D&D 5E Can I attack with a two-handed weapon while wearing, but not wielding a shield?

[Kor]

Thanks all for the rules confirmations. I know 5e has tried to simplify things -- for shields we no longer have bucklers, shields and tower shields. Regardless of size, 5e currently treats all shields the same. The don / duff rules for shields I had forgotten about and pretty clearly detail the rules for this.

Its too bad bucklers have yet to make an appearance in 5e, but I think the 3e rules could still apply if a GM chose to allow them.

Thanks.

 

[Tinky_Winky]

I would allow it, but then visit some misfortune of the player at a later date for daring to exploit the rules... "but the treasure chest is actually a mimic, and it bites your arm off! Hold three things at once now- BAM!"

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I certainly hope the 3.x buckler never does make an appearance in 5e. IRL bucklers are NEVER strapped on to the arm; and completely inappropriate for use with a two-handed weapon.

 

[Gimul]

RAW: No.
RAI: No.
RAF: I'd potentially allow it as the benefit from a magic (or perhaps masterwork*) shield, but not for general use.

*I tend use masterwork to denote some (mundane, typically minor) benefit; i.e. single plus 1 (hit or damage, not both; situational ac bonus; etc).

 

[Connorsrpg]

No. Common sense rules seem to be out the window these days. Like loading xbows one-handed.

Bucklers are easy to implement. We have. Simply drop AC bonus to +1, but it cannot be usedor you gain no bonuses for shield features, such as pushing, adding DEX bonus, etc.

 

[S'mon]

I certainly hope the 3.x buckler never does make an appearance in 5e. IRL bucklers are NEVER strapped on to the arm; and completely inappropriate for use with a two-handed weapon.

Naw, IRL archers and crossbowmen did occasionally use strap-ons.
I would guess the regular hand-held civilian buckler as used for personal defence was probably
much more common on the battlefield; it doesn't take an archer long to grab one from his belt.
But to my knowledge a vambrace style forearm buckler did exist.

 

[S'mon]

No. Common sense rules seem to be out the window these days. Like loading xbows one-handed.

Bucklers are easy to implement. We have. Simply drop AC bonus to +1, but it cannot be usedor you gain no bonuses for shield features, such as pushing, adding DEX bonus, etc.

A good rule would be that a +1 AC hand-held buckler can be drawed or stowed at your belt as an object interaction, whereas a real shield takes an action to don or doff as per RAW. This reflects the actual advantage of the buckler over a proper shield, its ease of carry and access.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That is what I would do.
I would also grant everyone with either light armor proficiency or simple weapon proficiencies the right to wield one of them.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Naw, IRL archers and crossbowmen did occasionally use strap-ons.
I would guess the regular hand-held civilian buckler as used for personal defence was probably
much more common on the battlefield; it doesn't take an archer long to grab one from his belt.
But to my knowledge a vambrace style forearm buckler did exist.

Incorrect. While archers did occasionally use small shields and there was some minor overlap in terms prior to main period of popularity for the buckler, the buckler was EXCLUSIVELY held in the hand once it came into its own. This was more or less a defining characteristic. For the most part, the buckler was much too small to provide adequate forearm protection anyway.

 

[Kabouter Games]

An interesting topic. I've used bucklers, too, in HEMA pursuits. I can testify that they really shouldn't be subject to the RAW/RAI, because they really are much easier to deal with than larger shields, from targets to heaters. I've also used them with two-handed weapons without much difficulty; a strapped buckler held in the hand is laughably easy to manipulate with spear or pike. Other great weapons, not so much. With great sword or halberd or any weapon that isn't pretty much "poke poke poke," forget it.

All that said, I'd stick with RAW/RAI and make a shield=shield=shield. The rule is simple. Simplicity: One of the things to adore about 5e. Simplicity!

Conversations like this confuse me. I don't understand the point. If I wanted an intricate ruleset which encompassed different types of shields, weapons, whatever, I'd play a ruleset that embraced that. Instead, we're counting angels dancing in order to take the existing game outside of its intended scope. It seems easier, and ultimately more satisfying, to use existing, tested, proven rules which do what you want them to do. Take baseball: It'd be easier to simply call a ball hit to the wall a "boundary" and let the hitter score without the physical effort of rounding the bases. But that's not baseball; it's cricket. It's a different game.

Anyway.