, 5e can't decide if shields are held in hand or strapped to one's arm.

 

[ECMO3]

yeah but like, you're saying they couldn't of given us maybe even just three choices of shield?

buckler: +1 AC, isn't required to be held in a hand (but prevents wearing a different shield)
shield: +2 AC,
tower shield: +3 AC, requires STR 16, versatile(+4 AC)

it's just two extra lines of text but they open up a whole lot of build/play decisions in them.

I am not a fan of different mechanics for different shields.

I am fine with having a choice of those three types of shields, but it should be the same mechanics for each type: held in hand and +2 to AC or maybe +1 AC and not required to be held in a hand.

I don't see any benefit at all to giving more complex mechanics to account for different types of shields.

As an alternative I would be fine with doing away with any mechanical benefit for a shield or making it like gauntlets or greeves or a helmet. You could make a shield a part of certain armors but with no penalty for not using it (kind of like there is no penalty if you do not wear the guantlets that come with your plate).

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is because they are finesse weapons, not because they are two weapon fighting. Optimizing for dexterity means you are better out of combat due to the skills attached to dexterity and can be very good with both ranged and melee

There is and should be a price to pay for this and this price and numerical inferiority in melee disappears when you use strength with two weapon fighting.

Further you could easily create your Two-Weapon Fighter character with a high strength. There is nothing against that or stopping you from doing that and if you do, you can do more damage than your reach fighters or your archers



But Two weapon fighting with strength weapons beats any other melee fighting style, when optimized it is the highest damage of all of them.

I get that this doesn't apply for finesse, but then you don't get to do finesse two handed weapons.

Two Weapon Fighting is not weak. It is only weak when you don't optimize for it o r when you insist on using finesse.





And is better at ranged attacks and is better at doing things other than attacking and is better in other pillars all else being equal.

That is the price you pay and frankly it is not high enough if you really want to balance things.

Just a note, seems like your quotes were meant to be directed at Minigiant.

 

[Chaosmancer]

yeah but like, you're saying they couldn't of given us maybe even just three choices of shield?

buckler: +1 AC, isn't required to be held in a hand (but prevents wearing a different shield)
shield: +2 AC,
tower shield: +3 AC, requires STR 16, versatile(+4 AC)

it's just two extra lines of text but they open up a whole lot of build/play decisions in them.

Sure, I'll never say that the game could not have added more types of shields. I have some custom shields.

The claim I was originally responding to, just so we all stay on the same page, was that a Swashbuckler could not be a rogue, because their name references a buckler shield, and rogues do not have shield proficiency. Even though, the majority of pop culture swashbucklers are never depicted using a shield.

Could we add bucklers to the game? Yes. Are Bucklers a required part of the Swashbuckler class identity, integral to their function and aesthetic? ... No. Not even a little bit.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am not a fan of different mechanics for different shields.

I am fine with having a choice of those three types of shields, but it should be the same mechanics for each type: held in hand and +2 to AC or maybe +1 AC and not required to be held in a hand.

I don't see any benefit at all to giving more complex mechanics to account for different types of shields.

As an alternative I would be fine with doing away with any mechanical benefit for a shield or making it like gauntlets or greeves or a helmet. You could make a shield a part of certain armors but with no penalty for not using it (kind of like there is no penalty if you do not wear the guantlets that come with your plate.

Well... you sort of need a different mechanic. IF you had the choice between a one-handed item that gives +1, +2 or +3 to AC and the only difference was about 50 gp of cost... then everyone is going to go for the +3. It is the same reason essentially no one picks sickles as their go to melee weapon, there are just objectively, mathematically better options regardless of your situation.

The bigger problem is, for me, that if you have a Buckler that is +1 AC and the only limitation it presents is it doesn't stack with other shields... you are better off just increasing the AC of all armor by +1 when not equipping a shield, because you will achieve the same end result. Everyone will buy and equip a buckler to increase their AC, there is literally no reason not to.

I think this is why we haven't seen a lot of movement on shield rules, the design space is just incredibly narrow, and hard to balance between making it worthwhile or useless.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I am not a fan of different mechanics for different shields.

I am fine with having a choice of those three types of shields, but it should be the same mechanics for each type: held in hand and +2 to AC or maybe +1 AC and not required to be held in a hand.

I don't see any benefit at all to giving more complex mechanics to account for different types of shields.

