Zman's 5e Tweaks: Weapons and Armor V1.0

[Zman]

Welcome all, please feel free to give my Tweaks to the Weapons and Armor tables in 5e a gander. The goal was better balance, more viable options, and filling some missing niches in 5e's stock options.


I welcome all feedback, without this community and feedback from others this wouldn't have come nearly as far as it has nor turned out nearly as well.

Zman's Tweakss: Weapons and Armor V1.0 (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H1CmP8SCl)




# Zman's 5e Tweaks: Weapons and Armor V1.0
* Edited 4-21-17

<div class='wide'>
* Feel like some arms and armor just dont stack up? Feel like far too many weapon and armor options aren't really options at all? Give my Weapons and Armor Tweak a try. It's aim is to rebalance some of the options present to create more vialbe options, condense redundant options, a add a few new options to fulfill missing niches. Enjoy!

### Armor

| Armor | Cost | Armor Class(AC) | Strength | Stealth | Weight |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| **Light Armor** | | | | | |
| Leather | 10gp | 11+ Dex Modifier | | | 10lb. |
| Studded Leather | 45gp | 12+Dex Modifier | | | 13lb. |
| **Medium Armor** | | | | | |
| Hide | 10gp | **13+** Dex Modifier(**Max 3**) | | | 12lb. |
| Chain Shirt | 50gp | 13+Dex Modifier(**Max 4**) | | | 20lb. |
| Scale Mail | 50gp | 14+ Dex Modifier(Max 2) | Str 12 | Disadvantage | 45lb. |
| Breastplate| 400gp | 14+ Dex Modifier(**Max 3**) | | | 20lb. |
| Half Plate | 750gp | 15+ Dex Modifier(Max 2) | **Str 12** | Disadvantage | 40lb. |
| **Heavy Armor** | | | | | |
| Ring Mail | 30gp | **15** | **Str 13** | Disadvantage | 40lb. |
| Chain Mail | 75gp | 16 | Str 13 | Disadvantage | 55lb. |
| Splint | 200gp | 17 | Str 14 | Disadvantage | 60lb. |
| Plate | **1000gp** | 18 | **Str 14** | Disadvantage | **60lb.** |
| **Shields** | | | | | |
| **Buckler/Targe'** | 10gp | +1 | | | 3lb. |
| **Buckler/Targe', Bladed`** | 25gp | +1 | | | 4lb. |
| **Buckler/Targe', Spiked`** | 25gp | +1 | | | 4lb. |
| Shield | 10gp | +2 | | | 6 lb. |
| **Shield, Tower** | 30gp | +2'' | Str 13 | Disadvantage | 20lb. |

' A Buckler/Targe can be donned and doffed as a bonus action instead of a full round action.

'' A Tower Shield grants half cover to its bearer against ranged attacks and against ranged spell attacks and affects when the bearer is moving half speed or less and aware of the attacker.

### Weapons

| Weapon | Cost | Damage | Weight | Properties |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| **Simple Melee Weapons** | | | | |
| Club | 1sp | 1d4 bludgeoning | 2lb. | Light, **Versatile(1d6), Offhand** |
| Dagger | 2gp | 1d4 slashing | 1lb. | Finesse, Light, Thrown(range 20/60), **Offhand** |
| Great Club | 2sp | **1d10 bludgeoning** | 10lb. | **Heavy**, Two-handed |
| Handaxe | 5gp | **1d4 slashing** | 2lb. | **Finesse**, Light, Thrown(range 20/60), **Offhand** |
| Javelin | 5sp | 1d6 piercing | 2lb. | **Light**, Thrown(range 30/120) |
| Light Hammer | 2gp | 1d4 bludgeoning | 2lb. | **Finesse**, Light, Thrown(range 20/60), **Offhand** |
| Mace | 5gp | **1d8 bludgeoning** | 4lb. | |
| Quarterstaff | 5sp | 1d6 bludgeoning | 4lb. | **Finesse**, Versatile(1d8) |
| Sickle | 1gp | 1d4 slashing | 2lb. | **Finesse**, Light |
| Spear | 1gp | 1d6 piercing | 3lb. | **Reach**, Thrown(range 20/60), Versatile(1d8) |
| Unarmed Strike | | 1 bludgeoning | | **Finesse, Light**
</div>
\page


<div class='wide'>

### Weapons

| Weapon | Cost | Damage | Weight | Properties |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| **Simple Ranged Weapons** | | | | |
| Crossbow, Light | 25gp | 1d8 piercing | 5lb. | Ammunition(Range 80/320), Loading, Two-handed |
| Dart | 5cp | 1d4 piercing | 1/4lb. | Finesse, Thrown(range 20/60) |
| Shortbow | 25gp | 1d6 piercing | 2lb. | Ammunition, Ranged(80/320), Two-handed |
| Sling | 1sp | 1d4 bludgeoning | | Ammunition, Ranged(30/120) |




| Weapon | Cost | Damage | Weight | Properties |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| **Martial Melee Weapons** | | | | |
| Battleaxe | 10gp | 1d8 slashing | 4lb | Versatile(1d10)
| **Buckler/Targe, Bladed** | 25gp | 1d4 slashing | 4lb. | Special, Light, Offhand
| **Buckler/Targe, Spiked** | 25gp | 1d4 piercing | 4lb. | Special, Light, Offhand
| **Elven Longblade/Katana** | 75gp | 1d6slashing | 5lb. | Finesse, Versatile(2d4)
| **Elven Shortblade/Scimitar** | 25gp | 1d6 slashing | 3lb. | Finesse, Light
| Flail | 10gp | **2d4 bludgeoning** | 2lb |
| **Footman's Flail** | 20gp | 1d10 bludgeoning | 6lb | Heavy, Reach, Two-handed
| **Glaive/Halberd** | 20gp | 1d10 slashing | 6lb | Heavy, Reach, Two-handed
| Greataxe | 30gp | 1d12 slashing | 7lb | Heavy, Two-handed
| Greatsword | 50gp | 2d6 slashing | 6lb | Heavy, Two-handed
| Lance | 10gp | 1d12 slashing | 6lb | Reach, Special
| Longsword | 15gp | 1d8 slashing | 3lb. | Versatile(1d10)
| Maul | 10gp | 2d6 bludgeoning | 10lb | Heavy, Two-handed
| Morningstar | 15gp | **2d4 Piercing** | 4lb. |
| Pike | 4gp | 1d10 piercing | 18lb | Heavy, Reach, Two-handed
| Rapier | 15gp | 1d8 piercing | 2lb. | Finesse
| Shortsword | 10gp | 1d6 piercing | 2lb. | Finesse, Light
| Trident | 5gp | 1d6 piercing | 4lb. | **Reach**, Thrown(range 20/60), **Versatile(2d4)**
| War Pick | 5gp | **2d3 piercing** | 2lb. | **Light**
| Warhammer | 15gp | 1d8 bludgeoning | 2lb. | Versatile(1d10)
| Whip | 2gp | 1d4 slashing | 3lb. | Finesse, Reach

| Weapon | Cost | Damage | Weight | Properties |
|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|:--:|
| **Martial Ranged Weapons** | | | | |
| Blowgun | 10gp | 1 piercing | 1lb. | Ammunition(Range 25/100), Loading |
| Crossbow, Hand | 75gp | 1d6 piercing | 3lb. | Ammunition(Range 30/120), Light, Loading|
| Crossbow, Heavy | 50gp | 1d10 peircing | 18lb. | Ammunition(Range 100/400), Heavy, Loading, Two-handed
| Longbow | 50gp | 1d8 piercing | 2lb. | Ammunition(Range 150/600), Heavy, Two-handed
| Net | 1gp | - | 3lb. | Special, **Thrown(Range 10/30)**



**Offhand**: Ignore the Light weapon restriction for your mainhand weapon when fighting with two weapons.

**Buckler/Targe, Bladed**: A Bladed Buckler/Targe is both a shield and a melee weapon. Gaining the bonus to AC requires proficiency in shields while using it as a weapon requires martial weapon proficiency. Attacks with a Bladed Buckler/Targe are made at disadvantage.

**Buckler/Targe, Spiked**: A Spiked Buckler/Targe is both a shield and a melee weapon. Gaining the bonus to AC requires proficiency in shields while using it as a weapon requires martial weapon proficiency. Attacks with a Spiked Buckler/Targe are made at disadvantage.

</div>

\page

## Magical Arms and Armor
### Magical Armor
* The the magical enhancement bonus from Magical Armor and Magical Sheids do not stack.

### Magical Weapons
* Reduce the enhancement bonus for +X Magical weapons by 1 for determining Rarity.






Here are some related tweaks that will get their own thread to narrow down the discussion.

Zman's Tweaks: E10 Variant V1.0 (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/By9iD8H0e)
Zman's Tweaks V2.0 (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r1cIv8B0g)

Note: Links are to the homebrewery which works best on Chrome. If you aren't using Chrome things may not look right or be downright unuseable.

