D&D 5E Shields

Just briefly checked the current rules, not sure if I get them right but it seems to me that both shields and spiked shields grant +2 AC and can be used as weapon, but when you do so you don't give up the AC bonus.

And actually I think this is a better idea. Giving up the AC bonus could be a fair trade, but there is the immediate complication that you have to remember that. It's not a big deal for most groups, but still there's a chance for mistake, especially if it takes long to go through everybody's turn until your next round.

I don't think OTOH it would be game-breaking to just let the AC bonus apply all the time. After all, the shield is (has to be) an inferior weapon because it is primarily design as a defensive tool, cannot be as good for attacking as something that was primarily designed to attack. This is true for regular shield dealing only 1d4 damage (although this damage seems missing in the current packet!) making it at best as good as a dagger, a little less true for spiked shield that deals 1d6 already as good as a short sword which is however a typical off-hand weapon so ok.

Attacking with a shield instead of a weapon would require the same action as attacking with a weapon, meaning that if you have a good weapon in your primary hand, you would not normally want to give its attack up to bash with the shield instead.

So when would you attack with the shield instead of your main weapon? Mostly when you have a special ability from a feat, from the shield itself or else, that is activated only with a shield attack. Plus some occasional corner cases e.g. you dropped the primary weapon and all you have at hand is a shield.

Then there is the different case of those who want to attack with the shield together with your main weapon i.e. those who want the image of sword-and-board with the benefit of two-weapon-fighting. And here's the problem: if the AC bonus remains all the time, the shield cannot be as good as the best off-hand weapon otherwise sword-and-board is straight superior to 2WF. However even if you don't get the AC bonus for a round when using the shield as an off-hand weapon, if the shield is just as good as such off-hand weapon then SaB is still superior to 2WF, because it's as good as 2WF with the added flexibility that you can instead get +2AC whenever you prefer, and we've also introduce one more thing to track on a round basis.

There are other possible ways out of this, without yet requiring to forgo the AC bonus: (a) decrease the base damage of shields even further, to make SaB and 2WF even more different, used for different tactical purposes, or (b) make SaB and 2WF identical by introducing a general rule to 2WF that it grants +2 AC (with the same rules as decided for SaB), reducing the difference between SaB and 2WF to aesthetics only.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Yes, I like these decreased damage. But for the reason I said in my previous post, I don't think that with these changes it would be still necessary to skip the AC bonus, IMO the +2 can stay on all the time. It's one less thing to track.

I know that in general combat is described as "everything happens simultaneously", therefore it makes sense that if you're using the shield offensively in this round, you can't use it defensively until next round.

But at the same time, 5e takes it explicitly much easier than previous editions when it comes to mechanical consequences of simulationist interpretations. For example, it totally ignores the details of switching weapons, drawing and sheathing, retrieving at item during combat... it even glosses over using ranged weapons or casting spells at point-blank (no AoO as in previous editions). In other words, it strives for making combat mechanics as simple as possible at the cost of ignoring otherwise very sensible reasoning.

This is why I think it's best overall to just let the AC bonus apply all the time. Is it less realistic? Yes it is, but it's second-order realism anyway... if you stop at first-order, it's still realistic enough for the majority of gaming groups that if you wear a shield all the time, you're protected all the time.
 

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
Which adds extra calculations and complexity to each round, which is something that should be avoided. The whole reason I'm so interested in Next is the idea that they can get rid of some of the endless extra rules and complications that slow gameplay down.

+1 AC, not a light weapon. All issues resolved. It's still better to use a normal shield for defense and still better to use a normal light weapon for offense. Spiked shield becomes the option for a hybrid that doesn't mind using a feat to deal 1d6/1d6 in return for gaining +1 AC.
 

Two more observations on Shields.

1. Wooden Shield.
I'm wondering if the +1 shield might already exist, but was simply not included as people playtested the new +2 rules.

The Druid is proficient in Wooden Shields -- that's something I don't see mentioned anywhere else. I think it's a reasonable guess, though, that the design team might be thinking

Wooden shield +1
Shield +2

The Druid is then eligible for shield-related feats, but does not have the same benefit as other classes do from taking the +2 shield. I'm not sure I see what balance issues are at stake, but it seems to me a reasonable inference.

2. Spiked Shield.
I might be missing something, but as written you don't need proficiency in shields to gain the AC benefit from wielding a spiked shield as a weapon. That's another strike against the spiked shield.
 

Kobold Stew said:
Two more observations on Shields.

1. Wooden Shield.
I'm wondering if the +1 shield might already exist, but was simply not included as people playtested the new +2 rules.

The Druid is proficient in Wooden Shields -- that's something I don't see mentioned anywhere else. I think it's a reasonable guess, though, that the design team might be thinking

Wooden shield +1
Shield +2

The Druid is then eligible for shield-related feats, but does not have the same benefit as other classes do from taking the +2 shield. I'm not sure I see what balance issues are at stake, but it seems to me a reasonable inference.


I like your idea even if it differs somewhat from Pathfinder example. In it, the shields of wood or steel offers the same protection in terms of AC. The only difference is that the wooden shields react differently against certain type of attack or spell effects than its counterpart in steel, but frankly this is anecdotal. Yet the wooden shield is six gold coins cheaper than the steel model! That is why I found your interesting idea.


Otherwise, it would make the same distinction between light and heavy shields as does Pathfinder. The first granting a +1 bonus and the other, +2 for AC. In addition, light shields allows its owner to use the hand dealt to take something else (but not to use a weapon, unless being a targe shield is even smaller, but this is accompanied by a penalty of -1 On attack rolls. Moreover, this advantage does that little special shield costs significantly quite expensive.)


For your pleasure and culture, I want to give French and Latin translations ::)


Buckler = Targe = Targa


Shield , light = Rondache = Parma


Shield, heavy = Écu (Not the french coins:p) = Scutum


Shield, tower (Pavise) = Pavois = Pavensis
 

I think there should be at least three types of shields:

Buckler: +1 AC
Kite Shield: +2 AC, disadvantage on stealth
Tower Shield: +3 AC, disadvantage on stealth, -5 ft. speed
 



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

Yes, most definitely for the medium weapon thing, as long as they simultaneously fix dual wielding feat to allow two medium sized weapons, from level 1. I think a better compromise is keeping the spiked shield as a light weapon, but making it a "light shield", with only a +1 AC. That way you will see people using it as a light shield. Level 1 human barbarian in cloth with a spiked shield right now can start at 18 AC at level 1, for 8gp, same as a fighter in plate with no shield, that costs 5k gp. Not exactly fair or balanced, vis-a-vis cost. Then again, that's using 15 15 15 pimped out min-maxed point buy stats, which is not a given. Although even for RP reasons, having a barb with 9 in int wis and cha does seem plausible and likely, even. Barbarians aren't exactly known for their erudition, wit, or charm, are they.
 


Remove ads

Top