As an alternative I would be fine with doing away with any mechanical benefit for a shield or making it like gauntlets or greeves or a helmet. You could make a shield a part of certain armors but with no penalty for not using it (kind of like there is no penalty if you do not wear the guantlets that come with your plate.

i mean is it really all that different or 'complex' set of mechanics for them? no more than the existing weapon weilding mechanics i'd say, it's a choice between a small bonus that doesn't require you to hold it, a medium bonus that takes one hand, or a third with the largest bonus that can be used with both hands for even more effect but also had a prerequisite to wear it properly like some of the heavy armours? it's not like the versatile longsword is considered to use a different attacking mechanic than a 1-handed shortsword is it?

 

[CreamCloud0]

The bigger problem is, for me, that if you have a Buckler that is +1 AC and the only limitation it presents is it doesn't stack with other shields... you are better off just increasing the AC of all armor by +1 when not equipping a shield, because you will achieve the same end result. Everyone will buy and equip a buckler to increase their AC, there is literally no reason not to.

I think this is why we haven't seen a lot of movement on shield rules, the design space is just incredibly narrow, and hard to balance between making it worthwhile or useless.

no reason not to, other than y'know, having shield proficiency or not,

personally i see this as an opportunity to separate shields from basically being medium armour proficiency.5 and having shields be their own independent thing from your level of armour training that could provide room for maybe actually doing something interesting with them.

 

[ECMO3]

Well... you sort of need a different mechanic. IF you had the choice between a one-handed item that gives +1, +2 or +3 to AC and the only difference was about 50 gp of cost... then everyone is going to go for the +3.

I am saying have the same +X, that is part of the mechanics. Distinguish the different types of shields only by description, make it theme.

Wear a buckler and you get +2 and need one hand to hold it. Wear a tower shield and you get +2 and need one hand to hold it.

It would be similar to what we have now with certain weapons:

Trident and Spear, Halberd and Glaive, War Pick and Morning Star .... different weapons that are identical mechanically. You can pick a Halberd or a Glaive but the numbers work the same. Different shields should be like this too.

If you want you could make Tower shields only available with martial proficiency, but it still has the same mechanics similar to Spear and Trident now.

 

[ECMO3]

i mean is it really all that different or 'complex' set of mechanics for them? no more than the existing weapon weilding mechanics i'd say, it's a choice between a small bonus that doesn't require you to hold it, a medium bonus that takes one hand, or a third with the largest bonus that can be used with both hands for even more effect but also had a prerequisite to wear it properly like some of the heavy armours? it's not like the versatile longsword is considered to use a different attacking mechanic than a 1-handed shortsword is it?

For me I don't get how it improves the game. Yes it is a choice between numbers, but I don't see any value in that and I think from a gaming point of view it would be the same if you had the choice with no difference in numbers between the types, or even if a shield gave no benefit at all.

I am not really a fan of the Versatile property Longsword either or of the new Weapon masteries for that matter.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I am not really a fan of the Versatile property Longsword either or of the new Weapon masteries for that matter.

i'm not referencing weapon masteries, i honestly forgot they existed, i was just using versatile property as it's used in 2014 to mean 'there are alternative stats if you weild this with 2 hands instead of just 1.'

For me I don't get how it improves the game. Yes it is a choice between numbers, but I don't see any value in that and I think from a gaming point of view it would be the same if you had the choice with no difference in numbers between the types, or even if a shield gave no benefit at all.

you dont see the point in providing options? options that interact with the rest of combat, fighting styles and combat feats, do you see the value in people picking between sword and board, two weapon fighting or two handed weapons? it's just an extension of that, and a very large portion of this game is based around those numbers you aparrently dont see any value in,

I am saying have the same +X, that is part of the mechanics. Distinguish the different types of shields only by description, make it theme.

Wear a buckler and you get +2 and need one hand to hold it. Wear a tower shield and you get +2 and need one hand to hold it.

It would be similar to what we have now with certain weapons:

Trident and Spear, Halberd and Glaive, War Pick and Morning Star .... different weapons that are identical mechanically. You can pick a Halberd or a Glaive but the numbers work the same. Different shields should be like this too.

If you want you could make Tower shields only available with martial proficiency, but it still has the same mechanics similar to Spear and Trident now.

i REALLY can't understand this point of view, like, you're advocating for identical and redundant options because they have different flavour, it bothered me so much that those weapons existed and had identical stats because at that point you're just wasting page space, this is where 'flavour is free' can run wild, we can make one D10, reach, 2-handed, heavy polearm and people can make a halberd, glaive, nagitina, partizan, poleaxe, fauchard or guisarme out of it, we don't need 7 different writeups for mechanically identical aesthetically different peices of gear.