D&D 5E (no more) boring shields

[Salamandyr]

I saw a couple posts above that want to give differing value to small shields vs. large shields, usually better AC bonus or damage mitigation with large shields.

What value then to using a small shield? What benefit should their be to offset its lower protection value? Back in AD&D, it was explicitly stated that small and large shields were about equal protection-wise, because the extra coverage of a large shield was counterbalanced by a small shields maneuverability. Later editions got away from that.

So what would be some good justifications for someone to use a small shield?

 

[Stormonu]

Parry - If you have fighter's Parry ability, you add this number to damage parried when you use it.
If you don't have the Parry ability but you're proficient with the shield you're using, you now can use Parry ability as if you were a fighter, but the parry dice you get from the shield is lowered by one step (from 1d4 to 1d3, from 1d12 to 1d10, etc.)

I think it would be much simpler to just have proficiency allow you to use Parry with the shield's value only for non-fighters. Reducing the parry a die step is an unnecessary ... step.

Unwieldly - Carrying around a large shield anywhere outside battlefield is not a good idea. With large shield in your hand, your speed other than walk speed is zero (unless it's granted by magic, such as fly speed - then it's unaffected). Your walk speed is reduced by 5 ft. You also get disadvantage on Stealth checks.

I'm not really seeing this, especially if you're saying you can't run with a shield. Likewise, shields are pretty quiet unless your rattling or purposely banging them about (or someone's wailing on it with a weapon). If you are going to impose some sort of skill check penalty, it ought to be on any Dex-related skill. I could see it being difficult to pick someone's pocket or turn a cartwheel with shield in hand.

Finally, restricting bucklers to Med and Heavy armor use is silly. There's plenty of real-world cultures and eras that used a buckler-like shield with NO armor.

<EDIT> Also, on the parry die - size of the shield should be the most important factor. Material should not ( in fact, there's argument for heavier shields providing less protection as it's more exausting to maneuver them into position). I suggest: Buckler 1d4; Small Shield 1d6; Large Shield 1d8; Tower Shield 1d10. I would think Material would come into play for Sunder attempts and perhaps a limiting factor for enchantment. Just as an adamantium mace doesn't deal more damage than a metal mace and about the same as a wooden cudgel.

 

[Klaus]

Finally, restricting bucklers to Med and Heavy armor use is silly. There's plenty of real-world cultures and eras that used a buckler-like shield with NO armor.

In fact, during Richard Lionheart's reign, conscripted peasants would most likely fight with buckler and dagger.

 

[Gryph]

I saw a couple posts above that want to give differing value to small shields vs. large shields, usually better AC bonus or damage mitigation with large shields.

What value then to using a small shield? What benefit should their be to offset its lower protection value? Back in AD&D, it was explicitly stated that small and large shields were about equal protection-wise, because the extra coverage of a large shield was counterbalanced by a small shields maneuverability. Later editions got away from that.

So what would be some good justifications for someone to use a small shield?

I can think of a couple but they are based on using some additional, likely optional, rules. If your table actually tracks weight/encumbrance then there is a reduction in weight for using the smaller shield. Small shields/bucklers should probably be treated as weapons for purposes of equipping and storing where I would treat large shields (with their arm straps) as armor for purposes of time to equip/store.

 

[Szatany]

Thanks everyone for your input. I'll upload version 3 soon(ish).

 

[Greenfield]

Without reading all the replies, and with the qualifier that I'm largely a 3e player, I'd like to make a comment. Take it for what it's worth...

Bucklers were used in the gladiatorial arena of ancient Rome. They were frequently the only real protection, other than a helmet, the men had.

So the idea that a buckler can only be added to medium or heavy armor is a sharp departure from the way they were actually used.

Switching them to some type of DR, or to ablative hit points, may make a lot of sense, if armor itself gets treated that way. But D&D has always treated AC not as the difficulty of a hit, but as the difficulty for a damaging hit. Touch AC was added later to note the difference.

If we want realism, then the Armor Check penalty would be subtracted from Touch AC, and shields in general would add to it.

So treat shields as armor, and if that means that armor itself has to change then that's the challenge to deal with. Using two different systems for armor and shield is a bad idea.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, shields granting DR is a nice, simple addition that separates shields from armor. Armor makes you harder to hit, but, that shield (and not everyone uses a shield) gives a nice bonus.

Finally a reason to be sword and board again.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I saw a couple posts above that want to give differing value to small shields vs. large shields, usually better AC bonus or damage mitigation with large shields.

What value then to using a small shield?

I presume you are referring to my post here:

I'm sorry it wasn't clear.

Large shields are the natural choice if you (a) have proficiency and (b) are uninterested in flexibility. That is and always has been the case.

The benefit of small shields is in the flexibility: I suggested single feat (the former TWD) which would allow you to have three combinations (allowing a small shield to be the same as a large, or to allow two weapons, or to emulate other real-world fighting styles and have something (staff/wand/holy symbol/torch) in the other hand and still get the benefit of a shield.

If the feat does not enhance the use of large shields, then the reasons to use a small shield would emerge when a character wants to have greater flexibility -- someone investing in that build does not suffer because of a small shield, the way that a non-specialist naturally would.

You have real variation then in your choices, for those character who are interested in variation.

Further, one could introduce all sorts of further mechanical reasons why one would choose a small shield only. For example:
1. Different proficiencies (rogues and rangers learn small shields, but not large, perhaps).
2. Encumbrance penalties with large shields (large shields give disadvantage on swim and climb checks, say.).

Perhaps that's clearer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What makes shields more interesting in some of my games is that it's an active defense -- it gives you a die (base 1d8, varying depending on the quality and size of the thing) that you can roll to negate damage on your turn. It's DR, but it's not a flat number, it's a fluid thing.

This goes well with the idea of TWF or two-handed weapons dealing two dice of damage: a shield now absorbs most of the hits from one weapon, so if you're facing someone with a shield, you're going to need more attacks or bigger attacks to get through the defense.

 

[Klaus]

I'd simply say: when you use Parry or Protect while wielding a shield, any martial damage die (hate that name) you spend increases to d8.