A question about crossbows and shields.

[Dankus Memakus]

Now i have a dwarf cleric and he uses a simple weapon and a crossbow, so if i would like to stand long range, shoot some dudes with my bow and bless my allies i have to put down my shield, If i were to say slam my shield into the ground and sit behind it do i still get an AC bonus? I know it does nothing if i just keep it on my back so what would that do?

[Sigreid]

This is ruling not rule, but if you convinced me that you had it braced well enough I would allow you cover, but not AC.

[hymer]

Now i have a dwarf cleric and he uses a simple weapon and a crossbow, so if i would like to stand long range, shoot some dudes with my bow and bless my allies i have to put down my shield, If i were to say slam my shield into the ground and sit behind it do i still get an AC bonus? I know it does nothing if i just keep it on my back so what would that do?

The DM could rule that the shield would give you some cover (PHB p. 196). But s/he'd be just as likely to rule that you can't plant a shield in the ground at all, or that you won't get even the lightest cover from it if you do (since half cover is effectively more powerful than wearing a shield; and there's no reason why a shield on the ground should protect you better than a shield equipped). To add to that, consider that it takes an action to don or doff a shield, making such manoeuvres time intensive.

Edit: Partially shadowmonk'ed.

[nickl_2000]

RAW (rules as written) no. RAI (rules as intended) no. RAF (rules as fun), sure I would probably let you do it for cover. That being said, I may also have a rogue coming out of the shadows and steal your shield at some point when you try this.

[Dankus Memakus]

RAW (rules as written) no. RAI (rules as intended) no. RAF (rules as fun), sure I would probably let you do it for cover. That being said, I may also have a rogue coming out of the shadows and steal your shield at some point when you try this.

This sounds quite enjoyable to me.

[Tanarii]

My reaction to this kind of thing as a DM is quite simple: if it's not impossible (ground isn't solid stone), it works the first time, because inventive thinking. After that it's rapidly diminishing returns, because cheese.

For example, I'd allow you to get a +2 AC bonus the first time. The second time the shield would fall after a round over due to not spending enough time getting it set up. Third time it'd probably crack the shield rim.

(if your character wants to get a pavise, that's cool. I'll invent some stats that balance introducing portable cover into the game.)

[Dankus Memakus]

My reaction to this kind of thing as a DM is quite simple: if it's not impossible (ground isn't solid stone), it works the first time, because inventive thinking. After that it's rapidly diminishing returns, because cheese.

For example, I'd allow you to get a +2 AC bonus the first time. The second time the shield would fall after a round over due to not spending enough time getting it set up. Third time it'd probably crack the shield rim.

(if your character wants to get a pavise, that's cool. I'll invent some stats that balance introducing portable cover into the game.)

my basic goal is to keep my AC the same so i don't have to worry about changing it all the time or think about it so if i had to make a pavise with my smiths tools i'm cool with that. That's actually the thing i had in mind but i didn't know the name.

Edit: A pavise for my dwarf would give him half cover right?

[Joe the Rat]

A caster with mold earth can essentially get the same effect at will, so this isn't a game breaker.

I'd encourage the pavise approach. Get a square-bottomed shield, set spikes in the corners, and you probably want to add a fold-out leg or two for added stability. It should take action to set up (see if you can get dequip shield and set pavise as a single action), and should give anyone behind it half cover. I'd only rely on this for ranged cover - once opponents are close enough to melee, moving around (or kicking over) your shield will be easy.

If you need to move, abandon the mantlet, or stop and pick it up.

[Thrudd]

Carrying a pavise around everywhere should also be very encumbering and require both your hands until you set it up. You should hire a porter/footman permanently to be your shield bearer, which is how crossbowmen functioned IRL- it was a two man operation.

[Tanarii]

my basic goal is to keep my AC the same so i don't have to worry about changing it all the time or think about itUnfortunately, that's an intentional balancing factor for the advantage of being able to attack at significant range. Loss of AC from Shield, or the need to move around to take tactical advantage of cover.

Of course, IMO ranged attacks are *still* too powerful in modern D&D. But that's a whole 'nother digression ...


Carrying a pavise around everywhere should also be very encumbering and require both your hands until you set it up. You should hire a porter/footman permanently to be your shield bearer, which is how crossbowmen functioned IRL- it was a two man operation.
That's not a bad idea at low levels. Creatures provide cover. The only downside is the shield bearer probably won't last very long. Unless you house-rule up a Pavise / Tower Shield that provides 3/4 or total cover.

[Willie the Duck]

my basic goal is to keep my AC the same so i don't have to worry about changing it all the time or think about it so if i had to make a pavise with my smiths tools i'm cool with that.

I would say that a pavise would not work well as a regular shield, so in-my-campaign you are still going to have a different AC when fighting melee and when fighting ranged unless you carry both.

In grand principle, I'd be okay with keeping a +2 AC, while shooting with a crossbow, but... there needs to be a downside. It could be a spent action, a chance of failure (the shield could tip over at an inopportune time, and take well more than an action to get set back up again), the use of a vulnerable and expensive other party (bring back the "tower shield held by hireling" to this edition), or even just have an expensive shield which is difficult to move (encumbrance greater than actual weight perhaps?), and you will likely have to abandon if the party decides to run from battle.


Unfortunately, that's an intentional balancing factor for the advantage of being able to attack at significant range. Loss of AC from Shield, or the need to move around to take tactical advantage of cover.

Pretty much. If you really don't ever want to have to think about AC, just don't use a shield the rest of the time (and presumably use 2 weapons or a 2h weapon).

[Tanarii]

the use of a vulnerable and expensive other party (bring back the "tower shield held by hireling" to this edition)Technically, you can just hide behind any other party member and get the same better benefits than using a shield. Of course, shield bonuses and cover add to each other, so it's actually better to have a witless meat-shield party member between you and the enemy AND have your own shield to defend yourself.


Pretty much. If you really don't ever want to have to think about AC, just don't use a shield the rest of the time (and presumably use 2 weapons or a 2h weapon).It's the primary reason I never chose to play a character with a Shield when I was playing in AL. The vast majority of shield users IMC only choose to strap it on when entering a known adventuring locations that include narrow bottlenecks and the ability to tank via terrain control (aka Dungeons), giving themselves options to switch up the remainder of the time. Javelins are fine and dandy for an opening volley while you move up from ambush range / tunnel fighting range into melee range. But for any non-surprise outdoor encounter you typically need either a solid ranged attack, or lots of total cover while you close the distance. And even then, it's better to have a solid ranged attack while you're closing.

[Willie the Duck]

Technically, you can just hide behind any other party member and get the same better benefits than using a shield. Of course, shield bonuses and cover add to each other, so it's actually better to have a witless meat-shield party member between you and the enemy AND have your own shield to defend yourself.

Technically yes. And if it was a hireling, they could theoretically take a dodge action, giving disadvantage on attacks made at them (yet still giving you the cover bonus). Still, if someone hired a formal shield-bearer, I'd create some more significant rules for it. Even though hirelings have been a part of the game since the beginning (and PCs not having troops of hirelings, retainers, apprentices, etc. like they used to one of the complaints of old schoolers), the rules for such have always been enemic. I'd add special rules (like them having a "you weren't the real target anyways" damage bank for enduring things like fireballs and other things that make them less expendable.

[Vogie]

I would give you the ability to use it for AC while held, then set it down for cover as a move action. Rule of Cool wins. However, I would also have a check for if it does take a ranged attack to see if it falls over, removing your cover.

Alternatively, You can also choose to make it an Animated Shield (https://open5e.com/equipment/magic-items/animated-shield.html), or create a custom shield item (i.e., Trenchdigger's Shield) that allows you to use Mold Earth once per long rest.

