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

[Vaalingrade]

I'm in camp "there should be a reason that wizards and sorcerers don't normally carry shields". Don't care if you tie it to somatic components, proficiency, or what - but it feels as if carrying a shield is against the archetype and so there should be a reason for this.

I'd rather not use the rules to enforce flavor. If the player doesn't want a wizard who carries a shield or a druid who explodes when they touch metal, that's up to them and it's also not up to them to punish people who do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd rather not use the rules to enforce flavor. If the player doesn't want a wizard who carries a shield or a druid who explodes when they touch metal, that's up to them and it's also not up to them to punish people who do.

If the rules don't encourage the desired flavour then either they are transparent (so there is no bonus to carrying a shield) or they enforce the flavour of the rules.

 

[Horwath]

At least give everyone Tower Shield.

How much learning does it take to stand behind a wall?

it could be called a cover if it's immobile

 

[Vaalingrade]

That... makes no sense.

That's saying that all rules exist for is enforcing flavor and that's simply not true. In fact, in my experience, ESPECIALLY with D&D, it's only the bad rules that do that. Paladin codes, druid metal allergies, arcane spell failure, alignment -- all the garbage rule we've mostly divested ourselves of over the past decade and a half.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That... makes no sense.

That's saying that all rules exist for is enforcing flavor and that's simply not true. In fact, in my experience, ESPECIALLY with D&D, it's only the bad rules that do that. Paladin codes, druid metal allergies, arcane spell failure, alignment -- all the garbage rule we've mostly divested ourselves of over the past decade and a half.

But there's a difference between forced flavor like using special chitin for a druid's breastplate rather than a metal one, and not giving wizards additional armor proficiencies.

Wizards are the class that doesn't spend power budget on armor proficiencies. There are ways to obtain said proficiencies, we just need to buff them to be worth taking.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Yes absolutely. Shield is like "simple weapon". Player characters should "typically" learn how to handle a shield. Even Wizards. (It is ok if the Mage Armor spell doesnt stack with a shield, tho.)

In the other thread when building a level 0 character, I was just thinking, this character really should know how to handle a shield. In many locales in a Euro-esque Medieval-esque setting, kids grow up learning how to fight, including Athletic wrestling and actual fighting with: Shield and either Spear or Axe, or a sword if the family can afford one. Alternatively, if forest deerhunters, a longbow.

I want to see: a choice of either training with a Shield, or proficiency with one Martial Weapon, or one Cantrip, at level 0.

 

[Yaarel]

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

You might mean fantasy "bracers", like Wonder Woman?

A "buckler" occupies the hand. It is small shield that the defender grips to "punch" incoming attacks out of the way.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Depending on the culture, every one by age 12 should know how to use a shield.

 

[Tonguez]

a shield is as difficult to use properly as is a sword, so no I wouldn't give it to everyone, especially bookish wizards who need to focus their hands and learning on spells. Besides they already get the Shield spell.

 

[Gorck]

You might mean fantasy "bracers", like Wonder Woman?

A "buckler" occupies the hand. It is small shield that the defender grips to "punch" incoming attacks out of the way.

I can only assume @CreamCloud0 meant the 3e Buckler which was a small shield that strapped to one’s arm