[Zman]

Change Log:
4-20-17 Bladed and Spiked Buckler/Targe attacks made at Disadvantage for balance purposes.
4-21-17 Added Tower Shield

To Do List:

[Strill]

Not a fan of the changes to medium armor. It's just a plain buff, and renders light armor obsolete, whereas in the normal system there's legitimate reason to use light armor over medium, if you have a high enough DEX. It also removes any use to Medium Armor Master.

Likewise, increasing the mace to 1d8 is just a buff that renders longswords pointless. That means that martial weapon proficiency, rather than being a damage buff, just widens your options, which I don't agree with.

Why are flails 2d4? Shouldn't a Flail have LESS reliable damage than other weapons? Also, this renders Longswords obsolete, which is bad for aesthetics, since everyone wants a longsword.

A d3 is not a platonic solid, nor is a die that most people have.

Spiked/bladed Bucklers render two-weapon fighting obsolete. Why use an offhand weapon when you could get +1 AC for a very minor damage loss?

[PloxBox]

Warpick being 2d3...? I'm guessing that just means roll a d6 and divide by half, no? That seems a bit too... tedious(?) for the core design of 5e's "simplicity first" vibe I and many others have gotten. I like the idea of certain weapons being usable dual wielding even if your main hand isn't light at the cost of (seemingly) all being 1d4 damage. Afterall, rapier and parry dagger is a thing, as well as many other such real world combos. Not a huge fan of magical armor and shields not stacking, but I get the idea behind the change (+3 armor and a +3 shield equals a minimum of 19 AC with just +3 leather armor and no dex).

[Zman]

Not a fan of the changes to medium armor. It's just a plain buff, and renders light armor obsolete, whereas in the normal system there's legitimate reason to use light armor over medium, if you have a high enough DEX. It also removes any use to Medium Armor Master.
Yes, it is basically just a plain buff, but only too the poor armor variations, the ones almost never seen in play. Medium armor wasn't very good. There are many characters without Medium Armor Proficiency that could consider getting it. The trade off for heavier armor is better AC and less required Dex. All armors can effectively hit AC16 for poor forms, 17 for good forms, and only Plate hits AC18.

This is meant to work with my other Tweaks, where Medium armor Master is a bit better.

Likewise, increasing the mace to 1d8 is just a buff that renders longswords pointless. That means that martial weapon proficiency, rather than being a damage buff, just widens your options, which I don't agree with.
Mace lacks Versatile. A longsword still is better, and not an inferior weapon. You disagree with wider options, but every martial weapon is strictly superior to the simple weapons options. Mace is the closes case.

Why are flails 2d4? Shouldn't a Flail have LESS reliable damage than other weapons? Also, this renders Longswords obsolete, which is bad for aesthetics, since everyone wants a longsword.

Because they were strictly inferior to the other martial weapons before and there was zero reason to take them. 2d4 because there were no other viable damage die options, nor existing special relies for weapons to give them a niche. Longswords deal .5 damage less one handed, .5 damage more when a Versatile. That is about as close as it comes. Plus more magic weapons are longswords, haha.

A d3 is not a platonic solid, nor is a die that most people have.
And yet the PHB tells us how to roll them as a valid die. I was limited by the dice size and was doing my best to not make any item strictly inferior within its Proficiency type.

Spiked/bladed Bucklers render two-weapon fighting obsolete. Why use an offhand weapon when you could get +1 AC for a very minor damage loss?
You've neglected the bonus action to don as a downside. It does do less damage. Requires Martial and a shield peoficiencies. It does not render two weapon fighting obsolete and rides a decent middle ground.


Warpick being 2d3...? I'm guessing that just means roll a d6 and divide by half, no? That seems a bit too... tedious(?) for the core design of 5e's "simplicity first" vibe I and many others have gotten. I like the idea of certain weapons being usable dual wielding even if your main hand isn't light at the cost of (seemingly) all being 1d4 damage. Afterall, rapier and parry dagger is a thing, as well as many other such real world combos. Not a huge fan of magical armor and shields not stacking, but I get the idea behind the change (+3 armor and a +3 shield equals a minimum of 19 AC with just +3 leather armor and no dex).

Yes, that is how you do it. PHB tells us how. I needed a different die size and that was the only options i could come up with. I don't like it, but it works.

I like Offhand too, it "feels" right.

The. It stacking is purely balance related as double dipping really beats up bounded accuracy.


Thanks for the comments.

[Strill]

You've neglected the bonus action to don as a downside. It does do less damage. Requires Martial and a shield peoficiencies. It does not render two weapon fighting obsolete and rides a decent middle ground.
I don't see the bonus action to don as a significant drawback. Donning a shield in combat has never come up in my games.

A spiked shield does, on average, 1 less damage than a shortsword, and only applies once per turn on your offhand attack. In exchange you get +1 AC. It's a huge net benefit. Compare it to a Fighting style, where +1 AC is valued at +2 damage on every hit.

What classes use two-weapon fighting, but don't have martial weapon and shield proficiencies? Fighters have both. Barbarians have both. Rangers have both. That leaves Rogues as the only TWF class where the martial weapon proficiency requirement is relevant.

[Zman]

I don't see the bonus action to don as a significant drawback. Donning a shield in combat has never come up in my games.

A spiked shield does, on average, 1 less damage than a shortsword, and only applies once per turn on your offhand attack. In exchange you get +1 AC. It's a huge net benefit. Compare it to a Fighting style, where +1 AC is valued at +2 damage on every hit.

What classes use two-weapon fighting, but don't have martial weapon and shield proficiencies? Fighters have both. Barbarians have both. Rangers have both. That leaves Rogues as the only TWF class where the martial weapon proficiency requirement is relevant.

So... a shield user has never been attacked in the night? Or the DM just hand waved that they woke up with their armor on and their shield strapped to their arm?



Directly comparing fighting styles is a trickle slippery slope, cause round and round it leads. I've analyzed it to death previously in the forums comparing the values of GWF and Dueling and Protection etc. +2 AC of shield is also roughly equivalent to +2.5 damage from a Greatsword over a Longsword. 1 AC = 1.25 damage before you factor in problems with donning a shield etc. But comparing to AC is difficult as each additional point of aC is worth more than the previous one.

One thing you're also forgetting is the Shield does not have finesse, so for a strength based two weapon Fighter it is a very good option, but it is a poor option for Dex fighters as it will struggle to hit.

Here are a couple of options, we'll assume each has TWF we'll assume +2 Proficiency bonus, 16 Dex and 12 Str for dex fighters and 16Str for Str fighters emulating early game stats. Also assuming an averaging AC13 enemy.

Str Fighter
Longsword and Dagger
+5 for d8+3 and +5 for d4+3 = 8.45 Damage

Shortsword and Shortsword
+5 for d6+3 and +5 for d6+3 = 8.45 Damage

Military Pick and Military Pick
+5 for 2d3+3 and +5 for 2d3+3= 9.1 Damage

Longsword and Bladed Buckler
+5 for d8+3 and +5 for d4+3 = 8.45 Damage +1AC
+1 AC

Dex Fighter
Rapier and Dagger
+5 for d8+3 and +5 for d4+3 = 8.45 Damage

Shortsword and Shortsword
+5 for d6+3 and +5 for d6+3 = 8.45 Damage

Rapier and Bladed Buckler
+5 for d8+3 and +3 for d4+3 = 7.9 Damage +1AC
+1 AC

Hmmm.... with the Offhand property I added this is a bit problematic for strength fighters.

What I could do is specify that a bladed or spiked buckler cannot benefit from ability mod to damage even from TWF, but that doesn't completely fix the problem either. Not sure I like that.

I agree there needs to be some other kind of penalty or disadvantage for wielding the shield as a weapon.

Straight up disadvsntage sounds too weak.... what if the bladed buckler only benefited from half(rounded up) Proficiency bonus? Would the +1/2/3 difference to hit make it that much better?

Let's see...

Str Fighter
Longsword and Bladed Buckler
+5 for d8+3 and +4 for d4+3 = 8.175 Damage +1AC
+1 AC

Nope, that isn't quite good enough.... not even when that difference is magnified.

Let's try Disadvantage...
+5 for d8+3 and +5(Disadvantage) for d4+3 = 7.2 Damage +1AC
+1 AC

Hmm.... that seems better actually. The ticket might be that bladed and spiked buckler attacks are made at Disadvantage. Makes sense...


Thanks for pointing out how Offhand really skewed the damage of the weaponized buckler outside my comfort zone. Don't mind the rambling txt, decided to just write out my thought process as it was happening, haha.

[Zman]

Change Log:
4-20-17 Bladed and Spiked Buckler/Targe attacks made at Disadvantage for balance purposes.


Thanks Strill for pointing out that Bucklers with Offhand were too good. Your input is appreciated.

[LordFluffy]

Not a fan of the changes to medium armor. It's just a plain buff, and renders light armor obsolete, whereas in the normal system there's legitimate reason to use light armor over medium, if you have a high enough DEX. It also removes any use to Medium Armor Master.
I'm not a fan of the variant, but not for the reasons you mention. I just like the simplicity of all medium armor following the same rules. I'm willing to bet this does more damage to heavy armor than light.


Likewise, increasing the mace to 1d8 is just a buff that renders longswords pointless. That means that martial weapon proficiency, rather than being a damage buff, just widens your options, which I don't agree with.
Again, agree, but not for the reason stated. Maces are pretty pointless as written; carry a staff, you'll almost never need a mace. I just don't understand why it takes a feat to dual wield them.


Why are flails 2d4? Shouldn't a Flail have LESS reliable damage than other weapons? Also, this renders Longswords obsolete, which is bad for aesthetics, since everyone wants a longsword.
I don't know having a 2d4 weapon renders a 1d8 versatile weapon obsolete, and that's before taking into account different damage types.


A d3 is not a platonic solid, nor is a die that most people have.
d6, divide by 2, round up. It's not hard.


Spiked/bladed Bucklers render two-weapon fighting obsolete. Why use an offhand weapon when you could get +1 AC for a very minor damage loss?
WoTC already opened this door with Lizardfolk. They have a +2AC D6 weapon. If anything, it gives fighters more of a reason to take TWF. (I don't think the disadvantage is necessary for balance, ZMan).

[Zman]

I'm not a fan of the variant, but not for the reasons you mention. I just like the simplicity of all medium armor following the same rules. I'm willing to bet this does more damage to heavy armor than light.

I'm curious why you think this? Medium armor already didn't follow the same rules, some had disadvantage and most of the medium armors were so terrible they'd never see use beyond a 1st level character being forced to use them.

The AC ranges for most armors are consistent, they provide AC16-17 when used to their fullest extent. That would be +5 Dex for Light armors, and between +2-+4 Dex for Medium Armors. Heavy armor is the exception and ranges from 12-18AC no dex required, but comes at the downside of strength requirements, weight, and requiring heavy armor proficiency.

Light Armor, available to literally almost everyone. Requires high dex to utilize. Low quality armor can achieve AC16, high quality armor chan achieve AC17.

Medium armor, available to fewer people require Medium Armor Proficiency. Requires some dex to fully utilize. Lower quality armors can achieve AC 16, high quallity armors can achieve AC17. The armors that require the least amount of Dex, require some strength and have disadvantage on Stealth.

Heavy armor, available to relatively few people. Require Heavy Armor Proficiency. Requires no dex to fully utilize. Low Quality Armors achieve AC 15-16, High Quality Armors acheive AC 17-18. Strength is requires to fully utilize and provides disadvantage on Stealth.

There are distinct niches for each armor type, and there are multiple sets of armor that are vaible for many different builds. Stock Medium armor was fairly terribly, only two were viable, maxing AC 16 with no disadvantage on stealth, or AC17 with disadvantage on stealth. Hide was strictly inferior to Studded Leather. Essentially the performance range for armors was wide resulting in many options that were strictly inferior to other available options and there was a wide gaping hole between an armor allowing full dexterity and armor that allowed only a 14 dex. Now character with Dex 16 or 18 can be incentivized to want Medium Armor Proficiency and utilize differing armors. Consider a Lore Bard with a 16 Dexterity and no plans of ever pumping Dexterity Higher, they are incentivized to spend a feat on Moderately Armored because it does provide their fairly agile character a better Armor class than wading around in Studded Leather. Being able to go from AC15 to AC16(ChainShirt) or AC17(Breastplate) is a decent incentive. Heck, there are Rogues that can benefit from it too, if they can find a way to become proficient, or if they Multiclass etc. There are low Strength Clerics that now have more viable armor options. It also incentivizes bumping Dex as a secondary or tertiary ability score for say a Barbarian that wants to be Stealthy, but lack the Con to do that Unarmored.

Overall these options smooth out the armor curve, fill some of the glaring holes, and allows for a greater variety of viable builds and incentivizes actually taking Moderately Armored. IMO, that is achieving exactly what these Armor Tweaks are meant to accomplish.


Again, agree, but not for the reason stated. Maces are pretty pointless as written; carry a staff, you'll almost never need a mace. I just don't understand why it takes a feat to dual wield them.

Not pretty pointless, absolutely pointless. They were strictly inferior to quarterstaffs withing their damage type. They lack versatile and cost ten times as much and weigh the same. Outside their Damage type the stock Handaxe made a mockery of them.

The whole goal of my weapon tweaks was to reduce the number of strictly inferior options, eliminate the redundant options, and rebalance the outlier weapons. I believe I largely accomplished that. Now, there is a reason to want a mace, it allows you to deal good one handed str damage. It is not superior to the versatile quarterstaff that can be used with dex. Every simple weapon is strictly inferior outside of cost to their martial counterparts.
Sure, a mace deals a d8 one handed, so does a warhammer, but the warhammer is versatile, etc.


I don't know having a 2d4 weapon renders a 1d8 versatile weapon obsolete, and that's before taking into account different damage types.

It does deal more one handed damage, .5 or 1/2 a die step on average. The difference between a Greatsword and a Greataxe. This is because there is a current weapon property, or a potentially new one that would have given these weapons their niche. By giving them slightly better one handed damage, but have them lack the versatile property the come out about a wash with the Longsword, Battleaxe, and the Warhammer.
They deal .5 damage more one handed, but .5 less damage when the others are wielded with two hands. Plus, the large die weapons have niche advantages for Half Orcs, and Barbarians etc. And in my experience many players will look at them as roughly equivalent and in play the swingier larger d8 can hold more appeal than the more consistent 2d4.

It is'nt perfect, and gave me pause to due, but in the system with level of granularity we have available it was the best I could come up with without making keeping them strictly inferior to the versatile weapons.

d6, divide by 2, round up. It's not hard.

Yep, I didn't want to do it, but the War Pick needed a niche and the PHB does tell us how to roll d3s, so I decided it was worth it give the weapon a place which is the best light strength only offhand weapon.

WoTC already opened this door with Lizardfolk. They have a +2AC D6 weapon. If anything, it gives fighters more of a reason to take TWF. (I don't think the disadvantage is necessary for balance, ZMan).

See the blue above. Before I added the offhand property I would have agreed, now it has a nich, does add damage consistently especially against lowish AC enemies, and doesn't overpower the other TWF options. I don't like to make it Disadvantage, but overall it should play just fine.

[Snails]

I am glad to see someone throw a bone to the idea that shields as an active fighting style is a normal thing, without painful prerequisites in terms of feat costs.

I would love to see this idea expanded, but I have not figured out how to do so without adding an annoying amount of dice rolling. IMNSHO it is a missing and/or undeveloped piece of the combat system that short changes Str styles.

[Zman]

I am glad to see someone throw a bone to the idea that shields as an active fighting style is a normal thing, without painful prerequisites in terms of feat costs.

I would love to see this idea expanded, but I have not figured out how to do so without adding an annoying amount of dice rolling. IMNSHO it is a missing and/or undeveloped piece of the combat system that short changes Str styles.

Right?! And now with the disadvantage you can fully realize that fighting style without any feats. It's effective at dealing more damage at the cost of defense.

I'm considering a Feat specializing in it, allowing you to choose offensive or defensive style and let you either remove the disadvsntage from the attack, or increase your AC by 1. Probabaly would let you add Str to damage with it like TWF to make it worth a full feat.


Also, looking at adding a Tower Shield. +2 AC, Disadvsntage on Stealth, with a special rule that you always have half cover to ranged attacks. Seems fitting, has a moderate advantage for a moderate drawback. Not likely to break anything.

[Zman]

Change Log:
4-21-17 Added Tower Shield




Added a Tower Shield, it is more expensive and heavier, grants the standard +2AC, requires 13 Strength, has Disadvantage on Stealth, but gives its bearer half cover against range attacks and spells which means on dex saves against ranged effects like spells.

It isn't any better against melee attacks than a normal shield, has disadvantages, but against ranged attacks and spells it definitely pulls its weight.

It would work very well on a Shield Master, proving a total of +4 to the Dex Save for zero damage on a success.


Thoughts?? I've been pondering a Tower Shield for a while, and this is what I settled on.

Also, will have a feat for the weaponized shields coming soon for my main list of Tweaks. Essentially, it will be its own "style" that won't overlap with any of the other styles. Though, I might need to specify Dual Wielder doesn't work it, though it would literally only be the +1 AC of the feat.

[Garfunion]

I like most of what I see.
Although that 2d3 damage just looks bad and puts an extra layer of math in the works. I would at least give dwarfs & gnome a proficiency in it and the damage die changes to 2d4 damage in their hands.

Tower shield should just provide half cove, then state in the description what half cover provides. A person uses a tower shield if they do not plan on taking the Sheild Master feat anytime soon.

[Zman]

I like most of what I see.
Although that 2d3 damage just looks bad and puts an extra layer of math in the works. I would at least give dwarfs & gnome a proficiency in it and the damage die changes to 2d4 damage in their hands.

