D&D (2024) Should shields, like Simple weapons be available to all characters?

[Horwath]

Right now for 2024, every class gets all simple weapons, and they should and it's easier for everyone than to track those few weapons for arcane casters.

Shield are oldest and most simple form of protection or armor, if you can call them armor as they are actively used with your hands.

They are more a part of the weapon set. With spear probably the oldest weapon set in history.

They also affect what weapons you can use, as they (usually) prohibit 2Handed weapons or dual wielding, reducing your damage for added protection.
There is no trade off for armor in damage department, you just get more protection.

With shields available to all, all characters can have options to have:
2Handed option,
Dual wield,
1Handed + shield

both with melee or ranged option.

martial characters can still pick styles, feats and maneuvers that can better utilize shields and set them aside from non-martials.


(as option, it can be added that shields require min STR of 10 or 12 to not suffer penalties, both to speed and attack.) this would discourage STR dumping if you wanted to use shields.

 

[CreamCloud0]

No I don’t think everyone should have shield proficiency and I don’t think it should be unofficial part 2 of medium armour proficiency either, give shields to those classes that it makes sense for them to have them,

While I wouldn’t give basic shields a STR requirement I might put in a ‘heavy armour shield’ with one that has a better AC bonus than +2.

 

[Horwath]

No I don’t think everyone should have shield proficiency but I don’t think it should be unofficial part 2 of medium armour proficiency either, give shields to those classes that it makes sense for them to have them,

While I wouldn’t give basic shields a STR requirement I might put in a ‘heavy armour shield’ with one that has a better AC bonus than +2.

yeah, one solution could be to link it to light armor. Shields are really basic and require next to no training to use them for cover.

other solution would be to have 3 different shields for 3 different classes of armor.

Buckler: +1 shield, you can use your shield hand for attacking but if you do you do not get AC bonus until the start of your next turn.

shield: +2, default 5E shield

tower shield: +3, -5ft speed, stealth penalty, min STR 15

 

[CreamCloud0]

yeah, one solution could be to link it to light armor. Shields are really basic and require next to no training to use them for cover.

eh, i'd rather just make them their own category of armour, so that there's light, medium, heavy and shields, with shields being off to the side a bit not part of the basic light>medium>heavy progression, barbarians in heavy who can't use shields right next to sorcerers who have nothing but a shield(yes i know sorcerers don't currently get shield proficiency).

other solution would be to have 3 different shields for 3 different classes of armor.

Buckler: +1 shield, you can use your shield hand for attacking but if you do you do not get AC bonus until the start of your next turn.

shield: +2, default 5E shield

tower shield: +3, -5ft speed, stealth penalty, min STR 15

personally i think you've overcompensated slightly on the variants, i'd go with just

bucklers: +1, doesn't occupy either hand but prevents the use of any other shields while worn. (1min don/doff)

tower shield: +3, (STR 15,-5ft speed) (STR 18, no penalty)

 

[Reynard]

D&D doesn't really make much sense in its methods of determining whether characters have "combat training" or not. Using a shield effectively is just as difficult as usinga sword effectively. Sure, anyone can try and use either of those things to block an incoming blow, but if you don't know what you are doing and your opponent does, your sword or shield is not going to save you.

Maybe what D&D needs is two simple combat proficiencies: melee and ranged. Are you good at fighting? Excellent, pick a weapon set and go. Otherwise, any degree of granularity will fall apart. For examples, "club" as a simple weapon makes sense until you imagine a guy with a baseball bat going against a martial artist. it isn't the weapon proficiency, it is the combat proficiency that matters.

 

[aco175]

I would just tie it to light armor proficiency and if you have that much basic training, you get shields. There is also drawbacks like not being able to shoot a bow or pick locks, or cast spells, or most non-fighting classes powers.

 

[Horwath]

I would just tie it to light armor proficiency and if you have that much basic training, you get shields. There is also drawbacks like not being able to shoot a bow or pick locks, or cast spells, or most non-fighting classes powers.

why cant you cast spells with shield?

 

[aco175]

why cant you cast spells with shield?

Right now you only need one hand, my bad. I would still want the simple armor proficiency though. Take the feat and you can have the 14AC.

 

[Horwath]

Right now you only need one hand, my bad. I would still want the simple armor proficiency though. Take the feat and you can have the 14AC.

I love this picture where it shows how to cast spells with 1Hander+Shield.

 

[Reynard]

View attachment 334836
I love this picture where it shows how to cast spells with 1Hander+Shield.

Only because of how abstract D&D's combat system is. You should lose your shield bonus and "armed" status until the start of your next turn. Otherwise there's no point in even having mechanics for somatic components.