Center Grip Shields

[ZenBear]

Would it be broken to have a center grip instead of strapped shield? For my Eldritch Knight I'm considering asking my DM to allow me to have one so I can Bond it as a (improvised) weapon for bonus action equipping, throwing, and quick dropping to switch to two-handing or unarmed for grappling.

[Antilles123]

Would it be broken to have a center grip instead of strapped shield? For my Eldritch Knight I'm considering asking my DM to allow me to have one so I can Bond it as a (improvised) weapon for bonus action equipping, throwing, and quick dropping to switch to two-handing or unarmed for grappling.

I don't think it's too much of a problem. I see this as similar to a small buckler shield.
My DM has never had an issue with me dropping the shield as part of my "interact with an object" when I needed to.
As for bonding with it and throwing it...I guess so, but I'd be hesitant to make it as a bonus action, it should be an attack like any other I would think.

[ZenBear]

As for bonding with it and throwing it...I guess so, but I'd be hesitant to make it as a bonus action, it should be an attack like any other I would think.

I only meant equipping as a bonus action due to Weapon Bond. Throwing would be an Attack, but with Tavern Brawler I would be proficient and deal 1d4+STR.

[JackPhoenix]

I've allowed the paladin in my group to use centergrip shield. It was a gift from an NPC and I've mentioned its design is unusual in the region they live in (it was also covered in red, gold and brass dragon scales and the paladin is hesitant to actually bring it around, because that thing draws attention like crazy... and she was immensely relieved she didn't have it with her when she met a dragon. The shield is actually made from cast-off scales gathered over years and decades by a dragon-worshipping culture, and the dragon would be impressed, not angry. The NPC who gave her the shield was the source of brass scales in disguise).

Mechanically, it can be drawn and put away like weapon, but it's vulnerable to disarm.

[Plaguescarred]

Its clearly a way to get around the 1 action requirement to equip/unequip a shield so i'd probably have unique shield made this way and not a general rule, and would tell the PC its more easily knockable out off your hand not being strapped. (Perhaps on a crit or an attack roll of 18+?)

[MrStabby]

If you want to balance it, then ask what you have to give up for the benefits.

If nothing, and this is just a simply better shield then I wouldn't allow it. If you were to suggest that the smaller lighter shield less tightly bound to your person offered less protection - +1 not +2 AC then i would be happy to allow it.

[ZenBear]

If you want to balance it, then ask what you have to give up for the benefits.

If nothing, and this is just a simply better shield then I wouldn't allow it. If you were to suggest that the smaller lighter shield less tightly bound to your person offered less protection - +1 not +2 AC then i would be happy to allow it.

I figured that would be the compromise, and I would be ok with it.

[warty goblin]

Decreasing AC makes no particular sense, a centergrip shield can be plenty large and is, if anything, easier to maneuver. The disadvantages of a centergrip shield is that it's a lot easier to lose, and probably can't be as heavy therefore as durable. So just make a centergrip shield subject to disarming attempts. You could even give axes and halberds advantage on the check, or some other bonus since they're good at hooking shields.

(Ignoring single grip shields also controlled by a guige here)

[famousringo]

My DM allows centre grip shields that can be donned/doffed as a free interaction rather than an action. Doesn't seem to break anything. A couple characters use it to help them quickly switch between using a bow at range and sword and board for melee. So their AC goes up a little once melee combat starts. Not a huge deal.

[ZenBear]

Decreasing AC makes no particular sense, a centergrip shield can be plenty large and is, if anything, easier to maneuver. The disadvantages of a centergrip shield is that it's a lot easier to lose, and probably can't be as heavy therefore as durable. So just make a centergrip shield subject to disarming attempts. You could even give axes and halberds advantage on the check, or some other bonus since they're good at hooking shields.

(Ignoring single grip shields also controlled by a guige here)

With Weapon Bond I cannot be disarmed, so there's no downside.

[JellyPooga]

Its clearly a way to get around the 1 action requirement to equip/unequip a shield so i'd probably have unique shield made this way and not a general rule, and would tell the PC its more easily knockable out off your hand not being strapped. (Perhaps on a crit or an attack roll of 18+?)

If you want to balance it, then ask what you have to give up for the benefits.

If nothing, and this is just a simply better shield then I wouldn't allow it. If you were to suggest that the smaller lighter shield less tightly bound to your person offered less protection - +1 not +2 AC then i would be happy to allow it.

LOL! *sigh* In the history of forever, accounting for every world-wide culture that's ever designed a shield, I would be willing to bet that there have been more shields made and used that weren't strapped than were. Strapped shields have most of the spotlight because of movies, but historically? That's slightly different.

