D&D 5E Shield Master tweak suggestions?

[neogod22]

I like the off-hand attack with no Str mod better than the shove prone. But it leaves the same monotony in place. Another option might be that you can use a bonus action to gain +1 AC until the start of your next turn.

Actually, you could offer all three choices if you want:
- Bonus action to shove (but not prone)
- Bonus action to attack
- Bonus action to gain AC

That would be interesting to me, but probably more complicated than a lot of people would want.

No, no, and no. It should always be a player's choice on how they play their characters.

The reason shield master don't have an attack for damage with shields is because if you do that, you lose the extra damage from the duelist fighting style.

You don't need to offer +1 to AC, the feat already gives you a lot with allowing you to add the bonus to DEX saves and being able to reduce damage to 0 on a save.

I'm looking for suggestions for fun and balanced changes to the Shield Master feat. As written, its primary offensive advantage is that you can take a bonus action to shove an opponent. This means that, 19 times out of 20, your most mechanically optimal strategy is going to be "start the round with a shove, try to knock foe prone with shove, take all your attacks with advantage because foe is prone." I have two problems with this:

1) It's mechanically sound, but it also leads to mechanical boredom. It means you're strongly encouraged to do the same thing round after round.

2) One of the primary character archetypes that uses a shield--the knight (be it fighter or paladin)--doesn't fit with that. There's nothing honorable or chivalrous about constantly attacking downed opponents.

So, leaving the other (defensive) traits of the feat alone, what would you do? I'm leaning toward saying the shove can only be used to move the foe, not knock them prone, but you can instead use the bonus action to make an off-hand attack with the shield. (Probably at 1d4 or 1d6 + Str.)

But I'm looking for additional thoughts/options.

I don't see a problem with the feat. You have to remember, shields are not just used by knights. Anyone who wants extra protection will use a shield, including barbarians. Also remember, not all "knights" are good and not even all the good ones followed the code of chivalry in battle. If your character don't want to use shove to knock an opponent down, don't do it, but I don't think it's fair to take it away from the players.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[One_Shots]

2) One of the primary character archetypes that uses a shield--the knight (be it fighter or paladin)--doesn't fit with that. There's nothing honorable or chivalrous about constantly attacking downed opponents.

I think you have a very romanticised notion of knights and combat. Ask anyone who knows anything about medieval martial arts and they'll tell you that unbalancing an opponent is a big, big part of combat, and that shields weren't designed to block blows but rather deflect them and to be used to... yes, unbalance your opponent.

So it's actually quite realistic and very much in line with historical knightly combat.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If your character don't want to use shove to knock an opponent down, don't do it, but I don't think it's fair to take it away from the players.

I'm not looking at taking it away from anyone. I'm just looking for a replacement option for me to suggest to the DM, when I get a chance to play this character.

I like the idea of using a shield offensively, but--for the reasons I mentioned above--the "trying to knock the foe prone almost every round" doesn't appeal to me. I don't even care if my replacement option isn't quite as good; I mean, an extra 1d4 attack really isn't nearly as good as advantage for a round. But I'm looking for a variety of approaches.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think you have a very romanticised notion of knights and combat.

No, I'm very well aware that the historical knight didn't much resemble the "chivalrous ideal." But I'm not talking about playing a historical knight. I'm talking about playing the fictional archetype. The honorable fighter or paladin; a Lancelot-like figure, not someone out of the pages of history.

 

[One_Shots]

I mean, an extra 1d4 attack really isn't nearly as good as advantage for a round.

Actually a bonus action 1d4 attack is one of the reasons why PAM is considered very powerful.

No, I'm very well aware that the historical knight didn't much resemble the "chivalrous ideal." But I'm not talking about playing a historical knight. I'm talking about playing the fictional archetype. The honorable fighter or paladin; a Lancelot-like figure, not someone out of the pages of history.

So you want to represent an idiot who will die a needless death for their selfish, indulgent and romantic ideals? You could just as easily have a character with no class levels who walks naked into combat with a target painted on their back yelling out, "Kill me, for the greater good!"

 

[Fanaelialae]

I like the idea of just STR modifier for damage on the bonus action. Maybe STR+proficiency?

That's way too much damage. By level 17 you'd be dealing almost the same average damage as a character with a 20 strength and a greataxe, which is greater than the average that the Dual Wielder gets (plus superior AC, etc). Just strength modifier is plenty (5 damage vs the DW's 9.5 average).

Options for what you do with the bonus action would be nice. You could also flavor the prone as not prone, but hindered in some fashion by the shield bash (same condition as prone, just not described as falling over). A very common shield tactic is to press your shield against the opponent and try to pin their weapon, so disadvantage to attacks, advantage on melee attacks against them, disadvantage on ranged attacks against them (they're locked in hyper melee), and costing movement to reorient themselves, all fits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really like this idea. Just reflavor the prone as being knocked off balance. The character's arms are flailing so he drops his guard granting advantage against melee attacks, but he's stumbling unpredictably causing disadvantage for ranged attacks, and it costs him half his movement to steady himself.

It don't think it would be unbecoming of a knight to attack a stumbling opponent.

So you want to represent an idiot who will die a needless death for their selfish, indulgent and romantic ideals? You could just as easily have a character with no class levels who walks naked into combat with a target painted on their back yelling out, "Kill me, for the greater good!"

That's really unnecessary. If he wants to play a character who encompasses the ideals of high chivalry, what does it impact you? The chivalrous knight is hardly an alien concept to D&D; there's Sturm Brightblade from Dragonlance, for example. The concept of an honorable character is someone who takes the high road, even when it isn't the easy path. They might die as a result, but such a character would likely argue that it is not when we die but how we die that truly matters. Valar morghulis and all that. Just because the character isn't a murderhobo, doesn't mean that he's doing anything wrong (quite the opposite in my opinion).

 

[neogod22]

Now you're thinking, you can even say it's a special move your character developed on his own, which will make role playing sense.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk

 

[I'm A Banana]

Off-hand attack for 1d4 ain't a bad replacement, but it makes the thing a little weaker. You could double-down on some defensive aspect - you can raise the shield to be considered behind cover, for instance, or you can offer +2 ac to another ally within 5 feet (this last feature is interesting because it's powerful, but can be a real risk).

So you want to represent an idiot who will die a needless death for their selfish, indulgent and romantic ideals? You could just as easily have a character with no class levels who walks naked into combat with a target painted on their back yelling out, "Kill me, for the greater good!"

Dude, what's with the hostility to the character archetype? It's a good archetype. It's an archetype some folks like to play. It's an archetype that knocking someone prone doesn't help play.

 

[jaelis]

The reason shield master don't have an attack for damage with shields is because if you do that, you lose the extra damage from the duelist fighting style.

That is not obviously true. You can already attack with a shield as an improvised weapon, that doesn't mean it is a "weapon." And I don't see why the feat granting an attack would make it a weapon either.

 

[neogod22]

That is not obviously true. You can already attack with a shield as an improvised weapon, that doesn't mean it is a "weapon." And I don't see why the feat granting an attack would make it a weapon either.

You can use it as an improvised weapon, only if you have the Tavern brawler feat. You don't see how it makes it a weapon? Reread your 1st sentence. An IMPROVISED WEAPON is a WEAPON. Every weapon on the simple weapons list are tools made for farming and hunting, they are weapons because they are used to kill people also. You give the shield the ability to kill people (giving it damage dice) then it becomes a weapon.

Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk