D&D 5E Using shields with two-handed weapons

[NotAYakk]

Light Shield: 1 AC, bonus action to don/doff, light armor proficiency. Your hand is free, but cannot wield a weapon when it is donned.

Shield: 2 AC, action to don, bonus to doff, medium armor proficiency.

Tower Shield: 3 AC, -5' movement (-10' unless 13 strength), disadvantage on stealth, action to don/doff, heavy armor proficiency.

Bonus action don/doff means you can take a longsword snd switch to two-handed as a bonus action, then back to one-handed as a bonus action.

Shield Block: when you take non-psychic damage and are able to perform reactions, you can block. You gain resistance to the damage from that attack or spell or similar, and your shield loses 1 point of AC. Magic shields can do this once between long rests without losing AC; if attuned, up to proficiency bonus times.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I want the buckler, the medium (kite) shield and tower shield (large) back.
I want the buckler to add +1 AC vs One attacker or two with shield mastery.
I want the medium shield to add +2 AC VS 3 or 4 attackers with shield mastery.
I want the Tower Shield (pavise) to add +3 AC vs 3 or 4 attackers with shield mastery.

It would be so fun to finally some good thing happening with shields.

I want a pony.



Because with a pony you can hide behind it and get partial cover for +2 AC.

 

[NotAYakk]

Oh, that is an idea.

Tower Shield: +1 AC. As a bonus action you can gain 1/2 cover (+2) against attacks from 180 degree direction. As an action you can gain 3/4 cover (+5) against attacks from a 180 degree direction.

 

[Spartan_MD]

Link in LoZ had a move where he would use the master sword with two hands while his shield was strapped to his arm. Shield was useless during the maneuver.

I think there is niche for a buckler and a tower shield. Buckler perhaps gives a +1 AC and you can hold an item in the same hand, but attacks with that item (or punching with the buckler itself for d3 damage)would be at a -1. Tower gives +3 but -5 movement and would require heavy armor proficiency and a str minimum.

 

[Umbran]

So, if you want to get into this level of accuracy, then there's a few more things you'd want to contend with.

Say you are wearing a shield like that by a strap, and some crazy person grabs the top edge of the shield and hauls it down? It now effectively weighs, say, 100 lbs more! You can't drop it, and all that weight now falls... on the base of your neck. And, since the person is on the immediate other side of your shield, and you have this super long weapon, you can't reach them. And you go down.

Something we don't see in D&D combat, but was also a known historical tactic, was to take a really long spear, and purposefully and forcefully embed it into the enemy's shield. Yes, you can move a shield around easily enough. Try doing that with 10' of heavy pole lodged in it. If it is a heater or round, used the normal way, you can choose to drop the shield. If you are doing that over-the-shoulder strap, you are not getting out of that shield any time soon.

 

[Helldritch]

Yes, but your first tactic requires to get in range to do that. Easier said than done. That tactic was not that common exactly because to try it, meant to put yourself at a greater risk. It was never done unless the shield user was alone against a few "worthy" opponents that could do the bait and switch thing. Otherwise, trying this would almost always be the last thing you'd try.

On a one on one with the second tactic, I was aware too. The pavise was especially made of hard hardened wood (with resins) and curved that made the shield unlikely (but not impossible) to pierce that easily. If the trust was not true, the power of your trust could well destabilize the spear user and leave him (or her) opened to a swift counter attack. Flat shield were almost unheard of from mid to late medieval period. Even the roman shields were partially curved to avoid that. Spears were a lot more common and armorers knew that tactic too. So they were usually prepared for that.

 

[jasper]

So, if you want to get into this level of accuracy, then there's a few more things you'd want to contend with.

Say you are wearing a shield like that by a strap, and some crazy person grabs the top edge of the shield and hauls it down? It now effectively weighs, say, 100 lbs more! You can't drop it, and all that weight now falls... on the base of your neck. And, since the person is on the immediate other side of your shield, and you have this super long weapon, you can't reach them. And you go down.

jasper. Smack. "Sorry, I smashed your hands with my basket hilt my lord Umbran!"
Marshall, "Hold. You two out of melee. The reason we have no grabbing shields is to prevent this. Jasper tell your knight he struck an illegal blow."
Jasper, "Snarf. Who do you think told me to target hands when my foe is doing something illegal. "
Good tactic but a better tactic would be use a spear/polearm and force the shield down.

 

[Umbran]

That tactic was not that common exactly because to try it, meant to put yourself at a greater risk. It was never done unless the shield user was alone against a few "worthy" opponents that could do the bait and switch thing

The chaos of the field affords many such opportunities.

On a one on one with the second tactic, I was aware too.

The second tactic isn't typically used one-on-one. It is typically a spearman getting the shield out of the way so someone else has a shot.

D&D fighting has this major difference from medieval techniques - we use it with small tactical groups of like 5 PCs. In reality, they were used in groups of scores or hundreds, in larger battles with often chaotic movements in the field.

Even the roman shields were partially curved to avoid that. Spears were a lot more common and armorers knew that tactic too. So they were usually prepared for that.

You say this as though, "Well, the armorers did their work, and now the fighters were TOTALLY IMMUNE". That's not how it goes. The armorers did their work, and then it may have happened less often. But it still happened. There's no way to make a wooden shield immune to the tactic, in much the same way that it is impossible to make a log immune to chopping with an axe.

 

[Helldritch]

The chaos of the field affords many such opportunities.

Yep. Both ways though... This is why there were skirmishers, light infantry, heavy infantry and so on. One unit could counter the other which in turn could be countered by another up to a full circle.

The second tactic isn't typically used one-on-one. It is typically a spearman getting the shield out of the way so someone else has a shot.

D&D fighting has this major difference from medieval techniques - we use it with small tactical groups of like 5 PCs. In reality, they were used in groups of scores or hundreds, in larger battles with often chaotic movements in the field.

Agreed. D&D isn't a battlefield with armies. Which is why I brought this point.

You say this as though, "Well, the armorers did their work, and now the fighters were TOTALLY IMMUNE". That's not how it goes. The armorers did their work, and then it may have happened less often. But it still happened. There's no way to make a wooden shield immune to the tactic, in much the same way that it is impossible to make a log immune to chopping with an axe.

I never said immune. I said hard to do. There are ways to manoeuver a shield and with the right building techniques it would make it even less likely. This means that the more experienced the shield bearer is, the less likely the manoeuver would succeed and trying it against an experienced fighter with a shield and sword (or even spear) is a sure way to get yourself open as the thrust required to "impale" the shield would require two handed spear. Once the "long" spear out of the way, the long spearman would be dead meat. Long spears were typically used against cavalry. Light infantry against long spears and so on. There were rarely the perfect case however. Yet, the shield impaling technique could work at times. And when it worked, it could almost assure the death of the shield user.

It is also good to note that the roman had both spears and short sword (pilum and gladius (yes, some pilum were more javelins, I know)) with slightly curved shield to be as polyvalent as possible. It is exactly why they were so hard to beat on the battlefield. Once numeric superiority had been achieved, they would start using the "shield impaling" technique against shield users on the other side with two legionaires working together (with one using the shield and the other dropping his shield and using the long pilum both hands) . But on one on one... the technique was a bit risky to try.