[Gorgo]

Don't forget that, as a cleric, you can paint a holy symbol on your shield, which makes it qualify as your material component in most cases. If you do that, you can make a spell's somatic gestures using the hand that's holding your shield, making it strangely easier to cast spells with somatic and material components than spells that just have somatic components if you're holding a shield.

As I understand RAW, the bigger problem with crossbow+shield is that you need a hand free to load the crossbow because it has the ammunition property, so it's not clear you can fire the crossbow more than once without putting your shield down.

[BigKaiju]

Aren't bucklers a thing? +1 AC but they don't obstruct ranged weapons? I swear I remember reading that somewhere, but it could have been a homebrew.

[Dankus Memakus]

I would say that a pavise would not work well as a regular shield, so in-my-campaign you are still going to have a different AC when fighting melee and when fighting ranged unless you carry both.

In grand principle, I'd be okay with keeping a +2 AC, while shooting with a crossbow, but... there needs to be a downside. It could be a spent action, a chance of failure (the shield could tip over at an inopportune time, and take well more than an action to get set back up again), the use of a vulnerable and expensive other party (bring back the "tower shield held by hireling" to this edition), or even just have an expensive shield which is difficult to move (encumbrance greater than actual weight perhaps?), and you will likely have to abandon if the party decides to run from battle.



Pretty much. If you really don't ever want to have to think about AC, just don't use a shield the rest of the time (and presumably use 2 weapons or a 2h weapon).

I always assumed the downside is that i have to load the crossbow when i could just use a spear that does the same damage (two handed) still has a ranged ability and requires no reload

[Thrudd]

I would say that the hireling's vulnerability is totally acceptable and expected. They don't need any special rules to keep them safer: needing to leave behind the pavisse because your guy died or ran away is just a thing you know to be a possibility. Another possibility (inevitability) is the hireling dropping the pavisse to defend themselves when enemies get within melee range. They shouldn't just be helpless and unarmed, holding up cover for you until they die.

In terms of area attacks, well that's one of those things you just need to know is possible- if you're hiding behind a portable wall and someone decides to drop a fireball on you instead of ineffectually shooting arrows- well don't be surprised.

[Tanarii]

I always assumed the downside is that i have to load the crossbow when i could just use a spear that does the same damage (two handed) still has a ranged ability and requires no reload
A Crossbow has almost 3x the range of a spear, and does more damage than any thrown weapon to boot.

Y'know, assuming Str and Dex are the same. Which is fairly rare in a character build. Generally speaking in 5e whether or not you choose to use a missile weapon instead of a Shield & thrown weapon depends of if you're Str-primary or Dex-primary.

[KarlMarx]

Aren't bucklers a thing? +1 AC but they don't obstruct ranged weapons? I swear I remember reading that somewhere, but it could have been a homebrew.

That was 3.5e.

I'd say that the shield per se...probably not. Cover is simply too big of a benefit relative to a normal shield.

At low levels, though, a pavise with a shield bearer should work, I'd say it'd provide the same mechanical effect but would be expensive, heavy, and difficult enough to work with that it's more balanced.

You could carry it yourself, though I'd rule it a Standard action to set up, so it'd ruin action economy and be too heavy to boot.

At higher levels, just get yourself an animated shield.

[Ixidor92]

One thing you might want to consider is asking your DM if they would be willing to port over a homebrew of the tower shield from 3.5. It was extremely cumbersome (gave a penalty on attack rolls, had a max dex of only +2, and a -10 armor check penalty) but it gave a +4 AC bonus, and as a standard action you could drop it on the ground to provide cover. That way you could take a shield more suitable to the job, but have to utilize something more cumbersome to do so?

[djreynolds]

A caster with mold earth can essentially get the same effect at will, so this isn't a game breaker.



That is excellent. I never even thought of using mold earth to make a fox hole or something