D&D 5E Shield Saltiness

[Bacon Bits]

Quite frankly, if your group is being attacked in "safe and civilized" towns so often that the players are getting frustrated by the DM's ruling on actions here, then those towns are neither safe nor civilized.

"It is the duty of our order to be ready to battle evil and defend ourselves. I have personally been attacked here through no fault of my own, I and shall brook no argument that I am safe here. Your citizenry have proven otherwise."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have hard time imagining how a battle could routinely materialise in the middle of a town, particularly so fast that the characters don't have even one turn to get ready.

 

[Oofta]

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.

If they are never attacked while in town, then why would it matter if they're using their shields or not? If they are attacked in town at least now and then, I would never play a PC that relies on armor in your campaign.

In most games I've ever been involved with it doesn't matter if you're in the heart of Waterdeep or the depths of some abandoned dwarven mine. PCs are danger magnets and can be expected to be attacked any where, any time. It's not realistic to always wear armor but it's also an unfair penalty to those who use armor to be the only ones in the game penalized so heavily for being "unprepared".

If monks, barbarians, rogues in "light" armor and so on (which all have ACs that far exceed what they should be) could be as defenseless as the paladin with no armor it wouldn't be an issue. But it's a game and it's not always realistic.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have hard time imagining how a battle could routinely materialise in the middle of a town, particularly so fast that the characters don't have even one turn to get ready.

Yep, or why the guards and townsfolk would allow it if it did happen.

 

[Undrave]

No, they are.

Failure to do so = no experience earned that session.

I conduct frequent character sheet audits too. If I cant read it, its gone (unless it was something bad, in which case you now have it worse).

Geez Louise... it's a game, not a final exam!

For the OP, the DM is technically correct and it's his game. Personally I let someone buy a magical shield that, like Captain America's shield can be wielded as a bonus action.

RANT:
It never ceases to amaze me how much some people want to penalize people that want to wear armor (or use shields). Probably the same ones that complain about the ubiquity of dex based characters. I wouldn't have a problem with it if armor were as effective in the game as it is in real life.

So for the most part I ignore it and assume that people have everything equipped if they are attacked. Otherwise I'd have to figure out somehow to stop that wizard from casting mage armor, that monk that just mystically senses an attack they can't see coming dodging out of the way, the barbarian having arrows bouncing off their pecs because they're flexing.

It's not realistic, but then again, neither is someone in studded leather armor* being able to do a leisurely the backstroke while someone in chain immediately sinks like a rock (there's a video of an older guy that goes for a swim in chain armor).

*There is no such thing, the closest is probably brigandine where metal armor is sandwiched between leather and riveted in.

Seriously, this screams of a whiny DM going "WAAAH! the PC is good at what it's supposed to be good at! WAAAH! No fair! I want to kill him!"

Seriously, people pick Paladin to be Knights in Shiny Armour, let them. This kind of BS 'realism' argument is just a cheap way to find weakness in the PC to 'make things dangerous' because you can't design stuff that's actually interesting and dangerous without going for exploits that only penalize the martial. As you say, this kind of penalty is the fastest way to end up with a party of lithe Rogues and Casters.

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

Exactly!

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

That's a good buff to the Protection style, it's really the weakest Fighting style because the number of attacks your allies take go up in number, but not your reactions.

 

[Undrave]

I have hard time imagining how a battle could routinely materialise in the middle of a town, particularly so fast that the characters don't have even one turn to get ready.

It's Curse of Strahd, half the population is probably werewolves and the trees can kill you. The town guards are probably vampires.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I agree it would be super weird to walk around town with an equipped shield, though (or any armor or heavy weapons). Also not usually necessary unless the DM is being silly with double standards by allowing roving swarms of heavily-armed bandits/monsters to run around in the city unimpeded.

I second this point. Hold the DM to the same standards he holds the players (but nicely, of course).

Bar brawl breaks out? Yeah, the pally will probably have to fight without his shield as the brawlers use their object interaction to unsheathe their weapons and don’t use shields themselves. Then again, this is probably not a situation where a whole lot depends on the paladin getting an extra +2 AC.

Hear a strange noise outside? This is the moment to use your action to don your shield. You’re on equal footing with the barbarian here.

Attacked by monsters while in town? Ask how far away the monsters are. Monsters don’t spawn 10’ away from people without making noise. Sure you lose an action equipping a shield (but not your movement), but the barbarian would tend to be limited to ranged attacks as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's a good buff to the Protection style, it's really the weakest Fighting style because the number of attacks your allies take go up in number, but not your reactions.

Thanks.

You can always try our Reactive Feat if you want that ability:

D&D 5E - Extra Reaction or extra Bonus Action?

Purely theorycrafting here. Which would be more useful to a PC? Would it vary by class?

www.enworld.org

 

[Stormonu]

This sounds like a big deal over nothing. It's a game, not a simulation. D&D doesn't account/care for how uncomfortable armor is for the weather (plate in Chult?!?). Even so, in a frontier town, it's like the old West - weapon in reach, armor donned.

This is specifically Curse of Strahd, where there are known to be monsters in the area, and the towns are rural areas at best. Only a fool who owns weapon and armor wouldn't have them at the ready. Now, if it were Waterdeep, I could see ordinances against carrying anything larger than a dagger or being geared up. Not here, though.

 

[cmad1977]

I agree in Barovia nearly everyone would be armed and/or armored in some way. For me, the disconnect would be in the guards taking exception to the player carrying a shield in such an obviously dangerous land.

How dare you protect yourself here in Barovia! It’s not like there are literally werewolves and vampires and zombies and ghosts EVERYWHERE!