D&D 5E Shields

[Kobold Stew]

One of the "silent" changes in the last test pack has been a bump to the defensive bonus granted by shields.

What are the larger consequences of this?

* I see that it helps the Ranger and the Barbarian directly (who have proficiency in medium armour and shields, but not heavy armour).

* It allows for the possibility of Bucklers (or whatever)

* It reduces the comparative benefit of Two Weapon Defence.

* Spiked Shield becomes a disproportionately advantageous light weapon (and with no penalties to using two light weapons, it seems a natural combination for EVERYONE, even without the dual wield feat).

What else?

My sense is that this is actually a pretty big change, and will make the sword-and-board options for the fighter pretty desirable -- what do others think?

 

[Gargoyle]

+2 AC is a sizable bonus, and I think it's a good change as it makes shields worth using but not so good that two handed weapons or dual wielding will never be chosen. Not a surprise that they did this.

I can't think of a reason not to use a spiked shield over a regular shield, and I'd rather see it not as a light weapon. I guess I just don't care for spiked shields anyway though, and wouldn't mind seeing them absent from the basic rules. They can always add the bucklers, spiked shields, and tower shields in a later product with rules that are more complex so that they are worth using but don't always replace the more basic shield. In this way they wouldn't have to include exceptions such as the one about spiked shields in the Two Weapon Defense feat...they could put that text referencing the feat in the spiked shields rules instead, and further simplify the core.

 

[DogBackward]

Yeah, I don't mind the new shield bonus, but spiked shields are too much. Even at 20th level, a Fighter with a longsword and spiked shield is only a few points of damage behind a greatsword in average damage, using nothing more than the Dual Wielding feat, with the added bonus of keeping that +2 to AC. Combine that with the versatility of two-weapon fighting, allowing you two chances to hit, two chances to deal Deadly Strike bonus damage, two chances to trigger Expertise bonuses, the ability to possibly kill two weak targets with one attack... they've made sword-and-board flat-out superior to two-handed weapons. Even if you add a good two-hander feat, it's still just plain better. And if you replace the longsword with a bastard sword, you even keep the option to switch to a two-handed grip to increase damage output (dual wielding is still better, but you may have some reason to want to make only one attack).

I think the best option would be to make the spiked shield no longer count as a light weapon, and reduce the AC bonus to +1. This makes a normal shield a better option for defense, so you won't automatically see everybody who uses a shield using a spiked shield, and it keeps the damage output of dual wielding a weapon and spiked shield to more acceptable levels, so it's actually an important choice to go with that combo over a two-hander. And once they specify that multiple shields don't stack (which, joking aside, we all know is going to happen) things should be fine.

 

[Stalker0]

i'm sure the spiked shield was simply overlooked, and will be fixed in the next version.

So ignoring that, the +2 AC shield is the way to go imo. Shields are a big deal, and if you are trading offense for defense you should get a good amount.

 

[Blackwarder]

IMHO, when you use a spiked shield to attack you lose it's AC bonus for that round.
Also, spiked shield should count as medium weapon, not light weapon.

Warder

 

[Ed_Laprade]

About bloody time!

 

[Li Shenron]

I think +2 is a good maximum for shields in this edition, and in general it's better than +1 max because it leaves some room for putting different shield types in the game, for the obvious reason that you can then have both +1 and +2 shields...

I definitely liked how 3e handled shields, because each category (buckler, small, large, tower) had its pros and cons, thus unlike armors there was never a shield that was better than another for everyone. Since 3e already had plenty of ways to boost one's AC, it could have also had +3 or even +4 shields but I don't think they were even added to the game. Obviously that would be too much for 5e bounded accuracy, but at least I hope 5e replicates the variety of 3e, or even improves it if possible, by having 4-6 different types (not just sizes) of shields.

Maybe that's the province of a module, that adds some second-order pros and cons to each piece of equipment, therefore generating more types of everything. But overall the 3e differences were very understandable even by casual players and could be simplified even more.

Spikes, I'm not really fond of, IMHO they look dorky even in fantasy... I would like to know if there was any real historical use for them at all... In any case there should absolutely be a tactical drawback for adding them to a shield or armor, besides the additional gp cost, since the latter can easily become null and void at a certain level.

edit: also, it's very much unacceptable that a shield can function both as a shield and as a weapon as good as others at the same time... it's not hard to avoid design goofs that could lead characters to choose shield as their only weapon or even worse two shields

 

[Kobold Stew]

I am fine with the +2 shield.

The spiked shield seems broken -- I hadn't even considered wielding two spiked shields. Eep.

If its benefit were only +1, which was forfeited when used as a weapon, and if it also lost the "light" quality (so that if one has dual-wield, it can be used with a short sword but not a longsword), it still remains a solid choice for a fighter.

If one did dual-wield a short sword in the off-hand and a spiked shield i the primary hand, it's not clear how Two Weapon Defence would work. (or rather, it is clear, and the answer is wrong.)

In my view, the spiked shield would be better not being part of the game. It creates way too many edge-cases.

 

[Sunseeker]

Dual wield spiked shields refluffed as spiked armor bands? Sweeeeeeet.

 

[Rune]

IMHO, when you use a spiked shield to attack you lose it's AC bonus for that round.

I definitely agree with this. If I were King of the World, this is how I'd do it:

All shields are weapons (listed on the equipment list). Regular shields would do 1d2 bludgeoning damage and count as light weapons (this is important with the current 2-weapon rules), but definitely not finesse.

Spike shields would cost more (instead of less), weigh more (instead of the same), and deal 1d4 piercing damage. Still also light.

Both would also have the "Defensive" quality, which would grant +2 to AC from the start of a character's turn to the start of his/her next one if it was not used to attack during that time. This would mean that a character would gain the defensive benefit of shield in any given round right up to the point where it was used offensively.