A strapped shield is only suitable for particularly heavy shields that require the extra support. In general, however, strapping your arm to a shield is just a recipe for a broken arm; the energy from a blow against a shield has nowhere to go when it's fixed to a rigid structure, forcing that structure to absorb it. When that structure is your arm, guess what happens? In addition, a strapped shield is a lot more encumbering; you can't maneuver the shield as efficiently or use it as effectively to deflect and parry; you're limited to blocking actions, relying on the size and weight of the shield to do the work.

With a "center grip" or other hand-held grip, a blow can still easily be deflected, but the energy is allowed to dissipate more naturally, or in the case of a particularly strong blow it's possible to drop the shield reflexively to avoid damage to the hand. In addition, your range of movement with a hand-held grip is far greater, giving you a larger number of options with that shield; not only in defence, but in offence as well, which a heavier shield struggles with, as a rule. Because of the greater range of things you can do with a hand-gripped shield, it's possible and even advantageous to have that shield be far lighter and still be as effective, if less durable (as a rule).

So no, asking to have a hand-grip shield is not "clearly" a way to evade a largely nonsensical rule and as far as I'm concerned, nor is it in need of "balancing" against anything. A hand-grip is normal; the base-line, if you will. If anything needs to be houseruled or requested if some advantage can be gained from it, it should be the heavier strapped shield, because that's the oddity that only a few, very rich people could actually afford and in practice, wasn't actually that much more effective, if at all, than a lighter shield.

[Talamare]

Isn't there a magical shield with the specific magical effect of being able to bring it out as a bonus action instead of a normal action?

[ad_hoc]

LOL! *sigh* In the history of forever, accounting for every world-wide culture that's ever designed a shield, I would be willing to bet that there have been more shields made and used that weren't strapped than were. Strapped shields have most of the spotlight because of movies, but historically? That's slightly different.


How much AC did those historical shields add?

This is basically the katana argument.

[Anonymouswizard]

Most games I've played in have just assumed center grip shields, or at the very least shields that can be used as such. That's because it's how we think of shields, so whenever we think of donning one we always rule one action unless it's a tower shield.

[JellyPooga]

This is basically the katana argument.

Arguably, but no, not really. The katana argument is a case of fantasy vs. reality or fan-boy vs. half-a-brain. I'm just saying that hand-grip shields are not or should not be unusual, despite what the rules might suggest.

5ed has decided that all shields add +2 AC, whether it be a buckler or a tower shield, strapped or hand-grip. The arbitrary limitation on taking a round to don or doff one is something that can easily be ignored without it just being a "cheesy" bonus. Sure, a "bonus" is what the OP is looking for, but is it cheesy or in any way broken or in need of balancing? I'm saying no and I'd laugh at anyone who insisted that it was/did.

[Georlik]

My guess is that the shields were made as they are, so you won't drop them when you are unconcious. That helps to avoid constant AC recalculation.

[Tobtor]

Decreasing AC makes no particular sense, a centergrip shield can be plenty large and is, if anything, easier to maneuver. The disadvantages of a centergrip shield is that it's a lot easier to lose, and probably can't be as heavy therefore as durable. So just make a centergrip shield subject to disarming attempts. You could even give axes and halberds advantage on the check, or some other bonus since they're good at hooking shields.

(Ignoring single grip shields also controlled by a guige here)

I have never, ever seen anyone having a centre grip shield lost in battle, much less having it "knocked out of their hand". And I have seen hundreds of combats with centre grip shields.

The only thing I can think of where strapped shields is better, is that you can use your hand to hold the reigns of a horse (or in fantasy any other mound). Thus with a centre grip shield I might add some penalty to horse riding or manoeuvres from horseback etc.

[Plaguescarred]

LOL! *sigh* In the history of forever, accounting for every world-wide culture that's ever designed a shield, I would be willing to bet that there have been more shields made and used that weren't strapped than were. Strapped shields have most of the spotlight because of movies, but historically? That's slightly different.

A strapped shield is only suitable for particularly heavy shields that require the extra support. In general, however, strapping your arm to a shield is just a recipe for a broken arm; the energy from a blow against a shield has nowhere to go when it's fixed to a rigid structure, forcing that structure to absorb it. When that structure is your arm, guess what happens? In addition, a strapped shield is a lot more encumbering; you can't maneuver the shield as efficiently or use it as effectively to deflect and parry; you're limited to blocking actions, relying on the size and weight of the shield to do the work.

With a "center grip" or other hand-held grip, a blow can still easily be deflected, but the energy is allowed to dissipate more naturally, or in the case of a particularly strong blow it's possible to drop the shield reflexively to avoid damage to the hand. In addition, your range of movement with a hand-held grip is far greater, giving you a larger number of options with that shield; not only in defence, but in offence as well, which a heavier shield struggles with, as a rule. Because of the greater range of things you can do with a hand-gripped shield, it's possible and even advantageous to have that shield be far lighter and still be as effective, if less durable (as a rule).