Tower shield should just provide half cove, then state in the description what half cover provides. A person uses a tower shield if they do not plan on taking the Sheild Master feat anytime soon.

I agree the 2d3 is a bit cumbersome... but the end result fits the niche required and gives it a place. I didn't want to add "racial" weapons in this mod. Though the Elven weapons could be given to Elves for their racial proficiency, I should add that....

The tower shield does provide half cover to ranged and magic... but just saying it provides half cover without specifying means that it grants it to melee which would be way too overpowered. Half cover applies to dex saves RAW, I just had to exclude melee... which might be a better way of phrasing it. I wanted to explicitly say it worked for spells etc, instead of relying on people understanding of the cover rules.

[Garfunion]

Here is how I would write the Tower Shield.

Tower shield ------AC(Special*)

*A tower shield grats half cover; a target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

[Zman]

Here is how I would write the Tower Shield.

Tower shield ------AC(Special*)

*A tower shield grats half cover; a target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws.

Thank you for your feedback, sorry I misunderstood your first post.

So you're saying have it just supply half cover, not need for it to grant +2 AC for being a shield. That would make it better than a regular shield only in the sense it applied to dex saves. Shield master loses value.

Your option.... is +2 AC in melee, +2 AC vs ranged, +2 Dex Save. You no longer can gain half cover in melee which only comes up rarely, at the cost of disadvantage on stealth. Is that large enough of a bonus to warrant it?

My version is.... +2 AC in melee, +4 AC vs ranged, +2 Dex Save. You can still benefit from half cover in melee when it occasionally comes up.

The question is which one of these is more worth disadvantage on stealth checks, a modest increase in cost and weight.




Now, what are we trying to make a Tower Shield? In 3.5 the Tower Shield offered a ton of protection compared to normal shields, and it allowed the player to take total cover.

Here is a snippet about the Roman version,

"The heavily armored Roman legionaries carried large shields (scuta) that could provide far more protection, but made swift movement a little more difficult. The scutum originally had an oval shape, but gradually the curved tops and sides were cut to produce the familiar rectangular shape most commonly seen in the early Imperial legions. Famously, the Romans used their shields to create a tortoise-like formation called a testudo in which entire groups of soldiers would be enclosed in an armoured box to provide protection against missiles."

IMO the Tower shield shouldn't just be a benefit for dex saves, it should have some kind of benefit against ranged attacks, your version doesn't and that doesn't feel right. I originally discounted it because of that, but now I think there might be a solution by adding a rider similar to 3.5.

Tower Shield AC(Special*) Str 13 Stealth(Disadvantage)
* A tower shield provides half cover. As an action you can take cover behind your Tower Shield. On any turn you are taking cover you gain three quarters cover and your speed is halved.

What do you think about that? I think that fits the feel for the Towershield better and uses the more elegant half covers solution.


Alternatively, we make the half cover of my original version contingent on moving half speed or slower. Edit: I think I like this way better as it doesn't short change Shield Master.

Thoughts?

[Garfunion]

Your making things to complicated. The ability to walk around and create "instant" half cover is good. Just leave it at that.
Not every aspect of a feat needs to work with "X". A mage may take crossbow expert so their spells don't have disadvantage in melee. If a player takes the shield master feat they would drop the use of the tower shield for a "normal" shield.

Edit: if want the shield to do more, you should make a class archetype or a feat around the use of the tower shield.

[Zman]

Your making things to complicated. The ability to walk around and create "instant" half cover is good. Just leave it at that.
Not every aspect of a feat needs to work with "X". A mage may take crossbow expert so their spells don't have disadvantage in melee. If a player takes the shield master feat they would drop the use of the tower shield for a "normal" shield.

Edit: if want the shield to do more, you should make a class archetype or a feat around the use of the tower shield.

But, does not fit with what a tower shield is. Just being better against Dex Saves doesn't warrant a seperate equipment entry. Tower shields are something huge, that you can hide behind to gain protection from mainly ranged attacks. Your suggestion falls short in capturing that feel, my original suggestion was likely a bit too good, my refinement adds a bit of decision making into the item but is still close to the power level.


I think normal shield with Str 13 req, Disadvantage on Stealth, and the ability to create half cover against ranged threats you are aware of while moving slowly is the best bet so far.

[Garfunion]

I think this statement works better. Also I think the Str requirement should be 14.