So no, asking to have a hand-grip shield is not "clearly" a way to evade a largely nonsensical rule and as far as I'm concerned, nor is it in need of "balancing" against anything. A hand-grip is normal; the base-line, if you will. If anything needs to be houseruled or requested if some advantage can be gained from it, it should be the heavier strapped shield, because that's the oddity that only a few, very rich people could actually afford and in practice, wasn't actually that much more effective, if at all, than a lighter shield.In 5E a shield is carried in one hand, not necessarily strapped. But it require an action to equip/unequip. Trying to go around this rule based on real-world shield history exemple is just a way to go around the rule

Shield: A shield is made from w o od or metal and is carried in one hand.

[TurboGhast]

In 5E a shield is carried in one hand, not necessarily strapped. But it require an action to equip/unequip. Trying to go around this rule based on real-world shield history exemple is just a way to go around the rule

Shield: A shield is made from w o od or metal and is carried in one hand.

The rules specify what a shield is, and they don't specify whether it's a strapped or center grip shield. The action requirement implies that it's a strapped shield because it takes a whole action to don or doff it. It's perfectly fine to state that in your campaign, all shields directly follow 5e RAW and a shield that can be equipped as easily as a weapon doesn't exist. Giving a player a way around this rule doesn't overpower anybody, and it's also perfectly fine to give players a way around a certain rule if applying that rule to everything breaks verisimilitude, and I think forcing you to use an action to equip a center grip shield would run a risk of that.

[Zman]

I've been contemplating adding a buckler into the game, can be equipped with an item interaction, but only grants +1AC. It would fit the center grip shield idea.

I would not allow a center grip shield that didn't require an action to equip. But, Inwould allow a throwing shield, that's just coll and EK can summon it. I've considered a Captain America magical shield using magic for bonus action summoning.

[EvilAnagram]

I have never, ever seen anyone having a centre grip shield lost in battle, much less having it "knocked out of their hand". And I have seen hundreds of combats with centre grip shields.

The only thing I can think of where strapped shields is better, is that you can use your hand to hold the reigns of a horse (or in fantasy any other mound). Thus with a centre grip shield I might add some penalty to horse riding or manoeuvres from horseback etc.
The main advantage strapped shields have is stability, actually. That's why they were often very popular with large phalanxes: the weight was more distributed, allowing the companies of men to be more mobile and putting less strain on their hands and wrists. Since they fought in tight formations, they did not need to be terribly agile with their shields, but the stability of a strap was incredibly useful.

[Knaight]

I have never, ever seen anyone having a centre grip shield lost in battle, much less having it "knocked out of their hand". And I have seen hundreds of combats with centre grip shields.

The only thing I can think of where strapped shields is better, is that you can use your hand to hold the reigns of a horse (or in fantasy any other mound). Thus with a centre grip shield I might add some penalty to horse riding or manoeuvres from horseback etc.

I've seen it - but I've only seen it in the context of a pretty dramatic* size difference that someone chooses to deliberately exploit. Hooking and similar I've seen a lot more often, but that works just fine with a strapped shield as well. With that said - fairly dramatic size differences are pretty standard in D&D.

*The height range for the group I fight in ranges from about 4'6" to 7', and one of the 7' people is way over on the burly side of the burly-lanky spectrum and has a fondness for big axes.

[Mandragola]

You shouldn't think of fighting in dnd as if each combatant taking a single swing every 6 seconds. In reality you'd be blocking and parrying, stepping back and forth and trying to get an opening, and very possibly hitting people with your shield sometimes. Most of those swings would do no meaningful damage, especially against an armoured opponent, but they might lead to the opening that allowed you to get a decent swing in with your sword.

From what I've seen there are advantages and disadvantages to both centre-grip and strap-on shields. A centre-grip shield is more mobile but it requires more energy and strength to wield, and the fact that you're only attached to it at a single point means that blows towards the outer edge can quite easily knock the shield around. If your shield is strapped on you don't have so much reach with it so it's less good for hitting people. But it requires less energy to hold - or allows you to carry a bigger shield, or a stronger one, for the same amount of energy. Anyone fighting from horseback would be better off with their shield strapped on because it would be seriously annoying to have to go back and look for it if you ever dropped the thing!

Basically, every potential style of fighting that has ever been used in reality doesn't require its own different rules. Indeed, the fighting styles that characters get are deliberately vague. "Defensive" isn't an attempt to replicate a particular historic (or even fantastic) fighting style - it just describes a character who is skilled at defending themselves... somehow.

So you can use a fluff description to explain how your character likes to fight with his shield. Maybe the fact that he's good with a shield means that he is harder to hit, because he bashes people sometimes in the middle of their attack. Maybe instead he's good at using his shield to defend other people as well as himself, so he has protection style. Maybe he's good at knocking opponents out of position or pinning them with his shield, so he can hit them particularly hard with his hammer and has the duelist style. Or maybe you actually take the shield master feat and spend your time knocking people down or pushing them around - which would certainly be easier with a centre-grip shield.