*A Tower Shield grants half cover to its bearer against ranged attacks and dexterity saving throws. Any ranged attack made with advantage ingnores this benefit. The bearer's speed is reduced by 15ft while wielding the shield.

[Zman]

I think this statement works better. Also I think the Str requirement should be 14.

*A Tower Shield grants half cover to its bearer against ranged attacks and dexterity saving throws. Any ranged attack made with advantage ingnores this benefit. The bearer's speed is reduced by 15ft while wielding the shield.

Str 14 is getting a bit steep. Average soldiers and guards aren't even close to pulling it off.

A straignt speed penalty is extremely steep and overly punishing, at most 5' would be appropriate. And if they fail to meet the strength requirement they'd suffer the speed decrease anyway. Adding the advantage portion adds even more to it.

I like the idea of, if you want the benefit you need to move slow and guard yourself, but if you do it is definitely increases your defenses at range.

[Garfunion]

Str 14 is getting a bit steep. Average soldiers and guards aren't even close to pulling it off.

A straignt speed penalty is extremely steep and overly punishing, at most 5' would be appropriate. And if they fail to meet the strength requirement they'd suffer the speed decrease anyway. Adding the advantage portion adds even more to it.

I like the idea of, if you want the benefit you need to move slow and guard yourself, but if you do it is definitely increases your defenses at range.

I simply clarifying what you were trying to say with the tower shield using more D&D like wording.

Edit: see next post

[Zman]

I simply clarifying what you were trying to say with the tower shield using more D&D like wording.

Ohhh!!! My apologies.

It would need to be explicit about when their speed was reduced and when they gain the benefit. The way you have it worded your speed is reduced just for donning the shield.

[Garfunion]

Half movement is used only for difficult terrain all other speed reduction states how many feet lost.
If you are unaware of an attacker the attacker has advantage.
A ranged attack can be a ranged "spell" attack or ranged "weapon" attack. So just say "ranged attack", it covers both.

[Garfunion]

Ohhh!!! My apologies.

It would need to be explicit about when their speed was reduced and when they gain the benefit. The way you have it worded your speed is reduced just for donning the shield.

Isn't that what you are talking about when you said half speed?

[Zman]

Half movement is used only for difficult terrain all other speed reduction states how many feet lost.
If you are unaware of an attacker the attacker has advantage.
A ranged attack can be a ranged "spell" attack or ranged "weapon" attack. So just say "ranged attack", it covers both.

Half your speed is also used for standing up from prone.

Correct, if you are unaware the attacker has advantage.

You are likely right about ranged attacks and ranged spell attacks, I didn't double check when I wrote it and didn't have time to make sure I covered all the RAW bases.


Isn't that what you are talking about when you said half speed?

Half speed only when they gain the half cover, if they are moving their full speed the Tower shield is nothing but a noisy normal shield. But, if they slow down they are using it effectively and gain half cover vs ranged and dex saves.

[Garfunion]

Half speed only when they gain the half cover, if they are moving their full speed the Tower shield is nothing but a noisy normal shield. But, if they slow down they are using it effectively and gain half cover vs ranged and dex saves.
Or you can simplify it, while wielding the shield your speed is reduced by 15ft. Instead of having to worry about wether or not I moved more than 15 feet this turn to gain the benefit.

[Garfunion]

So my final thought on the tower shield.

*A Tower Shield grants half cover to you against ranged attacks and dexterity saving throws. Any "Action" made with advantage against you ignores this benefit. Your speed is reduced by 15ft while wielding the shield.

I changed ranged attack to "Action" to incorporate disadvantage on spells saves too.

The 15ft is there just in case the bearer gains a speed boost. Because if you leave it at half movement the speed boost would also be halfed.

[Zman]

Or you can simplify it, while wielding the shield your speed is reduced by 15ft. Instead of having to worry about wether or not I moved more than 15 feet this turn to gain the benefit.


So my final thought on the tower shield.

*A Tower Shield grants half cover to you against ranged attacks and dexterity saving throws. Any "Action" made with advantage against you ignores this benefit. Your speed is reduced by 15ft while wielding the shield.

I changed ranged attack to "Action" to incorporate disadvantage on spells saves too.

The 15ft is there just in case the bearer gains a speed boost. Because if you leave it at half movement the speed boost would also be halfed.

The problem is if just wielding the Tower shield drops you to 15' movement, no sane player would want to use the item. It would be beyond bad if just equipping the shield reduced your movement by 15'. And since equipping a shield requires an action, parties would be required to move at half speed, or the tower shield player would be forced to waste an action equipping it once they got to the battle, and if it's equipped early, they are probabaly left behind.